content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
While the development of new device architectures and computing strategies should be disruptive
to enable a rapid progress in the field, the underlying fabrication technology ideally builds upon
existing knowledge to enable a quick and seamless transition to the new data processing regime.
Examples for this approach towards the development of future computing units are new low power devices such as \acp{SET} or Si-based quantum computing
strategies~\cite{Lee2014, Morse2017}.
The existing \ac{cmos} technology can handle today's demands on feature size and shape, but new
architectures require new---ideally \ac{cmos}-compatible---fabrication processes to meet the upcoming
challenges. Here, we present a \ac{cmos}-compatible ion beam based fabrication process for
sub \SI{15}{\nano\meter} pillars with the potential for \ac{GAA} \ac{SET} device architectures~\cite{Xu2018}
and other similar technologies that require three dimensional building blocks with lateral length
scales in the few-\si{\nano\meter} regime. We investigate the achievable diameter reduction for
sub-\SI{50}{\nano\meter} pillars with a height of \SI{70}{\nano\meter} and also propose a model
for the ion beam based mechanism.
The interactions between ion beams and Si-based material systems have been extensively studied in
the last decades due to the ubiquitous and manifold applications of ion beams for device fabrication.
Examples include the doping of transistor active regions~\cite{Mayer1973, Campisano1993} mostly
using broad ion beams and milling of nanostructures~\cite{Schuhrke1992, Pekin2016} using \acp{FIB}.
Side effects of ion beam processing of Si include defect accumulation and amorphization.
Studies---mostly with unstructured bulk materials---to understand the mechanism and to avoid these
effects have been carried out with various ion species, energy ranges, target structures
etc.~\cite{Zhong2004} and are comprehensively summarized in review papers~\cite{Pelaz2004, Wesch2012}
and textbooks~\cite{Wesch2016,Nastasi2006}.
Ion irradiation at elevated temperatures has been considered as a promising technique to mitigate ion
beam induced damages and amorphization of the substrate during the irradiation processes~\cite{Williams1992,Goldberg1995,Stanford2016}.
For most semiconductors, a finite temperature T$_\mathrm{c}$---lower than the temperature for
epitaxial recrystallization~\cite{Crowder1970,Mayer1968}\footnote{for Si this is
in the range of \SIrange{550}{600}{\celsius}}---exists at which amorphization is prevented during
irradiation. This is related to out-diffusion of vacancies from the ion track region, and is described in the so called out-diffusion theory~\cite{Morehead1970, Dennis1978}.
According to this theory, at any finite temperature, a thermally driven dynamic annealing process,
characterized by Si interstitial-vacancy recombination,
competes with the amorphization caused by the incident ion.
When the substrate temperature T $\ll$ T$_\mathrm{c}$, the ion damage prevails and Si
undergoes continuous amorphization. Once the temperature exceeds T$_\mathrm{c}$ the dynamic annealing will
recover the amorphized pocket of each incident ion, thus preventing the amorphization.
The process is governed by ion mass, target temperature and---to a lesser extent---flux and ion energy.
Here, we utilize this dynamic annealing process at slightly elevated temperatures to prevent the
amorphization of nanostructures during ion beam irradiation.
In the case of the nanostructures used in this work the length scale of the ion collision cascade
becomes comparable to the structure size which results in unanticipated effects.
Such effects can arise from changes in the distribution of the deposited energy.
These changes are a result of the truncation of the collision cascade by the nanostructure.
This reduces the amount of energy deposited into the nanostructure and changes the distribution of
the deposited energy as the final low particle energy part of the cascade is missing.
However, this part is characterized by a high relative nuclear energy loss as compared to the part
of the cascade closer to the impact point.
In addition, new processes such as backside or forward sputtering can change the stability of the
nanostructure during ion beam irradiation~\cite{Nietiadi2014}.
In this work we employ \ac{FIB} and broad-beam irradiation in the few tens of \si{\kilo\electronvolt}
range to shrink the diameter of few-tens of \si{\nano\meter} pillars down to nearly \SI{10}{\nano\meter}.
Specifically we use Ne$^+${} irradiation at \SI{25}{\kilo\electronvolt} under normal incident in a
\ac{HIM}~\cite{Hlawacek2013c,Hlawacek2016}.
In the \ac{HIM} the sample is heated in-situ using a home-built heater stage that can be loaded through the load lock of
the Carl Zeiss Orion NanoFAB\@. Although the \ac{HIM} has a lateral resolution of less than
\SI{2}{\nano\meter} when using Ne$^+${}, we
scan the beam over a set of nanostructures to emulate a broad beam irradiation, to which we also
compare the results at the end of the manuscript. The benefit of this approach is that a few
pillars from the same sample chip can be irradiated at different fluences and/or at different temperatures.
Possible morphological or structural changes can than directly be compared in the subsequent HIM
imaging step at RT\@. This characterization has been performed using high resolution \ac{HIM} and \ac{TEM} to
obtain information on the morphology and crystallinity of the obtained nanopillars, respectively.
The recently developed Monte Carlo simulation program TRI3DYN~\cite{Moeller2014} is used to perform a
fully dynamic 3D simulation of the irradiation process.
This is complemented by sputter yields and distributions of sputtered particles extracted from the
static collision simulation program TRI3DST~\cite{Nietiadi2014,Moeller2016}.
The simulated results are compared with experimental findings and help with the understanding of the
underlying processes.
To demonstrate the possibility for upscaling of this method we also employ Si$^+$ broad beam
irradiation. Here, always the entire sample is irradiated and multiple samples have to be used
to investigate the influence of temperature and ion fluence. Both local and broad beam based
irradiation suggest a versatile and \ac{cmos}-compatible fabrication method of sub-\SI{10}{\nano\meter}
diameter vertical Si nanostructures at slightly elevated but still \ac{cmos}-compatible temperatures.
\section{Methods}
Silicon nanopillars have been fabricated via patterning of Si-rich anti-reflective coating (SiARC) and
spin-on carbon (SOC) hard mask with an \ac{EBDW} system (SB3054, VISTEC) and subsequent plasma dry
etching (Centura\,\textsuperscript{\textregistered}, Applied Materials) in the \SI{200}{\milli\meter}
production line at CEA-Leti. The half-height diameters of nanopillars range from \SI{25}{\nano\meter} to
\SI{50}{\nano\meter} and the pitch is larger than \SI{250}{\nano\meter} thus redeposition of sputtered
atoms is prevented. The size of a nanopillar array is \SI{5}{\micro\meter}$\times$\SI{5}{\micro\meter}.
The nanopillars are irradiated with a \SI{25}{\kilo\electronvolt} focused Ne$^+$ ion beam from the
\ac{HIM}\@. Scanning the beam over a small area of \SI{5}{\micro\meter}$\times$\SI{2}{\micro\meter}
with a sufficiently small pixel spacing and dwell
time emulates the conditions in a broad-beam implanter. The beam current is restricted under
\SI{500}{\femto\ampere} using a \SI{20}{\micro\meter} Au aperture. Under this condition the
time interval between two arriving Ne ions is longer than \SI{320}{\nano\second} compared to the typical
lifetime of the collision cascade which is on the order of tens of \SI{}{\pico\second}, thus
preventing temporal overlap of the collision cascades.
To perform irradiations at elevated temperatures in the \ac{HIM} a home-built heater stage with a
tungsten filament capable of reaching \SI{\sim 500}{\celsius} is employed.
The temperatures of
the sample and the stage are monitored with type K thermocouples. Unless noted otherwise the most
important remaining \ac{HIM} Ne$^+$ irradiation conditions are: \SI{1}{\nano\meter} pixel
spacing and \SI{0.1}{\micro\second} dwell time.
Images of the nanopillars are taken using a \SI{25}{\kilo\electronvolt} He$^+$
beam at 85\textdegree{} tilt angle to sample surface normal with a probe size smaller than
\SI{0.5}{\nano\meter}. In addition, broad beam irradiation has been carried out using
\SI{50}{\kilo\electronvolt} Si$^+$ from a \SI{200}{\kilo\electronvolt} ion implanter
(Danfysik Model 1090) at the Ion Beam Center (IBC) of the
Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR)
Cross-sectional samples to analyse the lateral shape of selected Si nanopillars were obtained by FIB
(Zeiss NVision 40) milling and lift-out of \SI{1}{\micro\meter}
$\times$\SI{50}{\micro\meter} TEM lamellae (about \SI{50}{\nano\meter} in thickness).
Images have been acquired with an FEI Titan 80--300 microscope using \ac{bftem} with a
contrast-enhancing objective aperture and \ac{eftem}
using the plasmon-loss peak at \SI{17}{\electronvolt} to show the contrast of Si abundance.
These data allow to analyze the crystallinity of the nanopillars and the dimensions can be
measured even when the pillar is amorphized. Nanopillar diameter and height,
as well as the volume reconstruction for the sputter yield calculation were achieved with the help
of software Fiji~\cite{Schindelin2012}.
\ac{MC} codes based on the \ac{BCA} have been employed to simulate
the ballistic processes during ion irradiation in order to contribute to the interpretation of
the experimentally observed phenomena. The static program TRI3DST~\cite{Nietiadi2014,Urbassek2015}
models the irradiation of three-dimensional (3D) bodies whose surface can be described by analytical
functionals. TRI3DYN~\cite{Moeller2014,Moeller2016} is employed for fully 3D dynamic simulations
of the modification of an irradiated structure during bombardment, with arbitrary bodies being
set up in a 3D voxel grid. Both codes assume amorphous materials and do not include collective
phenomena such as the viscous flow. Details of the simulations are given in the Supplementary Information.
\section{Results and Discussions}
\subsection{Amorphization of Si nanopillars}
Selected silicon nanopillars are irradiated from the top at both \ac{RT} and \ac{HT} (\SI{400}{\celsius})
with \SI{25}{\kilo\electronvolt} Ne$^+${} using a fluence of \SI{2d16}{\per\centi\meter\squared}.
\ac{HIM} images recorded using an \SI{85}{\degree}-tilt of the non-irradiated, \ac{RT}-irradiated and
\ac{HT}-irradiated nanopillars are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:1}(a)-(c), respectively.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig1.png}
\caption{\label{fig:1}
Si nanopillars with an original diameter of \SI{25}{\nano\meter} have been irradiated
with \SI{25}{\kilo\electronvolt} Ne$^+$ and subsequently imaged at 85\textdegree{} with
He$^+$ from a \ac{HIM}. Image (a) shows the nanopillars before irradiation
while (b) and (c) show the nanopillars after \SI{2d16}{\per\centi\meter\squared} Ne$^+$ irradiation at \ac{RT}
and \SI{400}{\celsius}, respectively. Image (d) shows the direct comparison of nanopillars after
having received \SI{2d15}{\per\centi\meter\squared} at room-temperature and
\SI{1.8d16}{\per\centi\meter\squared} at \SI{400}{\celsius} but in different order. Scale bars
in all images indicate \SI{100}{\nano\meter}.}
\end{figure}
After the irradiation at \ac{RT}, a strong change in shape of the nanopillars---characterized by a
rounding of the upper edge accompanied by a severe loss of the height---can be observed.
However, no such shape change is seen in the case of \ac{HT} irradiation of the nanopillars.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(d) identical nanopillars are irradiated with a combined \ac{RT} and \ac{HT} irradiation but in a different sequence.
The resulting morphology can be compared in a qualitative way in the image.
Both pillar fields have received the same total fluence but in reverse orders.
The pillar field in the back has first been irradiated at \ac{RT} with a fluence of only
\SI{2d15}{\per\centi\meter\squared} followed by a fluence of \SI{18d15}{\per\centi\meter\squared}
at an elevated temperature of \SI{400}{\celsius}.
The fluence of \SI{2d15}{\per\centi\meter\squared} for the first irradiation step has been chosen
so that it leads to an amorphization of the pillars.
To ensure a complete amorphization of the pillars the chosen fluence is about 5 times higher than what has been reported for the amorphization of silicon by few \SI{10}{\kilo\electronvolt} Ne$^+$ irradiation~\cite{Dennis1978}.
However, the fluence is small enough to not lead to observable changes in the morphology of the pillars.
The pillars in the foreground of Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(d) were first irradiated at \SI{400}{\celsius}
with a fluence of \SI{18d15}{\per\centi\meter\squared} followed by \SI{2d15}{\per\centi\meter\squared}
after being cooled down to \ac{RT}.
As a result both pillar fields have received a total fluence of \SI{2d16}{\per\centi\meter\squared}.
However, as is clear from Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(d) the sequence of \ac{RT} vs. \ac{HT} irradiation plays
an important role for the final morphology.
The amorphous pillars in the background---irradiated first at \ac{RT}---are nearly completely removed.
A closer look also reveals that the diameter at the foot of the former pillars has increased.
The pillars in the foreground---irradiated first at \ac{HT}---still show their pristine shape with
nearly no observable change in morphology.
The final irradiation of the foreground pillars at \ac{RT} ensures they receive the same amount of amorphization
as the background pillars received initially. Again, this does not lead to a noticeable change of the pillar shape.
A detailed investigation of the temperature dependence of the ion beam induced amorphization is carried out
on similar structures. A series of nanopillars is irradiated with Ne$^{+}$ ions using a fluence of
\SI{2d16}{\per\centi\meter\squared} at various temperatures from \SI{250}{\celsius} up to \SI{350}{\celsius}
in \SI{25}{\celsius} steps.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(a)-(c) selected \ac{bftem} micrographs of typical structures are presented (\ac{TEM}
images for the other temperatures can be found in the supporting information).
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig2.png}
\caption{\label{fig:2}\ac{bftem} micrographs of Si nanopillars irradiated with
\SI{2d16}{\per\centi\meter\squared}, \SI{25}{\kilo\electronvolt} Ne$^+${} at (a) \SI{250}{\celsius},
(b) \SI{300}{\celsius} and (c) \SI{350}{\celsius} showing the cases of the nanopillar being almost
entirely amorphized, only top segment amorphized and entirely crystalline. The black dashed lines
indicate the outlines of the actual Si nanopillars. (d) TRI3DYN simulation
showing the distribution of displacements created by \SI{25}{\kilo\electronvolt} Ne$^+${} of
\SI{2d16}{\per\centi\meter\squared} fluence. The profile has to be compared to the extent of the
crystalline and amorphous regions after an irradiation at temperatures lower than T$_\mathrm{c}$.
}
\end{figure}
In BF-TEM micrographs only the crystalline part of the nanopillar is visible, and it is evident that after low
temperature irradiation the pillar becomes amorphized. The black dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(a)-(c)
outline the border of the actual pillar as extracted from corresponding \ac{eftem} micrographs (not shown
here; please see the supporting information for examples).
With increasing irradiation temperature, at the same fluence an increasing part of the pillar stays crystalline and only a
small part of the pillar becomes amorphous. Finally, for an irradiation temperature of \SI{350}{\celsius}
no amorphization can be detected from the \ac{bftem} images. From the investigation of the amorphization
behaviour at additional temperatures (see the supporting information), we conclude that the critical
temperature of amorphization (T$_\mathrm{c}$) during \SI{25}{\kilo\electronvolt} Ne$^+${} ion irradiation
for the presented Si nanopillars lies between \SI{325}{\celsius} and \SI{350}{\celsius}.
With the \ac{MC} simulation program TRI3DYN, the dynamic evolution of a Si nanopillar under ion irradiation
can be visualized. In Fig.~\ref{fig:3}(d) the accumulated \ac{dpa} of the central slice of a nanopillar
after \SI{25}{\kilo\electronvolt} Ne$^{+}$ irradiation with a fluence of \SI{2d16}{\per\centi\meter\squared}
is shown. In this particular case, the comparison between the simulation and experiments is a simplification
from the complex interplay leading to amorphization, including the original \ac{dpa} created by the
ion trajectory, temperature-dependent dynamic annealing, overlapping defect pockets as well as
deformation due to viscous flow. \ac{BCA} type \ac{MC} simulation programs like TRI3DYN usually
only treat amorphous samples, and effects such as dynamic annealing and viscous flow are not considered.
The obtained simulation results can well explain the amorphization profiles obtained by \ac{bftem} presented
in Figs.~\ref{fig:2}(a,b). In these cases, only the top of the pillar is amorphized which corresponds to
the region with the highest defect density according to the simulation result presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(d).
Furthermore, from the \ac{bftem} micrographs in Figs.~\ref{fig:2}(a,b) one can see that the interface between
the amorphous and crystalline part of the Si nanopillar tends to bend towards the bottom of the pillar.
This also agrees well with the simulated result which shows that in the lower part of the nanopillar the
displacement density is higher close to the sidewalls than in the centre.
This is attributed to the slightly tapered sidewall of the nanopillars (typically \SI{7}{\degree}) which
leads to high angle sputtering, creating high amount of displacements close to the pillar surface.
From the TRI3DYN result presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:2} we conclude that a fluence of
\SI{2d16}{\per\centi\meter\squared} at \ac{RT} results in a damage of at least \SI{6}{\ac{dpa}}.
This is more than sufficient to amorphize the entire nanopillar in the absence of any dynamic annealing processes.
According to the defect out-diffusing model of amorphization~\cite{Morehead1970}, when the tem\-per\-a\-ture
of the crystalline silicon is higher than the amorphization critical temperature T$_\mathrm{c}$, no matter
how high the fluence is during an irradiation the originally crystalline structure will not be amorphized.
From Figs.~\ref{fig:1}(c,d) and~\ref{fig:2}(c) one can see that during irradiation at temperatures higher
than T$_\mathrm{c}$ the pillars stay crystalline and no morphological changes can be observed.
This temperature of \SI{325}{\celsius} to \SI{350}{\celsius} is still \SI{200}{\celsius} lower than the
regime where epitaxial recrystallization could recover a large-area amorphous structure~\cite{Crowder1970}.
The nanopillars irradiated with \SI{25}{\kilo\electronvolt} Ne$^+${} at \ac{RT} become amorphous already
after a very low fluence, similar to the amorphization fluence in bulk Si which is between
\SI{1d15}{\per\centi\meter\squared} and \SI{2d15}{\per\centi\meter\squared}~\cite{Dennis1978}.
While the dynamic annealing by the ion beam at \ac{HT} above T$_\mathrm{c}$ is sufficient to prevent
amorphization of the initially crystalline nanopillars, it can not recover the crystal structure of an initially
amorphous nanopillar by epitaxial recrystallization.
As a consequence, surface tension induced by ion irradiation leads to viscous behavior of amorphized
nanostructures and the resulting plastic deformation visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(b) and in the back
of Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(d), as shown in previous studies---albeit mainly at ion energies from \SI{100}{\kilo\electronvolt}
to a few \SI{}{\mega\electronvolt}---with various ion species, energies and target materials~\cite{volkert1991,van2003,Johannes2015a}.
To summarize, we showed that above the critical temperature of amorphization T$_\mathrm{c}$ dynamic
annealing prevents the amorphization of the crystalline Si nanopillars.
From the \ac{TEM} analysis we find out that this temperature corresponds to \SI{325}{\celsius} to
\SI{350}{\celsius} for irradiation with \SI{25}{\kilo\electronvolt} Ne$^+${}.
This is in agreement with the results from \ac{HIM} imaging where we find severe deformation of
initially crystalline nanopillars only after irradiation at temperatures below T$_\mathrm{c}$.
This deformation is a result of viscous flow of the amorphous material due to capillary forces
acting on the nanoscale pillars. Initially amorphous pillars experience dramatic shape changes
even if irradiated at \ac{HT}, as the temperature for epitaxial recrystallization is still
\SI{200}{\celsius} higher and dynamic annealing is not sufficient to recrystallize the nanopillars.
\subsection{Thinning of the nanopillars}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig3.png}
\caption{\label{fig:3} (a)Si nanopillar irradiated at \SI{400}{\celsius} with
fluence up to \SI{8d16}{\per\centi\meter\squared} shows a steady decrease of diameter
without noticeable shrinkage of height. The nanopillars before and after
irradiation are imaged with \ac{HIM} at 85\textdegree{} tilt angle and shown
as insets. The thinning process is also simulated with TRI3DYN and the diameter is plotted
as an comparison to the experimental results. (b)Evolution of the central
\SI{3}{\nano\meter} slice of the simulated nanopillars during the Ne$^+$
thinning process. The diameters at half-height are plotted in (a) showing
good agreement compared to the experimental results.}
\end{figure}
Si nanopillars were irradiated at a temperature well above T$_\mathrm{c}$ to fully exclude the influence of ion-induced amorphization, and the applied fluence has been increased up to \SI{8d16}{\per\centi\meter\squared}. The nanopillars studied here have
a diameter at half-height of \SI{47}{\nano\meter} and height of \SI{71}{\nano\meter}.
After the irradiation, the sample was immediately imaged
with the \ac{HIM} at a tilt angle of 85\textdegree{}. In Fig~\ref{fig:3}(a) the height and
diameter of the nanopillars with the same original diameter after different irradiation fluences
are plotted. With the increase of the fluence, a steady
decrease of the diameter has been observed while the height remains almost unchanged. Linear fitting of the diameter reduction
shows a slope, i.e.\ the reduction rate of \num{-3.3(1)}\,\SI{}{\nano\meter}/($1\times10^{16}$\SI{}{\per\centi\meter\squared}).
In the same diagram the
simulated results of the thinning process from the program TRI3DYN are shown. Snapshots of the central \SI{3}{\nano\meter} slice of the nanopillar after different irradiation fluences are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}(b).
While the simulation qualitatively fits with
the experimental data it slightly overestimates the sputter yield for smaller diameters. Such a tendency was also observed in previous work~\cite{Johannes2015a} where the ion irradiation
was performed at 45\textdegree{} incidence relative to the axis of a Si nanowire.
The smaller the pillar diameter is,
or when the ion impact position is close to the nanopillar rim, the higher the chance
will be that a recoiled atom will leave the structure with a high kinetic energy.
This reduces the energy deposited inside the pillar and subsequently leads to less energy deposited per incident
ion as compared to a larger diameter pillar or a bulk system.
To further analyze the mechanism of the decrease of the nanopillar diameter, the average
sputter yield during the pillar thinning process has been measured using the incident ion current
and the lateral dimensions of the pillars and plotted against the diameter
of the pillars. Detailed description of calculating the sputter yield from \ac{TEM}
micrographs is included in the Supporting Materials.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(a), the average sputter yield is approximately constant as long as
the diameter of the
nanopillars is significantly larger than the lateral range of the Ne$^+$ ions of \SI{\sim{}19}{\nano\meter}.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig4.png}
\caption{\label{fig:4}(a) Experimentally obtained sputter yield for \SI{25}{\kilo\electronvolt}
Ne$^+$ in Si nanopillars plotted against the diameters at half height of the nanopillars. Due to enhanced forward sputtering
the sputter yield in nanopillars is at least 3 times higher than the sputter yield in the bulk.
(b)-(d) TRI3DST simulations showing profiles of surface sputtering events enhanced forward
when an incident ion is (b)
close to the pillar rim, (c)in the centre of the pillar or (d)when the pillar diameter is comparable
with the size of the collision cascade. The diameters of the nanopillars in (b)-(d)
are \SI{30}{\nano\meter}, \SI{30}{\nano\meter} and \SI{15}{\nano\meter}, respectively. The colour
coding (from dark blue to light blue) indicates the position of a sputtering event in the horizontal direction.}
\end{figure}
The sputter yield measured for the nanopillars is
at least 3 times higher than what is expected for sputtering at normal incidence on bulk Si surfaces as
obtained from TRI3DST or SRIM\@.
Two factors are contributing to such a high sputter yield. First, due to the approximately 7\textdegree{}
tapering, the sidewalls of the nanopillar are also exposed to the irradiation at a high glancing angle
which results in a strongly enhanced sputter yield. This contribution is hard to quantify
due to the additional radial curvature of the nanopillar sidewall. The second contribution comes from
is the forward sputtering from ions hitting at normal incidence on the top of the nanopillar.
From the schematic presented as an inset in Figure~\ref{fig:4}(a) one can see that in contrast to the
case of a bulk structure (indicated as light red) where the collision cascade is fully embedded inside
the sample, in the case of a nanopillar, the lateral extent of the collision cascade has a high
probability to overlap with the surface. When a recoiled atom has a kinetic energy higher
than the surface binding energy for Si of \SI{4.7}{\electronvolt}~\cite{Nietiadi2014},
it will leave the nanopillar as a forward sputtered atom. Detailed analysis from the simulation results in
Fig.~\ref{fig:3}(b) shows that at the initial diameter approximately \SI{74}{\percent} of the
sputtering can be attributed to the forward sputtering from
the ions penetrating into the top of the nanopillar.
As the irradiation proceeds, the two contributions evolve in
different manners. The high-angle sputtering on the sidewalls of the nanopillars
slightly decreases with the decreasing diameter and unchanged sidewall tapering (see Fig.~\ref{fig:3}(b) and
the insets in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}(a)). On the other hand, forward sputtering from ions hitting the
top of the pillar will be more severe due to a larger surface to volume ratio.
Results from simulations, using TRI3DST, of focused-beam
irradiation onto a Si nanopillar are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(b)-(d).
The ions hit the top surface of the nanopillar at (b) \SI{5}{\nano\meter} from the rim and (c)-(d)
in the centre. For statistical reasons, an incidence of 1000 ions was simulated in all cases. In Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(b)-(d),
blue dots indicate the position on the nanopillar sidewall where a sputter event occurred. It
is clear that for every single incident ion, the smaller
the diameter of the nanopillar is, or the closer the incident spot is located to the rim, the
higher the amount of sputtered atoms will be. This behavior results in a steady
decrease of the nanopillar diameter, mostly due to the enhanced forward sputtering. In this
model, two distinctive stages will be observed for such a thinning process. When the diameter
of the nanopillars is significantly larger than the lateral
range of the collision cascade, the incident ions that create forward sputtering near the rim, such
as in the case of Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(b), are unlikely to sputter from the other side of the nanopillar.
Incident ions closer to the centre of the nanopillar, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(c), would only
induce a small amount of forward sputtering as the collision cascade barely reaches the pillar surface.
As a consequence, the decrease of the pillar diameter has a linear dependency on the fluence.
When the diameter of the nanopillars is comparable to or smaller than the size of the
collision cascade, which is \SI{18.6}{\nano\meter} in the case of \SI{25}{\kilo\electronvolt} Ne$^{+}$,
the chance that a recoil atom leaves
the nanopillar via forward sputtering is high, independent from the ion impact position.
However, with decreasing pillar diameter, the size and shape of the collision cascade will also change.
This is due to the limited size of the nanopillar, which reduces the actual average lateral range of the ions to a
value smaller than the diameter but also reduces the range of the ions as they are more likely to leave
the target structure. This situation is depicted in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(a). The lower part of the bulk
collisions cascade is missing in the collision cascade inside the nanopillar.
This also result in a redistribution of the energy deposition and the related defect density. In the nanopillar
more energy is deposited close to the top which leads to more sputtering at the top and eventually a reduction of
the pillar height.
To demonstrate the potential for upscaling to industrial applications, we also performed Si$^+$ broad
beam irradiation of nanopillar arrays in a standard ion implanter. To be able to compare the results to the previous
Ne$^+${} irradiation, we used \SI{50}{\kilo\electronvolt} Si$^+$, which has the similar dpa as \SI{25}{\kilo\electronvolt} Ne$^+$, to irradiate the nanopillars
at \SI{400}{\celsius}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:5}(a) and (b) \ac{eftem} micrographs of nanopillars
after a fluence of \SI{6d16}{\per\centi\meter\squared} with focused Ne$^+$ and broad-beam
Si$^+$ are shown.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig5.png}
\caption{\label{fig:5}\ac{eftem} micrographs show the nanopillars after HT-irradiation
with (a)Ne$^+$ and (b)Si$^+$ of \SI{6d16}{\per\centi\meter\squared} fluence. Fast Fourier
transform (FFT) shows in both cases the top segment of the nanopillar is partially
amorphized while the lower part remains crystalline. (c) As measured from 85\textdegree{}-tilted
\ac{HIM} and \ac{eftem} images, the thinning from Ne$^+$ in Si nanopillars is limited when the
diameter gets smaller than 16\,nm while using Si$^+$ for the same purpose could reduce the
diameter to \SI{11}{\nano\meter}. }
\end{figure}
These experimental conditions were chosen as they represent the highest fluences applied in
both irradiation conditions that do not lead to a strong decrease of the nanopillar height.
Both cases indicate the experimental limit for possible lateral pillar shrinking. \ac{fft} results
of the upper and lower part of an irradiated nanopillar
are shown as insets in Fig.~\ref{fig:5}(a). They reveal that while the lower part of the Si
nanopillar remains single crystalline the top part is characterized by a
co-existence of crystalline and amorphous areas. As we further increase the irradiation fluence,
the height of the nanopillar start to decrease and the interface between the crystalline and
amorphous parts moves towards the bottom. In the case of Si nanopillars irradiated with
Si$^+$ of \SI{6d16}{\per\centi\meter\squared} fluence, the majority of the nanopillar also remains
crystalline despite the higher density of defects in the vicinity of the top surface, indicating
a better structural integrity than the one irradiated with Ne$^+$.
In Figure~\ref{fig:5}(c) the average height and diameter of the nanopillars during the thinning
processes via focused Ne$^+$ and
broad-beam Si$^+$ are plotted. The dashed lines are guides to the eyes to allow a clear comparison
of the trends between
irradiation with the two ion species.
In the case of Si$^+$ irradiated
nanopillars, the diameter was measured via 85\textdegree-tilted \ac{HIM} imaging subtracting the thickness
of native oxide on the nanopillar sidewalls. While in both cases the curves eventually turn steep
as the height
starts to decrease and the thinning process slows down, allowing for a \SI{15}{\percent} reduction of
height, the achievable diameters
for Ne$^+$ and Si$^+$ thinned nanopillars are \SI{14}{\nano\meter} and \SI{11}{\nano\meter}, respectively.
The difference in final diameter may be attributed to the following factors.
First, with the projected ranges R$_\mathrm{p}$ of 73.2\,nm for 50\,keV Si$^+$ and 56.9\,nm
for 25\,keV Ne$^+$, the Si$^+$
better fits the height of the original nanopillars.
A higher energy of the incident ion would result in a deeper and shallower energy deposition thus postponing
the defect accumulation at the top segment of the nanopillars. Second, Si self-irradiation leads to a more
forward directed collision cascade due the optimal energy transfer between the incident Si and the target Si
atoms having the same mass. As a consequence Si irradiation results in more homogeneous sputtering of the
pillar and a slower reduction of the longitudinal range due cascade truncation by the pillar.
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, nanopillars with diameters of \SI{50}{\nano\meter} and below were irradiated with
Ne$^+$ from a helium ion microscope at temperatures between \SI{250}{\celsius} and
\SI{400}{\celsius}. The critical temperature of amorphization under ion beam irradiation
T$_\mathrm{c}$ was found in the range between \SI{325}{\celsius} and \SI{350}{\celsius}. The morphology of the Si
nanopillars evolves accordingly at different temperatures during Ne$^+$ irradiation. At temperatures lower than T$_\mathrm{c}$, the
nanopillar shape turned conical and a strong decrease in height occurred due to the presence of viscous flow.
When irradiated at temperatures higher than T$_\mathrm{c}$, the Si nanopillars remained crystalline and the viscous flow did not occur, while the diameter of the nanopillars was reduced linearly with the applied fluences. Such a thinning
process was simulated and visualized via the static simulation programme TRI3DST\@. The sputter yields
extracted from both experiments and simulation indicate an enhanced sputtering
effect on the nanopillars which can be attributed to the high surface-to-volume ratio and the overlap between
the collision cascade and the nanopillar surfaces. In particular the latter leads to a truncation of the
collision cascade and an increasing contribution from forward sputtering to the thinning process.
However, the truncation of the collision cascade in particular in the longitudinal direction increases the
fraction of energy deposited in the top part of the pillar, resulting in an increase of the sputter yield
in this region and ultimately leads to a reduction in height.
Compared to earlier attempts of ion beam based pillar reduction~\cite{Johannes2015a} our method does not require
rotation of the incident direction and results in smaller final diameter.
Our approach which utilizes an irradiation process at slightly elevated but still \ac{VLSI} compatible temperatures
enables new possibilities for the fabricating of vertical nanostructures, such as pillars and fins, in a
top-down and \ac{cmos}-compatible manner which is not limited by the lithographic resolution.
\ack{}
This work has been funded by the European Commission H-2020 programme ``IONS4SET''
under grant agreement No.\,688072. The authors thank Roman B\"ottger,
Ulrich Kentsch and the Ion Beam Center (IBC) at HZDR for the broad-beam irradiation.
|
\section{Introduction}
Manganese incorporation in two-dimensional layered and semiconducting materials has received increasing attention as it shows promise for revolutionizing advancements in spintronics \cite{Sato,dietl2010ten,ohno_window_2010,dietl_RMP_2014}, nanostructures with ferromagnetic ordering \cite{Ashwin,mishra2013long,wang2016robust} and tunable functionalities \cite{Robinson,miao2018tunable,wang2016robust}. These perspectives have inspired doping investigations that revealed a plethora of unique magnetic and opto-electronic behaviors. Theory and experiment have shown that Mn doping can lead to ferromagnetic ordering in 2D materials \cite{mishra2013long,miao2018tunable,wang2016robust}. A recent study of the 2D dilute magnetic semiconductor Mn-doped MoS$_2$ predicts that MoS$_2$ doped to 10-15\% manganese is ferromanetic at room temperature \cite{Ashwin}. Intrinsic ferromagnetism in Mn$_x$Mo$_{1-x}$S$_2$ nanosheets, doped by supercritical hydrothermal methods, was reported~\cite{tan2017intrinsic}. Mn-doping in MoSe$_2$ has also been shown to promote additional active sites for hydrogen evolution reactions~\cite{kuraganti2019manganese}. It was also reported that MnBi$_2$Te$_4$, an intrinsic magnetic topological insulator, is an ideal platform to realize a high-temperature quantum anomalous hall insulator states \cite{lee2018spin}.
In layered materials, Mn intercalation offers a unique alternative to Mn doping. Intercalation, the insertion of an atom or molecule into the van der Waals gap, provides a chemical handle to tune physical properties including electronic structure and phonon propagation without disturbing the host lattice~\cite{Wang,Whittingham,Dresselhaus}. Intercalation in layered materials has demonstrated an enormous realm of physical and chemical tunability in both current and historical research~\cite{Dresselhaus,Schollhorn,Wang,chen,sood_NC_LiMoS2_2018,chen_stronglytunable_2019}. Through intercalation it is possible to adjust the superconducting temperature \cite{Geballe,Dresselhaus}, enhance transparency and conductivity \cite{Wang2,Fuhrer,Cui,Zhu}, and reversibly alter optoelectronic behaviors including color and photoluminescence \cite{Wang3,Fuhrer,Cui}. Recently a wet chemical route was achieved to intercalate zero-valent manganese, post-growth, into 2D layered materials \cite{Wang}, opening a new avenue for experimental study of manganese incorporated two-dimensional materials beyond that of doping.
Molybdenum diselenide (MoSe$_2$) is a heavily investigated layered n-type indirect band gap semiconductor ($E_g$ = 1.1 eV) that shows a transition to a direct band gap with reduction in the number of layers \cite{Kim,Heinz,Strano}. In a recent report, spin states protected from intrinsic electron--phonon coupling were demonstrated in monolayer MoSe$_2$, reaching 100 ns lifetimes at room temperature \cite{ersfeld_spin_2019}. High-pressure investigations have shown that MoSe$_2$ does not undergo any phase transitions up to 30 GPa \cite{Caramazza}. Above 40 GPa, a possible semiconductor-metal phase transition has been identified \cite{Yang,Zhao}. The effect of Mn intercalation on the pressure-induced metallization of MoSe$_2$ is a point of interest, as the intercalated metal may alter the metallization behavior of van der Waals systems \cite{VLjohn}. Whether pressure favors magnetic ordering at ambient temperature is another point of interest as an analogous mechanism was observed with high concentration of substitutional Mn in monolayer MoS$_2$ \cite{Ashwin}. Pressure results in greater wavefunction overlap that could lead to a stronger coupling between isolated Mn intercalant and the MoSe$_2$ semiconductor electron density, enhancing spin polarization effects. Understanding how structure and bonding in this material system change at pressure can provide crucial insight into its fundamental nature.
Here, through both experiment and first-principles calculations, we show that both the intercalation of manganese into MoSe$_2$ and pressurization can alter the host structure and its optical phonon frequencies, giving rise to new Raman-active vibrational modes and modifying the electronic band structure. Pressure-dependent Raman scattering, investigated up to 7 GPa under hydrostatic conditions in a diamond anvil cell, suggests the formation of pressure-induced bonding between selenium and the manganese intercalant. First-principles calculations exhibit Raman shifts in agreement with experiments and shed light on the changes of the magnetic and vibrational properties of intercalated MoSe$_2$ with low Mn content as a function of pressure.
In addition, electronic structure calculations provide predictions as for the structural and electronic properties of MoSe$_2$ intercalated with higher amounts of Mn.
Spin-polarized band structure calculations unravel the conditions at which Mn-intercalated MoSe$_2$ can sustain significant spin currents, making it a suitable dilute magnetic semiconductor.
\section{Methods}
\subsection{Manganese Intercalation}
Molybdenum diselenide (MoSe$_2$) was prepared by deposition from as-delivered powder containing large single-crystal platelets onto fused silica substrates followed by drop-casting ethanol onto the substrate to adhere the layered material and prevent loss in solution during intercalation. MoSe$_2$ single-crystal platelets were on the order of 1--100 $\mu$m with varied thicknesses ranging from tens of nanometers to microns.
Zero-valent manganese was intercalated through the decomposition of dimanganese decacarbonyl (C$_{10}$O$_{10}$Mn$_{2}$) in dilute acetone under inert atmosphere \cite{Wang}. This route was shown to successfully intercalate manganese into hosts. For completeness, the MoSe$_2$ coated substrates were placed in a 25-50 mL round bottom flask with a reflux condenser attached to a Schlenk line, evacuated, and flushed with N$_2$ gas. Extra-dry acetone (5 ml) was added to the flask and heated to 48$^{\circ}$C. A 10 mM solution of the carbonyl in 5 ml of acetone was added to the flask dropwise over the course of 1.5 hr and kept at 48$^{\circ}$C for an additional $\sim$ 1 hr. Substrates were then removed from the solution and rinsed with acetone. All chemicals and powders were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich.
\subsection{High Pressure}
High pressures were generated using an Alamax EasyLab mini-Bragg diamond anvil cell (DAC) with Boehler anvils with 0.6 mm culets. Spring steel gaskets were pre-indented to 80-100 $\mu$m and drilled with a 250 $\mu$m hole. Ruby spheres (Alamax) were used as a pressure calibrant. In the DAC, a solution of 4:1 v/v methanol:ethanol was used as pressure transmitting fluid. Pressures up to 7 GPa were measured to avoid all phase transitions and to remain at relatively hydrostatic pressures of the pressure transmitting fluid. Single crystal platelets were identified optically.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{Fig1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{Fig1}
(a) Schematic crystal structure of Mn-MoSe$_2$. Mn likely occupies octahedral sites.
(b) SAED of Mn-MoSe$_2$ confirms hexagonal structure with intercalation.
(c) XRD show expansion of the MoSe$_2$ host with Mn intercalation.
(d) SEM-EDX of Mn-MoSe$_2$ shows Mn throughout.
}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Characterization}
Raman spectra and ruby fluorescence were measured using a home-built system with a $\lambda$ = 532 nm Coherent Sapphire operating with $<$1 mW on the sample, Leica DMi8 inverted microscope, Princeton Instruments Isoplane SC320, and Princeton Instruments Pixis CCD camera. For Raman spectroscopy, a Semrock laser-edge filter and dichroic with an edge cutoff of $\sim$38 cm$^{-1}$ was used with the same apparatus. Acquisition times were on the order of 5 - 15 seconds with 10 - 20 averaged spectra. All spectra were acquired using an 1800 groove/mm grating. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) were acquired on 5-10 isolated flakes with a FEI SCIOS Dual-Beam FIB/SEM using an Oxford EDX detector with 10-20 keV accelerating voltage. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and selected area electron diffraction (SAED) were acquired using a JEOL 2100Fac operating at 200 keV. X-ray diffraction (XRD) data was acquired using a Bruker D8 Advance Eco with copper k-edge ($\lambda$ = 1.54 $\mbox{\AA}$) X-rays. Rietveld refinement was performed with GSAS to determine lattice constants \cite{Bindzus}.
\subsection{First-principles Calculations}
Density functional theory (DFT) calculations were performed within the local spin density approximation (LSDA) of the exchange and correlation functional \cite{perdew_self-interaction_1981} by using the Quantum-Espresso package \cite{QE-2017}.
Core electrons are treated implicitly through projector augmented wave (PAW) pseudopotentials \cite{blochl_projector_1994,kresse_ultrasoft_1999}, and the valence electronic wavefunctions are expanded in a plane-wave basis set with a kinetic energy cutoff of 49 Ry. The charge density is integrated on 16$\times$16$\times$4 Monkhorst-Pack meshes of \emph{k-}points for pristine MoSe$_2$. Structural and cell relaxations are performed using
a quasi-Newton optimization algorithm with a convergence criterion of $10^{-4}$ Ry/Bohr for maximum residual force component.
The strong correlation effect of transition metal d-electrons is considered using the LSDA+U method \cite{anisimov_band_1991,cococcioni_linear_2005}, by introducing a Hubbard type interaction. We use a moderate $U_{eff}$ = 4 eV for both Mo and Mn \cite{zhou_ceder_lda+u_2004,wang_ceder_2006,jain_formation_2011,andriotis_mos2_2014,wu_mos2_2018}. Other $U_{eff}$ values, for example, 2 eV and 6 eV, were tested and consistent results were obtained. With LSDA+U, the calculated band gap of pure MoSe$_2$ increases from 0.7 eV to 0.8 eV, with respect to LSDA results. The frequencies of the phonon modes at the Brillouin zone center (Raman shift) as a function of pressure were calculated using density-functional perturbation theory (DFPT) \cite{baroni_phonons_2001}. The threshold for the iterative calculation of the perturbed Kohn-Sham wavefunctions was set to $10^{-16}$ Ry.
This approach is well suited to predict Raman shift in monolayer and few-layer transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) upon strain \cite{rice_raman-scattering_2013,wang_strain-induced_2016} as well as in bulk \cite{wolverson_raman_2014}.
To model Mn intercalation of MoSe$_2$ with different Mn concentrations and to account for possible structural changes induced by intercalation, we considered both 2H and \textcolor{black}{1T'} MoSe$_2$ initial structures\footnote{The 1T phase for MoSe$_2$ is unstable and intercalated systems relax into a lower-symmetry 1T' phase with a larger unit cell.},
with Mn atom(s) intercalated in the vdW gap (Details are provided in Table S1 in supporting information). \textcolor{black}{The total and spin-polarized carrier concentrations were calculated from DFT spin-polarized Kohn-Sham states integrating the first Brillouin zone on the uniform k-point meshes at least 27 times denser than those k-point meshes used in the self-consistent calculations, using the BoltzTrap software.\cite{boltztrap2006}}
\section{Results and Discussion}
\subsection{Structure and Raman Scattering}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\caption{\label{Table1} Equilibrium lattice parameters of pristine MoSe$_2$ and Mn-intercalated MoSe$_2$ from experiments and DFT calculations. \textcolor{black}{In parenthesis it is indicated whether Mn is interstitial within the MoSe$_2$ layer or in the vdW gap between two layers.}}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lcccc}
\hline
& $a$ {\AA} & $c$ {\AA } & Vol. {\AA}$^3$ \\
\hline
MoSe$_2$ (Exp.) & 3.285(3) & 12.921(3) & 120.8(2) \\
2H-MoSe$_2$ (DFT)& 3.260 & 12.718 & 117.0 \\
\hline
Mn$_{0.02}$MoSe$_2$ (Exp.) & 3.336(5) ($+1.5\%$) & 12.940(5) & 124.7(3) \\
2H-Mn$_{0.03}$MoSe$_2$ (DFT, \textcolor{black}{vdW gap})& 3.260 & 12.801 & 117.9\\
2H-Mn$_{0.06}$MoSe$_2$ (DFT, \textcolor{black}{vdW gap})& 3.261 & 12.879 & 118.6\\
2H-Mn$_{0.125}$MoSe$_2$ (DFT, \textcolor{black}{vdW gap})& 3.261 & 13.065 & 120.3\\
2H-Mn$_{0.25}$MoSe$_2$ (DFT, \textcolor{black}{vdW gap})& 3.273 & 13.423 & 124.3 \\
1T'-Mn$_{0.06}$MoSe$_2$ (DFT, \textcolor{black}{vdW gap})& 3.392 & 12.227 & 118.9 \\
1T'-Mn$_{0.25}$MoSe$_2$ (DFT, \textcolor{black}{vdW gap})& 3.428 & 12.021 & 121.0 \\
1T'-Mn$_{1}$MoSe$_2$ (DFT, \textcolor{black}{vdW gap})& 3.501 & 12.094 & 124.9 \\
\textcolor{black}{2H-Mn$_{0.03}$MoSe$_2$ (DFT, interstitial) } & \textcolor{black}{3.283 } & \textcolor{black}{12.707} & \textcolor{black}{118.6}\\
\textcolor{black}{2H-Mn$_{0.06}$MoSe$_2$ (DFT, interstitial)} & \textcolor{black}{3.299 } & \textcolor{black}{12.710} & \textcolor{black}{119.9}\\
\textcolor{black}{2H-Mn$_{0.125}$MoSe$_2$ (DFT, interstitial) }& \textcolor{black}{3.353 } & \textcolor{black}{12.728} & \textcolor{black}{123.9}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics{Fig2-Mn006-v6-Mn-interstitial-d.pdf}
\caption{\label{Fig2} (a) Raman spectra under pressure of pristine MoSe$_2$ and (b) Mn-intercalated MoSe$_2$ (black and dark blue lines for increasing pressure, gray and cyan lines for decreasing pressure). The asterisk, described in the text, coincides with the Raman frequency of a Mn-Se bond. (c) Force vectors for the mode at $\sim$ 250 cm$^{-1}$ in 1T$^\prime$-Mn$_{0.06}$MoSe$_2$ from DFT calculations, showing a collective optical mode that involves displacements of Mn, Mo and Se atoms, \textcolor{black}{possibly} corresponding to the * Mn-Se peak in experiment. \textcolor{black}{(d) Force vectors for the Mn-Se collective mode at $\sim$ 250 cm$^{-1}$ in 2H-Mn$_{0.06}$MoSe$_2$ with Mn at interstitial site from DFT calculations, which might also correspond to the * Mn-Se peak in experiment.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics{Fig3X.pdf}
\caption{\label{Fig3} (a) Mode schematics. (b) Experimentally determined Raman shifts for pristine MoSe$_2$ and Mn$_{0.02}$MoSe$_2$ under pressure (black and dark blue full circles for increasing pressure, gray and cyan full circles for decreasing pressure). For pristine MoSe$_2$, A$_{2u}$, A$_{2u}$-E$^{2}_{2g}$, and E$^{1}_{2g}$ modes appear after 2.89 GPa as indicated with a red vertical dashed line. (c) DFT calculated Raman shifts for pristine MoSe$_2$ and Mn$_{0.06}$MoSe$_2$. The linear fit of the experimental shifts are solid lines for reference.}
\end{figure}
The 2H stable phase of MoSe$_2$ has a hexagonal crystal structure (Figure \ref{Fig1}(a); space group: \emph{$P6_{3}/mmc$}). The overall host structure is maintained with intercalation as confirmed through SAED (Figure \ref{Fig1}(b)) and XRD (Figure \ref{Fig1}(c)), which show that also Mn-MoSe$_2$ is hexagonal.
An example SEM image with EDX elemental mapping of Mn-intercalated MoSe$_2$ (Figure ~\ref{Fig1}(d)) shows that the intercalant is distributed throughout the plates at concentrations of $\sim$1-2 atomic percent (Mn$_{0.02}$MoSe$_2$).
Nevertheless, XRD would not be suitable to detect local lattice distortions at the intercalation sites.
The intercalation energy per Mn atom, estimated by total energy calculations, \textcolor{black}{depends on Mn concentration,} and it is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq2}
E_{intercalation} = \frac{E_{Mn_{x}MoSe_2} - E_{MoSe_2} - n_{a}E_{Mn}}{n_{a}}
\end{equation}
where $E_{Mn_xMoSe_2}$ is the total energy of a MoSe$_2$ supercell intercalated with an atomic concentration $x$ of Mn, $E_{MoSe_2}$ is the total energy of a 2H-MoSe$_2$ supercell with the same number of formula units as the intercalated system, $E_{Mn}$ is the energy per atom of bulk $bcc$ Mn, and $n_a$ is the number of Mn atoms intercalated.
\textcolor{black}{The intercalation energy per Mn atom decreases with increasing Mn concentration, from 2.39 eV/atom with at 3\% Mn to 1.96 eV/atom at 25\% Mn. This trend and the values are similar to copper and silver intercalation in MoS$_2$. \cite{guzman_Cu_Ag_intercalated_MoS2_2017}
Although the intercalation energy per Mn atom decreases slightly with increasing Mn concentration,
the total intercalation energy per MoSe$_2$ unit actually increases as a function of the Mn content from 0.149 eV at 3\% Mn to 0.980 eV per unit cell at 25\% Mn, indicating that intercalation becomes energetically less favorable the larger the Mn concentration.
\footnote{
The formation energies discussed here are obtained with LSDA+U and are systematically lower than those computed by LSDA, which however exhibit the same trends. Formation energies are summarized in Table S1.}}
In the hypothetical case of $x=1$, we find that the most stable phase of Mn$_1$MoSe$_2$ would be a 1T$^\prime$ with AA stacking (see Figure S2 in supporting information for the phonon dispersion curves--the absence of the imaginary frequency throughout the Brillouin zone indicates the structural stability), as opposed to the AB stacking of the 2H phase. This intercalation-induced structural transition is analogous to that observed in other metal-intercalated transition metal dichalcogenides, e.g. Li:MoS$_2$ \cite{Eda-2011jt,Cheng-2014fb}. For $x=0.25$ the transition to 1T$^\prime$ lowers the total energy by 0.178 eV per MoSe$_2$ formula unit.
\textcolor{black}{Conversely, at lower Mn concentration, for example x=0.125, the 2H phase has lower energy than the 1T$^\prime$ phase by 0.103 eV per MoSe$_2$ formula unit (formation energies per MoSe$_2$ formula unit are summarized in Table S1 in supporting information).
These calculations predict the 1T$^\prime$ phase to be stable at higher Mn concentration (x$\geq$0.25), and the 2H phase to remain stable at low Mn concentration (x$\leq$0.125). At ambient condition the system would then stay in the 2H phase upon intercalation at the low Mn concentrations of the experiment.}
Successful intercalation of manganese is confirmed by XRD, which shows an expansion of the host lattice constants and the unit cell volume (Table \ref{Table1}; Figure ~\ref{Fig1}(c)). This expansion is associated with insertion of atoms into the van der Waals gap \cite{Wang,Powell}. Expansion of the unit cell volume is measurable, with an almost 3\% increase even at low Mn concentrations. The volume change calculated using DFT is similar with $\sim$ 1-6\% expansion, depending upon the Mn intercalation concentration.
Experiments with very low Mn concentration show a mild $\sim 0.05$ \AA\ expansion of the in-plane lattice parameter ($a$) upon intercalation and a $\sim 0.02$ \AA\ expansion of the cross-plane lattice parameter ($c$).
DFT calculations for low concentrations of Mn in the 2H phase would predict an expansion of the $c$-axis only, while $a$ expands at higher concentration of Mn. In contrast, if intercalation is accompanied by a transition to the 1T$^\prime$ structure, $a$ expands and $c$ contracts. While a complete transition to 1T$^\prime$ cannot occur at such low Mn concentration, we argue that the $a$ expansion observed in experiments stems from local distortions around the intercalation sites, which also disrupt the long range crystalline order of the system, as suggested by the disappearance of the high order peaks in XRD (Figure~\ref{Fig1}(c)).
Raman spectra of MoSe$_2$ and Mn-MoSe$_2$ as a function of pressure are presented in Figure ~\ref{Fig2}. The observed in-plane modes are E$^2_{1g}$ at 168 cm$^{-1}$ and E$^1_{2g}$ at 286 cm$^{-1}$. The only Raman active out-of-plane mode is the A$_{1g}$ mode, which is initially at 242 cm$^{-1}$ \cite{Caramazza}. A peak at 354 cm$^{-1}$ is seen at pressures above 2.89 GPa and can be assigned as A$_{2u}$ \cite{Kim}. It is an infrared active phonon that is forbidden in Raman scattering \cite{agnihotri1973laser}, as confirmed by DFT calculations. Previous studies observe this peak at higher excitation energies at ambient conditions and reason that resonance effects allow this peak to be observable \cite{Cheong,Kim}. This mode has also been observed at higher pressures \cite{Yang,Zhao}. Intercalation of manganese and application of pressure may result in symmetry breaking allowing the forbidden mode to appear in Raman spectra. Symmetry breaking may also be responsible for the appearance of the E$^1_{2g}$ mode at higher pressures. With increasing pressure, both modes increase in scattering intensity \cite{Caramazza,Yang,Zhao}. Symmetry breaking with pressure is common and not unexpected. These additional peaks may have been observed in these high pressure studies over other investigations because of the high resolution grating used.
An additional feature not observed in MoSe$_2$ appears post decompression at approximately 250 cm$^{-1}$ in Mn-MoSe$_2$ (labeled * in Figure ~\ref{Fig2}(a)). The frequency of this mode matches a calculated longitudinal optical phonon mode in wurtzite MnSe, suggesting bonding between the Mn intercalant and the host with released pressure.\cite{Shen}
\textcolor{black}{Through DFT calculations we found that this mode is related to the formation of a bond between the host structure and the intercalant guest. This may, however, happen in different ways: either through a transition to the metastable 1T' structure or through the interstitial embedding of Mn into a MoSe$_2$ layer, which was recently proposed in MoSe$_2$ monolayer on the basis of DFT calculations.\cite{onofrio_novel_2017}}
In fact, the 250 cm$^{-1}$ peak appears in the calculation of 1T$^\prime$ Mn-intercalated MoSe$_2$ at any given concentration of intercalant from 0.06 to 0.25. The frequency corresponds to a collective optical mode that involves displacements of both Mn, Mo and Se atoms (Figure \ref{Fig2}(c) and Figures S3-S4).
\textcolor{black}{Since Mn atoms into interstitial sites might be another possible explanation for the onset of the new mode observed in experiment, we computed the phonon frequencies of Mn-MoSe$_2$ with Mn at the interstitial site at 12.5\%, 6\% and 3\% Mn concentrations.
With Mn at the interstitial site, the calculated in-plane lattice expansion rates are 2.9\%, 1.2\% and 0.7\% for Mn concentrations at 12.5\%, 6\% and 3\%, respectively (see Table \ref{Table1} for the optimized lattice parameters). The calculated in-plane expansion rates for Mn at interstitial are in good agreement with the in-plane lattice expansion rate 1.5\% measured in experiment at low Mn concentration of ~1-2\%. However, the frequency of the Mn-Se collective mode is sensitive to the Mn concentration. At 12.5\% of Mn, the calculated Mn-Se collective mode appears at $\sim$240 cm$^{-1}$ (see Figure S7), which is lower than new mode observed at 250 cm$^{-1}$ in the experiment. And at 6\% Mn concentration, the calculated Mn-Se collective mode appears at around 250 cm$^{-1}$, in very good agreement with the measured value (see Figure \ref{Fig2}(d) and Figure S8). But at 3\% Mn concentration, the Mn-Se collective vibrational mode blue-shifts to around 256 cm$^{-1}$ (see Figure S9 in supporting information). Given the linear shift of the frequency of Mn-Se mode with Mn concentration, one could not conclude that the new mode at 250 cm$^{-1}$ observed in experiment is solely due to the interstitial trapping of Mn.
Since the 250 cm$^{-1}$ peak appears in the calculation of 1T$^\prime$ Mn-intercalated MoSe$_2$ at any given concentration, we would conjecture that both (i) Mn bound in the vdW gap and (ii) Mn bound in interstitials are possible. However, it remains open whether Mn binds more in the vdW gap or in interstitials and there is no simple experimental route to directly address this hypothesis. These results suggest that Mn intercalation combined with compression and decompression processes may provide possible new routes to Mn interstitial doping of layered materials. \cite{onofrio_novel_2017,karthikeyan_which_2019}}
\begin{center}
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{Table2} Ambient pressure Raman frequencies ($cm^{-1}$), Raman shift pressure-derivative, $\frac{d\omega}{dP}$ ($\frac{cm^{-1}}{GPa}$), and isothermal mode Gr\"{u}neisen ($\gamma_T$) for observed modes calculated from Equation (\ref{gruneisen}).}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lcccccc}
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{{\bf E$_{1g}$}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{{\bf A$^1_{1g}$}} \\
& $\omega_o$ (cm$^{-1}$) & $\frac{d\omega}{dP}$ $\left(\frac{cm^{-1}}{GPa}\right)$ & $\gamma_T$ & $\omega_o$ (cm$^{-1}$) & $\frac{d\omega}{dP}$ $\left(\frac{cm^{-1}}{GPa}\right)$ & $\gamma_T$ \\
\hline
MoSe$_2$ ({Exp.}) & 167.8(6) & 1.68(8) & 0.46(2) & 240.6(6) & 2.9(1) & 0.54(2)\\
\textcolor{black}{MoSe$_2$ ({DFT})} & 171.02 & 1.15(2) & 0.307(5) & 246.24 & 2.24(4) & 0.416(7)\\
\hline
Mn$_{0.02}$MoSe$_2$ ({Exp.}) & 167.6(6) & 1.67(6) & 0.46(2) & 241.3(6) & 2.67(4) & 0.506(8)\\
\textcolor{black}{Mn$_{0.06}$MoSe$_2$ ({DFT})} & 168.20 & 0.96(7) & 0.261(2) & 244.44 & 2.6(4) & 0.486(3) \\
\textcolor{black}{Mn$_{0.125}$MoSe$_2$ ({DFT})} & 165.52 & 0.90(3) & 0.248(8) & 241.45 & 1.88(5) & 0.55(1) \\
\textcolor{black}{Mn$_{0.25}$MoSe$_2$ ({DFT})} & 158.16 & 0.5(2) & 0.144(1) & 207.21 & 2.1(2) & 0.463(3) \\
\hline
&\multicolumn{3}{c}{{\bf E$^1_{2g}$}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{{\bf A$_{2u}$}} \\
& $\omega_o$ (cm$^{-1}$) & $\frac{d\omega}{dP}$ $\left(\frac{cm^{-1}}{GPa}\right)$ & $\gamma_{T}$ & $\omega_o$ (cm$^{-1}$) & $\frac{d\omega}{dP}$ $\left(\frac{cm^{-1}}{GPa}\right)$ & $\gamma_T$ \\
\hline
MoSe$_2$ ({Exp.}) & 286(1) & 1.3(2) & 0.21(3) & 354.2(2) & 1.5(4) & 0.20(5)\\
\textcolor{black}{MoSe$_2$ ({DFT})} & 289 & 1.08 & 0.171(1) & 352.8 & 1.31 & 0.215(1)\\
\hline
Mn$_{0.02}$MoSe$_2$ ({Exp.}) & 285.2(5) & 1.5(1) & 0.23(2) & 351.5(5) & 2.0(1) & 0.26(1)\\
\textcolor{black}{Mn$_{0.06}$MoSe$_2$ ({DFT})} & 285.48 & 1.8(1) & 0.288(2) & 342.45 & 1.45(3) & 0.194(1) \\
\textcolor{black}{Mn$_{0.125}$MoSe$_2$ ({DFT})} & 279 & 1.29 & 0.240(2) & 331 & 0.899 & 0.1200(8) \\
\textcolor{black}{Mn$_{0.25}$MoSe$_2$ ({DFT})} & 269.76 & 1.4(2) & 0.237(2) & 316.01 & 0.1(4) & 0.0145(1) \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table*}
\end{center}
Figure ~\ref{Fig3} shows the measured (Figure ~\ref{Fig3}(b)) and calculated (Figure ~\ref{Fig3}(c)) vibrational frequencies for each Raman mode as a function of pressure. Figure ~\ref{Fig3}(a) shows the schematic of each vibrational mode. In Figure ~\ref{Fig3}(c), calculated Raman shifts are plotted alongside the linear fit of the experimental shifts in solid black and blue line for MoSe$_2$ and Mn-MoSe$_2$, respectively. DFT calculated Raman shifts are in very good agreement with experimental results. Though experimental data do not show significant Raman shifts upon Mn intercalation with low concentrations of Mn intercalant of $\sim$1-2 atomic \%, DFT calculations suggest that the frequency of the Raman shift would decrease with higher Mn concentration at ambient and relatively low pressure (please see Figure ~\ref{Fig3}, and Figure S1 in supporting information).
Table~\ref{Table2} provides the initial Raman frequency, $\omega_o$, at ambient pressure and the change in frequency with pressure ($\frac{d\omega}{dP}$). Despite a detectable change in the host unit cell volume (Table \ref{Table1}), with low concentrations of Mn intercalant of $\sim$1-2 atomic \%, the experimentally measured Raman frequency shift of each mode in MoSe$_2$ does not change significantly upon Mn intercalation (Table \ref{Table2}). This is not unusual. Experimentally, shifts of the Raman modes with intercalation are complex \cite{reed2019chemically}. Optical phonons can exhibit stiffening, softening, or no change with intercalation affected by the acceptor or donor nature of the intercalant as well as the associated change in the host volume with intercalation \cite{reed2019chemically}.
From the experimental data, the frequency of the Raman shift of each mode tends to decrease slightly, except the A$_{1g}$ mode. Though the frequency of the Raman shift of the A$_{1g}$ mode seems to increase by about 0.7 $cm^{-1}$ (Table \ref{Table2}), the measurement error is comparable to the size of the change. From DFT calculations, with higher Mn concentration, it looks more likely that the frequency of the Raman shift of each mode would decrease upon Mn intercalation at ambient and relatively low pressure (see Figure ~\ref{Fig3} and Figure S1 in supporting information). The experimental Raman shift of Mn-MoSe$_2$ and MoSe$_2$ modes show very similar linear pressure-dependent slope (\(\frac{d\omega}{dP}\)) (Figure ~\ref{Fig3}, Table \ref{Table2}). For pristine MoSe$_2$, the E$^1_{2g}$ and A$_{2u}$ modes do not show up until pressure of $\sim$ 2.89 GPa and remain with decompression \cite{agnihotri1973laser,sekine1980raman}. An anomalous mode shows up around 320 cm$^{-1}$. DFT calculations suggest this might be ascribed to the A$_{2u}$-E$^2_{2g}$ combination band. This mode does not appear in MoSe$_2$ until about $\sim$ 2.89 GPa, as indicated by a dashed red line in Figure \ref{Fig3}. This mode persists with decreasing pressure, which is consistent with the appearance of the A$_{2u}$ mode. It occurs in Mn-MoSe$_2$ at around $\sim$ 1 GPa. This peak shows no change with pressure as Raman shifts of both the E$^2_{2g}$ and the A$_{2u}$ increase. Thus, there is no significant pressure-derivative of this mode. All modes show phonon stiffening, increasing linearly with pressure, except the overtone mode A$_{2u}$-E$^2_{2g}$ at around 320 cm$^{-1}$ as discussed above.
Compressibility of MoSe$_2$ and MnMoSe$_2$ can be described using the isothermal mode Gr\"{u}neisen parameter ($\gamma_T$):
\begin{equation} \label{gruneisen}
\gamma_T = -\left( \frac{d \ln \omega}{d \ln V}\right)_T = \frac{B_T}{\omega_0}\left(\frac{d \omega}{dP}\right)_T
\end{equation}
where $B_T$ is the isothermal bulk modulus. Using the third-order Birch-Murnaghan equation of state to fit \emph{in situ} high-pressure MoSe$_2$ X-ray diffraction data, Aksoy\cite{Aksoy} \textit{et al.} calculated $B_T$ as 45.7 $\pm$ 0.3 GPa. DFT calculations here find a bulk modulus of 47.9 GPa for MoSe$_2$, close to experiments \cite{Aksoy}, and 51.3 GPa for Mn$_{0.125}$MoSe$_2$. Mn-intercalation should yield a notable decrease in the isothermal compressibility. With pressure, the empty van der Waals gap should compress first. By adding more atoms to the gap, Mn-intercalation subsumes space otherwise available for compression. Thus, intercalation makes the material less compressible.
Using these values of $B_T$, along with the relevant values of $\omega_0$ and $\frac{d\omega}{dP}$, the mode Gr\"{u}neisen is calculated from Equation \ref{gruneisen} for all modes (Table ~\ref{Table2}).
Calculated isothermal mode Gr\"{u}neisen parameters in most cases exhibit similar trends as experiments, however with large uncertainties, mostly due to shortcoming related to the approximated density functional.
However, the overall agreement between Raman measurements and DFT calculations suggests that the adopted level of theory accounts well for the charge redistribution upon intercalation, and DFT calculations can be used to predict the electronic structure of Mn-intercalated MoSe$_2$.
\subsection{Electronic Band Structure}
Figure~\ref{Fig4} shows the electronic band structures of pristine MoSe$_2$, Mn$_{0.03}$MoSe$_2$ and Mn$_{0.125}$MoSe$_2$ at 0 GPa and $\sim$ 7 GPa. For pristine MoSe$_2$, with the increase of pressure, the band gap narrows from 0.8 eV at 0 GPa to 0.4 eV at 6.66 GPa (Figure \ref{Fig4}(d)). Upon intercalation of Mn, the overall host structure is retained (Figure \ref{Fig4}(b) and (c)).
At higher concentrations of Mn intercalant (Mn$_{0.125}$MoSe$_2$, Figure \ref{Fig4}(c)) the Fermi level lies deeper in the conduction band. While pressure tends to close the gap between the valence and the conduction band also in intercalated systems, the position of the Fermi level and the carriers concentration are determined by doping and do not change significantly upon compression (Figure \ref{Fig5}(a)).
The transition to the 1T$^\prime$ phase would lead to the metallization of the system, with substantial change of the band structures and spin-polarized density of states. (See Figure S5 in supporting information for the spin-polarized electronic band structure for 1T$^\prime$ phase Mn-intercalated MoSe$_2$.)
\textcolor{black}{Conversely, when Mn gets trapped in the interstitial of the MoSe$_2$ layer, the system remains semiconducting with a localized spin state in the gap, below the Fermi level (Figure S10).
The calculated projected density of states (PDOS) are shown in Figure \ref{Fig4} for pristine and Mn-intercalated MoSe$_2$ at 0 GPa and at $\sim$ 7 GPa. Mn intercalation in MoSe$_2$ shows clear signatures of spin polarization. At low concentrations of Mn (Mn$_{0.03}$MoSe$_2$), there is clear separation of the density of spin-up and spin-down electrons which suggest spin polarized current is possible in Mn-intercalated MoSe$_2$. With pressure, the spin separation between the spin-up and spin-down states is reduced.
At 0 GPa the overall magnetic moment of the Mn$_{0.03}$MoSe$_2$ and Mn$_{0.125}$MoSe$_2$ supercell is 5.00 $\mu_B$. With pressure (at 6.83 GPa), the overall magnetic moments reduce slightly to 4.61 $\mu_B$ and 4.54 $\mu_B$ for Mn$_{0.03}$MoSe$_2$ and Mn$_{0.125}$MoSe$_2$, respectively.
\begin{figure*}[tb!]
\centering
\includegraphics{Fig4X.pdf}
\caption{\label{Fig4} (a) Brillouin zone schematic of MoSe$_2$. (b) Mn$_{0.03}$MoSe$_2$ structure and (c) Mn$_{0.125}$MoSe$_2$ structure at 0 GPa with spin density and polarization; red and blue isosurfaces represent positive and negative spin density, respectively. (d) Electronic band structure of MoSe$_2$ at 0 GPa (above) and 6.66 GPa (below). Projected density of states are given for either pressure to the right of the band structure. The band structure and PDOS of (e) Mn$_{0.03}$MoSe$_2$ and (f) Mn$_{0.125}$MoSe$_2$ show that Mn intercalation metallizes the material moving the Fermi level into the conduction band. Manganese states are spin polarized in the conduction band and the population of states increases with pressure as the band gap narrows.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics{Fig5X.pdf}
\caption{\label{Fig5} (a) Spin up and spin down carrier concentration as a function of Mn concentration at 0 GPa and 6.83 GPa. (b) Total spin-polarized carrier concentration (the difference between spin up and spin down carrier concentrations).}
\end{figure}
The calculated total (n-type) carrier concentrations increase with increasing Mn, proportional to Mn concentration, and do not shift significantly with pressure (Figure \ref{Fig5}(a)). 2D semiconductors with dilute magnetic manganese impurities should have conduction completely ruled by spin polarization \cite{Ashwin,Sato}. One would expect that with increasing manganese concentration and increasing pressure, the concentration of spin-polarized carriers would also change with competing effects due to spin overlap. The spin interaction should increase as the manganese concentration increases (Figure \ref{Fig4}(c)), thus decreasing the spin-polarized carrier concentration. As pressure is increased, one would expect a similar effect, as the spin overlap and spin interaction also increase. Calculations of the spin-polarized carrier concentration as a function of pressure and manganese concentration (Figure \ref{Fig5}(b)) reveal that the concentration of net spin-polarized carriers depends on both pressure and Mn concentration. Small concentrations of Mn show the greatest amount of spin-polarized carriers, with 3 atomic \% (close to that achieved by experiment) as a maximum. It is interesting that at low concentration of Mn (3\%), pressure reduces the spin-polarized carrier concentration, while at higher concentration (above approximately 6\%), pressure increases the spin-polarized carrier concentration (Figure \ref{Fig5}(b)).
The local structural transition, suggested by the appearance of the 250 cm$^{-1}$ peak in the Raman spectrum upon decompression, would substantially affect the electronic structure of the intercalated material and spin separation.
(See Figure S5 for the band structure and spin-polarized density of states of 1T$^\prime$ phase of Mn-intercalated MoSe$_2$, and Figure S6 for the spin-polarized carrier concentration.
It’s interesting that both 2H and 1T$^\prime$ phases show similar trends in spin polarization as a function of Mn concentration, and the spin-polarized carrier concentration for 1T$^\prime$ phase of Mn-intercalated MoSe$_2$ could reach up to $\sim 1\cdot10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$ at around 11\% of Mn concentration.)
These competing effects reveal the chemical and thermodynamic tunability of MoSe$_2$ spin-polarized carriers. The predicted concentration of spin polarized carriers, up to $\sim 2\cdot10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$ in 2H phase and $\sim 1\cdot10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$ in 1T$^\prime$ phase, could possibly be observed by Hall measurements and is significantly high to enable spintronic applications.
\section{Conclusions}
This work illustrates the ability to adjust the phonon frequencies and the electronic band structure with Mn intercalation and pressure. The appearance of a new phase is found associated with Mn guest bonding with the host MoSe$_2$. These results suggest intercalation systems under high pressure can lead to unique bonding environments and, thus, new materials. These findings set precedent for further investigation into Mn-intercalation of 2D layered materials as an alternative to dilute magnetic doping. The robustness of this system is demonstrated by both intercalated and non-intercalated pressure-dependent phonon frequencies. DFT calculations show that Mn-intercalation causes the Fermi level to shift into the conduction band, rendering the system an n-type semiconductor or nearly metallic. Manganese intercalated MoSe$_2$ retains a total magnetic moment that corresponds to that of single Mn atoms. Unpaired spins contribute to the density of states near the Fermi level, thus potentially enabling spin currents. Pressure reduces the spin carrier density at low Mn concentration, but it slightly increases it at higher Mn concentration. The spin polarized behavior predicted in intercalated Mn-MoSe$_2$ here has the potential to surpass that of doped systems, with the advantage that transition metal atoms may be intercalated post-growth. These results provide insights into how concentration limitations in dilute manganese doped MoSe$_2$ may be bypassed by exploiting the van der Waals gap of a layered material through intercalation and high pressure. We expect that resistivity studies as a function of pressure and magnetic field may further elucidate the nature of Mn spin-polarized carriers in this host.
\section*{Supplementary Material}
{DFT calculated Raman shifts with higher Mn concentrations shown as a function of pressure and Mn concentration, in comparison with experimentally determined Raman shifts; detailed information for constructing Mn-intercalated MoSe$_2$ structures for DFT calculations with various Mn concentrations in 2H and 1T$^\prime$ phases \textcolor{black}{with Mn in vdW gap, as well as 2H phase with Mn at interstitial site of MoSe$_2$}, and the corresponding Monkhorst-Pack $k$-point meshes \textcolor{black}{and formation energy}; phonon dispersion curves for 1T'-Mn$_1$MoSe$_2$; force vectors of the mode at $\sim$ 250 cm$^{-1}$ in 1T$^\prime$-Mn$_{0.06}$MoSe$_2$ and 1T$^\prime$-Mn$_{0.25}$MoSe$_2$; spin-polarized electronic band structure and PDOS of the 1T$^\prime$ phase of Mn-intercalated MoSe$_2$ at 0 GPa; total spin-polarized carrier concentration for 1T' phase of Mn-intercalated MoSe$_2$ as a function of Mn concentration at 0 GPa and 6.83 GPa; \textcolor{black}{force vectors of the Mn-Se collective mode in 2H-Mn$_{0.125}$MoSe$_2$, 2H-Mn$_{0.06}$MoSe$_2$ and 2H-Mn$_{0.03}$MoSe$_2$ with Mn at interstial site of MoSe$_2$; spin-polarized electronic band structure and PDOS of 2H-Mn$_{0.03}$MoSe$_2$ with Mn at interstial site of MoSe$_2$.}}
\textcolor{black}{\section*{Data availability}
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
}
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank Bryan P. Moser and Daniel R. Williams for XRD patterns and SEM images, respectively. This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research (N00014-16-1-3161).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
\noindent{\bf{\em I. Introduction.}}
The response of a black hole (BH) to an incoming wave has been studied for decades, in the frame where the BH is at rest~\cite{Matzner,Starobinski2:1973,Teukolsky:1974yv,Unruh:1976fm,Sanchez:1977si,MTB,Glampedakis:2001cx,Macedo:2013afa,Crispino:2009xt,Leite:2016hws,Leite:2017zyb,Leite:2018mon,Benone:2018rtj}.
Such interaction is crucial to understand how BHs react to their environment, what types of signatures are imprinted
by strong-field regions and their possible observational effects.
It was shown that non-spinning BHs absorb low-frequency plane waves. For a BH of mass $M$, the low-frequency absorption cross-section of scalars is equal to the horizon area, $\sigma=16\pi (GM/c^2)^2$. High frequency plane waves, on the other hand, are absorbed with a cross-section $\sigma=27\pi (GM/c^2)^2$~\cite{MTB,Macedo:2013afa,Das:1996we}. Although spinning BHs also absorb plane waves, they can amplify certain, low-frequency, angular modes through superradiance~\cite{zeldovich1,zeldovich2,Brito:2015oca} (which also acts on charged BHs~\cite{Benone:2019all}). Superradiance extracts energy away from such BH and provides important signatures of possible fundamental ultralight fields in nature~\cite{Brito:2015oca,Arvanitaki:2016qwi,Brito:2017wnc,Ikeda:2019fvj}.
A significant fraction of BHs are found in binaries, such as those seen by the LIGO/Virgo observatories~\cite{LIGOScientific:2018mvr}.
In addition, most BHs are moving at high speeds relative to our own frame. Thus, an understanding of the interaction between waves and moving BHs is a necessary ingredient to explore the enormous potential of such sources~\cite{Bernard:2019nkv,Wong:2019kru}.
It was recently pointed out that BH binaries could amplify incoming radiation through a gravitational slingshot mechanism for light~\cite{Bernard:2019nkv}. The argument requires only {\it one} BH moving with velocity $v$, and a photon reflected at an angle of $180 ^{\circ}$ by the strong-field region (such orbits do exist~\cite{MTB}). Then, a trivial change of frames and consequent blueshift yields
\begin{equation}
E_f^{\rm peak}=\frac{1+v/c}{1-v/c}\,E_i\,,\label{max_amp}
\end{equation}
for the energy gain by the photon during the process. This is also the blueshift by photons reflecting off a mirror moving with velocity $v$. In addition, effective field theory methods were recently used to suggest that BH binaries could amplify radiation through superradiance~\cite{Wong:2019kru}. Again, the argument seems to imply that a single moving BH is able to amplify incoming radiation.
The purpose of the present work is to study the scattering of a plane wave off a moving BH. Clearly, such study involves ``only'' a Lorentz transformation of the well-known results for BHs at rest. Our purpose is to generalize to BH physics the classical problem of scattering off a moving mirror or a sphere, addressed by Sommerfeld and others~\cite{Sommerfeld:1964,Restrick:1968}.
Our results are surprisingly simple but non-trivial, interesting and -- as far as we are aware -- new.
\noindent{\bf{\em II. Amplification in the weak field regime.}}
Consider a BH of mass $M$ and a high-frequency photon, described by null geodesics in the BH spacetime, with a large impact parameter $b\gg M$ and moving in the $-z$ direction.
The photon energy is $E_i$ in the frame where the BH is moving in the $+z$ direction with velocity $v$.
A boost in the $+z$ direction brings us to the BH frame, and blueshifts the wave to $E_1=\sqrt{(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)}E_i$.
In this frame, the photon is deflected by the Einstein angle $\alpha=4GM/(bc^2)$. Now boost back to the $-z$ direction, where due to relativistic aberration the angle with the $z-$axis is $\alpha'\sim \alpha\sqrt{(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)}$, and the frequency is now
$E_f=E_1/(\gamma(1+v\cos\alpha'/c))$. One finds the weak field energy amplification for such photons
\begin{equation}
E_f^{\rm weak}=\left(1+\frac{8G^2M^2v}{b^2c^4(c-v)}\right)E_i\,.\label{deflection_weak}
\end{equation}
If a plane wave is passing through, one can see that the $1/r$ nature of the gravitational potential causes the total extracted energy to diverge; this phenomenon is akin to the divergence of the scattering cross section of the Coulomb potential~\cite{Merzbacher}.
For a body of size $R_{\rm min}$ moving in a plane wave of density $\rho$ and extent $R_{\rm max}$, we find the total energy loss per second
\begin{equation}
d E/dt=-\frac{16\pi G^2M^2v^2\rho}{c^2(c-v)}\log{\left(R_{\rm max}/R_{\rm min}\right)}\,.
\end{equation}
\noindent{\bf{\em III. Amplification in the strong-field regime.}}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,height=7.5cm,keepaspectratio]{Amplification_impactV2.png}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Energy gain of a (high frequency) photon scattered off a moving BH. The photon has initial energy $E_i$, impact parameter $b$ and scatters off a BH moving with velocity $v$ in the opposite direction. The final energy is $E_f$. The peak of each curves agrees, to numerical precision, with Eq.~\eqref{max_amp}. For impact parameter $b<3\sqrt{3}M$, the photon is absorbed by the BH.}
\label{fig:amplification_null}
\end{figure}
The energy {\it loss} of radiation when a body travels through a co-propagating stream is {\it smaller} than the energy {\it gain} when counter-propagating. This effect gets more pronounced at relativistic speeds and in the strong-field regime. We therefore focus exclusively on amplification by counter-moving waves.
The strong-field regime gives rise to large deflections in the photon's trajectory, and consequent large energy amplification, with a peak value
described by Eq.~\eqref{max_amp}. Henceforth, for simplicity, we use units with $c=G=1$. To compute rigorously the energy amplification at all impact parameters, we study null geodesics in the spacetime of a moving BH. In isotropic coordinates the Schwarzschild metric is given by
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-\frac{(1-A)^2}{(1+A)^2}dt^2+(1+A)^4\left(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2\right)\,,
\end{equation}
where $A=M/(2\rho)$ and $\rho^2=x^2+y^2+z^2$. Here, the standard Schwarzschild radial coordinate is related with $\rho$ via $r=\rho(1+A)^2$. Perform a boost along the $z$ direction, by letting
\begin{equation}
\hat{t}=\gamma (t+v z)\,,\quad \hat{z}=\gamma(z+vt)\,,\quad \hat{y}=y\,,\quad \hat{x}=x\,.\label{boost}
\end{equation}
This yields the metric describing a BH moving with velocity $v$ and Lorentz factor $\gamma^2=1/(1-v^2)$.
It is now a simple question to study the scattering of a plane wave of null particles: follow initially counter-moving null geodesics, of impact parameter $b$ (i.e., null geodesics with $\hat{y}(\hat{t}=0)=b$ and $\dot{\hat{x}}=\dot{\hat{y}}=0$ at large distances) and monitor their energy $E=v^\mu\,p_\mu$, where $p$ is the four-momentum associated with the geodesic and $v^\mu=(1,0,0,0)$ the four-velocity of the observer.
Our results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:amplification_null} for different velocities $v$. There is a minimum impact parameter $b=3\sqrt{3}M$, below which the photon simply falls onto the BH. As we increase the impact parameter starting from this value, the energy gain peaks very rapidly at a value precisely (to within numerical precision) described by Eq.~\eqref{max_amp}: these are photons which are reflected back by the geometry. There are in fact a multitude of impact parameters for which photons are reflected back: for
\begin{eqnarray}
b/M&=&b_1/M=5.356\pm 0.003\,,\\
b/M&=&b_2/M=5.199\pm 0.002\,,
\end{eqnarray}
the photon circles the BH exactly half an orbit (with a distance of minimum approach of $r/M=3.521\pm 0.001$) and one-and-a-half orbit (with a distance of minimum approach of $r/M=3.001\pm 0.001$), respectively; for impact parameters closer to the critical value a larger number of orbits around the BH are possible. At large impact parameters, our numerical results are well described by the weak-field result~\eqref{deflection_weak}.
\noindent{\bf{\em IV. The high-frequency absorption cross-section.}}
\begin{table}[b]
\begin{tabular}{cc||cc}
\hline
\hline
$v$ & $\sigma^{\rm abs}_{20}/(\pi M^2)$ &$v$ & $\sigma^{\rm abs}_{20}/(\pi M^2)$ \\
\hline
\hline
0.00 & 27.0 &0.30 & 2.1 \\
0.01 & 26.4 &0.50 &-31.1\\
0.02 & 25.8 &0.80 &-205.6\\
0.10 & 20.6 &0.90 &-496.8\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}.
\caption{Absorption cross-section for a BH moving with velocity $v$ onto a constant flux wave. The incoming wave has a finite spatial extent in the direction transversal to the motion, forming a cylinder of radius $R=20M$. Notice that the absorption cross-section becomes negative at large velocities, indicating that BH transfers energy to the scattered waves.}
\label{table_basis}
\end{table}
In a scattering experiment, where a plane wave hits a moving BH head-on, one can define an absorption cross-section
\begin{equation}
\sigma^{\rm abs}=\frac{E_{\rm in}-E_{\rm out}}{E_{\rm in}/A_{\rm in}}\,,
\end{equation}
where $E_{\rm in}$ is the total energy in the plane wave, $E_{\rm out}$ is the total energy in the outgoing wave after interaction with the BH, and $A_{\rm in}$ is the surface area that the incident plane occupies. As we showed, due to the long-range character of gravity, the absorption cross-section above diverges~\cite{Merzbacher}. We define instead
a finite quantity $\sigma^{\rm abs}_{20}$, computed by sending a constant flux wave centered at the BH, but with finite transverse size of radius $R=20M$. This quantity is shown in Table~\ref{table_basis} for null particles.
The cross-section $\sigma^{\rm abs}_{20}$ is to a good approximation equal to its geometric-optics counterpart $\sigma=27\pi M^2$
for BHs at rest. It starts decreasing when the BH moves for the reasons discussed previously: photons with impact parameter $b=b_1$ are given energy. Our results seem to be well described by
\begin{equation}
\frac{\sigma^{\rm abs}_{20}}{\pi\,M^2}\sim 27-a_1v-a_2\frac{v(1+v)}{(1-v)}\,,\label{fit_cross}
\end{equation}
with $a_1=28.8,\, a_2=29.1$, which reproduces the numerical points between $v=[0,0.99]$ to within $1\%$ accuracy.
The coefficients $a_1,\, a_2$ grow when the incident surface radius $R$ grows (for example, a calculation of $\sigma^{\rm abs}_{10}$, for $R=10$, leads to $a_1=18.0,\,a_2=20.0$; such cross section also becomes negative at large $v$).
From the previous discussion, it could also be anticipated that the absorption cross section becomes negative at large enough velocities.
Given that the only scale in the traverse directions is that of the BH, $M$, photons with an impact parameter $b\sim b_1$ within a width $\sim M$ will also be amplified. On the other other hand, all photons with impact parameter smaller than $3\sqrt{3}M$ are absorbed. Thus, the cross absorption section is expected to be of order $\sim 27 \pi M^2-2\pi \times 3\sqrt{3}M^2\left((1+v)/(1-v)-1\right)$. For large velocities, this (order-of-magnitude) argument predicts a negative cross section $\sim -10\pi M^2 (1+v)/(1-v)$, in rough agreement with the numerical fit~\eqref{fit_cross}.
\noindent{\bf{\em V. The absorption cross-section of moving BHs.}}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,height=7.5cm,keepaspectratio]{dsigma_dbV2.png}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Numerical values of the quantity $\frac{d \sigma}{d b}$ obtained through (null geodesic) geometric-optics, and wave-scattering with $\omega M =17$. The two methods are in clear agreement for $b\gg M$.}
\label{fig:dsigma}
\end{figure}
Consider now the extension of the previous results to arbitrary low frequency waves, where geometric optics no longer provides an adequate description of the scattering phenomenon. Let us focus on a minimally coupled scalar field theory described by the action
\begin{equation}
S= \int d^4x \sqrt{-g} \,g_{\mu \nu} \nabla^\nu\phi(\nabla^\mu\phi)^* \,.
\end{equation}
For most situations of interest, the scalar field is but a small perturbation and can be studied in a fixed spacetime geometry -- the so-called test field approximation.
A well-studied problem concerns the scattering on a Schwarzschild geometry describing a BH at rest. In this setup, consider the ansatz
\begin{equation} \label{ansatzscalar}
\phi_{\omega_1} (t, r, \theta, \varphi)=\sum_{l, m}K_l^m e^{-i \omega_1 t}\, Y_l^{m}(\theta, \varphi) \frac{\psi_{\omega_1}(r)}{r} \,,
\end{equation}
where $K_l^m$ are complex coefficients, $Y_l^m$ the spherical harmonics, and the radial function $\psi_{\omega_1}$ also carries an $(l,m)$ dependence.
Define $f\equiv 1-2M/r$ and a tortoise coordinate $r_*$ satisfying $dr/dr_*=f$. The massless Klein-Gordon equation yields
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2}{d r_*^2} \psi_{\omega_1} +\left[\omega_1^2 -f\left(\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}+\frac{2M}{r^3} \right)\right] \psi_{\omega_1}=0\,.\label{scalartifec}
\end{equation}
This equation admits the asymptotic solution
\begin{equation} \label{incscalar}
\psi_{\omega_1}(r \to +\infty)\sim I \, e^{-i \omega_1 r_*}+ R \, e^{+i \omega_1 r_*} \,,
\end{equation}
with $I$ and $R$ the complex-valued amplitudes of the incident and reflected spherical waves, respectively.
The transmitted spherical wave at the BH horizon can be written as
\begin{equation}
\psi_{\omega_1}(r \to 2M)\sim T\, e^{-i \omega_1 r_*}\,.\label{transscalar}
\end{equation}
The quantities $(R/I)$ and $(T/I)$ appearing in the above solution are complex functions of $l$ and $\omega_1 M$, but, for simplicity, we omit this in our notation.
It is well-known that a (distorted) plane wave can be written as a partial wave expansion, which asymptotically reads~\cite{Matzner,landau1981quantum}
\begin{align}
e^{-i \omega_1(t+ z_*)}\simeq -\sum_{l, m} \frac{e^{-i \omega_1 (t+r_*)}}{2 i \omega_1 r} &\sqrt{4\pi (2l+1)} Y_l^0(\theta,\varphi)\\
&+ \text{outgoing wave} \nonumber \,,
\end{align}
where $z_* \equiv r_* \cos \theta$.\\
Choosing $K_l^m\equiv - \delta_0^m\sqrt{4\pi (2l+1)}/(2 i \omega_1 I)$, one can rewrite the asymptotic behaviour of $\phi_{\omega_1}$ as
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\omega_1}(r\to+\infty)\sim e^{-i \omega_1 (t+ z_*)}+\sum_{l, m} \frac{\mathcal{R}}{r} Y_l^m e^{-i \omega_1 (t - r_*)}\,,\label{incscalarplane}
\end{equation}
with $\mathcal{R}$ a complex function of $R/I$. Thus, with this choice of $K_l^m$, Eq.~\eqref{ansatzscalar} describes the scattering of scalar plane waves (propagating along the $-z$ direction) by a BH at rest.
The stress-energy tensor of a massless scalar field is
\begin{equation}
T_{\mu \nu}= \frac{1}{2}\,\left( \partial_\mu \phi^* \partial_\nu \phi + \partial_\mu \phi\, \partial_\nu \phi^*\right)- \frac{1}{2}\,g_{\mu \nu} \partial^\alpha \phi^* \partial_\alpha \phi \,.
\end{equation}
So, the net energy $\mathcal{E}$ (measured by a stationary observer at infinity) entering a spherical surface $S_r$ of radius $r$, per unit of time, is
\begin{equation} \label{scalarfluxc}
\partial_{t}\mathcal{E} =\int_{S_{r}} d\Omega\, r^2 T_{t r} \,.
\end{equation}
In the limit $r\to +\infty$, this gives
\begin{equation}
\partial_{t}\mathcal{E}= \sum_{l}\pi(2l+1) \left(1-\left|\frac{R_l(\omega_1 M)}{I_l(\omega_1 M)}\right|^2\right)\,.
\end{equation}
One can define the (energy) absorption cross section
\begin{equation}
\sigma^{\text{abs}} \equiv \frac{\partial_{t}\mathcal{E}}{(\omega_1)^2}\,,
\end{equation}
where we have used that the energy density current of the incident plane waves is $(\omega_1)^2$. Numerical evaluation of the last expression shows that, for a BH at rest, the absorption cross section is $\sigma^\text{abs} \simeq 27 \pi M^2$, a well-known result~\cite{MTB,Das:1996we}.
Focus now on the problem of a scalar plane wave scattering off a Schwarzschild BH moving with velocity $v$ along the $+z$ direction. For simplicity, let us consider that the wave is propagating along the $-z$ direction. The Lorentz transformation of a plane wave is a (Doppler shifted) plane wave; by the principle of covariance, applying a (global) Lorentz boost of velocity $v$ along the $-z$ direction to the solution~\eqref{ansatzscalar}, which describes the scattering of a plane wave of frequency $\omega_1$ by a BH at rest, one gets a solution of the equations of motion describing the scattering of a plane wave of frequency $\omega=\omega_1 \sqrt{1-v}/\sqrt{1+v}$ by a BH moving with velocity $v$. In mathematical terms: by applying the Lorentz boost \eqref{boost}
to Eq.~\eqref{ansatzscalar}, we get a solution of the Klein-Gordon equation, which, in spherical coordinates centered at the BH,
$\hat{x}=\hat{r} \sin \hat{\theta} \cos \hat{\varphi}$, $\hat{y}=\hat{r} \sin \hat{\theta} \sin \hat{\varphi}$, $\hat{z}-v \hat{t}= \hat{r} \cos \hat{\theta}$,
has the asymptotic behaviour
\begin{equation}\label{incscalarplaneboost}
\phi_{\omega_1}(\hat{r}\to+\infty)\sim e^{-i \omega (\hat{t}+ \hat{z}_*)}+\sum_{l, m} \frac{\mathcal{R}}{r} Y_l^m e^{-i \omega_1 (t - r_*)}\,,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
&&t=\frac{\hat{t}}{\gamma}- \gamma v \cos \hat{\theta}\, \hat{r}\,,\qquad (r, r_*)=\sqrt{\xi}(\hat{r},\hat{r}_*) \,, \nonumber\\
&&\cos \theta=\frac{\gamma \cos \hat{\theta}}{\sqrt{\xi}}\,, \,\, \quad \qquad \hat{z}_* \equiv v \hat{t}+ \hat{r}_* \cos \hat{\theta} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{r}_*&\equiv& \hat{r}+\frac{2M}{\sqrt{\xi}(1-v)}\log\left(\frac{\hat{r} \sqrt{\xi}}{2 M}-1\right)\,, \nonumber \\
\xi &\equiv& 1+\left(\gamma^2-1\right) \cos^2\hat{\theta}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, this solution describes the scattering of a (distorted) plane wave of frequency $\omega$ by a moving BH.
The asymptotic solution~\eqref{incscalarplaneboost} can also be written as
\begin{align}
\phi_{\omega_1} \sim &\sum_{l} \frac{i}{2 \omega_1} \frac{2 l +1}{\hat{r} \sqrt{\xi}} e^{-i \omega_1 \left(\frac{\hat{t}}{\gamma}-\gamma v \cos \hat{\theta}\,\hat{r}\right)} \times \nonumber \\
&P_l\left(\frac{\gamma \cos \hat{\theta}}{\sqrt{\xi}}\right)\left(e^{-i \omega_1 \hat{r}_* \sqrt{\xi}}+ \frac{R_l(\omega_1 M)}{I_l(\omega_1 M)}e^{i \omega_1 \hat{r}_* \sqrt{\xi}}\right) \,,
\end{align}
with $P_l$ the Legendre polynomial of the first kind. After a laborious calculation, and using Ref.~\cite{tableofintegrals} for angular integrations, one finds
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma^\text{abs}&=&\sum_{l}\frac{\pi (2 l+1)^2}{ \omega^2 \gamma v} P_l\left(\frac{1}{v}\right) Q_l\left(\frac{1}{v}\right) \left(1-\left|\frac{R_l(\omega_1 M)}{I_l(\omega_1 M)}\right|^2\right)\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{l'<l} \frac{2 \pi }{\omega^2 \gamma v}(2 l'+1)(2 l+1)P_{l'}\left(\frac{1}{v}\right) Q_l\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\times \nonumber \\
&&\left((-1)^{1+l'+l}+ \text{Re}\left[\frac{R_{l'}^*(\omega_1 M)}{I_{l'}^*(\omega_1 M)}\frac{R_{l}(\omega_1 M)}{I_l(\omega_1 M)}\right]\right) \,,\label{cross_section}
\end{eqnarray}
where $Q_l$ is the Legendre polynomial of the second kind, and we have used that the particle-number current of the incident plane waves is $\omega$. There is angular mode mixing in $l$ due to the fact that the boosted spherical harmonics lose their orthogonality properties. Note that
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{v\to 0} \frac{1}{v}P_{l'}\left(\frac{1}{v}\right) Q_l\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)= \frac{\delta_{l'}^{l}}{2l+1} \,,
\end{equation*}
which shows that one recovers known results when $v\to 0$.
Numerical evaluation of Eq.~\eqref{cross_section} shows qualitatively the same behaviour obtained with geometric-optics. In particular, our results indicate that the second sum of Eq.~\eqref{cross_section} diverges logarithmically with $l$. Using the interpretation $b\simeq l/\omega_1$, which is valid for large $l \gg 1$, this can be restated as a divergence in the impact parameter $b$; a well-known consequence of the long range character of gravity. For a quantitative comparison, we consider high-frequency ($\omega M \gg 1$) plane waves, and truncate the sums in~\eqref{cross_section} at $l=\omega_1 R$; describing an incident beam with maximum impact parameter $R$ (see section {\em IV}).
We computed the (finite) quantity $d \sigma^{\rm abs}/d b$ for $b\gg M$, which for waves is approximated by
\begin{equation}
\frac{d \sigma^{\rm abs}}{d b}(l \omega_1) \sim \omega_1\left[ \sigma^\text{abs}(l+1)-\sigma^\text{abs}(l)\right] \,.
\end{equation}
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dsigma}, the numerical values obtained for this quantity by the two approaches are in very good agreement for $b\gg M$, as one expects.
\noindent{\bf{\em VI. Appearance of a moving black hole.}}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,height=7.5cm,keepaspectratio]{Image_BH_v09V2.png}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Appearance of a BH moving in a bath of cold (and counter-moving) radiation. The BH is moving along the $z$-axis towards us at a speed $v=0.9$. The colors denote energy flux intensity on a screen placed a short distance away from the BH. The peak energy flux is ten times larger than that of the environment. The bright ring has width $\sim M$ for all boost velocities $v$. For very large $v$ even a randomly-moving gas of photons will leave a similar observational imprint, since counter-moving photons will be red-shifted away.}
\label{fig:image}
\end{figure}
The large amplification for strongly-deflected photons implies that a rapidly moving BH looks peculiar. Downstream photons are deflected and blueshifted upstream. Thus a rapidly moving BH in a cold gas of radiation will be surrounded by a bright ring of thickness $\sim M$. A possible image of a moving BH is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:image}. For a stellar-mass BH moving at velocities $v\sim 0.9996$ through the universe, the ambient microwave cosmic background will produce a kilometer-sized ring (locally $\sim 5000$ times hotter and brighter than the CMB) in the visible spectrum.
\noindent{\bf{\em Discussion.}}
The scattering of massless waves is a fundamental process in physics.
We showed that the universal nature of gravity, together with the $1/r$ behavior of Newton's law
causes moving BHs to amplify plane waves, with a divergent cross-section. This is the only known example
of a negative absorption cross section of neutral fields.
We also showed that even a narrow beam of light can extract energy from a rapidly (counter-) moving BH.
These results apply to any massless wave in the high frequency regime.
For BHs at rest, the absorption cross-section of low-frequency electromagnetic or gravitational waves vanishes, which may imply that
amplification happens sooner at low frequencies, for higher spins. This remains to be understood.
These results may have little practical application, since BHs are not expected to be traveling through our universe
at relativistic speeds: mergers of BHs or neutron stars lead at best to ``kicks'' in the remnant of $v\lesssim 10^{-2}$~\cite{Campanelli:2007ew,Brugmann:2007zj,Gonzalez:2007hi,Campanelli:2007cga} for astrophysical setups (even the high-energy merger of two BHs leads ``only'' to kicks of $v\lesssim 0.05$~\cite{Sperhake:2010uv}). For these velocities, the effects dealt with here
are only important when the BH moves in very extended media. Nevertheless, our results show how nontrivial strong gravity effects can be.
On the other hand, the mechanism for energy extraction could be relevant in the context of fundamental light fields, with confined low-energy excitations~\cite{Bernard:2019nkv}. A BH binary in this setup could slow down and transfer some of its energy to the fundamental field, giving rise to potentially observable effects. However, since energy is being transferred to radiation of higher frequency, the process stalls eventually, since sufficiently energetic excitations are unbound.
The overall result of energy transfer to external radiation echoes that of the inverse Compton scattering for fast-moving electrons in a radiation field~\cite{Dolan:private,Beckmann}. In this latter process, a nearly-isotropic radiation field is seen as extremely anisotropic to the individual ultrarelativistic electrons. Relativistic aberration causes the ambient photons to approach nearly head-on; Thomson scattering of this highly anisotropic radiation reduces the electron's kinetic energy and converts it into inverse-Compton radiation by upscattering radio photons into optical or $X$-ray photons. The process we discuss here, involving BHs, is special: BHs are natural absorbers, but the universal -- and strong, close to the horizon -- pull of gravity can turn them also into overall amplifiers.
\noindent{\bf{\em Acknowledgments.}}
We are indebted to Sam Dolan and Jos\'e Nat\'ario for useful feedback and comments.
V.C. acknowledges financial support provided under the European Union's H2020 ERC
Consolidator Grant ``Matter and strong-field gravity: New frontiers in Einstein's
theory'' grant agreement no. MaGRaTh--646597.
R.V.\ was supported by the FCT PhD scholarship SFRH/BD/128834/2017.
This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 690904.
We acknowledge financial support provided by FCT/Portugal through grant PTDC/MAT-APL/30043/2017.
The authors would like to acknowledge networking support by the GWverse COST Action
CA16104, ``Black holes, gravitational waves and fundamental physics.''
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4}
|
\subsection{Introduction} \label{elliott_kish_2015_groups_sec_01}
Let $\mathbb{Q}^*$ denote the multiplicative group of positive rationals and, for fixed integers $a>0$, $A>0$, $b$, $B$ that satisfy $\Delta = aB - Ab \ne 0$, $\Gamma$ its subgroup generated by all but finitely many of the fractions $(an+b)/(An+B)$, $n = 1, 2, \dots$.
In the present paper the authors review their recent publication \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup}, c.f. \href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03263}{arXiv:1602.03263 (2016)}, in which harmonic analysis on $\mathbb{Q}^*$ determines the quotient group $\mathbb{Q}^*/\Gamma$, in particular the positive rationals $r$ that have a product representation
\[
r = \prod_{n_0 < n \le k} \left( \frac{an+b}{An+B} \right)^{\varepsilon_n}, \qquad \varepsilon_n = 0, \pm 1,
\]
the integers $n$ to exceed a given bound, $n_0$, terms in the product with $\varepsilon_n = 0$ understood to have the value 1.
We correct a number of misprints, draw attention to sharpenings implicit in the text and give a detailed account of a corresponding non-intuitive simultaneous, i.e. two dimensional, product representation. A further representation illustrates consistency of the results with those of the first author's 1985 Grundlehren volume \cite{Elliott1985}.
A major waystation is the following result.\\
\noindent {\bf \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup} Theorem 2}. \emph{Let integers $a>0$, $A>0$, $b$, $B$ satisfy $\Delta = aB - Ab \ne 0$. Set $\delta = 6(a,A)(aA)^2\Delta^3$.}
\emph{If a completely multiplicative complex-valued function $g$ satisfies}
\[
g\left( \frac{an+b}{An+B} \right) = c \ne 0
\]
\noindent \emph{on all but finitely many positive integers $n$, then there is a Dirichlet character $\modd{\delta}$ with which $g$ coincides on all primes that do not divide $\delta$.}\\
In the notation of the \emph{Constraints} section of \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup}, define $\alpha = (a,b)$, $\beta = (A,B)$, $a_1 = a\alpha^{-1}$, $b_1 = b\alpha^{-1}$, $A_1 = A\beta^{-1}$, $B_1 = B\beta^{-1}$, $\Delta_1 = a_1B_1 - A_1b_1$, so that $\Delta = \alpha\beta\Delta_1$. We begin by showing that the value of $\delta$ in \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup} Theorem 2 may be reduced to $6\Delta_1$.\\
\emph{Step 4} of the treatment in \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup} employs the following result.\\
\noindent \emph{\bf \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup} Lemma 6}. \emph{Let the integers $u_j >0$, $v_j$, $(u_j, v_j) = 1$, $j = 1, 2$, satisfy $\Delta_1 = u_1v_2 - u_2v_1 \ne 0$. Assume that the primitive Dirichlet character $\chi_D$ satisfies}
\[
\chi_D\left( \frac{ u_1k + v_1}{ u_2k + v_2} \right) = c \ne 0,
\]
\noindent \emph{for all $k$ such that $(u_jk + v_j, D) = 1$, $j = 1, 2$, and that there exists a $k_0$ for which this holds, hence a class $k_0 \modd{D}$.}
\emph{Then $D \mid 6(u_1, u_2)\Delta_1$.}
The argument for this lemma reduces to the case that $D$ is a prime-power, $p^t$, and from the hypothesis derives one of three outcomes:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(i)$] $p^t \mid (u_1, u_2)$;
\item[$(ii)$] $p^t \mid (u_1v_2 - u_2v_1)$ if $p \ge 3$;
\item[$(iii)$] $p^{t-1} \mid (u_1v_2 - u_2v_1)$ if $p = 2$ or 3.\\
\end{enumerate}
\emph{The first of these outcomes implies the second, and the factor $(u_1, u_2)$ in the statement of \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup} Lemma 6 is superfluous}.
Note that in the proof of \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup} Lemma 4, the assertion on page 927 that: \emph{we may set all but one $g(p) = 0$} should read with $g(p) = 1$; or $h(p) = 0$.\\
The subsection \emph{Determination of $G$; practical matters} of \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup}, Section 3, introduces the sums
\[
\eta(\beta, \gamma) = \ell^{-\alpha} \sum_{u \modd{\ell^{\alpha + \max(\beta, \gamma)}}} \chi\left( \frac{a_1u + b_1}{\ell^\beta} \right) \overline{\chi}\left( \frac{A_1u + B_1}{\ell^\gamma} \right)
\]
where $\ell$ is a prime, $\ell^\alpha \| \delta$, $\chi$ is a Dirichlet character $\modd{\ell^\alpha}$, it is understood that $\ell^\beta \mid (a_1u + b_1)$, $\ell^\gamma \mid (A_1u + B_1)$, and $\ell^{\min(\beta, \gamma)} \mid \Delta_1$.
It is noted, \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup} p. 936, that a necessary condition for $\chi$ to be a candidate for the character $g$ on $\mathbb{Q}^*/\Gamma$ that is under consideration is that $|\eta(\beta, \gamma)|$ should have the value of the sum $\eta(\beta, \gamma)$ formed with $\chi$ a principal character. The following simple result shows that this forces the non-zero summands in $|\eta(\beta, \gamma)|$ to have the same value.
\begin{lemma*} \label{elliottkish2019charactersumslemma}
If $c_j$, $j = 1, \dots, k$ lie in the complex unit disc and satisfy $\left| \sum_{j=1}^k c_j \right| = k$, then the $c_j$ lie on the unit circle and are equal.
\end{lemma*}
\emph{Proof}. For some real $\theta$, $\sum_{j=1}^k c_j = ke^{i\theta}$. Then $\sum_{j=1}^k (1 - \textup{Re}\, c_j e^{-i\theta}) = 0$ and the summands are non-negative.
Consideration of the case $\eta(0,0)$ shows that any Dirichlet character $\modd{\ell^\alpha}$ candidate for a character on $\mathbb{Q}^*/\Gamma$ will have a constant value on the reduced fractions $(a_1u + b_1)/(A_1u + B_1)$, $u \modd{l^\alpha}$ and after the updated \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup} Lemma 6, satisfy $\ell^\alpha \mid 6\Delta_1$.
\noindent \emph{Remark}. A closer reading of \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup} Lemma 6 shows that either $\ell^\alpha \mid A_1$, or $p \le 3$, $p \nmid u_1u_2$ and $p^{t-1} \mid \Delta_1$.
The improvement from $\delta = 6(a,A)(aA)^2\Delta^3$ to $\delta = 6\Delta_1$ in \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup} Theorem 2 follows at once.\\
\noindent \emph{Reduction of simultaneous product representations}
For integers $a>0$, $A>0$, $b$, $B$ that satisfy $\Delta = aB - Ab \ne 0$, let $(\mathbb{Q}^*)^2$ denote the direct product of two copies of $\mathbb{Q}^*$, and $\Gamma$ its subgroup generated by the elements $(an+b)\otimes (An+B)$, $n$ an integer exceeding a given $n_0$.
A character on the quotient group $(\mathbb{Q}^*)^2/\Gamma$ extends to a pair of completely multiplicative functions $g_j$, $j = 1, 2$, on $\mathbb{Q}^*$ that satisfy $g_1(an+b)g_2(An+B) = 1$, $n > n_0$; c.f. Elliott \cite{Elliott1985}, Chapter 15.
The reduction argument given in \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup} Section 5 has a misprint in the last line; a correct version may be found in Elliott \cite{Elliott1985}, Chapter 19.
We begin with
\[
g_1(an+b) g_2(An+B) = c_1 \ne 0, \quad n > n_0,
\]
where the coefficients $a$, $b$, $A$, $B$ as positive
Replacing $n$ by $bBn$,
\[
g_1(aBn + 1)g_2(Abn+1) = c_2 \ne 0.
\]
Replacing $n$ by $(aB+1)n+1$
\[
g_1(aBn + 1)g_2(Ab[(aB+1)n+1]+1) = c_3.
\]
Eliminating between these relations,
\[
g_2(Ab(aB+1)n + Ab+1)\overline{g}_2(Abn+1) = c_4 \ne 0.
\]
Note that the corresponding discriminant
\[
\det\left(\begin{array}{cc} Ab(aB+1) & Ab+1 \\ Ab & 1 \end{array} \right)
\]
has the value $Ab\Delta$. Any Dirichlet character that represents $g_2$ in the manner of \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup} Theorem 2 will be to a modulus $\delta$ that divides $6Ab\Delta$.
The requirement that $b$, $B$ be positive may be obviated as follows.
Replacing the variable $n$ by $n+k$ for a positive integer $k$ moves the coefficient quartet $a, b, A, B$ to $a$, $ak+b$, $A$, $Ak+B$. This does not affect that values of $(a,b)$, $(A,B)$, or the discriminant. For all sufficiently large $k$, $\delta \mid 6A(ak+b)\Delta$. Consecutive values of $k$ show that $\delta \mid 6Aa\Delta$; choosing $k$ to be a multiple of $\delta$, that $\delta \mid 6Ab\Delta$. Hence $\delta \mid 6A(a,b)\Delta$.
In the notation of \emph{Constraints} $g_2$ is essentially represented by a Dirichlet character to a modulus dividing $6A_1\Delta_1$.
Likewise a Dirichlet character representing $g_1$ will be to a modulus dividing $6a_1\Delta_1$.
\noindent \emph{Remark}. If $g_j$ is a character on the whole group of rationals and $aA<0$, we may employ $g_j(-1)$ to replace $a$, $A$ by $-a$, $-A$, as necessary. The outcome of the above argument is then formally the same.
We give an example.\\
\begin{theorem*} \label{elliottkish2019charactersumstheorem}
There are simultaneous representations
\[
a = \prod_{n_0 < n \le k} (5n+1)^{\varepsilon_n}, \quad b = \prod_{n_0 < n \le k} (5n-1)^{\varepsilon_n}, \quad \varepsilon_n = 0, \pm 1
\]
of positive integers $a$, $b$ if and only if $a \equiv 1 \modd{5}$, $(ab)^2 \equiv 1 \modd{5^2}$.
In particular, there are infinitely many simultaneous representations
\[
26 = \prod_{j=1}^k (5n_j + 1)^{\varepsilon_j}, \quad 26 = \prod_{j=1}^k (5n_j - 1)^{\varepsilon_j}
\]
with $\varepsilon_j = \pm 1$, the integers $n_j$ exceeding $n_0$.\\
\end{theorem*}
In this case the general character
\[
g_1 \otimes g_2 : (\mathbb{Q}^*)^2 \to (\mathbb{Q}^*)^2/\Gamma \to \text{unit circle},
\]
coincides on the primes not dividing 30 with a pair of Dirichlet characters to a modulus dividing 300. We may follow in outline the argument given in the two practical sections of \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup}, the pair $g(an+b)$, $\overline{g}(An+B)$ there replaced by $g_1(an+b)$, $g_2(An+B)$; in effect reduce ourselves to the consideration of
\[
\chi(5n+1)\widetilde{\chi}(5n-1) = c \ne 0
\]
where $\chi$, $\widetilde{\chi}$ are possibly distinct Dirichlet characters to each of the moduli $2^2$, 3, $5^2$. We consider these cases in turn.\\
\noindent \emph{Modulus 3}. Choose $t$ to satisfy $5t \equiv 1 \modd{3}$ and set $n = t + 3k$. Corresponding to $\eta(0,1)$ with $\alpha = 1$, $\beta = 0$, $\gamma = 1$, we see that
\[
\chi(2)\widetilde{\chi}(5k + 3^{-1}(5t-1))
\]
has a constant value when no zero. Summing over $k \modd{3}$ shows this not to be tenable unless $\widetilde{\chi}$ is principal.
Likewise, $\chi$ is principal.\\
\noindent \emph{Modulus $2^2$}. Choose $t$ to satisfy $5t \equiv 1 \modd{2^3}$ and set $n = t + 2^3k$. Corresponding to $\eta(1,3)$ with $\alpha = 2$, $\beta = 1$, $\gamma = 3$, we see that
\[
\chi(2)\widetilde{\chi}(5k + 2^{-3}(5t-1))
\]
has a constant value when not zero. Summing over $k \modd{2^2}$ shows this to be untenable unless $\widetilde{\chi}$ is principal.
Likewise $\chi$ is principal.
\noindent \emph{Remark}. The closer reading of \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup} Lemma 6 slightly simplifies these cases.
At this stage, for suitable characters $\chi$, $\widetilde{\chi}$ to the modulus $5^2$, $g_1\overline{\chi}\otimes g_2\overline{\widetilde{\chi}}$ has a constant value on the elements $(5n+1)\otimes(5n-1)$ defining $\Gamma$, and is 1 on all primes save possibly $p = 2, 3$; by the argument at the end of \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup} Lemma 5, on those also.\\
\noindent \emph{Modulus $5^2$}. This case is perhaps the most interesting.
If $w$ is a generator of the Dirichlet character group $\modd{5^2}$, there are representations $\chi = w^u$, $\widetilde{\chi} = w^v$ for positive integers $u$, $v$. The hypothesis that $\chi(5n+1)\widetilde{\chi}(5n-1)$ has a constant value becomes that when not zero
\[
w(( 5n+1)^u (5n-1)^v)
\]
has a constant value. Since
\[
(5n+1)^u(5n-1)^v \equiv (-1)^v[ 1 + 5(u-v)n] \modd{5^2},
\]
for a suitable non-zero constant $c_0$,
\[
\chi(5n+1)\widetilde{\chi}(5n-1) = c_0w( 5(u-v)n + 1).
\]
The character $w$ is certainly primitive and for a suitable non-zero gaussian sum $\theta$ has a representation
\[
w(s) = \theta^{-1} \sum_{r=1}^{5^2} \overline{w}(r) \exp( 2\pi i 5^{-2} rs).
\]
In particular,
\[
\sum_{n=1}^{5^2} w( 5(u-v)n+1) = \theta^{-1} \sum_{r=1}^{5^2} \overline{w}(r) \exp(2\pi i 5^{-2} r) \sum_{n=1}^{5^2} \exp(2\pi i 5^{-1} r(u-v)n).
\]
The summand $\overline{w}(r) = 0$ unless $5 \nmid r$, in which case the innersum over $n$ is zero unless $5 \mid (u-v)$.
The characters $\chi$, $\widetilde{\chi}$ differ multiplicatively by a character $\modd{5}$.
Without loss of generality we assume $\chi = \widetilde{\chi}\chi_5$ to be such a representation. Then
\[
1 = g_1(5n+1)g_2(5n-1) = \widetilde{\chi}(5n+1)\widetilde{\chi}(5n-1) = \widetilde{\chi}((5n)^2 - 1);
\]
$\widetilde{\chi}(-1) = 1$. The character $\widetilde{\chi}$ has order dividing 10; it is the square of an arbitrary character $\modd{5^2}$.
Conversely, such a pair $g_1 = \widetilde{\chi}\chi_5$, $g_2 = \widetilde{\chi}$ satisfies the requirement $g_1(5n+1)g_2(5n-1) = 1$.
This determines the dual group of $(\mathbb{Q}^*)^2/\Gamma$.
The pair $a \otimes b$ belongs to the principal class of $(\mathbb{Q}^*)^2/\Gamma$ if and only if for all pairs $\widetilde{\chi}\chi_5 \otimes \widetilde{\chi}$ with $\widetilde{\chi}$ of order dividing 10, $\widetilde{\chi}(ab)\chi_5(a) = 1$.
Since $\chi_5$ may be any character $\modd{5}$, with $\widetilde{\chi}$ principal $a \equiv 1 \modd{5}$ is required.
Then $\widetilde{\chi}(ab) = 1$ for $\widetilde{\chi}\modd{5^2}$ that satisfy $\widetilde{\chi}(-1) = 1$; $\chi((ab)^2) = 1$ for all $\chi\modd{5^2}$; $(ab)^2 \equiv 1 \modd{5^2}$.
In this section we note that any prime $p \ge 5$ dividing the parameter $\delta$ that occurs in Theorem 2 necessarily divides $(a_1, A_1)$, hence $(a,A)$.
If such a prime satisfies $p^r \| \delta$, then $p^r \mid \Delta_1$. Since any Dirichlet character to a prime-power modulus will induce a character to a modulus that is a higher power of that same prime, without loss of generality we may assume that $p^r \| \Delta_1$.
If now $p \nmid a_1$ and $p^{2r} \mid (a_1n + b_1)$, then $p^r$ divides $A_1(a_1n+b_1)+\Delta_1$, i.e. $a_1(A_1n+B_1)$, hence $A_1n+B_1$. The terms in the sum $p^r \eta(2r,r)$ are well defined and when non-zero have a constant value. This remains valid even if the underlying Dirichlet character $\chi \modd{p^r}$ is no longer primitive.
Setting $n = t + p^{2r}k$, where $a_1t + b_1 \equiv 0 \modd{p^{2r}}$, the corresponding summands become
\[
\chi\left( p^{-2r}(a_1t+b_1) + a_1k\right) \overline{\chi}\left( p^{-r} (A_1t+B_1) \right).
\]
Note that $p^{r+1} \nmid (A_1t+B_1)$, otherwise $p^{r+1} \mid \Delta_1$.
Summing over a complete residue class system $k \modd{p^r}$ we see that $\chi$ must be principal.
With emphasis on $\overline{\chi}$ we may draw the same conclusion if $p \nmid A_1$.
A slight modification of the argument shows the conclusion also to be valid if $p = 3$ unless $3 \| \delta$ and $3 \nmid a_1A_1\Delta_1$.
Suppose now that $p^r \| \delta$ and the character $\modd{p^r}$ component of the representing Dirichlet character $\modd{\delta}$ is principal. Set $\delta_0 = p^{-r}\delta$. If $\left( (a_1s+b_1)(A_1s+B_1),\delta_0 \right)=1$, then
\[
g\left( \frac{a_1\delta_0 n + a_1s+b_1}{A_1\delta_0n + A_1s+B_1} \right) = \chi_{\delta_0}\left( \frac{a_1s+b_1}{A_1s+B_1} \right)
\]
provided the numerator and denominator of the argument of $g$ are not divisible by $p$. In particular, c.f. \cite{elliottkish2017harmonicgroup} Lemma 4, second part, $g \overline{\chi}_{\delta_0}(p) = 1$ so long as $p \nmid (a_1, A_1)$.
Without loss of generality we may assume that any prime greater than 3 that does not divide $(a_1, A_1)$ also does not divide $\delta$.
Save for the possible exception noted above, this also holds in the case $p=3$.
In the corresponding simultaneous representation via $(a_1n+b_1) \otimes (A_1n+B_1)$ and employing a pair of Dirichlet characters $\chi_\delta \otimes \chi_\gamma$, $\delta \mid 6a_1\Delta_1$ and has prime factors exceeding 3 only if they divide $a_1$, $\gamma \mid 6A_1\Delta_1$ and has prime factors exceeding 3 only if they divide $A_1$, $\Delta_1 = a_1B_1 - A_1b_1$, as before.
In the example $a_1 = 3$, $b_1 = 1$, $A_1 = 5$, $B_1 = 2$ this permits only that $\chi_\delta$ may be any Dirichlet character $\modd{3}$, $\chi_\gamma$ the principal character $\modd{5}$. Given $n_0$, there is a simultaneous representation
\[
a = \prod_{n_0 < n \le k} (3n+1)^{\varepsilon_n}, \quad b = \prod_{n_0 < n \le k} (5n+2)^{\varepsilon_n}, \quad \varepsilon = 0, \pm 1,
\]
if and only if $a \equiv 1 \modd{3}$, $(b,5) = 1$.
This accords with the results of \cite{Elliott1985}, Chapter 19.
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Neuroimaging data is very heterogeneous. In its most general form, it may comprise information in plenty different formats, containing from single scalar quantities to strings and multidimensional data arrays. The wide variety of existing protocols, nomenclatures, and instruments make data sharing a demanding challenge in the field. Addressing this problem is crucial for facilitating collaborations between colleagues and centres, as well as to enhancing reproducibility and transparency of results. Moreover, it becomes a crucial organisational aspect for arranging large databases based on numerous subjects, each of them scanned with multiple imaging instruments providing complementary information of brain structure and function. Commonly found examples are the Human Connectome project \cite{VanEssen2013} in the US and the UK Biobank \cite{Bycroft2018} and WAND \cite{WAND} studies in the UK.
To tackle this issue, Gorgolewsky et al. \cite{gorgolewski2016brain} proposed the Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) format. BIDS is a community-led standard for organising and describing neuroimaging data and behavioural information, maximising their usability and, consequently, open data practices. In few years, it has found an increasingly important role in neuroimaging communities, including fMRI \cite{gorgolewski2016brain}, MEG \cite{Niso2018}, and EEG \cite{Pernet2019}. However, despite of the efforts of the community to define the standard, it has not been widely embraced by the MRI community in general. The reason, we think, is mostly based on the lack of a comprehensive and simple-to-use tool for managing and converting MRI raw data to BIDS format. Existing tools in the field (see Section~\ref{sec_dcm2bids}) lack of some key functionalities required by scientists, such as the possibility to modify an existing BIDS structure (e.g. by adding new data) or to automatically categorise the medical images without additional information other than the raw data.
To solve this problem, we propose the BIDS Toolbox, an open source software tool that simplifies the adoption of BIDS for researchers and institutions working the field of neuroimaging. In this paper, we present the design and early prototype of a software tool for facilitating the creation and manipulation of BIDS datasets. This includes the automatic categorisation of MRI data with heuristics based on MR sequence parameters, as well as the possibility to modify existing datasets by adding new data and/or parameters. The tool can be used as a service for automated data workflows at the institution level as well as through a web interface that makes the use of the tool accessible from any modern web browser in a point-and-click manner.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section~\ref{sec_bids_software} provides a brief review of the relevant tools in the BIDS software ecosystem, highlighting the limitations that may be attempting its widespread utilisation. Section \ref{sec_toolbox} describes the BIDS Toolbox, whose performance is evaluated and presented in Section \ref{sec_eval}. Finally, Section \ref{sec_concl} draws some conclusions and describes future lines of work.
\section{BIDS software ecosystem} \label{sec_bids_software}
\subsection{BIDS dataset creators} \label{sec_dcm2bids}
Up to our knowledge, there are five publicly available software packages to create BIDS structures based on MRI in DICOM format, all written in Python. These tools require some external metadata in addition to the images, and use the dcm2niix~\cite{LI201647} tool for the conversion of images from DICOM to NIfTI format (as required by BIDS). The tools are:
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Dcm2Bids}\footnote{Dcm2Bids - https://github.com/cbedetti/Dcm2Bids}: it allows the conversion of one session of brain imaging for one subject at a time, with a session defined as all the acquisitions between the entry and exit of the participant in the MR scanner. It requires to set configuration options in a JSON file prior the conversion.
\item \underline{bidskit}\footnote{bidskit - https://github.com/jmtyszka/bidskit}: it permits to convert a set of several sessions for several subjects into BIDS in one go. However, it requires to arrange the DICOM files in a particular way, and to run the tool twice over the same dataset to complete the conversion, needing manual editing of a JSON configuration file between the two runs.
\item \underline{bidsify}\footnote{bidsify - https://github.com/spinoza-rec/bidsify}: similar to bidskit, it requires to arrange the source DICOM files in a particular way prior to conversion, and filling a configuration file but in YAML format.
\item \underline{Heudiconv}\footnote{Heudiconv - https://github.com/nipy/heudiconv}: it takes DICOM files as input and produces NIfTI files arranged into structured directory layouts as output, not necessarily BIDS. It requires the user to provide a heuristic that describes the desired conversion.
\item \underline{dac2bids}\footnote{dac2bids - https://github.com/dangom/dac2bids}: similar to bidsify. It requires the manual creation of the folders structure. In addition, it only supports DICOM files from the latest Siemens scanners (VD13+).
\end{itemize}
All these tools share the goal of creating BIDS datasets from DICOM files, but have different limitations that represent a burden for their adoption or for their integration in automated image processing pipelines. For this end, we propose the BIDS Toolbox as a software that simplifies the adoption of BIDS.
\subsection{Other tools}
In addition to the aforementioned software packages, there are other BIDS related tools in the community. One of them is PyBIDS\footnote{PyBIDS - https://github.com/bids-standard/pybids}, a library that allows to read and extract information from a BIDS dataset using Python. Another is the BIDS Validator\footnote{BIDS Validator - https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-validator}, which is employed for checking the compliance of a given dataset with the BIDS standard and optionally with some of its extensions. This tool conforms the first sanity check in BIDS data processing workflows (e.g.~\cite{SAMPERGONZALEZ2018504}).
\section{The BIDS toolbox} \label{sec_toolbox}
The BIDS Toolbox aims at being a software piece that is easy to integrate in existing data centres and research environments willing to adopt BIDS as a format to share neuroimaging data. To that end, we chose common design practices in software engineering and adopted a microservice design, which enables modularity and facilitates integration with other services, like an image management platform (XNAT\cite{Marcus2007}, LORI\cite{Das2012},...).
The Toolbox functionality is exposed through a REST API and uses JSON as communication format. In the current implementation of the Toolbox, we have used and modified parts of the open source software \textit{bidskit} (described in Section \ref{sec_dcm2bids}) for some of the dataset-creation features of the toolbox, and the Flask\footnote{Flask - http://flask.pocoo.org} framework to create the web services. All the codebase is Python v3.
\subsection{REST endpoints}
The Toolbox currently exposes the following REST endpoints:
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{createBids}: creates a dataset with DICOM files and optional additional information about the images as input. This function creates a hidden \texttt{.bidstoolbox} file inside the dataset with Toolbox-related metadata to enable further update operations.
\item \underline{updateBids}: updates a BIDS dataset with new DICOM files or additional information about the data. To this end, the toolbox reads the hidden \texttt{.bidstoolbox} file created by the previous function.
\end{itemize}
Both functions receive as input a message in JSON format with the structure defined in Listing \ref{sample-json}. The "scans" key contains an entry per scan session and subject with the path to a folder containing the DICOM files, and the "output" key is the path where the resulting BIDS dataset should be stored. We assume that these paths could be network mounted shares.
The "metadata" key of the JSON message contains entries for additional information, e.g., "modalities" is used to describe the types of scan for the DICOM files and "datasetDescription" can be used to add a set of key/value pairs to the DatasetDescription.json file of the dataset.
\lstset{
basicstyle=\normalfont\ttfamily,
morestring=[b]",
morestring=[d]'
}
\begin{lstlisting}[label=sample-json,caption=Sample JSON for The BIDS Toolbox]
{
"scans":{
"01":{
"01":"/path/to/DICOMs/for/sub01/ses01",
"02":"/path/to/DICOMs/for/sub01/ses02"
}
},
"output":"/path/to/store/dataset",
"metadata":{
"modalities":
[{
"tag": "scan01",
"modality": "anat",
"type": "T1w"
}],
"datasetDescription":{
"key01":"value01",
"key02":"value02"
}
}
}
\end{lstlisting}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{scan_types.png}
}
\caption{Algorithm to detect scan type of a series of images. FA stands for Flip Angle, IR for Inversion Recovery, SS for Scanning Sequence, TE for Echo Time, TI for Inversion Time and TR for Repetition Time. Time values are in miliseconds.}
\label{fig_detector}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Detecting the scan modality}
In the design of the BIDS Toolbox we assumed that the user might not know the scan modality and type for a given set of DICOM files, or that the Toolbox could be part of a processing pipeline which could not have that information. Given that this information is required to create a BIDS dataset, we developed an algorithm that infers the type of scan based on the properties of the DICOM files.
The dataset creation process in the BIDS Toolbox starts with the conversion of raw DICOM files to NIfTI using dcm2niix. After this, the Toolbox starts the scan type detection algorithm. Its logic is depicted schematically in Figure \ref{fig_detector} as a flowchart. The starting point is the output directory of dcm2niix for a particular series of scans. The Toolbox first checks in this directory if dcm2niix has created the metadata \textit{.bval} and \textit{.bvec} files with the gradient directions and diffusion weighting for the scans. If so, the modality/type of scan is defined as diffusion. If not, the Toolbox reads the Flip Angle (FA), Inversion Recovery (IR), and, if available, the Scanning Sequence (SS), Echo Time (TE), Inverstion Time (TI) and Repetition Time (TR) from the sidecar JSON file created by dcm2niix.
Using FA, IR, SS, TE, TI and TR, the algorithm will go through a series of conditions to determine the modality and type of scans. However, it could be that the provided information is not sufficient to determine the modality and type, e.g., if the Scanning Sequence is RM (Research Mode). In these cases, the Toolbox stops the dataset creation process and returns an error message to the user with the series name that was unable to classify. The conditions and threshold values for the described algorithm have been gathered from several online sources of literature \footnote{Radiopaedia - https://radiopaedia.org/articles/mri-sequence-parameters} \footnote{MRIquestions - http://mriquestions.com/bold-pulse-sequences} and in-house expertise.
\subsection{Web front-end}
In order to ease the use of Toolbox, we have developed a web interface that allows the users to create/update BIDS datasets using a standard web browser. It presents a simple web page that guides the user through the dataset creation/update process. We provide a screenshot of the first part of the dataset creation form in Figure \ref{fig_gui}.
The web interface works on top of the described REST API and has been developed using HTML 5, Bootstrap 4.0 and jQuery 3.2. In the current implementation of the Toolbox runs on the same Flask server as the REST services.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{gui_screenshot}}
\caption{Screenshot of the web front-end for the BIDS Toolbox.}
\label{fig_gui}
\end{figure*}
\section{Evaluation} \label{sec_eval}
We tested the response-time of the BIDS Toolbox in two different environments: a Virtual Machine (VM) running Ubuntu 18.10 with 1 CPU @ 2.5 Ghz and 4 GB of RAM (hosted by VirtualBox), and a workstation running Ubuntu 16.04 with an Intel Xeon CPU E5-1620 v2 (4 cores @ 3.70 GHz) and 32 GB of DDR3 RAM.
We utilised the public LGG-1p19qDeletion dataset \cite{erickson2017data}, which contains DICOM files of MRIs from pre-operative examinations performed in 159 subjects with Low Grade Gliomas (WHO grade II \& III). We used the DICOM files corresponding to the first 50 patients (code LGG-104 to code LGG-320, 727.6 MB) to test the BIDS dataset creation (\textit{createBids} function) and the DICOM files for the next 10 patients (code LGG-321 to LGG-338, 152.9 MB) to asses the inclusion of new files to the dataset (\textit{updateBids} function).
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Runtime (seconds) for the BIDS Toolbox functions.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|r|c|r|}
\cline{2-5}
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Virtual machine} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Workstation} \\ \cline{2-5}
& Total & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Dcm2niix} & Total & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Dcm2niix} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{createBids} & \multicolumn{1}{r|}{53.87} & 50.28 & \multicolumn{1}{r|}{29.11} & 27.00 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{updateBids} & \multicolumn{1}{r|}{13.18} & 10.98 & \multicolumn{1}{r|}{6.83} & 5.85 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{evaluation_tab1e}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Results for the tests are shown in Table \ref{evaluation_tab1e}. All the presented time figures are the average of 10 runs. Far from being an exhaustive performance assessment, these figures aim to show the high dependence in computation with dcm2niix: In all of the tests, more than the 80\% of the runtime is devoted to the conversion of raw DICOM files to NIfTI.
We compiled dcm2niix with Cloudflare's implementation of zlib\footnote{Cloudflare zlib - https://github.com/cloudflare/zlib} as in all of our tests provided the best performance compared to dcm2niix's internal minigz or pgiz to create the compress NIfTI files.
\section{Conclusions \& Future work} \label{sec_concl}
We presented the BIDS Toolbox, a software tool that aims at easing the adoption of BIDS by the neuroimaging community. It is based on the open source software \textit{bidskit} and it exposes its functionality through a REST API. The main advantages are its capability to create BIDS structures directly from DICOM data with few additional inputs, its flexibility for updating existing BIDS structures, and its easy-to-use graphical user interface. We presented an evaluation of the performance of the toolbox and described how the majority of the runtime is dominated by \textit{dcm2niix} in two different test environments. We believe that the BIDS Toolbox will facilitate to spread the use of BIDS formats within the neuroimaging community.
Future work will span in two directions: the first one is improving and validating the accuracy of the scan modality/type detection algorithm. Its accuracy will be assessed with different types of datasets and conditions, including edge cases. The second line of future work will be to improve the quality of the BIDS Toolbox as a software, moving it from a prototype status to being a production ready tool. This will imply further testing with more datasets, replacing the integrated Flask server with more stable alternatives like Gunicorn, and assessing its scalability.
The BIDS Toolbox is publicly available in CUBRIC's GitHub repository \footnote{The BIDS Toolbox - https://github.com/cardiff-brain-research-imaging-centre/bids-toolbox}.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
Authors would like to thank Greg Parker from CUBRIC for his feedback on the scan modality detection algorithm.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Proofs for Main Framework (\ref{sec:The-Divide-and-Couple-Framework})}
\trivdivide*
\begin{proof}
Since $\pmc\pp{\omega,x}\geq0$ and $\pmc\pp x=\int\pmc(\omega,x)d\omega=\E_{Q(\wr)}R(\wr)=p(x)$,
it is a valid distribution. Thus, one can apply the standard ELBO
decomposition to $\qmc\pp{\omega}$ and $\pmc\pp{\omega,x}$. But
since $R=\pmc/\qmc$, it follows that $\E_{\qmc\pp{\wr}}\log\pars{\pmc\pp{\wr,x}/Q\pp{\wr}}=\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\log R\pp{\wr}$.
\end{proof}
\divandcouple*
\begin{proof}
First, note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\pmc\pp{z,x} & = & \int\pmc\pp{z,\omega,x}d\omega\\
& = & \int Q\pp{\omega}R\pp{\omega}a\pp{z\vert\omega}d\omega\\
& = & \E_{Q\pp{\wr}}R\pp{\wr}a\pp{z\vert\wr}\\
& = & p\pp{z,x},
\end{eqnarray*}
so $\pmc\pp{z,\omega,x}$ is a valid augmentation of $p\pp{z,x}.$
Next, observe for $\pmc$ and $Q$ as defined,
\[
\frac{\pmc\pp{z,\omega,x}}{Q\pp{z,\omega}}=R\pp{\omega}.
\]
Applying the ELBO decomposition from \ref{eq:ELBO-decomp} to $Q\pp{z,\omega}$
and $\pmc\pp{z,\omega,x}$ we get that
\[
\log\pmc\pp x=\E_{Q\pp{\zr,\wr}}\bracs{\log\frac{\pmc\pp{\zr,\wr,x}}{Q\pp{\zr,\wr}}}+\KL{Q\pp{\zr,\wr}}{\pmc\pp{\zr,\wr\vert x}}.
\]
Using the observations above and the chain rule of KL-divergence means
that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\log p\pp x & = & \E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\log R\pp{\wr}+\KL{Q\pp{\zr,\wr}}{\pmc\pp{\zr,\wr\vert x}}\\
& = & \E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\log R\pp{\wr}+\KL{Q\pp{\zr}}{\pmc\pp{\zr\vert x}}+\KL{Q\pp{\wr\vert\zr}}{\pmc\pp{\wr\vert\zr,x}}\\
& = & \E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\log R\pp{\wr}+\KL{Q\pp{\zr}}{p\pp{\zr\vert x}}+\KL{Q\pp{\wr\vert\zr}}{\pmc\pp{\wr\vert\zr,x}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{restatable}{clm1}{antithetic-running-valid-pair}Suppose that
$Q\pp{T\pp{\omega}}=Q\pp{\omega}$. Then, the antithetic estimator\label{claim:antitheticrunningvalidpair}
\[
R\pp{\omega}=\frac{p\pp{\omega,x}+p\pp{T\pp{\omega},x}}{2Q\pp{\omega}}
\]
and the coupling distribution
\begin{eqnarray*}
a\pp{z|\omega} & = & \pi\pp{\omega}\ \delta\pp{z-\omega}+\pp{1-\pi\pp{\omega}}\ \delta\pp{z-T\pp{\omega}},\\
\pi\pp{\omega} & = & \frac{p(\omega,x)}{p(\omega,x)+p(T\pp{\omega},x)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
form a valid estimator / coupling pair under $Q\pp{\omega}.$\end{restatable}
\begin{proof}
\begin{alignat}{1}
& \E_{Q\pp{\wr}}R\pp{\wr}a\pp{z|\wr}\nonumber \\
& =\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\frac{p\pp{\wr,x}+p\pp{T\pp{\wr},x}}{2Q\pp{\wr}}\pars{\pi\pp{\wr}\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}+\pp{1-\pi\pp{\wr}}\ \delta\pp{z-T\pp{\wr}}}\nonumber \\
& =\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\frac{p\pp{\wr,x}+p\pp{T\pp{\wr},x}}{2Q\pp{\wr}}\Bigl(\frac{p(\wr,x)}{p(\wr,x)+p(T\pp{\wr},x)}\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}\nonumber \\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\frac{p\pp{T\pp{\wr},x}}{p(\wr,x)+p(T\pp{\wr},x)}\ \delta\pp{z-T\pp{\wr}}\Bigr)\nonumber \\
& =\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\frac{1}{2Q\pp{\wr}}\pars{p(\wr,x)\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}+p\pp{T\pp{\wr},x}\ \delta\pp{z-T\pp{\wr}}}\nonumber \\
& =\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\frac{1}{2}\pars{\frac{1}{Q\pp{\wr}}p(\wr,x)\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}+\frac{1}{Q\pp{\wr}}p\pp{T\pp{\wr},x}\ \delta\pp{z-T\pp{\wr}}}\nonumber \\
& =\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\frac{1}{2}\pars{\frac{1}{Q\pp{\wr}}p(\wr,x)\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}+\frac{1}{Q\pp{T\pp{\wr}}}p\pp{T\pp{\wr},x}\ \delta\pp{z-T\pp{\wr}}}\label{eq:antithetic-proof-eq-1}\\
& =\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\frac{1}{2}\pars{\frac{1}{Q\pp{\wr}}p(\wr,x)\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}+\frac{1}{Q\pp{\wr}}p\pp{\wr,x}\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}}\label{eq:antithetic-proof-eq-2}\\
& =\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\pars{\frac{1}{Q\pp{\wr}}p(\wr,x)\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}}\nonumber \\
& =\int\pars{p(\omega,x)\ \delta\pp{z-\omega}}d\omega\nonumber \\
& =p\pp{z,x}\nonumber
\end{alignat}
Here, \ref{eq:antithetic-proof-eq-1} follows from the fact that $Q\pp{T\pp{\omega}}=Q\pp{\omega}$
while \ref{eq:antithetic-proof-eq-2} follows from the fact that $T\pp{\wr}$
is equal in distribution to $\wr$ when $\wr\sim Q$.
\end{proof}
\clearpage{}
\section{Measure-Theoretic Details}
The content of this section draws from \citep{Gray_2011_Entropyinformationtheory,Klenke_2014_ProbabilityTheoryComprehensive}.
We do not use sans-serif font in this section.
\subsection{Measures, KL, ELBO}
Let $\pp{\Omega,\mathcal{A}}$ be a measurable space and $Q$ and
$P$ be two measures over it. Write $Q\ll P$ when $Q$ is absolutely
continuous with respect to $P$, i.e. when $P(A)=0\Rightarrow Q(A)=0$.
Whenever $Q\ll P$, there exists measurable $f:\Omega\rightarrow\R$
such that
\[
Q\pp A=\int_{A}f\ dP.
\]
The function $f$ is the\emph{ Radon-Nikodym derivative,} denoted
as $f=\frac{dQ}{dP}$. Write $Q\sim P$ when $Q\ll P$ and $P\ll Q$;
in this case $\frac{dQ}{dP}=\pars{\frac{dP}{dQ}}^{-1}$ $Q$-a.e.
For two probability measures $Q\ll P$, the KL-divergence is
\[
\KL QP=\int\log\pars{\frac{dQ}{dP}}Q\pp{d\omega}=\E_{Q\pp{\omega}}\log\frac{dQ}{dP}.
\]
For a probability measure $Q$ and measure $\hat{P}$ (not necessarily
a probability measure) with $Q\ll\hat{P}$, the evidence lower bound
or ``ELBO'' is
\[
\elbo Q{\hat{P}}=-\E_{Q}\log\frac{dQ}{d\hat{P}}.
\]
When $Q\sim\hat{P},$ we can equivalently write $\elbo Q{\hat{P}}=\E_{Q}\log\frac{d\hat{P}}{dQ}$.
Let $(Z,\B)$ be a measurable space. Let $P_{z,x}$ be an unnormalized
distribution over $z$ representing the joint distribution over $\pp{z,x}$
for a fixed $x.$ Write either $P_{z,x}(B)$ or $P_{z,x}(z\in B)$
for the measure of $B\in\B$. Define
\[
p(x)=P_{z,x}(Z)
\]
to be the total measure or the normalization constant of $P_{z,x}$,\marginpar{}
and write $P_{z|x}(z\in B):=P_{z,x}(z\in B)/p(x)$ for the corresponding
normalized measure, which represents the conditional distribution
of $z$ given $x$. Henceforth, $x$ will \emph{always} denote a fixed
constant, and, for any $u$, the measure $P_{u,x}$ is unnormalized
with total measure $p(x)$.
The following gives a measure-theoretic version of the ``ELBO decomposition''
from \ref{eq:ELBO-decomp}.
\begin{restatable}{lem1}{decomp-measures}
\label{lem:ELBO-decomposition-measures}Given a probability measure
$Q$ and a measure $P_{z,x}$ on $(Z,\B)$, whenever $Q\ll P_{z,x}$
we have the following \textquotedbl ELBO decomposition\textquotedbl :
\[
\log p(x)=\elbo Q{P_{z,x}}+\KL Q{P_{z|x}}.
\]
\end{restatable}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to check that $\frac{dQ}{dP_{z|x}}=p(x)\frac{dQ}{dP_{z,x}}$.\footnote{$\int_{A}p(x)\frac{dQ}{dP_{z,x}}dP_{z|x}=\int_{A}\frac{dQ}{dP_{z,x}}dP_{z,x}=Q(z\in A).$}
Then
\begin{multline*}
\KL Q{P_{z|x}}=\E_{Q}\log\frac{dQ}{dP_{z|x}}=\E_{Q}\log\pars{p(x)\frac{dQ}{dP_{z,x}}}\\
=\log p(x)+\E_{Q}\log\frac{dQ}{dP_{z,x}}=\log p(x)-\elbo Q{P_{z,x}}.
\end{multline*}
Rearranging, we see the ELBO decomposition.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Conditional, Marginal, and Joint Distributions}
\paragraph{Standard Borel and product spaces}
We will assume that each relevant measure space is a \emph{standard
Borel space}, that is, isomorphic to a Polish space (a separable complete
metric space) with the Borel \emph{$\sigma$}-algebra. Standard Borel
spaces capture essentially all spaces that arise in practice in probability
theory \citep{Klenke_2014_ProbabilityTheoryComprehensive}. Let $(\Omega,\A)$
and $(Z,\B)$ be standard Borel spaces. The \emph{product space} \emph{$(\Omega\times Z,\A\otimes\B)$
}is the measurable space on $\Omega\times Z$ with $\A\otimes\B=\{A\times B:A\in\A,B\in\B\}$,
and is also a standard Borel space.
\paragraph{Conditional distributions}
We require tools to augment a distribution with a new random variable
and define the conditional distribution of one random variable with
respect to another. We begin with a Markov kernel, which we will use
to augment a distribution $P_{\omega}$ with a new random variable
to obtain a joint distribution $P_{\omega,z}$.
Formally, a \emph{Markov kernel \citep[Def. 8.24]{Klenke_2014_ProbabilityTheoryComprehensive}}
from $(\Omega,\A)$ to $(Z,\B)$ is a mapping $a(B\mid\omega)$ that
satisfies:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For fixed $\omega$, $a(B\mid\omega)$ is a probability measure on
$(Z,\B)$.
\item For fixed $B$, $a(B\mid\omega)$ is an $\A$-measurable function
of $\omega$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $P_{\omega}$ be a measure on $(\Omega,A)$ and $a(B\mid\omega)$
a Markov kernel from $(\Omega,A)$ to $(Z,\B)$. These define a unique
measure $P_{\omega,z}$ over the product space defined as
\[
P_{\omega,z}(\omega\in A,z\in B)=\int_{A}a(z\in B\mid\omega)P_{\omega}(d\omega),
\]
such that if $P_{\omega}$ is a probability measure, then $P_{\omega,z}$
is also a probability measure \citep[Cor. 14.23]{Klenke_2014_ProbabilityTheoryComprehensive}.
Alternately, we may have a joint distribution $P_{\omega,z}$ (a
measure on the product space $(\Omega\times Z,\A\otimes\B)$) and
want to define the marginals and conditionals. The \emph{marginal
distribution $P_{z}$} is the measure on $(Z,\B)$ with $P_{z}(z\in B)=P_{\omega,z}(\omega\in\Omega,z\in B)$,
and the marginal $P_{\omega}$ is defined analogously. Since the product
space is standard Borel \citep[Thm 14.8]{Klenke_2014_ProbabilityTheoryComprehensive},
there exists a \emph{regular conditional distribution} $P_{\omega|z}(\omega\in A\mid z)$
\citep[Def. 8.27, Thm. 8.36]{Klenke_2014_ProbabilityTheoryComprehensive},
which is a Markov kernel (as above) and satisfies the following for
all $A\in\A$, $B\in\B$:
\[
P_{\omega,z}(\omega\in A,z\in B)=\int_{B}P_{\omega|z}(\omega\in A\mid z)P_{z}(dz).
\]
The regular conditional distribution is unique up to null sets of
$P_{z}$.
The conditional distribution $P_{z|\omega}$ is defined analogously.
\subsection{KL Chain Rule}
Let $P_{\omega,z}$ and $Q_{\omega,z}$ be two probability measures
on the standard Borel product space $(\Omega\times Z,\A\otimes\B)$
with $Q_{\omega,z}\ll P_{\omega,z}$. The \emph{conditional} \emph{KL-divergence
}$\KL{Q_{\omega|z}}{P_{\omega|z}}$ is defined\footnote{While this (standard) notation for the divergence refers to ``$Q_{\omega|z}$''
it is a function of the joint $Q_{\omega,z}$ and similiarly for $P_{\omega,z}$.} as \citep[Ch. 5.3]{Gray_2011_Entropyinformationtheory}
\[
\KL{Q_{\omega|z}}{P_{\omega|z}}=\E_{Q_{\omega,z}}\pars{\frac{dQ_{\omega|z}}{dP_{\omega|z}}},
\]
where $\frac{dQ_{\omega|z}}{dP_{\omega|z}}(\omega|z)=\pars{\frac{dQ_{\omega,z}}{dP_{\omega,z}}(\omega,z)}\pars{\frac{dQ_{z}}{dP_{z}}(z)}^{-1}$
when $\frac{dQ_{z}}{dP_{z}}(z)>0$ and $1$ otherwise\marginpar{}.
When all densities exist, $\frac{dQ_{\omega|z}}{dP_{\omega|z}}(\omega|z)=\frac{q(\omega|z)}{p(\omega|z)}.$
Under the same conditions as above, we have the \emph{chain rule for
KL-divergence \citep[Lem. 5.3.1]{Gray_2011_Entropyinformationtheory}}
\[
\KL{Q_{\omega,z}}{P_{\omega,z}}=\KL{Q_{\omega}}{P_{\omega}}+\KL{Q_{\omega|z}}{P_{\omega|z}}=\KL{Q_{z}}{P_{z}}+\KL{Q_{z|\omega}}{P_{z|\omega}}.
\]
\subsection{Our Results}
Now consider a strictly positive estimator $R(\omega)$ over probability
space $(\Omega,\A,Q_{\omega})$ such that $\E_{Q_{\omega}}R=\int R\,dQ_{\omega}=p(x).$
We wish to define $\Pmc_{\omega,x}$ so that $\frac{d\Pmc_{\omega,x}}{dQ_{\omega}}=R$,
to justify interpreting $\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R$ as an ELBO. This
is true when $R=\frac{d\Pmc_{\omega,x}}{dQ_{\omega}}$ is the Radon-Nikodym
derivative, i.e., a change of measure from $Q_{\omega}$ to $\Pmc_{\omega,x}$,
and is strictly positive. This leads to the definition
\[
\Pmc_{\omega,x}(\omega\in A)=\int_{A}R\,dQ_{\omega}.
\]
\begin{restatable}{lem1}{le-measures}
\label{lem:le-measures}Let $R(\omega)$ be an almost-everywhere positive
random variable on $(\Omega,\A,Q_{\omega})$ with $\E_{Q_{\omega}}R=p(x)$
and define $\Pmc_{\omega,x}(\omega\in A)=\int_{A}R\,dQ_{\omega}$.
The ELBO decomposition applied to $Q_{\omega}$ and $\Pmc_{\omega,x}$
gives:
\[
\log p(x)=\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R+\KL{Q_{\omega}}{\Pmc_{\omega|x}}.
\]
\end{restatable}
\begin{proof}
By construction, $R=\frac{d\Pmc_{\omega,x}}{dQ_{\omega}}$ and $\Pmc_{\omega,x}\sim Q_{\omega}$,
since $R$ is positive $Q$-a.e. Therefore $\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R=\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log\frac{d\Pmc_{\omega,x}}{dQ}=\elbo Q{\Pmc_{\omega,x}}$,
where the final equality uses the definition of the ELBO for the case
when $\Pmc_{\omega,x}\sim Q_{\omega}$. Now apply \ref{lem:ELBO-decomposition-measures}
and the fact that $\elbo Q{\Pmc_{\omega,x}}=\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R.$
\end{proof}
\ref{lem:le-measures} provides distributions $Q_{\omega}$ and $\Pmc_{\omega,x}$
so that $\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R=\elbo{Q_{\omega}}{\Pmc_{\omega,x}}$,
which justifies maximizing the likelihood bound $\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R$
as minimzing the KL-divergence from $Q_{\omega}$ to the ``target''
$\Pmc_{\omega|x}$. However, neither distribution contains the random
variable $z$ from the original target distribution $P_{z|x}$, so
the significance of \ref{lem:le-measures} on its own is unclear.
We now describe a way to couple $\Pmc_{\omega,x}$ to the original
target distribution using a Markov kernel $a(z\in B\mid\omega)$.
\begin{defn}
A valid \emph{estimator-coupling pair} with respect to target distribution
$P_{z,x}$ is an estimator $R(\omega)$ on probability space $(\Omega,\A,Q_{\omega})$
and Markov kernel $a(z\in B\mid\omega)$ from $(\Omega,\A)$ to $(Z,\B)$
such that:
\end{defn}
\[
\E_{Q_{\omega}}R(\omega)a(z\in B\mid\omega)=P_{z,x}(z\in B).
\]
\begin{restatable}{lem1}{pmc-omega-z-x-measures}
\label{lem:pmc-omega-z-x-measures}Assume $R(\omega)$ and $a(z\in B\mid\omega)$
are a valid estimator-coupling pair with respect to target $P_{z,x}$,
and define
\[
\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}(\omega\in A,z\in B)=\int_{A}a(z\in B\mid\omega)\,R(\omega)\,Q_{\omega}(d\omega).
\]
Then $\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}$ admits $P_{z,x}$ as a marginal, i.e.,
$\Pmc_{z,x}(z\in B)=P_{z,x}(z\in B)$.
\end{restatable}
\begin{proof}
We have
\[
\begin{aligned}\Pmc_{z,x}(z\in B) & =\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}(\omega\in\Omega,z\in B)\\
& =\int_{\Omega}a(z\in B\mid\omega)R(\omega)Q_{\omega}(d\omega).\\
& =\E_{Q_{\omega}}R(\omega)a(z\in B\mid\omega)\\
& =P_{z,x}(z\in B).
\end{aligned}
\]
The second line uses the definition of $\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}$ . The
last line uses the definition of a valid estimator-coupling pair.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
Let $P_{z,x}$ be an unnormalized distribution with normalization
constant $p(x)$. Assume $R(\omega)$ and $a(z\in B\mid\omega)$ are
a valid estimator-coupling pair with respect to $P_{z,x}$. Define
$\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}$ as in \ref{lem:pmc-omega-z-x-measures} and define
\textup{$Q_{\omega,z}(\omega\in A,z\in B)=\int_{A}a(z\in B\mid\omega)\,Q_{\omega}(d\omega)$.
}Then
\end{thm}
\[
\log p(x)=\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R+\KL{Q_{z}}{P_{z\mid x}}+\KL{Q_{\omega|z}}{\Pmc_{\omega|z,x}}.
\]
\begin{proof}
From \ref{lem:le-measures}, we have
\[
\log p(x)=\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R+\KL{Q_{\omega}}{\Pmc_{\omega|x}}.
\]
We will show by two applications of the KL chain rule that the second
term can be expanded as
\begin{equation}
\KL{Q_{\omega}}{\Pmc_{\omega|x}}=\KL{Q_{z}}{P_{z\mid x}}+\KL{Q_{\omega|z}}{\Pmc_{\omega|z,x}},\label{eq:KL-chain-combined}
\end{equation}
which will complete the proof.
We first apply the KL chain rule as follows:
\begin{equation}
\KL{Q_{\omega,z}}{\Pmc_{\omega,z|x}}=\KL{Q_{\omega}}{\Pmc_{\omega|x}}+\underbrace{\KL{Q_{z|\omega}}{\Pmc_{z|\omega,x}}}_{=0}.\label{eq:KL-chain-1}
\end{equation}
We now argue that the second term is zero, as indicated in the equation.
Note from above that $\frac{d\Pmc_{\omega,x}}{dQ_{\omega}}=R$. It
is also true that $\frac{d\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}}{dQ_{\omega,z}}=R$. To
see this, observe that
\[
\begin{aligned}\int_{A\times B}R(\omega)\,Q_{\omega,z}(d\omega,dz) & =\int_{A}\Big(\int_{B}R(\omega)a(z\in dz\mid\omega)\Big)\,Q_{\omega}(d\omega)\\
& =\int_{A}R(\omega)\Big(\int_{B}a(z\in dz\mid\omega)\Big)\,Q_{\omega}(d\omega)\\
& =\int_{A}R(\omega)\,a(z\in B\mid\omega)\,Q_{\omega}(d\omega)\\
& =\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}(\omega\in A,z\in B).
\end{aligned}
\]
The first equality above uses a version of Fubini's theorem for Markov
kernels \citep[Thm. 14.29]{klenke2013probability}. Because $\Pmc_{\omega,x}\sim Q_{\omega}$
it also follows that $\frac{dQ_{\omega}}{d\Pmc_{\omega,x}}=\frac{dQ_{\omega,z}}{d\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}}=\frac{1}{R}$.
Since the normalized distributions $\Pmc_{\omega|x}$ and $\Pmc_{\omega,z|x}$
differ from the unnormalized counterparts by the constant factor $p(x)$,
it is straightforward to see that $\frac{dQ_{\omega}}{d\Pmc_{\omega|x}}=\frac{dQ_{\omega,z}}{d\Pmc_{\omega,z|x}}=\frac{p(x)}{R}$.\footnote{$\int_{A}\frac{p(x)}{R}d\Pmc_{\omega|x}=\int_{A}\frac{1}{R}d\Pmc_{\omega,x}=Q_{\omega}(\omega\in A)$,
and similarly for $Q_{\omega,z}$ and $\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}$.} This implies that $\frac{d\Pmc_{z|\omega,x}}{dQ_{z|\omega}}=1$ a.e.,
which in turn implies that the conditional divergence $\KL{Q_{z|\omega}}{\Pmc_{z|\omega,x}}$
is equal to zero.
We next apply the chain rule the other way and use the fact that $\Pmc_{z|x}=P_{z|x}$
(\ref{lem:pmc-omega-z-x-measures}) to see that:
\begin{equation}
\KL{Q_{\omega,z}}{\Pmc_{\omega,z|x}}=\KL{Q_{z}}{\Pmc_{z|x}}+\KL{Q_{\omega|z}}{\Pmc_{\omega|z,x}}=\KL{Q_{z}}{P_{z|x}}+\KL{Q_{\omega|z}}{\Pmc_{\omega|z,x}}.\label{eq:KL-chain-2}
\end{equation}
Combining \ref{eq:KL-chain-1} and \ref{eq:KL-chain-2} we get \ref{eq:KL-chain-combined},
as desired.
\end{proof}
\clearpage{}
\section{Specific Variance Reduction Techniques\label{subsec:Specific-Variance-Reduction}}
\subsection{IID Mean}
As a simple example, consider the IID mean. Suppose $R_{0}\pp{\omega}$
and $a_{0}\pp{z|\omega}$ are valid under $Q_{0}$. If we define
\[
Q\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}=\frac{1}{M}\prod_{m=1}^{M}Q_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}
\]
(with $\wr_{1},\cdots,\wr_{M}\sim Q_{0}$ i.i.d. and $\r m$ uniform
on $\left\{ 1,\cdots,M\right\} $) then this satisfies the condition
of \ref{thm:splitting-estimators} that $\wr_{\r m}\sim Q_{0}.$ Thus
we can define $R$ and $a$ as in \ref{eq:splitting-new-R} and \ref{eq:splitting-new-a},
to get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m} & = & R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}\\
a(z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m) & = & a_{0}(z|\omega_{m})
\end{eqnarray*}
are a valid estimator-coupling pair under $Q.$ Note that $Q\pp{m|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}=\frac{1}{M}$,
so if we apply \ref{thm:rao-black-new} to marginalize out $m$, we
get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}} & = & \E_{Q\pp{\r m|\wr_{1},\cdots,\wr_{M}}}R\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},\r m}\\
& = & \frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}R\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}\\
& = & \frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}\\
a\pp{z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}} & = & \frac{1}{R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}}\E_{Q\pp{\r m|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}}\bracs{R\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},\r m}a(z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},\r m)}\\
& = & \frac{1}{R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}}\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\bracs{R\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}a(z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m)}\\
& = & \frac{1}{\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}}\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\bracs{R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}a_{0}(z|\omega_{m})}\\
& = & \frac{\sum_{m=1}^{M}\bracs{R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}a_{0}(z|\omega_{m})}}{\sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
These are exactly the forms for $R\pp{\cdot}$ and $a\pp{z|\cdot}$
shown in the table.
\subsection{Stratified Sampling}
As another example, take stratified sampling. The estimator-coupling
pair can be derived similiarly to with the i.i.d. mean. For simplicity,
we assume here one sample in each strata ($N_{m}=1$). Suppose $\Omega_{1}\cdots\Omega_{M}$
partition the state-space and define
\[
Q\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}=\frac{1}{M}\prod_{k=1}^{M}\frac{Q_{0}\pp{\omega_{k}}I\pp{\omega_{k}\in\Omega_{m}}}{\mu\pp k}\times\mu\pp m,\ \ \ \mu\pp m=\E_{Q_{0}\pp{\wr}}I\pp{\wr\in\Omega_{m}}.
\]
This again satisfies the condition of \ref{thm:splitting-estimators},
so \ref{eq:splitting-new-R} and \ref{eq:splitting-new-a} give that
\begin{eqnarray*}
R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m} & = & R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}\\
a(z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m) & = & a_{0}(z|\omega_{m})
\end{eqnarray*}
is a valid estimator-coupling pair with respect to $Q$. Note that
$Q\pp{m\vert\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}=\mu\pp m$, so if we apply
\ref{thm:rao-black-new} to marginalize out $m$, we get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}} & = & \E_{Q\pp{\r m|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}}R\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},\r m}\\
& = & \sum_{m=1}^{M}\mu\pp m\ R\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}\\
& = & \sum_{m=1}^{M}\mu\pp mR_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}\\
a\pp{z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}} & = & \frac{1}{R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}}\E_{Q\pp{\r m|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}}\bracs{R\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},\r m}a(z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},\r m)}\\
& = & \frac{1}{R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\mu\pp mR\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}a(z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m)\\
& = & \frac{\sum_{m=1}^{M}\mu\pp mR_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}a_{0}(z|\omega_{m})}{\sum_{m=1}^{M}\mu\pp mR_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Again, this is the form shown in the table.
\clearpage{}
\section{Proofs for Deriving Couplings (\ref{sec:Deriving-Couplings})}
\splitting*
\begin{proof}
Substitute the definitions of $R$ and $a$ to get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\E_{Q\pp{\wr_{1},\cdots,\wr_{M},\r m}}R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}a(z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m) & = & \E_{Q\pp{\wr_{1},\cdots,\wr_{M},\r m}}R_{0}\pp{\wr_{\r m}}a_{0}(z|\wr_{\r m})\\
& = & \E_{Q_{0}\pp{\wr}}R_{0}\pp{\wr}a_{0}(z|\wr)\\
& = & p\pp{z,x},
\end{eqnarray*}
which is equivalent to the definition of $R$ and $a$ being a valid
estimator-coupling pair. The second line follows from the assumption
on $Q\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}.$
\end{proof}
\raoblack*
\begin{proof}
Substitute the definition of $a$ to get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}R\pp{\wr}a\pp{z|\wr} & = & \E_{Q\pp{\wr}}R\pp{\wr}\frac{1}{R\pp{\wr}}\E_{Q_{0}\pp{\vr|\wr}}\bb{R_{0}\pp{\wr,\vr}a_{0}\pp{z|\wr,\vr}}\\
& = & \E_{Q_{0}\pp{\wr,\vr}}\bb{R_{0}\pp{\wr,\vr}a_{0}\pp{z|\wr,\vr}}\\
& = & p\pp{z,x},
\end{eqnarray*}
which is equivalent to $R$ and $a$ being a valid estimator-coupling
pair under $R\pp{\omega}.$ The last line follows from the fact that
$R_{0}$ and $a_{0}$ are a valid estimator-coupling pair under $Q_{0}$.
\end{proof}
\clearpage{}
\section{Additional Experimental Results}
\begin{figure}
\noindent\begin{minipage}[t]{1\columnwidth}%
\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 245.0309bp 506bp 593bp,clip,width=1\columnwidth]{stan_figs/dense2_1_hor}%
\end{minipage}
\caption{The target density $p\protect\pp{z|x}$ and the approximation $\protect\qmc\protect\pp{z|x}$
produced by various sampling methods (row) with various $M$ (columns).
The dark curves show isocontours of kernel density estimate for samples
generated using Stan and projected to the first two principal components.
The darker curves show isocontours for the process applied to samples
from $\protect\qmc\protect\pp{z|x}$. Antithetic sampling is visibly
(but subtly) better than iid for $M=2$ while the combination of quasi-Monte
Carlo and antithetic sampling is (still more subtly) best for $M=8$.
\label{fig:2d-approx}}
\end{figure}
\ref{fig:aggregate-statistics} shows additional aggregate statistics
of ELBO and posterior variance error for different methods across
model from the Stan library.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{centering}
\noindent\begin{minipage}[t]{1\textwidth}%
\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 36.5625bp 560bp 218.6719bp,clip,width=1\textwidth]{stan_figs/all_experiments_crossmetric_1_anti}
\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 36.5625bp 560bp 203.2031bp,clip,width=1\textwidth]{stan_figs/all_experiments_crossmetric_1_qmc}
\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 36.5625bp 560bp 203.2031bp,clip,width=1\textwidth]{stan_figs/all_experiments_crossmetric_1_qmc-cart}
\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 0bp 560bp 203.2031bp,clip,width=1\textwidth]{stan_figs/all_experiments_crossmetric_1_anti-qmc}%
\end{minipage}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\textbf{How much do methods improve over naive VI in likelihood bound
(x-axis) and in estimating posterior variance (y-axis)}? Each point
corresponds to a model from the Stan library, with a random shape.
Each plot compares \texttt{iid} sampling against some other strategy.
From top, these are antithetic sampling (\texttt{anti}), Quasi-Monte
Carlo, either using an elliptical mapping (\texttt{qmc}) or a Cartesian
mapping (\texttt{qmc-cart}), and antithetic sampling after an elliptical
mapping (\texttt{anti-qmc}). The columns correspond to using $M=2,4$
and $8$ samples for each estimate. \protect \linebreak{}
\textbf{Conclusions}: Improvements in ELBO and error are correlated.
Improvements converge to those of \texttt{iid} for larger $M$, as
all errors decay towards zero. Different sampling methods are best
on different datasets. A few cases are not plotted where the measured
``improvement'' was negative (if naive VI has near-zero error, or
due to local optima).\label{fig:aggregate-statistics}}
\end{figure*}
\clearpage{}
\section{Full Results For All Models}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan0_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan0_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan0_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan2_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan2_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan2_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan4_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan4_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan4_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan5_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan5_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan5_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan8_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan8_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan8_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan10_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan10_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan10_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan12_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan12_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan12_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan13_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan13_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan13_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan14_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan14_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan14_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan15_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan15_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan15_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan16_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan16_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan16_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan17_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan17_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan17_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan18_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan18_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan18_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan19_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan19_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan19_1_err_mu}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan20_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan20_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan20_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan21_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan21_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan21_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan22_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan22_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan22_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan23_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan23_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan23_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan24_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan24_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan24_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan25_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan25_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan25_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan26_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan26_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan26_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan28_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan28_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan28_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan31_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan31_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan31_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan32_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan32_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan32_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan33_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan33_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan33_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan34_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan34_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan34_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan35_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan35_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan35_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan36_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan36_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan36_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan37_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan37_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan37_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan38_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan38_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan38_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan39_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan39_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan39_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan40_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan40_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan40_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan41_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan41_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan41_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan43_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan43_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan43_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan44_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan44_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan44_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan45_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan45_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan45_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan46_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan46_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan46_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan47_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan47_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan47_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan48_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan48_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan48_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan49_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan49_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan49_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan50_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan50_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan50_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan51_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan51_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan51_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan55_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan55_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan55_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan56_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan56_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan56_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan57_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan57_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan57_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan58_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan58_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan58_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan59_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan59_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan59_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan60_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan60_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan60_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan61_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan61_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan61_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan62_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan62_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan62_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan63_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan63_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan63_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan64_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan64_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan64_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan65_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan65_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan65_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan81_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan81_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan81_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan82_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan82_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan82_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan84_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan84_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan84_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan86_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan86_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan86_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan87_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan87_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan87_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan88_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan88_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan88_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan89_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan89_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan89_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan91_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan91_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan91_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan94_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan94_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan94_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan95_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan95_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan95_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan96_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan96_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan96_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan101_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan101_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan101_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan102_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan102_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan102_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan103_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan103_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan103_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan105_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan105_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan105_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan107_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan107_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan107_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan109_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan109_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan109_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan117_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan117_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan117_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan118_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan118_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan118_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan119_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan119_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan119_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan122_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan122_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan122_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan123_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan123_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan123_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan128_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan128_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan128_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan133_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan133_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan133_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan134_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan134_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan134_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan135_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan135_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan135_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan136_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan136_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan136_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan140_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan140_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan140_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan141_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan141_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan141_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan142_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan142_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan142_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan143_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan143_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan143_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan145_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan145_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan145_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan146_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan146_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan146_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan147_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan147_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan147_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan148_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan148_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan148_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\section{Measure-Theoretic Details}
The content of this section draws from \citep{klenke2013probability,Gray_2011_Entropyinformationtheory}.
We do not use sans-serif font in this section.
\subsection{Measures, KL, ELBO}
Let $\pp{\Omega,\mathcal{A}}$ be a measurable space and $Q$ and
$P$ be two measures over it. Write $Q\ll P$ when $Q$ is absolutely
continuous with respect to $P$, i.e. when $P(A)=0\Rightarrow Q(A)=0$.
Write $Q\sim P$ when $Q\ll P$ and $P\ll Q$. Whenever $Q\ll P$,
there exists measurable $f:\Omega\rightarrow\R$ such that
\[
Q\pp A=\int_{A}f\ dP.
\]
The function $f$ is the\emph{ Radon-Nikodym derivative,} denoted
as $f=\frac{dQ}{dP}$. Write $Q\sim P$ when $Q\ll P$ and $P\ll Q$;
in this case $\frac{dQ}{dP}=\pars{\frac{dP}{dQ}}^{-1}$ $Q$-a.e.
For two probability measures $Q\ll P$, the KL-divergence is
\[
\KL QP=\int\log\pars{\frac{dQ}{dP}}Q\pp{d\omega}=\E_{Q\pp{\omega}}\log\frac{dQ}{dP}.
\]
For a probability measure $Q$ and measure $\hat{P}$ (not necessarily
a probability measure) with $Q\ll\hat{P}$, the evidence lower bound
or ``ELBO'' is
\[
\elbo Q{\hat{P}}=-\E_{Q}\log\frac{dQ}{d\hat{P}}.
\]
When $Q\sim\hat{P},$ we can equivalently write $\elbo Q{\hat{P}}=\E_{Q}\log\frac{d\hat{P}}{dQ}$.
Let $(Z,\B)$ be a measurable space. Let $P_{z,x}$ be an unnormalized
distribution over $z$ representing the joint distribution over $\pp{z,x}$
for a fixed $x.$ Write either $P_{z,x}(B)$ or $P_{z,x}(z\in B)$
for the measure of $B\in\B$. Define
\[
p(x)=P_{z,x}(Z)
\]
to be the total measure or the normalization constant of $P_{z,x}$,\marginpar{}
and write $P_{z|x}(z\in B):=P_{z,x}(z\in B)/p(x)$ for the corresponding
normalized measure, which represents the conditional distribution
of $z$ given $x$. Henceforth, $x$ will \emph{always} denote a fixed
constant, and, for any $u$, the measure $P_{u,x}$ is unnormalized
with total measure $p(x)$.
The following gives a measure-theoretic version of the ``ELBO decomposition''
from \ref{eq:ELBO-decomp}.
\begin{restatable}{lem1}{decomp-measures}
\label{lem:ELBO-decomposition-measures}Given a probability measure
$Q$ and a measure $P_{z,x}$ on $(Z,\B)$, whenever $Q\ll P_{z,x}$
we have the following \textquotedbl ELBO decomposition\textquotedbl :
\[
\log p(x)=\elbo Q{P_{z,x}}+\KL Q{P_{z|x}}.
\]
\end{restatable}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to check that $\frac{dQ}{dP_{z|x}}=p(x)\frac{dQ}{dP_{z,x}}$.\footnote{$\int_{A}p(x)\frac{dQ}{dP_{z,x}}dP_{z|x}=\int_{A}\frac{dQ}{dP_{z,x}}dP_{z,x}=Q(z\in A).$}
Then
\begin{multline*}
\KL Q{P_{z|x}}=\E_{Q}\log\frac{dQ}{dP_{z|x}}=\E_{Q}\log\pars{p(x)\frac{dQ}{dP_{z,x}}}\\
=\log p(x)+\E_{Q}\log\frac{dQ}{dP_{z,x}}=\log p(x)-\elbo Q{P_{z,x}}.
\end{multline*}
Rearranging, we see the ELBO decomposition.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Conditional, Marginal, and Joint Distributions}
\paragraph{Standard Borel and product spaces}
We will assume that each relevant measure space is a \emph{standard
Borel space}, that is, isomorphic to a Polish space (a separable complete
metric space) with the Borel \emph{$\sigma$}-algebra. Standard Borel
spaces capture essentially all spaces that arise in practice in probability
theory \citep{klenke2013probability}. Let $(\Omega,\A)$ and $(Z,\B)$
be standard Borel spaces. The \emph{product space} \emph{$(\Omega\times Z,\A\otimes\B)$
}is the measurable space on $\Omega\times Z$ with $\A\otimes\B=\{A\times B:A\in\A,B\in\B\}$,
and is also a standard Borel space.
\paragraph{Conditional distributions}
We require tools to augment a distribution with a new random variable
and define the conditional distribution of one random variable with
respect to another. We begin with a Markov kernel, which we will use
to augment a distribution $P_{\omega}$ with a new random variable
to obtain a joint distribution $P_{\omega,z}$.
Formally, a \emph{Markov kernel \citep[Def. 8.24]{klenke2013probability}}
from $(\Omega,\A)$ to $(Z,\B)$ is a mapping $a(B\mid\omega)$ that
satisfies:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For fixed $\omega$, $a(B\mid\omega)$ is a probability measure on
$(Z,\B)$.
\item For fixed $B$, $a(B\mid\omega)$ is an $\A$-measurable function
of $\omega$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $P_{\omega}$ be a measure on $(\Omega,A)$ and $a(B\mid\omega)$
a Markov kernel from $(\Omega,A)$ to $(Z,\B)$. These define a unique
measure $P_{\omega,z}$ over the product space defined as
\[
P_{\omega,z}(\omega\in A,z\in B)=\int_{A}a(z\in B\mid\omega)P_{\omega}(d\omega),
\]
such that if $P_{\omega}$ is a probability measure, then $P_{\omega,z}$
is also a probability measure \citep[Cor. 14.23]{klenke2013probability}.
Alternately, we may have a joint distribution $P_{\omega,z}$ (a
measure on the product space $(\Omega\times Z,\A\otimes\B)$) and
want to define the marginals and conditionals. The \emph{marginal
distribution $P_{z}$} is the measure on $(Z,\B)$ with $P_{z}(z\in B)=P_{\omega,z}(\omega\in\Omega,z\in B)$,
and the marginal $P_{\omega}$ is defined analogously. Since the product
space is standard Borel \citep[Thm 14.8]{klenke2013probability},
there exists a \emph{regular conditional distribution} $P_{\omega|z}(\omega\in A\mid z)$
\citep[Def. 8.27, Thm. 8.36]{klenke2013probability}, which is a Markov
kernel (as above) and satisfies the following for all $A\in\A$, $B\in\B$:
\[
P_{\omega,z}(\omega\in A,z\in B)=\int_{B}P_{\omega|z}(\omega\in A\mid z)P_{z}(dz).
\]
The regular conditional distribution is unique up to null sets of
$P_{z}$.
The conditional distribution $P_{z|\omega}$ is defined analogously.
\subsection{KL Chain Rule}
Let $P_{\omega,z}$ and $Q_{\omega,z}$ be two probability measures
on the standard Borel product space $(\Omega\times Z,\A\otimes\B)$
with $Q_{\omega,z}\ll P_{\omega,z}$. The \emph{conditional} \emph{KL-divergence
}$\KL{Q_{\omega|z}}{P_{\omega|z}}$ is defined\footnote{While this (standard) notation for the divergence refers to ``$Q_{\omega|z}$''
it is a function of the joint $Q_{\omega,z}$ and similiarly for $P_{\omega,z}$.} as \citep[Ch. 5.3]{Gray_2011_Entropyinformationtheory}
\[
\KL{Q_{\omega|z}}{P_{\omega|z}}=\E_{Q_{\omega,z}}\pars{\frac{dQ_{\omega|z}}{dP_{\omega|z}}},
\]
where $\frac{dQ_{\omega|z}}{dP_{\omega|z}}(\omega|z)=\pars{\frac{dQ_{\omega,z}}{dP_{\omega,z}}(\omega,z)}\pars{\frac{dQ_{z}}{dP_{z}}(z)}^{-1}$
when $\frac{dQ_{z}}{dP_{z}}(z)>0$ and $1$ otherwise\marginpar{}.
When all densities exist, $\frac{dQ_{\omega|z}}{dP_{\omega|z}}(\omega|z)=\frac{q(\omega|z)}{p(\omega|z)}.$
Under the same conditions as above, we have the \emph{chain rule for
KL-divergence \citep[Lem. 5.3.1]{Gray_2011_Entropyinformationtheory}}
\[
\KL{Q_{\omega,z}}{P_{\omega,z}}=\KL{Q_{\omega}}{P_{\omega}}+\KL{Q_{\omega|z}}{P_{\omega|z}}=\KL{Q_{z}}{P_{z}}+\KL{Q_{z|\omega}}{P_{z|\omega}}.
\]
\subsection{Our Results}
Now consider a strictly positive estimator $R(\omega)$ over probability
space $(\Omega,\A,Q_{\omega})$ such that $\E_{Q_{\omega}}R=\int R\,dQ_{\omega}=p(x).$
We wish to define $\Pmc_{\omega,x}$ so that $\frac{d\Pmc_{\omega,x}}{dQ_{\omega}}=R$,
to justify interpreting $\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R$ as an ELBO. This
is true when $R=\frac{d\Pmc_{\omega,x}}{dQ_{\omega}}$ is the Radon-Nikodym
derivative, i.e., a change of measure from $Q_{\omega}$ to $\Pmc_{\omega,x}$,
and is strictly positive. This leads to the definition
\[
\Pmc_{\omega,x}(\omega\in A)=\int_{A}R\,dQ_{\omega}.
\]
\begin{restatable}{lem1}{le-measures}
\label{lem:le-measures}Let $R(\omega)$ be an almost-everywhere positive
random variable on $(\Omega,\A,Q_{\omega})$ with $\E_{Q_{\omega}}R=p(x)$
and define $\Pmc_{\omega,x}(\omega\in A)=\int_{A}R\,dQ_{\omega}$.
The ELBO decomposition applied to $Q_{\omega}$ and $\Pmc_{\omega,x}$
gives:
\[
\log p(x)=\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R+\KL{Q_{\omega}}{\Pmc_{\omega|x}}.
\]
\end{restatable}
\begin{proof}
By construction, $R=\frac{d\Pmc_{\omega,x}}{dQ_{\omega}}$ and $\Pmc_{\omega,x}\sim Q_{\omega}$,
since $R$ is positive $Q$-a.e. Therefore $\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R=\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log\frac{d\Pmc_{\omega,x}}{dQ}=\elbo Q{\Pmc_{\omega,x}}$,
where the final equality uses the definition of the ELBO for the case
when $\Pmc_{\omega,x}\sim Q_{\omega}$. Now apply \ref{lem:ELBO-decomposition-measures}
and the fact that $\elbo Q{\Pmc_{\omega,x}}=\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R.$
\end{proof}
\ref{lem:le-measures} provides distributions $Q_{\omega}$ and $\Pmc_{\omega,x}$
so that $\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R=\elbo{Q_{\omega}}{\Pmc_{\omega,x}}$,
which justifies maximizing the likelihood bound $\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R$
as minimzing the KL-divergence from $Q_{\omega}$ to the ``target''
$\Pmc_{\omega|x}$. However, neither distribution contains the random
variable $z$ from the original target distribution $P_{z|x}$, so
the significance of \ref{lem:le-measures} on its own is unclear.
We now describe a way to couple $\Pmc_{\omega,x}$ to the original
target distribution using a Markov kernel $a(z\in B\mid\omega)$.
\begin{defn}
A valid \emph{estimator-coupling pair} with respect to target distribution
$P_{z,x}$ is an estimator $R(\omega)$ on probability space $(\Omega,\A,Q_{\omega})$
and Markov kernel $a(z\in B\mid\omega)$ from $(\Omega,\A)$ to $(Z,\B)$
such that:
\end{defn}
\[
\E_{Q_{\omega}}R(\omega)a(z\in B\mid\omega)=P_{z,x}(z\in B).
\]
\begin{restatable}{lem1}{pmc-omega-z-x-measures}
\label{lem:pmc-omega-z-x-measures}Assume $R(\omega)$ and $a(z\in B\mid\omega)$
are a valid estimator-coupling pair with respect to target $P_{z,x}$,
and define
\[
\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}(\omega\in A,z\in B)=\int_{A}a(z\in B\mid\omega)\,R(\omega)\,Q_{\omega}(d\omega).
\]
Then $\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}$ admits $P_{z,x}$ as a marginal, i.e.,
$\Pmc_{z,x}(z\in B)=P_{z,x}(z\in B)$.
\end{restatable}
\begin{proof}
We have
\[
\begin{aligned}\Pmc_{z,x}(z\in B) & =\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}(\omega\in\Omega,z\in B)\\
& =\int_{\Omega}a(z\in B\mid\omega)R(\omega)Q_{\omega}(d\omega).\\
& =\E_{Q_{\omega}}R(\omega)a(z\in B\mid\omega)\\
& =P_{z,x}(z\in B).
\end{aligned}
\]
The second line uses the definition of $\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}$ . The
last line uses the definition of a valid estimator-coupling pair.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
Let $P_{z,x}$ be an unnormalized distribution with normalization
constant $p(x)$. Assume $R(\omega)$ and $a(z\in B\mid\omega)$ are
a valid estimator-coupling pair with respect to $P_{z,x}$. Define
$\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}$ as in \ref{lem:pmc-omega-z-x-measures} and define
\textup{$Q_{\omega,z}(\omega\in A,z\in B)=\int_{A}a(z\in B\mid\omega)\,Q_{\omega}(d\omega)$.
}Then
\end{thm}
\[
\log p(x)=\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R+\KL{Q_{z}}{P_{z\mid x}}+\KL{Q_{\omega|z}}{\Pmc_{\omega|z,x}}.
\]
\begin{proof}
From \ref{lem:le-measures}, we have
\[
\log p(x)=\E_{Q_{\omega}}\log R+\KL{Q_{\omega}}{\Pmc_{\omega|x}}.
\]
We will show by two applications of the KL chain rule that the second
term can be expanded as
\begin{equation}
\KL{Q_{\omega}}{\Pmc_{\omega|x}}=\KL{Q_{z}}{P_{z\mid x}}+\KL{Q_{\omega|z}}{\Pmc_{\omega|z,x}},\label{eq:KL-chain-combined}
\end{equation}
which will complete the proof.
We first apply the KL chain rule as follows:
\begin{equation}
\KL{Q_{\omega,z}}{\Pmc_{\omega,z|x}}=\KL{Q_{\omega}}{\Pmc_{\omega|x}}+\underbrace{\KL{Q_{z|\omega}}{\Pmc_{z|\omega,x}}}_{=0}.\label{eq:KL-chain-1}
\end{equation}
We now argue that the second term is zero, as indicated in the equation.
Note from above that $\frac{d\Pmc_{\omega,x}}{dQ_{\omega}}=R$. It
is also true that $\frac{d\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}}{dQ_{\omega,z}}=R$. To
see this, observe that
\[
\begin{aligned}\int_{A\times B}R(\omega)\,Q_{\omega,z}(d\omega,dz) & =\int_{A}\Big(\int_{B}R(\omega)a(z\in dz\mid\omega)\Big)\,Q_{\omega}(d\omega)\\
& =\int_{A}R(\omega)\Big(\int_{B}a(z\in dz\mid\omega)\Big)\,Q_{\omega}(d\omega)\\
& =\int_{A}R(\omega)\,a(z\in B\mid\omega)\,Q_{\omega}(d\omega)\\
& =\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}(\omega\in A,z\in B).
\end{aligned}
\]
The first equality above uses a version of Fubini's theorem for Markov
kernels \citep[Thm. 14.29]{klenke2013probability}. Because $\Pmc_{\omega,x}\sim Q_{\omega}$
it also follows that $\frac{dQ_{\omega}}{d\Pmc_{\omega,x}}=\frac{dQ_{\omega,z}}{d\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}}=\frac{1}{R}$.
Since the normalized distributions $\Pmc_{\omega|x}$ and $\Pmc_{\omega,z|x}$
differ from the unnormalized counterparts by the constant factor $p(x)$,
it is straightforward to see that $\frac{dQ_{\omega}}{d\Pmc_{\omega|x}}=\frac{dQ_{\omega,z}}{d\Pmc_{\omega,z|x}}=\frac{p(x)}{R}$.\footnote{$\int_{A}\frac{p(x)}{R}d\Pmc_{\omega|x}=\int_{A}\frac{1}{R}d\Pmc_{\omega,x}=Q_{\omega}(\omega\in A)$,
and similarly for $Q_{\omega,z}$ and $\Pmc_{\omega,z,x}$.} This implies that $\frac{d\Pmc_{z|\omega,x}}{dQ_{z|\omega}}=1$ a.e.,
which in turn implies that the conditional divergence $\KL{Q_{z|\omega}}{\Pmc_{z|\omega,x}}$
is equal to zero.
We next apply the chain rule the other way and use the fact that $\Pmc_{z|x}=P_{z|x}$
(\ref{lem:pmc-omega-z-x-measures}) to see that:
\begin{equation}
\KL{Q_{\omega,z}}{\Pmc_{\omega,z|x}}=\KL{Q_{z}}{\Pmc_{z|x}}+\KL{Q_{\omega|z}}{\Pmc_{\omega|z,x}}=\KL{Q_{z}}{P_{z|x}}+\KL{Q_{\omega|z}}{\Pmc_{\omega|z,x}}.\label{eq:KL-chain-2}
\end{equation}
Combining \ref{eq:KL-chain-1} and \ref{eq:KL-chain-2} we get \ref{eq:KL-chain-combined},
as desired.
\end{proof}
\clearpage{}
\section{Specific Variance Reduction Techniques\label{subsec:Specific-Variance-Reduction}}
\subsection{IID Mean}
As a simple example, consider the IID mean. Suppose $R_{0}\pp{\omega}$
and $a_{0}\pp{z|\omega}$ are valid under $Q_{0}$. If we define
\[
Q\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}=\frac{1}{M}\prod_{m=1}^{M}Q_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}
\]
(with $\wr_{1},\cdots,\wr_{M}\sim Q_{0}$ i.i.d. and $\r m$ uniform
on $\left\{ 1,\cdots,M\right\} $) then this satisfies the condition
of \ref{thm:splitting-estimators} that $\wr_{\r m}\sim Q_{0}.$ Thus
we can define $R$ and $a$ as in \ref{eq:splitting-new-R} and \ref{eq:splitting-new-a},
to get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m} & = & R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}\\
a(z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m) & = & a_{0}(z|\omega_{m})
\end{eqnarray*}
are a valid estimator-coupling pair under $Q.$ Note that $Q\pp{m|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}=\frac{1}{M}$,
so if we apply \ref{thm:rao-black-new} to marginalize out $m$, we
get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}} & = & \E_{Q\pp{\r m|\wr_{1},\cdots,\wr_{M}}}R\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},\r m}\\
& = & \frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}R\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}\\
& = & \frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}\\
a\pp{z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}} & = & \frac{1}{R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}}\E_{Q\pp{\r m|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}}\bracs{R\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},\r m}a(z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},\r m)}\\
& = & \frac{1}{R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}}\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\bracs{R\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}a(z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m)}\\
& = & \frac{1}{\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}}\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\bracs{R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}a_{0}(z|\omega_{m})}\\
& = & \frac{\sum_{m=1}^{M}\bracs{R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}a_{0}(z|\omega_{m})}}{\sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
These are exactly the forms for $R\pp{\cdot}$ and $a\pp{z|\cdot}$
shown in the table.
\subsection{Stratified Sampling}
As another example, take stratified sampling. The estimator-coupling
pair can be derived similiarly to with the i.i.d. mean. For simplicity,
we assume here one sample in each strata ($N_{m}=1$). Suppose $\Omega_{1}\cdots\Omega_{M}$
partition the state-space and define
\[
Q\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}=\frac{1}{M}\prod_{k=1}^{M}\frac{Q_{0}\pp{\omega_{k}}I\pp{\omega_{k}\in\Omega_{m}}}{\mu\pp k}\times\mu\pp m,\ \ \ \mu\pp m=\E_{Q_{0}\pp{\wr}}I\pp{\wr\in\Omega_{m}}.
\]
This again satisfies the condition of \ref{thm:splitting-estimators},
so \ref{eq:splitting-new-R} and \ref{eq:splitting-new-a} give that
\begin{eqnarray*}
R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m} & = & R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}\\
a(z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m) & = & a_{0}(z|\omega_{m})
\end{eqnarray*}
is a valid estimator-coupling pair with respect to $Q$. Note that
$Q\pp{m\vert\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}=\mu\pp m$, so if we apply
\ref{thm:rao-black-new} to marginalize out $m$, we get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}} & = & \E_{Q\pp{\r m|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}}R\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},\r m}\\
& = & \sum_{m=1}^{M}\mu\pp m\ R\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}\\
& = & \sum_{m=1}^{M}\mu\pp mR_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}\\
a\pp{z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}} & = & \frac{1}{R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}}\E_{Q\pp{\r m|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}}\bracs{R\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},\r m}a(z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},\r m)}\\
& = & \frac{1}{R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\mu\pp mR\pars{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}a(z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m)\\
& = & \frac{\sum_{m=1}^{M}\mu\pp mR_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}a_{0}(z|\omega_{m})}{\sum_{m=1}^{M}\mu\pp mR_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Again, this is the form shown in the table.
\clearpage{}
\section{Proofs for Main Framework (\ref{sec:The-Divide-and-Couple-Framework})}
\trivdivide*
\begin{proof}
Since $\pmc\pp{\omega,x}\geq0$ and $\pmc\pp x=\int\pmc(\omega,x)d\omega=\E_{Q(\wr)}R(\wr)=p(x)$,
it is a valid distribution. Thus, one can apply the standard ELBO
decomposition to $\qmc\pp{\omega}$ and $\pmc\pp{\omega,x}$. But
since $R=\pmc/\qmc$, it follows that $\E_{\qmc\pp{\wr}}\log\pars{\pmc\pp{\wr,x}/Q\pp{\wr}}=\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\log R\pp{\wr}$.
\end{proof}
\divandcouple*
\begin{proof}
In this result, we first take $\pmc$ as the definition of a new distribution.
To start, we apply the chain-rule of KL divergence to the joint distributions
$Q\pp{\omega,z}$ and $\pmc\pp{\omega,z|x}$ in two different ways.
Firstly,
\begin{align*}
\KL{\qmc\pp{\wr,\zr}}{\pmc\pp{\wr,\zr|x}} & =\KL{\qmc\pp{\wr}}{\pmc\pp{\wr|x}}+\cancel{\KL{\qmc\pp{\zr|\wr}}{\pmc\pp{\zr|\wr,x}}},
\end{align*}
where the last term is zero since $Q\pp{z|\omega}=\pmc\pp{z|\omega,x}=a\pp{z|\omega}.$
Next, apply the chain rule in the other way to get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\KL{\qmc\pp{\wr,\zr}}{\pmc\pp{\wr,\zr|x}} & = & \KL{\qmc\pp{\zr}}{\pmc\pp{\zr|x}}+\KL{\qmc\pp{\wr|\zr}}{\pmc\pp{\wr|\zr,x}}\\
& = & \KL{\qmc\pp{\zr}}{p\pp{\zr|x}}+\KL{\qmc\pp{\wr|\zr}}{\pmc\pp{\wr|\zr,x}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The second line above uses the key property of $\pmc$ that $\pmc\pp{z|x}=p\pp{z|x}$.
This follows from the fact that is a coupling, i.e., the marginal
distribution $\pmc\pp{z,x}$ is equal to $p(z,x)$.
Now, the assumption that $\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}R(\wr)a(z|\wr)=p(z,x)$ implies
that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}R(\wr) & = & \int\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}R(\wr,x)a(z|\wr)dz=\int p(z,x)dz=p(x),
\end{eqnarray*}
so that $R$ is a valid estimator.
Next, note that if we integrate $z$ out of $\pmc\pp{z,\omega,x}$
as stated in the theorem, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\pmc\pp{\omega,x} & = & Q\pp{\omega}R\pp{\omega}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, by \ref{lem:lemdivide}, and the results established above,
\begin{eqnarray}
\log p(x) & = & \E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\log R\pp{\omega}+\KL{\qmc(\wr)}{\pmc(\wr|x)}.\label{eq:ELBO-decomp-for-DC-proof}\\
& = & \E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\log R\pp{\omega}+\KL{\qmc\pp{\wr,\zr}}{\pmc\pp{\wr,\zr|x}}\\
& = & \E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\log R\pp{\omega}+\KL{\qmc\pp{\zr}}{p\pp{\zr|x}}+\KL{\qmc\pp{\wr|\zr}}{\pmc\pp{\wr|\zr,x}}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proof}
\begin{restatable}{clm1}{antithetic-running-valid-pair}Suppose that
$Q\pp{T\pp{\omega}}=Q\pp{\omega}$. Then, the antithetic estimator\label{claim:antitheticrunningvalidpair}
\[
R\pp{\omega}=\frac{p\pp{\omega,x}+p\pp{T\pp{\omega},x}}{2Q\pp{\omega}}
\]
and the coupling distribution
\begin{eqnarray*}
a\pp{z|\omega} & = & \pi\pp{\omega}\ \delta\pp{z-\omega}+\pp{1-\pi\pp{\omega}}\ \delta\pp{z-T\pp{\omega}},\\
\pi\pp{\omega} & = & \frac{p(\omega,x)}{p(\omega,x)+p(T\pp{\omega},x)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
form a valid estimator / coupling pair under $Q\pp{\omega}.$\end{restatable}
\begin{proof}
\begin{alignat}{1}
& \E_{Q\pp{\wr}}R\pp{\wr}a\pp{z|\wr}\nonumber \\
& =\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\frac{p\pp{\wr,x}+p\pp{T\pp{\wr},x}}{2Q\pp{\wr}}\pars{\pi\pp{\wr}\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}+\pp{1-\pi\pp{\wr}}\ \delta\pp{z-T\pp{\wr}}}\nonumber \\
& =\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\frac{p\pp{\wr,x}+p\pp{T\pp{\wr},x}}{2Q\pp{\wr}}\Bigl(\frac{p(\wr,x)}{p(\wr,x)+p(T\pp{\wr},x)}\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}\nonumber \\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\frac{p\pp{T\pp{\wr},x}}{p(\wr,x)+p(T\pp{\wr},x)}\ \delta\pp{z-T\pp{\wr}}\Bigr)\nonumber \\
& =\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\frac{1}{2Q\pp{\wr}}\pars{p(\wr,x)\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}+p\pp{T\pp{\wr},x}\ \delta\pp{z-T\pp{\wr}}}\nonumber \\
& =\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\frac{1}{2}\pars{\frac{1}{Q\pp{\wr}}p(\wr,x)\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}+\frac{1}{Q\pp{\wr}}p\pp{T\pp{\wr},x}\ \delta\pp{z-T\pp{\wr}}}\nonumber \\
& =\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\frac{1}{2}\pars{\frac{1}{Q\pp{\wr}}p(\wr,x)\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}+\frac{1}{Q\pp{T\pp{\wr}}}p\pp{T\pp{\wr},x}\ \delta\pp{z-T\pp{\wr}}}\label{eq:antithetic-proof-eq-1}\\
& =\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\frac{1}{2}\pars{\frac{1}{Q\pp{\wr}}p(\wr,x)\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}+\frac{1}{Q\pp{\wr}}p\pp{\wr,x}\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}}\label{eq:antithetic-proof-eq-2}\\
& =\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\pars{\frac{1}{Q\pp{\wr}}p(\wr,x)\ \delta\pp{z-\wr}}\nonumber \\
& =\int\pars{p(\omega,x)\ \delta\pp{z-\omega}}d\omega\nonumber \\
& =p\pp{z,x}\nonumber
\end{alignat}
Here, \ref{eq:antithetic-proof-eq-1} follows from the fact that $Q\pp{T\pp{\omega}}=Q\pp{\omega}$
while \ref{eq:antithetic-proof-eq-2} follows from the fact that $T\pp{\wr}$
is equal in distribution to $\wr$ when $\wr\sim Q$.
\end{proof}
\clearpage{}
\section{Proofs for Deriving Couplings (\ref{sec:Deriving-Couplings})}
\splitting*
\begin{proof}
Substitute the definitions of $R$ and $a$ to get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\E_{Q\pp{\wr_{1},\cdots,\wr_{M},\r m}}R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}a(z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m) & = & \E_{Q\pp{\wr_{1},\cdots,\wr_{M},\r m}}R_{0}\pp{\wr_{\r m}}a_{0}(z|\wr_{\r m})\\
& = & \E_{Q_{0}\pp{\wr}}R_{0}\pp{\wr}a_{0}(z|\wr)\\
& = & p\pp{z,x},
\end{eqnarray*}
which is equivalent to the definition of $R$ and $a$ being a valid
estimator-coupling pair. The second line follows from the assumption
on $Q\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}.$
\end{proof}
\raoblack*
\begin{proof}
Substitute the definition of $a$ to get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}R\pp{\wr}a\pp{z|\wr} & = & \E_{Q\pp{\wr}}R\pp{\wr}\frac{1}{R\pp{\wr}}\E_{Q_{0}\pp{\vr|\wr}}\bb{R_{0}\pp{\wr,\vr}a_{0}\pp{z|\wr,\vr}}\\
& = & \E_{Q_{0}\pp{\wr,\vr}}\bb{R_{0}\pp{\wr,\vr}a_{0}\pp{z|\wr,\vr}}\\
& = & p\pp{z,x},
\end{eqnarray*}
which is equivalent to $R$ and $a$ being a valid estimator-coupling
pair under $R\pp{\omega}.$ The last line follows from the fact that
$R_{0}$ and $a_{0}$ are a valid estimator-coupling pair under $Q_{0}$.
\end{proof}
\clearpage{}
\section{Additional Experimental Results}
\begin{figure}
\noindent\begin{minipage}[t]{1\columnwidth}%
\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 388bp 800bp 939bp,clip,width=1\columnwidth]{stan_figs/dense2_1_hor}%
\end{minipage}
\caption{The target density $p\protect\pp{z|x}$ and the approximation $\protect\qmc\protect\pp{z|x}$
produced by various sampling methods (row) with various $M$ (columns).
The dark curves show isocontours of kernel density estimate for samples
generated using Stan and projected to the first two principal components.
The darker curves show isocontours for the process applied to samples
from $\protect\qmc\protect\pp{z|x}$. Antithetic sampling is visibly
(but subtly) better than iid for $M=2$ while the combination of quasi-Monte
Carlo and antithetic sampling is (still more subtly) best for $M=8$.
\label{fig:2d-approx}}
\end{figure}
\ref{fig:aggregate-statistics} shows additional aggregate statistics
of ELBO and posterior variance error for different methods across
model from the Stan library.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{centering}
\noindent\begin{minipage}[t]{1\textwidth}%
\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 52bp 800bp 311bp,clip,width=1\textwidth]{stan_figs/all_experiments_crossmetric_1_anti}
\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 52bp 800bp 289bp,clip,width=1\textwidth]{stan_figs/all_experiments_crossmetric_1_qmc}
\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 52bp 800bp 289bp,clip,width=1\textwidth]{stan_figs/all_experiments_crossmetric_1_qmc-cart}
\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 0bp 800bp 289bp,clip,width=1\textwidth]{stan_figs/all_experiments_crossmetric_1_anti-qmc}%
\end{minipage}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\textbf{How much do methods improve over naive VI in likelihood bound
(x-axis) and in estimating posterior variance (y-axis)}? Each point
corresponds to a model from the Stan library, with a random shape.
Each plot compares \texttt{iid} sampling against some other strategy.
From top, these are antithetic sampling (\texttt{anti}), Quasi-Monte
Carlo, either using an elliptical mapping (\texttt{qmc}) or a Cartesian
mapping (\texttt{qmc-cart}), and antithetic sampling after an elliptical
mapping (\texttt{anti-qmc}). The columns correspond to using $M=2,4$
and $8$ samples for each estimate. \protect \linebreak{}
\textbf{Conclusions}: Improvements in ELBO and error are correlated.
Improvements converge to those of \texttt{iid} for larger $M$, as
all errors decay towards zero. Different sampling methods are best
on different datasets. A few cases are not plotted where the measured
``improvement'' was negative (if naive VI has near-zero error, or
due to local optima).\label{fig:aggregate-statistics}}
\end{figure*}
\clearpage{}
\section{Full Results For All Models}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan0_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan0_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan0_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan2_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan2_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan2_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan4_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan4_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan4_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan5_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan5_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan5_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan8_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan8_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan8_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan10_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan10_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan10_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan12_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan12_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan12_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan13_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan13_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan13_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan14_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan14_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan14_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan15_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan15_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan15_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan16_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan16_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan16_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan17_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan17_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan17_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan18_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan18_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan18_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan19_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan19_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan19_1_err_mu}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan20_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan20_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan20_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan21_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan21_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan21_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan22_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan22_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan22_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan23_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan23_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan23_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan24_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan24_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan24_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan25_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan25_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan25_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan26_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan26_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan26_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan28_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan28_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan28_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan31_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan31_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan31_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan32_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan32_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan32_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan33_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan33_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan33_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan34_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan34_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan34_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan35_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan35_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan35_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan36_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan36_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan36_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan37_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan37_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan37_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan38_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan38_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan38_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan39_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan39_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan39_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan40_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan40_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan40_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan41_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan41_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan41_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan43_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan43_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan43_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan44_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan44_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan44_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan45_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan45_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan45_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan46_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan46_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan46_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan47_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan47_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan47_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan48_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan48_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan48_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan49_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan49_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan49_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan50_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan50_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan50_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan51_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan51_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan51_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan55_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan55_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan55_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan56_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan56_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan56_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan57_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan57_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan57_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan58_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan58_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan58_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan59_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan59_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan59_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan60_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan60_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan60_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan61_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan61_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan61_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan62_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan62_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan62_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan63_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan63_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan63_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan64_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan64_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan64_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan65_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan65_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan65_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan81_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan81_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan81_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan82_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan82_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan82_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan84_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan84_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan84_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan86_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan86_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan86_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan87_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan87_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan87_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan88_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan88_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan88_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan89_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan89_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan89_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan91_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan91_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan91_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan94_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan94_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan94_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan95_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan95_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan95_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan96_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan96_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan96_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan101_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan101_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan101_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan102_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan102_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan102_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan103_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan103_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan103_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan105_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan105_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan105_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan107_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan107_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan107_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan109_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan109_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan109_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan117_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan117_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan117_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan118_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan118_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan118_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan119_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan119_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan119_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan122_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan122_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan122_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan123_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan123_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan123_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan128_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan128_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan128_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan133_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan133_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan133_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan134_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan134_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan134_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan135_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan135_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan135_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan136_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan136_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan136_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan140_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan140_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan140_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan141_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan141_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan141_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan142_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan142_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan142_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan143_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan143_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan143_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan145_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan145_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan145_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan146_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan146_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan146_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan147_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan147_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan147_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan148_1_elbos}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan148_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan148_1_err_mu}\linebreak{}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy. Better sampling
methods can improve both.}}
\end{figure}
\section{Deriving Couplings\label{sec:Deriving-Couplings}}
\ref{thm:div-and-couple} says that if $\E_{Q(\wr)}\log R(\wr)$
is close to $\log p(x)$ and you have a tractable coupling\emph{ $a(z|\omega)$},
then drawing $\omega\sim Q\pp{\omega}$ and then $z\sim a\pp{z|\omega}$
yields samples from a distribution $Q\pp z$ close to $p\pp{z|x}.$
But how can we find a tractable coupling?
\begin{table*}
\noindent \begin{centering}
\caption{\label{tab:methods-new}Variance reduction methods jointly transform
estimators and couplings. Take an estimator $R_{0}\protect\pp{\omega}$
with coupling $a_{0}\protect\pp{z|\omega}$, valid under $Q_{0}\protect\pp{\omega}$.
Each line shows a new estimator $R\protect\pp{\cdot}$ and coupling
$a\protect\pp{z|\cdot}$. The method to simulate $Q\protect\pp{\cdot}$
is described in the left column. Here, $F^{-1}$ is a mapping so that
if $\omega$ is uniform on $[0,1]^{d}$, then $F^{-1}(\omega)$ has
density $Q_{0}(\omega)$.}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\par\end{centering}
\noindent \centering{}%
\begin{tabular}{>{\raggedright}m{5.25cm}>{\raggedright}p{2.65cm}>{\raggedright}p{4.8cm}}
\toprule
{\footnotesize{}Description} & {\footnotesize{}$R\pp{\cdot}$} & {\footnotesize{}$a\pp{z|\cdot}$}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\addlinespace[0.02cm]
\textbf{\footnotesize{}IID Mean}{\footnotesize\par}
{\footnotesize{}$\wr_{1}\cdots\wr_{M}\sim Q_{0}$ i.i.d.} & {\footnotesize{}${\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}}$} & {\footnotesize{}${\displaystyle {\displaystyle \frac{\sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pp{\omega{}_{m}}a_{0}\pp{z|\omega{}_{m}}}{\sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}}}}$}\tabularnewline
\addlinespace[0.07cm]
\textbf{\footnotesize{}Stratified Sampling}{\footnotesize\par}
{\footnotesize{}$\Omega_{1}\cdots\Omega_{M}$ partition $\Omega$,
$\wr_{1}^{m}\cdots\wr_{M_{n}}^{1}\sim Q_{0}$ restricted to~$\Omega_{m}$,
$\mu_{m}=Q_{0}\pp{\wr\in\Omega_{m}}$.} & {\footnotesize{}${\displaystyle \sum_{m=1}^{M}\frac{\mu_{m}}{N_{m}}\sum_{n=1}^{N_{m}}R_{0}\pars{\omega_{n}^{m}}}$} & {\footnotesize{}${\displaystyle {\displaystyle \frac{\sum_{m=1}^{M}\frac{\mu_{m}}{N_{m}}\sum_{n=1}^{N_{m}}R_{0}\pars{\omega_{n}^{m}}a_{0}\pp{z|\omega_{n}^{m}}}{\sum_{m=1}^{M}\frac{\mu_{m}}{N_{m}}\sum_{n=1}^{N_{m}}R_{0}\pars{\omega_{n}^{m}}}}}$}\tabularnewline
\addlinespace[0.07cm]
\textbf{\footnotesize{}Antithetic Sampling}{\footnotesize\par}
{\footnotesize{}$\wr\sim Q_{0}$. For all $m$, $T_{m}\pp{\wr}\overset{d}{=}\wr$.} & {\footnotesize{}${\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pars{T_{m}\pp{\omega}}}$} & {\footnotesize{}${\displaystyle \frac{\sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pp{T_{m}(\omega)}\ a_{0}\pars{z|T_{m}\pp{\omega}}}{\sum_{m=1}^{M}R\pp{T_{m}(\omega)}}}$}\tabularnewline
\addlinespace[0.07cm]
\textbf{\footnotesize{}Randomized Quasi Monte Carlo}{\footnotesize\par}
{\footnotesize{}$\wr\sim\mathrm{Unif}([0,1]^{d})$, $\bar{\omega}_{1},\cdots\bar{\omega}_{M}$
fixed, $T_{m}\pp{\omega}=F^{-1}\pars{\bar{\omega}_{m}+\omega\ \text{(mod 1})}$} & {\footnotesize{}${\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}{\displaystyle \sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pars{T_{m}\pp{\omega}}}}$} & {\footnotesize{}${\displaystyle \frac{\sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pp{T_{m}(\omega)}\ a_{0}\pars{z|T_{m}\pp{\omega}}}{\sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pp{T_{m}(\omega)}}}$}\tabularnewline
\addlinespace[0.07cm]
\textbf{\footnotesize{}Latin Hypercube Sampling}{\footnotesize\par}
{\footnotesize{}$\wr_{1},\cdots,\wr_{M}$ jointly sampled from Latin
hypercube \citep[Ch. 10.3]{Owen_2013_MonteCarlotheory}, $T=F^{-1}.$} & {\footnotesize{}${\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}{\displaystyle \sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pars{T\pp{\omega_{m}}}}}$} & {\footnotesize{}${\displaystyle \frac{\sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pp{T(\omega_{m})}\ a_{0}\pars{z|T\pp{\omega_{m}}}}{\sum_{m=1}^{M}R_{0}\pp{T(\omega_{m})}}}$}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\addlinespace[0.07cm]
\end{tabular}\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{table*}
Monte Carlo estimators are often created recursively using techniques
that take some valid estimator $R$ and transform it into a new valid
estimator $R'$. These techniques (e.g. change of measure, Rao-Blackwellization,
stratified sampling) are intended to reduce variance. Part of the
power of Monte Carlo methods is that these techniques can be easily
combined. In this section, we extend some of these techniques to transform
valid \emph{estimator-coupling pairs} into new valid estimator-coupling
pairs. The hope is that the standard toolbox of variance reduction
techniques can be applied as usual, and the coupling is derived ``automatically''.
\ref{tab:methods-new} shows corresponding transformations of estimators
and couplings for several standard variance reduction techniques.
In the rest of this section, we will give two abstract tools that
can be used to create all the entries in this table. For concreteness,
we begin with a trivial ``base'' estimator-coupling pair. Take a
distribution $Q_{0}\pp{\wr}$ and let $R_{0}\pp{\omega}=p\pp{\omega,x}/Q_{0}\pp{\omega}$
and $a_{0}\pp{z|\omega}=\delta\pp{z-\omega}$ (the deterministic coupling).
It is easy to check that these satisfy \ref{eq:valid_est_coupling_pair}.\marginpar{}
\subsection{Abstract Transformations of Estimators and Couplings}
Our first abstract tool transforms an estimator-coupling pair on some
space $\Omega$ into another estimator-coupling pair on a space $\Omega^{M}\times\left\{ 1,\cdots,M\right\} $.
This can be thought of as having $M$ ``replicates'' of the $\omega$
in the original estimator, along with an extra integer-valued variable
that selects one of them. We emphasize that this result does not (by
itself) reduce variance --- in fact, $R$ has exactly the same distribution
as $R_{0}$.
\begin{restatable}{thm1}{splitting}\label{thm:splitting-estimators}Suppose
that $R_{0}\pp{\omega}$ and $a_{0}\pp{z|\omega}$ are a valid estimator-coupling
pair under $Q_{0}\pp{\omega}$. Let $Q\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,w_{M},m}$
be any distribution such that if $\pp{\wr_{1},\cdots,\wr_{M},\r m}\sim Q$,
then $\wr_{\r m}\sim Q_{0}$. Then,
\begin{align}
R\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m} & =R_{0}\pp{\omega_{m}}\label{eq:splitting-new-R}\\
a(z|\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m) & =a_{0}(z|\omega_{m})\label{eq:splitting-new-a}
\end{align}
are a valid estimator-coupling pair under $Q\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,w_{M},m}.$
\end{restatable}
\marginpar{}Rao-Blackwellization is a well-known way to transform
an estimator to reduce variance; we want to know how it affects \emph{couplings}.
Take an estimator $R_{0}\pp{\omega,\nu}$ with state space\marginpar{}
$\Omega\times N$ and distribution $Q_{0}\pp{\omega,\nu}$. A new
estimator $R(\omega)=\E_{Q_{0}(\vr\mid\omega)}R(\omega,\vr)$ that
analytically marginalizes out $\nu$ has the same expectation and
equal or lesser variance, by the Rao-Blackwell theorem. The following
result shows that if $R_{0}$ had a coupling, then it is easy to define
a new coupling for $R.$
\begin{restatable}{thm1}{raoblack}\label{thm:rao-black-new}Suppose
that $R_{0}\pp{\omega,\nu}$ and $a_{0}\pp{z|\omega,\nu}$ are a valid
estimator-coupling pair under $Q_{0}\pp{\omega,\nu}$. Then
\begin{alignat*}{1}
R\pp{\omega} & =\E_{Q_{0}\pp{\vr|\omega}}R_{0}\pars{\omega,\vr},\\
a\pp{z|\omega} & =\frac{1}{R\pp{\omega}}\E_{Q_{0}\pp{\vr|\omega}}\bracs{R_{0}\pars{\omega,\vr}a_{0}\pp{z|\omega,\vr}},
\end{alignat*}
are a valid estimator-coupling pair under $Q\pp{\omega}=\int Q_{0}\pp{\omega,\nu}d\nu$.\end{restatable}
\subsection{Specific Variance Reduction Techniques}
Each of the techniques in \ref{tab:methods-new} can be derived by
first applying \ref{thm:splitting-estimators} and then \ref{thm:rao-black-new}.
As a simple example, consider the IID mean. Suppose $R_{0}\pp{\omega}$
and $a_{0}\pp{z|\omega}$ are valid under $Q_{0}$. If we let $\wr_{1},\cdots,\wr_{M}\sim Q_{0}$
i.i.d. and $\r m$ uniform on $\left\{ 1,\cdots,M\right\} $ then
this satisfies the condition of \ref{thm:splitting-estimators} that
$\wr_{\r m}\sim Q_{0}.$ Thus we can define $R$ and $a$ as in \ref{eq:splitting-new-R}
and \ref{eq:splitting-new-a}. Applying Rao-Blackwellization to marginalize
out $\r m$ gives exactly the form for $R$ and $a$ shown in the
table. Details are in \ref{subsec:Specific-Variance-Reduction} of
the supplement
As another example, take stratified sampling. For simplicity, we assume
one sample in each strata ($N_{m}=1$). Suppose $\Omega_{1}\cdots\Omega_{M}$
partition the state-space\marginpar{} and let $\wr_{m}\sim Q_{0}(\wr\mid\wr\in\Omega_{m})$
and $\r m$ be equal to $m$ with probability $\mu_{m}=Q_{0}(\omega\in\Omega_{m})$.
It is again the case that $\wr_{\r m}\sim Q_{0}$, and applying \ref{thm:splitting-estimators}
and then \ref{thm:rao-black-new} produces the estimator-coupling
pair shown in the table. Again, details are in \ref{subsec:Specific-Variance-Reduction}
of the supplement.
\subsection{Example}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{\string"Antithetic Running Example/strat\string".pdf}\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{\string"Antithetic Running Example/anti_strat\string".pdf}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{Stratified sampling and antithetic within stratified sampling on the
running example.\label{fig:strat-and-anti-strat-running}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{\string"Antithetic Running Example/sampled_strat\string".pdf}\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{\string"Antithetic Running Example/sampled_anti_strat\string".pdf}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{A kernel density approximation of $\protect\qmc\protect\pp{z|x}$
for the estimators in \ref{fig:strat-and-anti-strat-running}\label{fig:strat-and-anti-strat-running-samps}.}
\end{figure}
We return to the example from \ref{subsec:RunningExample} and \ref{subsec:Running-Example-2}.
\ref{fig:strat-and-anti-strat-running} shows the result of applying
stratified sampling to the standard VI estimator $R=p\pp{\zr,x}/q\pp{\zr}$
and then adjusting the parameters of $q$ to tighten the bound. The
bound is tighter than standard VI and slightly worse than antithetic
sampling.\marginpar{}
Why not combine antithetic and stratified sampling? \ref{fig:strat-and-anti-strat-running}
shows the result of applying antithetic sampling inside of stratified
sampling. Specifically, the estimator $R\pp{\omega^{m}}$ for each
stratum $m$ is replaced by $\frac{1}{2}\pars{R\pp{\omega^{m}}+R\pp{T_{m}(\omega^{m})}}$
where $T_{m}$ is a reflection inside the stratum that leaves the
density invariant. A fairly tight bound results. For all of antithetic
sampling (\ref{fig:antithetic-running-samps}), stratified sampling
(\ref{fig:strat-and-anti-strat-running}) and antithetic within stratified
sampling (\ref{fig:strat-and-anti-strat-running}) tightening $\E\log R$
finds $Q\pp{\omega}$ \marginpar{} such that all batches place some
density on $z$ in the main mode of $p$. Thus, the better sampling
methods permit a $q$ with some coverage of the left mode of $p$
while precluding the possibility that all samples in a batch are simultaneously
in a low-density region (which would result in $R$ near zero, and
thus a very low value for $\E\log R$). What do these estimators say
about $p(z|x)?$ \ref{fig:strat-and-anti-strat-running-samps} compares
the resulting $\qmc(z)$ for each estimator --- the similarity to
$p\pp{z|x}$ correlates with the likelihood bound.
\section{Implementation and Empirical Study\label{sec:Empirical-Study}}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\noindent\begin{minipage}[t]{1\columnwidth}%
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.21\textwidth]{\string"2d Var Reduction Viz/icdf_iid_omega\string".pdf}\hspace{-0.35cm}\includegraphics[width=0.21\textwidth]{\string"2d Var Reduction Viz/icdf_antithetic_omega_noyaxis\string".pdf}\hspace{-0.35cm}\includegraphics[width=0.21\textwidth]{\string"2d Var Reduction Viz/icdf_stratified_omega_noyaxis\string".pdf}\hspace{-0.35cm}\includegraphics[width=0.21\textwidth]{\string"2d Var Reduction Viz/icdf_qmc_omega_noyaxis\string".pdf}\hspace{-0.35cm}\includegraphics[width=0.21\textwidth]{\string"2d Var Reduction Viz/icdf_latin_omega_noyaxis\string".pdf}\vspace{-0.35cm}
\par\end{center}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{\string"2d Var Reduction Viz/icdf_iid_z\string".pdf}\hspace{-0.5cm}\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{\string"2d Var Reduction Viz/icdf_antithetic_z_noyaxis\string".pdf}\hspace{-0.5cm}\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{\string"2d Var Reduction Viz/icdf_stratified_z_noyaxis\string".pdf}\hspace{-0.5cm}\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{\string"2d Var Reduction Viz/icdf_qmc_z_noyaxis\string".pdf}\hspace{-0.5cm}\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{\string"2d Var Reduction Viz/icdf_latin_z_noyaxis\string".pdf}
\par\end{center}
\begin{center}
\vspace{-1.2cm}
\par\end{center}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{\string"2d Var Reduction Viz/circ_iid_z\string".pdf}\hspace{-0.5cm}\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{\string"2d Var Reduction Viz/circ_antithetic_z_noyaxis\string".pdf}\hspace{-0.5cm}\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{\string"2d Var Reduction Viz/circ_stratified_z_noyaxis\string".pdf}\hspace{-0.5cm}\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{\string"2d Var Reduction Viz/circ_qmc_z_noyaxis\string".pdf}\hspace{-0.5cm}\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{\string"2d Var Reduction Viz/circ_latin_z_noyaxis\string".pdf}
\par\end{center}
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0.65cm}
\par\end{center}%
\end{minipage}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{Different sampling methods applied to Gaussian VI. Top row: Different
methods to sample from the unit cube. Middle row: these samples transformed
using the ``Cartesian'' mapping. Bottom row: Same samples transformed
using the ``Elliptical'' mapping.\label{fig:Different-sampling-methods}}
\end{figure}
Our results are easy to put into practice, e.g. for variational inference
with Gaussian approximating distributions and the reparameterization
trick to estimate gradients.. To illustrate this, we show a simple
but general approach. As shown in \ref{fig:Different-sampling-methods}
the idea is to start with a batch of samples $\omega_{1}\cdots\omega_{M}$
generated from the unit hypercube. Different sampling strategies can
give more uniform coverage of the cube than i.i.d. sampling. After
transformation, one obtains samples $z_{1}\cdots z_{M}$ that have
more uniform coverage of the Gaussian. This better coverage often
manifests as a lower-variance estimator $R$. Our coupling framework
gives a corresponding approximate posterior $Q\pp z$.
Formally, take any distribution $Q\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}$
such that each marginal $Q\pp{\omega_{m}}$ is uniform over the unit
cube (but the different $\omega_{m}$ may be dependent). As shown
in \ref{fig:Different-sampling-methods}, there are various ways to
generate $\omega_{1}\cdots\omega_{M}$ and to map them to samples
$z_{1}\cdots z_{M}$ from a Gaussian $q\pp{z_{m}}$. Then, \ref{fig:Generic-methods}
gives algorithms to generate an estimator $R$ and to generate $z$
from a distribution $Q\pp z$ corresponding to a valid coupling. We
use mappings $\omega\stackrel{F^{-1}}{\to}u\stackrel{\mathcal{T_{\theta}}}{\to}z$
where $\T_{\theta}=\mathcal{T}_{\theta}\circ F^{-1}$ maps $\wr\sim\mathrm{Unif}([0,1]^{d})$
to $\T_{\theta}(\wr)\sim q_{\theta}$ for some density $q_{\theta}$.
The idea is to implement variance reduction to sample (batches of)
$\omega$, use $F^{-1}$ to map $\omega$ to a ``standard'' distribution
(typically in the same family as $q_{\theta}$), and then use $\mathcal{T}_{\theta}$
to map samples from the standard distribution to samples from $q_{\theta}$.\marginpar{}
The algorithms are again derived from \ref{thm:splitting-estimators}
and \ref{thm:rao-black-new}. Define $Q_{0}(\omega)$ uniform on $[0,1]^{d}$,
$R_{0}(\omega)=p(\T_{\theta}(\omega),x)/q_{\theta}(\T_{\theta}(\omega))$
and $a_{0}(z|\omega)=\delta(z-\T_{\theta}(\omega))$. These define
a valid estimator-coupling pair. Let $Q\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}$
be as described (uniform marginals) and $\r m$ uniform on $\{1,\cdots,M\}$.
Then $Q\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M},m}$ satisfies the assumptions
of \ref{thm:splitting-estimators}, so we can use that theorem then
\ref{thm:rao-black-new} to Rao-Blackwellize out $\r m$. This produces
the estimator-coupling pair in \ref{fig:Generic-methods}.
\begin{figure}[!b]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\columnwidth}%
\textbf{Algorithm} (Generate $R$)
\begin{itemize}
\item Generate $\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}$ from any distribution where
$\omega_{m}$ is marginally uniform over $\left[0,1\right]^{d}$.
\item Map to a standard dist. as $u_{m}=F^{-1}\pp{\omega_{m}}$.
\item Map to $q_{\theta}$ as $z_{m}=\mathcal{T}_{\theta}\pp{u_{m}}.$
\item Return $R=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\frac{p\pp{z_{m},x}}{q_{\theta}\pp{z_{m}}}$
\end{itemize}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\columnwidth}%
\textbf{Algorithm} (Sample from $Q\pp z$)
\begin{itemize}
\item Generate $z_{1},\cdots z_{M}$ as on the left.
\item For all $m$ compute weight $w_{m}=\frac{p\pp{z_{m},x}}{q_{\theta}\pp{z_{m}}}.$
\item Select $m$ with probability $\frac{w_{m}}{\sum_{m'=1}^{M}w_{m'}}.$
\item Return $z_{m}$
\end{itemize}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Generic methods to sample $R$ (left) and $Q\protect\pp z$ (right).
Here, $Q\protect\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}$ is any distribution
where the marginals $Q\protect\pp{\omega_{m}}$ are uniform over the
unit hypercube.\label{fig:Generic-methods}}
\end{figure}
The value of this approach is the many off-the-shelf methods to generate
``batches'' of samples $\pp{\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}}$ that
have good ``coverage'' of the unit cube. This manifests as coverage
of $q_{\theta}$ after being mapped. \ref{fig:Different-sampling-methods}
shows examples of this with multivariate Gaussians. As shown, there
may be multiple mappings $F^{-1}.$ These manifest as different coverage
of $q_{\theta},$ so the choice of mapping influences the quality
of the estimator. We consider two examples\marginpar{}: The ``Cartesian''
mapping $F_{\mathcal{N}}^{-1}\pp{\omega}$ simply applies the inverse
CDF of the standard Gaussian. An ``elliptical'' mapping, meanwhile,
uses the ``elliptical'' reparameterization of the Gaussian \citep{Domke_2018_ImportanceWeightingVariational}:
If $\r r\sim\chi_{d}$ and $\r v$ is uniform over the unit sphere,
then $\r{r\,}\r v\sim\N(0,I).$ In \ref{fig:Different-sampling-methods}
we generate $r$ and $v$ from the uniform distribution as $r=F_{\chi_{d}}^{-1}\pp{\omega_{1}}$
and $v=\pp{\cos\pp{2\pi\omega_{2}},\sin\pp{2\pi\omega_{2}}}$, and
then set $F^{-1}\pp{\omega}=r\ v.$ In higher dimensions, it is easier
to generate samples from the unit sphere using redundant dimensions.
Thus, we use $\omega\in\R^{d+1}$ and map the first component to $r$
again using the inverse $\chi$ distribution CDF $F_{\chi_{d}}^{-1}$.
The other components are mapped to the unit sphere by first applying
the Gaussian inverse CDF in each component, then normalizing.
In the experiments, we use a multivariate Gaussian $q_{\theta}$ with
parameters $\theta=\pp{C,\mu}.$ The mapping is $\mathcal{T}_{\theta}\pp u=Cu+\mu$.
To ensure a diverse test, we downloaded the corpus of models from
the Stan \citep{Carpenter_2017_StanProbabilisticProgramming} model
library \citep{Standevelopers._2018_ExampleModels} (see also \citet{Regier_2017_FastBlackboxVariationala})
and created an interface for automatic differentiation in Stan to
interoperate with automatic differentiation code written in Python.
We compare VI in terms of the likelihood bound and in terms of the
(squared Frobenius norm) error in the estimated posterior variance.
As a surrogate for the true variance, we computed the empirical variance
of 100,000 samples generated via Stan's Hamiltonian Markov chain Monte
Carlo (MCMC) method. For tractability, we restrict to the 88 models
where profiling indicates MCMC would take at most 10 hours, and evaluating
the posterior for 10,000 settings of the latent variables would take
at most 2 seconds. It was infeasible to tune stochastic gradient methods
for all models. Instead we used a fixed batch of 50,000 batches $\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{M}$
and optimized the empirical ELBO using BFGS, initialized using Laplace's
method. A fresh batch of 500,000 samples was used to compute the final
likelihood bound and covariance estimator. \ref{fig:errors} shows
example errors for a few models. The supplement contains similar plots
for all models, as well as plots aggregating statistics, and a visualization
of how the posterior density approximation changes.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 33.7744bp 300bp 166.6204bp,clip,width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan64_1_elbos}\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 33.5826bp 314bp 177bp,clip,width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan64_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 33.6577bp 315bp 177bp,clip,width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan64_1_err_mu}
\includegraphics[viewport=-3.675bp 33.2692bp 294bp 173bp,clip,width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan140_1_elbos}\includegraphics[viewport=-11.3625bp 33.569bp 303bp 177bp,clip,width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan140_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 33.6577bp 315bp 177bp,clip,width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan140_1_err_mu}
\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 33.7744bp 300bp 173bp,clip,width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan12_1_elbos}\includegraphics[viewport=-7.725bp 32.9212bp 309bp 177bp,clip,width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan12_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[viewport=-14.95bp 33.75bp 299bp 177bp,clip,width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan12_1_err_mu}
\includegraphics[viewport=-3.675bp 0bp 294bp 173bp,clip,width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan123_1_elbos}\includegraphics[viewport=-25.2875bp 0bp 289bp 177bp,clip,width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan123_1_err_Sigma}\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 0bp 310bp 183.2105bp,clip,width=0.33\columnwidth]{final_swarm_figs/stan123_1_err_mu}
\caption{\textbf{Across all models, improvements in likelihood bounds correlate
strongly with improvements in posterior accuracy}. Better sampling
methods can improve both. First row: the common case where a simple
Gaussian posterior is already very accurate. Here, only a tiny improvement
in the ELBO is possible, and improvement in the posterior is below
the level detectable when comparing to MCMC. The other rows show cases
where larger improvements are possible. \textbf{\label{fig:errors}}}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions\label{sec:Conclusions}}
Recent work has studied the use of improved Monte Carlo estimators
for better variational likelihood bounds. The central insight of this
paper is that an \emph{approximate posterior} can be constructed from
an estimator using a \emph{coupling}. This posterior's divergence
is bounded by the looseness of the likelihood bound. We suggest a
framework of ``estimator-coupling'' pairs to make this coupling
easy to construct for many estimators.
Several recent works have viewed Monte Carlo VI bounds through the
lens of augmented VI \citep{Bachman_2015_TrainingDeepGenerative,Cremer_2017_ReinterpretingImportanceWeightedAutoencoders,Naesseth_2018_VariationalSequentialMonte,Domke_2018_ImportanceWeightingVariational,Lawson_2019_EnergyInspiredModelsLearning}.
These establish connections between particular likelihood estimators
and approximate posteriors through extended distributions. They differ
from our work primarily in the \textquotedblleft direction\textquotedblright{}
of the construction, the generality, or both. Most of the work uses
the following reasoning, which starts with an approximate posterior
and arrives at a tractable likelihood estimator. Take a Monte Carlo
method (e.g. self-normalized importance sampling) to approximately
sample from $p\pp{z|x}$. Call the approximation $q\pp z,$ but suppose
it is not tractable to evaluate $q(z)$. A tractable likelihood estimator
can be obtained as $R(\omega,z)=p(z,x)p(\omega\vert z,x)/q(\omega,z)$,
where $q(\omega,z)$ is the (tractable) joint density over the \textquotedblleft internal
randomness\textquotedblright{} $\omega$ of the Monte Carlo procedure
and the final sample $z$, and $p(\omega|z,x)$ is a conditional distribution
used to extend the target to also contain these variables. Different
choices for the Monte Carlo procedure $q(\omega,z)$ and the target
extension $p(\omega|z,x)$ lead to different estimators. To arrive
at a particular existing likelihood estimator $R$ requires careful
estimator-specific choices and derivations. In contrast, our work
proceeds in the opposite direction: we start with an arbitrary estimator
$R$ and show (via coupling) how to find a corresponding Monte Carlo
procedure $q(\omega,z)$. We also provide a set of tools to \textquotedblleft automatically\textquotedblright{}
find couplings for many types of estimators.
The idea of using extended state-spaces is common in (Markov chain)
Monte Carlo inference methods \citep{Finke_2015_ExtendedStateSpaceConstructions,Andrieu_2010_ParticleMarkovchain,Neal_1998_AnnealedImportanceSampling,Neal_2005_HamiltonianImportanceSampling}.
These works also identify extended target distributions that admit
$p(z,x)$ as a marginal, i.e., a coupling in our terminology. By running
an Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampler on the extended target
and dropping the auxiliary variables, they obtain an MCMC sampler
for $p(z|x)$. Our work can be seen as the VI analogue of these MCMC
methods. Other recent work \citep{Burda_2015_ImportanceWeightedAutoencoders,Maddison_2017_FilteringVariationalObjectives,Cremer_2017_ReinterpretingImportanceWeightedAutoencoders,Naesseth_2018_VariationalSequentialMonte,Le_2018_AutoEncodingSequentialMonte,Domke_2018_ImportanceWeightingVariational,ChristianAnderssonNaesseth_2018_Machinelearningusing,Ren_2019_AdaptiveAntitheticSampling}
that has explored the connection between using estimators in variational
bounds and auxiliary variational inference \citep{Agakov_2004_AuxiliaryVariationalMethod}.
To the best of our knowledge, all of these works consider situations
in which the relevant extended state space $\pp{z,\omega}$ is known.
Thus, in these works, the estimator essentially comes with an ``obvious''
coupling distribution $a\pp{z|\omega}$. In contrast, the goal of
this paper is to consider an arbitrary estimator $R\pp{\omega}$,
where it is not obvious that a tractable coupling distribution $a\pp{z|\omega}$
even exists. This is the situation in which our framework of estimator-coupling
pairs is likely to be useful. The alternative would be manual construction
of extended state-spaces for each individual estimator.
\section{The Divide-and-Couple Framework\label{sec:The-Divide-and-Couple-Framework}}
In this section we identify a correspondence between maximizing a
likelihood bound and posterior inference for general non-negative
estimators using a two step ``divide'' and then ``couple'' construction.
\subsection{Divide}
Let $R(\wr)$ be a positive function of $\wr\sim Q(\omega)$ such
that $\E_{Q(\wr)}R(\wr)=p(x)$, i.e., $R$ is an unbiased likelihood
estimator with sampling distribution $Q(\omega)$. The ``divide''
step follows \citep[Claim 1]{Le_2018_AutoEncodingSequentialMonte}:
we can interpret $\E_{Q(\wr)}\log R(\wr)$ as an ELBO by defining
$\pmc$ so that $R\pp{\omega}=\pmc\pp{\omega,x}/\qmc\pp{\omega}$.
That is, $\pmc$ and $\qmc$ ``divide'' to produce $R$. Specifically:
\begin{restatable}{lem1}{trivdivide}\label{lem:lemdivide}Let $\wr$
be a random variable with distribution $Q(\omega)$ and let $R(\wr)$
be a positive estimator such that $\E_{Q(\wr)}R(\wr)=p(x)$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\pmc\pp{\omega,x} & = & Q\pp{\omega}R\pp{\omega}
\end{eqnarray*}
is an unnormalized distribution over $\omega$ with normalization
constant $p(x)$ and $R\pp{\omega}=\pmc\pp{\omega,x}/\qmc\pp{\omega}$
for $Q\pp{\omega}>0$. Furthermore as defined above,
\begin{equation}
\log p(x)=\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\log R\pp{\wr}+\KL{\qmc(\wr)}{\pmc(\wr|x)}.\label{eq:divide-elbo}
\end{equation}
\end{restatable}While this shows that it is easy to connect a stochastic
likelihood bound to minimizing a KL-divergence, this construction
alone is not useful for probabilistic inference, since neither $\qmc\pp{\omega}$
nor $\pmc\pp{\omega,x}$ make any reference to $z$. Put another way:
Even if $\KL{\qmc(\wr)}{\pmc(\wr|x)}$ is small, so what? This motivates
the coupling step below.\marginpar{} More generally, $\text{\ensuremath{\pmc}}$
is defined by letting $R=d\pmc/dQ$ be the Radon-Nikodym derivative,
a change of measure from $Q$ to $\pmc$; see supplement.
\subsection{Couple}
If the distributions identified in the above lemma are going to be
useful for approximating $p(z|x)$, they must be connected somehow
to $z$. In this section, we suggest \emph{coupling} $\pmc\pp{\omega,x}$
and $p\pp{z,x}$ into some new distribution $\pmc\pp{\omega,z,x}$
with $\pmc(z,x)=p(z,x)$. In practice, it is convenient to describe
couplings via a conditional distribution $a\pp{z|\omega}$ that augments
$\pmc\pp{\omega,x}$. There is a straightforward condition for when
$a$ is valid: for the augmented distribution $\pmc(z,\omega,x)=\pmc(\omega,x)a(z|\omega)$
to be a valid coupling, we require that $\int\pmc(\omega,x)a(z|\omega)d\omega=p(z,x)$.
An equivalent statement of this requirement is as follows.
\begin{defn*}
\label{def:valid-pair}An estimator $R\pp{\omega}$ and a distribution
$a\pp{z|\omega}$ are a \emph{valid estimator-coupling pair} under
distribution $Q(\omega)$ if
\begin{equation}
\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}R(\wr)a(z|\wr)=p(z,x).\label{eq:valid_est_coupling_pair}
\end{equation}
\end{defn*}
The definition implies that $\E_{Q(\wr)}R(\wr)=p(x)$ as may be seen
by integrating out $z$ from both sides. That is, the definition implies
that $R$ is an unbiased estimator for $p\pp x.$
Now, suppose we have a valid estimator/coupling pair and that $R$
is a good (low variance) estimator. How does this help us to approximate
the posterior $p\pp{z|x}$? The following theorem gives the ``divide
and couple'' framework.\footnote{With measures instead of densities would write $Q(z\in B,\omega\in A)=\int_{A}a(z\in B|\omega)dQ(\omega)$
where $a$ is a Markov kernel; see supplement.}
\begin{restatable}{thm1}{divandcouple}\label{thm:div-and-couple}Suppose
that $R\pp{\omega}$ and $a\pp{z|\omega}$ are a valid estimator-coupling
pair under $Q(\omega)$. Then,
\begin{eqnarray}
\qmc\pp{z,\omega} & = & Q\pp{\omega}a\pp{z|\omega},\label{eq:divcouple-q}\\
\pmc\pp{z,\omega,x} & = & Q\pp{\omega}R\pp{\omega}a\pp{z|\omega},\label{eq:divcouple-p}
\end{eqnarray}
are valid distributions and
\begin{equation}
\log p(x)=\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\log R\pp{\wr}+\KL{\qmc\pp{\zr}}{p\pp{\zr|x}}+\KL{\qmc\pp{\wr|\zr}}{\pmc\pp{\wr|\zr,x}}.\label{eq:div_and_couple_final_decomp}
\end{equation}
\end{restatable}
The final term in \ref{eq:div_and_couple_final_decomp} is a conditional
divergence \citep[Sec. 2.5]{Cover_2006_Elementsinformationtheory}.
This is the divergence over $\omega$ between $\qmc\pp{\omega|z}$
and $\pmc\pp{\omega|z,x}$, averaged over $z$ drawn from $Q\pp z$.
At a high level, this theorem is proved by applying \ref{lem:lemdivide},
using the chain rule of KL-divergence, and simplifying using the fact
that $a$ is a valid coupling. The point of this theorem is: if $R$
is a good estimator, then $\E\log R$ will be close to $\log p\pp x.$
Since KL-divergences are non-negative, this means that the marginal
$Q\pp z$ must be close to the target $p\pp{z|x}.$ A coupling gives
us a way to \emph{transform} $Q\pp{\omega}$ so as to approximate
$p\pp{z|x}.$
To be useful, we need to access $\qmc\pp z$, usually by sampling.
We assume it is possible to sample from $Q\pp{\omega}$ since this
is part of the estimator. The user must supply a routine to sample
from $a(z|\omega$). This is why the ``trivial coupling'' of $a\pp{z|\omega}=p\pp{z|x}$
is not helpful --- if the user could sample from $p\pp{z|x}$, the
inference problem is already solved! Some estimators may be pre-equipped
with a method to approximate $p(z|x)$. For example, in SMC, $\wr$
include particles $z_{i}$ and weights $w_{i}$ such that selecting
a particle in proportion to its weight approximates $p(z|x)$. This
can be seen as a coupling $a(z|\omega)$, which provides an alternate
interpretation of the divergence bounds of \citep{Naesseth_2018_VariationalSequentialMonte}.
The divide and couple framework is also closely related to extended-space
MCMC methods \citep{Andrieu_2010_ParticleMarkovchain}, which also
use extended target distributions that admit $p(z,x)$ as a marginal;
see also \ref{sec:Conclusions}. However, in these methods, the estimators
also seem to come with \textquotedblleft obvious\textquotedblright{}
couplings. There is no systematic understanding of how to derive
couplings for general estimators.
\subsection{Example\label{subsec:Running-Example-2}}
Consider again the antithetic estimator from \ref{eq:antithetic}.
We saw before that the antithetic estimator gives a tighter variational
bound than naive VI under the distribution in \ref{fig:Naive-VI-running}.
However, that distribution is \emph{less} similar to the target than
the one from naive VI. To reflect this (and match our general notation)
we now\footnote{With this notation, \ref{eq:antithetic} becomes $R=\frac{1}{2}\frac{p\pp{\wr,x}+p\pp{T\pp{\wr},x}}{Q\pp{\wr}}$
where $\wr\sim Q.$ Here and in the rest of this paper, when $p\pp{\cdot,\cdot}$
has two arguments, the first always plays the role of $z$.} write $\wr\sim Q$ (instead of $\zr\sim q$).
Now, we again ask: Since $Q\pp{\omega}$ is a poor approximation of
the target, can we find some other distribution that is a good approximation?
Consider the coupling distribution
\[
a\pp{z|\omega}=\pi\pp{\omega}\ \delta\pp{z-\omega}+\pp{1-\pi\pp{\omega}}\ \delta\pp{z-T\pp{\omega}},\ \ \ \ \pi\pp{\omega}=\frac{p(\omega,x)}{p(\omega,x)+p(T\pp{\omega},x)}.
\]
Intuitively, $a\pp{z|\omega}$ is supported only on $z=\omega$ and
on $z=T\pp{\omega}$, with probability proportional to the target
distribution. It is simple to verify (by substitution, see \ref{claim:antitheticrunningvalidpair}
in supplement) that $R$ and $a$ form a valid estimator-coupling
pair. Thus, the augmented variational distribution is $Q\pp{\omega,z}=Q\pp{\omega}a\pp{z|\omega}.$
To sample from this, draw $\omega\sim Q$ and select $z=\omega$ with
probability $\pi\pp{\omega}$, or $z=T(\omega)$ otherwise. The marginal
$Q(z)$ is shown in \Cref{fig:antithetic-running-samps}. This is
a much better approximation of the target than naive VI.
\section{The Divide-and-Couple Framework\label{sec:The-Divide-and-Couple-Framework}}
In this section we identify a correspondence between maximizing a
likelihood bound and posterior inference for general non-negative
estimators using a two step ``divide'' and then ``couple'' construction.
\subsection{Divide}
Let $R(\wr)$ be a positive function of $\wr\sim Q(\omega)$ such
that $\E_{Q(\wr)}R(\wr)=p(x)$, i.e., $R$ is an unbiased likelihood
estimator with sampling distribution $Q(\omega)$. The ``divide''
step follows \citep[Claim 1]{Le_2018_AutoEncodingSequentialMonte}:
we can interpret $\E_{Q(\wr)}\log R(\wr)$ as an ELBO by defining
$\pmc$ so that $R\pp{\omega}=\pmc\pp{\omega,x}/\qmc\pp{\omega}$.
That is, $\pmc$ and $\qmc$ ``divide'' to produce $R$. Specifically:
\begin{restatable}{lem1}{trivdivide}\label{lem:lemdivide}Let $\wr$
be a random variable with distribution $Q(\omega)$ and let $R(\wr)$
be a positive estimator such that $\E_{Q(\wr)}R(\wr)=p(x)$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\pmc\pp{\omega,x} & = & Q\pp{\omega}R\pp{\omega}
\end{eqnarray*}
is an unnormalized distribution over $\omega$ with normalization
constant $p(x)$ and $R\pp{\omega}=\pmc\pp{\omega,x}/\qmc\pp{\omega}$
for $Q\pp{\omega}>0$. Furthermore as defined above,
\begin{equation}
\log p(x)=\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\log R\pp{\wr}+\KL{\qmc(\wr)}{\pmc(\wr|x)}.\label{eq:divide-elbo}
\end{equation}
\end{restatable}While this shows that it is easy to connect a stochastic
likelihood bound to minimizing a KL-divergence, this construction
alone is not useful for probabilistic inference, since neither $\qmc\pp{\omega}$
nor $\pmc\pp{\omega,x}$ make any reference to $z$. Put another way:
Even if $\KL{\qmc(\wr)}{\pmc(\wr|x)}$ is small, so what? This motivates
the coupling step below.\marginpar{} More generally, $\text{\ensuremath{\pmc}}$
is defined by letting $R=d\pmc/dQ$ be the Radon-Nikodym derivative,
a change of measure from $Q$ to $\pmc$; see supplement.
\subsection{Couple}
If the distributions identified in the above lemma are going to be
useful for approximating $p(z|x)$, they must be connected somehow
to $z$. In this section, we suggest \emph{coupling} $\pmc\pp{\omega,x}$
and $p\pp{z,x}$ into some new distribution $\pmc\pp{\omega,z,x}$
with $\pmc(z,x)=p(z,x)$. In practice, it is convenient to describe
couplings via a conditional distribution $a\pp{z|\omega}$ that augments
$\pmc\pp{\omega,x}$. There is a straightforward condition for when
$a$ is valid: for the augmented distribution $\pmc(z,\omega,x)=\pmc(\omega,x)a(z|\omega)$
to be a valid coupling, we require that $\int\pmc(\omega,x)a(z|\omega)d\omega=p(z,x)$.
An equivalent statement of this requirement is as follows.
\begin{defn*}
\label{def:valid-pair}An estimator $R\pp{\omega}$ and a distribution
$a\pp{z|\omega}$ are a \emph{valid estimator-coupling pair} under
distribution $Q(\omega)$ if
\begin{equation}
\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}R(\wr)a(z|\wr)=p(z,x).\label{eq:valid_est_coupling_pair}
\end{equation}
\end{defn*}
The definition implies that $\E_{Q(\wr)}R(\wr)=p(x)$ as may be seen
by integrating out $z$ from both sides. That is, the definition implies
that $R$ is an unbiased estimator for $p\pp x.$
Now, suppose we have a valid estimator/coupling pair and that $R$
is a good (low variance) estimator. How does this help us to approximate
the posterior $p\pp{z|x}$? The following theorem gives the ``divide
and couple'' framework.\footnote{With measures instead of densities would write $Q(z\in B,\omega\in A)=\int_{A}a(z\in B|\omega)dQ(\omega)$
where $a$ is a Markov kernel; see supplement.}
\begin{restatable}{thm1}{divandcouple}\label{thm:div-and-couple}Suppose
that $R\pp{\omega}$ and $a\pp{z|\omega}$ are a valid estimator-coupling
pair under $Q(\omega)$. Then,
\begin{eqnarray}
\qmc\pp{z,\omega} & = & Q\pp{\omega}a\pp{z|\omega},\label{eq:divcouple-q}\\
\pmc\pp{z,\omega,x} & = & Q\pp{\omega}R\pp{\omega}a\pp{z|\omega},\label{eq:divcouple-p}
\end{eqnarray}
are valid distributions, $\pmc\pp{z,x}=p\pp{z,x}$, and
\begin{equation}
\log p(x)=\E_{Q\pp{\wr}}\log R\pp{\wr}+\KL{\qmc\pp{\zr}}{p\pp{\zr|x}}+\KL{\qmc\pp{\wr|\zr}}{\pmc\pp{\wr|\zr,x}}.\label{eq:div_and_couple_final_decomp}
\end{equation}
\end{restatable}
The final term in \ref{eq:div_and_couple_final_decomp} is a conditional
divergence \citep[Sec. 2.5]{Cover_2006_Elementsinformationtheory}.
This is the divergence over $\omega$ between $\qmc\pp{\omega|z}$
and $\pmc\pp{\omega|z,x}$, averaged over $z$ drawn from $Q\pp z$.
At a high level, this theorem is proved by applying \ref{lem:lemdivide},
using the chain rule of KL-divergence, and simplifying using the fact
that $a$ is a valid coupling. The point of this theorem is: if $R$
is a good estimator, then $\E\log R$ will be close to $\log p\pp x.$
Since KL-divergences are non-negative, this means that the marginal
$Q\pp z$ must be close to the target $p\pp{z|x}.$ A coupling gives
us a way to \emph{transform} $Q\pp{\omega}$ so as to approximate
$p\pp{z|x}.$
To be useful, we need to access $\qmc\pp z$, usually by sampling.
We assume it is possible to sample from $Q\pp{\omega}$ since this
is part of the estimator. The user must supply a routine to sample
from $a(z|\omega$). This is why the ``trivial coupling'' of $a\pp{z|\omega}=p\pp{z|x}$
is not helpful --- if the user could sample from $p\pp{z|x}$, the
inference problem is already solved! Some estimators may be pre-equipped
with a method to approximate $p(z|x)$. For example, in SMC, $\wr$
include particles $z_{i}$ and weights $w_{i}$ such that selecting
a particle in proportion to its weight approximates $p(z|x)$. This
can be seen as a coupling $a(z|\omega)$, which provides an alternate
interpretation of the divergence bounds of \citep{Naesseth_2018_VariationalSequentialMonte}.
The divide and couple framework is also closely related to extended-space
MCMC methods \citep{Andrieu_2010_ParticleMarkovchain}, which also
use extended target distributions that admit $p(z,x)$ as a marginal;
see also \ref{sec:Conclusions}. However, in these methods, the estimators
also seem to come with \textquotedblleft obvious\textquotedblright{}
couplings. There is no systematic understanding of how to derive
couplings for general estimators.
\subsection{Example\label{subsec:Running-Example-2}}
Consider again the antithetic estimator from \ref{eq:antithetic}.
We saw before that the antithetic estimator gives a tighter variational
bound than naive VI under the distribution in \ref{fig:Naive-VI-running}.
However, that distribution is \emph{less} similar to the target than
the one from naive VI. To reflect this (and match our general notation)
we now\footnote{With this notation, \ref{eq:antithetic} becomes $R=\frac{1}{2}\frac{p\pp{\wr,x}+p\pp{T\pp{\wr},x}}{Q\pp{\wr}}$
where $\wr\sim Q.$ Here and in the rest of this paper, when $p\pp{\cdot,\cdot}$
has two arguments, the first always plays the role of $z$.} write $\wr\sim Q$ (instead of $\zr\sim q$).
Now, we again ask: Since $Q\pp{\omega}$ is a poor approximation of
the target, can we find some other distribution that is a good approximation?
Consider the coupling distribution
\[
a\pp{z|\omega}=\pi\pp{\omega}\ \delta\pp{z-\omega}+\pp{1-\pi\pp{\omega}}\ \delta\pp{z-T\pp{\omega}},\ \ \ \ \pi\pp{\omega}=\frac{p(\omega,x)}{p(\omega,x)+p(T\pp{\omega},x)}.
\]
Intuitively, $a\pp{z|\omega}$ is supported only on $z=\omega$ and
on $z=T\pp{\omega}$, with probability proportional to the target
distribution. It is simple to verify (by substitution, see \ref{claim:antitheticrunningvalidpair}
in supplement) that $R$ and $a$ form a valid estimator-coupling
pair. Thus, the augmented variational distribution is $Q\pp{\omega,z}=Q\pp{\omega}a\pp{z|\omega}.$
To sample from this, draw $\omega\sim Q$ and select $z=\omega$ with
probability $\pi\pp{\omega}$, or $z=T(\omega)$ otherwise. The marginal
$Q(z)$ is shown in \Cref{fig:antithetic-running-samps}. This is
a much better approximation of the target than naive VI.
\section{Introduction}
Variational inference (VI) is a leading approximate inference method
in which a posterior distribution $p(z\mid x)$ is approximated by
a simpler distribution $q(z)$ from some approximating family. The
procedure to select $q$ is based on the decomposition that \citep{Saul_1996_MeanFieldTheory}\vspace{-0.25cm}
\begin{equation}
\log p(x)=\E_{q(\zr)}\bigg[\log\frac{p(\zr,x)}{q(\zr)}\bigg]+\text{KL}[q(\zr)\|p(\zr\mid x)].\label{eq:ELBO-decomp}
\end{equation}
The first term is the \emph{evidence lower bound} ($\text{ELBO}$)
\citep{Blei_2017_VariationalInferenceReview}. Selecting $q$ to maximize
the ELBO tightens the lower bound on $\log p(x)$ and simultaneously
minimizes the KL-divergence in the second term. This dual view is
important because minimizing the KL-divergence justifies using $q$
to approximate the posterior for making predictions.
Recent work has investigated tighter objectives \citep{Burda_2015_ImportanceWeightedAutoencoders,Naesseth_2018_VariationalSequentialMonte,Maddison_2017_FilteringVariationalObjectives,Le_2018_AutoEncodingSequentialMonte,Nowozin_2018_DEBIASINGEVIDENCEAPPROXIMATIONS,Rainforth_2018_TighterVariationalBounds},\marginpar{}
based on the following principle: Let $R$ be an estimator of the
likelihood---i.e., a nonnegative random variable with $\E R=p(x)$.
By Jensen's inequality, $\log p(x)\geq\E\log R,$ so $\log R$ is
a stochastic lower bound on the log-likelihood. Parameters of the
estimator can be optimized to tighten the bound. Standard VI is the
case when $R=p(\zr,x)/q(\zr)$ and $\zr\sim q$, which is parameterized
in terms of $q$. Importance-weighted autoencoders \citep[IWAEs;][]{Burda_2015_ImportanceWeightedAutoencoders}
essentially use $R=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}p(\zr_{m},x)/q(\zr_{m})$
where $\zr_{1}\ldots\zr_{M}\sim q$ are iid. Sequential Monte Carlo
(SMC) also gives a variational objective \citep{Naesseth_2018_VariationalSequentialMonte,Maddison_2017_FilteringVariationalObjectives,Le_2018_AutoEncodingSequentialMonte}.
The principle underlying these works is that likelihood estimators
that are more concentrated lead to tighter bounds, because the gap
in Jensen's inequality is smaller. To date, the main application has
been for learning parameters of the generative model $p$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{\string"Antithetic Running Example/vi\string".pdf}\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{\string"Antithetic Running Example/anti\string".pdf}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{Left: Naive VI on the running example. Right: A tighter bound using
antithetic sampling.\label{fig:Naive-VI-running}}
\end{figure}
Our key question is: \emph{what are the implications of modified variational
objectives for probabilistic inference}? \ref{eq:ELBO-decomp} relates
the standard ELBO to $\text{KL}\bb{q\Vert p}$, which justifies using
$q$ for posterior inference. If we optimize a variational objective
obtained from a different estimator, does this still correspond to
minimizing some KL-divergence? It has been shown \citep{Cremer_2017_ReinterpretingImportanceWeightedAutoencoders,Naesseth_2018_VariationalSequentialMonte,Domke_2018_ImportanceWeightingVariational}
that maximizing the IWAE objective corresponds to minimizing (an upper
bound to) $\text{KL}[q^{\text{IS}}(\zr)\|p(\zr\mid x)]$, where $q^{\text{IS}}$
is a version of $q$ that is \begin{wrapfigure}[7]{o}{0.5\columnwidth}%
\begin{centering}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{\string"Antithetic Running Example/sampled_anti\string".pdf}\vspace{-0.2cm}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{A kernel density approximation of $\protect\qmc\protect\pp z$ for
the antithetic estimator in \ref{fig:Naive-VI-running}.\label{fig:antithetic-running-samps}}
\end{wrapfigure}%
\textquotedbl corrected\textquotedbl{} toward $p$ using importance
sampling; this justifies using $q^{\text{IS}}$ to approximate the
posterior. \citet{Naesseth_2018_VariationalSequentialMonte} also
show that performing VI with an SMC objective can be seen as minimizing
(an upper bound to) a divergence from the SMC sampling distribution
$q^{\text{SMC}}(z)$ to $p(z|x)$.\marginpar{} For an arbitrary estimator,
however, there is little understanding.
We establish a deeper connection between variational objectives and
approximating families. Given a non-negative Monte Carlo (MC) estimator
$R$ such that $\E R=p(x)$, we show how to find a distribution $\qmc(z)$
such that the divergence between $\qmc(z)$ and $p(z\mid x)$ is at
most the gap between $\E\log R$ and $\log p(x)$. Thus, better estimators
mean better posterior approximations. The approximate posterior $\qmc\pp z$
can be found by a two-step \textquotedbl divide and couple\textquotedbl{}
procedure. The ``divide'' step follows \citet{Le_2018_AutoEncodingSequentialMonte}
and connects maximizing $\E\log R$ to minimizing a divergence between
two distributions, but not necessarily involving $p(z|x)$. The ``couple''
step shows how to find $Q\pp z$ such that the divergence is an upper
bound to $\KL{Q(\zr)}{p(\zr|x)}$. We show how a range of ideas from
the statistical literature--- such as antithetic sampling, stratified
sampling, and quasi Monte Carlo \citep{Owen_2013_MonteCarlotheory}---can
produce novel variational objectives; then, using the divide and
couple framework, we describe efficient-to-sample approximate posteriors
$\qmc\pp z$ for each of these objectives. We contribute mathematical
tools for deriving new estimators and approximating distributions
within this framework. Experiments show that the novel objectives
enabled by this framework can lead to improved likelihood bounds and
posterior approximations.
There is a large body of work using MC techniques to reduce the variance
of \emph{gradient estimators} of the standard variational objective
\citep{Ranganath_2014_BlackBoxVariational,Buchholz_2018_QuasiMonteCarloVariational,Miller_2017_ReducingReparameterizationGradient,Titsias_2015_LocalExpectationGradients,Geffner_2018_UsingLargeEnsembles}.
The aims of this paper are different: we use MC techniques to change
$R$ to get a tighter objective.
\section{Setup and Motivation}
Imagine we have some distribution $p(z,x)$. After observing data
$x$, we wish to approximate the posterior $p(z|x)$. Traditional
VI tries to both bound $\log p(x)$ and approximate $p(z|x)$ using
the ``ELBO decomposition'' of \ref{eq:ELBO-decomp}. We already
observed that a similar lower bound can be obtained from any non-negative
random variable $R$ with $\E\ R=p(x),$ since by Jensen's inequality,
\[
\log p(x)\geq\E\ \log R.
\]
Traditional VI can be seen as defining $R=p\pp{\zr,x}/q\pp{\zr}$
for $\zr\sim q$ and then optimizing the parameters of $q$ to maximize
$\E\log R$. Many other estimators $R$ of $p(x)$ can be designed
and their parameters optimized to make $\E\log R$ as large as possible.
We want to know: what relationship does this have to approximating
the posterior $p(z|x)$?
\subsection{Example\label{subsec:RunningExample}}
\Cref{fig:Naive-VI-running} shows a one dimensional target distribution
$p(z,x)$ as a function of $z$, and the Gaussian $q(z)$ obtained
by standard VI, i.e. maximizing $\E\log R$ for $R=p(\zr,x)/q\pp{\zr}$.
The resulting bound is $\E\log R\approx-0.237$, while the true value
is $\log p(x)=0.$ By \ref{eq:ELBO-decomp}, the KL-divergence from
$q(z)$ to $p(z|x)$ is $0.237$. Tightening the likelihood bound
has made $q$ close to $p.$
A Gaussian cannot exactly represent the main mode of $p(z,x)$, since
it is asymmetric. Antithetic sampling \citep{Owen_2013_MonteCarlotheory}
can exploit this. Define\vspace{-0.1cm}
\begin{equation}
R'=\frac{1}{2}\pars{\frac{p\pp{\zr,x}+p\pp{T\pp{\zr},x}}{q\pp{\zr}}},\ \zr\sim q,\label{eq:antithetic}
\end{equation}
where $T\pp z=\mu-\pp{z-\mu}$ is $z$ ``reflected'' around the
mean $\mu$ of $q.$ This is a valid estimator since $q\pp z$ is
constant under reflection. Tightening this bound over Gaussians $q$
gives $\E\log R'\approx-0.060$. This is better, intuitively, since
the right half of $q$ is a good match to the main mode of $p$, i.e.
since $q(z)\approx\frac{1}{2}p(z,x)$ for $z$ in that region.
What about $p(z|x)$? It is \emph{not} true that antithetic sampling
gives a $q\pp z$ with lower divergence (it is around 7.34). After
all, naive VI already found the optimal Gaussian. Is there some \emph{other}
distribution that is close to $p\pp{z|x}$? How can we find it? These
questions motivate this paper.
\subsection{Notation and Conventions}
We use sans-serif font for random variables. All estimators $R$ may
depend on the input $x$, but we suppress this for simplicity. Similarly,
$a\pp{z|\omega}$ may depend on $x$. Proofs for all results are in
the supplement. Objects such as $\pmc$, $\qmc$, $p$, $q$ are distributions
of random variables and will be written like densities: $Q(\omega)$,
$p(z,x)$. However, the results are more general: the supplement includes
a more rigorous version of our main results using probability measures.
We write densities with Dirac delta functions. These are not Lebesgue-integrable,
but can be interpreted unambiguosuly as Dirac measures: e.g., $a(z|\omega)=\delta(z-\omega)$
means the conditional distribution of $\zr$ given $\wr=\omega$ is
the Dirac measure $\delta_{\omega}$. Throughout, $x$ is fixed, so
$p(z,x)$ and $\pmc(\omega,z,x)$ are unnormalized distributions over
the other variables, and $p(z|x)$ and $\pmc(\omega,z|x)$ are the
corresponding normalized distributions.
|
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\label{sec:ack}
The author is indebted to Min Xu, Minge Xie, Samory Kpotufe, Robert McCulloch, Andy Liaw, Richard Baumgartner, and Michael Kosorok for helpful discussion and feedback. The author would also like to thank Joowon Klusowski for her help with the proof of \prettyref{lmm:deltalower}.
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\section{Introduction}
Decision trees are the building blocks of some of the most important and powerful algorithms in statistical learning. For example, ensembles of decision trees are used for some bootstrap aggregated prediction rules (e.g., random forests \citep{breiman2004}). In addition, at each iteration of gradient tree boosting (e.g., TreeBoost \citep{friedman2001greedy}), the pseudo-residuals are fit with decision trees as base learners. From an applied perspective, decision trees have an appealing interpretability and are accompanied by a rich set of analytic and visual diagnostic tools. These attributes make tree-based learning particularly well-suited for applied sciences and related disciplines---which may rely heavily on understanding and interpreting output from a black-box model and the system that generated the data.
Although, as with many aspects of statistical learning, good empirical performance often comes at the expense of rigor and transparency.\footnote{For a delightful read and intriguing perspective on this trade-off, see \citep{breiman2001statistical}.} Tree-structured learning with decision trees is no exception---statistical guarantees for popular variants, i.e., those that are actually used in practice, are hard to find. The complicated recursive way in which decision trees are constructed makes them unamenable to analysis. While a complete and thorough picture of decision trees and their role in ensemble learning may be far away or even unattainable, in this paper, we take a significant step forward and aim to tackle the following three questions.
\begin{itemize}
\item Why do decision trees have small bias?
\item Why are decision trees locally adaptive to signal strength?
\item Can one connect bias and adaptivity with quantities used to assess variable importance?
\end{itemize}
The first two questions above are supported by an abundance of empirical evidence \citep{breiman1984}, yet remain to be explained or answered by a sensible mathematical theory, especially when the tree construction involves the input and output data. For example, decision trees are known to have small bias when they are grown deeply---a defining characteristic of random forests. But how and why? Moreover, tree-based learning is known to be particularly effective in high-dimensional sparse settings when the distribution of the output depends only on a few predictor variables. What mechanism of trees enables this?
Let us emphasize that we are not content with merely a study of the standard certificates for good predictors (e.g., consistency or rates of convergence). Rather, we aim to identity and explore the \emph{unique} advantages of tree-structured learning and, in doing so, develop a unifying theory that connects bias and adaptivity via two well-known data-analytic tools for model interpretability---\emph{partial dependence functions} and \emph{variable importance measures}.
To make our work informative to the applied user of decision trees, we strive to make the least departure from practice and therefore focus specifically on Classification and Regression Tree (CART) \citep{breiman1984} methodology---by far the most popular for regression and classification problems. With this methodology, the tree construction depends on both the input and output data and is therefore \emph{data-dependent}. This aspect lends itself favorably to the empirical performance of CART, but poses unique mathematical challenges. As far as we know, the only other work that studies the bias of CART is \citep{scornet2015}, who used it to show asymptotic consistency of Breiman's random forests for additive regression models. One goal of the present paper is to extend this theory to other response surfaces.
Because individual decision trees are unstable and subject to large sampling variability\footnote{This is particularly the case for classification trees.}, we do not concern ourselves with a study of their variance. Indeed, such an endeavor is worthwhile only in the presence of some sort of variance reduction technique like pruning (i.e., removing portions of the tree in order to reduce its complexity) or ensemble averaging (e.g., bagging \citep{breiman1996bagging}, random forests, boosting), and even so, the bias remains the most challenging aspect of the analysis. This is, of course, not to diminish variance as an essential component of a theoretical investigation. For instance, in the sequel, we will apply our individual tree bias bounds to Breiman's random forests (which use ensembles of trees) in conjunction with existing results for its variance.
Let us now describe the statistical setting and framework that we will operate under for the rest of the paper. For clarity and ease of exposition, we focus specifically on \emph{regression trees}, where the target outcome is a continuous real value. Although, many of our results hold for binary classification trees as well.
We assume the learning (training) data is $ {\mathcal{D}}_n = \{(\mathbf{X}_1, Y_1), \dots, (\mathbf{X}_n, Y_n) \} $, where $(\mathbf{X}_i , Y_i ) $, $1\leq i \leq n $ are i.i.d. with common joint distribution $\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}, Y} $ and joint density $ p_{\mathbf{X}, Y} $ with respect to Lebesgue measure (with marginal distribution and density, $ \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}} $ and $p_{\mathbf{X}}$, defined analogously). Here, $\mathbf{X}_i \in [0, 1]^d $ is the input (feature, covariate, or predictor vector) and $Y_i \in \mathbb{R} $ is a continuous outcome (response or output variable). A generic pair of variables will be denoted as $ (\mathbf{X}, Y) $. A generic coordinate of $ \mathbf{X} $ will be denoted by $ X $, unless there is a need to highlight the dependence on the coordinate index, say $ X_j $, where $ j = 1, 2, \dots, d $. We will use the terms feature, predictor, or input variable to refer to $ X $ interchangeably.
The statistical model is $Y_i = f(\mathbf{X}_i) + \varepsilon_i $, for $ i = 1, \dots, n $, where $ f(\mathbf{x}) = \expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} = \mathbf{x}} $ is an unknown regression function and $ \{ \varepsilon_i \}_{1 \leq i\leq n} $ are i.i.d. errors. The conditional average of $ Y $ given $ \mathbf{X} = \mathbf{x} $ is optimal for prediction if one uses squared error loss $ L(\mathbf{X}, Y, \widetilde f) = (Y-\widetilde f(\mathbf{X}))^2 $ since it minimizes the conditional risk $ \widetilde f \mapsto \expect{(Y-\widetilde f(\mathbf{X}))^2 \mid \mathbf{X} = \mathbf{x}} = \int (y-\widetilde f(\mathbf{x}))^2 \mathbb{P}_{Y \mid \mathbf{X} = \mathbf{x}}(dy) $. The bias of a prediction rule $ \widehat Y(\mathbf{x}) = \widehat Y(\mathbf{x}; {\mathcal{D}}_n) $ at a point $ \mathbf{X} = \mathbf{x} $ is henceforth defined to be $ \expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} = \mathbf{x}} - \mathbb{E}_{{\mathcal{D}}_n}[\widehat Y(\mathbf{x})] $.
One key strength of decision trees is that they can exploit, if present, low local dimensionality of the response surface. This is particularly useful since many real-world input/output systems admit or are approximated well by local sparse representations of simple model forms, e.g., wavelets and neural networks. That is, even though the input/output relationship is determined by a large number of variables overall, the dependence may be locally characterized by only a small subset of variables. Such local adaptivity is made possible by the recursive partitioning of the input space, in which optimal splits are increasingly affected by local qualities of the data as the tree is grown. Hence, variables that locally have more influence on determining the response are much more likely to be included as candidates for further splitting. In essence, decision trees have a built-in local variable subset selection mechanism, which allows them to overcome many of the undesirable consequences (e.g., overfitting and large sample requirements) of high-dimensional modeling.
In this paper, we shall work with a more simplistic, yet still exemplary model and assume that the conditional mean response $ f(\mathbf{x})=\expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x}} $ depends only on a small, unknown subset $ {\mathcal{S}} $ of the $ d $ features. In other words, $ f $ is almost surely equal to its restriction $ f{\mid}_{[0, 1]^S} $ to the subspace $ [0, 1]^S $ of its ``strong'' variables $ \mathbf{x}_{{\mathcal{S}}}=(x_j : j \in {\mathcal{S}}) $, where $ S = \#{\mathcal{S}} \ll d $. Conversely, the output of $ f $ does not dependent on ``weak'' variables that belong to $ {\mathcal{S}}^c $. Of course, the set $ {\mathcal{S}} $ is not known a priori and must be learned from the data.
\section{Organization}
This paper is organized according to the following schema. In \prettyref{sec:notation}, we establish some basic notation and definitions that we will use throughout the paper. \prettyref{sec:prelim} reviews some of the terminology and quantities associated with growing regression trees. In \prettyref{sec:mdi}, we review two important data-analytic quantities associated with tree-ensembles for visualization and interpretability. A summary of the main results is given in \prettyref{sec:results}, including some accompanying examples and simulations studies. \prettyref{sec:ass} discusses the main assumptions on the regression function that we use to obtain our bounds. In \prettyref{sec:rf}, we apply our bounds for individual decision trees from \prettyref{sec:results} to show consistency of Breiman's random forests. \prettyref{sec:finite} contains some finite sample results. Finally, in \prettyref{sec:classification}, we briefly discuss how our results can be extended to binary classification. Proofs of the main statements from \prettyref{sec:results} are given in \prettyref{sec:proofs} and \prettyref{app:proofs} contains proofs of some lemmas and examples from the body of the paper.
\section{Notation and definitions} \label{sec:notation}
For $ {\mathcal{S}} \subset \{1, 2, \dots, d\} $, let $ \mathbf{x}_{{\mathcal{S}}} = (x_j : j\in {\mathcal{S}}) $. With a slight abuse of notation, we write $ \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j} = (x_{j'}: j' \neq j) $ instead of $ \mathbf{x}_{\{1, 2, \dots, d\}\setminus \{j\}} $ for brevity. If $ A $ is a subset of $ \mathbb{R}^d $, we let $ A_{{\mathcal{S}}} = \{ \mathbf{x}_{{\mathcal{S}}} : \mathbf{x} \in A \} $ and $ A_{\setminus j} = \{ \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j} : \mathbf{x} \in A \} $. For two subsets $ A, B \subset \mathbb{R} $, $ \text{dist}(A, B) = \inf_{a\in A,\; b\in B}|a-b| $. For $ {\mathcal{S}} \subset \{1, 2, \dots, d\} $ and $ A \subset \mathbb{R}^d $, we define $ \text{diam}_{{\mathcal{S}}}(A) = \sup_{\mathbf{x}, \; \mathbf{x}' \in A}\|\mathbf{x}_{{\mathcal{S}}}-\mathbf{x}_{{\mathcal{S}}}'\| $, where $ \|\mathbf{x}_{{\mathcal{S}}}\|^2 = \sum_{j\in{\mathcal{S}}}x^2_j $.
For a function $ g: \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R} $ and subset $ A \subset \mathbb{R}^d $, we define the oscillation of $ f $ on $ A $ by $ \omega(g; A) = \sup_{\mathbf{x}, \;\mathbf{x}' \in A}|g(\mathbf{x})-g(\mathbf{x}')| $. The total variation of a function $ g: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} $ on an interval $ [a,b] $ is defined by $ \text{TV}(g; [a,b]) = \sup_{\mathscr{P}} \sum_{\ell=1}^L |g(x_{\ell})-g(x_{\ell-1})| $, where $ \mathscr{P} = \{ {\mathcal{P}} = \{ x_0,x_1, \dots, x_L\} : {\mathcal{P}}\; \text{is a partition of}\; [a,b] \} $. If $ g: \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R} $, we will write $ \frac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r_j}g(\mathbf{x}) $ to denote the $r^{{^{\rm th}}} $ order partial derivative of $ g $ with respect to the $ j^{{^{\rm th}}} $ variable at the point $ \mathbf{x} $. If $ g: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} $, we will write $ g'(x) $ to denote the first derivative of $ g $ at the point $ x $. The $ r^{{^{\rm th}}} $ order derivative of $ g $ at the point $ x $ is denoted by $ g^{(r)}(x) $.
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:prelim}
As mentioned earlier, regression trees are commonly constructed with Classification and Regression Tree (CART) \citep{breiman1984} methodology. The primary objective of CART is to find partitions of the input variables that produce minimal variance of the response values (i.e., minimal sum of squares error with respect to the average response values). Because of the computational infeasibility of choosing the best overall partition, CART trees are greedily grown with a procedure in which binary splits recursively partition the tree into near-homogeneous terminal nodes. That is, an effective binary split partitions the data from the parent tree node into two daughter nodes so that the resultant homogeneity of the daughter nodes, as measured through their \emph{impurity} (within node sum of squares error), is improved from the homogeneity of the parent node.
Under the least squares error criterion, it can easily be shown that if one desires to have constant output in the terminal nodes of the tree, then the constant to use in each terminal node should be the average of the response values within the terminal node \cite[Proposition 8.10]{breiman1984}. Hence, these models produce a histogram estimate of the regression surface. As such, they are often referred to as piecewise constant regression models, since the tree output is constant on each terminal node.
Let us now describe the algorithm with additional precision. Consider splitting a regression tree $T$ at a node $\mathbf{t}$. Let $s$ be a candidate split for a variable $X$ that splits $\mathbf{t}$ into left and right daughter nodes $\mathbf{t}_L$ and $\mathbf{t}_R$ according to whether $ X \leq s $ or $ X > s $. These two nodes will be denoted by $\mathbf{t}_L = \{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}: X \leq s\} $ and $\mathbf{t}_R = \{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}: X > s\} $. As mentioned previously, a tree is grown by recursively reducing node impurity, which, for regression trees grown with CART, is determined by within node sample variance
\begin{equation} \label{eq:impurity} \widehat\Delta(\mathbf{t}) = \frac{1}{N(\mathbf{t}) }\sum_{\mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t}}(Y_i - \overline Y_{\mathbf{t}})^2, \end{equation}
where $\overline Y_{\mathbf{t}} = \frac{1}{N(\mathbf{t})}\sum_{\mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t}}Y_i $ is the sample mean for $\mathbf{t}$ and $N(\mathbf{t}) =\# \{ \mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t} \} $ is the number of observations in $\mathbf{t}$. Similarly, the within sample variance for a daughter node is $$ \widehat\Delta(\mathbf{t}_L) = \frac{1}{N(\mathbf{t}_L)}\sum_{\mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t}_L}(Y_i - \overline Y_{\mathbf{t}_L})^2, \quad \widehat\Delta(\mathbf{t}_R) = \frac{1}{N(\mathbf{t}_R)}\sum_{\mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t}_R}(Y_i - \overline Y_{\mathbf{t}_R})^2, $$ where $\overline Y_{\mathbf{t}_L}$ is the sample mean for $\mathbf{t}_L$ and $N(\mathbf{t}_L)$ is the sample size of $\mathbf{t}_L$ (similar definitions apply to $\mathbf{t}_R$). The parent node $ \mathbf{t} $ is split into two daughter nodes using the variable and split point producing the largest decrease in impurity (or impurity reduction). For a candidate split $s$ for $X$, this decrease in impurity equals \cite[Definition 8.13]{breiman1984} \begin{equation} \label{eq:data} \widehat\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) = \widehat\Delta(\mathbf{t}) - [\widehat P(\mathbf{t}_L)\widehat\Delta(\mathbf{t}_L) + \widehat P(\mathbf{t}_R)\widehat\Delta(\mathbf{t}_R)] \end{equation} where $ \widehat P(\mathbf{t}_L) = N(\mathbf{t}_L) /N(\mathbf{t}) $ and $\widehat P(\mathbf{t}_R) = N(\mathbf{t}_R) /N(\mathbf{t}) $ are the proportions of observations in $ \mathbf{t} $ that are contained in $\mathbf{t}_L$ and $\mathbf{t}_R$, respectively. Note that maximizing $\widehat\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t})$ is also equivalent to minimizing \begin{equation} \label{eq:pop} \widehat P(\mathbf{t}_L)\widehat\Delta(\mathbf{t}_L) + \widehat P(\mathbf{t}_R)\widehat\Delta(\mathbf{t}_R), \end{equation} which means that CART seeks the split point that minimizes the weighted sample variance. Yet another way to view $ \widehat\Delta(s; \mathbf{t}) $ is via its equivalent representation $ \widehat\Delta(\mathbf{t})\hat\rho^2 $, where $ \hat\rho $ is the empirical correlation between $ Y $ and the decision stump $ \widehat Y = \overline Y_{\mathbf{t}_L}\indc{X \leq s} + \overline Y_{\mathbf{t}_R}\indc{X > s} $ within $ \mathbf{t} $. Hence, at each node, CART seeks the step function most correlated (in magnitude) with the response variable.
To reiterate, the tree $T$ is grown recursively by finding the split point $s$ that maximizes $\widehat\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t})$. The particular variable chosen is the one that gives the largest reduction in impurity over $ \mathbf{t} $. We denote an optimized split point by $ \hat s $ (breaking ties arbitrarily) and the optimally split daughter nodes with $\hat s $ by $\hat \mathbf{t}_L$ and $\hat \mathbf{t}_R $, i.e., $ \hat \mathbf{t}_L = \{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t} : X \leq \hat s\} $ and $ \hat \mathbf{t}_R = \{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t} : X > \hat s\} $, respectively. The tree output at a terminal node $ \mathbf{t} $ is $ \widehat Y = \overline Y_{\mathbf{t}} $.
The use of \prettyref{eq:data} to evaluate each candidate split involves several passes over the training data with the consequent computational costs when handling problems with a large number of predictor variables and observations. This is particularly serious in the present setting of continuous variables---the major computational bottleneck of growing trees. Fortunately, the use of the least squares error criterion with averages in the terminal nodes permits further simplifications of the formulas described above. That is, using the sum of squares decomposition, $ \widehat\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $ can equivalently be expressed as \citep[Section 9.3]{breiman1984}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:rep1}
\widehat P(\mathbf{t}_L)\widehat P(\mathbf{t}_R)\bigg[\frac{1}{N(\mathbf{t}_L)}\sum_{\mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t}_L}Y_i - \frac{1}{N(\mathbf{t}_R)}\sum_{\mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t}_R}Y_i \bigg]^2.
\end{equation}
This expression implies that one can find the best split for a continuous variable with just a single pass over the data, without the need to calculate multiple averages and sums of squared differences for these averages. In fact, not only does this representation have computational benefits---it will also be crucial in establishing our main results. It should be stressed that this alternative expression is unique to the least squares error criterion with averages in the terminal nodes of the tree.
A direct analysis of regression trees using the finite sample splitting criterion $ \widehat\Delta(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $ is challenging and obfuscates some of the inner and subtle mechanisms that makes tree-based learning with CART desirable. Instead, to remain true to the original CART procedure while still being able theoretically study its dynamics, we work under an asymptotic data setting for determining splits and therefore replace $ \widehat\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $ with its analog based on population parameters:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:infinite} \widehat\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) \underset{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\rightarrow} \Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) \triangleq \Delta(\mathbf{t}) - [P(\mathbf{t}_L)\Delta(\mathbf{t}_L) + P(\mathbf{t}_R)\Delta(\mathbf{t}_R)], \end{equation} where $ \Delta(\mathbf{t}) $ is the conditional population variance $ \Delta(\mathbf{t}) = \mathsf{Var}[Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}] $, $\Delta(\mathbf{t}_L)$ and $\Delta(\mathbf{t}_L)$ are the daughter conditional variances $$ \Delta(\mathbf{t}_L) = \mathsf{Var}[Y \mid X \leq s, \; \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}], \quad \Delta(\mathbf{t}_R) = \mathsf{Var}[Y \mid X > s, \; \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}], $$ and $P(\mathbf{t}_L)$ and $P(\mathbf{t}_R)$ are the conditional probabilities (probability content) of the daughter nodes arising from the split $ s $, i.e., $$ P(\mathbf{t}_L ) = \prob{X \leq s \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}}, \quad P(\mathbf{t}_R) = \prob{X > s \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}}. $$
These conditional probabilities can also be interpreted as the infinite sample proportion of observations in the parent node that are contained in the daughter nodes. Note that $ P(\mathbf{t}_L) $ is also the distribution function of $ X \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t} $. We will occasionally write $ P(s | \mathbf{t}) $ instead of $ P(\mathbf{t}_L) $ to highlight dependence on the split $ s $. The density function of $ X \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t} $, that is, $ \frac{\partial}{\partial s}\prob{X \leq s \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} $, will be denoted by $ p(\mathbf{t}_L) $ or $ p(s| \mathbf{t}) $. The infinite sample analog of \prettyref{eq:rep1} is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:simple0}
P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)\left[\expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X \leq s} - \expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X > s}\right]^2.
\end{equation}
We let $\mathbf{t}^*_L=\{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}: X \leq s^*\}$ and $\mathbf{t}^*_R=\{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}: X > s^*\}$ denote the optimally split daughter nodes with optimal split $ s^* $, respectively. Note that any node $ \mathbf{t} $ is a Cartesian product of intervals, which we call \emph{subnodes}. The subnode of variable $ X $ within node $ \mathbf{t} $ is denoted by $ [a(\mathbf{t}), b(\mathbf{t})] $, where $ a(\mathbf{t}) < b(\mathbf{t}) $.
Under our framework, we optimize the infinite sample splitting criterion, namely, $ \Delta(s; \mathbf{t}) $, instead of the empirical one \prettyref{eq:data}. Optimizing the splitting protocol $ \Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $ can also be viewed as querying an oracle for the optimal (population) split values. A maximizer of $ \Delta(s; \mathbf{t}) $ is denoted by $ s^* $, i.e., $ s^* \in \argmax_s \Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $ (again, breaking ties arbitrarily). Despite this tweak, we stress that only the splits are determined from an infinite sample quantity; all other aspects of the regression tree (e.g., terminal node values, depth, variables selected for candidate splits) are determined from the learning sample. More specifically, the regression tree still outputs $ \widehat Y = \frac{1}{N(\mathbf{t})}\sum_{\mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t}} Y_i $, except that $ \mathbf{t} $ is determined by an infinite sample (population) objective. If the number of observations within $ \mathbf{t} $ is large and $ \Delta(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $ has a unique global maximum, then we can expect $ \hat s \approx s^*$ (via an empirical process argument) and hence our infinite sample setting is a good approximation to CART with empirical splits. Indeed, if $ s^* $ is unique, \citep{banerjee2007confidence} and \citep[Section 3.4.2]{buhlmann2002analyzing} show \emph{cube root asymptotics} (i.e., $ n^{1/3}(\hat s - s^*) $ converges in distribution) of split points for multi-level decision trees using the CART sum of squares error criterion. While these results show that $ \hat s $ and $ s^* $ are close, they do not reveal what sort of partition of the input space is induced by a sequence of optimal splits---the goal of the present paper. Since this partition is constructed from the distribution of $ (\mathbf{X}, Y) $, we will need to impose conditions on the regression function and input distribution so that the partition yields a predictor with small bias. It is our hope that the applied user of decision trees can benefit from knowing these limitations in the idealized setting of population-level splits.
Since the recursive partition obtained from $ \widehat\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $ governs the bias of the tree, our study of the partitions created from the infinite sample version $ \Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $ is in much the same vein as the study of kernel or nearest neighbors regression with (oracle) infinite sample, optimal parameters (e.g., kernel bandwidth or number of nearest neighbors), obtained by minimizing the asymptotic mean integrated squared error (AMISE).
\subsection{A comment on notation} Up until now, we have assumed that the split occurs along a generic coordinate $ X $. However, in the multi-dimensional setting, there will be a need to specify the coordinate index. Therefore, we will write $ \Delta(j, s; \mathbf{t}) $ to denote $ \Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $ when the coordinate being split is $ X_j $. For the same reason, we write $ P_j(\mathbf{t}_L) $ and $ P_j(s | \mathbf{t}) $ in lieu of $ P(\mathbf{t}_L) $ and $ P(s | \mathbf{t}) $, respectively. Similar definitions will hold for the subnode $ [a_j(\mathbf{t}), b_j(\mathbf{t})] $ when we want to emphasize the dependence on the variable index. We write $ j_{\mathbf{t}} $ to denote the splitting variable chosen in node $ \mathbf{t} $, i.e., $ j_{\mathbf{t}} \in \argmax_{j=1,2,\dots, d}\Delta(j, s^*; \mathbf{t}) $, breaking ties arbitrarily. Finally, note that an optimal split $ s^* $ for a node $ \mathbf{t} $ depends on $ \mathbf{t} $ and therefore should technically be written as $ s^*_{\mathbf{t}} $, however, we suppress this dependence for brevity and assume that it holds implicitly. We also use similar notation for the finite sample versions of these quantities.
As a general rule, if the index $ j $ is omitted on any quantity, it should be understood that we are considering a generic variable $ X $.
We now survey two popular data-analytic quantities that are also intimately connected to the forthcoming results in \prettyref{sec:results}.
\section{Data-analytic quantities for interpretation and visualization} \label{sec:mdi}
Pertinent to many tasks in data analysis is interpretability of the representation of the model. For black-box models such as random forests, this is usually performed through graphical renderings of the prediction surface as a function of one or two predictor variables and assessing the role each variable plays in determining the final output. Here we review two of the most popular quantities associated with decision tree ensembles for this purpose.
\subsection{Partial dependence functions} One useful device for visualizing the influence of a particular variable on the output is the so-called \emph{partial dependence function}.\footnote{Visualizing the effect of more than two predictor variables has limited descriptive value.} By looking simultaneously at the \emph{partial dependence plots}---i.e., a trellis of plots of the partial dependence functions for each variable---one can obtain a visual description of a multivariable predictor. In the same spirit, for assessing how each variable affects the output conditional on a node, we define the \emph{conditional partial dependence function} given node $ \mathbf{t} $ via
\begin{equation} \label{eq:partialdef}
\overline F_j(x_j ; \mathbf{t}) = \expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X_j = x_j} = \int f(x_j, \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j})\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}_{\setminus j}\mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X_j = x_j}(d\mathbf{x}_{\setminus j}),
\end{equation}
where $ \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}_{\setminus j} \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X_j = x_j}(d\mathbf{x}_{\setminus j}) $
is the conditional probability measure with conditional density $ \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j} \mapsto p_{\mathbf{X}}(x_j, \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j})/\int_{\mathbf{t}_{\setminus j}}p_{\mathbf{X}}(x_j, \mathbf{x}'_{\setminus j})d\mathbf{x}'_{\setminus j} $.
Note that $ \overline F_j(x_j ; \mathbf{t}) $ is the best least squares approximation to $ f(\mathbf{X}) $ in $ \mathbf{t} $ as a function of $ X_j $ alone, i.e.,
$ \overline F_j(x_j ; \mathbf{t}) = \argmin_F \expect{(Y-F(X_j))^2\mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X_j = x_j} $. For brevity, we write $ \overline F'_j(x_j ; \mathbf{t}) $ to denote the derivative $ \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}\overline F_j(x_j ; \mathbf{t}) $, provided it exists.
We also define the \emph{mean-centered conditional partial dependence function} as
\begin{align*}
\overline G_j(x_j ; \mathbf{t}) & = \overline F_j(x_j ; \mathbf{t}) - \int \overline F_j(x_j ; \mathbf{t})\mathbb{P}_{X_j \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}}(dx_j) \\ & = \expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X_j = x_j} - \expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}};
\end{align*}
that is, $ \overline G_j(x_j ; \mathbf{t}) $ is $ \overline F_j(x_j ; \mathbf{t}) $ minus its mean value over the node.
Strictly speaking, $ \overline F_j(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $ is \emph{not} the same as the partial dependence function in the sense of \citep[Section 8.2]{friedman2001greedy} or \citep[Section 10.13.2]{hastie2009elements}, where, instead of ignoring the effects of $ \mathbf{X}_{\setminus j} $, one looks at the dependence of $ f $ on $ X_j $ in $ \mathbf{t} $ \emph{after} averaging with respect to the marginal distribution of the other covariates $ \mathbf{X}_{\setminus j} $, i.e., $ \overline F_j(x_j ; \mathbf{t}) = \int f(x_j, \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j})\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}_{\setminus j}\mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}}(d\mathbf{x}_{\setminus j}) $, where $ \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}_{\setminus j}\mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}}(d\mathbf{x}_{\setminus j}) $ is the conditional probability measure with conditional density $ \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j} \mapsto p_{\mathbf{X}_{\setminus j}}(\mathbf{x}_{\setminus j})/\int_{\mathbf{t}_{\setminus j}}p_{\mathbf{X}_{\setminus j}}(\mathbf{x}'_{\setminus j})d\mathbf{x}'_{\setminus j} $.
However, when $ X_j $ and $ \mathbf{X}_{\setminus j} $ are independent (for example, as in the uniform case), the two definitions coincide with each other.
Of course, in practice, one would integrate an estimate $ \widehat f $ of $ f $ against the empirical distribution, so that, for example,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:partialdata}
\overline F_j(x_j ; \mathbf{t}) = \frac{1}{N(\mathbf{t}) }\sum_{\mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t}} \widehat f(x_j, \mathbf{X}_{i\setminus j}).
\end{equation}
When the tree is fully grown so that each terminal node contains only a single observation, i.e., $ N(\mathbf{t}) = 1 $ for all $ \mathbf{t} $, \prettyref{eq:partialdata} is the Individual Conditional Expectation (ICE) \citep{goldstein2015peeking}.
Let us finally mention that a desirable property of tree-based models (i.e., if $ \widehat f $ is a tree-structured predictor) is that the partial dependence function \prettyref{eq:partialdata} can be quickly computed from the tree itself, without passing over the data each time it is to be evaluated. This fact has implications for the rapid production of a trellis of plots for each variable.
\subsection{Variable importance measures and variable influence ranking}
Another attractive feature of tree-based ensembles is that one can compute, essentially for free, various measures of variable importance (or influence) using the optimal split points and their corresponding impurities. These measures are used for sensitivity analysis and to rank the influence of each variable in determining the output, which in turn, can be used to identify and select the most relevant predictors for further investigation (such as plotting their partial dependence functions). For random forests, one canonical and widely used measure is the Mean Decrease in Impurity (MDI) \citep[Section 8.1]{friedman2001greedy}, \citep[Section 5.3.4]{breiman1984}, \citep[Sections 10.13.1 \& 15.3.2]{hastie2009elements}, defined as the weighted sum of largest impurity reductions (i.e., either Gini impurity for classification or variance impurity for regression) over all non-terminal nodes in the tree, averaged over all trees in the forest, i.e.,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:empMDI}
\widehat{\text{MDI}}(X_j) = \frac{1}{\#T}\sum_T\widehat{\text{MDI}}(X_j; T),
\end{equation}
where
$$
\widehat{\text{MDI}}(X_j; T) = \sum_{\substack{\mathbf{t}' \\ j_{\mathbf{t}'}=j}}\widehat P(\mathbf{t}')\widehat\Delta(j, \hat s ; \mathbf{t}'),
$$
and the sum extends over all non-terminal (internal) nodes $ \mathbf{t}' $ such that $j_{\mathbf{t}'}=j$ and $\widehat P(\mathbf{t}') = N(\mathbf{t}') /n $ is the proportion of observations that land in node $ \mathbf{t}' $.\footnote{Another commonly used and possibly more accurate measure is Mean Decrease in Accuracy (MDA), defined as the average difference in out-of-bag error before and after randomly permuting the values of $ X_j $ in out-of-bag samples over all trees. However, as with all permutation based methods, computational issues are present. Compare MDA with MDI, which can be computed as each tree is grown with no additional cost. Both MDI and MDA are calculated in the R package \texttt{randomForest} with \texttt{randomForest(..., importance = TRUE)} and in the Python library \texttt{scikit-learn} with attribute
\texttt{feature\char`_ importances\char`_}}
The next definition of variable importance generalizes and localizes MDI. Instead of weighting each $ \widehat\Delta(j, \hat s; \mathbf{t}') $ by the proportion of observations in $ \mathbf{t}' $, more flexible weights are allowed. Moreover, rather than summing over all non-terminal nodes, we condition on a particular terminal node so that only nodes that are ancestors of the terminal node are considered.
\begin{definition}[Conditional variable importance]
Let $ \mathbf{t} $ be a terminal node and let $ j_{\mathbf{t}'} $ denote the index of the variable selected to split along at an ancestor node $ \mathbf{t}' $ of $ \mathbf{t} $. The conditional variable importance of $ X_j $ given $ \mathbf{t} $ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\text{MDI}}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) = \sum_{\substack{\mathbf{t}' \supset \mathbf{t} \\ j_{\mathbf{t}'}=j}}\widehat w(j, \hat s; \mathbf{t}')\widehat\Delta(j, \hat s ; \mathbf{t}'),
\end{equation}
where the sum extends over all ancestor nodes $ \mathbf{t}' $ of $ \mathbf{t} $ such that $j_{\mathbf{t}'}=j$ and the (possibly data-dependent) weights $ \{\widehat w(j, \hat s; \mathbf{t}')\} $ are nonnegative. That is, $ \widehat{\text{MDI}}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) $ is a weighted sum of largest impurity decreases $ \widehat\Delta(j, \hat s ; \mathbf{t}') $ among all ancestor nodes $ \mathbf{t}' $ of terminal node $ \mathbf{t} $ such that $ X_j $ was selected for a split. The infinite sample version of $ \widehat{\text{MDI}}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) $, denoted by $ \text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) $, is defined by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:imp}
\text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) = \sum_{\substack{\mathbf{t}' \supset \mathbf{t} \\ j_{\mathbf{t}'}=j}}w(j, s^*; \mathbf{t}')\Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}'),
\end{equation}
where the weights $ \{w(j, s^*; \mathbf{t}')\} $ are nonnegative.
\end{definition}
Note that $ \widehat{\text{MDI}}(X_j) $ is a \emph{global} measure of importance. Thus, $ \widehat{\text{MDI}}(X_j) $ is relevant for answering questions such as ``what variables are most important in predicting blood pressure?'' and $ \widehat{\text{MDI}}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) $ is useful for answering questions like ``for subjects ages 65 and up, what variables are most important in predicting blood pressure?''. A few other variants of local or case-wise (permutation) importance have been proposed to cope with the bias of variable importance measures towards correlated predictor variables. See, for example, \citep{strobl2008conditional}.
\section{Summary of results} \label{sec:results}
This section contains our main results. Due to space constraints, proofs of most of the statements are deferred until \prettyref{sec:proofs} and \prettyref{app:proofs}.
\subsection{Distributional assumptions}
Before we continue, let us first state the main distributional assumptions on the predictor variables. Let us remark, however, that many of the subsequent statements and results (e.g., \prettyref{sec:rf}, \prettyref{sec:finite}, and \prettyref{sec:proofs}) hold without them.
\begin{assumption} \label{ass:density}
For each variable $ X_j $ and node $ \mathbf{t} $, the distribution function $ \prob{X_j \leq x_j \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} $ is strictly increasing.
\end{assumption}
\prettyref{ass:density} is quite mild and holds if the joint density $ p_{\mathbf{X}} $ never vanishes.\footnote{This does \emph{not} necessarily mean that the joint density is uniformly bounded below by a positive constant.}
The next assumption is needed for \prettyref{thm:main}, our main result.
\begin{assumption} \label{ass:indep}
For each variable $ X_j $, node $ \mathbf{t} $, and split $ s $,
\begin{align}
& \prob{X_j \leq s \mid a_j(\mathbf{t}) \leq X_j \leq b_j(\mathbf{t})} \geq \eta\prob{X_j \leq s \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}}\; \text{and} \\
& \prob{X_j > s \mid a_j(\mathbf{t}) \leq X_j \leq b_j(\mathbf{t})} \geq \eta\prob{X_j > s \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}},
\end{align}
for some universal constant $ \eta \in (0, 1] $.
\end{assumption}
\prettyref{ass:indep} is more restrictive than \prettyref{ass:density}, yet it still allows for some degree of dependency structures among the predictor variables. For example, it holds if the joint density function of the features is uniformly bounded above and below by constant multiples of the product of its marginal densities, i.e.,
$$
c_2p_{X_1}(x_1)\cdots p_{X_d}(x_d) \leq p_{\mathbf{X}}(\mathbf{x}) \leq c_1p_{X_1}(x_1)\cdots p_{X_d}(x_d),
$$
for all $ \mathbf{x} \in [0, 1]^d $, where $ c_1 $ and $ c_2 $ are positive constants. In this case, $ \eta $ can be taken to be $ c_2/c_1 $.
\subsection{Probability content of terminal subnodes}
The next theorem, our main result, gives a clean, interpretable bound on the $ \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}} $-probability of a terminal subnode in terms of the variable importance measure, which in turn, controls the bias of the tree. Specifically, it shows that conditional terminal subnode probability content is (exponentially) small in the importance measure attributed to the splitting variable. This bound also corroborates with empirical evidence showing that, although decision trees are highly unstable, their bias tends to be small. For brevity, we furnish the proof in \prettyref{sec:proofs}.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:main}
Suppose \prettyref{ass:density} and \prettyref{ass:indep} hold and $ [a_j(\mathbf{t}), b_j(\mathbf{t})] $ is a subnode along the $ j^{{^{\rm th}}} $ direction for a terminal node $ \mathbf{t} = \prod_{j=1}^d [a_j(\mathbf{t}), b_j(\mathbf{t})] $. Then,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:nodesize}
\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}}[a_j(\mathbf{t}) \leq X_j \leq b_j(\mathbf{t})] \leq \exp\left\{-\frac{\eta }{4}\text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t})\right\},
\end{equation}
where $ \text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) = \sum_{\substack{\mathbf{t}' \supset \mathbf{t} \\ j_{\mathbf{t}'}=j}}w(j, s^*; \mathbf{t}')\Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}') $ is the conditional variable importance \prettyref{eq:imp} with weights given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:w1}
w(j, s^*; \mathbf{t}') = [|\overline G_j(s^*; \mathbf{t}')|^2 + \Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}')]^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, if the first-order partial derivatives of the regression function and joint density function of $ \mathbf{X} $ exist and are continuous, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:w2}
w(j, s^*; \mathbf{t}') \geq \bigg(\frac{2p_j(s^*| \mathbf{t}')}{|\overline F'_j(s^*; \mathbf{t}')|\Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}')}\bigg)^{2/3}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
The main technical tools for proving \prettyref{thm:main}---\prettyref{thm:mainprob} and \prettyref{thm:second}---characterize $ \prob{X_j \leq s^* \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}'} $ in terms of the partial dependence function $ \overline F_j(s^*; \mathbf{t}') $ and reduction in impurity $ \Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}') $ at an optimal split. The form of the weights \prettyref{eq:w1} are derived from the first-order conditions (i.e., $\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\Delta(j, s; \mathbf{t}')\mid_{s=s^*} = 0 $) of $ s^* $ as a global maximizer of $ \Delta(j, \cdot; \mathbf{t}') $, whereas the lower bound \prettyref{eq:w2} incorporates \emph{both} first- and second-order optimality conditions (i.e., $\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\Delta(j, s; \mathbf{t}')\mid_{s=s^*} = 0 $ and $\frac{\partial^2}{\partial s^2}\Delta(j, s; \mathbf{t}')\mid_{s=s^*} < 0 $).
\begin{remark}
If the regression function is linear and the input is uniformly distributed, then $ \text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) $ with weights \prettyref{eq:w1} equals $ K_j(\mathbf{t}) $, the number of times $X_j$ was selected among all ancestor nodes of terminal node $ \mathbf{t} $.\footnote{Importance measures based on feature selection frequencies are implemented in standard R and Python packages for XGBoost \citep{chen2016xgboost}.}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} \label{rmk:bias}
\prettyref{thm:main} implies that $ \text{diam}_{{\mathcal{S}}}(\mathbf{t}) $ converges to zero in $ \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}} $-probability when $ \text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) \rightarrow +\infty $ for each $ j \in {\mathcal{S}} $. According to classic theory for partitioning-based prediction rules, shrinking terminal node diameters is a necessary condition for asymptotic consistency \citep{stone1977consistent}.
\end{remark}
In light of \prettyref{eq:nodesize}, it is tantalizing to interpret $ \text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) $ (and therefore $ \widehat{\text{MDI}}(X_j; T) $) as truly a measure of variable importance,
since it governs the bias of the regression tree along a specific direction, i.e., the conditional probability content of a terminal subnode for a variable is small when the MDI for that variable is large.\footnote{The original motivation for MDI was based solely on simple heuristic arguments and so one is left guessing as to why it seems to work. Overall, little is known about the theoretical properties of variable importance measures; see \citep{kazemitabar2017variable, louppe2013understanding, li2019debiased} for recent attempts in this direction.}
As a consequence of \prettyref{thm:main}, we immediately see two important properties of the regression tree:
\begin{itemize}
\item Terminal subnodes with smaller $\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}} $-probability are along more ``important'' directions as delineated by MDI, and thus adapt to signal strength in each direction. That is, the tree needs to be split more often in order to create finer partitions along directions that are more relevant to the output.
\item The adaptation to the importance of the variable is \emph{local} and depends on a particular terminal node of the tree. That is, each direction and location of the features requires a different level of granularity in the tree in order to detect and adapt to local changes in the regression surface. For example, regions of the input space where the response is ``flat'' do not need to be split as often and therefore a crude partition will suffice. On the other hand, complex functional dependencies may require a higher degree of fineness in the final model.
\end{itemize}
These observations are consistent with \citep[Section 4]{lin2006}, in that terminal nodes are on average narrower in directions with strong signals than in directions with weak signals. This is a very appealing property from a statistical perspective---trees with terminal subnodes that have large (resp. small) probability content in directions with weak (resp. strong) signals are less likely to overfit (resp. underfit) the data.
\begin{remark}
An analogy can be drawn between the terminal subnode probability content $ \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}}[X_j \in [a_j, b_j]] $ and the bandwidth size in kernel regression, both of which control the bias of the predictor. Bandwidth selection for kernel regression \citep{yang1999multivariate} is often performed using a plug-in estimator of the best bandwidth that minimizes the AMISE. There, just like with \prettyref{eq:w2}, the best theoretical bandwidth also depends on the density function of the features and the smoothness of the regression function (albeit, via curvature---$ \int \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2_j}f(\mathbf{x})\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2_{j'}}f(\mathbf{x})\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}}(d\mathbf{x}) $) \citep[Theorem 1]{yang1999multivariate} and \citep[Section 5.8]{wand1994kernel}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
As will be discussed in \prettyref{sec:classification}, the statement of \prettyref{thm:main} also holds verbatim for binary classification trees with appropriate modifications for alternate (i.e., Gini) splitting rules. An illustrative example involving logistic regression will also be provided.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Empirical study}
In \prettyref{fig:data}, we showcase the aforementioned adaptive properties of trees on four representative datasets from the UC Irvine Machine Learning Repository, namely, the \emph{Airfoil Self-Noise} (\prettyref{fig:airfoil}) and \emph{Concrete Compressive Strength} (\prettyref{fig:concrete}) datasets for regression and the \emph{Blood Transfusion Service Center} (\prettyref{fig:blood}), and \emph{HTRU2} (\prettyref{fig:star}) datasets for binary classification.
We first standardized the input data so that each variable belongs to $ [0, 1] $, i.e., $ X' = (X-X_{(1)})/(X_{(n)}-X_{(1)}) $. For each dataset, we generated $ 1000 $ trees from bootstrap samples of the data. Each tree was generated by \texttt{rpart} in R with default settings, except for the complexity parameter $ \texttt{cp} $, which was set to $ 0.001 $. The black bars represent the median terminal subnode length $ \ell_j(\mathbf{t}) = b_j(\mathbf{t})-a_j(\mathbf{t}) $ for each tree, averaged over all $ 1000 $ trees. The white bars represent $ \widehat{\text{MDI}} $ \prettyref{eq:empMDI} for each variable. Both quantities are scaled so that the largest among them is $ 100 $ and the variables are ordered according to increasing $ \widehat{\text{MDI}} $. In agreement with \prettyref{thm:main}, the barplots reveal the inverse relationship between $ \widehat{\text{MDI}}(X_j) $ and the terminal subnode lengths $ \ell_j $.
\begin{figure} [t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{airfoil.pdf}
\caption{\emph{Airfoil Self-Noise}: $ n = 1503 $, $ d = 5 $.}
\label{fig:airfoil}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{concrete.pdf}
\caption{\emph{Concrete Compressive Strength}: $ n = 1030 $, $ d = 8 $.}
\label{fig:concrete}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{blood.pdf}
\caption{\emph{Blood Transfusion Service Center}: $ n = 748 $, $ d = 4 $.}
\label{fig:blood}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{star.pdf}
\caption{\emph{HTRU2}: $ n = 17898 $, $ d = 8 $.}
\label{fig:star}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Median subnode length of each tree, averaged over $ 1000 $ bootstrapped trees (black bars) and $\widehat{\text{MDI}}(X_j) $ \prettyref{eq:empMDI} (white bars). Both quantities are scaled so that the largest among them is $ 100 $ and the variables are ordered according to increasing $\widehat{\text{MDI}}(X_j) $.}
\label{fig:data}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Lower bounds on MDI} \label{sec:mdilower}
In light of \prettyref{thm:main} and \prettyref{rmk:bias}, it is natural to ask when $ \text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) $ diverges. We now provide some answers. First, let us mention that studying $ \text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) $ directly is hopeless since it is nearly impossible to give a closed form expression for each $ \Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}') $. Nevertheless, $ \text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) $ can still be lower bounded by giving a lower bound on each weight $ w(j, s^*; \mathbf{t}) $ and reduction in impurity $ \Delta(j,s^*; \mathbf{t}) $.
By definition of $ s^* $, one can lower bound each $ \Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}') $ by $ \Delta(j, s'; \mathbf{t}') $ for \emph{any} $ s' \in [a_j(\mathbf{t}'),b_j(\mathbf{t}')] $. Effectively, this means that to lower bound $ \text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) $, one can replace $ \Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}') $ by $ \Delta(j, s'; \mathbf{t}') $ for any choice $ s' $ in $ [a_j(\mathbf{t}'), b_j(\mathbf{t}')] $ or (per a Bayesian perspective) by the integrated decrease in impurity $ \int_{a_j(\mathbf{t}')}^{b_j(\mathbf{t}')}\Delta(j, s; \mathbf{t}')\Pi(ds) $ with respect to a prior $ \Pi $ on the splits. (It is often convenient to choose $ s' $ to be the median of $ X_j \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}' $.) This observation is crucial to the forthcoming analysis, since it reduces the burden of finding $ s^* $ exactly to finding a suitable choice of $ s' $ or prior $ \Pi $ for which $ \Delta(j, \cdot; \mathbf{t}') $ is tractable to analyze.
To lower bound the weights $ w(j, s^*; \mathbf{t}') $ in \prettyref{thm:main}, one is confronted with obtaining a useful upper bound on either $ |\overline G_j(s^*; \mathbf{t}')| $ for \prettyref{eq:w1} or $ |\overline F'_j(s^*; \mathbf{t}')| $ for \prettyref{eq:w2}. We will see that it typically suffices to bound either by their supremum norm over splits in the parent subnode, and so no explicit knowledge of $ s^* $ is required. For the lower bound \prettyref{eq:w2}, one additionally needs to lower bound the conditional density of $ X_j \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}' $ at $ s^* $, or $ p_j(s^*| \mathbf{t}') $. This too is a simple task if the joint density of $ \mathbf{X} $ is uniformly bounded away from zero by a positive constant, in which case $ p_j(s^*| \mathbf{t}') \geq \inf_s p_j(s| \mathbf{t}') > 0 $. For example, if $ \mathbf{X} $ is uniformly distributed, then $ p_j(s^*| \mathbf{t}') = (b_j(\mathbf{t}')-a_j(\mathbf{t}'))^{-1} $.
Using these observations, we show in \prettyref{thm:lambdalower} that $ \text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) $ can be lower bounded by a positive constant multiple of the selection frequency of $ X_j $ in the tree. For brevity, we defer its proof until \prettyref{sec:proofs}. Before we state \prettyref{thm:lambdalower}, we first introduce some concepts. Central to the paper is a quantity which we call the \emph{node balancedness}. It measures the infinite sample proportion of data in the parent node that is contained in either daughter node from an optimal split.
\begin{definition}[Node balancedness] \label{def:nodebalance}
The balancedness of a node $ \mathbf{t} $ is defined by
$$
\lambda_j(\mathbf{t}) = 4P_j(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P_j(\mathbf{t}^*_R) = 1- |P_j(\mathbf{t}^*_L)-P_j(\mathbf{t}^*_R)|^2.
$$
\end{definition}
Another way of thinking about node balancedness is the following. Suppose we randomly generate a new $ \mathbf{X} $ from $ \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X} \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} $ and classify $ Z = +1 $ if $ X_j \leq s^* $ or $ Z = -1 $ if $ X_j > s^* $. Then $ \lambda_j(\mathbf{t}) $ is simply the variance of $ Z $.
The node balancedness is always one (perfectly balanced) when the split is performed at the median of the conditional distribution $ X_j \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t} $. This particular situation occurs in the special case that the regression surface is linear and the input distribution is uniform.
In general, the quantity $ \lambda_j $ depends on the node $ \mathbf{t} $---if $ \mathbf{t} $ changes, so does $ s^* $.
We now introduce a more global measure, which depends only on the regression function.
\begin{definition}[Global balancedness] \label{def:edgegap}
The global balancedness $ \Lambda_j $ is defined as
$$
\Lambda_j = \inf_{\mathbf{t}} \lambda_j(\mathbf{t}),
$$
where the infimum runs over all parent nodes $ \mathbf{t} $ of the best split left and right daughter nodes $ \mathbf{t}^*_L $ and $ \mathbf{t}^*_R $, respectively.
\end{definition}
With these definitions in place, we are now ready to state \prettyref{thm:lambdalower}, which lower bounds $ \text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) $ in terms of the selection frequency for $ X_j $. For brevity, the proof is deferred until \prettyref{sec:lower}.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:lambdalower}
Suppose
the $ j^{{^{\rm th}}}$ direction of $ f $ is not too ``flat'' in the sense that there exists a finite integer $ R \geq 1 $ such that for each $ x_j $ in $ [0, 1] $, there is a finite-order partial derivative, $ \tfrac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r_j}f(x_j, \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j}) $ with $ 1 \leq r \leq R $, that is nonzero and continuous for all other input coordinates $ \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j} $ in $ [0, 1]^{d-1}$. More formally, assume
\begin{equation} \label{eq:flat}
\sup_{x_j \in[0, 1]}\inf_{r\geq 1}\big\{ r : \tfrac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r_j}f(x_j, \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j}) \; \text{is nonzero and continuous for all} \; \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j} \in [0, 1]^{d-1}\big\}
\end{equation}
is finite.
If additionally the features of $ \mathbf{X} $ are independent and have marginal densities that are continuous and never vanish, then the global balancedness $ \Lambda_j $ is strictly positive and
$$
\text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) \geq \Lambda_j K_j(\mathbf{t}),
$$
where $ K_j(\mathbf{t}) = \#\{ \mathbf{t}' \supset \mathbf{t} : j_{\mathbf{t}'} = j \} $ is the number of times $X_j$ was selected among all ancestor nodes of terminal node $ \mathbf{t} $.
\end{theorem}
It will be shown in \prettyref{sec:ass} (see \prettyref{thm:radial}) that any linear combination of Gaussian radial basis functions in $\mathbb{R}^d $ with positive weights satisfies \prettyref{eq:flat}. Furthermore, \prettyref{eq:flat} also holds for any nonconstant, one-dimensional polynomial or partial sum of a Fourier series.
\begin{remark}
Taken together, \prettyref{thm:main} and \prettyref{thm:lambdalower} imply that $ \text{diam}_{{\mathcal{S}}}(\mathbf{t}) $ converges to zero (exponentially fast) in $ \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}} $-probability when $ K_j(\mathbf{t}) \rightarrow +\infty $ for each $ j \in {\mathcal{S}} $. The feature selection frequencies of important variables are typically large for deeply grown decision trees (in fact, $ K_j(\mathbf{t}) $ is usually scales with the tree depth) and hence this condition is typically met. That is, the number of times $ \Delta(j, s^*, \mathbf{t}') > \max_{j'\neq j}\Delta(j', s^*, \mathbf{t}') $ at an ancestor node $ \mathbf{t}' $ of $ \mathbf{t} $ typically scales with the tree depth.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Condition \prettyref{eq:flat} does not mean that all partial derivatives of $ f $ exist and are continuous. For example, the function $ f(\mathbf{x}) = x_1 + (x_1-1/2)^2\text{sgn}(x_1-1/2) $ has discontinuous second derivative, yet still satisfies the condition.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Examples}
\prettyref{thm:lambdalower} does does not show how $ \Lambda_j $ depends on the structure of the regression function. It seems, at least for now, that such results are only available on a case-by-case basis and obtained with considerable effort. Here we give some example calculations of $ \Lambda_j $ for polynomial and trigonometric functions which decay inversely with the degree and periodicity, respectively. These theoretical results are accompanied by plots (see \prettyref{fig:poly} and \prettyref{fig:sine}) of $ \Delta(j, \cdot; \mathbf{t}) $ together with sampling distributions of $ \hat s \in \argmax_s \widehat\Delta(j, s; \mathbf{t}) $ from a sample size of $ n = 100 $ over $ 100 $ independent replications. Note that here a smaller sample size was purposely chosen to mimic a situation where the split is performed in a deep node and thus likely to contain only a small number of observations. As evidenced by the plots, the optimal splits tend to be closer to the parent subnode edges (in this case $ 0 $ and $ 1 $) with larger degree and periodicity. This phenomenon is manifested in the lower bounds on $ \Lambda_j $ in \prettyref{ex:poly} and \prettyref{ex:sine}---some of the terminal nodes will be large if splits from ancestor nodes are close to their parent subnode edges. In conjunction with \prettyref{thm:main} and the inverse relationship between the terminal node size and $ \text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) $ (being a weighted sum of $ \Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}') $), the plots \prettyref{fig:poly} and \prettyref{fig:sine} also reveal that the splits tend to be near the edges when the reduction in impurity is small. In future sections, we will theoretically confirm this (see \prettyref{thm:mainprob} and \prettyref{thm:second}) and show, more generally, that splits occur near the edges of the parent subnode whenever $ \Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}') $ is small.\footnote{Note that \prettyref{thm:mainprob} and \prettyref{thm:second}, used to prove this phenomenon, do not need \prettyref{ass:indep}.} This phenomenon has also been dubbed ``end-cut preference'' in the literature \citep{ishwaran2015effect}, \citep[Section 11.8]{breiman1984}. In \prettyref{sec:alternate}, we will study a penalized variant of $ \Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}') $ in order to mitigate this effect.
For each of the following three examples, we assume that $ \mathbf{X} $ is uniformly distributed on $ [0, 1]^d $.
\begin{example} \label{ex:poly}
Suppose $ f(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_{j=1}^d \beta_j x_j^{k_j} $ for nonzero constants $ \{ \beta_j \} $ and integer $ k_j \geq 0 $. Suppose $ j \in {\mathcal{S}} $ so that $ k_j \geq 1 $. Then
$$
\Lambda_j \geq \left(\frac{1}{k_j(k_j+1)}\right)^{2/3}.
$$
It is possible to show that, more generally, if $ f(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_{j=1}^d \beta_j (x_j-\alpha_j)^{k_j} $, for constants $ \{ \alpha_j \} $, then $ \Lambda_j \geq C 4^{-k_j/3}k_j^{-4/3} $ for some universal constant $ C > 0 $.
\begin{figure} [t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{poly2.pdf}
\caption{Plot of $ s \mapsto \Delta(1, s ; [0, 1]) $ for $ f(\mathbf{x}) = x^{2}_1 $.}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{poly.pdf}
\caption{Plot of $ s \mapsto \Delta(1, s ; [0, 1]) $ for $ f(\mathbf{x}) = x^{10}_1 $.}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{poly_hist2.pdf}
\caption{Histogram of $ \hat s $ for $ Y = X^{2} + \varepsilon $ ($ X \sim \mathrm{Uniform}(0, 1) $, $ \varepsilon \sim N(0, 1) $) with $ n = 100 $ from $ 100 $ replications.}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{poly_hist.pdf}
\caption{Histogram of $ \hat s $ for $ Y = X^{10} + \varepsilon $ ($ X \sim \mathrm{Uniform}(0, 1) $, $ \varepsilon \sim N(0, 1) $) with $ n = 100 $ from $ 100 $ replications.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Plots of $ s \mapsto \Delta(1, s ; [0, 1]) $ and corresponding maxima (dotted vertical lines) for \prettyref{ex:poly}. Histograms show sampling distribution of $ \hat s $ for $ n = 100 $ from $ 100 $ replications.}
\label{fig:poly}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\begin{example} \label{ex:sine}
Suppose $ f(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_{j=1}^d \beta_j \sin(2\pi m_j x_j) $ for nonzero constants $ \{ \beta_j \} $ and integer $ m_j \geq 0 $. Suppose $ j \in {\mathcal{S}} $ so that $ m_j \geq 1 $. There exists a universal constant $ C > 0 $ such that
$$
\Lambda_j \geq Cm_j^{-4/3}.
$$
\begin{figure} [t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{sine2.pdf}
\caption{Plot of $ s \mapsto \Delta(1, s; [0, 1]) $ for $ f(\mathbf{x}) = \sin(4\pi x_1) $.}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{sine.pdf}
\caption{Plot of $ s \mapsto \Delta(1, s; [0, 1]) $ for $ f(\mathbf{x}) = \sin(20\pi x_1) $.}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{sine_hist2.pdf}
\caption{Histogram of $ \hat s $ for $ Y = \sin(4\pi X) + \varepsilon $ ($ X \sim \mathrm{Uniform}(0, 1) $, $ \varepsilon \sim N(0, 1) $) with $ n = 100 $ from $ 100 $ replications.}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{sine_hist.pdf}
\caption{Histogram of $ \hat s $ for $ Y = \sin(20\pi X) + \varepsilon $ ($ X \sim \mathrm{Uniform}(0, 1) $, $ \varepsilon \sim N(0, 1) $) with $ n = 100 $ from $ 100 $ replications.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Plots of $ s \mapsto \Delta(1, s; \mathbf{t}) $ and corresponding maxima (dotted vertical lines) for \prettyref{ex:sine}. Histograms show sampling distribution of $ \hat s $ for $ n = 100 $ from $ 100 $ replications.}
\label{fig:sine}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\prettyref{ex:sine} implies that to ensure each terminal subnode has small probability content, $ K_j(\mathbf{t}) $ (or the tree depth) should be larger for functions that have larger frequencies in their frequency domain. This is not merely a coincidence. In fact, it can be shown more generally that if $ \mathbf{X} $ is uniformly distributed, then $ \Delta(j, s^*; \mathbf{t}) \geq \pi^{-2}\sum_{k\neq 0}|c_k|^2k^{-2} $, where $ \{c_k\} $ are the Fourier coefficients of the conditional partial dependence function $ \overline F_j(x_j; \mathbf{t}) \sim \sum_k c_{k}e^{2\pi \mathrm{i} k (x_j-a_j(\mathbf{t}))/(b_j(\mathbf{t})-a_j(\mathbf{t}))} $. This can easily be established by lower bounding $ \Delta(j, s^*; \mathbf{t}) $ by $ \int_{a_j(\mathbf{t})}^{b_j(\mathbf{t})}\Delta(j, s, \mathbf{t})\Pi(ds) $, where $ \Pi $ is the uniform prior on $ [a_j(\mathbf{t}), b_j(\mathbf{t})] $, and using Parseval's identity. That is,
\begin{align*}
\Delta(j, s^*; \mathbf{t}) & \geq \int_{a_j(\mathbf{t})}^{b_j(\mathbf{t})}\frac{(\int_{a_j(\mathbf{t})}^{s}\overline G_j(s'; \mathbf{t})ds')^2}{(s-a_j(\mathbf{t}))(b_j(\mathbf{t})-s)}\Pi(ds) \\
& \geq \frac{4}{(b_j(\mathbf{t})-a_j(\mathbf{t}))^3}\int_{a_j(\mathbf{t})}^{b_j(\mathbf{t})}\bigg(\int_{a_j(\mathbf{t})}^s\overline G_j(s'; \mathbf{t})ds'\bigg)^2ds \\
& = \frac{4}{b_j(\mathbf{t})-a_j(\mathbf{t})}\int_{a_j(\mathbf{t})}^{b_j(\mathbf{t})}\bigg|\sum_{k\neq 0} \frac{c_{k}}{2\pi \mathrm{i} k}(e^{2\pi \mathrm{i} k(s-a_j(\mathbf{t}))/(b_j(\mathbf{t})-a_j(\mathbf{t}))}-1)\bigg|^2ds \\
& = 4\bigg(\sum_{k\neq 0}\frac{|c_{k}|^2}{4\pi^2 k^2}+\bigg|\sum_{k\neq 0}\frac{c_{k}}{2 \pi k}\bigg|^2\bigg)
\geq \pi^{-2}\sum_{k \neq 0}|c_{k}|^2k^{-2}.
\end{align*}
Our final example is a quintessential non-additive regression function known as ``Friedman \#1'' from \citep[Section 4.3]{friedman1991multivariate}. This function was used by Friedman to illustrate the efficacy of Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS).
\begin{example} \label{ex:friedman}
Suppose
\begin{equation} \label{eq:friedman}
f(\mathbf{x}) = 10\sin(\pi x_1 x_2) + 20(x_3 - 1/2)^2 + 10x_4 + 5 x_5.
\end{equation}
Then each $ \Lambda_j $ is bounded from below in \prettyref{tab:tab2}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
\text{Variable} & $ \Lambda_j \geq $ \\
\hline
$ X_1 $ & $ 1/(2\pi^2) $ \\
\hline
$ X_2 $ & $ 1/(2\pi^2) $ \\
\hline
$ X_3 $ & $ (1/12)^{2/3} $ \\
\hline
$ X_4 $ & $ (1/4)^{1/3} $ \\
\hline
$ X_5 $ & $ (1/4)^{1/3} $ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Lower bounds on $ \Lambda_j $ for $ j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 $ in \prettyref{ex:friedman}. For $ j = 1, 2 $, we use \prettyref{lmm:twodim}, for $ j = 3 $, we use \prettyref{lmm:square}, and for $ j = 4, 5 $, we use \prettyref{ex:poly} with $ k_j = 1 $.}
\label{tab:tab2}
\end{table}
\end{example}
\section{Assumptions on the regression function} \label{sec:ass}
Note that variable ``irrelevance'' is not the same as conditional independence, i.e., $ Y \perp X_j \mid \mathbf{X}_{\setminus j}, \; \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t} $, as some variable $ X_j $ can be irrelevant in the sense that $ \Delta(j, \cdot; \mathbf{t}) = 0 $, yet it still influences the distribution of output values, i.e., $ Y\not\perp X_j \mid \mathbf{X}_{\setminus j}, \; \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t} $.\footnote{See \citep{louppe2013understanding} for more details along these lines.} Therefore, in order to ensure that $ \text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) $ is large for all nodes $ \mathbf{t} $ in direction with a truly strong signal, i.e., $ j \in {\mathcal{S}} $, we need a condition like \prettyref{eq:flat} so that the regression function is marginally not too ``flat'' and hence $ \Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}) > 0 $.\footnote{Conversely, $ \Delta(j', s^*, \mathbf{t}) $ for $ j' \in {\mathcal{S}}^c $ may be on the same order as $ \Delta(j, s^*, \mathbf{t}) $ for $ j \in {\mathcal{S}} $ due to spurious correlation between $ X_j $ and $ X_{j'} $. Thus, the CART algorithm may have a selection bias and spend unnecessary time splitting on $ X_{j'} $, when conditional on $ X_j $, this variable plays no role in determining the output, i.e., $ Y \perp X_{j'} \mid X_j, \; \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t} $.
This situation is less troublesome from an approximation error perspective, but becomes highly relevant for variable selection and interpretability.} Condition \prettyref{eq:flat} is sufficient (but not necessary\footnote{For example, in one dimension, there are examples of regression functions whose $ r^{{^{\rm th}}} $ order derivatives in \prettyref{eq:flat} have jump or removable discontinuities, yet $ \Lambda_j > 0 $.}) for the existence of a positive $ \Lambda_j $ which depends only on the regression function.
In the additive case, i.e., when $ f(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_{j=1}^d f_j(x_j) $, condition \prettyref{eq:flat} is stronger than saying that each $ f_j $ is continuous and nonconstant on each subnode. For example, flat functions, i.e., $ f(\mathbf{x}) = e^{-1/x^2_1}\indc{x_1 \neq 0} $ with $ \frac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r_1}f(\mathbf{x})\mid_{x_1=0} = 0 $ for all $ r $, or functions with derivatives having essential discontinuities, i.e., $ f(\mathbf{x}) = x^2_1\sin(1/x_1)\indc{x_1\neq 0} $ may be both continuous and nonconstant on each subnode, yet violate \prettyref{eq:flat}. In particular, for both functions, $ \Delta(1, s^*; \mathbf{t}) > 0 $ for all nodes---however, $ \Lambda_1 $ must equal zero.
In the multivariable, non-additive case, the function $ f(\mathbf{x}) = x_1+x_2-2x_1x_2 $ does not satisfy \prettyref{eq:flat} because $ f(x_1, 1/2) $ and $ f(1/2, x_2) $ are both equal to $ 1/2 $ and therefore are constant. In fact, if $ \mathbf{X} $ is uniformly distributed and $ \mathbf{t} = [0, 1]^2 $, then integrating out either direction yields a constant function on $ [0, 1] $ and hence $ \Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}) = 0 $ for $ j = 1, 2 $.
More generally, if $ \Delta(j, \cdot; \mathbf{t}) = 0 $ for $ j = 1, 2, \dots, d $,
then any split along any variable in $ \mathbf{t} $ results in a zero decrease in impurity \citep[Technical Lemma 1]{scornet2015supp}, despite the possibility that the regression function is nonconstant on $ \mathbf{t} $.
Such a situation may lead one to erroneously classify certain features as ``weak'' when they may not be so. Practically speaking, this means that the CART algorithm may ignore certain variables and therefore fail to create a fine enough partition of $ [0, 1]^d $, which may introduce a large amount of bias. Consider again the example $ f(\mathbf{x}) = x_1+x_2-2x_1x_2 $ with uniformly distributed predictors and suppose we wish to split at node $ \mathbf{t} = [0, 1]^2 $.
Any further splitting via the CART protocol will result in zero impurity reduction.
Thus, one may be tempted to assume the function is constant on the node when in fact $ f $ ``strongly'' depends on both variables.
Hence, we require some sort of ``self-consistency'' property of the regression function, namely, if $ \Delta(j, \cdot; \mathbf{t}) $ is zero for all splits $ s \in [a_j(\mathbf{t}),b_j(\mathbf{t})] $ for $j = 1, 2, \dots, d $, then $ f $ \emph{is} constant on $ \mathbf{t} $ and therefore the bias of the tree on that node is zero. With this self-consistency assumption, even though the diameters of the nodes may not converge to zero, for the purpose of controlling the approximation error, one can safely ignore the regression function entirely on that node, regardless of whether the algorithm actually performs any further splitting.
Despite the aforementioned difficulties, we show in the sequel that any linear combination of Gaussian radial basis functions with positive weights satisfies \prettyref{eq:flat}. To this end, consider the function class
\begin{align*}
{\mathcal{F}} & = \Big\{\sum_{k=1}^K w_k \exp\{(\mathbf{x}-\boldsymbol{\mu}_k)^{\top}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_k(\mathbf{x}-\boldsymbol{\mu}_k)\}: w_k \geq 0, \boldsymbol{\mu}_k \in \mathbb{R}^d, \boldsymbol{\Sigma}_k\; \text{diagonal}\}.
\end{align*}
We allow for the possibility that $ \boldsymbol{\Sigma}_k $ contains diagonal entries that are equal to zero, with the interpretation that the corresponding term is independent (constant) in that coordinate. It is known that $ {\mathcal{F}} $ is a dense subclass of all positive continuous functions on $ [0, 1]^d $ \citep{park1991universal}. We have the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:radial}
If $ j \in {\mathcal{S}} $, then any $ f \in {\mathcal{F}} $ satisfies \prettyref{eq:flat}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, suppose each weight of combination $ w_k $ is strictly positive. Then $ f(\mathbf{x}) $ as a function of $ x_j $ has the form of a one-dimensional combination of Gaussian radial basis functions with positive weights, i.e., $ \sum_{k=1}^K w'_k \exp\{h_k(x_j-\mu_k)^2\}, $ where $ w'_k > 0 $, $ h_k $, and $ \mu_k $ belong to $ \mathbb{R} $. It can further be assumed without loss of generality that each Gaussian function $ \exp\{h_k(x_j-\mu_k)^2\} $ in the sum is distinct. Suppose, contrary to hypothesis, that $ f $ does not satisfy \prettyref{eq:flat}. Then, since $ f $ has continuous partial derivatives of all orders, there exists $ \mathbf{x}' \in [0, 1]^d $ such that $ \frac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r_j}f(\mathbf{x}') = 0 $ for all $ r \geq 1 $. However, $ f $ as a function of $ x_j $ is analytic and so $ f(x_j, \mathbf{x}'_{\setminus j}) $ is constant in a neighborhood of $ x'_j $, say $ (a, b) $.
This implies that the partial derivative of $ f $ with respect to $ x_j $ at $ (x_j, \mathbf{x}'_{\setminus j}) $, namely $2\sum_{k=1}^Kh_kw'_k(x_j-\mu_k)\exp\{h_k(x_j-\mu_k)^2\} $, is equal to zero for all $ x_j \in (a, b) $.
Thus, one is confronted with the question about the multiplicity of ways to represent the zero function of an exponential polynomial. To answer this, consider the following lemma, which is a special case of a much more general result in complex analysis \citep[Theorem 1.6]{lang1987introduction}, \citep{green1972holomorphic} and can be deduced using induction and differentiation. For the sake of completeness, we include its proof in \prettyref{app:proofs}.
\begin{lemma}[Linear independence of exponential polynomials] \label{lmm:exppoly}
Suppose $ P_1, \dots, P_K $ are distinct (real or complex) polynomials without constant terms and $ R_1, \dots, R_K $ are (real or complex) polynomials. If
$ \sum_{k=1}^KR_ke^{P_k} = 0 $ on an open subset (of the reals or complex plane), then $ R_1 = \cdots = R_K = 0 $.
\end{lemma}
Note that $ 2\sum_{k=1}^Kh_kw'_k(x_j-\mu_k)\exp\{h_k(x_j-\mu_k)^2\} $ is an exponential polynomial of the form $ \sum_{k=1}^KR_k(x_j)e^{P_k(x_j)} $ and hence by \prettyref{lmm:exppoly} above, $ R_k(x_j) = 2h_kw'_k(x_j-\mu_k) = 0 $, implying that $ h_k = 0 $ for all $ k $ (since $ w'_k > 0 $). Thus $ f $ is constant in $ x_j $ on $ [0, 1] $ for all $ \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j} \in [0, 1]^{d-1} $, which is a contradiction to the assumption that $ j \in {\mathcal{S}} $.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
A similar argument to \prettyref{thm:radial} can be used to show that any nonconstant polynomial or partial sum of a Fourier series in $ \mathbb{R} $ also satisfies \prettyref{eq:flat}. Hence, there is a dense collection of additive regression functions $ f(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_{j=1}^d f_j(x_j) $ that satisfies \prettyref{eq:flat}.
\end{remark}
Individual decision trees are not competitive predictors, since their high variability and tendency to overfit makes them generalize poorly to new data. Random forests, on the other hand, are an archetypal example of variance reduction via ensemble averaging, where many weak predictors (such as decision trees) are combined to form a stronger predictor. Next, we will use \prettyref{thm:main} and \prettyref{thm:lambdalower} to show asymptotic consistency of Breiman's random forests grown with the infinite sample CART criterion.
\section{Application to random forests} \label{sec:rf}
Random forests are ubiquitous among ensemble averaging algorithms because of their ability to reduce overfitting, handle high-dimensional sparse settings, and efficient implementation.
Due to these attractive features, they have been widely adopted and applied to various prediction and classification problems, such as those encountered in bioinformatics and computer vision.
The base learner for a random forest is a binary tree constructed using the methodology of CART. Naturally, some of our analysis for decision trees can be carried over to random forests. We explore this connection in this section.
Random forests grow an ensemble of $\texttt{ntree}$ regression trees.\footnote{In what follows, we use typewriter fonts for the variable names in the R package \texttt{randomForest}.} Each tree is grown independently using a bootstrap sample of the original data (also known as a bagged decision tree). As with traditional decision trees, terminal nodes of the tree consist of the predicted values which are then aggregated by averaging to obtain the random forest predictor.
Unlike CART decision trees, random forest trees are grown nondeterministically with two levels of randomization. In addition to the randomization introduced by growing the tree using a bootstrap sample, a second layer of randomization is injected with a random feature selection mechanism. Here, instead of splitting a tree node using all $d$ features, the random forest algorithm selects, at each node of each tree, a random subset of $ \texttt{mtry} $ potential variables that are used to further refine the tree node by splitting. The number of potential variables \texttt{mtry} is often much smaller than $d$; for regression, the default value is $ \lfloor d/3 \rfloor $. This two-level randomization is designed to decorrelate trees and therefore reduce variance. To reduce bias, random forest trees are grown deepl
---in fact, each tree is grown as deeply as possible with the stipulation that each terminal node contains at least $ \texttt{nodesize} $ observations.
More concretely, a random forest is a predictor that is built from an ensemble of randomized base regression trees $\{\widehat Y(\mathbf{x}; \Theta_m, {\mathcal{D}}_n) \}_{1 \leq m \leq \texttt{ntree}}$. The sequence $ \{\Theta_m\}_{1 \leq m\leq \texttt{ntree}} $ consists of i.i.d. realizations of a random variable $\Theta$, which governs the probabilistic mechanism that builds each tree. These individual random trees are aggregated to form the final output
\begin{equation} \label{eq:finitetree}
\widehat Y(\mathbf{x}; \Theta_1, \dots, \Theta_{\texttt{ntree}}, {\mathcal{D}}_n) \triangleq \frac{1}{\texttt{ntree}}\sum_{m=1}^{\texttt{ntree}} \widehat Y (\mathbf{x}; \Theta_m, {\mathcal{D}}_n).
\end{equation}
When $ \texttt{ntree} $ is large, the law of large numbers justifies using
\begin{equation*}
\widehat Y(\mathbf{x}) = \widehat Y(\mathbf{x}; {\mathcal{D}}_n) \triangleq \mathbb{E}_{\Theta}\left[\widehat Y(\mathbf{x};\Theta, {\mathcal{D}}_n)\right],
\end{equation*}
in lieu of \prettyref{eq:finitetree}, where $\mathbb{E}_{\Theta}$ denotes expectation with respect to $ \Theta $, conditionally on ${\mathcal{D}}_n$.
We shall henceforth work with these infinite sample versions (i.e., infinite number of trees) of their empirical counterparts (i.e., finite number of trees).
Let us now briefly describe the random feature mechanism of random forests in greater detail. To ensure that candidate strong (resp. weak) coordinates have high (resp. low) selection probabilities, at each step, we randomly select without replacement a subset $ {\mathcal{M}} \subset \{1,\dots,d\} $ of cardinality $ \texttt{mtry} $ and then select the variable in $ {\mathcal{M}} $ and corresponding split $ s^* $ that most decreases impurity within the current node. That is, for each coordinate in $ {\mathcal{M}} $, calculate a split $ s^* $ that maximizes $ \Delta(\cdot, \mathbf{t}) $ and store the corresponding maximum value $ \Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}) $. Finally, select one variable $ X_{j^*} $ at random among the corresponding largest elements of $ \{\Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t})\}_{j\in {\mathcal{M}}} $ to further split along within the current node. For a more detailed discussion of the algorithm, see \citep{scornet2015}.
As is argued in \citep[Section 3]{biau2012}, this random feature selection procedure will produce selection probabilities $ \mathbb{P}_{\Theta}[j_{\mathbf{t}}(\Theta) = j] $
that concentrate around $ 1/S $ for $ j \in {\mathcal{S}} $ and zero otherwise. Hence each ``strong'' variable has roughly an equal chance of being selected among all ``strong'' variables.
Researchers have spent a great deal of effort in understanding theoretical properties of various streamlined versions of Breiman's original algorithm \citep{genuer2010, genuer2012, arlot2014, biau2008, denil2014, biau2012, scornet2016asymptotics}. See \citep{biau2016} for a comprehensive overview of current theoretical and practical understanding. Unlike Breiman's CART algorithm, these stylized versions are typically analyzed under the assumption that the probabilistic mechanism $ \Theta $ that governs the construction of each tree \emph{does not depend} on the pair $ (\mathbf{X}, Y) $ (i.e., the splits to not depend on the data distribution), largely with the intent of reducing the complexity of their theoretical analysis. Such models are referred to as ``purely random forests'' \citep{genuer2012}. In one variant known as a ``centered random forest'' (proposed by Breiman himself in a technical report \citep{breiman2004} and later studied by \citep{biau2012}), the splits are performed at the midpoint of each subnode and hence corresponds to a special case of the present paper, where the input distribution is uniform and the regression surface is linear.
Inspired by the results of \prettyref{thm:main} and \citep[Theorem 4.1]{scornet2016asymptotics}, we now show asymptotic consistency for Breiman's random forests with splits determined by the infinite sample CART sum of squares error criterion. Consistency of random forests with CART (albeit, with the finite sample splitting criterion) was previously only known when the regression function has an additive structure \citep{scornet2015}. While this important work provides insight into the complicated and subtle mechanisms of random forests, it still does not adequately explain its potential as a general nonparametric method. For example, additive models are not flexible enough to allow for interactions among covariates (which limits their flexibility for multi-dimensional statistical modeling), and there are already other highly effective training algorithms such as backfitting \citep{breiman1985estimating}.
We follow the terminology of Scornet \citep{scornet2016asymptotics} and call a random forest ``totally nonadaptive'' if it is built independently of the training set $ {\mathcal{D}}_n $. Let $ \texttt{maxnodes} $ denote the maximum number of terminal nodes in the tree built with randomness $ \Theta $.
Due to space constraints, we defer the proof of the next result, \prettyref{thm:forest}, until \prettyref{app:mainproofs}. For the statement of \prettyref{thm:forest}, we let $ \text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) $ denote the conditional mean decrease in impurity \prettyref{eq:imp} with weights from \prettyref{thm:main}.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:forest}
Consider a totally nonadaptive forest predictor $ \widehat Y(\mathbf{x}) = \widehat Y(\mathbf{x}; {\mathcal{D}}_n) $, where each tree is grown with the infinite sample CART sum of squares error criterion \prettyref{eq:pop}.
Suppose that
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $ f(\mathbf{x}) $ is continuous on $ [0, 1]^d $;
\item $ n/\texttt{maxnodes} \rightarrow + \infty $ with $ \mathbb{P}_{\Theta} $-probability one;
and
\item $ \min_{\mathbf{t}}\text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) \rightarrow + \infty $ with $ \mathbb{P}_{\Theta} $-probability one for all $ j \in {\mathcal{S}} $.
\end{enumerate}
Then $ \mathbb{E}_{{\mathcal{D}}_n}\left[{\int |f(\mathbf{x}) - \widehat Y(\mathbf{x})|^2 \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}}(d\mathbf{x})}\right] \rightarrow 0 $ as $ n \rightarrow + \infty $.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
If additionally the regression function satisfies the assumptions of \prettyref{thm:lambdalower}, then $ \min_{\mathbf{t}}\text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) \geq \Lambda_j \min_{\mathbf{t}}K_j(\mathbf{t}) $, where $ \Lambda_j > 0 $. By the previous discussion, $ \mathbb{P}_{\Theta}[j_{\mathbf{t}'}(\Theta) = j] \approx \frac{1}{S} > 0 $ for each nonterminal node $ \mathbf{t}' $ and hence $ \min_{\mathbf{t}}K_j(\mathbf{t}) $ goes to infinity with the tree depth $ \mathbb{P}_{\Theta} $-almost surely.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
When coupled with a study of the variance of the forest, our theory for the bias of individual trees (\prettyref{thm:main} and \prettyref{thm:lambdalower}) enables one to determine the quality of convergence of $ \widehat Y $ as a function of the parameters of the random forest, e.g., sample size, dimension, sparsity level, and depth to which the individual trees are grown. The analysis also reveals a \emph{local} bias-variance tradeoff, which highlights the local adaptivity of random forests. However, we shall choose not to pursue this analysis in the present paper and leave it for future work.
\end{remark}
\section{Finite sample analysis} \label{sec:finite}
From the perspective of studying the theoretical properties of decision trees, it is desirable if the splits do not separate a small fraction of data points from the rest of the sample. That is, the node counts $ N(\mathbf{t}) $ should be large enough to contain enough data points so that local estimation valid. On the other hand, the node sizes should be small enough to identify local changes in the regression surface. This is true, for example, if the splitting criterion encourages splits that are performed away from the parent subnode edges. Perhaps the earliest mention of such a condition is \cite[Section 12.2]{breiman1984}, where, en route to establishing asymptotic consistency, it is assumed that the proportion of data points (from a learning sample of size $ n $) in each terminal node is at least $ k_n n^{-1}\log n $ for some sequence $ k_n $ tending to infinity and that the diameters of the terminal nodes converge to zero in probability. A similar assumption is explicitly made in the analysis of \citep{meinshausen2006quantile} and \citep{wager2015} to ensure that terminal node diameters of the forest tend to zero as the sample size tends to infinity, which as mentioned earlier, is a necessary condition to prove the consistency of partitioning estimates \cite{stone1977consistent}, \citep[Chapter 4]{gyorfi2002distribution}. This property is also satisfied by $ q $ quantile forests \citep{scornet2016asymptotics}, where each split contains at least a fraction $ q \in (0, 1) $ of the observations falling into the parent node. Furthermore, in a Bayesian setting, comparable regularity conditions for partitions have been assumed for theoretical analysis of Bayesian random forests (e.g., BART \citep{chipman2010bart}) \citep[Definition 3.1]{rockova2017posterior}, \citep[Definition 2.4]{van2017bayesian}, \citep[Definition 6.1]{rockova2018theory} (e.g., in so-called median or $ k $-$d $ tree partitions \citep{bentley1975multidimensional}, each split roughly halves the number of data points inside the node).
From the perspective of adaptive estimation, forcing the recursive partitions to artificially separate a fixed fraction of the data points at each step may be undesirable. Indeed, \citep{ishwaran2015effect} argues that CART posses a desirable trait of splitting near the edges along noisy variables. This perspective, together with the fact that one does not know a priori which variables are important, leads one to the conclude that it is undesirable to sacrifice the data-dependent nature of the split criterion in order to ensure that a technical condition is met. There are currently no results stating that splits in CART are performed away from the parent subnode edges. However, our results show that the standard assumptions for ``valid partitions'' (for example, see \citep[Assumption 3]{meinshausen2006quantile}, \citep[Definition 1]{wager2015}, or \citep[Definition 4]{wager2018estimation}) are satisfied for CART.
In the next subsection, we show how one can go from bounds on the conditional probability content of an optimally split subnode to bounds on the distance of an optimal split to its parent subnode edges.
\subsection{From probabilities to distances} \label{sec:distance}
Let $ Q(p) $ be the quantile function of the probability measure on $ [a(\mathbf{t}), b(\mathbf{t})] $ with distribution function $ \prob{X \leq s \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t} } $, i.e., $ Q(p) = \inf\{ s\in [a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})] : p \leq \prob{X \leq s \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}}\} $, $ p \in [0, 1] $. Suppose for the moment that $ \mathbf{X} \sim \mathrm{Uniform}([0, 1]^d) $. Then $ \prob{X \leq s \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} = \frac{s-a(\mathbf{t})}{b(\mathbf{t})-a(\mathbf{t})} $ and hence $ Q(p) = a(\mathbf{t}) + p(b(\mathbf{t})-a(\mathbf{t})) $. From this, one can deduce that $ s^* $ lies between $ a(\mathbf{t}) + \frac{b(\mathbf{t})-a(\mathbf{t})}{2}\Psi $ and $ b(\mathbf{t}) - \frac{b(\mathbf{t})-a(\mathbf{t})}{2}\Psi $, where $ \Psi = 1 - \sqrt{1-\Lambda} $. This allows us to go from probability estimates to distance estimates. Inspired by this observation, we impose a general condition on the form of the quantile function $ Q(p) $ so that similar conclusions can be made for other input distributions. The assumption can also be interpreted as a regularity condition on $ Q(p) $. Roughly, it says that $ Q(p) $ cannot be too ``flat'' when $ p $ is near zero or one.
\begin{assumption} \label{ass:Q}
There exist two increasing bijections $ q_1 : [0, 1] \to [0, 1] $ and $ q_2 : [0, 1] \to [0, 1] $ such that for all nodes $ \mathbf{t} $,
$$
q_1(p) \leq \frac{Q(p)-a(\mathbf{t})}{b(\mathbf{t})-a(\mathbf{t})} \leq q_2(p), \quad p \in [0, 1].
$$
\end{assumption}
Note that $ q_1 $ and $ q_2 $ are both necessarily continuous. This device allows us to bound the distance of $ s^* $ to the edges $ a(\mathbf{t}) $ and $ b(\mathbf{t}) $ in terms of the global balancedness $ \Lambda $. To see this, note that by \prettyref{def:edgegap}, $ 4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) \geq \Lambda $ and hence both $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_L) $ and $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) $ are between $ \frac{1}{2}(1 \pm \sqrt{1-\Lambda}) $. Let $ \Psi = 1 - \sqrt{1-\Lambda} \in [0, 1] $ so that, by \prettyref{eq:s},
\begin{equation} \label{eq:quantile}
Q\left(\Psi/2\right) \leq s^* \leq Q\left( 1- \Psi/2 \right).
\end{equation}
Finally, using \prettyref{eq:quantile}, we have that
\begin{equation*}
(b(\mathbf{t})-a(\mathbf{t}))q_1(\Psi/2) + a(\mathbf{t}) \leq s^* \leq b(\mathbf{t}) - (b(\mathbf{t})-a(\mathbf{t}))(1-q_2(1-\Psi/2)),
\end{equation*}
and, by rearranging terms,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:length}
\left| s^* - \frac{a(\mathbf{t})+b(\mathbf{t})}{2} \right| \leq \frac{b(\mathbf{t})-a(\mathbf{t})}{2}(1-\Gamma),
\end{equation}
where $ \Gamma = 2\min\{q_1(\Psi/2), 1-q_2(1-\Psi/2) \} $. These bounds show how far (in terms of distance) any optimal split is from the parent subnode edges. The inequality in \prettyref{eq:length} bounds the distance between any optimal split and the midpoint of the parent subnode.
We now provide some examples of joint distributions that satisfy \prettyref{ass:Q}. The proofs of each are given in \prettyref{app:proofs}.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item {\it Independent joint density bounded from above and below.} If each $ X $ is i.i.d. $ \mathrm{Uniform}(0, 1) \sim \mathrm{Beta}(1, 1) $, then $ Q(p) = a(\mathbf{t}) + p(b(\mathbf{t})-a(\mathbf{t})) $ and $ q_1(p) = q_2(p) = p $.
\item {\it Independent joint density unbounded from below.} If each $ X $ is i.i.d. $ \mathrm{Beta}(2, 1) $, then $ Q(p) = \sqrt{a^2(\mathbf{t}) + p(b^2(\mathbf{t})-a^2(\mathbf{t}))} $, $ q_1(p) = p $, and $ q_2(p) = \sqrt{p} $.
\item {\it Independent joint density unbounded from above.} If each $ X $ is i.i.d. $ \mathrm{Beta}(1/2, 1) $, then $ Q(p) = (\sqrt{a(\mathbf{t})} + p(\sqrt{b(\mathbf{t})}-\sqrt{a(\mathbf{t})}) )^2 $, $ q_1(p) = p^2 $, and $ q_2(p) = p $.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Number of observations in nodes}
In this section,
we give lower bound on (a) the number of observations contained in a daughter node from an optimally split parent node using the finite sample criterion $ \widehat\Delta(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $ (denoted by $ N(\hat \mathbf{t}_L) $ and $ N(\hat \mathbf{t}_R) $) and (b) the distance of the optimal split to the edges of its parent node.\footnote{The terminal node counts $ N(\hat \mathbf{t}_L) $ and $ N(\hat \mathbf{t}_R) $ are also called \texttt{nodesize} in the R package \texttt{randomForest}.} Throughout this section, we implicitly assume that \prettyref{ass:density} and \prettyref{ass:Q} hold for each of the covariates. For simplicity, we assume that $ {\mathcal{S}} $ is equal to the full set of $ d $ variables, although under \prettyref{ass:indep}, one can also develop lower bounds for the number of observations that land in nodes along informative directions in $ {\mathcal{S}} $, i.e.,
$ N_{{\mathcal{S}}} = \sum_{i=1}^n \indc{\mathbf{X}_{i{\mathcal{S}}} \in \mathbf{t}_{{\mathcal{S}}}} $, where $ \mathbf{x}_{{\mathcal{S}}} = (x_j : j\in {\mathcal{S}}) $ and $ \mathbf{t}_{{\mathcal{S}}} = \{ \mathbf{x}_{{\mathcal{S}}} : \mathbf{x} \in \mathbf{t} \} $.
This is a quantity of interest because, from the perspective of estimation, one could still have consistency even if $ N_{{\mathcal{S}}^c} = 0 $.
In what follows, we define $ \Psi = 1-\sqrt{1-\Lambda} $, $ \Gamma = 2\min\{q_1(\Psi/2), 1-q_2(1-\Psi/2) \} $, $ p_L = q^{-1}_2(\Gamma^2/2) $, $ p_R = 1-q^{-1}_1(1-\Gamma^2/2) $, and $ p = \min\{p_L, p_R \} $. For example, when $ \mathbf{X} \sim \mathrm{Uniform}([0, 1]^d) $, we have $ \Gamma = \Psi $ and $ p_L = p_R = \Psi^2/2 $.
For the next set of results, we let $ \mathscr{S}^* = \argmax_s \Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $ and $ \hat s \in \argmax_s \widehat\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $. Due to space constraints, we prove both theorems in \prettyref{app:proofs}.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:sample}
Suppose $ N(\mathbf{t}) $ is large enough so that, given $ N(\mathbf{t}) $ and $ \mathbf{t} $, with probability at least $ 1-\delta $,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:close}
\text{dist}(\hat s,\; \mathscr{S}^*) \leq \frac{b(\mathbf{t})-a(\mathbf{t})}{2}\Gamma(1-\Gamma).
\end{equation}
Then with probability at least $ 1-\delta $,
$$
\frac{b(\mathbf{t}) - a(\mathbf{t})}{2}\Gamma^2 + a(\mathbf{t}) \leq \hat s \leq b(\mathbf{t}) - \frac{ b(\mathbf{t}) - a(\mathbf{t})}{2}\Gamma^2.
$$
If $ \mathbf{t} $ is independent of the training data $ {\mathcal{D}}_n $, then, given $ N(\mathbf{t}) $ and $ \mathbf{t} $, with probability at least $ 1-\delta -2\exp\{-Np^2/2\} $,
$$N(\hat \mathbf{t}_L) \geq N(\mathbf{t}) \frac{p_L}{2} \quad \text{and} \quad N(\hat \mathbf{t}_R) \geq N(\mathbf{t}) \frac{p_R}{2}. $$
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
The assumption \prettyref{eq:close} can be recast by saying that the distance between $ s^* $ and $ \hat s $ is less than a constant multiple, namely $ \frac{1}{2}\Gamma(1-\Gamma) $, of the length of the parent subnode. (Note that by definition, $ \text{dist}(\hat s,\; \mathscr{S}^*) \leq b(\mathbf{t})-a(\mathbf{t}) $.)
Such an assumption is not unrealistic since if $ \Delta(\cdot ; \mathbf{t}) $ has a unique global maximum, i.e., $ s^* $ is unique, \citep[Theorem 2]{ishwaran2015effect} shows $ \text{dist}(\hat s,\; \mathscr{S}^*) $ converges weakly to zero. In fact, with similar assumptions, one can characterize the rate of convergence \citep[Theorem 3.2.5]{wellner1996weak}. Indeed, \citep{banerjee2007confidence, buhlmann2002analyzing} show cube root asymptotics (i.e., $ n^{1/3}(\hat s - s^*) $ converges in distribution) of split points for one-level decision trees (e.g., decision stumps) using the CART sum of squares error criterion. The work of \citep[Section 3.4.2]{buhlmann2002analyzing} also extends these rates to multi-level decision trees, which is particularly relevant to our setting.
\end{remark}
In practice, $ a(\mathbf{t}) $, $ b(\mathbf{t}) $, and $ \mathbf{t} $ all depend on the data $ {\mathcal{D}}_n $. We now state a refinement of \prettyref{thm:sample} that allows for data-dependent splits. Essentially it says that if the optimal empirical and population split points are sufficiently close to each other and the fraction of data points contained in the parent node is at least $ \alpha $, then the fraction of data points contained in each daughter node is at least $ \alpha \beta $, where $ \beta $ is strictly positive and depends only on $ q_1 $, $ q_2 $, and $ \Lambda $. In fact, the next theorem shows that one can take $ \beta = \min\{p_L, p_R\}/2 $ with high probability. This ensures that the daughter nodes contain a sufficiently large number of training samples, so that subsequent empirical splits will be close to their infinite sample counterparts, and so on and so forth.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:sampledata}
Let $ \alpha > 0 $ and suppose $ n $ is large enough so that with probability at least $ 1-\delta $,
\begin{equation}
\text{dist}(\hat s,\; \mathscr{S}^*) \leq \frac{ b(\mathbf{t})- a(\mathbf{t})}{2}\Gamma(1-\Gamma) \quad \text{and} \quad N(\mathbf{t}) \geq n\alpha.
\end{equation}
Then with probability at least $ 1-\delta $,
$$
\frac{b(\mathbf{t}) - a(\mathbf{t})}{2}\Gamma^2 + a(\mathbf{t}) \leq \hat s \leq b(\mathbf{t}) - \frac{ b(\mathbf{t}) - a(\mathbf{t})}{2}\Gamma^2,
$$
and with probability at least $ 1-\delta-16(n^{2d}+1)\exp\{-n \alpha^2 p^2/512 \} $,
$$ N(\hat \mathbf{t}_L) \geq N(\mathbf{t}) \frac{p_L}{2} \quad \text{and} \quad N(\hat \mathbf{t}_R) \geq N(\mathbf{t}) \frac{p_R}{2}. $$
\end{theorem}
The previous theorem can be used inductively to show that if the tree is grown to a depth of $ K $, then with high probability, each terminal subnode length is at most $ (1-\Gamma^2/2)^K $. An obvious line of future work would be to make this statement more rigorous and use it to furnish a convergence result for ensembles of decision trees with empirical splits.
\section{Extension to classification trees} \label{sec:classification}
Our results have focused on regression trees, although nearly identical bounds can be developed for classification trees. In the binary classification context, i.e., $ Y \in \{ -1, +1 \} $, the variance impurity \prettyref{eq:impurity} equals $ \Delta(\mathbf{t}) = 4\times\frac{\#\{Y_i = +1 : \mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t}\}}{N(\mathbf{t})} \times \frac{\#\{Y_i = -1 : \mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t}\}}{N(\mathbf{t})} $, which is also known as \emph{Gini} impurity. Here, instead of averages, the tree outputs the majority vote at a terminal node $ \mathbf{t} $, i.e., $ \widehat Y = +1 $ if $ \#\{Y_i = +1 : \mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t}\} \geq \#\{Y_i = -1 : \mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t}\} $ and $ \widehat Y = -1 $ otherwise.
The infinite sample Gini impurity is $$ \Delta(\mathbf{t}) = 4\prob{Y=+1 \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}}\prob{Y = -1 \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}}. $$ The analog to the conditional partial dependence function \prettyref{eq:partialdef} is $$ \overline F(x; \mathbf{t}) = 2\prob{Y=+1 \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t},\; X = x} $$ and its mean-centered version is $$ \overline G(x; \mathbf{t}) = 2\prob{Y=+1 \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t},\; X = x}- 2\prob{Y=+1 \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}}. $$ In agreement with \prettyref{eq:simple0}, $ \Delta(s; \mathbf{t}) $ also has the representation
$$
4P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)[\prob{Y=+1 \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X \leq s} - \prob{Y = +1 \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X > s}]^2.
$$
Thus, adapting the proofs of \prettyref{thm:mainprob} and \prettyref{thm:second}---whose original proofs also rely on such a representation for $ \Delta(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $---it can easily be shown that \prettyref{thm:main} and its consequences hold verbatim with these modified definitions of $ \overline F(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $, $ \overline G(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $, and $ \Delta(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $. In particular, \prettyref{thm:lambdalower} holds if $ \prob{Y=+1\mid \mathbf{X} = \mathbf{x}} $ satisfies \prettyref{eq:flat}. As a concrete example (c.f., \prettyref{ex:poly} and \prettyref{ex:sine}), consider the following logistic regression model. We give the proof in \prettyref{app:proofs}.
\begin{example}\label{ex:logistic}
Let $ \prob{Y = +1 \mid \mathbf{X} = \mathbf{x}} = (1+e^{-\beta_0-\langle \mathbf{x},\;\boldsymbol{\beta}\rangle })^{-1} $ with intercept coefficient $ \beta_0 $ and effects coefficients $ \boldsymbol{\beta} = (\beta_1, \beta_2, \dots, \beta_d) $ and $ \mathbf{X} \sim \mathrm{Uniform}([0,1]^d) $. Suppose $ j \in {\mathcal{S}} $ so that $ \beta_j \neq 0 $. Then,
$$
\Lambda_j \geq \min\{ |\beta_j|^{-4/3}, (1/8)^{2/3} \},
$$
and hence
$$
\text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) \geq K_j(\mathbf{t})\min\{ |\beta_j|^{-4/3}, (1/8)^{2/3} \}.
$$
\end{example}
Curiously, this lower bound does not depend on any of the parameters other than $ \beta_j $. The importance of $ X_j $ decreases as we become increasingly more certain that either $ Y = + 1 $ or $ Y = - 1 $, i.e., as the parameter $ \beta_j $ or $ -\beta_j $ grows, respectively.
In the next section, we provide proofs of the main results from \prettyref{sec:results}---\prettyref{thm:main} and \prettyref{thm:lambdalower}.
\section{Proofs and additional results} \label{sec:proofs}
Throughout this section, for notational clarity and brevity, we omit dependence on the input variable index $ j $ for all quantities and assume that we are splitting on a generic coordinate $ X $. We also sometimes omit dependence on $ \mathbf{t} $, and substitute $ a(\mathbf{t}) $ and $ b(\mathbf{t}) $ with $ a $ and $ b $, respectively.
The first theorem, from which most of the results in the paper are derived, gives a clean expression for the optimally split daughter node probabilities in terms of the partial dependence function and largest reduction in impurity.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:mainprob} Suppose \prettyref{ass:density} holds and $ \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) > 0 $. Then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:universal}
\prob{X \leq s^* \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} = \frac{1}{2}\left(1 \pm \sqrt{\frac{|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2}{|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2+\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}} \right),
\end{equation}
and consequently,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lambdauniversal}
\lambda(\mathbf{t}) = \frac{\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}{|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2+\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Recall from \prettyref{eq:simple0} that one can write
\begin{equation} \label{eq:simple}
\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) = P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)\left[\expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X \leq s} - \expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X > s}\right]^2.
\end{equation}
Next, define
$$
\Xi(s; \mathbf{t}) = P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)\left[\expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X \leq s} - \expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X > s}\right],
$$
so that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:objective}
\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) = \frac{[\Xi(s; \mathbf{t})]^2}{P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)}.
\end{equation}
An easy calculation shows that
\begin{align} \label{eq:derivative}
\Xi'(s) & = \frac{\partial}{\partial s}\Xi(s; \mathbf{t}) = p(\mathbf{t}_L)[\expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X}\in \mathbf{t}, \; X = s} - \expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}}] \nonumber \\ & = p(\mathbf{t}_L)\overline G(s; \mathbf{t}).
\end{align}
Taking the derivative of $ \Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $ with respect to $ s $, we find that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:firstderivative}
\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) = \frac{\Xi(s; \mathbf{t})p(\mathbf{t}_L)[2P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)\overline G(s; \mathbf{t}) - \Xi(s; \mathbf{t})(1-2P(\mathbf{t}_L))]}{[P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)]^2}.
\end{equation}
Suppose $ s^* $ is a global maximizer of \prettyref{eq:objective} (in general, it need not be unique). Then a necessary condition (first-order optimality condition) is that the derivative of $ \Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $ is zero at $ s^* $. That is, from \prettyref{eq:firstderivative}, $ s^* $ satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{eq:derivativezero}
\Xi(s^*; \mathbf{t})p(\mathbf{t}^*_L)[2P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R)\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t}) - \Xi(s^*; \mathbf{t})(1-2P(\mathbf{t}^*_L))] = 0.
\end{equation}
If $ p(\mathbf{t}^*_L) > 0 $ and $ \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) > 0 $, it follows from rearranging \prettyref{eq:derivativezero} that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sol}
P(\mathbf{t}^*_L) = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{\text{sgn}(\Xi(s^*; \mathbf{t}))\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})}{\sqrt{\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}}\sqrt{P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R)}.
\end{equation}
This expresses $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)$ as a fixed point of the mapping
$$ p \mapsto \frac{1}{2} - \frac{\text{sgn}(\Xi\circ Q)(p))(\overline G\circ Q)(p)}{\sqrt{(\Delta \circ Q)(p)}}\sqrt{p(1-p)}, \quad 0 < p < 1, $$
where $ \circ $ denotes the composition operator and $ Q $ denotes the quantile function of the probability measure with distribution function $ \prob{X \leq s \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} $, i.e.,
$$ Q(p) = \inf\{ s\in [a,b] : p \leq \prob{X \leq s \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}}\}. $$
The solution to \prettyref{eq:sol} is obtained by solving a simple quadratic equation of the form $ p = 1/2 \pm c\sqrt{p(1-p)} $, which proves the identity \prettyref{eq:universal}. The identity for the node balancedness \prettyref{eq:lambdauniversal} follows immediately from \prettyref{def:nodebalance} and \prettyref{eq:universal}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
One can make connections between the representation in \prettyref{thm:mainprob} and other quantities defined in the literature. For example, \citep[Section 2.8]{ishwaran2015effect} define the (empirical) edge-cut preference statistic of a split $ s $ as
$$
\text{ecp}(s) = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{\min\{ N(\mathbf{t}) \widehat P(\mathbf{t}_L)-1, N(\mathbf{t}) \widehat P(\mathbf{t}_R)-1 \}}{N(\mathbf{t}) -1} = \frac{N(\mathbf{t}) }{N(\mathbf{t}) -1}\frac{|\widehat P(\mathbf{t}_L) - \widehat P(\mathbf{t}_R)|}{2}.
$$
The population version is $ \frac{|P(\mathbf{t}_L) - P(\mathbf{t}_R)|}{2} $, which according to \prettyref{thm:mainprob}, is equal to $ \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1-\lambda(\mathbf{t})} = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2}{|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2+\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}} $ at the optimal split $ s^* $.
\end{remark}
The expression in \prettyref{thm:mainprob} reveals that the optimal split is a perturbation of the median of the conditional distribution $ X \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t} $, where the gap is governed by the largest decrease in impurity, namely, $ \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) $, and the mean-centered partial dependence function, namely, $ \overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t}) $. At the very extreme, the reduction in weighted variance is smallest when there is no signal in the splitting direction---$ \widehat\Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}) \gg \widehat\Delta(j', s^*; \mathbf{t}) \approx 0 $ for $ j \in {\mathcal{S}} $ and $ j' \in {\mathcal{S}}^c $. Thus, by \prettyref{thm:mainprob}, splits along directions that contain a strong signal (as opposed to noisy or directions or directions with weak signals) tend to be further away from the parent node subedges \citep{ishwaran2015effect}. In fact, this has been empirically observed for some time \citep[Section 11.8]{breiman1984}, i.e., squared error impurity tends to favor end-cut splits---that is, splits in which the proportion of data contained in an optimally split node is close to zero or one.
The perturbation from the median of $ X \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t} $ is zero and hence $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_L) = 1/2 $ when $ \overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t}) = 0 $, or equivalently, when $ \overline F(s^*; \mathbf{t}) = \expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X = s^*} = \expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} $. This is true in the special case that the regression function is linear and the input distribution is uniform, since in this case it can be shown that $ s^* = (a(\mathbf{t})+b(\mathbf{t}))/2 $. Next, we state a more general result for other regression functions.
\begin{example}
Suppose $ \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) > 0 $. If $ \mathbf{X} $ is uniform, then
$$
s^* = \frac{a(\mathbf{t})+b(\mathbf{t})}{2}\pm\frac{b(\mathbf{t})-a(\mathbf{t})}{2}\sqrt{\frac{|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2}{|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2+\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}}.
$$
\end{example}
We also have the following corollary, which expresses the $ \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}} $-probability of any terminal node $ \mathbf{t} $ in terms of the largest decrease in impurity and the conditional partial dependence function. Its proof can be deduced from a simple induction argument and \prettyref{thm:mainprob}.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:forestsplit}
Consider a decision tree with splits determined by optimizing the infinite sample CART objective \prettyref{eq:infinite}. Suppose \prettyref{ass:density} holds and $ \Delta(s^*; \mathbf{t}') > 0 $ for all nodes $ \mathbf{t}' $.
Then the $ \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}} $-probability of any terminal node $ \mathbf{t} $ is
$$
\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}}[\mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}] = \prod_{\mathbf{t}' \supset \mathbf{t}}\frac{1}{2}\left(1+ \eta_{\mathbf{t}'}\sqrt{\frac{|\overline G_j(s^*; \mathbf{t}')|^2}{|\overline G_j(s^*; \mathbf{t}')|^2+\Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}')}}\right),
$$
where the product extends over all ancestor nodes $ \mathbf{t}' $ of $ \mathbf{t} $. The value of $ \eta_{\mathbf{t}'} \in \{-1, +1\} $ is given in \prettyref{tab:eta}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ l | c r }
$ \eta_{\mathbf{t}'} $ & daughter node $ \mathbf{t}' $ & $ s^* < \text{median}(X_j \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}') $ \\
\hline
$ +1 $ & right & yes \\
\hline
$ +1 $ & left & no \\
\hline
$ -1 $ & left & yes \\
\hline
$ -1 $ & right & no \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Table showing the values of $ \eta_{\mathbf{t}'} \in \{-1,+1\} $ from \prettyref{cor:forestsplit}.}
\label{tab:eta}
\end{table}
\end{corollary}
For purposes of obtaining useful upper and lower bounds on $ p(\mathbf{t}^*_L) $ (and therefore also $ p(\mathbf{t}^*_R) $), we see from \prettyref{eq:universal} that it suffices to lower bound $ \Delta(s^*, \mathbf{t}) $ and upper bound $ |\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2 + \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) $. The next lemma shows that $ |\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2 + \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) $ is at most the oscillation of the partial dependence function over the node.
\begin{lemma} \label{lmm:variation} Suppose \prettyref{ass:density} and $ \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) > 0 $. Then,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:GDineq}
|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2 + \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) \leq \sup_{s\in[a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})]}|\overline G(s; \mathbf{t})|^2 \leq \omega^2(\overline F(\cdot; \mathbf{t}); [a,b]).
\end{equation}
Furthermore, if each first-order partial derivative of the regression function and joint density $ p_{\mathbf{X}} $ exist and are continuous, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:TV}
|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2 + \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) \leq \int_{a(\mathbf{t})}^{b(\mathbf{t})} |\overline F'(s; \mathbf{t})|ds.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It can be shown that $ \Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) \leq 4P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)\sup_{s\in[a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})]}|\overline G(s; \mathbf{t})|^2 $. By \prettyref{thm:mainprob}, $ 4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) = \frac{\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}{|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2 + \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})} $. Thus, $ \frac{\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}{\sup_{s\in[a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})]}|\overline G(s; \mathbf{t})|^2} \leq \frac{\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}{|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2 + \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})} $, which is equivalent to the first claimed inequality in \prettyref{eq:GDineq}.
Next, we show that $ \sup_{s\in[a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})]}|\overline G(s; \mathbf{t})| \leq \omega(\overline F(\cdot; \mathbf{t}); [a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})]) $. Since $$ \int_{a(\mathbf{t})}^{b(\mathbf{t})} \overline F(s; \mathbf{t})p(\mathbf{t}_L)ds = \expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}}, $$ by the generalized mean value theorem for definite integrals, there exists $ s' \in [a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})] $ such that $ \overline G(s'; \mathbf{t}) = 0 $. Hence $ \sup_{s\in[a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})]}|\overline G(s; \mathbf{t})| $ can also be bounded by the oscillation of the partial dependence function $ \overline F(s; \mathbf{t}) = \expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X}\in \mathbf{t}, \; X = s} $ on $ [a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})] $ since
\begin{align*}
\sup_{s\in[a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})]}|\overline G(s; \mathbf{t})| & = \sup_{s\in[a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})]}|\overline G(s; \mathbf{t})-\overline G(s'; \mathbf{t})| \\ & \leq \sup_{s,s'\in[a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})]}|\overline F(s; \mathbf{t}) - \overline F(s'; \mathbf{t})| \\ & = \omega(\overline F(\cdot; \mathbf{t}); [a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})]).
\end{align*}
This proves the inequalities in \prettyref{eq:GDineq}.
To show \prettyref{eq:TV}, note that when $ \overline F(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $ is smooth, its oscillation is bounded by its total variation $ \text{TV}(\overline F(\cdot; \mathbf{t}); [a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})]) = \int_{a(\mathbf{t})}^{b(\mathbf{t})} |\overline F'(s; \mathbf{t})|ds $. This bound is occasionally useful and will be used in the proof of \prettyref{ex:poly}, \prettyref{ex:sine}, and \prettyref{ex:friedman}.
\end{proof}
Combining \prettyref{thm:mainprob} with \prettyref{lmm:variation}, we have the following bound on the conditional daughter node probabilities.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:first}
Suppose \prettyref{ass:density} and $ \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) > 0 $. Then both $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_L) $ and $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) $ are between
$$
\frac{1}{2}\Bigg(1\pm\sqrt{1-\frac{\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}{\omega^2(\overline F(\cdot; \mathbf{t}); [a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})])}}\Bigg),
$$
and consequently,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lambdaosc}
\lambda(\mathbf{t}) \geq \frac{\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}{\omega^2(\overline F(\cdot; \mathbf{t}); [a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})])}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
This implies that $ P(\mathbf{t}_L) $ and $ P(\mathbf{t}_R) $ tend to be more extreme (i.e., closer to zero or one) if the oscillation of the partial dependence function $ \overline F(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $ is large. Indeed, we have seen from \prettyref{ex:sine} that the optimal split point for a sinusoidal waveform gets closer and closer to its parent subnode edges as the periodicity increases.
Note that to obtain \prettyref{thm:mainprob} and its consequences in \prettyref{thm:first}, we only used the first-order optimality condition for $ s^* $. Next, we show that by additionally incorporating second-order conditions, an alternate (and sometimes better) bound can be obtained. First, we state a lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lmm:secondorder}
Suppose \prettyref{ass:density} holds and each first-order partial derivative of the regression function and joint density $ p_{\mathbf{X}} $ exist and are continuous. Then,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:secondorder}
|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2 + \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) < \frac{|\overline F'(s^*; \mathbf{t})|}{p(\mathbf{t}^*_L)}\sqrt{P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R)\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If the first-order partial derivative of the joint density $ p_{\mathbf{X}} $ exists and is continuous, then the density of the conditional probability measure $ \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}_{\setminus j} \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X_j = x_j}(d\mathbf{x}_{\setminus j}) $, namely $ \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j} \mapsto p_{\mathbf{X}}(x_j, \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j})/\int_{\mathbf{t}_{\setminus j}}p_{\mathbf{X}}(x_j, \mathbf{x}'_{\setminus j})d\mathbf{x}'_{\setminus j} $, is continuously differentiable in $ x_j $. If, in addition, the first-order partial derivative of the regression function exists and is continuous, then by Leibniz's integral rule, $ \overline F'(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $ exists and is therefore well-defined.
We will show that if $ \frac{\partial}{\partial s}\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) \mid_{s=s^*} = 0 $, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:secondderivative}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial s^2}\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) \mid_{s=s^*} = \frac{2(p(\mathbf{t}^*_L))^2}{P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R)}\Big(|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2 + \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})+\frac{\overline F'(s^*; \mathbf{t})\Xi(s^*; \mathbf{t})}{p(\mathbf{t}^*_L)}\Big).
\end{equation}
The conclusion \prettyref{eq:secondorder} then follows from the fact that $ \frac{\partial^2}{\partial s^2}\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) \mid_{s=s^*} < 0 $ since $ s^* $ is a global maximizer.
Let us now show \prettyref{eq:secondderivative}. We use the expression \prettyref{eq:firstderivative} as a starting point. Since $ \frac{\partial}{\partial s}\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) \mid_{s=s^*} = 0 $, the second derivative at $ s = s^* $ is equal to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:deriv1}
\frac{\Xi(s; \mathbf{t})p(\mathbf{t}_L)}{[P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)]^2} \left[\frac{\partial}{\partial s}[2P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)\overline G(s; \mathbf{t}) - \Xi(s; \mathbf{t})(1-2P(\mathbf{t}_L))]\mid_{s=s^*} \right].
\end{equation}
Next, we compute the derivative in \prettyref{eq:deriv1} and find that
\begin{align}
& \frac{\partial}{\partial s}[2P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)\overline G(s; \mathbf{t}) - \Xi(s; \mathbf{t})(1-2P(\mathbf{t}_L))] = \nonumber \\ & \qquad 2p(\mathbf{t}_L)(1-2P(\mathbf{t}_L))\overline G(s; \mathbf{t}) + 2P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)\overline F'(s; \mathbf{t}) \nonumber \\ & \qquad - \Xi'(s)(1-2P(\mathbf{t}_L)) + 2\Xi(s; \mathbf{t})p(\mathbf{t}_L). \label{eq:deriv2}
\end{align}
Next, recall that $ \Xi'(s) = p(\mathbf{t}_L)\overline G(s; \mathbf{t}) $, so that the expression in \prettyref{eq:deriv2} is equal to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:deriv3}
p(\mathbf{t}_L)(1-2P(\mathbf{t}_L))\overline G(s; \mathbf{t}) + 2P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)\overline F'(s; \mathbf{t}) + 2\Xi(s; \mathbf{t})p(\mathbf{t}_L).
\end{equation}
Next, we multiply \prettyref{eq:deriv3} by $ \frac{\Xi(s; \mathbf{t})}{2P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)p(\mathbf{t}_L)} $ so that \prettyref{eq:deriv1} is equal to
$$
\frac{2(p(\mathbf{t}^*_L))^2}{P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R)}\left[\frac{(1-2P(\mathbf{t}_L))\Xi(s; \mathbf{t})\overline G(s; \mathbf{t})}{2P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)} + \frac{\Xi(s; \mathbf{t})\overline F'(s; \mathbf{t})}{p(\mathbf{t}_L)} + \frac{[\Xi(s; \mathbf{t})]^2}{P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)}\right].
$$
Finally, observe that by the first-order condition \prettyref{eq:firstderivative}, $ \frac{(1-2P(\mathbf{t}^*_L))\Xi(s^*; \mathbf{t})\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})}{2P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R)} = |\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2 $, and by definition, $ \frac{[\Xi(s; \mathbf{t})]^2}{P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R)} = \Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:second}
Suppose \prettyref{ass:density} holds, $ \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) > 0 $, and each first-order partial derivative of the regression function and joint density $ p_{\mathbf{X}} $ exist and are continuous. Then both $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_L) $ and $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) $ are between
\begin{equation} \label{eq:probderiv}
\frac{1}{2}\Bigg(1\pm\sqrt{1-\Bigg(\frac{4(p(\mathbf{t}^*_L))^2\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}{|\overline F'(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2}\Bigg)^{1/3}}\Bigg),
\end{equation}
and consequently,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lambdaloweruniversal}
\lambda(\mathbf{t}) \geq \Bigg(\frac{4(p(\mathbf{t}^*_L))^2\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}{|\overline F'(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2}\Bigg)^{1/3}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First note that $ \overline F'(s^*; \mathbf{t}) \neq 0 $, since otherwise, by \prettyref{eq:secondderivative} and the second-order optimality condition, $ \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) = 0 $. Using the solutions to the first-order condition \prettyref{eq:sol}, we have that
$$
4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) = \frac{\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}{|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2+\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})},
$$
and furthermore, by the second-order condition \prettyref{eq:secondorder}
$$
4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) \geq \frac{2p(\mathbf{t}^*_L)\sqrt{\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}}{|\overline F'(s^*; \mathbf{t})|\sqrt{4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R)}}.
$$
Rearranging yields
$$
\lambda(\mathbf{t}) = 4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) \geq \left(\frac{4(p(\mathbf{t}^*_L))^2\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}{|\overline F'(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2}\right)^{1/3}.
$$
Finally, it is a simple exercise to show that if $ 4p(1-p) \geq \lambda $, then $ \frac{1}{2}(1-\sqrt{1-\lambda}) \leq p \leq \frac{1}{2}(1+\sqrt{1-\lambda}) $.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
If the regression surface is linear and the distribution of $ \mathbf{X} $ is uniform, then \prettyref{eq:probderiv} is approximately equal to $ 0.2 $. Compare this with the true value of $ 0.5 $ for both daughter node conditional probabilities.
\end{remark}
We are now in a position to give the proof of \prettyref{thm:main}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \prettyref{thm:main}]
Let $ \mathbf{t}' $ be the parent node of $ \mathbf{t} $. Suppose we split along coordinate $ X $. Then $ \prob{X \in [a(\mathbf{t}), b(\mathbf{t})]} $ is at most
\begin{align*}
& \max\{\prob{X \in \mathbf{t}', \; X \leq s^*}, \prob{X \in \mathbf{t}', \; X > s^*} \} \\ & = \prob{X \in [a(\mathbf{t}'), b(\mathbf{t}')]}\max\{\prob{X \leq s^* \mid X \in [a(\mathbf{t}'), b(\mathbf{t}')]}, \\ & \qquad \prob{X > s^* \mid X \in [a(\mathbf{t}'), b(\mathbf{t}')]} \} \\
& \leq \prob{X \in [a(\mathbf{t}'), b(\mathbf{t}')]}\exp\{ -\eta P(s^*|\mathbf{t}')(1-P(s^*| \mathbf{t}')) \} \\
& = \prob{X \in [a(\mathbf{t}'), b(\mathbf{t}')]}\exp\big\{-\frac{\eta }{4}[\Delta(s^*; \mathbf{t}')+|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t}')|^2]^{-1}\Delta(s^*; \mathbf{t}')\big\},
\end{align*}
where the first inequality follows from \prettyref{ass:indep}, the penultimate inequality follows from $ \max\{ p, 1-p \} \leq e^{-p(1-p)} $ for $ p \in [0, 1] $, and the final inequality follows from \prettyref{thm:mainprob}.
By induction and using $ \prob{X \in [0, 1]} = 1 $, we have $ \prob{a_j(\mathbf{t}) \leq X_j \leq b_j(\mathbf{t})} \leq \exp\big\{-\frac{\eta }{4}\sum_{\substack{\mathbf{t}' \supset \mathbf{t} \\ j_{\mathbf{t}'}=j}}[\Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}')+|\overline G_j(s^*; \mathbf{t}')|^2]^{-1}\Delta(j, s^* ; \mathbf{t}')\big\} $, which proves \prettyref{eq:nodesize} with weights \prettyref{eq:w1}. The lower bound on the weights \prettyref{eq:w2} is a direct consequence of \prettyref{thm:second}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Note that $ \Delta(s^*; \mathbf{t}') > 0 $ is not needed for \prettyref{thm:main}. This is because the inequality \prettyref{eq:nodesize} remains true even if, for some $ \mathbf{t}' $, $ \Delta(s^*; \mathbf{t}') = 0 $ (with the convention that $ 0/0 = 0 $).
\end{remark}
\subsection{Alternative splitting rules} \label{sec:alternate}
To mitigate the effect of end-cut splits, as discussed in \prettyref{sec:results}, one can subtract a positive penalty $ \text{pen}(s; \mathbf{t}) $ from $ \Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $ and instead solve
$$
s^* \in \argmax_{s\in[a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})]}\{ \Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) - \text{pen}(s; \mathbf{t}) \}.
$$
Intuitively, $ \text{pen}(s; \mathbf{t}) $ should be large when $ s $ is close to the edges and small when $ s $ is far from the edges. The penalty should also be proportional to $ \Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $ so that some influence from original objection function is retained. One natural choice of penalty that meets these criteria is
$$ \text{pen}(s; \mathbf{t}) = (1-(4P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R))^{\alpha})\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}), \quad \alpha \geq 0. $$
Of course, in practice one would use
$$
\hat s \in \argmax_{s\in[a(\mathbf{t}),b(\mathbf{t})]}\{ \widehat\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) - \widehat{\text{pen}}(s; \mathbf{t}) \},
$$
where $ \widehat{\text{pen}}(s; \mathbf{t}) = (1-(4\widehat P(\mathbf{t}_L)\widehat P(\mathbf{t}_R))^{\alpha})\widehat\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $.
This regularization procedure is not new---\citep[Section 11.8]{breiman1984} proposed that, to avoid end-cut splits, one should instead maximize $ \widehat\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $ multiplied by some power of $ \widehat P(\mathbf{t}_L)\widehat P(\mathbf{t}_R) $, say $ (\widehat P(\mathbf{t}_L)\widehat P(\mathbf{t}_R))^{\alpha} $ for $ \alpha \neq 1 $. Thus, $ (\widehat P(\mathbf{t}_L)\widehat P(\mathbf{t}_R))^{\alpha} $ acts as a multiplicative regularizer that modulates the effect of edge-cut preference in CART. The essential challenge is to choose the regularization parameter large enough so that splits away from the parent subnode edges are encouraged, but not in such a way that the homogeneity of the node (as measured by the variance in $ (\mathbf{X}, Y) $) is unimproved. Good values of $ \alpha $ can be determined by any number of means, including cross-validation on a hold-out set of the data.
Denote the objective function by $ \Delta_{\alpha}(s; \mathbf{t}) = (4P(\mathbf{t}_L)P(\mathbf{t}_R))^{\alpha}\Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $ and its maximizer by $ s^*_{\alpha} $ (similarly define $ \hat s_{\alpha} $ as the empirical maximizer). In \prettyref{fig:sine_edge} (c.f., \prettyref{fig:sine}), we illustrate the effect of regularization in determining the optimal splits for the sinusoidal waveform encountered previously in \prettyref{ex:sine}.
\begin{figure} [t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{sine_edge.pdf}
\caption{Plot of $ s \mapsto \Delta_{1.1}(1, s; [0, 1]) $ for $ f(\mathbf{x}) = \sin(20\pi x_1) $.}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{sine_hist_edge.pdf}
\caption{Histogram of $ \hat s_{1.1} $ for $ Y = \sin(20\pi X) + \varepsilon $ ($ X \sim \mathrm{Uniform}(0, 1) $, $ \varepsilon \sim N(0, 1) $) with $ n = 100 $ from $ 100 $ replications.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Plot of $ s \mapsto \Delta_{1.1}(1, s; \mathbf{t}) $ and corresponding maxima (dotted vertical lines). Histogram shows sampling distribution of $ \hat s_{1.1} $ for $ n = 100 $ from $ 100 $ replications.}
\label{fig:sine_edge}
\end{figure}
By a similar argument to establishing \prettyref{thm:mainprob}, the optimal $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_L) $ satisfies
$$
P(\mathbf{t}^*_L) = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{\text{sgn}(\Xi(s^*_{\alpha}))\overline G(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})}{2(1-\alpha)\sqrt{\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})}}(4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R))^{\frac{\alpha+1}{2}}.
$$
With $ v = |1-\alpha|^2\frac{\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})}{|\overline G(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})|^2} $, we have
$ 4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) = 1- v^{-1}(4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R))^{\alpha+1} $ and hence $ 4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) \geq \frac{v^{\frac{1}{\alpha+1}}}{1+v^{\frac{1}{\alpha+1}}} $. Let us now obtain a further lower bound on $ \frac{v^{\frac{1}{\alpha+1}}}{1+v^{\frac{1}{\alpha+1}}} $. To this end, note that by concavity of $ x \to x^{1/(\alpha+1)} $, we have
\begin{align*}
& |\overline G(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})|^{\frac{2}{\alpha+1}} +((1-\alpha)^2\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t}))^{\frac{1}{\alpha+1}} \\ & \leq
2^{\frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha}}\left(|\overline G(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})|^2 + (1-\alpha)^2\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t}) \right)^{\frac{1}{\alpha+1}}.
\end{align*}
This means that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:alphalower}
4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) \geq \bigg(\frac{2^{-\alpha}(1-\alpha)^2\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})}{|\overline G(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})|^2 +(1-\alpha)^2\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{\alpha+1}}.
\end{equation}
Solving this for $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_L) $ and $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) $ yields the following theorem, which is a direct analog to \prettyref{thm:mainprob}. Using this, we also give a lower bound for $ \Lambda_{\alpha} $, the global balancedness (see \prettyref{def:edgegap}) for $ \Delta_{\alpha}(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $.
\begin{theorem} Suppose \prettyref{ass:density} holds and $ \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) > 0 $. Then both $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_L) $ and $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) $ are between
$$
\frac{1}{2}\Bigg(1 \pm \sqrt{1-\bigg(\frac{2^{-\alpha}(1-\alpha)^2\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t}))}{|\overline G(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})|^2 +(1-\alpha)^2\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{\alpha+1}}} \Bigg),
$$
and consequently
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lambdaalphalower}
\lambda_{\alpha}(\mathbf{t}) \geq \bigg(\frac{2^{-\alpha}(1-\alpha)^2\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t}))}{|\overline G(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})|^2 +(1-\alpha)^2\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{\alpha+1}}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
It is often possible to show that $ \frac{(1-\alpha)^2\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})}{|\overline G(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})|^2 +(1-\alpha)^2\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})} \asymp \frac{\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}{|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2 +\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})} $ and hence, by virtue of \prettyref{eq:alphalower}, \prettyref{eq:lambdauniversal}, and \prettyref{eq:lambdaalphalower}, that $ \Lambda_{\alpha} \asymp \Lambda^{1/(1+\alpha)} $, where $ \Lambda = \Lambda_0 $ is the global balancedness for the unpenalized criterion. The next theorem (c.f., \prettyref{thm:second}) shows that this is improvable to $ \Lambda_{\alpha} \asymp \Lambda^{1/(3+\alpha)} $ when $ \alpha \in [0, 1) $. Using this, it can easily be shown via a modification of the proofs of \prettyref{ex:poly} and \prettyref{ex:sine} that $ \Lambda_{\alpha} = \Omega(k^{-4/(3+\alpha)}) $ and $ \Lambda_{\alpha} = \Omega(m^{-4/(3+\alpha)}) $, respectively. These quantities are larger than their counterparts using the unpenalized $ \Delta(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $ and hence the regularization does indeed encourage splits that are farther away from the parent subnode edges.
\begin{theorem}
Suppose \prettyref{ass:density} holds, $ \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) > 0 $, and each first-order partial derivative of the regression function and joint density $ p_{\mathbf{X}} $ exist and are continuous. Let $ \alpha \in [0, 1) $. Then both $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_L) $ and $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) $ are between
$$
\frac{1}{2}\Bigg(1\pm\sqrt{1-\Bigg(\frac{4^{1-\alpha}(1-\alpha)^2(p(\mathbf{t}_L))^2\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})}{|\overline F'(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})|^2}\Bigg)^{\frac{1}{3+\alpha}}}\Bigg),
$$
and consequently,
$$
\lambda_{\alpha}(\mathbf{t}) \geq \Bigg(\frac{4^{1-\alpha}(1-\alpha)^2(p(\mathbf{t}_L))^2\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})}{|\overline F'(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})|^2}\Bigg)^{\frac{1}{3+\alpha}}.
$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We have the chain of inequalities
\begin{align}
& 2^{\frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha}}\left(|\overline G(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})|^2 + (1-\alpha)^2\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t}) \right)^{\frac{1}{\alpha+1}} \nonumber \\
& \leq 2^{\frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha}}\left((1+\alpha)|\overline G(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})|^2 + (1-\alpha)^2\Delta(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t}) \right)^{\frac{1}{\alpha+1}} \nonumber \\
& \leq \Big(\frac{2^{\alpha}(1-\alpha)|\overline F'(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})||\Xi(s^*_{\alpha})|}{p(\mathbf{t}^*_L)}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\alpha+1}} \nonumber \\
& = \Big(\frac{(1-\alpha)|\overline F'(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})|\sqrt{(4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R))^{1-\alpha}\Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})}}{2^{1-\alpha}p(\mathbf{t}^*_L)}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\alpha+1}}. \label{eq:secondalphalower}
\end{align}
The first inequality is by concavity of $ x\mapsto x^{1/(\alpha+1)} $ and the second inequality is due to the fact that $ \Delta_{\alpha}(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t}) \leq \Delta(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t}) $. The third inequality comes from the second-order derivative condition (c.f., \prettyref{eq:secondderivative}), i.e., given $ \frac{\partial}{\partial s}\Delta_{\alpha}(s; \mathbf{t}) \mid_{s=s^*_{\alpha}} = 0 $, the second derivative $ \frac{\partial^2}{\partial s^2}\Delta_{\alpha}(s; \mathbf{t}) \mid_{s=s^*_{\alpha}} $ equals
$$
\frac{8(p(\mathbf{t}^*_L))^2}{(4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R))^{1-\alpha}}\Big(\frac{1+\alpha}{1-\alpha}|\overline G(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})|^2 + (1-\alpha)\Delta(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t}) + \frac{\overline F'(s^*_{\alpha}; \mathbf{t})\Xi(s^*_{\alpha})}{p(\mathbf{t}^*_L)}\Big).
$$
Finally, combining \prettyref{eq:secondalphalower} with \prettyref{eq:alphalower} and solving for $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_L) $ and $ P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) $ yields both statements of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Lower bounds on the node balancedness} \label{sec:lower} Of special interest is $ \Lambda > 0 $, since this provides a nontrivial bound on the distance between \emph{any} optimal split to its parent subnode edges. But can we expect this to hold in most settings? It is conceivable that $ \lambda $ may become extremely small when $ a(\mathbf{t}) $ and $ b(\mathbf{t}) $ are arbitrarily close to each other, since after all by \prettyref{thm:mainprob}, its defining quantities---$ \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) $ and $ \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) + |\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2 $---expressed through their ratio, both approach zero. We argue that $ \lambda $ is still controlled in this case. To see this, suppose $ a(\mathbf{t}) $ and $ b(\mathbf{t}) $ are extremely close to each other. Then the partial dependence function is approximately linear, i.e., $ \expect{Y\mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X = s} \approx As+B $ for some constants $ A $ and $ B $ and also $ \prob{X \leq s \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} \approx (s-a(\mathbf{t}))/(b(\mathbf{t})-a(\mathbf{t})) $. Hence $ \lambda \approx 1 $, with equality if $ \mathbf{X} $ is uniform and the conditional regression surface is exactly linear. The statement in \prettyref{thm:lambdalower}, which we now prove, makes this intuition precise. First, we state two lemmas, but defer their proofs until \prettyref{app:proofs}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lmm:flatpartial}
If the features of $ \mathbf{X} $ are independent and satisfy \prettyref{ass:density} and the regression function satisfies \prettyref{eq:flat}, then $ \sup_{s\in[0,1]}\inf_{r\geq 1}\{ r : \overline F^{(r)}(s; \mathbf{t}) \neq 0\; \text{for all} \; \mathbf{t}\} $ is finite and for each node $ \mathbf{t} $, $ \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) > 0 $.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma} \label{lmm:deltalower}
Suppose the features of $ \mathbf{X} $ are independent with marginal densities that are continuous and never vanish, and the regression function satisfies \prettyref{eq:flat}. If $ R = \inf_{r\geq 1}\{ r : \overline F^{(r)}(c; \mathbf{t}) \neq 0\; \text{for all} \; \mathbf{t}\} < +\infty $, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:deltalimit}
\liminf_{(a(\mathbf{t}), b(\mathbf{t})) \rightarrow (c,c)} \left\{\frac{\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}{\big(\frac{(b(\mathbf{t})-a(\mathbf{t}))^{R}|\overline F^{(R)}(c; \mathbf{t})|}{R!}\big)^2}\right\} \geq \Delta_R,
\end{equation}
where
$$
\Delta_R = \int_0^1\Delta(s; [0, 1])ds > 0
$$
is the integrated decrease in impurity $ \Delta(\cdot; [0, 1]) $ of the regression function $ f(\mathbf{x}) = (x_1-1/2)^R $ with respect to the uniform distribution.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \prettyref{thm:lambdalower}]
By \prettyref{thm:mainprob}, $ \text{MDI}(X; \mathbf{t}) $ with weights $ w(s^*; \mathbf{t}) = [|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2+\Delta(s^*; \mathbf{t})]^{-1} $ is at least $ \Lambda K(\mathbf{t}) $. Hence we need to show that global balancedness $ \Lambda $ is positive. To this end, the first step in the proof involves showing that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:limit}
\liminf_{(a, b) \rightarrow (c,c)}\lambda(\mathbf{t}) = \liminf_{(a, b) \rightarrow (c,c)}\{ 4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) \} \geq \left(\frac{4\Delta_R}{R^2}\right)^{1/3},
\end{equation}
where $ R =\inf_{r\geq 1}\{ r : \overline F^{(r)}(c; \mathbf{t}) \neq 0\; \text{for all} \; \mathbf{t}\} < +\infty $ (by \prettyref{lmm:flatpartial}) and $ \Delta_R $ is the positive constant from \prettyref{lmm:deltalower}.
This can be accomplished by \prettyref{lmm:deltalower} since
\begin{equation} \label{eq:liminf}
\liminf_{(a, b) \rightarrow (c,c)} \Bigg\{\frac{\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}{\Big(\frac{(b-a)^{R}|\overline F^{(R)}(c; \mathbf{t})|}{R!}\Big)^2}\Bigg\} \geq \Delta_R > 0.
\end{equation}
Next, consider an $ R-1 $ term Taylor expansion of $ \overline F'(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $. Then, by definition of $ R $ and a Taylor expansion argument, $ |\overline F'(s^*; \mathbf{t})| \leq \frac{(b-a)^{R-1}}{(R-1)!}\sup_{s\in[a,b]}|\overline F^{(R)}(s; \mathbf{t})| $. Thus, combining \prettyref{eq:liminf} with the fact that $ \lim_{(a,b)\rightarrow (c, c)}(b-a)p(\mathbf{t}_L) = 1 $ (since $ p_X(c) > 0 $ and $ p_X(\cdot) $ is continuous by assumption) and by continuity of $ \overline F(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $ at $ s = c $, we have
$$
\liminf_{(a, b) \rightarrow (c,c)} \left\{\frac{4(p(\mathbf{t}_L))^2\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}{|\overline F'(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2}\right\} \geq \frac{4\Delta_R}{R^2}.
$$
Finally, \prettyref{eq:lambdaloweruniversal} from \prettyref{thm:second} implies \prettyref{eq:limit}. The assumption of finite $ R' = \sup_{s\in[0,1]}\inf_{r\geq 1}\{ r : \overline F^{(r)}(s; \mathbf{t}) \neq 0 \; \text{for all} \; \mathbf{t}\} $ implies that
$$
\inf_c\liminf_{(a, b) \rightarrow (c,c)}\{ 4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) \} \geq \min_{R \leq R'}\left(\frac{4\Delta_R}{R^2}\right)^{1/3} > 0.
$$
Next, let $ \mathbf{a} $ (resp. $ \mathbf{b} $) denote the vector of lower (resp. upper) endpoints of the subnodes of $ \mathbf{t} $. Now, since the regression function is continuous, it follows that $ (s,\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b}) \mapsto \Delta(s ; \mathbf{t}) $ and $ (s,\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b}) \mapsto \overline G(s; \mathbf{t}) $ are both continuous on the domain $ \{ (s,\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b}) \in [0, 1]^{2d+1} : a(\mathbf{t}) \leq s \leq b(\mathbf{t}),\; \mathbf{a} < \mathbf{b} \} $.\footnote{This can be seen from the generalized mean value theorem for integrals.} Consequently, by Berge's Maximum Theorem \citep[Theorem 17.31]{aliprantisinfinite2006} the mapping $ (\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b}) \mapsto \Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t}) $ is continuous on $ {\mathcal{T}} = \{ (\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b}) \in [0, 1]^{2d} : \mathbf{a} < \mathbf{b} \} $ and $ (\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b}) \mapsto \overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t}) $ is an upper hemicontinuous correspondence on $ {\mathcal{T}} $. In particular, by \prettyref{thm:mainprob}, $ 4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) = \frac{\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})}{\Delta(s^* ; \mathbf{t})+|\overline G(s^*; \mathbf{t})|^2} $ and hence $ 4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) $ is an upper hemicontinuous correspondence on $ {\mathcal{T}} $. Next, note that by \prettyref{lmm:flatpartial} and \prettyref{thm:mainprob}, $ 4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) > 0 $ on $ {\mathcal{T}} $, and by \prettyref{eq:limit}, $ 4P(\mathbf{t}^*_L)P(\mathbf{t}^*_R) \geq \min_{R \leq R'}\left(\frac{4\Delta_R}{R^2}\right)^{1/3} > 0 $ for all points $ (\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b}) $ arbitrarily close to the boundary of $ {\mathcal{T}} $. Hence $ \Lambda > 0 $.
\end{proof}
\section{Supplemental Material}\label{app:proofs}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Appendix}
\renewcommand{\thesubsection}{\Alph{subsection}}
In this appendix, we give proofs of \prettyref{lmm:exppoly}, \prettyref{thm:forest}, \prettyref{lmm:flatpartial}, \prettyref{lmm:deltalower}, \prettyref{thm:sample}, and \prettyref{thm:sampledata}. We also give proofs of the examples from \prettyref{sec:mdilower}, \prettyref{sec:distance}, and \prettyref{sec:classification}.
\subsection{Proofs of main lemmas} \label{app:mainproofs}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \prettyref{lmm:exppoly}]
We proceed by induction. The case $K=1$ is trivial, since $R_1 e^{P_1} = 0$ clearly implies $R_1 = 0$. Now let $K \geq 2 $ be arbitrary and assume that the claim is true for all smaller values of $K$. Let $P_1, \dots, P_K$ be distinct (real or complex) polynomials without constant terms and $R_1, \ldots, R_K$ be (real or complex) polynomials with
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ass}
R_1 e^{P_1} + \cdots + R_K e^{P_K} = 0.
\end{equation}
If all $R_k$ are zero then we are done. Otherwise (without loss of generality) $R_K \neq 0$. First we divide \prettyref{eq:ass} by $ e^{P_K} $, yielding
\begin{equation} \label{eq:div}
R_1e^{P_1 - P_K} + \cdots + R_{K-1}e^{P_{K-1} - P_K} + R_K = 0.
\end{equation}
Differentiating the identity \prettyref{eq:div} gives
\begin{align} \label{eq:diff}
& \left(R'_1 + R_1(P_1'-P_K')\right)e^{P_1 - P_K} + \cdots + \nonumber \\ & \quad
\left( R'_{K-1} + R_{K-1}(P_{K-1}'-P_K')\right)e^{P_{K-1} - P_K} + R'_K = 0.
\end{align}
Multiply \prettyref{eq:div} by $ R'_K $ and \prettyref{eq:diff} by $ R_K $. Subtracting the two resultant expressions from each other yields
\begin{align*}
& \left(R'_1R_K -R_1R'_K + R_1R_K(P_1'-P_K')\right)e^{P_1 - P_K} + \cdots + \\ & \quad
\left( R'_{K-1}R_K - R_{K-1}R'_K + R_{K-1}R_K(P_{K-1}'-P_K')\right)e^{P_{K-1} - P_K} = 0.
\end{align*}
Now we can apply the induction hypotheses, since the $P_k - P_K$ are distinct polynomials without constant terms. It follows that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:zero}
R'_kR_K -R_kR'_K + R_kR_K(P_k'-P_K') = 0.
\end{equation}
If $ R_k \neq 0 $, then \prettyref{eq:zero} is impossible since $ P_k'-P_K' \neq 0 $ and hence $ \deg(R'_kR_K -R_kR'_K) < \deg(R_kR_K(P_k'-P_K')) $. Therefore $R_k = 0$ for $k=1,\dots, K-1$, which also implies that $R_K = 0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \prettyref{thm:forest}]
We follow the proof of \citep[Lemma 2]{scornet2016asymptotics} for quantile forests, but adapted to our setting. Let $ \mathbf{t}_k(\mathbf{X}, \Theta) $ denote the node containing $ \mathbf{X} $ of the tree built with randomness $ \Theta $ at the $ k^{{^{\rm th}}} $ step. By \citep[Theorem 4.1]{scornet2016asymptotics}, we will be done if we can show that $ \omega(f; \mathbf{t}(\mathbf{X}, \Theta)) \rightarrow 0 $ in $ \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}, \Theta} $-probability, where $ \mathbf{t}(\mathbf{X}, \Theta) $ is the terminal node of the tree containing $ \mathbf{X} $. Since $ f $ is continuous on $ [0, 1]^d $, it is also uniformly continuous. Hence, for each $ \xi > 0 $, there exists $ \delta > 0 $ such that if $ \text{diam}_{{\mathcal{S}}}(\mathbf{t}) \leq \delta $, then $ \omega(f; \mathbf{t}) \leq \xi $. Hence, we must show that $ \text{diam}_{{\mathcal{S}}}( \mathbf{t}(\mathbf{X}, \Theta)) \rightarrow 0 $ in probability.
To this end, let $ j \in {\mathcal{S}} $, $ H = \{ \mathbf{x} : x_j = z \} $, and $ D = \{A : A \cap H \neq \emptyset\} $. Let $ j_k(\Theta) $ denote the coordinate selected to split along at the $ k^{{^{\rm th}}} $ step of the tree. Suppose $ \mathbf{t}_k(\mathbf{X}, \Theta) \in D $. Then there are two cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The next split in $ \mathbf{t}_k(\mathbf{X}, \Theta) $ is performed along the $ j^{{^{\rm th}}} $ coordinate and, in that case, one of the two resulting nodes has an empty intersection with $ H $.
\item The next split in $ \mathbf{t}_k(\mathbf{X}, \Theta) $ is performed along a coordinate other than the $ j^{{^{\rm th}}} $ and, in that case, the two resultant nodes have a non-empty intersection with $ H $.
\end{enumerate}
Thus,
\begin{align*}
& \prob{ \mathbf{t}_{k+1}(\mathbf{X}, \Theta) \in D \mid \Theta} =
\\ & \qquad \expect{ \indc{j_{k+1}(\Theta) = j}\indc{\mathbf{t}_k(\mathbf{X}, \Theta) \in D} + \indc{j_{k+1}(\Theta) \neq j}\indc{\mathbf{t}_k(\mathbf{X}, \Theta) \in D} \mid \Theta}
\\ & \qquad \leq \indc{j_{k+1}(\Theta) = j}(1-\frac{1}{4}\lambda_j(\mathbf{t}_k(D, \Theta)))\prob{\mathbf{t}_k(\mathbf{X}, \Theta) \in D \mid \Theta} + \\ & \qquad \qquad \indc{j_{k+1}(\Theta) \neq j}\prob{\mathbf{t}_k(\mathbf{X}, \Theta) \in D \mid \Theta}
\\ & \qquad = (1-\frac{1}{4}\lambda^2_j(\mathbf{t}_k(D, \Theta))\indc{j_{k+1}(\Theta) = j})\prob{\mathbf{t}_k(\mathbf{X}, \Theta) \in D \mid \Theta}
\\ &\qquad \leq \exp\big\{-\frac{1}{4}\lambda^2_j(\mathbf{t}_k(D, \Theta))\indc{j_{k+1}(\Theta) = j}\big\}\prob{\mathbf{t}_k(\mathbf{X}, \Theta) \in D \mid \Theta},
\end{align*}
where $ \mathbf{t}_k(D, \Theta) $ is the (unique) node at the $ k^{{^{\rm th}}} $ step of the forest construction that contains $ z $.
By induction and \prettyref{eq:lambdauniversal}, this implies that $ \prob{\mathbf{t}(\mathbf{X}, \Theta) \in D} \rightarrow 0 $ if $ \min_{\mathbf{t}}\text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) \rightarrow + \infty $ with $ \mathbb{P}_{\Theta} $-probability one. Finally, consider a partition of $ [0, 1]^{S} $ into hypercubes of side length $ \epsilon $ with sides determined by the hyperplanes $ \{ \mathbf{x} : x_{j'} = \ell \epsilon \} $, where $ j' \in {\mathcal{S}} $ and $ \ell = 0, 1, \dots, \lceil \epsilon^{-1} \rceil $. If $ \mathbf{t}(\mathbf{X}, \Theta) $ belongs to one of the hypercubes, then $ \text{diam}_{{\mathcal{S}}}(\mathbf{t}(\mathbf{X}, \Theta)) \leq \sqrt{S}\epsilon $. There are at most $ O(\epsilon^{-S}) $ such hyperplanes and hence
$$
\prob{\text{diam}_{{\mathcal{S}}}(\mathbf{t}(\mathbf{X}, \Theta)) > \epsilon \sqrt{S}} \leq \prob{\bigcup_D \{\mathbf{t}(\mathbf{X}, \Theta) \in D \}} \rightarrow 0,
$$
if $ \min_{\mathbf{t}}\text{MDI}(X_j; \mathbf{t}) \rightarrow + \infty $ with $ \mathbb{P}_{\Theta} $-probability one, where $ D $ ranges over all hyperplanes of the form $ \{ \mathbf{x} : x_{j'} = \ell \epsilon \} $, with $ j' \in {\mathcal{S}} $ and $ \ell = 0, 1, \dots, \lceil \epsilon^{-1} \rceil $. The conditions of the theorem and \citep[Theorem 4.1]{scornet2016asymptotics} imply the conclusion.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \prettyref{lmm:flatpartial}]
Let $ r \geq 1 $ and suppose $ \frac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r_j}f(\mathbf{x}) $ exists and is continuous for all $ \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j} \in [0, 1]^{d-1} $. By Leibniz's integral rule, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:derivativeeq}
\frac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r_j}\overline F_j(x_j; \mathbf{t}) = \int \frac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r_j}f(x_j, \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j})\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{X}_{\setminus j}\mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}}(d\mathbf{x}_{\setminus j}).
\end{equation}
By \prettyref{eq:derivativeeq} and the generalized mean value theorem for integrals, there exists $ \mathbf{x}'_{\setminus j} \in \mathbf{t}_{\setminus j} $ such that $\frac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r_j} f(x_j,\mathbf{x}'_{\setminus j}) = \frac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r_j}\overline F_j(x_j; \mathbf{t}) $. By assumption that \prettyref{eq:flat} holds there exists a finite integer $ R \geq 1 $ such that for each $ x_j \in [a_j(\mathbf{t}), b_j(\mathbf{t})] $, there exists an integer $ 1 \leq r \leq R $ such that $ \frac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r_j} f(x_j,\mathbf{x}_{\setminus j}) \neq 0 $ for all $ \mathbf{x}_{\setminus j} \in [0, 1]^{d-1}$. In particular, $ \frac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r_j} F_j(x_j; \mathbf{t}) = \frac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r_j} f(x_j,\mathbf{x}'_{\setminus j}) \neq 0 $ and hence $ \sup_{s\in[0, 1]}\inf_{r\geq 1}\{ r: \overline F^{(r)}(s; \mathbf{t}) \neq 0\; \text{for all}\; \mathbf{t} \} $ is finite. Since $ x_j $ was arbitrary in $ [a_j(\mathbf{t}), b_j(\mathbf{t})] $, this implies that $ \overline F_j(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $ is nonconstant on $ [a_j(\mathbf{t}), b_j(\mathbf{t})] $. Finally, it is easy to show that if $ \Delta(j, s^*; \mathbf{t}) = 0 $, then $ \overline F_j(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) = \expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} $.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \prettyref{lmm:deltalower}]
First, note that
$$
\Delta(s; \mathbf{t}) = \frac{(\int_a^{s}p(s|\mathbf{t})\overline G(s'; \mathbf{t})ds')^2}{P(s|\mathbf{t})(1-P(s|\mathbf{t}))}, \quad s \in [a,b].
$$
Since a maximum is larger than an average, for any prior $ \Pi $ on $ [0, 1] $ with density $ \pi $,
\begin{align*}
\Delta(s^*; \mathbf{t}) & \geq \int_a^b\frac{(\int_a^{s}p(s|\mathbf{t})\overline G(s'; \mathbf{t})ds')^2}{P(s|\mathbf{t})(1-P(s|\mathbf{t}))}\frac{\pi((s-a)/(b-a))}{b-a}ds \\
& = \int_0^1\frac{(\int_0^{s}(b-a)p(a+s'(b-a)|\mathbf{t})\overline G(a+s'(b-a); \mathbf{t})ds')^2}{P(a+s(b-a)|\mathbf{t})(1-P(a+s(b-a)|\mathbf{t}))}\Pi(ds).
\end{align*}
In particular, we choose the uniform prior, i.e., $ \pi(s) = \indc{s\in[0, 1]} $.
Next, by assumption, $ p_X(\cdot) $ is positive and continuous and hence
$$
\lim_{(a,b)\to(c,c)}(b-a)p(a+s(b-a)|\mathbf{t}) = \frac{p_X(c)}{p_X(c)} = 1
$$
and
$$
\quad \lim_{(a,b)\to(c,c)}P(a+s(b-a)|\mathbf{t}) = s\frac{p_X(c)}{p_X(c)} = s,
$$
where the convergence is uniform. Thus, we assume henceforth that $ \mathbf{X} $ is uniform. The proof for general $ \mathbf{X} $ follows similarly.
Let $ D(s) $ denote the divided difference $ \frac{\overline F(a+s(b-a); \mathbf{t})-\overline F(c; \mathbf{t})}{(a+s(b-a)-c)^R} $ and $ \delta = \frac{c-a}{b-a} $. Then, we can rewrite $ (b-a)^{-R}\overline G(a+s'(b-a); \mathbf{t}) $ via
$$
D(s')\left(s'-\delta\right)^R-\int_0^1D(s'')\left(s''-\delta\right)^Rds''.
$$
Fix $ s\in [a, b] $ and use a Taylor expansion of $ \overline F(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $ about the point $ s = c $ and continuity of $ \overline F^{(R)}(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $ at $ s = c $ to argue that
$$
\lim_{(a,b)\to(c,c)}D(s) = \frac{\overline F^{(R)}(c; \mathbf{t})}{R!},
$$
where the convergence is uniform and the limit is nonzero by assumption. Without loss of generality, assume $ \overline F^{(R)}(c; \mathbf{t}) > 0 $. By uniform continuity, there exists $ \xi > 0 $ such that if $ \sqrt{(c-a)^2+(b-c)^2} < \xi $, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cont}
\Big|D(s)-\frac{\overline F^{(R)}(c; \mathbf{t})}{R!}\Big| < \min\Big\{\frac{\overline F^{(R)}(c; \mathbf{t})}{2 R!}, \frac{1}{\delta^2} \Big\}.
\end{equation}
Using the fact that $ s(1-s) \leq 1/4 $ and Jensen's inequality, the expression
$$
\int_0^1\frac{\big(\int_0^{s}D(s')\big(s'-\delta\big)^Rds'-s\int_0^1D(s'')\big(s''-\delta\big)^Rds''\big)^2}{s(1-s)}ds
$$
is at least
$$
4\big(\int_0^1\big(\int_0^{s}D(s')\big(s'-\delta\big)^Rds'-s\int_0^1D(s'')\big(s''-\delta\big)^Rds''\big)ds \big)^2,
$$
which by Fubini's theorem is equal to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lowerdiv}
4\big(\int_0^1D(s)(s-1/2)\big(s-\delta\big)^Rds\big)^2.
\end{equation}
The leading terms in $ \delta $ in the integrand of \prettyref{eq:lowerdiv} are, up to signs, $ \delta^R\int_0^1D(s)(s-1/2)ds $ and $ R\delta^{R-1}\int_0^1D(s)s(s-1/2)ds $. However, note that
$$
\delta^R\Big|\int_0^1D(s)(s-1/2)ds\Big| = \delta^R\Big|\int_0^1\Big(D(s)-\frac{\overline F^{(R)}(c; \mathbf{t})}{R!}\Big)(s-1/2)ds\Big|,
$$
which, per \prettyref{eq:cont}, is at most $ \delta^R\int_0^1|D(s)-\frac{\overline F^{(R)}(c; \mathbf{t})}{R!}||s-1/2|ds \leq \delta^{R-2}/4 $. Furthermore, per \prettyref{eq:cont}, $ D(s) $ is between $ \frac{\overline F^{(R)}(c; \mathbf{t})}{2R!} $ and $ \frac{3\overline F^{(R)}(c; \mathbf{t})}{2R!} $. Hence, we have that $ \int_0^1D(s)s(s-1/2)ds \geq \frac{1}{48}\frac{\overline F^{(R)}(c; \mathbf{t})}{R!} > 0 $. This shows that \prettyref{eq:lowerdiv} is $ \Omega(|\delta|^{R-1}) $ as $ |\delta| \rightarrow +\infty $. Hence, we may assume that $ \delta = \frac{c-a}{b-a} $ is bounded in the limit infimum \prettyref{eq:deltalimit}. Using this, we have that $ \liminf_{(a,b)\to(c,c)}\frac{\Delta(s^*; \mathbf{t})}{\big(\frac{(b-a)^R\overline F^{(R)}(c; \mathbf{t})}{R!}\big)^2} $ is at least
\begin{equation} \label{eq:inf}
\inf_{\delta\in\mathbb{R}}\Big\{\int_0^1 \frac{\big( \int_0^s (s'-\delta)^Rds'-s\int_0^1(s''-\delta)^Rds'' \big)^2}{s(1-s)}ds\Big\}.
\end{equation}
Next, let us evaluate the infimum \prettyref{eq:inf}. In fact, we will show that it is achieved at $ \delta = 1/2 $.
Towards this end, elementary calculations reveal that the expression inside the infimum \prettyref{eq:inf} is equal to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:express}
\frac{1}{(R+1)^2}\int_0^1 \frac{\big(s(\delta-1)^{R+1}+(1-s)\delta^{R+1}-(\delta-s)^{R+1}\big)^2}{s(1-s)}ds.
\end{equation}
Define $ V_R(s, \delta) = s(\delta-1)^{R}+(1-s)\delta^{R}-(\delta-s)^{R} $, so that the integral \prettyref{eq:express} can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:expressV}
\frac{1}{(R+1)^2}\int_0^1 \frac{V^2_R(\delta, s)}{s(1-s)}ds.
\end{equation}
We first catalogue some facts about $ V_R $.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $ R $ is even, then $ V_R(\delta, s) \geq 0 $.
\item $ V_R(\delta, s) = (-1)^RV_R(1-\delta, 1-s) $.
\item If $ R $ is even, $ \delta \geq 1/2 $, and $ 0 \leq s \leq 1/2 $, then $ V_R(\delta, s) \geq V_R(\delta, 1-s) $.
\item $ \frac{\partial}{\partial \delta} V_R(\delta, s) = RV_{R-1}(\delta, s) $.
\item $ \frac{\partial}{\partial \delta} V^2_R(\delta, s) = 2RV_R(\delta, s)V_{R-1}(\delta, s) $.
\end{enumerate}
By the second fact and the representation \prettyref{eq:expressV}, it follows that \prettyref{eq:express} is symmetric about $ \delta = 1/2 $. Thus, it can be assumed that $ \delta \geq 1/2 $.
Using the fifth fact, we have that the derivative of \prettyref{eq:express} with respect to $ \delta $ is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:express2}
\frac{2}{R+1}\int_0^1 \frac{V_{R+1}(\delta, s)V_{R}(\delta, s)}{s(1-s)}ds.
\end{equation}
Assume without loss of generality that $ R $ is even. By the first and fourth facts, $ V_{R+1}(\delta, s) $ is increasing in $ \delta $ and $ V_R $ is nonnegative. Hence \prettyref{eq:express2} is at least
\begin{equation} \label{eq:express3}
\frac{2}{R+1}\int_0^1 \frac{V_{R+1}(1/2, s)V_{R}(\delta, s)}{s(1-s)}ds.
\end{equation}
Note that $ V_{R+1}(1/2, s) = (1-2s - (1-2s)^{R+1})/2^{R+1} $ is odd about $ s = 1/2 $ and positive when $ s \leq 1/2 $. Using this observation, we have that \prettyref{eq:express3} is equal to
$$
\frac{2}{R+1}\int_0^{1/2}\frac{V_{R+1}(1/2, s)(V_{R}(\delta, s)-V_{R}(\delta, 1-s))}{s(1-s)}ds,
$$
and nonnegative by the third fact.
Therefore, \prettyref{eq:express} is increasing when $ \delta \geq 1/2 $ and hence minimized at $ \delta = 1/2 $. Thus, the infimum \prettyref{eq:inf} is equal to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intdelta}
\int_0^1 \frac{\big( \int_0^s (s'-1/2)^Rds'-s\int_0^1(s''-1/2)^Rds'' \big)^2}{s(1-s)}ds = \int_0^1\Delta(s, [0, 1])ds.
\end{equation}
Routine calculations also reveal that \prettyref{eq:intdelta} is $ \Omega(4^{-R}/R^2) $.
Finally, let us verify all five facts above.
The second, fourth, and fifth facts are straightforward. The first fact holds since $ V_R $ is the difference between a point and a chord that lies above it on the convex function $ s \mapsto s^{R} $. To show the third fact, note that
$$
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial s^2}(V_{R}(\delta, s)-V_{R}(\delta, 1-s)) = R(R-1)((1-\delta-s)^{R-2}-(\delta-s)^{R-2}),
$$
which is negative since $ \delta-s \geq |1-\delta-s| $ for $ \delta \geq 1/2 $ and $ s \leq 1/2 $. Since $ V_{R}(\delta, s)-V_{R}(\delta, 1-s) $ has roots at $ s = 0 $ and $ s = 1/2 $, it follows that $ V_{R}(\delta, s) \geq V_{R}(\delta, 1-s) $ in this regime.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The same argument also works if the uniform prior $ \Pi $ is replaced by any symmetric prior about $ 1/2 $.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \prettyref{thm:sample}]
Combining \prettyref{eq:length} and \prettyref{eq:close}, it can be deduced via the triangle inequality that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sineq}
\frac{b-a}{2}\Gamma^2 + a \leq \hat s \leq b - \frac{b-a}{2}\Gamma^2,
\end{equation}
with probability at least $ 1-\delta $. Next, by \prettyref{eq:p} and continuity of $ \mathbf{X} $, we have that
$$
p = \prob{X \leq Q(p) \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}}.
$$
We use this identity to derive lower bounds on $ P(\mathbf{t}_L) $ and $ P(\mathbf{t}_R) $ over split points $ s \in [a+c,b-c] $ with $ c = \frac{b-a}{2}\Gamma^2 $. Now, from \prettyref{eq:sineq}, we have that
\begin{align*}
s & \geq a + \frac{b-a}{2}\Gamma^2 \\
& = a + (b-a)q_2(p_L) \\
& \geq Q(p_L),
\end{align*}
and hence $ P(\mathbf{t}_L) = \prob{X \leq s \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} \geq \prob{X \leq Q(p_L) \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} = p_L $. Furthermore,
\begin{align*}
s & \leq b - \frac{b-a}{2}\Gamma^2 \\
& = b - (b-a)(1-q_1(1-p_R)) \\
& \leq Q(1-p_R),
\end{align*}
and hence $ P(\mathbf{t}_R) = \prob{X > s \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} \geq \prob{X > Q(1-p_R) \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} = p_R $.
We deduce that if $ s\in [a+c, b-c ] $, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:problower}
P(\mathbf{t}_L) \geq p_L \quad \text{and} \quad P(\mathbf{t}_R) \geq p_R.
\end{equation}
By the assumption that $ \mathbf{t} $ is independent of the training data $ {\mathcal{D}}_n $ and \prettyref{lmm:cond} in \prettyref{app:proofs}, given $ N(\mathbf{t}) $, $ N(\mathbf{t}) \widehat P(\mathbf{t}_L) $ is distributed $ \mathrm{Bin}(N(\mathbf{t}) , P(\mathbf{t}_L)) $ and $ N(\mathbf{t}) \widehat P(\mathbf{t}_R) $ is distributed $ \mathrm{Bin}(N(\mathbf{t}) , P(\mathbf{t}_R)) $ (the features of $ \mathbf{X} $ need not be independent for this to hold). If $ W \sim X \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t} $, then given $ N(\mathbf{t}) $, $ \widehat P(\mathbf{t}_L) $ has the same distribution as the empirical distribution function of a sample $ \{W_i\}_{i=1}^{N(\mathbf{t})} $ from the distribution of $ W $. Hence by the Dvoretzky-Kiefer-Wolfowitz inequality \citep{massart1990tight},
it can be shown that with probability at least $ 1-2\exp\{-2N\epsilon^2 p^2\} $, uniformly over all split points $ s \in [a+c,b-c] $,
$$
\widehat P(\mathbf{t}_L) \geq (1-\epsilon) P(\mathbf{t}_L) \quad \text{and} \quad \widehat P(\mathbf{t}_R) \geq (1-\epsilon) P(\mathbf{t}_R),
$$
where $ \epsilon \in (0, 1/2) $. In particular, for $ \mathbf{t}_L = \hat \mathbf{t}_L $ and $ \mathbf{t}_R = \hat \mathbf{t}_R $, with probability at least $$ 1-\delta - 2\exp\{-Np^2/2\}, $$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:frac}
\widehat P( \hat \mathbf{t}_L) \geq \frac{1}{2}p_L \quad \text{and} \quad \widehat P( \hat \mathbf{t}_R) \geq \frac{1}{2}p_R.
\end{equation}
Since $ \widehat P(\mathbf{t}_L) = N(\mathbf{t}_L)/N(\mathbf{t}) $ and $ \widehat P(\mathbf{t}_R) = N(\mathbf{t}_R)/N(\mathbf{t}) $, the quantities in \prettyref{eq:frac} are interpretable as lower bounds on the fraction of data points in the optimal daughter node ($\hat \mathbf{t}_L$ and $\hat \mathbf{t}_R$) that are contained in the parent node $ \mathbf{t} $. A consequence of this analysis is that if $ \Lambda $ is not too small, this fraction is non-negligible.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \prettyref{thm:sampledata}]
The proof is similar to \prettyref{thm:sample}, although we must use a stronger concentration inequality to control an empirical process over a collection of nodes. That is, the proof is based on simultaneous control of the empirical processes
$$
\left\{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \indc{\mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t}} : \mathbf{t}\in{\mathcal{T}} \right\} \quad \text{and} \quad \left\{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \indc{\mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t}, \; X \leq s} : \mathbf{t}\in{\mathcal{T}}, \; s \in [0, 1] \right\},
$$
where $ {\mathcal{T}} $ is the collection of all nodes in $ d $ dimensions.
To this end, define $ P(\mathbf{t}) = \prob{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} $ and $ P(s, \mathbf{t}) = \prob{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}, \; X \leq s} $ so that $ P(\mathbf{t}_L) = P(s, \mathbf{t})/P(\mathbf{t}) $. We make use of the inequality
\begin{equation} \label{eq:triangle}
| \widehat P(\mathbf{t}_L) - P(\mathbf{t}_L)| \leq \frac{| N(\mathbf{t}_L)/n-P(s, \mathbf{t}_L)|}{ N(\mathbf{t}) /n} + \frac{| N(\mathbf{t}) /n-P(\mathbf{t})|}{ N(\mathbf{t}) /n},
\end{equation}
which can be deduced from the triangle inequality. We would like to obtain an upper bound on the probability that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:event}
\widehat P( \hat \mathbf{t}_L) < (1-\epsilon)p_L \quad \text{or} \quad \widehat P( \hat \mathbf{t}_R) < (1-\epsilon)p_R,
\end{equation}
for $ \epsilon = 1/2 $.
On an event with probability at least $ 1-\delta $, it holds that $ N(\mathbf{t}) \geq n \alpha $ and $ P( \hat \mathbf{t}_L) \geq p_L $ and $ P( \hat \mathbf{t}_R) \geq p_R $ (using \prettyref{eq:problower} from the proof of \prettyref{thm:sample}), and hence \prettyref{eq:event} is contained in the event
$$
| \widehat P( \hat \mathbf{t}_L) - P( \hat \mathbf{t}_L)| \geq \epsilon p,
$$
with probability at least $ 1-\delta $, where $ p = \min\{ p_L, p_R \} $. Using \prettyref{eq:triangle}, this event is also contained in
$$
|N(\hat \mathbf{t}_L)/n-P(\hat s, \mathbf{t})| \geq \epsilon \alpha p/2 \quad \text{or} \quad |N(\mathbf{t}) /n-P(\mathbf{t})| \geq \epsilon \alpha p/2,
$$
with probability at least $ 1-\delta $.
By \prettyref{lmm:prob}, each event above has probability at most $ 8(n^{2d}+1)\exp\{-n\epsilon^2 \alpha^2 p^2/128\} $ for a total probability of at most $ 16(n^{2d}+1)\exp\{-n\epsilon^2 \alpha^2 p^2/128\} $. The proof is completed by choosing $ \epsilon = 1/2 $.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lmm:prob}
Let $ {\mathcal{T}} $ be the set of all nodes in $ \mathbb{R}^{d} $. Let $ \mathbf{X} $ and $ \{ \mathbf{X}_i \}_{i=1}^n $ be i.i.d. random vectors in $ \mathbb{R}^{d} $. Then for all $ \epsilon > 0 $,
$$
\prob{\sup_{\mathbf{t} \in {\mathcal{T}}}\left|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \indc{\mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{t}} - \prob{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} \right| > \epsilon } \leq 8s({\mathcal{T}}, n)\exp\{-n\epsilon^2/32\},
$$
where $ s({\mathcal{T}}, n) \leq n^{2d}+1 $.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \prettyref{lmm:prob}]
This follows from \citep{vapnik1971uniform} and the fact that the VC-dimension of $ {\mathcal{T}} $ is $ 2d $.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proofs of example regression functions}
In this subsection, we give proofs of \prettyref{ex:poly}, \prettyref{ex:sine}, and \prettyref{ex:friedman} from \prettyref{sec:mdilower} and \prettyref{ex:logistic} from \prettyref{sec:classification}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \prettyref{ex:poly}]
Without loss of generality, we will prove the theorem when $ f(x) = x^k $. The objective function $ \Delta(s; \mathbf{t}) $ can be expressed as
\begin{align*}
\sqrt{\Delta(s; \mathbf{t})} & = \frac{1}{(k+1)\sqrt{(s-a)(b-s)}}\left[ \frac{b-s}{b-a}a^{k+1} + \frac{s-a}{b-a}b^{k+1} - s^{k+1} \right].
\end{align*}
Note that $ \sqrt{\Delta(s^*; \mathbf{t})} $ is at least
$$
\sqrt{\Delta((a+b)/2; \mathbf{t})} = \frac{b-a}{k+1}\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} (1-2^{-(j+1)})a^{k-1-j}(b-a)^j \binom{k+1}{j+2},
$$
and the derivative of the partial dependence function at $ s^* $ is
$$
\overline F'(s^*; \mathbf{t}) \leq \overline F'(b; \mathbf{t}) = kb^{k-1}.
$$
Thus, by \prettyref{eq:lambdaloweruniversal},
\begin{align*}
\lambda^{3/2} & \geq \frac{2\sqrt{\Delta((a+b)/2; \mathbf{t})}}{(b-a)|\overline F'(b; \mathbf{t})|} \\
& = \frac{2\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} (1-2^{-(j+1)})a^{k-1-j}(b-a)^j \binom{k+1}{j+2}}{k(k+1)b^{k-1}} \\
& \geq \frac{\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}(a/b)^{k-1-j}(1-a/b)^j \binom{k-1}{j}}{k(k+1)} \\
& = \frac{1}{k(k+1)}.
\end{align*}
The penultimate line above follows from the inequality $ \binom{k+1}{j+2} = \frac{k(k+1)}{(j+1)(j+2)}\binom{k-1}{j} \geq \binom{k-1}{j} $ for $ j = 0, 1, \dots, k-1 $ and the binomial theorem.
Since $ a < b $ is arbitrary, it follows that $ \Lambda \geq \left(\frac{1}{k(k+1)}\right)^{2/3} $.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{rmk:poly}
If $ a = 0 $ and $ b = 1 $, note that if $ s = k/(k+1) $, then $ \sqrt{\Delta(s; \mathbf{t})} \sim (1-e^{-1})/\sqrt{k} $ as $ k \rightarrow + \infty $. Since $ \sup_{s\in[0,1]}|\overline F'(s; \mathbf{t})| \leq k $, this shows that $ \lambda([0,1]) \geq (1-e^{-1})^{2/3}/k $. Although we have not given a formal proof, this calculation provides evidence that $ \Lambda = \Omega(1/k) $.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \prettyref{ex:sine}]
Without loss of generality, we will prove the theorem when $ f(x) = \sin(2\pi mx) $. In this case, $ \sqrt{\Delta(s; \mathbf{t})} $ is equal to
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2\pi m \sqrt{(s-a)(b-s)}}|\underbrace{\cos(2\pi m s) - \frac{b-s}{b-a}\cos(2\pi m a) - \frac{s-a}{b-a}\cos(2\pi m b)}_{\text{Jensen gap}}|.
\end{align*}
Note the term which is equal to the difference of $ \cos(2\pi m s) $ and the line segment between $ \cos(2\pi m a) $ and $ \cos(2\pi m b) $ at $ s $, or the so-called ``Jensen gap''.\footnote{Typically, this terminology is reserved for convex or concave functions, but we nevertheless use it here.} A major task of the proof is in choosing a suitable $ s $ so that the Jensen gap is large.
Next, note that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:singap}
\sup_{s\in[a,b]}|\overline G(s; \mathbf{t})| \leq \min\left\{1, 2\pi m\int_{a}^b |\cos(2\pi m s)|ds \right\},
\end{equation}
which combines a pointwise inequality of one and the total variation inequality \prettyref{eq:TV} from \prettyref{lmm:variation}.
We break the proof into two parts, depending on whether $ a-b \leq 1/(4m) $ or $ a-b > 1/(4m) $.
\paragraph{{\bf Case I: $ a-b \leq 1/(4m) $}} Suppose that $ b-a \leq 1/(4m) $ and that $ \sin(2\pi m s) $ is monotone on $ [a, b] $. Consider $ \sqrt{\Delta(s; \mathbf{t})} $ at $ s = (a+b)/2 $. Then it can be shown that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sinmid}
\sqrt{\Delta((a+b)/2; \mathbf{t})} = \frac{2\sin^2(\pi m(b-a)/2)|\cos(\pi m(a+b))|}{\pi m(b-a)}.
\end{equation}
Since $ \sin(2\pi m s) $ is monotone on $ [a,b] $, it follows that its total variation is equal to $ |\sin(2\pi m b)- \sin(2\pi m a)| $ and hence
\begin{align}
\sup_{s\in[a,b]}|\overline G(s; \mathbf{t})| & \leq |\sin(2\pi m b) - \sin(2 \pi m a)| \nonumber \\ & = 2|\sin(\pi m(b-a) )\cos(\pi m(a+b))|. \label{eq:sinvar}
\end{align}
Combining the estimates \prettyref{eq:sinmid} and \prettyref{eq:sinvar} and using $ |\sin(z)| \leq 2|\sin(z/2)| $ for $ z\in [0, 2\pi] $ and $ \sin(z) \geq (2\sqrt{2}/\pi)z $ for $ z\in [0, \pi/4] $, we conclude from \prettyref{eq:lambdaosc} that
\begin{align*}
\lambda^{1/2} & \geq \frac{\frac{2\sin^2(\pi m(b-a)/2)|\cos(\pi m(a+b))|}{\pi m(b-a)}}{2|\sin(\pi m(b-a) )\cos(\pi m(a+b))|} \\
& \geq \frac{|\sin(\pi m(b-a)/2 )|}{2\pi m(b-a)} \\
& \geq \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2\pi}.
\end{align*}
Thus, $ \lambda \geq \frac{1}{2\pi^2} $.
Next, suppose that $ \sin(2 \pi m s) $ is neither increasing or decreasing on $ [a, b] $. This means that for some positive integer $ k $, the point $ s' = (2k-1)/(4m) $ belongs to $ [a, b] $. Thus, there are choices $ s \in [a,b] $ such that
$$
|\cos(2\pi m s) - \frac{b-s}{b-a}\cos(2\pi m a) - \frac{s-a}{b-a}\cos(2\pi m b)| \geq Cm^3(b-a)^3.
$$
Since $ \sqrt{(s-a)(b-s)} \leq (b-a)/2 $, it follows from \prettyref{eq:lambdaosc} that $ \sqrt{\Delta(s; \mathbf{t})} \geq (C/\pi)m^2(b-a)^2 $.
Moreover, using the total variation bound in \prettyref{eq:singap},
\begin{align*}
\sup_{s\in[a,b]}|\overline G(s; \mathbf{t})| & \leq |2 - \sin(2\pi m b) - \sin(2 \pi m a)| \\ & = |[\sin(2\pi m s') - \sin(2\pi m b)] + [\sin(2\pi m s') - \sin(2 \pi m a)]| \\ & \leq 2\pi^2m^2[(b-s')^2+(s'-a)^2] \\
& \leq 2\pi^2m^2(b-a)^2,
\end{align*}
where the penultimate line follows from a Taylor expansion argument. Thus, by \prettyref{eq:lambdaosc}, $ \lambda^{1/2} \geq \frac{(C/\pi)m^2(b-a)^2}{2\pi^2m^2(b-a)^2} = C/(2\pi^3) $ and hence $ \lambda \geq C^2/(4\pi^6) $.
\paragraph{{\bf Case II: $ a-b > 1/(4m) $}} Next, we investigate when $ b-a > 1/(4m) $. In this regime, $ \cos(2\pi m s) $ is allowed to make at least a quarter period on $ [a, b] $. This means that there exists a universal constant $ C>0 $ and $ s \in [a, b] $ such that the Jensen gap
$$
|\cos(2\pi m s) - \frac{b-s}{b-a}\cos(2\pi m a) - \frac{s-a}{b-a}\cos(2\pi m b)| \geq C,
$$
and hence $ \sqrt{\Delta(s; \mathbf{t})} \geq C/m $. Furthermore, $ \sup_{s\in[a,b]}|\overline F'(s; \mathbf{t})| \leq 2\pi m $. Thus, by \prettyref{eq:lambdaloweruniversal}, $ \lambda \geq (C^2/(\pi^2m^4))^{1/3} $.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
If $ a = 0 $ and $ b = 1 $, and $ s = 1/m $ then $ \sqrt{\Delta(s; \mathbf{t})} = \frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{\frac{1-1/m}{m}} $. Furthermore, $\sup_{s\in[0,1]}|\overline G(s; \mathbf{t})| \leq 1 $. Together these estimates imply that $ \lambda([0,1]) \geq \frac{1-1/m}{4\pi^2m} $. As with the case of polynomials (c.f., \prettyref{rmk:poly}), it is likely that the bound is improvable to $ \Lambda = \Omega(1/m) $, and we leave its proof as an open question for future investigation.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma} \label{lmm:square}
Suppose $ f(x) = (x-1/2)^2 $. Then $ \Lambda \geq (\frac{1}{12})^{2/3} $.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In this case,
$$
\sqrt{\Delta(s; \mathbf{t})} = \frac{1}{6}\sqrt{(s-a)(b-s)}|2a+2b+2s-3|.
$$
The derivative of the partial dependence function is $ \overline F'(s; \mathbf{t}) = 2s-1 $. If $ b \leq 1/2 $ or $ a \geq 1/2 $, then a lower bound on $ \lambda $ is easy to state. In this case, $ |\overline F'(s; \mathbf{t})| \leq |a+b-1| $.
Choosing $ s = (a+b)/2 $, we have from \prettyref{eq:lambdaloweruniversal} that
$$
\lambda^{3/2} \geq \frac{2\sqrt{\Delta((a+b)/2; \mathbf{t})}}{(b-a)\max_{s\in[a,b]}|\overline F'(s; \mathbf{t})|} \geq \frac{\frac{1}{2}(b-a)|a+b-1|}{(b-a)|a+b-1|} = 1/2.
$$
If $ b > 1/2 $ or $ a < 1/2 $, then $ |\overline F'(s; \mathbf{t})| \leq 2\max\{1/2-a, b-1/2\} $ and there are two cases to consider for obtaining lower bounds on $ \Delta(s; \mathbf{t}) $.
\paragraph{{\bf Case I: $ a + b \geq 1 $}}
Choose $ s = a + \delta(b-a) $, where $ \delta > 1/2 $. Then,
$$
\sqrt{\Delta(s; \mathbf{t})} \geq \frac{b-a}{3}\sqrt{\delta(1-\delta)}(2\delta-1)(b-1/2).
$$
Let $ \delta = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} $. Then, $ \sqrt{\Delta(s; \mathbf{t})} \geq \frac{b-a}{12}(b-1/2) $, and hence by \prettyref{eq:lambdaloweruniversal}, $ \lambda \geq (\frac{1}{12})^{2/3} $.
\paragraph{{\bf Case II: $ a + b < 1 $}} Choose $ s = a + \delta(b-a) $, where $ \delta < 1/2 $. Then,
$$
\sqrt{\Delta(s; \mathbf{t})} \geq \frac{b-a}{3}\sqrt{\delta(1-\delta)}(1-2\delta)(1/2-a).
$$
Choosing $ \delta = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} $ yields $ \sqrt{\Delta(s; \mathbf{t})} \geq \frac{b-a}{12}(1/2-a) $, and hence \prettyref{eq:lambdaloweruniversal}, $ \lambda \geq (\frac{1}{12})^{2/3} $.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lmm:twodim}
Suppose $ f(\mathbf{x}) = \sin(\pi x_1 x_2) $. Then $ \Lambda \geq \frac{1}{2\pi^2} $.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, note that $ \expect{Y \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t},\; X_1 = s} $ is equal to
\begin{align*} -\frac{\cos(\pi b_2s)-\cos(\pi a_2s)}{(b_2-a_2)\pi s} & = \frac{\sin(\pi(a_2+b_2)s/2)\sin(\pi(b_2-a_2)s/2)}{(b_2-a_2)\pi s/2} \\ & \approx \sin(\pi(a_2+b_2)s/2). \end{align*}
In this case,
$$
\sqrt{\Delta((a_1+b_1)/2; \mathbf{t})} = \frac{\sin^2(\pi(a_2+b_2)(b_1-a_1)/8)\cos(\pi(a_2+b_2)(b_1+a_1)/4)}{\pi(a_2+b_2)(b_1-a_1)/8}.
$$
Using the total variation bound \prettyref{eq:singap}, one can easily show that
\begin{align*} \sup_{s\in[a_1,b_1]}|\overline G(s; \mathbf{t})| & \leq 2\sin(\pi(a_2+b_2)(b_1-a_1)/4)\cos(\pi(a_2+b_2)(b_1+a_1)/4)
\\ & \leq 4\sin(\pi(a_2+b_2)(b_1-a_1)/8)\cos(\pi(a_2+b_2)(b_1+a_1)/4),
\end{align*}
where the last line follows from $ \sin(z) \leq 2\sin(z/2) $ for $ z\in [0, \pi] $. Using $ \sin(z) \geq (2\sqrt{2}/\pi)z $ for $ z\in [0, \pi/4] $, we conclude from \prettyref{eq:lambdaosc} that
$$
\lambda^{1/2} \geq \frac{\sqrt{\Delta((a_1+b_1)/2; \mathbf{t})}}{\sup_{s\in[a_1,b_1]}|\overline G(s; \mathbf{t})|} \geq \frac{1}{4}\frac{\sin(\pi(a_2+b_2)(b_1-a_1)/8)}{\pi(a_2+b_2)(b_1-a_1)/8} \geq \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2\pi}.
$$
This implies that $ \Lambda \geq \frac{1}{2\pi^2} $.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \prettyref{ex:logistic}]
Consider a generic coefficient of $ \boldsymbol{\beta} $, say $ \beta $. First, note that we may assume without loss of generality that $ \beta > 0 $ (since otherwise, we can consider $ \prob{Y=-1\mid \mathbf{X} = \mathbf{x}} = \frac{1}{1+e^{\beta_0+\langle \mathbf{x}, \boldsymbol{\beta} \rangle}} $).
In this case, $ \sqrt{\Delta(s^*; \mathbf{t})} $ is at least
\begin{align}
\sqrt{\Delta((a+b)/2; \mathbf{t})} & = \frac{1}{\beta}\int_{0}^{\beta}[\overline F(a+x(b-a)/(2\beta); \mathbf{t})- \overline F(a+x(b-a)/\beta; \mathbf{t})]dx\nonumber \\
& \geq \frac{1}{\beta^2}\int_{0}^{\beta}\overline F'(a+x(b-a)/(2\beta); \mathbf{t})(1-e^{-x(b-a)/2})dx \nonumber \\
& \geq \frac{\overline F'(a; \mathbf{t})}{\beta^2}\int_{0}^{\beta}e^{-x(b-a)/2}(1-e^{-x(b-a)/2})dx, \label{eq:logistic1}
\end{align}
and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:logistic2}
\overline F'(s^*; \mathbf{t}) \leq \overline F'(a; \mathbf{t}).
\end{equation}
The above inequality \prettyref{eq:logistic2} is due to the fact that $ \overline F(\cdot; \mathbf{t}) $ is decreasing.
Combining inequalities \prettyref{eq:logistic1} and \prettyref{eq:logistic2} with \prettyref{eq:lambdaloweruniversal}, we have that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:logistic3}
\lambda^{3/2} \geq \frac{2\sqrt{\Delta((a+b)/2; \mathbf{t})}}{(b-a)|\overline F'(a; \mathbf{t})|} \geq \frac{2}{(b-a)\beta^2}\int_0^{\beta}e^{-x(b-a)/2}(1-e^{-x(b-a)/2})dx.
\end{equation}
We now consider two cases for evaluating the integral in \prettyref{eq:logistic3}.
\paragraph{{\bf Case I: $ \beta(b-a) \geq 2\log 2 $}}
In this regime,
\begin{align*}
\int_0^{\beta}e^{-x(b-a)/2}(1-e^{-x(b-a)/2})dx & \geq \frac{1}{2}\int_0^{\beta}e^{-x(b-a)/2}dx \\
& = \frac{(1-e^{-\beta(b-a)/2})}{b-a} \\
& \geq 1/2.
\end{align*}
Thus, $ \lambda \geq \beta^{-4/3} $.
\paragraph{{\bf Case II: $ \beta(b-a) < 2\log 2 $}}
Alternatively, in this regime,
\begin{align*}
\int_0^{\beta}e^{-x(b-a)/2}(1-e^{-x(b-a)/2})dx & \geq \frac{1}{2}\int_0^{\beta}(1-e^{-x(b-a)/2})dx \\
& = \frac{1}{2}(\beta-\frac{2}{(b-a)}(1-e^{-\beta(b-a)/2})) \\
& \geq \frac{\beta^2(b-a)}{16}.
\end{align*}
Thus, $ \lambda \geq (1/8)^{2/3} $. In summary, $ \lambda \geq \min\{ \beta^{-4/3}, (1/8)^{2/3} \} $. Since $ a < b $ was arbitrary, this shows that $ \Lambda \geq \min\{ \beta^{-4/3}, (1/8)^{2/3} \} $.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of example distributions} \label{app:exampledist}
Below we list the examples from \prettyref{sec:distance} and give their proofs.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item[(b)] If each $ X $ is i.i.d. $ \mathrm{Beta}(2, 1) $, then $ \prob{X\leq s \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} = \frac{s^2-a^2}{b^2-a^2} $ and $ Q(p) = \sqrt{a^2 + p(b^2-a^2)} $ and hence we can write
$$
\frac{Q(p)-a}{b-a} = \frac{\sqrt{pb^2 + (1-p)a^2}-a}{b-a} = \frac{p(a+b)}{\sqrt{pb^2 + (1-p)a^2}+a}.
$$
By concavity of the square root function, $ \sqrt{pb^2 + (1-p)a^2} \geq pb + (1-p)a $. Thus, $ \frac{\sqrt{pb^2 + (1-p)a^2}-a}{b-a} \geq p $ for all $ a < b $ and so $ q_1(p) = p $.
For the other direction, we can choose $ q_2(p) = \sqrt{p} $ if we can show that $ \frac{\sqrt{p}(a+b)}{\sqrt{pb^2 + (1-p)a^2}+a} \leq 1 $, or equivalently, that
\begin{align} \label{eq:sqrroot}
& (\sqrt{pb^2 + (1-p)a^2}+a)^2 - (\sqrt{p}(a+b))^2 \nonumber \\ \quad & = 2a(\sqrt{pb^2 + (1-p)a^2}+a - p(a+b)) \\ \nonumber & \geq 0.
\end{align}
By concavity of the square root function, the expression in \prettyref{eq:sqrroot} is at least $ 4a^2(1-p) \geq 0 $.
\item[(c)] If each $ X $ is i.i.d. $ \mathrm{Beta}(1/2, 1) $, then $ \prob{X\leq s \mid \mathbf{X} \in \mathbf{t}} = \frac{\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{a}}{\sqrt{b}-\sqrt{a}} $ and $ Q(p) = (\sqrt{a} + p(\sqrt{b}-\sqrt{a}) )^2 $ and hence we can write
$$
\frac{Q(p)-a}{b-a} = p\left(1-(1-p)\frac{\sqrt{b}-\sqrt{a}}{\sqrt{b}+\sqrt{a}}\right).
$$
The proof is finished by noting that $ 0 \leq \frac{\sqrt{b}-\sqrt{a}}{\sqrt{b}+\sqrt{a}} \leq 1 $ for all $ a< b $.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Miscellaneous lemmas}
\begin{lemma} \label{lmm:cond}
Suppose $ A $ and $ B $ are events and let $ W $ and $ \{ W_i \}_{i=1}^n $ be i.i.d. random variables. If $ M = \sum_{i=1}^n \indc{W_i \in A} $ and $ M' = \sum_{i=1}^n \indc{W_i \in A\cap B} $, then $ M' \mid M = m \sim \mathrm{Bin}(m, \prob{W \in B\mid W \in A}) $.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $ p_A = \prob{W \in A} $ and $ p_{AB} = \prob{W \in A \cap B} $. Note that $ p_{AB}/p_A = \prob{W \in B\mid W \in A} $. Then
\begin{align*}
\prob{M' = m' \mid M = m} & = \frac{\prob{M' = m', \; M = m}}{\prob{M=m}} \\ & = \frac{\binom{n}{m}\binom{m}{m'}p_{AB}^{m'}(p_A-p_{AB})^{m-m'}(1-p_A)^{n-m}}{\binom{n}{m}p_A^m(1-p_A)^{n-m}} \\
& = \binom{m}{m'}(p_{AB}/p_A)^{m'}(1-p_{AB}/p_A)^{m-m'},
\end{align*}
which is the mass function of $ \mathrm{Bin}(m, \prob{W \in B\mid W \in A}) $.
\end{proof}
Before we state the next lemma, let us first introduce some notation. For a function $ g $, we write $ g(x-) $ (resp. $ g(x+) $) to denote the left (resp. right) side limits of $ g $ at $ x $, i.e., $ g(x-) = \lim_{z \uparrow x}g(z) $ and $ g(x+) = \lim_{z \downarrow x}g(z) $.
\begin{lemma}
Let $ F $ be a distribution function and $ Q $ its quantile function, i.e., $ Q(p) = \inf\{ x \in \mathbb{R}: p \leq F(x) \} $. Then,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:s}
Q(F(x)) \leq x \leq Q(F(x)+), \quad x\in\mathbb{R},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:p}
F(Q(p)-) \leq p \leq F(Q(p)), \quad p \in (0, 1).
\end{equation}
Furthermore, if $ F $ is continuous and strictly increasing, then all inequalities are equalities.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
These are standard facts from probability theory and can be deduced from the Galois inequalities. See, for example,
\citep[Section 2.5.2]{resnick2003probability}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction\label{sec:Intro}}
Quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) is a versatile
NP-hard combinatorial problem with applications in operations research~\cite{Lu10}
and financial assets management, for example. It has recently been
studied also as a benchmark challenge for the D-Wave quantum annealer~\cite{McGeoch13}
or for a new generation of classical optimizers based on GPU-technology~\cite{Aramon2019}.
Cutting-edge classical algorithms for QUBO, developed in the engineering
literature, are based on TABU search~\cite{Wang13,Glover10,Lu10,Boros07,Palubeckis06}
and a variety of other heuristics~\cite{Kochenberger2014}. From
a statistical physics perspective, these developments are tantalizing
for the fact that the generic formulation of QUBO appears to be identical
to that of the Ising spin-glass Hamiltonian. While this connection
has long be realized~\cite{Barahona88}, it poses a conundrum that
has not be commented on previously, and whose resolution could be
of importance for both, the study of the low-energy structure of spin
glasses as well as the understanding of its combinatorial hardness,
for example, to assess the capabilities of the aforementioned solvers,
classical and quantum.
Short of a real quantum computing solution, our only hope to find
approximate solutions of reasonable quality for large-size instances
of many NP-hard combinatorial optimization problems stems from the
design of heuristic methods~\cite{Dagstuhl04,Hoos04,Osman96,Voss99}.
From that perspective, it is somewhat surprising to find that seemingly
equivalent instances of QUBO are routinely solved with well up to
$N\approx10^{4}$ variables~\cite{Glover10,Lu10,Palubeckis06,Wang13}
while solvers for comparable spin glasses already struggle with instances
of $N\approx10^{3}$ variables to converge without incurring unacceptable
systematic errors~\cite{hartmann:01b,Palassini99,Pal06b,Boettcher10b,EOSK}.
Could adapting those highly developed QUBO solvers from the operations
research literature provide a significant new inroad into investigations
of spin glasses? What we find instead, unfortunately, is that there
is an inherent weakness in the definition of the typical testbeds
employed to assess QUBO solvers, which is revealed when these testbed
instances are expressed as mean-field spin glasses. Exploiting this
weakness, we apply a novel implementation of the Extremal Optimization
(EO) heuristic~\cite{Boettcher00,Boettcher01a,Dagstuhl04,Middleton04}
to the QUBO problem that performs on par with QUBO solvers for such
large instances. In turn, we demonstrate that a naive application
of a typical QUBO solver performs poorly for the spin glass. However,
it would be of considerable physics interest to harness the power
of TABU search and have experts in the design of QUBO solvers tune
their implementations for spin glass problems for a fair comparison.
Besides of the caution against over-interpreting the significance
of solving ``large'' instances, our study also produces a number
of positive results. Our new implementation of EO not only serves
as an alternative QUBO solver, but its design also provides insights
that will advance the future exploration of the low-energy landscape
of Ising spin glasses in the presence of external fields. Furthermore,
we propose a powerful test for heuristic solvers that, in contrast
with traditional testbed instances, unambiguously reveals the scalability
of solvers asymptotically with problem size.
This paper is organized as follows: in Sec.~\ref{sec:RelationSG_QUBO},
we revisit the well-known relation between QUBO and spin glasses,
with the added twist of a gauge transformation. In Sec.~\ref{sec:Using-QUBO-Solvers},
we adapt a sophisticated implementation of TABU search to study ground
states of mean-field (Sherrington-Kirkpatrick) spin glasses. In Sec.~\ref{sec:Using-EO-to},
we employ EO to study the QUBO problem in a manner that incorporates
well-known testbeds while also arguing for a novel way of quantifying
the scalability of heuristics. In Sec.~\ref{sec:Conclusions}, we
conclude with an assessment of the state of the art for solving QUBO
problems with heuristics and provide an outlook on future work.
\section{Relation Between Spin Glasses and QUBO\label{sec:RelationSG_QUBO}}
Disordered Ising spin systems in the mean-field limit have been investigated
extensively as models of combinatorial optimization problems~\cite{MPV,Percus06}.
Particularly simple are such models on (sparse) $\alpha$-regular
random graphs (``Bethe-lattice''), where each vertex possesses a
fixed number $\alpha$ of bonds to randomly selected other vertices~\cite{mezard:01,Boettcher03a},
or on a (dense) fully connected graph, referred to as the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick
model (SK)~\cite{Sherrington75,MPV,EOSK}. Instances in an ensemble
are formed via a matrix $J_{ij}$ of bonds between adjacent vertices
$i$ and $j$, typically drawn randomly from a symmetric distribution
such as ${\cal N}(0,1)$ (normal, Gaussian) or $\pm1$ (bi-modal).
(Accordingly, it is $J_{ii}\equiv0$, as there are no ``self-bonds''.)
A dynamic variable $\sigma_{i}\in\{-1,+1\}$ (``spin'') is assigned
to each vertex. Interconnecting loops of existing bonds lead to competing
constraints and ``frustration''~\cite{Toulouse77}, making optimal
(minimal energy) spin configurations hard to find. In addition, we
will allow for each spin to experience an external torque due to local
magnetic fields $h_{i}$, which may also be drawn randomly or be of
uniform fixed value. In the SK problem discussed here, we will merely
consider the case of field-free instances ($h_{i}\equiv0$). However,
in the discussion of the relation between QUBO and SK, we will have
to provide for the possibility of non-zero fields. Hence, as our cost
function of this generalized problem, we endeavor to minimize the
energy $H$ of the system,
\begin{eqnarray}
H & = & -\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=i+1}^{N}J_{ij}\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}-\sum_{i=1}^{N}h_{i}\sigma_{i},\label{eq:Heq}
\end{eqnarray}
over the variables $\sigma_{i}$.
In turn, for QUBO we minimize the cost function\footnote{In the operations research literature, QUBO is usually defined as
a maximization problem for $E$ without the sign; the conversion is
trivial.}
\begin{equation}
E=-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}q_{ij}x_{i}x_{j},\label{eq:QUBO}
\end{equation}
over a set of $N$ Boolean variables $x_{i}\in\left\{ 0,1\right\} $.
Note that in this case it is $q_{ii}\not=0$, unlike for spin-glass
couplings in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Heq}). A generalized form of the QUBO
cost with a term linear in the variables, similar to SK with an external
field in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Heq}), is not necessary, since we can use
the identity $x_{i}\equiv x_{i}^{2}$, valid for $x_{i}\in\left\{ 0,1\right\} $,
to write any linear terms as $cx_{i}=cx_{i}^{2}$ and add weights
$c$ to that on the diagonal, $q_{ii}$. The test instances often
considered for QUBO are created by choosing symmetric weights $q_{ij}$,
drawn from a uniform (typically flat) distribution of zero mean, such
as $-100<q_{ij}<100$ filling $N\times N$ matrices with 10-100\%
density~\cite{Beasley98,Lu10,Glover10}. (It seems that samples of
sparse instances comparable to Bethe-lattices have not yet been discussed
for QUBO.) In that literature, there is a distinct focus on specific
testbeds of a few instances that are referenced for every new method
applied to the problem, in an attempt to facilitate comparisons between
the methods. Here, we merely consider a set of 10 such testbed instances
from each of the sets ``bqp1000'' and ``bqp2500'', of size $N=1000$
and 2500, respectively, to also allow for such a comparison. However,
as we will see, significant insight, especially about the scaling
with $N$ of each problem, can be gained by instead taking an ensemble
perspective, i.e., we will make cost averages obtained over a larger
number of instances taken at random from the ensemble at various sizes
$N$.
Both problem statements, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Heq}-\ref{eq:QUBO}), appear
to be rather similar, including the symmetric distribution of weights
and variables of a binary type, and one may wonder whether a detailed
comparison between QUBO and SK as distinct optimization problems is
warranted. Yet, the fact that spin glasses are defined for Ising variables,
$\sigma_{i}\in\left\{ \pm1\right\} $, while QUBO has Boolean variables,
$x_{i}\in\left\{ 0,1\right\} $, proves quite consequential.
\subsection{Spin Glass as a QUBO Problem\label{subsec:Spin-Glass-as}}
For using a QUBO solver to optimize the SK spin glass problem in Sec.~\ref{sec:Using-QUBO-Solvers},
we have to rewrite the spin-glass cost function in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Heq})
in terms of the Boolean variables a QUBO solver operates on. To that
end, we assume given bonds $J_{ij}$ and fields $h_{i}$ and set $\sigma_{i}=2x_{i}-1$
to obtain
\begin{equation}
H=2E+C,\label{eq:H_QUBO}
\end{equation}
with $C=-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=i+1}^{N}J_{ij}+\sum_{i=1}^{N}h_{i}$
as some fixed constant for each instance. Now, $E$ takes on exactly
the form of Eq.~(\ref{eq:QUBO}) but with weights
\begin{eqnarray}
q_{ij} & = & \begin{cases}
J_{ij}, & i\not=j,\\
\\
h_{i}-\sum_{l=1}^{N}J_{il}, & i=j.
\end{cases}\label{eq:qij_SK}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, by solving the QUBO problem for $E$ with these weights, we
easily extract the spin glass ground state $H$ via Eq.~(\ref{eq:H_QUBO}).
Note that although all $q_{ij}$ for $i\not=j$ are still simply random
numbers drawn from a symmetric distribution, the diagonal elements
$q_{ii}$ instead become \emph{extensive} sums of such numbers, unless
all $h_{i}\not=0$ and are specifically chosen as counterbalance.
Such $q_{ii}$ are still symmetrically -- but far more broadly --
distributed (by a factor $\sim\sqrt{N}$) and always determined such
that each row-sum and column-sum vanishes. Since $x_{i}^{2}\equiv x_{i}$,
those diagonal elements are apparently equivalent to a linear term
supplementing the QUBO cost-function, Eq. (\ref{eq:QUBO}). However,
the properties of such a term are quite different from the magnetic
field term in Eq. (\ref{eq:Heq}), as we will discuss in Sec. \ref{subsec:Magnatization-of-QUBO}.
\subsection{QUBO Problem as a Spin Glass\label{subsec:QUBO-Problem-as}}
Using a spin-glass solver to optimize the QUBO problem in Sec.~\ref{sec:Using-EO-to},
correspondingly, we take the QUBO weights $q_{ij}$ as given and rewrite
the QUBO variables $x_{i}$ as spins $\sigma_{i}\in\left\{ \pm1\right\} $
via $x_{i}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\sigma_{i}\right)$. With that, in full
analogy with Eq.~(\ref{eq:H_QUBO}), we find
\begin{equation}
E=\frac{1}{2}H-\frac{1}{2}C\label{eq:E_SK}
\end{equation}
with a Hamiltonian as given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Heq}) when using the
bonds and fields as
\begin{align}
h_{i} & =\sum_{j=1}^{N}q_{ij},\label{eq:Jh_QUBO}\\
J_{ij} & =\begin{cases}
q_{ij}, & i\not=j,\\
\\
0, & i=j.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Here, $C=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=i+1}^{N}q_{ij}+\sum_{i=1}^{N}q_{ii}$
again is an inert constant that is easily evaluated for each instance.
Note that each single field $h_{i}$ itself becomes a symmetrically
distributed random variable of width $\sim\sqrt{N}$, a sum over an
entire row of the $q_{ij}$-matrix, if $q_{ij}$ is such a random
variable of unit width. Such a strong biasing field, as we will argue
in detail below, poses a serious problem for the design of truly hard
QUBO instances. We will discuss in more detail how to find approximate
ground states of such a spin-glass Hamiltonian with an external field
in Sec.~\ref{sec:Using-EO-to}. However, given that, the cost for
the QUBO problem follows simply from Eq.~(\ref{eq:E_SK}).
\subsection{Gauge Transformation\label{sub:Gauge-Transformation}}
While the existence of a relation between QUBO and spin glasses is
not a novel observation~\cite{Barahona88,Kochenberger2014}, the
following consideration, albeit simple, allows for a pertinent insight
into the nature of optimal configurations of QUBO that seems to have
escaped prior notice. In general, a spin-glass Hamiltonian as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Heq})
retains all its spectral properties (here, in particular, its ground-state
energy) under the transformation
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{i}\to\sigma_{i}^{\prime}=\xi_{i}\sigma_{i},\qquad\xi_{i}=\pm1,\label{eq:gaugetransform}
\end{equation}
for all $i$. Then,
\begin{eqnarray}
H\left(\left\{ \sigma_{i}^{\prime}\right\} \right) & = & -\sum_{i}\sum_{j}\xi_{i}\xi_{j}J_{ij}\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}-\sum_{i}\xi_{i}h_{i}\sigma_{i},\\
& = & -\sum_{i}\sum_{j}J_{ij}^{\prime}\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}-\sum_{i}h_{i}^{\prime}\sigma_{i},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
when we identify
\begin{equation}
J_{ij}^{\prime}=\xi_{i}\xi_{j}J_{ij},\qquad h_{i}^{\prime}=\xi_{i}h_{i},\label{eq:gauge}
\end{equation}
Thus, the transformation in Eq. (\ref{eq:gaugetransform}) leaves
the spin-glass Hamiltonian invariant. We note that such an invariance
does not exist for the (Boolean) QUBO problem, as the corresponding
transformation $x_{i}\to x_{i}^{\prime}=1-x_{i}$ on only select sites
$i$ modifies the QUBO Hamiltonian in Eq. (\ref{eq:QUBO}).
Via Eq.~(\ref{eq:gauge}), we are now free to ``gauge'' our spin
variables in any form desirable. For our purposes, it is enlightening
here to choose the set $\left\{ \xi_{i}\right\} $ such that \emph{all}
external fields are \emph{non-negative}, $h_{i}^{\prime}\geq0$ for
all $i$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gauge}). We can easily obtain the solution
of the original problem via $H(\left\{ \xi_{i}\sigma_{i}\right\} )=H^{\prime}(\left\{ \sigma_{i}\right\} )$,
in particular, for the optimal configuration. It is now intuitive
to ask: To what extend do spins in the optimal configuration align
with their external field, irrespective of the mutual couplings $J_{ij}$?
We will address that question in Sec.~\ref{sec:Using-EO-to}. First,
we will explore how a QUBO solver fares in finding SK ground states.
\section{Using QUBO Solvers for SK\label{sec:Using-QUBO-Solvers}}
Here, we will apply a freely available QUBO solver, namely the Iterated
Tabu Search (ITS) designed by G. Palubeckis in the implementation
download from https://www.personalas.ktu.lt/\textasciitilde ginpalu/.
In Ref.~\cite{Palubeckis06}, this implementation of ITS was used
to reproduce the best-known results for various QUBO testbed instances
(such as those discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:Using-EO-to}) of up to
$N=7000$ variables. Similar results were found with other implementations
of Tabu-based QUBO solvers~\cite{Kochenberger2014}, and we assume
the following observations to be generic for that class of solvers.
We modify the ITS implementation only in so far as to input a large
number of instances drawn from the SK-ensemble with bimodal bonds
and to convert those into QUBO, as introduced in Sec.~\ref{subsec:Spin-Glass-as}.
Experts in Tabu Search will note that no effort has been undertaken
to tune the heuristic for the different ensemble, for which we have
insufficient experience to accomplish. Thus, the following results
are meant to serve as an illustration that a successful application
to large QUBO instances does not imply the same for spin glasses.
This optimization problem of finding ground states of SK has been
tackled previously using genetic algorithms~\cite{Palassini08},
hysteretic optimization~\cite{Pal06b,Goncalves08}, extremal optimization
(EO)~\cite{EOSK,Boettcher10a}, as well as various Metropolis methods~\cite{Grest86,Aspelmeier07}.
In particular, in Refs.~\cite{EOSK,Boettcher10a}, an asymptotic
extrapolation was determined from finite-$N$ data with significant
accuracy for the ensemble-averaged ground state energy,
\begin{equation}
\left\langle e_{0}\right\rangle _{N}=\left\langle e_{0}\right\rangle _{\infty}+\frac{A}{N^{\omega}}\label{eq:SKextra}
\end{equation}
with $\left\langle e_{0}\right\rangle _{\infty}=-0.76323(5)$, $A=0.70(1)$,
and with $\omega=\frac{2}{3}$ conjectured to be exact. It provides
a powerful reference -- alternative to the results obtained from
testbeds -- for the quality of heuristic solvers, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ITSextra}.
There, we plot the results of our simulations where we have averaged
over 1000 instances each for a range of sizes $N$. Those results
are also listed in Tab.~\ref{tab:SKextra}.
As we will compare below with data obtained for QUBO instances in
dilute systems, we supplement this discussion further with a brief
study of SK on a diluted graph. To be comparable with the QUBO instances,
we consider SK in Eq. (\ref{eq:Heq}) with a symmetric bond matrix
$J_{ij}$ whose off-diagonal elements are only to 10\% non-zero (i.e.,
$\pm1$). Again, we have no external fields. Those results are also
listed in Tab.~\ref{tab:SKextra}. These results, also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ITSextra},
are practically indistinguishable from those of the full SK. At around
$N\approx500$, ITS exhibits noticeable deviations from the apparent
scaling. Novel to this case is the fact that we can arrive at this
conclusion even though we have no knowledge a-priori about its asymptotic
behavior, which further serves to demonstrate the value of such an
extrapolation in assessing the ability of a heuristic. {[}The fact
that the extrapolation based on our $\tau-$EO data according to Eq.
(\ref{eq:SKextra}) here requires an anomalous exponent of $\omega\approx0.82$
is a novel result in itself and will be studied in more detail elsewhere.{]}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:SKextra}Average ground state energy obtained for the SK
spin glass, both at full bond-density (left columns) as well as at
a 10\% dilute bond-density (right columns), using the Iterated Tabu
Search heuristic (ITS), as developed for QUBO in Ref.~\cite{Palubeckis06},
by sampling about 1000 instances at each size $N$, and applying default
settings. In the dilute case, we also listed results for $\tau-$EO,
which were generated here just for this comparison. These data points
are also plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:ITSextra}.}
\hfill{}%
\begin{tabular}{|r|l|r|l|r|l|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Full SK} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{SK at 10\%}\tabularnewline
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{ITS} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ITS} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\tau-$EO}\tabularnewline
\hline
$N$ & $\left\langle e_{0}\right\rangle _{N}$ & $N$ & $\left\langle e_{0}\right\rangle _{N}$ & $N$ & $\left\langle e_{0}\right\rangle _{N}$\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
15 & -0.644(2) & 63 & -0.2203(3) & 63 & -0.2204(1)\tabularnewline
\hline
31 & -0.692(1) & 85 & -0.2248(3) & 85 & -0.2248(1)\tabularnewline
\hline
63 & -0.7178(7) & 127 & -0.2291(2) & 127 & -0.2292(1)\tabularnewline
\hline
127 & -0.7358(5) & 165 & -0.2314(2) & 165 & -0.2314(1)\tabularnewline
\hline
255 & -0.7458(3) & 255 & -0.2342(1) & 255 & -0.2342(1)\tabularnewline
\hline
511 & -0.7519(2) & 355 & -0.2355(1) & 355 & -0.2357(1)\tabularnewline
\hline
1023 & -0.7520(1) & 511 & -0.2365(1) & 511 & -0.2371(2)\tabularnewline
\hline
2047 & -0.7491(1) & 1023 & -0.2366(1) & 1023 & -0.2389(3)\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}\hfill{}
\end{table}
In either case, for small $N\lesssim512$, the data obtained with
Tabu Search tracks the prediction in Eq.~(\ref{eq:SKextra}) quite
closely, thus demonstrating the consistency with the scaling in Eq.~(\ref{eq:SKextra}).
However, systematic errors become increasingly apparent for larger
system sizes. This raises the following conundrum: Why is a heuristic
like ITS that routinely solves QUBO instances with 10 times as many
variables failing to optimize SK instances beyond 500 variables, considering
the rather similar formulations of both problems? A few immediately
obvious explanations come to mind. For one, the ITS implementation
has been tuned for a certain ensemble, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:RelationSG_QUBO},
while the transformation of SK to QUBO provides a similar but not
identical ensemble. (In fact, ITS specifically employs the strength
of the diagonal $q_{ii}-$weights, which are very distinct in the
SK problem, to initiate its restarts~\cite{Palubeckis06}.) Experts
in Tabu-based heuristics could justifiably argue that with some small
adjustments big improvements can be achieved. In fact, simply increasing
the duration and the number of restarts in ITS leads to a decrease,
albeit slowly, in the systematic error at larger $N$. Yet, the performance
is never quite as impressive as the results obtained by Tabu solvers
for the typical testbed instances of QUBO. We believe that the discrepancy
is the sign of an inherent weakness in the design of the QUBO testbeds.
This is made apparent by showing that heuristics trained on spin glasses
in turn are easily adapted to solve much large samples of QUBO, as
the following discussion suggests.
\begin{figure}
\hfill{}\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 0bp 730bp 530bp,clip,width=1\columnwidth]{SKenergy_ITS}\hfill{}
\hfill{}\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 0bp 730bp 530bp,clip,width=1\columnwidth]{SKenergy_ITSsparse}\hfill{}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\caption{\label{fig:ITSextra}Extrapolation of the average ground-state energy
approximation for the SK, either at full (top) or diluted bond-density
(bottom), as obtained by Iterated Tabu Search~\cite{Palubeckis06},
see data listed in Tab.~\ref{tab:SKextra}. For the full SK on top,
the predicted scaling (red-dashed line) according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:SKextra})
was previously obtained from a fit to an extensive data set obtained
with a different heuristic~\cite{Boettcher10b}. (For example, for
$N\to\infty$ it extrapolates with high accuracy to the exactly known
ground-state energy density of the SK model, $\left\langle e_{0}\right\rangle _{N=\infty}=\text{\textminus}0.763166\ldots$~\cite{Oppermann07,pankov:06},
marked by a blue arrow.) The dilute system on the bottom has not been
studied before, so we have used $\tau-$EO to provide reference data
(black circles), on which the predicted scaling is based via a fit
(red-dashed line) to Eq.~(\ref{eq:SKextra}).}
\end{figure}
\section{Using $\tau-$EO to Solve QUBO Problems\label{sec:Using-EO-to}}
In this section, we proceed to apply heuristic methods developed for
the approximation of spin-glass ground-states to the QUBO problem,
specifically, $\tau-$EO~\cite{Boettcher00,Boettcher01a,Dagstuhl04}.
According to our prior experience, and in contrast to the preceding,
somewhat naive application of the ITS heuristic, we are in a position
to study this implementation in depth and develop a highly tuned heuristic.
On one level, the equivalent spin-glass problem derived from QUBO,
see Sec.~\ref{sec:RelationSG_QUBO}, raises additional challenges
for EO, as the emergence of external fields add new, competing energy
scales to reckon with. However, in the end, the comparison with the
QUBO problem leads us to an understanding and, ultimately, to means
to systematically incorporate these new scales into the search process.
Moreover, an analysis of the solutions obtained for the QUBO problem
as spin glass resolves the conundrum about the size discrepancy in
the solvability of either problem mentioned in the previous section
in physical terms.
\subsection{Extremal Optimization (EO) Heuristic\label{subsec:Extremal-Optimization-(EO)}}
EO performs a local search~\cite{Hoos04} on an existing configuration
of $N$ variables by changing preferentially those of poor \textit{local}
arrangement. For example, in case of the spin glass model in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Heq}),
but without an external field (i.e., $h_{i}\equiv0$), one usually
sets~\cite{Boettcher01a} $\lambda_{i}=\sigma_{i}\sum_{j}J_{i,j}\sigma_{j}$
to assess the local ``fitness'' of variable $\sigma_{i}$. Then,
$H=-\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}$ represents the overall energy (or cost)
to be minimized. EO simply \emph{ranks} variables,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{\Pi(1)}\leq\lambda_{\Pi(2)}\leq\ldots\leq\lambda_{\Pi(N)},\label{rankeq}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Pi(k)=i$ is the index for the $k^{{\rm th}}$-ranked variable
$\sigma_{i}$. Basic EO~\cite{Boettcher00} always selects the lowest
rank, $k=1$, for an update. Instead, $\tau-$EO selects the $k^{{\rm th}}$-ranked
variable according to a scale-free probability distribution
\begin{equation}
P(k)\propto k^{-\tau}.\label{eq:taueq}
\end{equation}
The selected variable is updated \emph{unconditionally}, and its fitness
and that of its neighboring variables are reevaluated. This update
is repeated as long as desired, where the unconditional update ensures
significant fluctuations, with sufficient incentive to return to near-optimal
solutions due to selection \emph{against} variables with poor fitness,
for the right choice of $\tau$. Clearly, for finite $\tau$, this
version of EO never ``freezes'' into a single configuration; it
is able to return an extensive list~\cite{Boettcher03a,Boettcher04a}
of the best configurations visited (or simply their cost) ``on the
go'' instead.
For $\tau=0$, the distribution in Eq.~(\ref{eq:taueq}) becomes
flat over the ranks and $\tau-$EO simply becomes a random walk through
configuration space, for which poor search results are to be expected.
Conversely, for $\tau\to\infty$, the process approaches a deterministic
local search, only updating the lowest-ranked variable, $k=1$, and
is likely to get trapped. However, for finite values of $\tau$ the
choice of a \emph{scale-free} distribution for $P(k)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:taueq})
ensures that no rank $k$ gets excluded from further evolution, while
maintaining a bias against variables with bad fitness. Fixing $\tau-1\sim1/\ln(N)$
provides a simple, parameter-free strategy, activating avalanches
of adaptation~\cite{eo_jam}.
\begin{figure}
\hspace*{\fill}\includegraphics[viewport=10bp 10bp 750bp 520bp,clip,width=1\columnwidth]{allbqp2500_timeline}
\hspace*{\fill}
\vspace{-0.7cm}
\caption{\label{fig:timeplot}Plot of the evolution of EO in single runs for
$\tau=1.3$ and $t_{max}=N^{3}/10$ updates, (top) for the magnetization
and (bottom) the relative error $\Delta\epsilon$ with respect to
the best-known value from Ref.~\cite{Glover10} for the instances
of size $N=2500$ in the \emph{bqp} testbed. Starting with a random
assignment of spins at $\Delta\epsilon\approx40\%$, better solutions
are only obtained after the external fields are ramped up somewhat,
according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:lambda_ramped}). But note that the optimal
solution is already found typically when the relative field strength
reaches merely $\gamma\approx50\%$. The fact that the magnetization
of those optimal states reaches $m\approx60\%$, i.e., up to 80\%
of spins simply align with their external field $h_{i}$, indicates
a high degree of redundancy within those instances, see Fig.~\ref{fig:ranklist2500}.
A heuristic merely needs to sort out which 20\% spins have to resist
their external field. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{$\tau-$EO Implementation for QUBO\label{subsec:EO-Implementation-for}}
In light of previous applications to spin glasses, where fitness is
defined via the local field exerted on each spin (see, for example,
Sec.~\ref{subsec:Extremal-Optimization-(EO)}), it would seem straightforward
to simply add the external field $h_{i}$ to the local field to obtain
a definition of fitness as $\lambda_{i}=\sigma_{i}\left(h_{i}+\sum_{j}J_{i,j}\sigma_{j}\right)$,
so that again $H=-\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}$, in accordance with Eq.~(\ref{eq:Heq}).
This canonical approach leads to a problem in which the heuristic
is trying to satisfy two, in principle distinct, scales: that of the
distribution of the bonds $J_{ij}$, and that of the distribution
of the fields $h_{i}$. Since in the QUBO problem both scales derive
from the one distribution of the weights $q_{ij}$, they are correlated
in this case. Yet, in the optimization runs with $\tau-$EO on the
testbed instances~\cite{Boettcher2015}, for example, this definition
of fitnesses $\lambda_{i}$ fails to provide reasonable results. Only
when the external fields were slowly turned on, in those trials, via
a ramp $\gamma$ that is linear in time,
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{i}=\sigma_{i}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{N}J_{ij}\sigma_{j}+\gamma(t)h_{i}\right],\qquad\gamma(t)=\frac{t}{t_{{\rm max}}},\label{eq:lambda_ramped}
\end{equation}
the best-known results for that testbed were readily reproduced, albeit
at significant overhead in CPU-time.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:timeplot}, we plot the evolution of the error relative
to that best-known result for each of the 10 instances of the testbed
``bqp2500'', together with the corresponding magnetization. ( ``Magnetization''
here refers to the excess of spins aligned with their external fields
$h_{i}$, whether those are positive or negative. Alternatively, it
may refer to the actual magnetization, $m=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sigma_{i}$,
due to the excess of spins with $\sigma_{i}=+1$ after applying the
gauge transformation in Sec.~\ref{sub:Gauge-Transformation} that
renders all fields $h_{i}^{\prime}>0$. Both formulations are equivalent!)
At least, two aspects of those results are remarkable. For one, in
each case, the best-found solution is found at least when those fields
are ``turned on'' by 50\%. Secondly, in that best-found solution
there is a high degree of ordering imposed on the instance due to
those external fields. We consider the importance of the latter observation
first.
\begin{figure}
\hspace*{\fill}\includegraphics[viewport=30bp 30bp 750bp 540bp,clip,width=1\columnwidth]{rankplot2500}
\hspace*{\fill}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{\label{fig:ranklist2500}Analysis of the magnetization of the best-known
solution to one of the \emph{bqp2500}-instances from the QUBO testbed.
Here, the rank-ordered list of $N=2500$ local fields $h_{i}$ defined
in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Jh_QUBO}), corresponding to the row/column-sum of
the weights $q_{ij}$, are plotted (blue line). Marked (by red vertical
lines) are fields where the associated spin $\sigma_{i}$ in the configuration
with the lowest energy is \emph{not} aligned with $h_{i}$, i.e.,
when $\sigma_{i}h_{i}<0$. As the results for the magnetization in
Fig.~\ref{fig:timeplot} suggest, only a small fraction ($\approx20\%$)
of variables do not align, in particular, most of those associated
with the (absolute) highest fields (and, thus, largest contributions
to the energy) are aligned (unmarked) with high probability. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\hspace*{\fill}\includegraphics[viewport=30bp 30bp 750bp 540bp,clip,width=1\columnwidth]{SKrankplot500}
\hspace*{\fill}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{\label{fig:SKranklist500}Analysis of the coercion of the diagonal
element $q_{ii}$ in the QUBO matrix obtained from an SK spin-glass
instance of size $N=511$ on the Boolean variables $x_{i}$ in the
best-known solution. As in Fig. \ref{fig:ranklist2500}, the $q_{ii}$,
obtained via Eq. (\ref{eq:qij_SK}), are plotted (in blue) in rank-order.
Marked (by red vertical lines) are fields where the associated variable
$x_{i}$ in the configuration with the lowest cost is \emph{not} aligned
to render $x_{i}q_{ii}$ optimal, i.e., when $x_{i}=0$ although $q_{ii}>0$
or $x_{i}=1$ while $q_{ii}<0$ . Unlike the local fields $h_{i}$
in Fig. \ref{fig:ranklist2500}, the strength of $q_{ii}$ here provides
no distinguishable coersive force of the $x_{i}$.}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Magnetization of QUBO Instances:\label{subsec:Magnatization-of-QUBO}}
Representing each testbed instance of QUBO as a spin glass, following
Sec. \ref{subsec:QUBO-Problem-as}, we actually find that the magnetization
reaches $\approx60\%$, i.e., the alignment of the variables $\sigma_{i}$
with their external fields is to 80\% a predictor of the optimal arrangement
within the lowest-energy solution. Thus, irrespective of the mutual
constraints spins impose on each other through the bonds $J_{ij}$,
in many cases those constraints are simply overwritten by the torque
exerted by the external fields $h_{i}$ alone. Clearly, a larger local
field imposes a larger torque that is more likely coercive than a
smaller one, as Fig.~\ref{fig:ranklist2500} illustrates. In fact,
we find that a simple $O(N)$ ``greedy alignment'' algorithm that
aligns spins sequentially, selected based on having the largest remaining
local field (consisting of the torque exerted by the external field
\emph{and} those of any previously assigned spins), typically reaches
a cost that is within 3\% of the best-known solutions (see Fig.~\ref{fig:QUBOextra}).
Still, it likely remains an NP-hard task to sort out which 20\% of
the fields are to be disobeyed, although for each $N$ this is a problem
of much reduced complexity compared to the corresponding SK ground
state problem with all $h_{i}\equiv0$, hence, explaining the discrepancy
in ``hardness'' between QUBO and SK.
It is instructive to consider \footnote{We thank the referee for insisting on this consideration.}
the -- seemingly -- equivalent representation of an SK-instance
(without external field) as a QUBO problem. As mentioned in Sec. \ref{subsec:Spin-Glass-as},
such a conversion produces a linear term in the QUBO cost-function
of similar appearance to the magnetic field above. In particular,
its strength, given by $q_{ii}$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:qij_SK}), appears
to be as extensive as we found for the $h_{i}$. However, the coupling
of each variable $x_{i}$ to $q_{ii}$ is somewhat arbitrary and,
hence, fails to coerce $x_{i}$ in a significant manner, as is demonstrated
in Fig. \ref{fig:SKranklist500}. To show this, we employ the freedom
to gauge the SK-instance in question, following Sec. \ref{sub:Gauge-Transformation},
leaving open the choice for the entire set of gauge-parameters $\left\{ \xi_{i}\right\} $.
In the absence of an external field, Eq. (\ref{eq:qij_SK}) then yields:
\begin{equation}
q_{ii}=-\sum_{l=1}^{N}J_{il}\xi_{i}\xi_{l}.\label{eq:gaugedQii}
\end{equation}
Alas, different choices of $\xi_{i}=\pm1$ create quite arbitrary
linear couplings $q_{ii}$ for each individual $x_{i}$ (although
overall the hardness of the problem is not affected)! In contrast,
no such invariance exists for QUBO and, thus, the linear terms $h_{i}$
emerging in its conversion into a spin-glass problem are unique and
render the coercive force on their coupled variable $\sigma_{i}$
consequential, see Fig. \ref{fig:ranklist2500}.
\subsubsection{Optimization of the EO-Implementation:\label{subsec:Optimization-of-the}}
We now return to the earlier observation about $\tau-$EO saturating
the best-known results in the testbed when the ramped fields in Eq.~(\ref{eq:lambda_ramped})
reach 50\% with striking consistency. As it turns out, this observation
pins down an arbitrary choice in the design of EO that allows us to
implement a more efficient version of $\tau-$EO. This choice in the
definition of fitness attributed to individual variables has been
discussed previously in Ref.~\cite{Dagstuhl04}. It is here where
the interpretation of spin glasses as a QUBO problem has its most
significant impact. Unlike for a spin glass, where the combined local
field offers itself as the canonical fitness for each spin, in QUBO
we would naturally construct a fitness as follows instead: By assigning
a variable $x_{i}$, its instantaneous contribution to the cost of
$r_{i}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}q_{ij}x_{j}$ is either suppressed ($x_{i}=0$)
or added ($x_{i}=1$), hence, the fitness $\lambda_{i}$ should be
$r_{i}$ if $x_{i}=1$ or $-r_{i}$ if $x_{i}=0$, penalizing the
un-actualized potential when $r_{i}>0$ but $x_{i}=0$. Thus, for
QUBO the apparent choice for fitness can be summarized as
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{i}=\sigma_{i}\sum_{j=1}^{N}q_{ij}x_{j}.\label{eq:lambdaQUBO}
\end{equation}
Note that in this case, $\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}$ itself does not add
up to the actual cost of an instance, $E$ or $H$, which is not a
necessity, as is discussed in Ref.~\cite{Dagstuhl04}. Amazingly,
using the definitions in Sec.~\ref{sec:RelationSG_QUBO}, for the
spin glass this translates into
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{i}=\sigma_{i}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{N}J_{ij}\sigma_{j}+\frac{1}{2}h_{i}\right],\label{eq:lambdaSK}
\end{equation}
i.e., favoring a fixed value of $\gamma=50\%$. This result is indeed
borne out with a more systematic study at various fixed values of
$\gamma$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dep_gamma}. Accordingly, we
will use this more effective version of $\tau-$EO in the following,
with $\tau=1.3$ and $t_{max}=N^{3}/100$, and fitnesses as defined
in Eq.~(\ref{eq:lambdaSK}), to study the QUBO problem as a spin
glass. As such, $\tau-$EO has a complexity of $O\left(N^{3}\ln N\right)$,
where the logarithmic dependence is due to dynamic sorting of fitnesses,
as introduced in Ref.~\cite{EOSK}.
\begin{figure}
\hspace*{\fill}\includegraphics[viewport=20bp 20bp 750bp 540bp,clip,width=1\columnwidth]{error_gamma}
\hspace*{\fill}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{\label{fig:dep_gamma}Study of the $\gamma-$dependence of the error
$\epsilon$ produced by $\tau-$EO relative to the best-known results,
averaged over the two QUBO \emph{gqp testbeds} with $N=1000$ and
$N=2500$, when using the fitnesses $\lambda_{i}=\sigma_{i}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{N}J_{ij}\sigma_{j}+\gamma h_{i}\right]$
with fixed $\gamma$ during a run, as generalization of Eq.~(\ref{eq:lambdaSK}).
For $\tau-$EO, as described in Sec.~\ref{subsec:Extremal-Optimization-(EO)},
we set $\tau=1.3$ and $t_{max}=N^{3}/100$. The results clearly indicate
$\gamma=50\%$ as an especially useful case, as implemented in Eq.~(\ref{eq:lambdaSK}). }
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:QUBOdata}Results from applying $\tau-$EO to the QUBO
ensemble defined in Sec.~\ref{sec:RelationSG_QUBO}, with $q_{ij}$
drawn randomly from a flat distribution over the integers on $\left[-100\ldots+100\right]$
at 10\% filling. Listed are the system sizes $N$ considered, the
number of instances $I$ simulated from the ensemble, the measured
ground-state energy density $\left\langle e_{0}\right\rangle _{N}=H/N^{\frac{3}{2}}$
according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:Heq}), and the corresponding approximation
obtained with the greedy alignment algorithm. Note that the result
for $N=1000$ and $N=2500$ specifically refer only to the \emph{gap
testbeds} (underlined). This data is plotted as an extrapolation plot
in Fig.~\ref{fig:QUBOextra}.}
\hfill{}%
\begin{tabular}{|r|r|l|l|}
\hline
$N$ & $I$ & $\left\langle e_{0}\right\rangle _{N}$ & Greedy\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
31 & $10^{5}$ & -9.67(1) & -9.46(1)\tabularnewline
\hline
44 & $10^{5}$ & -10.074(5) & -9.81(1)\tabularnewline
\hline
63 & $10^{5}$ & -10.318(5) & -10.036(5)\tabularnewline
\hline
80 & $10^{5}$ & -10.426(4) & -10.125(4)\tabularnewline
\hline
100 & $10^{5}$ & -10.501(4) & -10.190(5)\tabularnewline
\hline
127 & $10^{5}$ & -10.564(3) & -10.245(3)\tabularnewline
\hline
160 & $2\,10^{4}$ & -10.611(7) & -10.298(7)\tabularnewline
\hline
255 & $10^{4}$ & -10.68(1) & -10.34(1)\tabularnewline
\hline
511 & $10^{4}$ & -10.750(5) & -10.404(4)\tabularnewline
\hline
\uuline{1000} & \uuline{10} & \uuline{-11.4(1)} & \uuline{-11.1(1)}\tabularnewline
\hline
1023 & $4\,10^{3}$ & -10.776(6) & -10.44(1)\tabularnewline
\hline
\uuline{2500} & \uuline{10} & \uuline{-11.84(7)} & \uuline{-11.45(7)}\tabularnewline
\hline
4095 & 600 & -10.79(1) & -10.48(2)\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}\hfill{}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\hfill{}\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 0bp 730bp 530bp,clip,width=1\columnwidth]{QUBOextraploation}\hfill{}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{\label{fig:QUBOextra}Extrapolation of the average optimal cost approximation
for the QUBO problem as obtained by $\tau-$EO. All data displayed
here can also be found in Tab.~\ref{tab:QUBOdata}. We can fit the
EO-data (black circles) for sufficiently small $N$ (which is more
likely exact!), but $N\gtrsim50$ to be asymptotic, to obtain a scaling
prediction (red-dashed line) for all large $N$. A deviation from
that scaling, which would signal the onset of systematic errors in
the heuristic (as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:ITSextra}), is not apparent
here for the data up to $N=4095$. Shown are also the corresponding
data for the greedy alignment algorithm mentioned in the text (blue
squares), which remains systematically 3\% above the optimal results
for all $N$, another indication that the EO-data maintains its systematic
accuracy. Strikingly, the averages for the best-found solutions for
both testbeds, gqp1000 and gqp2500, are uncharacteristically low and
far from their expected ensemble average (red-dashed line), but so
are their greedy approximations (not shown here, but see Tab.~\ref{tab:QUBOdata}),
which are again 3\% higher, yet, much below the ensemble. It seems
likely that those \emph{gap testbed} instances, originating in 1996
from Ref.~\cite{Beasley96}, were generated with a poor random number
generator.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Ensemble Results for the QUBO Problem\label{subsec:Ensemble-Results-for}}
Based on the implementation of $\tau-$EO described in the previous
section, we have run extensive simulations for the QUBO problem, similar
to those we have employed previously for SK~\cite{EOSK,Boettcher10b}.
And in analogy with those, we propose here to evaluate the capabilities
of the implementation using an extrapolation plot of the ensemble
results, as also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ITSextra}. The results validate
our expectation that QUBO problems in this ensemble can be solved
to much larger sizes than the corresponding SK spin glass.
In Tab.~\ref{tab:QUBOdata}, we summarize the results of the simulations
for the range of instance sizes from $N=31,\ldots,4095$. For each
size, we have selected a sufficiently large number of instances from
the ensemble to be able to keep the statistical errors small and relatively
comparable in magnitude. From SK, it is well-known that, if the matrix
elements are drawn from a distribution of fixed width, scale-invariant
(intensive) costs are obtained when $H$ is rescaled by a factor of
$N^{\frac{3}{2}}$~\cite{MPV}, thus, we define $\left\langle e_{0}\right\rangle _{N}=H/N^{\frac{3}{2}}$,
in accordance with Eq.~(\ref{eq:SKextra}). Listed are also the corresponding
results for the described $O(N)$ Greedy Alignment algorithm, which
turn out to be consistently 3\% above the best EO predictions, another
sign of their systematic quality.
This data is also plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:QUBOextra}, in extrapolated
form, which should yield an asymptotically linear graph, according
to Eq.~(\ref{eq:SKextra}), if we choose $N^{-\omega}$ with the
correct value of $\omega$ as our $x-$axis. Such a linear extrapolation
is achieved here for $\omega=1$, suggesting that finite-size corrections
in QUBO diminish much faster than for SK, where corrections are conjectured
to decay only as $N^{-\frac{2}{3}}$, i.e., $\omega=\frac{2}{3}$~\cite{EOSK,Billoire06,Aspelmeier07},
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ITSextra}. Weaker corrections provide
more evidence for the relative simplicity of approximating QUBO. As
for the SK data in Refs.~\cite{EOSK,Boettcher10b}, this data is
also readily fitted asymptotically (for $N$ small enough that there
a few systematic errors but large enough, here $N>44$, to ignore
finite-size corrections) with the linear form provided by Eq.~(\ref{eq:SKextra}).
Note that the specific values obtained for this fit, $\left\langle e_{0}\right\rangle _{\infty}=-10.8(1)$
and $A=30(1)$, are not of any significance by themselves. All we
care about is a deviation from that line for large $N$ as a likely
sign of a systematic breakdown in the heuristic we care to assess.
Up to the sizes accessible with this implementation within reasonable
CPU time, EO does not show any significant systematic error, as discussed
in Fig. \ref{fig:CPUcostEO}.
As a curious side-note, we observe that the 10 instances from the
\emph{gap testbeds} of sizes $N=1000$ and $N=2500$ (also listed
in Tab.~\ref{tab:QUBOdata} and plotted as red dots in Fig.~\ref{fig:QUBOextra})
apparently are highly atypical for the ensemble they were supposedly
drawn from, with much lower average costs. This does \emph{not} signal
a shortcoming of EO, as all averages were obtained uniformly with
the same implementation, and the greedy results are equally untypical
but remain 3\% above the best-found costs. We can only speculate about
the origin of this effect, but it seems likely that a poor random
number generator was used to make the testbed.
\begin{figure}
\hfill{}\includegraphics[viewport=0bp 0bp 730bp 530bp,clip,width=1\columnwidth]{CPUcostEO}\hfill{}
\caption{\label{fig:CPUcostEO}Measure of the computational cost for the $\tau-$EO
implementation in terms of the average number of update steps needed
to first encounter the best-found solutions listed in Tab.~\ref{tab:QUBOdata}
as a function of instance size $N$. The cubic line (dotted) of $N^{3}/400$
is merely included to guide the eye. The approach of the measured
updates suggest that EO typically finds its best solution within a
quarter of the allotted number of updates, $t_{{\rm max}}=N^{3}/100$
(red-dashed line). Since the actual computational complexity for an
NP-hard problem such as QUBO is expected to rise exponentially in
size, we would expect EO to eventually exhibit systematic errors.
However, up to this size, there is no sign of upward pressure on the
total runtime.}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions\label{sec:Conclusions}}
In our discussion, we have analyzed the relation between the SK spin
glass ground-state problem and the classical NP-hard combinatorial
problem of QUBO. We have argued that a widely used form of the QUBO
problem, with weights drawn from a symmetric distribution of finite
width, leads to rather simple testbeds with a high degree of redundancy.
Those instances correspond to a spin glass problem where a large fraction
of spins are independently determined by a large biasing field. As
Eq. (\ref{eq:Jh_QUBO}) shows, those biasing fields can only be avoided
when in the QUBO problem the sum of the weights in each row (or column)
vanishes, or at least grows less that $O(\sqrt{N})$ for increasing
problem size $N$. We will explore more systematic approaches to generate
matrices $Q$ that have random entries but are constraint to vanishing
row-sums elsewhere. Since such problems have recently been used to
assess the quality of dedicated quantum annealers~\cite{McGeoch13}
such as D-Wave, which claims advantages due to quantum effects, a
careful analysis of actual hardness of classical problems is timely.
In terms of the physical description of the QUBO problem as a Ising
spin glass, we find that a large fraction of variables in those instances
are trivially coerced by large external fields. The impact of this
redundancy is illustrated first by applying a standard QUBO solver
that provides good results for large QUBO instances but in turn fails
for much smaller and seemingly similar SK instances. We then proposed
an implementation of $\tau-$EO, previously well-trained on the SK
problem, and show that it can solve comparatively much larger instances
of the QUBO problem. Along the way, we have shown that a systematic,
ensemble-based study to test the capabilities of heuristics via an
extrapolation plot provides a self-contained and quite stringent measure
of their performance for large $N$, superior to any ad-hoc assembly
of testbeds.
In the future, we will explore whether the definition of fitness used
in Eq.~(\ref{eq:lambdaSK}) for spin glasses in an external field,
which our calculations show to remain valid when the external field
is varied independently (unlike for the SK obtained from QUBO here),
will allow to apply $\tau-$EO also to interesting ground state problems
of spin glasses in such fields. A number of questions about the low-temperature
glassy state of spin glasses are connected with its stability under
coercion with external fields~\cite{Almeida78,Joerg08,Larson13,Zintchenko14}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author likes to thank Prof.~Gintaras Palubeckis for his generous
permission to use his implementation of Iterated Tabu Search (ITS)
from his webpage (https://www.personalas.ktu.lt/\textasciitilde ginpalu/)
at Kaunas University of Technology. The author also thanks Dr.~Matthias
Troyer for suggesting the application of EO to the QUBO problem.
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}}
\IEEEPARstart{O}{ver} the last few years, ride-sharing services (RSSs) have been emerging as an alternative transportation services that allow people to use personal cars more wisely. In RSSs, a driver shares his vacant car seats with other riders. Ride sharing has several benefits to the individual and the community at large including increasing occupancy rates, sharing travel costs, extending social circles, and reducing both fuel consumption and air pollution~\cite{schrank20152014, sanchez2016co}. Across the world, many providers that offer online ride-sharing services such as Flinc, UberPool, Lyft Line and Blablacar have emerged.
According to~\cite{R12}, the ride sharing market is projected to reach USD 218 billion by 2025.
A ride-sharing service can find the drivers and riders who can share rides in matching drivers using their ride offers (i.e., planned trips)
and ride requests (i.e., desired trips). To enable ride-sharing service, users
(i.e., drivers and riders) have to share with a service provider
the trip information, including departure time, location, and destination. The service provider works as a middleman to facilitate the communication between the system users and usually charges a commission for each successful shared ride.
However, running the service by a central server, makes the system vulnerable to a single point of failure and attacks~\cite{baza2019blockchain}. If the security of the service provider is compromised, the service can be interrupted and the data can be disclosed, altered, or even deleted. For instance, Uber has witnessed a tremendous data leakage of $57$ million customers and drivers for more than a year. Uber has paid $148$ million just to settle an investigation to its data breach.
Similarly, in April 2015, due to hardware failure in Uber China, a service outage occurred and passengers were not able to complete their orders at the end of services~\cite{china}.
In addition, in order to maximize their own benefits, most ride-sharing service providers impose a high service fee that can reach up to 20\% \cite{li2018crowdbc,baza2018blockchain}.
In contrast to the traditional client-server model, Blockchain\footnote{Throughout this paper, a blockchain refers to permissionless/public blockchain that lets any interested party to participate and leave, as opposed to the less ambitious way of having blockchain atop permissioned parties.} is a verifiable, immutable and distributed ledger that allows mistrusting entities to
transact with each other without relying on a central third party. Blockchain is a transparent data structure that is organized as a chain of blocks and managed by a network of computers, called miners,
running a peer-to-peer (P2P) protocol. Each block contains a set of transactions that are committed by network peers
according to a predefined consensus algorithm~\cite{kosba2016hawk,parksmarnet}. Blockchain was first introduced as a distributed cryptocurrency that enables the transfer of electronic cash without the intervention of banks. Since then it has evolved beyond that to support the deployment of more general-purpose distributed applications. This concept has been introduced by Vitalik Buterin and is called smart-contracts or decentralized autonomous organizations \cite{wood2014ethereum}. A smart-contract can be described as an autonomous computer program running on blockchain network. This program acts as a contract whose terms can be pre-programmed with the ability of self-executing and self-enforcing itself without the need for trusted authorities~\cite{christidis2016blockchains,parkccnc}.
In this paper, we propose a blockchain-based ride-sharing system using smart-contracts to mitigate the single point of failure issues presented in classical client-server architectures.
However, besides being completely distributed and transparent, the openness of blockchain leads to a potential privacy concern where the data can be publicly accessible. Despite the use of anonymous authentication, this is not sufficient to protect the privacy of the end users. For instance, by tracking the activity of a driver or rider, an attacker with little background knowledge of that user can figure out all his location traces \cite{kosba2016hawk}. Moreover, because in public blockchains, anyone can join and transact in the network anonymously, malicious users can disturb the blockchain-based ride-sharing service by sending, for instance, multiple requests/offers while not committing to any of them. Therefore, it is required to keep track of drivers' behaviours and build a reputation system that helps a rider to select with confident an appropriate driver for his ride request. Subsequently, in order to decentralize ride-sharing services in a meaningful way, the privacy concern with respect to ride-sharing needs to be carefully evaluated and addressed. This mainly requires resolving two conflicting objectives, i.e., $(i)$ the desire to have a \textit{transparent} system while protecting users \textit{privacy}, and $(ii)$ ensure \textit{accountability} while being \textit{anonymous}.
Motivated by the above challenges, we propose B-Ride a \textbf{B}lockchain-based \textbf{Ride} sharing service that is privacy preserving while also establishing trust between drivers\footnote{Hereafter we use the term "driver" to refer to individuals or companies that own vehicles or buses that can be used in a ride-sharing services.} and riders. \textit{To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to employ ride-sharing services atop open and permissionless blockchains}. B-Ride aims to remove intermediaries between riders and drivers and make use of blockchain and smart contracts vetting to the future of ride-sharing services.
Our main contributions and the challenges the paper aims to address can be summarized as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item A blockchain based system is proposed to realize decentralized ride-sharing services. To preserve riders' trip privacy, we use \textit{cloaking}, so a rider posts a cloaked pick-up and drop-off location as well as pick-up time. Then, interested drivers use off-line matching technique to check if the request falls on his cloaked route and then send the exact trip data encrypted with riders' public key. Then, a rider can select the best-matched driver to share a trip based on some heuristics. This acts as a distributed auction that is handled through the blockchain to ensure transparency.
\item To ensure trust between a rider and a selected driver, we propose a time-locked deposit protocol for ride-sharing services based on the zero-knowledge set membership ~\cite{camenisch2008efficient}. The core idea is to define \textit{claim-or-fine} methodology that works as follows; $(i)$ A rider has to post a smart contract with a deposit budget as proof of accepting a driver's offer as well as a \textit{set} of different obfuscated locations. $(ii)$ The selected driver should also deposit a budget to the contract as a commitment to his offer. $(iii)$ Upon arrival at the pick-up location, the driver acts as (\textit{a prover}) and sends a \textit{proof to pick-up location} to the blockchain. Specifically, the driver proves that the pick up location falls in a predefined set of cells. $(iv)$ Finally, a smart contract acts as a (\textit{verifier}) by checking the proof in a zero-knowledge manner and then assigns rewards to driver in case of valid proof or fine the driver in case of invalid or if no proof is sent before the agreed pick-up time.
\item Also, we propose a method to ensure fair payment in a trust-less manner between the driver and rider. A driver needs to send at a regular interval an elapsed distance to the rider who authenticates it by signing it using his private key. Then, once the rider provides a \textit{proof-of-elapsed-distance} (i.e., the elapsed distance and driver' signature on it), the smart-contract transfers the fare to the driver. In this way, the driver gets paid as he/she drive. Meanwhile, if the rider stops sending proofs to the blockchain, he/she can stop the trip immediately. Moreover, only elapsed distances are stored on the blockchain and no other sensitive information are leaked to the public.
\item Finally, B-Ride computes the \textit{reputation} of drivers based on their prior behaviours. Unlike, current centralized reputation approaches~\cite{wu2017sharing}, we develop a decentralized reputation management mechanism over blockchain that is executed in a self-enforcing manner once a predefined set of conditions are met. Specifically, in B-Ride, each driver has two reputation indices; $(i)$ The first score increases every time a driver sends a valid proof of his arrival to the pick-up location. $(ii)$ The second score increases upon the completion of each trip. Based on the two indices, each driver will have a trust value in B-Ride that will be used by riders to select good drivers for their trips. Our reputation mechanism makes economic incentive for drivers to behave correctly, otherwise they will will not be selected by anyone
\item To evaluate B-Ride, we implement it on top of Ethereum, a real-world public blockchain platform. Intensive experiments and performance evaluations are conducted in an Ethereum test network.
\end{enumerate}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{Preliminaries}, we discuss preliminaries used by this research work. We describe the network and threat models, followed by the design goals of our system in Section~\ref{sec: models}. A detailed description of our system is presented in Section~\ref{sec:ProposedScheme}. Performance evaluations are presented in Section.~\ref{comm overhead}. We present the security, privacy, and computation complexity analysis of our scheme in Section~\ref{sec:analysis}. Section~\ref{Related} discusses the previous research work. Finally, we give concluding remarks in Section~\ref{conclusion}, followd by an acknowledgement in Section~\ref{Ack}.
\section{PRELIMINARIES}
\label{Preliminaries}
In this section, we present the necessary background on blockchain, smart contracts and some cryptosystems that are used in this paper. The main notations used in this paper are given in Table 1.
\subsection{Blockchain and Smart Contracts}
\label{sec: blockchain and contract}
Blockchain serves as the enabling technology for emerging
cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin~\cite{nakamoto2008Bitcoin} to make a peer-to-peer exchange of value without relying on a third party.
A blockchain is an immutable, distributed, and append-only
data structure created by a sequence of blocks which are
chronologically and cryptographically tied together~\cite{wood2014ethereum}. Typically, blockchain is a network composed
of a set of nodes, named \textit{miners or validators}, which are responsible for keeping trustworthy records of all transactions using a consensus algorithm in a trust-less environment.
More importantly, blockchain enables the essence of smart
contracts which can be defined as programs that every
blockchain node runs and updates their local replicas
according to the execution results without any
intervention from a third party.
The unique features of blockchains are: $(i)$ \textit{Transparency} since
transactions stored on the blockchain are visible to all
participants in the network. $(ii)$ \textit{Liveness} since all participants
can reach the same blockchain while new blocks with valid
transactions will continue to be added~\cite{kosba2016hawk}. $(iii)$ \textit{Eventual consensus} because transactions stored on the blockchain should be validated and a secure consensus protocol run by all
participants to agree on its global state~\cite{bonneau2015sok}. $(iv)$ \textit{Blockchain address or Pseudonym}, that is referred to the message sender in the blockchain. In practice, a blockchain address is bound to the hash of a public key~\cite{guo2018blockchain,guo2019access}. Specifically, the security of digital signatures assures that no one can send messages in the name of a blockchain address, unless it
knows the corresponding secret key. Likewise, the smart contract deployed in the blockchain also has a unique address, such that anyone can call the contract to be executed.
\subsection{Notations}
Let $PG$ be a pairing group generator that on input $1^{k}$ outputs descriptions of multiplicative groups $\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{1}}$ and $\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{T}}$ of
prime order $p$ where $|p|=k$. The generated groups are such that there exists an admissible bilinear map $e : \mathbb{G}_{1} \times \mathbb{G}_{1} \rightarrow \mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{T}}$
meaning that (1) for all $a, b \in \mathbb{Z}_{p}$ it holds that $e\left(g^{a}, g^{b}\right)=e(g, g)^{a b}$; (2) $e(g, g) \neq 1$ and (3) the bilinear map is efficiently computable. $\mathcal{H}$ is a
collision-resist hash function that maps strings of arbitrary
length to $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$.We denote $u \in_{R} \mathbb{Z}_{p}$ as randomly choosing a number from $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$.
\begingroup\renewcommand{\caption}[1]{}%
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figs/Table1.pdf}
\vspace{0mm}
\caption{Illustration of the bidding and selection phase in B-Ride. }
\end{figure}
\endgroup
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}[!t]
\center
\caption{Key Notations in B-Ride.}
\label{tab:Symbols}
\scalebox{0.74}{
\begin{tabular}{l|l}
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
Notation & Represent for\tabularnewline
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
$d$, $r$ & Denotes a driver or rider.\tabularnewline
\\[-0.9em]
$\mathsf{ADD}^(r)$ &A one-trip blockchain address used by rider $r$ \\
& to anonymously interact with the blockchain.\tabularnewline
\\[-0.9em]
$\ell_{k}^{(d)}, t_{k}^{(d)}$ & A pair of time and location. \tabularnewline
\\[-0.9em]
$\Gamma^{(r)}=\left\{\left(l_{0}^{(r)}, t_{0}^{(r)}\right), l_{1}^{(r)}\right\}$ & A ride desired trip.\tabularnewline
\\[-0.9em]
$\Gamma^{(d)}=\left\{\left(l_{0}^{(d)}, t_{0}^{(d)}\right), \ldots,\left(l_{\phi}^{(d)}, t_{\phi}^{(d)}\right)\right\}$ & A ride planned trip.\tabularnewline
\\[-0.9em]
$ \widehat{\Lambda^{(r)}}=\{C^{(r)}_o, C^{(r)}_d, T^{(r)}_o\} $ & A rider $r$ generalized pickup, drop off, and time. \tabularnewline
\\[-0.9em]
$\delta^{(r)}$ & Spatial slack distance that a rider willing to walk\\
& to driver pick up location.\tabularnewline
\\[-0.9em]
$\tau^{(r)}$ & Temporal slack delay time that a rider willing\\
& to wait.\tabularnewline
\\[-0.9em]
$\phi, \pi$ & A set of locations and proof/attestation sent\\
& from a driver $i$ to authenticate\\
&a location is in the set in Zero-knowledge.\tabularnewline
\\[-0.9em]
$\beta^{AP}_d$ &Driver' reputation score of arrival to pick-up\\
& location.\tabularnewline
\\[-0.9em]
$\beta^{AD}_d$ &Driver' reputation score of arrival to drop-off\\
& location.\tabularnewline
\\[-0.9em]
$\mathcal{H}$ & Secure hash function.\tabularnewline
\\[-0.9em]
$\mathcal{C}_{d_i}$ & Encrypted ride-offer of a driver $d_i$ .\tabularnewline
\\[-0.9em]
\\[-0.9em]
$q, G_1, G_2, P, e$ & Public parameters of bilinear pairing\tabularnewline
\\ \Xhline{3.4\arrayrulewidth}
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Zero Knowledge Set Membership Proof (ZKSM)}
\label{ZKSM}
A set membership proof enables a prover to prove, in a
zero-knowledge way, that a secret value lies in a given public
set. The set can perhaps be a list of cities or clubs. Typically, such proofs can be used, for example, in the context of electronic voting, where a voter is required to prove that his secret vote belongs to the set that contains all possible candidates. We are going to use Camenisch and Stadler~\cite{camenisch1997efficient} notation for proofs of knowledge:
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{PK}(\delta, \gamma): Y=g^{\delta} h^{\gamma} \land ( \gamma \in \phi)
\end{equation}
Where $Y=g^{\delta} h^{\gamma}$ is a Pedersen commitment of the integer $\delta \in \mathbb{Z}_{p}$ using randomness $\gamma$. The above proof convinces the verifier
that the secret in the commitment $Y$ lies in the set $\phi$ without having to explicitly list $\phi$ in the proof. The set $\phi$ can be a common input to both prover and verifier. The Set membership proof can be instantiated in the discrete logarithm setting and made non-interactive with Fiat-Shamir heuristic. We refer the readers to~\cite{camenisch1997efficient} for the detailed construction.
The security guarantees are: $(i)$ \textit{soundness:} no prover can convince an honest verifier if he/she did not compute
the results correctly; $(ii)$ \textit{completeness:} if the statement is true, the honest verifier (the one following the protocol properly) will be convinced of this fact by an honest prover; $(iii)$ \textit{zero-knowledge:} the proof distribution can be simulated without revealing any secret state, i.e., no verifier learns anything other than the fact that the statement is true.
\section{Network/Threat Models AND Design Goals}
\label{sec: models}
In this section, we describe the considered network and threat models. Also, we define the adversarial assumptions.
\subsection{Network model}
As depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:Bride model}, the considered network model has the following entities.
\begin{enumerate}[label={}]
\item \textit{Blockchain.} At the heart of our system is the blockchain network that handles all the ridesharing transactions. We opt for a permissionless blockchain where everyone can use the system to either act as a driver or rider. The ridesharing business logic is defined in a smart-contract and executed by the blockchain network, as described in Section~\ref{sec: blockchain and contract}. The blockchain is also used for peer-to-peer payment to allow the exchange of currency between the different system users. Thus, we select Ethereum, which is the most popular open blockchain platform for smart-contracts, to implement and evaluate our proposed protocol.
\vspace{6pt}
\item \textit{Drivers and riders.} The rider is an entity that requests for ridesharing service by making a request to the system. The driver is an entity that wants to share his trip by posting an offer to riders' requests. Note that drivers and riders are not required to store a complete copy of the blockchain. Instead, they can run on top of light-weight nodes, which eventually enables them to interact with the network to send transactions or read from the blockchain~\cite{lu2018zebralancer}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/64.pdf}
\vspace{-7mm}
\caption{System architecture: (1) The rider publishes a ride request contract to the blockchain (2) Drivers sends their encrypted offers. (3) A rider selects the best matched offer and publish a time-locked contract. (4.1) and (4.2) Up on arrival, the driver sends a proof of arrival to pick-up and claim rider deposit (5) The rider publishes a payment contract that transfer the fare trip to the driver. }
\label{fig:Bride model}
\end{figure}
\vspace{6pt}
\item \textit{Location Prover (LP):} The role of LP is to ensure the authenticity of the reported location (pickup) by the drivers. In our scheme, upon arrival of a driver to a given pickup location, he/she should send its current location to the blockchain through the LP. An LP could be, for instance, roadside units that are already deployed to enable Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANETs)~\cite{baza2019detecting}, where each RSU can confirm if the location provided by a driver falls in its coverage or not.
\end{enumerate}
Ride sharing allows small tolerance in both locations and times of the requests/offers~\cite{furuhata2013ridesharing}. Thus, spatial and temporal slacks are introduced to capture the maximum additional distance $\delta$, and time $\tau$ that a rider or driver can tolerate for traveling, and waiting, respectively. In this paper, we consider the
following ride sharing cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Identical ridesharing.} The pick-up and drop-off locations of both a driver and rider are matched, as shown in Fig. \ref{2}.a.
\item \textit{Inclusive ridesharing.} The destination of the rider lies on the driver's route. In this case, the driver must stop for drop-offs before reaching its final destination, as shown in Fig. \ref{2}.b.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Adversarial and threat Assumptions}
We assume that both internal and external adversaries could try to compromise the security of the ride sharing system. We follow the standard blockchain threat model presented in~\cite{kosba2016hawk}, where the blockchain is trusted for execution correctness and availability, but not for privacy. The smart-contract code is visible and checkable by anyone once it is deployed and is guaranteed to work as specified, free from tampering. Likewise, any data submitted and stored to the contract can be directly read by all parties of the system as well as any external curious users. In addition, the following threats are also considered:
\begin{itemize}
\item Global eavesdroppers can read all transactions recorded on the blockchain for the riders in order to learn their moving patterns, guess their locations at a specific time or even track them over the time.
\item A rider may perform a location cheating attack by reporting a false planned trip to the blockchain. The rider fraudulently does not commit to the request whereas the victim driver has to travel a long way to pick up the rider. Likewise, a driver may unfairly match more riders while deliberately do not commit to this offers.
\item Cheating of fare payment. If a driver gets paid at the beginning of the trip, he/she may misbehave and does not complete the trip. Also, if a driver gets the trip fare at the end of trip, the rider may not be willing to pay the fare~\cite{over}.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Design and Functionality Requirements}
Under the aforementioned system model and adversarial assumptions, our aim is to develop a ride-sharing system with the following design goals:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Resilience.} The proposed scheme should not rely on a central ride-sharing organizing entity, and no party in the system is completely trusted.
\item \textit{Preserving riders' privacy.} The proposed scheme should preserve riders' privacy including their trip data, i.e., pick up/drop off. This can be satisfied if the following two conditions are achieved: $(i)$ None of the drivers/miners, except for the selected driver, learns the exact position of the rider or the associated driver. $(ii)$ A specific rider cannot be tracked over time.
\item \textit{Ensuring trust between riders and drivers.} It is important to discourage any malicious behavior by both drivers and riders. This objective is challenging especially when relying on a public permissionless blockchain and also considering privacy concerns.
\item \textit{Ensuring fair payment.} The proposed ride sharing service should ensure fair payment in order to attract more users to the system. Hence, the payment should be done in a trust-less manner to protect honest drivers from dishonest riders and vice versa.
\item \textit{Drivers reputation management.} The proposed scheme should keep track of drivers' behavior through a reputation system. Malicious drivers who may try to subvert the system, even irrationally, can be identified by low reputation scores. Therefore, drivers having low reputation scores will be distrusted and no one will be interested to interact with them.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.88\linewidth]{figures/23.pdf}
\vspace{0mm}
\caption{Ride sharing cases under consideration in B-Ride.}
\label{2}
\end{figure}
\section{Our Proposed Scheme: B-Ride}
\label{sec:ProposedScheme}
B-Ride consists of the following six phases: trip data generation, bidding and selection, time-locked deposit protocol, fair payment and reputation management.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{figures/30.pdf}
\vspace{0mm}
\caption{Illustration of dividing the ride sharing area of interest into cells for the state of TN, USA. A driver $d$'s route, in blue, with 5 points, and pickup and drop-off of a rider $r$.}
\label{fig1: map}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Trip Data Generation}
\label{trips}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{figures/12.pdf}
\vspace{0mm}
\caption{Illustration of the bidding and selection phase in B-Ride.}
\label{Bidding}
\end{figure*}
In this section, we discuss how the drivers/riders generate their trips data while preserving their privacy. Generalization technique~\cite{sanchez2016co} also known as spatial cloaking, is used for this purpose. The main idea of the spatial cloaking is to blur users' exact locations into cloaked regions for location obfuscation. Let's denote by $\mathcal{A}$ the ride sharing area (e.g., a state) that is sub-divided into a set of $n$ \textit{cells} $C=\{C_1, C_2, ... C_n\}$. Cells could be defined based on geographic area constraints such as districts or neighborhoods in a city, uniform partitions in a map, etc. Therefore, instead of using the exact pick-up/drop-off location, riders can only submit the respective cells coordinates containing the actual pick-up and drop-off locations. Fig.~\ref{fig1: map} illustrates an example of division of the state of Tennessee, USA into $27$ cells. Similarly, the exact pick-up/drop-off times can also be generalized (hidden) by using temporal cloaking where the actual time is generalized by setting \textit{time interval $T$}.
For instance, a driver $d$ who is interested in sharing a ride with others should do the following steps before sending his offer.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Defines the planned trip $\Gamma^{(d)}$
$$\Gamma^{(d)}= \left\{\left(\ell_{0}^{(d)}, t_{0}^{(d)}\right),\ldots,\left(\ell_{k}^{(d)}, t_{k}^{(d)}\right), \ldots,\left(\ell_{n}^{(d)}, t_{n}^{(d)}\right)\right\}$$
that consists of the exact departure location $\ell_{0}^{(d)}$, departure time $t_{0}^{(d)}$, destination $\ell_{n}^{(d)}$ and estimated arrival time $t_{n}^{(d)}$, as well as a sequence of optionally intermediate locations and their corresponding arrival times $\left(\ell_{k}^{(d)}, t_{k}^{(d)}\right)$.
\item Then, hides or cloaks his exact trip locations and times to zones (cells) and time intervals as follows.
\begin{equation}
\Lambda^{(d)}=\left\{\left(C_{0}^{(d)}, T_{0}^{(d)}\right), \ldots, \left(C_{k}^{(d)}, T_{k}^{(d)}\right), \ldots, \left(C_{n}^{(d)}, T_{n}^{(d)}\right)\right\}
\end{equation}
where $\left(C_{0}^{(d)}, T_{0}^{(d)}\right)$ represents the cloaked location and time that corresponds to $\left(\ell_{0}^{(d)}, t_{0}^{(d)}\right)$.
\item Creates a set of all possible trips in his planned trip of the elements in $\Lambda^{(d)}$ as.
\begin{equation}
\label{driver table}
\begin{aligned} \widehat{\Lambda^{(d)}}=\{\left(C_{j}^{(d)}, T_{j}^{(d)}, C_{k}^{(d)} \right)\} \\ & 1 \leqslant j \leqslant n \\ & j+1\leqslant k \leqslant n \end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the number of all possible trips depends on the number of chosen points $n$ and it can be mathematically expressed as~\cite{BC}
$$
\left( \begin{array}{l}{n} \\ {2}\end{array}\right)=\frac{n !}{2 !(n-2) !}
$$
\end{enumerate}
For a rider $r$, we denote his ride request as $\Gamma^{(r)}=\left\{\left(\ell_{0}^{(r)}, t_{0}^{(r)}\right), \ell_{d}^{(r)}\right\}$, where $\left(\ell_{0}^{(r)}, t_{0}^{(r)}\right)$ represents the departure location and the desired set off time, and $\ell_{d}^{(r)}$ denotes the drop-off location. Similar to the driver, the rider also converts the request into the generalized form by
mapping the pick-up and drop-off locations into the corresponding cells as well as departure time into cloaked time.
\begin{equation}
\label{7}
\widehat{\Lambda^{(r)}}=\{\left(C_{o}^{(r)}, T_{o}^{(r)}, C_{d}^{(r)} \right)\}
\end{equation}
Note that in all the previous steps, including cloaking of the drivers' trip (see Table 4) and the rider trip, are done off the blockchain using, for instance, the driver/rider smart phones.
\begingroup\renewcommand{\caption}[1]{}%
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{Figs/9.pdf}
\vspace{0mm}
\caption{Illustration of the bidding and selection phase in B-Ride. }
\end{figure*}
\endgroup
\subsection{Bidding and Selection}
In this section, we describe the process of matching riders' requests with drivers' offers atop public blockchain. The smart-contract $\mathcal{L}$ that handles the B-Ride logic including bidding and selection is summarized in Algorithm \ref{alg1}. The different steps required for bidding and selection are illustrated by a schematic diagram in Fig.~\ref{Bidding}, and detailed in the following sections.
\subsubsection{Publishing the ride request}
First, as a fundamental concept to avoid de-anonymization in the blockchain, every rider $r$ uses for each ride request a new blockchain address $\mathsf{ADD}^{(r)}$ that corresponds to a fresh public/private key pair ($PK^{(r)}, SK^{(r)}$).
Then, a rider publishes a ride request that contains his/her cloaked pick-up/drop-off $(C_{o}^{(r)}, C_{d}^{(r)})$ and cloaked time $T_{o}^{(r)}$. Also, the request should include an expiry time to receive driver's offers. Optionally, the request can include a maximum number of offers to be received. Note that this request should be signed by the temporary private key of the rider and sent to the smart-contract by making a call to the function \textit{MakeRideRequest()} in Algorithm~\ref{alg1}. Once the miners validate the corresponding signature of the rider, the request will be public to all drivers.
\subsubsection{Submitting drivers' offers}
For a driver that wants to share a ride, first needs to first receive a public key certificate from the corresponding registration authority (RA), such as the government. A driver $d$ having a unique identity (e.g., license plate number), creates a public-secret key pair ($PK^{(d)}, SK^{(d)}$) and registers at the RA to obtain a certificate binding $PK^{(d)}$ to $d$.
Drivers can either periodically query the blockchain to obtain new riders' requests or use some out-of-band signaling protocols to get notified each time a new request is published~\cite{knirsch2018privacy}. In order to make an offer, a driver $d$ first verifies if the spatio-temporal attributes of a received request made by a rider $r$ falls within one of his own planned trips, (i.e., $\widehat{\Lambda^{(r)}} \in \widehat{\Lambda^{(d_i)}}$).
If one of the requests matches the driver's trip, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Bidding}, the driver creates an offer that should include all the necessary information for the rider such as, the exact pick-up location and time $\left(\ell_{0}^{(d_i)}, t_{0}^{(d_i)}\right)$, the exact drop-off location and time $\left(\ell_{d}^{(d_i)}, t_{d}^{(d_i)}\right)$ as well as the offer bid price $\mathcal{B}_{d_i}$ (e.g., price per mileage). Then, the driver uses the rider's public key to encrypt all above information to obtain $\mathcal{C}_{d_i}$
$$\mathcal{C}_{d_i}= \mathcal{E}_{PK^{(r)}}\left(\ell_{0}^{(d_i)}, t_{0}^{(d_i)}, \ell_{d}^{(d_i)}, t_{d}^{(d_i)} \right) $$
Where $\mathcal{E}$ is an asymmetric encryption algorithm e.g., RSA. This is necessary to preserve the privacy of both the driver and rider.
The tuple $\mathcal{C}_{d_i}\|\mathcal{B}_{d_i}$ is sent by the driver to the smart-contract by calling the function \textit{MakeRideOffer()}. Note that the bidding price is not encrypted and made public in order to ensure price competition which guarantees low prices for the riders. Also that since the rider request includes an expiry time to receive offers, any offer made after that time will be automatically rejected by the blockchain network.
\subsubsection{Finding Feasible Matches}
After receiving, for instance, $n$ offers $\{\mathcal{C}_{d_1},\cdots,\mathcal{C}_{d_n}\}$ for the same request made by a rider $r$, the rider retrieves the encrypted offers from the smart-contract and decrypts each of them off the chain using his secret key. In order to select an offer that better matches the rider preferences, the offers are evaluated as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The driver's pick-up and drop-off match (i) \textit{spatially} by checking if:
\begin{equation}
\left(\abs {\ell^{(d_i)}_{o}-\ell^{(r)}_{o}} \leq \delta^{(r)} \right)\land \left(\abs{\ell^{(d_i)}_{d}-\ell^{(r)}_{d}} \leq \delta^{(r)}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\delta^{(r)}$ is the maximum distance that the rider can walk to meet the driver's pick-up location, or to reach his final destination.
(ii) \textit{Temporarily} by checking if:
\begin{equation}
\left(\abs{t^{(d_i)}_{o} - t^{(r)}_{o}} \leq \tau^{(r)}\right) \land \left(\abs{t^{(d_i)}_{d} - t^{(r)}_{d}}\leq \tau^{(r)}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\tau^{(r)}$ is the maximum delay the rider can tolerate before meeting the driver at the pick-up location, or to reach his final destination after being dropped-off.
\item Besides, in B-Ride, each driver $d$ has a reputation value $\beta_{d_i}$ that is stored on the blockchain. The detail about how each driver receive his reputation will be discussed in details in the next sections.
Using $\delta^{(r)}$, $\tau^{(r)}$, $\mathcal{B}_{d_i}$ and the drivers' reputation score, the rider is able to select the best offer that match his preferences as follows:
\[\argmin_{\forall d_i } (\delta^{(r)}, \tau^{(r)}, \mathcal{B}_{d_i}) \land \argmax_{\forall d } (\beta_{d_i})\]
Note that preferences may vary from one rider to others. For instance, some may prefer an offer with a low price even if it has a high space slack $\delta^{(r)}$ or waiting time $\delta^{(r)}$. Different from existing centralized approaches, finding feasible ride matches is handled over the blockchain and is therefore, fully transparent.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Illustrative example for the selection/matching phase}
To better illustrate the selection process, let us assume a driver $d_i$ who has a trip as shown in Fig~\ref{fig1: map}. The driver's route starts from Knoxville and ends in Nashville with four stop points that lies on his route. Note that defining these points depends only on the driver preferences. Table ~2 illustrates the coordinates of the stop points with their corresponding arrival times which are defined by the driver. As discussed previously in Sec.~\ref{trips}, the driver's route should be generalized/mapped as given in Table~3 with respect to cell division of Tennessee given in Fig.~\ref{fig1: map}. Thus, the driver creates his own trip table that contains possible trips that he/she is willing to share with other riders, as indicated in Table~4.
On the other hand, a rider $r$ who is looking to take a ride with the following attributes:
$$\Gamma^{(d)}= (35.222;-100.1511, 4548754, 35.221;-100.1511)$$
publishes his request to the blockchain by sending a generalization version of his ride:
$$\widehat{\Lambda^{(r)}}=\{\left(Utica, 45222211, Syracuse\right)\}$$
Each driver, therefore, reads the existing requests on the blockchain to decide the offers they could submit. For instance, based on the trip table of the driver $d_i$ in Table 4, he/she can determine that the rider's request is in its route i.e., the 4th element in Table~4. Thus, he/she follows up on this request by sending an offer that contains the exact pick-up, drop-off and time encrypted to the rider. Finally, the rider evaluates the offer and compares it with any other offers to select the best matched one.
\begin{algorithm}[!t]
\algorithmfootnote{Note that for the sake of
explanation, we separated Algorithm~\ref{alg:contract2} and Algorithm~\ref{alg:paymentcontract}. In practice, B-Ride can be entirely implemented in a single smart-contract.}
\SetKwProg{Fn}{function}{}{}
\SetKwProg{Contract}{contract}{}{}
\SetKwData{NumOfUpdatedObjects}{numOfUpdatedObjects}
\SetKwIF{If}{ElseIf}{Else}{if}{}{else if}{else}{end if}
\SetKwFunction{PaymentContract}{PaymentContract}
\SetKwFunction{RecieveRideRequest}{MakeRideRequest}
\SetKwFunction{RecieveRideOffer}{MakeRideOffer}
\SetKwFunction{BRide}{BRide}
\SetKwFunction{TimeLockedDeposit}{TimeLockedDeposit}
\SetKwFunction{BiddingSelectionContract}{BiddingSelectionContract}
\Contract{\text{BRide}}{
\textcolor{blue}{mapping}{(\textcolor{blue}{address} => int) Reputation score\_1}
\tcp{Mapping for drivers' reputation score of arriving to pick-up}
\textcolor{blue}{mapping}{(\textcolor{blue}{address} => int) Reputation score\_2}
\tcp{Mapping for drivers' reputation score of completed trips}
\BlankLine
\Contract{\BiddingSelectionContract}{
\Fn{\RecieveRideRequest{$C^{(r)}_0$,$C^{(r)}_d$,$T^{(r)}_0$}}{
\tcp{Receive ride request.}
}
\Fn{\RecieveRideOffer{$\mathcal{C}^{(d_{i})}$,$\mathcal{B}_{d_{i}}$}}{
\tcp{Receive ride drivers biddings.}
} }
\BlankLine
\Contract{\TimeLockedDeposit}{
Create a sub-contract of Algorithm~\ref{alg:contract2}
}
\BlankLine
\Contract{\PaymentContract}{
Create a sub-contract of Algorithm~\ref{alg:paymentcontract}
} }
\caption{Pseudocode for \textit{B-Ride} contract}
\label{alg1}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Time-locked Deposit Protocol}
In this section, we introduce the time-locked deposit protocol that prevents malicious drivers or riders from not committing to their respective ride offers or requests. The deposit serves as a guarantee for their good intention.
Usually, a traditional solution to this problem is to allow both parties (i.e., drivers and riders) to pay a subscription fee to a trusted agency that can be contacted whenever a breach occurs. However, this solution may fail since an honest party has to expend extra effort by contacting and convincing the trusted party about the breach ~\cite{bentov2014use}. In addition, if the third party gets attacked, the whole system becomes unprotected against malicious users.
Inspired by~\cite{bentov2014use}, we propose a time-locked deposit protocol for ride-sharing service leveraging smart-contracts and blockchain. The smart-contract receives a deposit from both rider and driver and conditionally transfers the total deposit amount to the "driver" if he/she arrives to the rider pick-up location at the predefined agreed time. However, if the driver defaults, the deposit will be transferred to the rider after a prespecified time as a fine to the driver. Note that the conditions are defined in the smart-contract and executed over the blockchain, in a completely transparent and secure manner. Nevertheless, the definition of these conditions should consider the privacy of the drivers and riders. In other words, how a driver can prove that he/she has arrived to the rider's pick-up location (so the blockchain enforces rewards) without revealing such sensitive information on the public blockchain. For this purpose and in order to preserve users' privacy, we leverage the use of the zero-knowledge set membership proof (ZKSM) protocol presented in Sec.~\ref{ZKSM}. In nutshell, after selecting an offer from a driver, the rider publishes a new \textit{time-locked deposit} smart-contract (see Algorithm.~\ref{alg2}), and initializes it by sending the set of locations as well as the trip deposit. The corresponding driver of the selected offer should act as a \textit{prover} who needs to demonstrate to the blockchain (\textit{verifier}) in a \textit{zero-knowledge} manner that he/she has arrived to one of the pick-up locations already published by the rider without revealing the exact pick-up location. A schematic diagram of the time-locked deposit protocol is depicted in Fig.~\ref{timelocke}.
In the following we describe the different steps of the time-locked deposit protocol.
\subsubsection{Initialization}
The rider initializes the time-locked deposit protocol as follow:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Defines a set $\phi$ of $k$ locations where $\phi=\{\ell_1,\cdots,\ell_k\}$. The set $\phi$ should include the actual rider pick-up location $\ell^{(r)}_{o}$, as well as other obfuscated locations.
\item Picks a random number $x \in_{R} \mathbb{Z}_{p}$ and computes a corresponding public $y \in g^{x}$, where $g$ is the generator of the order $-q$ subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$
\item Computes for every element $i\in \phi$ the corresponding signature using $g$ and $x$: where, $\mathcal{A}_i = g^{\frac{1}{(x+i)}}$.
\item Publishes a new smart-contract, given in Algorithm~\ref{alg2}, and calls the function \textit{TimeLockedDeposit($\phi$, $A_i$, deposit)}.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{figures/45.pdf}
\vspace{0mm}
\caption{The schematic diagram of B-Ride the protocol as proof-of-concept.}
\label{timelocke}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/LOCK.pdf}
\vspace{0mm}
\caption{Time-locked deposit protocol in B-Ride. }
\label{3}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Driver Deposit and Claim}
In this step, the driver needs to confirm his/her commitment to the trip offer by sending a deposit to the smart-contract. The driver can claim back the deposit, once he/she arrives to the pick-up location, by providing a proof of arrival to that location at the pick-up time.
For this purpose, before sending the deposit, the driver first authenticates each element in $\phi$ using the corresponding rider's public key\footnote{The purpose of this verification is to prevent a malicious rider from falsely setting-up the ZKSM protocol so he/she cannot manipulate the rewards of the driver.}. The verification is done by checking the following equality~\cite{boneh2004short}
$$e\left(\mathcal{A}_i, y \cdot g^{\ell_{i}}\right)\stackrel{?}{=}e(g, g)$$
To send the deposit, the driver calls the function \textit{DriverDeposit($\mathcal{D}$)}, where $\mathcal{D}$ is a deposit to the contract within a limited window of time (See line 15 in Algorithm \ref{alg2}).
When the driver reaches the pick-up location, he/she needs to prove in zero-knowledge that he/she arrived to the pick-up location as follow:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The driver picks $v \in_{R} \mathbb{Z}_{p}$ and computes $V = \left(\mathcal{A}_{\ell^{(r)}_{o}}\right)^v$, where $A_{\ell^{(r)}_{o}}$ is the rider' signature on $\ell^{(r)}_{o}$. Then, he/she computes a commitment on $\ell^{(r)}_{o}$ using Pedersen commitment~\cite{pedersen1991non} as $C=g^{\ell^{(r)}_{o}}h^{\iota}$ where $\iota$ is a random number and $h$ is a random group element such that it is hard to find the discrete logarithm of $g$ base $h$. The tuple $C \| \ell^{(r)}_{o} \| \sigma_{\iota}(\ell^{(r)}_o)$ is then sent to the the location prover (LP) where $\sigma_{\iota}(\ell^{(r)}_o)$ is the driver' signature on $\ell^{(r)}_o$.
\item The LP verifies if the received location from the driver is authentic. The LP Computes $$C'=Cg^{-\ell^{(r)}_{o}}=g^{\ell^{(r)}_{o}}h^{\iota}g^{-\ell^{(r)}_{o}}=h^{\iota}$$ where the $h^{\iota}$ is the public key corresponding to $\iota$. Then, the LP verifies if the signature $\sigma_{\iota}(\ell^{(r)}_o)$ is valid using $h^{\iota}$. The tuple $C \| \sigma_{LP}(C)$ is then sent back to the driver, where $\sigma_{LP}(C)$ is the LP signature on $C$.
\item The driver picks random numbers $s, t, m \in_{R} \mathbb{Z}_{p} $ and computes
$$a= e\left(V,g\right)^{-s} e\left(g,g\right)^{t}, \text{and}\; \mathcal{Q}=g^{s}h^{m}$$
Note that the adopted ZKSM in~\cite{camenisch2008efficient} requires an interactive session between the prover and the verifier with multiple rounds of communication. However, in the context of blockchain, miners, can not properly agree on a common value of proof-related parameters, such as the challenges, since they need to be chosen randomly. One solution is to employ the FiatShamir heuristic~\cite{fiat1986prove}, which is a generic technique that allows to convert interactive zero-knowledge schemes to non-interactive protocols. Using the Fiat-Shamir heuristic, a challenge $c$ can be calculated from public parameters as follows
$$c=\mathcal{H}(V\|a\|\mathcal{Q})$$
Then, he/she computes $z_{\ell}=s- \left(\ell^{(r)}_{o}\right) c$, $z_{v}=t- v c$ and $z_{\iota}=m- \iota c$.
Then, the proof of ZKSM is denoted as $\pi= C\|c\|a\|\mathcal{Q}\|z_{\ell}\| z_{v}\| z_{\iota}$. Finally, he/she sends $\pi\|\sigma_{LP}(C)$ as a transaction to the blockchain.
\item Once the contract $\mathcal{T}$ receives the proof $\pi$, it should verify whether $(i)$ the proof is from the selected driver, and $(ii)$ the time of receiving the proof lies on the generalized rider pick-up time (See lines 19-20 in Algorithm \ref{alg2}).
The proof that $C$ is a commitment to an element in $\phi$ can be validated by the following statement~\cite{camenisch2008efficient}.
\begin{equation}
\label{ZK}
\operatorname{\textbf{PK}}\left\{(\ell^{(r)}_{o}, \iota , v) : C=g^{\ell^{(r)}_{o}} h^{\iota} \wedge V=g^{\frac{v}{x+\ell^{(r)}_{o}}}\right\}
\end{equation}
Proving the statement in~(\ref{ZK}) is done in the blockchain by checking the following conditions:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}\stackrel{?}{=} C^{c}h^{z_{\iota}}g^{z_\ell}
\label{c1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
a\stackrel{?}{=} e\left(V,y\right)^{c}\cdot e\left(V,g\right)^{-z_{\ell}} \cdot e\left(g,g\right)^{z_{v}}
\label{c2}
\end{equation}
Once the function $\textit{ProofOfArrival}$ validates the two conditions in \ref{c1} and \ref{c2}, the driver claims the contract balance (see lines 20-26 in Algorithm~\ref{alg2}). Due to the \textit{Soundness} and \textit{Completeness} property of ZKSM~\cite{camenisch2008efficient}, the contract accepts the proof if it is correctly constructed by the driver. If the driver breaks his/her commitment to arrive in the pick-up time, which is pre-defined in the time-locked deposit contract, he/she will be fined with a monetary penalty that goes to the rider' account (see lines 27-30 in Algorithm~\ref{alg2}).
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Driver/rider authentication}
In order to prevent an impersonation attack, in which a malicious rider tries to take a ride that was reserved by another rider, driver and rider must authenticate each other. Specifically, the rider should prove to the driver in zero knowledge that he/she indeed knows the value of private key corresponding to the public key ($PK^{(r)}$) that made the reservation. The driver (the verifier) selects a uniformly random integer $\mathcal{S} \in \mathbb{Z}_{p}$ as a \textit{challenge} and sends it to the rider (the prover). The rider uses his/her private key to generate a signature on the challenge ($\sigma_{SK^{(r)}}(\mathcal{S})$) and sends $(\mathcal{S}\|\sigma_{SK^{(r)}}(\mathcal{S}))$ to the driver. Finally, the driver verifies if $VerifySig(PK^{(r)},\sigma_{SK^{(r)}}(\mathcal{S}),\mathcal{S}) = 1$.
\begin{algorithm}[!t]
\algsetup{linenosize=\small}
\scriptsize
\SetKwProg{Fn}{function}{}{}
\SetKwProg{Contract}{contract}{}{}
\SetKwData{NumOfUpdatedObjects}{numOfUpdatedObjects}
\SetKwIF{If}{ElseIf}{Else}{if}{}{else if}{else}{end if}
\SetKwFunction{FirmwareUpdateContract}{FirmwareUpdateContract}
\SetKwFunction{TimeLockedDeposit}{TimeLockedDeposit}
\SetKwFunction{ProofOfArrival}{ProofOfArrival}
\SetKwFunction{DriverDeposit}{DriverDeposit}
\SetKwFunction{FineDriver}{FineDriver}
\Contract{\TimeLockedDeposit}{
\textcolor{blue}{uint} public Balance \tcp{Balance to withhold driver and rider deposits}
\textcolor{blue}{address} payable rider \tcp{Rider address}
\textcolor{blue}{address} payable driver \tcp{driver address}
\textcolor{blue}{uint} public RiderDeposit \tcp{RiderDeposit}
\textcolor{blue}{uint} public DriverDeposit \tcp{DriverDeposit}
\textcolor{blue}{address} [] Set \tcp{set of obfuscated locations}
\textcolor{blue}{address} [] $A_i$ \tcp{Signatures of elements in the set}
\tcp{Constructor}
\Fn{\TimeLockedDeposit{\_driver, \_Set, $\_A_i$, \_RiderDeposit}}{
driver $\leftarrow$ \_driver; \tcp{The address of selected driver}
Balance $\leftarrow$ \_RiderDeposit ;\tcp{This deposit acts as acceptance to the driver offer.}
Set $\leftarrow$ \_Set; \\
$A_i$ $\leftarrow$ $\_A_i;$
}
\BlankLine
\Fn{\DriverDeposit{uint256 \_DriverDeposit}}{
\tcp{Receive Driver Deposit and add to the contract}
\lIf {block.timestamp $\geq$ expiration}{return}
\lIf {msg.sender $\neq$ DriverAddress}{return}
\lIf {msg.value $\neq$ DriverDeposit}{return}
\lIf {now $\geq$ $T^{Accept}_{deadline}$}{return} \tcp{$T^{Accept}_{deadline}$ is a window for the driver to send his/her deposit e.g., 2 min}
Balance $\leftarrow$\_DriverDeposit;
}
\Fn{\ProofOfArrival{($\pi$, $\sigma_{LP}(C)$]}}{
\tcp{$\pi=\{D\| c \| a \| \mathcal{Q}\| z_\sigma\| z_v\| z_r\}$}
\tcp{If the driver provides a valid proof of the agreed pickup location, he/she will be rewarded by the rider deposit and he/she get his/her deposit back.}
\lIf {msg.sender $\neq$ DriverAddress}{return}
\lIf {now $\neq$ $T^{(r)}_{o}$}{return} \tcp{Check the time of receiving the proof lies in the generalized rider pick-up time}
\If{(ZKSM.Verifier($\pi$))}{
\tcp{ZKSM.Verifier is a library embedded in the runtime
environment of smart contract such as EVM}
BRide.Reputation score\_1[msg.sender]$\leftarrow $ Reputation score\_1[msg.sender]+1;
\tcp{Increase the driver reputation score of arriving to pick-up location}
\tcp{call public event \textcolor{red}{Transfer} to finalize the payment}
transfer(balance, driver);
}
}
\BlankLine
\Fn{\FineDriver{}}{
\tcp{Issue a rider deposit back and the driver deposit and if the timeout has expired.}
\lIf {block.timestamp $<$ expiration}{return}
\lIf {msg.sender $\neq$ rider}{return}
transfer(balance, rider); \tcp{Transfer the contract balance back to the rider account.}
}
}
\caption{Pseudocode for \textit{time-locked deposit} contract $\mathcal{T}$ in B-Ride}\label{alg:contract2}
\label{alg2}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Fair Payment in Trust-less Environment}
In this section we address the following challenge: \textit{how to estimate the fare of each trip without trusting riders and drivers?}
In current RSSs, to estimate the trip fare, a driver needs to report the distance and duration of each ride using his/her personal smartphone to the service provider. However, smartphones are general-purpose devices and are easy to tamper with. Thus, a malicious driver can report longer ride distances to get a higher fare. This problem is usually referred to as \textit{overcharging}~\cite{pham2017oride},~\cite{over}.
In B-Ride, we tackle the above challenge by adopting the \textit{pay-as-you-drive} method. After starting the trip, the rider makes a call to the \textit{fare payment} smart-contract (see Algorithm \ref{alg:paymentcontract}) and initializes it with a sufficient amount of coins as a deposit to be used later for the payment of the fare. Note that the down payment used in the time locked deposit protocol is also used as a part of the payment of trip's fare. After that, for every period of time, the driver sends the elapsed distance to the rider. The rider checks whether the received distance matches the actual elapsed distance or not. Using multi-signature, the elapsed distance is signed by both the driver and the rider, and then sent to the smart contract as a proof of the actual elapsed distance approved by the driver and rider. Thus, a payment that corresponds to that travelled distance, will go to the driver account. This ensures that the driver is paid based on the distance that has been actually travelled. In case a malicious rider stops sending the proofs of the elapsed distance, the driver can decide to stop the ride without affecting his/her payment on the previous travelled distances. Similarly, if the driver decides to stop the trip, the rider can stop sending the elapsed distance proof and, therefore, the driver will not be paid. Finally, if the driver does not complete the trip in the a pre-agreed time of the driver's offer, the remaining payment can go back to the rider's account (See function Refund in algorithm~\ref{alg:paymentcontract}). This enforces the driver to commit to his/her offer and complete the journey on time without delay.
\begin{algorithm}[!t]
\algsetup{linenosize=\small}
\scriptsize
\SetKwProg{Fn}{function}{}{}
\SetKwProg{Contract}{contract}{}{}
\SetKwData{NumOfUpdatedObjects}{numOfUpdatedObjects}
\SetKwIF{If}{ElseIf}{Else}{if}{}{else if}{else}{end if}
\SetKwFunction{FirmwareUpdateContract}{FirmwareUpdateContract}
\SetKwFunction{RidePayment}{RidePayment}
\SetKwFunction{ProofOfDistance}{ProofOfDistance}
\SetKwFunction{withdrawFunds}{withdrawFunds}
\Contract{\RidePayment}{
\textcolor{blue}{address} payable rider \tcp{Rider address}
\textcolor{blue}{address} payable driver \tcp{driver address}
\textcolor{blue}{uint} public TripDist \tcp{driver address}
\tcp{Constructor}
\BlankLine
\Fn{\RidePayment{\_driver, \_TripDist, \_$t^{(R)}_d$}}{
\_driver $\leftarrow$ \_driver \tcp{A greed distance of payment}
TripDist $\leftarrow$ \_TripDist \tcp{A greed distance of payment}
}
\BlankLine
\Fn{\ProofOfDistance{ElapsedDist}}{
\tcp{If this is called with the rider, the driver gets paid.}
\lIf {msg.sender $\neq$ RiderAddress}{return}
\While{TripDist $\leq$ ElapsedDist }{
transfer(balance $\times$ ElapsedDist), pk\_d) \tcp{Decrease balance according to the travelled distance by the rider and driver}
TripDist $\leftarrow$ \_TripDist-Elapsed\_Distance \;
\If{(TripDist==0)}{
B-Ride.Reputation score\_2[DriverAddress]$\leftarrow $ Reputation score\_2[DriverAddress]+1;\\
\tcp{Update the reputation driver score of completed trips}
}
}
}
\BlankLine
\Fn{\withdrawFunds{}}{
\tcp{Issue a refund back to the rider if the timeout has expired.}
\lIf {block.timestamp $<$ expiration}{return}
\lIf {msg.sender $\neq$ owner}{return}
transfer(balance, owner) \tcp{Transfer the contract balance back to the rider account.}
}
}
\caption{Pseudocode for the \textit{fair payment} contract in B-Ride}\label{alg:paymentcontract}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Reputation Management}
In B-Ride, before starting the trip, the driver needs to prove his/her arrival to the pickup location, and the rider is required to prove his/her good willing by making a down-payment. However, in case the ride was not performed, the system cannot determine which side is circumventing (not committed to the trip), whether the rider or driver. In addition, because the down-payment made by a rider automatically goes to the driver once he/she proves his/her arrival to the pick-up location, a dishonest driver can collect the down-payments without committing to his/her offer. Also, since the riders are anonymous, it is not possible to make a claim about such situation. To mitigate this problem, we propose a reputation system that records any similar incidents as a potential driver misbehavior. If for the same driver this case happens many times, the reputation score of the driver reduces and this will discourage riders from accepting any offers coming from that driver.
More specifically, each driver is assigned a reputation score that will be considered by riders during the selection process. A high reputation score reflects the good driver behaviour. Moreover, unlike traditional ride sharing schemes where the reputation is managed and controlled by a third party, our reputation system is completely decentralized and implemented on blockchain.
Each driver is tagged with a reputation score $\beta_d$. The score has two values, the first value $\beta^{AP}_D$ increments every time the driver prove his/her arrival to the agreed pick up location, and the second one $\beta^{AD}_d$ increases for every received proof of completing the trip.
\begin{comment}
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\beta_{d}=
\begin{cases}
\beta^{AP}_{d}& \textsf{\textit{Increases if a valid proof to pick-up location}}\\
\beta^{AD}_{d} & \textsf{\textit{If the trip was completed successfully,}}\\
\end{cases}
\label{Eq:4.12}
\end{eqnarray}
\textcolor{red}{I think you can remove this equation}
\end{comment}
The driver's reputation $\beta^{AP}_d$ increases and is recorded in blockchain if the function \texttt{ProofofArrival} validates his/her proof of arriving to the rider pick up location (See line 24 in Algorithm~\ref{alg:contract2}). Meanwhile, the driver's reputation score $\beta^{AD}_{d}$ increases only if the trip is completed. (See line 14 in algortihm~\ref{alg:paymentcontract}). Therefore, when a dishonest driver $d$ tries to collect riders deposits without completing the corresponding trips, the $\beta^{AP}_{d}$ increases while $\beta^{AD}_{d}$ keeps decreasing and becomes smaller than $\beta^{AD}_{d}$. Thus, the final reputation score $\beta_{d}$ of driver $d$ can be estimated as follow:
\begin{equation}
\beta_{d} = \dfrac{\beta^{AP}_{d}}{\beta^{AD}_{d}}
\end{equation}
Note that it is possible for a new driver joining the system, that does not have a reputation score yet, to be selected by some riders. In case this driver may be dishonest by collecting some down-payment before his/her reputation score get decreased. To limit this to happen, each newly registered driver needs to put a deposit that will be used in the future to refund any riders that lost their down-payments for the account of that driver, in case the driver will receive a bad reputation score.
The value of the reputation score allows to distinguish between three different cases: $(i)$ $\beta_d = 1$ means that $\beta^{AP}_{d} = \beta^{AD}_{d}$. In this case, the driver can be considered honest as he/she has committed to all his/her past trips; $(ii)$ $\beta_d \leq \mathcal{T}$, where $\mathcal{T}$ is a threshold value pre-defined by the system users i.e., the riders. In this case, the driver can be considered dishonest and the system will refund all riders from whom he/she took the down-payment deposit, and $(iii)$ $ \mathcal{T}<\beta_d <1$. In this case, the driver is still considered honest but riders may prefer to select drivers with better score for their future trips.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (tb1)
\begin{tabular}{m{3.1cm}||m{2.3cm}m{2.3cm}m{2.2cm}m{2.3cm}m{2.3cm}}
\hline
& Architecture & Rider's privacy& Trust & Fair payment & Transparency \\
\hline\hline
Current RSS~\footnote{https://www.blablacar.com/}& Centralized & $\times$ & $\bigcirc$ & $\times$ & $\times$\\\hline
\hline
SRide~\cite{aivodji2018sride} & Centralized & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ \\\hline
Co-utile~\cite{sanchez2016co} & Decentralized & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$\\\hline
DACSEE~\cite{DACSEE}, Arcade City~\cite{ArcadeCity}& Blockchain & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ \\\hline
B-Ride & Blockchain & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ \\\hline
\end{tabular}};
\node[above=1.5ex,align=center] at (tb1.north) {TABLE 5: Comparison between our system B-Ride and existing RSS platforms.};
\node[below=0.2ex,align=left] at (tb1.south) {Note: $\surd$ denotes a realized functionality; $\bigcirc$ denotes a (partially) realized function by relying on a central trust\\ and $\times$ denotes an unrealized feature.};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure*}
\section{Performance Evaluations}
\label{comm overhead}
In this section, we evaluate the performance of B-Ride. We first assess the functionalities of B-Ride by comparing it with existing riding systems. Then, we present a proof-of-concept implementation of B-Ride and demonstrate its feasibility. Finally we evaluate the cost of the proposed implementation in term of computation and storage overhead.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/BRide1.pdf}
\vspace{0mm}
\caption{Implementation overview of B-Ride.}
\label{Fig. implment}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Functionality}
In Table~5, we summarize the existing ride sharing systems in terms of architectures and desired functionalities, such as riders privacy, trust, payment fairness and transparency. In~\cite{sanchez2016co}, a decentralized ride sharing system is proposed using peer to peer communications. However, the scheme is vulnerable to DDoS and Sybil attacks and more importantly lacks transparency that is achieved in B-Ride. Some projects already start the development of blockchain-based ride sharing platforms e.g., DACSEE~\footnote{https://dacsee.com/} arcade city~\footnote{https://arcade.city/}, however, none of them consider riders' location privacy or payment fairness.
\subsection{Implementation}
Fig.~\ref{Fig. implment} shows an overview of the proof-of-concept implementation of B-Ride. Usually, anything executed in the blockchain environment is refereed as being \textit{on-chain}, while anything that runs outside the blockchain is referred as \textit{off-chain}. All the operations required to setup ZKSM protocol, as well as the cloaking of trip data, encryption of the offers and generalization of the trip request data, are made off-chain. Whereas the execution of the B-Ride smart-contract and the related transactions are performed on-chain.
In the following, we evaluate the cost of the different off-chain and on-chain operations.
\subsubsection{Ethereum Baselines and Performance Metrics}
Ethereum introduced the concept of \textit{gas} to quantify the cost associated with each transaction. The cost is payable using the native Ethereum currency, named \textit{Ether}. Each operation in a smart contract has a fixed cost. For instance, the addition of two variables requires 3 gas, multiplication costs 5 gas has and computing a SHA3 hash needs 30 gas plus 6 gas for every 256 bits of input~\cite{wood2014ethereum}. Therefore, to evaluated the cost of the on-chain operations, we are interested in the following metrics.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Transaction cost:} Is based on the overall gas cost of sending data to the blockchain. Typically, there are four items which make up the full transaction cost; $(i)$ the base cost of a transaction, $(ii)$ the cost of a contract deployment, $(iii)$ the cost of every zero byte of data or code in a transaction, and $(iv)$ and the cost of every non-zero byte of data or code in a transaction~\cite{wood2014ethereum}.
\item \textit{Execution cost:} Indicates the portion of gas that is actually spent on running the code included in a transaction by the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) ~\cite{duan2019aggregating}.
\item \textit{Storage cost:} Denotes the cost of storing the data in blockchain.
\end{itemize}
Previous metrics can be translated to compute direct
monetary cost on both drivers and riders, and hence to assess the practicality of running our platform on public blockchain.
\subsubsection{Implementation and Results}
We have implemented a smart contract for Algorithm~\ref{alg1} in Solidity~\footnote{https://github.com/ethereum/solidity}. B-Ride~\footnote{We note that B-Ride contract in Algorithm~\ref{alg1} is coded as a single "factory contract" in which upon receiving a message with the variable arguments from both entities i.e., riders and drivers, will create a new instance of the child contracts Algorithm~\ref{alg2} and Algorithm~\ref{alg:paymentcontract}} is deployed into the public Kovan Etehreum test network~\cite{Kovan}. In B-Ride, verifying the ZKSM needs some intensive calculation in order to run mathematical and cryptographic functions required by the time-locked deposit protocol. However, implementing these functions in a high-level language, such as Solidity, would be costly in terms of gas. To mitigate this issue, we have deployed a \textit{precompiled contract} that implement these functions. By using a precompiled contracts, less gas is required, as the code is not run on the EVM, but rather on the machine hosting the Ethereum client~\cite{galal2018succinctly}. Typically, a precompiled contract has a fixed address and gas price, and can be invoked using the call operation. Table~6 gives the precompiled contracts used in this paper.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (tb2)
\begin{tabular}{m{1.4cm}m{1.4cm}m{3.1cm}m{3.7cm}}
\hline
Operation & Address & Gas cost & Description \T \B \\ \hline
\textsf{ECADD} & 0x06 & 500 &Elliptic curve addition. \T \B \\ \hline
\textsf{PAIRING} & 0x08 & 100000 + 80000 $\times k$ & Optimal ate pairing
check. \T \B \\ \hline
\textsf{ECMUL} & 0x07 & 40000 & Optimal ate pairing
check. \T \B \\
\Xhline{3\arrayrulewidth}
\end{tabular}};
\node[above=1.5ex,align=center] at (tb2.north) {\large TABLE 6: The precompiled contracts used in B-Ride.};
\node[below=0.2ex,align=left] at (tb2.south) {Note: in the \textsf{PAIRING}, $k$ denotes the number of points or, equivalently, the \\length of the input divided by 192. The other three operations act on the \\ elliptic curve alt\_bn128.};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\subfloat[On the rider side.\label{fig:a}]
{\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{figures/rider}}\hspace{15pt}
\subfloat[On the driver side.\label{fig:b}]
{\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{figures/driver}}
\caption{The estimated gas cost of calling contract functions on Kovan test net.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{figures/cost}
\vspace{0mm}
\caption{The momentary cost of the drivers versus the number of trips.}
\label{drivercost}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{figures/storage}
\vspace{0mm}
\caption{On-chain storage cost in B-Ride.}
\label{storage}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:a} gives the gas consumption per trip costs on the rider side. About 400K gas is required for publishing the bidding contract. Then, 80K gas is required to retrieve the drivers' offers. 320 K gas is needed to deploy the time-locked deposit contract. 340K gas is required for deploying the payment contract, and 42K gas is needed for calling the \texttt{ProofOfDistance} function to perform the fare payment.
Fig.~\ref{fig:b} reports the gas consumption required by a driver to complete a trip. 89K gas is required to send the encrypted offers to the bidding contract. Once the driver is selected by a rider, 25 Kgas wil be used to send the driver's deposit to the time-locked contract. Finally, the validation of the proof of the underlying ZKSM requires 360K gas.
Fig.~\ref{drivercost} gives the estimated total cost of driver versus the number of riders, given different gas prices 0.5, 5 and Gwei and Ether price \$217 as of June 25th, 2019\cite{gasstation}. Having 40 trips, the driver costs about \$ 2. By increasing the gas price, the driver costs increase to reach \$ 7.6 for completing 40 trips. The results clearly show that the cost is low and very affordable for the end users.
Fig.~\ref{storage} gives the storage overhead in \textit{Bytes} on the blockchain. Still, the associated storage cost is low and practically acceptable. For instance, with 7 submitted offers, the storage on the blockchain is about only 12 KBytes.
\subsubsection{Off-chain cost}
We evaluate the execution time of the off-chain operations on both the driver and rider side. Raspberry Pi 3 device with 1.2 GHz Processor and 1 GB RAM is used to emulate the driver/rider hardware. We employed BN128 pairing-friendly elliptic curves, that is available on Github~\cite{R15}, to estimate the computation overhead of the ZKSM protocol. The obtained results are summarized in Table 7, and show that the execution time of the off-chain operations takes less than a second. The results demonstrate that the use of ZKSM is adequate for the ride sharing use-case as the additional execution time is within the acceptable application overhead.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (tb2)
\begin{tabular}{|m{2.4cm}|m{2.4cm}|m{2.4cm}|}
\hline
Operations & Involved entity & Time (s) \\
\hline
ZKSM setup& Rider & 0.5 \\\hline
ZKSM Proof & Driver & 0.9 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
};
\node[above=1.5ex,align=center] at (tb2.north) {\large TABLE 7: Off-chain overhead.};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{figure}
\section{Security and privacy analysis}
\label{sec:analysis}
\smallskip
In this section, we discuss security and privacy concerns \textit{stemmed from decentralizing ride sharing services atop public blockchain} and how B-Ride deal with each of them.
\begin{enumerate}[label={}]
\item \textit{Ensuring correctness and efficiency}. In B-Ride, a rider have a trip while a driver receives the payment of the ride-fare, if and only if they follow the protocol under the following conditions: $(i)$ The blockchain network can be modelled as an ideal public ledger. $(ii)$ the public key encryption (used in the selection and bidding phase) is correct. $(iii)$ The underlying ZKSM satisfies completeness.
Regarding \textit{efficiency}, we note the \textit{on-chain} computation in terms of gas consumption and and storage are actually light. This is because of using precompiled contracts that can validate the proof of the ZKSM by checking a few pairing equalities.
\smallskip
\item \textit{Ensuring data confidentiality of riders' activities.} In B-Ride, all related public records of a rider are $(i)$ the ciphertexts of drivers offers $\{\mathcal{C}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{C}_n\}$, $(ii)$ the ZKSM proof $\pi$, and $(iii)$ the elapsed distances of the trip. The ciphertexts are simulatable due to the semantic security of the public key encryption, and also the proof $\pi$ can be simulated without knowing the secret value (i.e., the pick-up location of the rider) due to the \textit{zero-knowledge} property of the underlying zero knowledge set membership. For the elapsed distance, it cannot reveal any information since it is explicitly known to the rider and the driver.
\smallskip
\smallskip
\item \textit{Preserving riders' anonymity.} An adversary has three ways to break rider's anonymity: $(i)$ link requests/offers of a driver/rider through his/her blockchain addresses; $(ii)$ link rider/driver through the proofs of arrival sent by the driver; and $(iii)$ link driver/rider in the payment phase.
The first case is trivial, just because the rider will interact with a randomly generated \textit{one-request-only} blockchain address as well as the corresponding public key. For the second case, the anonymity of the rider can be stemmed from the zero-knowledge property of the underlying ZKSM. Besides, the rider can change the set elements of the ZKSM each time he/she looks for a trip. This is allowed due to the feature of the ride-sharing model in which the rider can walk to reach the driver. The last threat is mitigated since only the elapsed distances of the trip public and no other information about the rider destination is leaked to others. In all three cases, the riders' anonymity is preserved.
\smallskip
\item \textit{Ensuring security against a malicious driver.} The ways that malicious drivers can cheat are: $(i)$ submitting multiple offers to deliberately let riders have fake reserved trips to make the system unreliable; $(ii)$ providing a valid proof to pick-up location to claim the rider' deposit while not starting the trip with him; and $(iii)$ unfair payment. The first threat is prohibited since the driver has to add a deposit to the time-locked deposit contract within a specific time defined by the smart contract. If the driver does not provide a proof of arrival to the pick-up location, he/she would lose his deposit. The second threat is mitigated by the soundness of the underlying zkSM, which means any incorrect instruction to pass the verification in the smart contract, directly violates the proof-of-knowledge. Moreover, our system builds a reputation system for the driver to indicate their commitment and good willing to complete the planned trips. In the worst case scenario where a malicious driver gets the trip deposit and does not complete the trip, the driver's reputation score of arriving at the pick-up location will increase significantly with his/her reputation score of completed trips.
The third threat is handled by allowing the rider to check the distance provided by the driver before the actual fare is paid.
\smallskip
\item \textit{Ensuring security against a malicious rider.} A malicious rider misbehave by three ways: $(i)$ submit multiple requests to intentionally make fake reservations; $(ii)$ cheat in the ZKSM set-up phase by providing a set $\phi$ with fake signatures of the set elements in the ZKSM in order to deter the driver from claiming his/her trip deposit; $(iii)$ cheat in \textit {payment} phase by providing a forged elapsed distance that is not actually travelled. The first case is mitigated since a driver accepts to share a trip with a rider only if the later adds a ride-deposit to the time-locked deposit smart contract. The second threat is prevented because the time-locked smart contract is public, and the driver can validate the ZKSM set-up using the digital signatures. The last issue is mitigated due to the public blockchain that enables the driver to check whether the rider provides a valid elapsed distance to the payment contract.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{comment}
\subsection{B-Ride have the following security/privacy features}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Enable decentralized ride-sharing service.} Thanks to the blockchain technology, no single entity or authority is required to monopolize the system for its own benefit or even to some drivers than others. Moreover, the selection process of drivers and riders works as a distributed auction that is handled over the blockchain that ensures transparency for both entities. Also, B-Ride uses smart contracts which are immutable and tamper-proof that no party can alter their code or interfere with their execution without the consent of all the nodes in the network.
\item \textit{Preserve privacy of riders' activities.} In B-Ride, the privacy of riders (their ride requests including the pick-up, drop-off and pick-up times) is protected by $(i)$ replacing the rider's real identities by some placeholders (pseudonyms) for ride requests that correspond to temporary public-private key pairs. The pseudonym expires once the rider finishes a ride request to the blockchain which ensures \textit{unlinkabilty}. $(ii)$ The use of generalization/cloaking technique in the bidding and selection phase, preserves the rider trip information. As the size of the generalized area increases, the privacy of a ride request is well preserved.
\item \textit{Achieves backward privacy.} B-Ride prevents an adversary with a \textit{background knowledege} of a specific rider pick-up location (for example, his/her home or work address) to discover information about his/her trip or track him over time (This is known as \textit{backward privacy}). This is because drivers offers are encrypted by the rider temporary public key which changes for each ride request. $(iii)$ Also, by using zero-knowledge set membership proof allows the driver (the prover) to prove to the blockchain that the pick-up location is in the predefined set defined by the rider with conceals the exact location to the blockchain (verifier).
\item \textit{Ensure prior trust between drivers and riders.} In B-Ride, both the rider and the selected driver should lock deposits to a time-locked deposit contract. By this way, anonymous riders are encouraged to commit to thier ride requests since they lose their deposit if they do not commit to the request. Also, a driver who does not proof his/her arrival to the pick-up location is penalized.
\item \textit{Achieves fair service payment.} B-Ride enables payment in a trust-less manner between the rider and driver without involvement of any third parties/intermediaries. Both the rider is aware of the elapsed distance and the payment will be done in case of both parties agree on it. If a dishonest rider stops sending the proof that they are together, no payment can be done and the driver can stop the ride. Also, since the blockchain is tamper-proof, the fair payment smart contract is executed and the promised fare will be delivered if the suitable proof will be provided.
\item \textit{Achieves Reputation managment of drivers.} B-Ride builds a reputation managment system that is designed such that rational drivers (even if purely selfish ones) are interested in honestly cooperating in the system. Due to the tamper-proof nature of the blockchain, driver reputation history can not be tampered with. Unlike centralized managment systems, our management is controlled by conditions defined by smart contracts. Therefore, selfish drivers who wants to deviate from our system will be identified by low trust values. Also, our reputation mechanism is robust against tampering attacks in centralized setting where the third party can even unfairly change a driver reputation positively or negatively.
\item \textit{Discourage double reservation attack.} An anonymous rider can not accept a ride twice since accepting an offer requires the rider to lock coins to the time-locked deposit contract. If a rider accepts two offers, he/she has to lose his/her deposits.
\end{enumerate}
\end{comment}
\section{Related work}
\label{Related}
Ride-sharing received a lot of attention in the literature~\cite{asghari2016price,Lightride}. Security and privacy in the centralized setting (client-server model) of ride-sharing service is discussed in~\cite{pham2017oride,rigby2013opportunistic}. Some companies starts developing a blockchain based ride sharing platform e.g., DACSEE~\cite{DACSEE} Arcade City~\cite{ArcadeCity} but without location privacy or anonymity. In the following, we review some of the existing solutions.
In the centralized-setting, in \cite{aivodji2018sride}, SRide has been proposed to address the matching between between drivers and riders in ride-sharing systems while protecting the privacy
of users against both the service provider and curious users. The service provider uses a filtering protocol based on homomorphic arithmetic secret sharing and secure two-party equality
test to determine the subset of drivers with whom the rider can travel.
In~~\cite{sanchez2016co}, a decentralized ride sharing scheme has been proposed. The idea is to use a peer to peer ride-sharing management network instead of the service provider where the peers are the drivers and riders themselves. However, The scheme does not preserve the riders' privacy since the driver and the passenger(s) whose trips match should learn each other's real identity. By linking identities, the rider can be tracked over time and too much information about a specific rider can be obtained. Moreover, the scheme lacks transparency that is provided by the blockchain in B-Ride.
In~\cite{yuan2016towards}, a general blockchain-based intelligent transportation framework is proposed. Also, a case study is presented to discuss the impact of using blockchain in real-time ride-sharing services. Semenko et al.~\cite{semenko2019distributed} proposed a distributed platform for ride-sharing services. The authors suggest having an overlay network that includes all ride-sharing agencies called service nodes to constitute the network layer. The service node is responsible for matching drivers with riders. However, the platform needs trusted infrastructure to run it, and hence may fail in case of one service node is compromised which in turn will lead to inherent problems in the client-server model. Meng et al.~\cite{li2018efficient} proposed a ride-sharing scheme using vehicular fog computing. Road Side Units (RSUs) installed at roads enable local matching between riders and drivers. Anonymous authentication is used to authenticate users while recovering malicious users real identities. A private blockchain made of RSUs is presented to record ride-sharing data in an immutable ledger to enable data auditability. However, using limited resources devices such as RSUs to store massive records of ride-sharing data may be impractical especially in urban areas where there is a high demand to ride-sharing services.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusion}
In this paper, we have proposed to decentralize ride sharing services using the revolutionary public blockchain named B-Ride. Analysis, and experiments were conducted to evaluate B-Ride. The results indicate that B-Ride is practical in terms of both on-chain and off-chain overheads. Moreover, it shows the practicability to resolve two main objectives in the
use-case of the decentralized ride sharing atop public
blockchain: one between the transparency and privacy and the other one between the accountability of system users' and anonymity. The proposed time-locked deposit protocol ensures security against malicious behaviours of both dishonest drivers/riders. In addition, the proposed reputation management system tracks drivers' behaviour in B-Ride, allowing them to behave honestly in the system. Otherwise, they will not be selected for future trips. Finally, the rider will have a trip and the driver get the fare in a trust-less environment using the pay-as-you-drive methodology.
\section{Acknowledgement}
\label{Ack}
This work was partially supported by the US National Science Foundation under Grant number 1618549. The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
Video combines structured spatial and temporal information in high dimensions. The strong spatio-temporal dependencies among consecutive frames in video greatly increases the difficulty of modeling. For instance, it is challenging to effectively separate moving objects from background, and predict a plausible future movement of the former~\cite{chao2017forecasting,henaff2017prediction,villegas2017decomposing,vondrick2017generating,walker2016uncertain,xue2016visual}. Though video is large in size and complex to model, video prediction is a task that can leverage the extensive online video data without the need of human labeling. Learning a good video predictor is an essential step toward understanding spatio-temporal modeling. These concepts can also be applied to various tasks, like weather forecasting, traffic-flow prediction, and disease control~\cite{wang2017deepsd,wang2018will,wang2016etcps}.
The recurrent neural network (RNN) is a widely used framework for spatio-temporal modeling. In most existing works, motion is estimated by the subtraction of two consecutive frames and the background is encoded by a convolutional neural network (CNN)~\cite{cai2017deep,patraucean2015spatio,villegas2017decomposing,villegas2017learning}. The CNN ensures spatial consistency, while temporal consistency is considered by the recurrent units, encouraging motion to smoothly progress through time. However, information in two consecutive frames is usually insufficient to learn the dynamics. Using 3D convolution to generate future frames can avoid these problems~\cite{vondrick2016generating,vondrick2017generating}, although generating videos by 3D-convolution usually lacks sharpness.
We propose a Leaked Motion Video Predictor (LMVP) for robust future-frame prediction. LMVP generates the prediction in an adversarial framework: we use a generative network to predict next video frames, and a discriminative network to judge the generated video clips.
For the motion part, we propose to learn the dynamics by introducing a motion guider, connecting the generator and the discriminator. The motion guider learns the motion feature through training on real video clips, and guides the prediction process by providing possible motion features. At the same time, in contrast with estimating motions by subtracting two consecutive frames, we allow the discriminator to leak high-level extracted dynamic features to the motion guider to further help the prediction. Such dynamic features provide more informative guidance about dynamics to the generator. The spatial dependencies of video are imposed by a convolutional filter network conditioned on the current frame. This idea is inspired by a conventional signal processing technique named adaptive filter, which can increase the flexibility of the neural network~\cite{jia2016dynamic}. It is assumed that, each pixel of the predicted frame is a nonlinear function of the neighborhood pixels of the current one, where the nonlinear function is implemented via LMVP as a deep neural network.
\vspace{-2mm}
\section{Models}\label{sec:models}
\vspace{-2mm}
The video frames are represented as $\bm x \in \mathbb{R}^{T \times H \times W \times C}$, where $T$ is the total number of frames, $H$ is the frame height, $W$ is the width and $C$ is the channel number. Given the first $T_0$ ($T_0 < T$) frames, the task is to predict the following $T-T_0$ frames. $\bm x_t$ and $\hat{\bm x}_t$ represent for real and predicted video frame at time $t$, respectively. The model framework is given in Figure~\ref{fig:framework}. It mainly contains a generator $G$, a motion guider $M$, and a discriminator $D$. $D$ distinguishes between the real and predicted video clips. $M$ learns the temporal dependencies among the video through the features leaked from $D$, and generator $G$ uses the output of motion guider $M$ to predict the next frame based on the current.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{framework-nips-workshop.png
\caption{Model Framework.}\label{fig:framework}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-5mm}
\subsection{Leaked Features from $D$ as Motion Signals}\label{subsec:discriminator}
The discriminator $D$ (shown in top of Figure~\ref{fig:framework}) is designed as both a discriminator and a motion feature extractor. The bottom layers of $D$ is a feature extractor $F(\cdot; \bm \theta_F)$, followed by several convolutional and fully connected layers to classify real/fake samples, parameterized by $\bm \theta_C$. Mathematically, given input video clips $\bm x_{t-c:t}$, we have $D(\bm x_{t-c:t}; \bm \theta_D) = \text{CNN}(F(\bm x_{t-c:t}; \bm \theta_F); \bm \theta_C)$,
where $\bm \theta_D = \{ \bm \theta_F, \bm \theta_C \}$. The extracted motion feature from $\bm x_{t-c:t}$ is denoted as $\bm f_t^d=F(\bm x_{t-c:t};\bm \theta_F)$, which is the input of motion guider $M$.
The feature extractor $F$ is implemented as a convolutional network. The output $\bm f_t^d$ is expected to capture motion from $\bm x_{t-c:t}$. The difference between $\bm f_{t+1}^d$ and $\bm f_{t}^d$ is treated as the dynamic motion feature between two consecutive frames, which is denoted as $\bm m_t$. In contrast of the direct subtraction of two consecutive frames~\cite{villegas2017decomposing}, our dynamic motion feature is extracted from two consecutive video clips of length $c$. Since previous video frames are also included, it can still give reasonable output even if the model fails at previous time step. The discriminator loss can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discr_loss}
\mathcal{L}_{dis} (\bm \theta_D) = -\mathbb{E}_x[\log D(\bm x; \bm \theta_D)] - \mathbb{E}_{\hat{x}} [\log (1 - D(\hat{\bm x}; \bm \theta_D))].
\end{equation}
\subsection{Learning and teaching game of $M$}\label{subsec:motion_guide}
To utilize the leaked motion information $\bm f_t^d$ from $D$, we introduce a motion guider module $M$, which is inspired by the leaky GAN model~\cite{guo2017long} for text generation task.
The structure of $M$ is displayed in the green dotted box in Figure~\ref{fig:framework}.
$M$ has a recurrent structure that takes the extracted motion feature $\bm f_t^d$ as input at each time step $t$, and outputs a predicted motion feature $\hat{\bm m}_t$.
Specifically, the motion guider plays two roles in the model: learner and teacher.
As a learner, $M$ learns the motion in video via leaked feature from $D$ from real video. At time step $t$, $M$ receives the leaked information $\bm f_t^d$ exacted by $D$, and predicts the dynamic motion feature between time $t$ and $t+1$, by forcing $\hat{\bm m}_t = M(\bm f_t^d; \bm \theta_M)$ close to $\bm m_t = \bm f_{t+1}^d - \bm f_{t}^d$.
Denoting the parameters of the motion guider as $\bm \theta_M$, the learner loss function can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:motion_guide_loss}
\mathcal{L}_{M}^L(\bm \theta_M) = \sum_t|| M(\bm f_t^d; \bm \theta_M) - (\bm f_{t+1}^d - \bm f_{t}^d )||_2^2.
\end{equation}
Note that only real video samples are used to update $\bm \theta_M$. The superscript $L$ means ``Leaner''.
As a teacher, $M$ serves as a guider by providing predicted dynamic motion features to $G$.
During this step, $\bm \theta_M$ is fixed while the generator is updated under the guidance of $M$. Given the leaked features $\hat{\bm f}_t^d=F(\hat{\bm x}_{t-c:t};\theta_F)$ of predicted data $\hat{\bm x}_{t-c:t}$ at time $t$, the output $\hat{\bm m}_t = M(\hat{\bm f}_{t}^d; \bm \theta_M)$ serves as an input to the generator to predict the next frame $\hat{\bm x}_{t+1}$. This is detailed in the next section.
Since the dynamic motion feature is extracted from a real \emph{video clip} instead of a single frame, $M$ is robust against fail predictions at previous time step, i.e., even if the previous predicted frame diverges from the ground truth.
\subsection{Generating the next frame under guide from $M$}\label{subsec:predictor}
The structure of the generator is shown at the bottom of Figure~\ref{fig:framework}. It contains a spatial feature encoder, a temporal feature encoder, and a filter network. The spatial feature encoder is designed to learn the static background structure $\bm f_t^s$, while temporal feature $\bm f_t^m$ are computed from dynamic motion feature $\hat{\bm m}_t$. Note that only predicted samples have their motion guider output $\hat{\bm m}_t$ flow back to the generator. The spatio-temporal features $\bm f_t^s$ and $\bm f_t^m$ are concatenated and further fed into the filter network. The next frame is predicted by applying the generated adaptive filter from $[\bm f_t^s, \bm f_t^m]$ on the current frame. This technique is also known as visual transformation~\cite{vondrick2017generating}.
As mentioned in Section~\ref{subsec:motion_guide}, $M$ is updated during the learning step. When generating the next frame $\hat{\bm x}_{t+1}$ in the teaching step, $M$ is fixed and outputs the motion guide $\hat{\bm m}_t$.
Specifically, to ensure $G$ generates the next frames following the guidance of $M$, the dynamic motion feature between the generated video clips at time $t+1$ and $t$, which is denoted as $\hat{\bm f}_{t+1}^d - \hat{\bm f}_t^d$, should be close to $\hat{\bm m}_t$ from $M$. Then, the generator is updated by minimizing the following loss function:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:motion_guide_fake}
\mathcal{L}_{M}^T(\bm \theta_G) = \sum_t \|\left( F (\left[\hat{\bm x}_{t-c+1:t}, G(\hat{\bm x}_{t}, \hat{\bm m}_t ; \bm \theta_G)\right]) - \hat{\bm f}^d_{t} \right) - \hat{\bm m}_t \|_2^2 ,
\end{equation}
where $\bm \theta_G$ includes all parameters in the generator $G$. The gradient is taken w.r.t $\bm \theta_G$, while $\hat{\bm f}_t^d$ and $\hat{\bm m}_t$ are treated as inputs. Note that $\hat{\bm x}_{t}$ and $\hat{\bm f}_t^d$ are the predicted output and leaked motion feature from time step $t$, respectively. The superscript $T$ in $\mathcal{L}_{M}^T$ indicates $M$ as a ``Teacher''.
The total loss function for the generator is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gen_loss}
\mathcal{L}_{gen}(\bm \theta_G) = \mathcal{L}_{recons}(\bm \theta_G) + \gamma \mathcal{L}_{M}^T(\bm \theta_G).
\end{equation}
$\mathcal{L}_{recons}$ is the reconstruction loss function of $\bm x_{t+1}, \hat{\bm x}_{t+1}$, including a pixel-wise cross-entropy/MSE loss and the gradient difference loss (GDL)~\cite{mathieu2015deep}.
The whole model is updated iteratively for each component. A pseudo-algorithm is given in Alg.~\ref{alg:lmvp} in the Appendix. The discriminator loss~\eqref{eq:discr_loss} is first evaluated and $\bm \theta_D$ is updated. Then the motion guider parameters $\bm \theta_M$ are updated using only real samples of $\bm x$. The generated parameters $\bm \theta_G$ is updated using loss function~\eqref{eq:gen_loss}.
In practice, Adam~\cite{kingma2014adam} is used to perform the gradient descent optimization.
\begin{wraptable}{r}{0.5\textwidth}
\vspace{-6mm}
\centering
\resizebox{.5\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\hline
& BCE & SSIM & PSNR \\
\hline
ConvLSTM \cite{xingjian2015convolutional} & $8.96 \times 10^{-2}$ & $0.61$ & $10.74$ \\
\hline
FPM \cite{srivastava2015unsupervised} & $8.33 \times 10^{-2}$ & - & - \\
\hline
DFN \cite{jia2016dynamic} & $6.89 \times 10^{-2}$ & $0.83$ & $18.4$ \\
\hline
LMVP & \textbf{$6.13 \times 10^{-2}$} & $0.87$ & $19.6$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Binary cross-entropy, SSIM and PSNR scores results on Moving MNIST dataset.}
\label{tab:MNIST_result}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{wraptable}
\section{Experiments} \label{sec:experiments}
\textbf{Moving MNIST}: Each video in the Moving MNIST dataset~\cite{srivastava2015unsupervised} has $20$ frames in total, with two handwritten digits bouncing inside a $64 \times 64$ patch. Given $10$ frames, the task is to predict the motion of the digits of the following $10$ frames. We follow the same training and testing procedure as~\cite{srivastava2015unsupervised}. Evaluation metrics include Binary Cross Entropy (BCE), Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR), and Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM)~\cite{wang2004image} between the ground truth $\bm x$ and the prediction $\hat{\bm x}$. Small values of BCE or large values of SSIM and PSNR indicate good prediction results. In this task, we need to keep the digit shape the same across time (spatial consistency) while giving them reasonable movements (temporal consistency).
Table \ref{tab:MNIST_result} gives the comparison of LMVP and baseline models. The BCE of LMVP achieves $0.061$ per pixel over $10$ frames, which is better than state-of-the-art models~\cite{xingjian2015convolutional,srivastava2015unsupervised,jia2016dynamic,villegas2017decomposing}. The predictions from LMVP and DFN~\cite{jia2016dynamic} are shown in Figure \ref{fig:visual}. Input is given in the first row, followed by ground truth of the output, and results from DFN model and our LMVP model. To prove that our model has consistently good result in to the future, Figure \ref{fig:evaluations} in the Appendix gives the SSIM and PSNR comparison over $(t=T_0+1,\cdots,T)$. LMVP achieves higher SSIM and PSNR scores than other baseline models through all time steps.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{comp-small.jpg}
\caption{Two prediction examples for the Moving MNIST dataset. From top to down: concatenation of input and ground truth, prediction result of DFN, and prediction result of our model.}
\label{fig:visual}
\end{figure}
\begin{wraptable}{r}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\hline
& MSE & SSIM & PSNR \\
\hline
{Last Frame} & $10.34 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.83$ & $22.11$ \\
\hline
DFN \cite{jia2016dynamic} & $3.08 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.92$ & $26.95$ \\
\hline
LMVP & $2.67 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.927$ & $27.23$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{MSE (per pixel), SSIM and PSNR scores results on highway driving video dataset.}
\label{tab:highway}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{wraptable}
\textbf{Highway Drive}:
The dataset contains videos were collected from a car-mounted camera during car driving on a highway. The videos contain rich temporal dynamics, including both self-motion of the car and the motion of other objects in the scene~\cite{lotter2016deep}. Following the setting used in \cite{jia2016dynamic}, we split the approximately $20,000$ frames of the $30$-minutes video into a training set of $16,000$ frames and a test set of $4,000$ frames. Each frame is of size $64 \times 64$. The task is to predict three frames in the future given the past three.
The prediction results are compared in Table~\ref{tab:highway} and two samples from the test set are selected in Figure \ref{fig:highway_comp}. In the prediction results of DFN, the rail of the guidepost becomes curving. However, in the prediction results of LMVP, the rail keeps straight in the first and second predicted frames. To help the visual comparison, this part has been highlighted by a red circle.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{highway_comp_cir-small.png}
\caption{Qualitative prediction examples for the highway driving video dataset. From top to down, left to right: concatenation of input and ground truth, prediction result of DFN, and prediction result of our LMVP.}
\label{fig:highway_comp}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-7mm}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
We have proposed the Leaked Motion Video Predictor (LMVP) to handle the spatio-temporal consistency in video prediction. For the dynamics in video, the motion guider learns motion features from real data and guides the prediction. Since the motion guider learns features from video sequences, it is more robust compared to using only single frames as input. For structures of the background, the adaptive filter generates input-aware filters when predicting the next frame, ensuring spatial consistency. Further, A discriminator is adopted to further improve the prediction result. On both synthetic and real datasets, LMVP shows superior results over the state-of-the-art approaches.
\bibliographystyle{plainalt}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
Video combines structured spatial and temporal information in high dimensions. The strong spatio-temporal dependencies among consecutive frames in video greatly increases the difficulty of modeling. For instance, it is challenging to effectively separate moving objects from background, and predict a plausible future movement of the former~\cite{vondrick2017generating,villegas2017decomposing,chao2017forecasting,xue2016visual,henaff2017prediction,walker2016uncertain}. Though video is large in size and complex to model, video prediction is a task that can leverage the extensive online video data without the need of human labeling. Learning a good video predictor is an essential step toward understanding spatio-temporal modeling. These concepts can also be applied to various tasks, like weather forecasting, traffic-flow prediction, and disease control.
The recurrent neural network (RNN) is a widely used framework for spatio-temporal modeling. In most existing works, motion is estimated by the subtraction of two consecutive frames and the background is encoded by a convolutional neural network (CNN)~\cite{villegas2017decomposing,cai2017deep,villegas2017learning,patraucean2015spatio}. The CNN ensures spatial consistency, while temporal consistency is considered by the recurrent units, encouraging motion to smoothly progress through time. However, information in two consecutive frames is usually insufficient to learn the dynamics. Using 3D convolution to generate future frames can avoid these problems~\cite{vondrick2016generating,vondrick2017generating}, although generating videos by 3D-convolution usually lacks sharpness.
We propose a Leaked Motion Video Predictor (LMVP) for robust future-frame prediction. LMVP generates the prediction in an adversarial framework: we use a generative network to predict next video frames, and a discriminative network to judge the generated video clips.
For the motion part, we propose to learn the dynamics by introducing a motion guider, connecting the generator and the discriminator. The motion guider learns the motion feature through training on real video clips, and guides the prediction process by providing possible motion features. At the same time, in contrast with estimating motions by subtracting two consecutive frames, we allow the discriminator to leak high-level extracted dynamic features to the motion guider to further help the prediction. Such dynamic features provide more informative guidance about dynamics to the generator. The spatial dependencies of video are imposed by a convolutional filter network conditioned on the current frame. This idea is inspired by a conventional signal processing technique named adaptive filter, which can increase the flexibility of the neural network~\cite{jia2016dynamic}. Mathematically, each pixel of the predicted frame is a nonlinear function of the neighborhood pixels of the current one, where the nonlinear function is implemented via LMVP as a deep neural network.
\vspace{-2mm}
\section{Models}\label{sec:models}
\vspace{-2mm}
The video frames are represented as $\bm x \in \mathbb{R}^{T \times H \times W \times C}$, where $T$ is the total number of frames, $H$ is the frame height, $W$ is the width and $C$ is the channel number. Given the first $T_0$ ($T_0 < T$) frames, the task is to predict the following $T-T_0$ frames. $\bm x_t$ and $\hat{\bm x}_t$ represent for real and predicted video frame at time $t$, respectively. The model framework is given in Figure~\ref{fig:framework}. It mainly contains a generator $G$, a motion guider $M$, and a discriminator $D$. $D$ distinguishes between the real and predicted video clips. $M$ learns the temporal dependencies among the video through the features leaked from $D$, while generator $G$ uses the current video frame and the output of motion guider $M$ to predict the next frame.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figures/framework-nips-workshop.png
\caption{Model Framework.}\label{fig:framework}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-5mm}
\subsection{Leaked Features from $D$ as Motion Signals}\label{subsec:discriminator}
The discriminator $D$ (shown in top of Figure~\ref{fig:framework}) is designed as both a discriminator and a motion feature extractor. The bottom layers of $D$ is a feature extractor $F(\cdot)$, followed by a classifier between real/fake samples, parameterized by $\bm \theta_C$. Mathematically, given input video clips $\bm x_{t-c:t}$, we have $D(\bm x_{t-c:t}; \bm \theta_D) = \text{CNN}(F(\bm x_{t-c:t}; \bm \theta_F); \bm \theta_C)$,
where $\bm \theta_D = (\bm \theta_F, \bm \theta_C)$. The extracted motion feature from $\bm x_{t-c:t}$ is denoted $\bm f_t^d=F(\bm x_{t-c:t};\bm \theta_F)$, which is the input of motion guider $M$.
The feature extractor $F$ is implemented as a convolutional network. The output $\bm f_t^d$ is expected to capture motion from $\bm x_{t-c:t}$. The difference $\bm f_{t+1}^d-\bm f_{t}^d$ is treated as the motion feature between two consecutive frames. In contrast of the direct subtraction of two consecutive frames~\cite{villegas2017decomposing}, our motion feature is extracted from two video clips of length $c$. Since it also uses previous video frames, it provides a much more informative guidance signal about dynamics, as well as alleviating the error even if the current prediction fails. Mathematically, the discriminator loss can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discr_loss}
\mathcal{L}_{dis} (\theta_D) = -\mathbb{E}_x[\log D(\bm x; \theta_D)] - \mathbb{E}_{\hat{x}} [\log (1 - D(\hat{\bm x}; \theta_D))].
\end{equation}
\subsection{Learning and teaching game of $M$}\label{subsec:motion_guide}
To utilize the leaked motion information $\bm f_t^d$ from $D$, we introduce a motion guider module $M$, which is inspired by the leaky GAN model~\cite{guo2017long}.
The structure of $M$ is displayed in the green dotted box in Figure~\ref{fig:framework}.
$M$ has a recurrent structure that takes the extracted feature vector $\bm f_t^d$ as input at each time step $t$, and outputs a predicted motion feature $\bm m_t$
Specifically, the motion guider plays two roles in the model: learner and teacher.
As a learner, $M$ learns the motion in video via leaked feature from $D$ with real video. At time step $t$, $M$ receives the leaked information $\bm f_t^d$ exacted by $D$, and predicts the motion difference between the video clip of time $t$ and $t+1$, by forcing $\bm m_t = M(\bm f_t^d; \bm \theta_M)$ close to $\bm f_{t+1}^d - \bm f_{t}^d$.
Denoting the parameters of the motion guider as $\bm \theta_M$, the learner loss function can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:motion_guide_loss}
\mathcal{L}_{M}^L(\bm f_{t+1}^d, \bm f_{t}^d) = \sum_t|| \bm f_{t+1}^d - (\bm f_{t}^d + M(\bm f_t^d; \bm \theta_M))||_2^2.
\end{equation}
Note that only real video samples are used to update $\bm \theta_M$. The superscript $L$ means ``Leaner''.
As a teacher, $M$ serves as a guider by providing predicted dynamic motion features to $G$.
During this step, $\theta_M$ is fixed while the generator is updated under the guidance of $M$. Given the leaked features $\hat{\bm f}_t^d=F(\hat{\bm x}_{t-c:t};\theta_F)$ of predicted data $\hat{\bm x}_{t-c:t}$ at time $t$, the output $\hat{\bm m}_t = M(\hat{\bm f}_{t}^d; \bm \theta_M)$ serves as a input to the generator to calculate the next frame $\hat{\bm x}_{t+1}$. This is detailed in the next section.
Since the dynamic motion feature is extracted from a real \emph{video clip} instead of a single frame, $M$ can help alleviate error accumulation, even if the previous predicted frame diverges from the ground truth.
\subsection{Generating the next frame under guide from $M$}\label{subsec:predictor}
The structure of the generator is shown at the bottom of Figure~\ref{fig:framework}. It contains a spatial feature encoder, a temporal feature encoder, and a filter network. The spatial feature encoder is designed to learn the static background structure $\bm f_t^s$, while temporal feature $\bm f_t^m$ are computed from dynamic motion feature $\hat{\bm m}_t$. Note that only predicted samples have their motion guider output $\hat{\bm m}_t$ flow back to the generator. The spatio-temporal features $\bm f_t^s$ and $\bm f_t^m$ are concatenated and further fed into the filter network. The next frame is predicted by applying the generated adaptive filter on the current frame. This technique is also known as visual transformation in~\cite{vondrick2017generating}.
As mentioned in Section~\ref{subsec:motion_guide}, the $M$ is updated during the learning step while fixed during teaching step. When generating the next frame $\hat{\bm x}_{t+1}$, $M$ is fixed and outputs the motion guide $\hat{\bm m}_t$. Specifically, to ensure $G$ generates the next frames following the guidance of $M$, the feature $\hat{\bm f}_{t+1}^d$ of the generated frame $\hat{\bm x}_{t+1} = G(\hat{\bm x}_{t} ; \bm \theta_G)$ should be close to the feature taught by the guider $\hat{\bm m}_t + \hat{\bm f}^d_{t}$, the generator is updated by minimizing the following loss function:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:motion_guide_fake}
\mathcal{L}_{M}^T(\bm \theta_G, \bm \theta_F) = \sum_t \|\left( F\left(\left[\hat{\bm x}_{t-c+1:t}, G(\hat{\bm x}_{t} ; \bm \theta_G)\right] ;\bm \theta_F \right) - \left(\hat{\bm f}^d_{t} + \hat{\bm m}_t \right) \right) \|_2^2 ,
\end{equation}
where $\bm \theta_G$ includes all parameters in the generator $G$. Note that $\hat{\bm x}_{t}$ and $\hat{\bm f}_t^d$ are the predicted output and leaked motion feature from time step $t-1$. The superscript $T$ in $\mathcal{L}_{M}^T$ indicates $M$ as a ``Teacher''.
The total loss function for the generator is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gen_loss}
\mathcal{L}_{gen}(\bm x_{t+1}, \hat{\bm x}_{t+1}) = \mathcal{L}_{recons}(\bm x_{t+1}, \hat{\bm x}_{t+1}) + \gamma \mathcal{L}_{M}^T.
\end{equation}
$\mathcal{L}_{recons}$ is the reconstruction loss, including a pixel-wise cross-entropy/MSE loss and the gradient difference loss (GDL)~\cite{mathieu2015deep}.
The whole model is updated iteratively for each component. A pseudo-algorithm is given in Alg.~\ref{alg:lmvp} in the Appendix. The discriminator loss~\eqref{eq:discr_loss} is first evaluated and $\bm \theta_D$ is updated. Then the motion guider parameters $\bm \theta_M$ are updated using only real samples of $\bm x$. The generated parameters $\bm \theta_G$, together with the leaked feature extractor parameters $\bm \theta_F$ are updated using loss function~\eqref{eq:gen_loss}. In practice, Adam~\cite{kingma2014adam} is used to perform the gradient descent optimization.
\section{Experiments} \label{sec:experiments}
\begin{wraptable}{r}{0.5\textwidth}
\vspace{-4mm}
\centering
\resizebox{.5\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\hline
& BCE & SSIM & PSNR \\
\hline
ConvLSTM \cite{xingjian2015convolutional} & $8.96 \times 10^{-2}$ & $0.61$ & $10.74$ \\
\hline
FPM \cite{srivastava2015unsupervised} & $8.33 \times 10^{-2}$ & - & - \\
\hline
DFN \cite{jia2016dynamic} & $6.89 \times 10^{-2}$ & $0.83$ & $18.4$ \\
\hline
LMVP & \textbf{$6.13 \times 10^{-2}$} & $0.87$ & $19.6$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Binary cross-entropy, SSIM and PSNR scores results on Moving MNIST dataset.}
\label{tab:MNIST_result}
\end{wraptable}
\textbf{Moving MNIST}: Each video in the Moving MNIST dataset~\cite{srivastava2015unsupervised} is $20$ frames long, with two handwritten digits bouncing inside a $64 \times 64$ patch. Given $10$ frames, the task is to predict the motion of the digits of the following $10$ frames. We follow the same training and testing procedure as~\cite{srivastava2015unsupervised}. Evaluation metrics include Binary Cross Entropy (BCE), Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR), and Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM)~\cite{wang2004image} between the ground truth $\bm x$ and the prediction $\hat{\bm x}$. Small values of BCE or large values of SSIM and PSNR indicate good prediction results. In this task, we need to keep the digit shape the same across time (spatial consistency) while giving them reasonable movements (temporal consistency).
Table \ref{tab:MNIST_result} gives the comparison of LMVP and baseline models. The BCE of LMVP achieves $0.061$ per pixel over $10$ frames, which is better than state-of-the-art models~\cite{xingjian2015convolutional,srivastava2015unsupervised,jia2016dynamic,villegas2017decomposing}. The predictions from LMVP and DFN~\cite{jia2016dynamic} are shown in Figure \ref{fig:visual}. Input is given in the first row, followed by ground truth of the output, and results from DFN model and our LMVP model. To prove that our model has consistently good result in to the future, Figure \ref{fig:evaluations} in the Appendix gives the SSIM and PSNR comparison over $(t=T_0+1,\cdots,T)$. LMVP achieves higher SSIM and PSNR scores than other baseline models through all time steps.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Figures/comp-small.jpg}
\caption{Two prediction examples for the Moving MNIST dataset. From top to down: concatenation of input and ground truth, prediction result of DFN, and prediction result of our model.}
\label{fig:visual}
\end{figure}
\begin{wraptable}{r}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\hline
& MSE & SSIM & PSNR \\
\hline
{Last Frame} & $10.34 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.83$ & $22.11$ \\
\hline
DFN \cite{jia2016dynamic} & $3.08 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.92$ & $26.95$ \\
\hline
LMVP & $2.67 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.927$ & $27.23$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{MSE (per pixel), SSIM and PSNR scores results on highway driving video dataset.}
\label{tab:highway}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{wraptable}
\textbf{Highway Drive}:
We next test the proposed model on the highway driving data. The videos were collected from a car-mounted camera during car driving on a highway. This dataset contains rich temporal dynamics, including both self-motion of the car and the motion of other objects in the scene~\cite{lotter2016deep}. Following the setting in \cite{jia2016dynamic}, we split the approximately $20,000$ frames of the $30$-minutes video into a training set of $16,000$ frames and a test set of $4,000$ frames. Each frame is of size $64 \times 64$. The task is to predict three frames in the future given the past three.
The prediction results are compared in Table~\ref{tab:highway} and two samples from the test set are selected in Figure \ref{fig:highway_comp}. In the prediction results of DFN, the rail of the guidepost becomes curving. However, in the prediction results of LMVP, the rail keeps straight in the first and second predicted frames. To help the visual comparison, this part has been highlighted by a red circle.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{./Figures/highway_comp_cir-small.png}
\caption{Qualitative prediction examples for the highway driving video dataset. From top to down: concatenation of input and ground truth, prediction result of DFN, and prediction result of our LMVP.}
\label{fig:highway_comp}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-7mm}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
We have proposed the Leaked Motion Video Predictor (LMVP) to handle the spatio-temporal consistency in video prediction. For the dynamics in video, the motion guider learns motion features from real data and guides the prediction. Since the motion guider learns features from video sequences, it can also alleviate the error accumulated in a standard RNN video predictor. This is more robust against frame-level feature extraction. For structures in video background, the adaptive filter generates input-aware filters when predicting the next frame, ensuring spatial consistency. Further, A discriminator is adopted to further improve the prediction result. On both synthetic and real datasets, LMVP shows superior results over state-of-the-art approaches.
\bibliographystyle{plainalt}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
Video combines structured spatial and temporal information in high dimensions. The strong spatio-temporal dependencies among consecutive frames in video greatly increases the difficulty of modeling. For instance, it is challenging to effectively separate moving objects from background, and predict a plausible future movement of the former~\cite{vondrick2017generating,villegas2017decomposing,chao2017forecasting,xue2016visual,henaff2017prediction,walker2016uncertain}. Though video is large in size and complex to model, video prediction is a task that can leverage the extensive online video data without the need of human labeling. Learning a good video predictor is an essential step toward understanding spatio-temporal modeling. These concepts can also be applied to various tasks, like weather forecasting, traffic-flow prediction, and disease control.
The recurrent neural network (RNN) is a widely used framework for spatio-temporal modeling. In most existing works, motion is estimated by the subtraction of two consecutive frames and the background is encoded by a convolutional neural network (CNN)~\cite{villegas2017decomposing,cai2017deep,villegas2017learning,patraucean2015spatio}. The CNN ensures spatial consistency, while temporal consistency is considered by the recurrent units, encouraging motion to smoothly progress through time. However, information in two consecutive frames is usually insufficient to learn the dynamics. Using 3D convolution to generate future frames can avoid these problems~\cite{vondrick2016generating,vondrick2017generating}, although generating videos by 3D-convolution usually lacks sharpness.
We propose a Leaked Motion Video Predictor (LMVP) for robust future-frame prediction. LMVP generates the prediction in an adversarial framework: we use a generative network to predict next video frames, and a discriminative network to judge the generated video clips.
For the motion part, we propose to learn the dynamics by introducing a motion guider, connecting the generator and the discriminator. The motion guider learns the motion feature through training on real video clips, and guides the prediction process by providing possible motion features. At the same time, in contrast with estimating motions by subtracting two consecutive frames, we allow the discriminator to leak high-level extracted dynamic features to the motion guider to further help the prediction. Such dynamic features provide more informative guidance about dynamics to the generator. The spatial dependencies of video are imposed by a convolutional filter network conditioned on the current frame. This idea is inspired by a conventional signal processing technique named adaptive filter, which can increase the flexibility of the neural network~\cite{jia2016dynamic}. Mathematically, each pixel of the predicted frame is a nonlinear function of the neighborhood pixels of the current one, where the nonlinear function is implemented via LMVP as a deep neural network.
\vspace{-2mm}
\section{Models}\label{sec:models}
\vspace{-2mm}
The video frames are represented as $\bm x \in \mathbb{R}^{T \times H \times W \times C}$, where $T$ is the total number of frames, $H$ is the frame height, $W$ is the width and $C$ is the channel number. Given the first $T_0$ ($T_0 < T$) frames, the task is to predict the following $T-T_0$ frames. $\bm x_t$ and $\hat{\bm x}_t$ represent for real and predicted video frame at time $t$, respectively. The model framework is given in Figure~\ref{fig:framework}. It mainly contains a generator $G$, a motion guider $M$, and a discriminator $D$. $D$ distinguishes between the real and predicted video clips. $M$ learns the temporal dependencies among the video through the features leaked from $D$, while generator $G$ uses the current video frame and the output of motion guider $M$ to predict the next frame.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figures/framework-nips-workshop.png
\caption{Model Framework.}\label{fig:framework}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-5mm}
\subsection{Leaked Features from $D$ as Motion Signals}\label{subsec:discriminator}
The discriminator $D$ (shown in top of Figure~\ref{fig:framework}) is designed as both a discriminator and a motion feature extractor. The bottom layers of $D$ is a feature extractor $F(\cdot)$, followed by a classifier between real/fake samples, parameterized by $\bm \theta_C$. Mathematically, given input video clips $\bm x_{t-c:t}$, we have $D(\bm x_{t-c:t}; \bm \theta_D) = \text{CNN}(F(\bm x_{t-c:t}; \bm \theta_F); \bm \theta_C)$,
where $\bm \theta_D = (\bm \theta_F, \bm \theta_C)$. The extracted motion feature from $\bm x_{t-c:t}$ is denoted $\bm f_t^d=F(\bm x_{t-c:t};\bm \theta_F)$, which is the input of motion guider $M$.
The feature extractor $F$ is implemented as a convolutional network. The output $\bm f_t^d$ is expected to capture motion from $\bm x_{t-c:t}$. The difference $\bm f_{t+1}^d-\bm f_{t}^d$ is treated as the motion feature between two consecutive frames. In contrast of the direct subtraction of two consecutive frames~\cite{villegas2017decomposing}, our motion feature is extracted from two video clips of length $c$. Since it also uses previous video frames, it provides a much more informative guidance signal about dynamics, as well as alleviating the error even if the current prediction fails. Mathematically, the discriminator loss can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discr_loss}
\mathcal{L}_{dis} (\theta_D) = -\mathbb{E}_x[\log D(\bm x; \theta_D)] - \mathbb{E}_{\hat{x}} [\log (1 - D(\hat{\bm x}; \theta_D))].
\end{equation}
\subsection{Learning and teaching game of $M$}\label{subsec:motion_guide}
To utilize the leaked motion information $\bm f_t^d$ from $D$, we introduce a motion guider module $M$, which is inspired by the leaky GAN model~\cite{guo2017long}.
The structure of $M$ is displayed in the green dotted box in Figure~\ref{fig:framework}.
$M$ has a recurrent structure that takes the extracted feature vector $\bm f_t^d$ as input at each time step $t$, and outputs a predicted motion feature $\bm m_t$
Specifically, the motion guider plays two roles in the model: learner and teacher.
As a learner, $M$ learns the motion in video via leaked feature from $D$ with real video. At time step $t$, $M$ receives the leaked information $\bm f_t^d$ exacted by $D$, and predicts the motion difference between the video clip of time $t$ and $t+1$, by forcing $\bm m_t = M(\bm f_t^d; \bm \theta_M)$ close to $\bm f_{t+1}^d - \bm f_{t}^d$.
Denoting the parameters of the motion guider as $\bm \theta_M$, the learner loss function can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:motion_guide_loss}
\mathcal{L}_{M}^L(\bm f_{t+1}^d, \bm f_{t}^d) = \sum_t|| \bm f_{t+1}^d - (\bm f_{t}^d + M(\bm f_t^d; \bm \theta_M))||_2^2.
\end{equation}
Note that only real video samples are used to update $\bm \theta_M$. The superscript $L$ means ``Leaner''.
As a teacher, $M$ serves as a guider by providing predicted dynamic motion features to $G$.
During this step, $\theta_M$ is fixed while the generator is updated under the guidance of $M$. Given the leaked features $\hat{\bm f}_t^d=F(\hat{\bm x}_{t-c:t};\theta_F)$ of predicted data $\hat{\bm x}_{t-c:t}$ at time $t$, the output $\hat{\bm m}_t = M(\hat{\bm f}_{t}^d; \bm \theta_M)$ serves as a input to the generator to calculate the next frame $\hat{\bm x}_{t+1}$. This is detailed in the next section.
Since the dynamic motion feature is extracted from a real \emph{video clip} instead of a single frame, $M$ can help alleviate error accumulation, even if the previous predicted frame diverges from the ground truth.
\subsection{Generating the next frame under guide from $M$}\label{subsec:predictor}
The structure of the generator is shown at the bottom of Figure~\ref{fig:framework}. It contains a spatial feature encoder, a temporal feature encoder, and a filter network. The spatial feature encoder is designed to learn the static background structure $\bm f_t^s$, while temporal feature $\bm f_t^m$ are computed from dynamic motion feature $\hat{\bm m}_t$. Note that only predicted samples have their motion guider output $\hat{\bm m}_t$ flow back to the generator. The spatio-temporal features $\bm f_t^s$ and $\bm f_t^m$ are concatenated and further fed into the filter network. The next frame is predicted by applying the generated adaptive filter on the current frame. This technique is also known as visual transformation in~\cite{vondrick2017generating}.
As mentioned in Section~\ref{subsec:motion_guide}, the $M$ is updated during the learning step while fixed during teaching step. When generating the next frame $\hat{\bm x}_{t+1}$, $M$ is fixed and outputs the motion guide $\hat{\bm m}_t$. Specifically, to ensure $G$ generates the next frames following the guidance of $M$, the feature $\hat{\bm f}_{t+1}^d$ of the generated frame $\hat{\bm x}_{t+1} = G(\hat{\bm x}_{t} ; \bm \theta_G)$ should be close to the feature taught by the guider $\hat{\bm m}_t + \hat{\bm f}^d_{t}$, the generator is updated by minimizing the following loss function:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:motion_guide_fake}
\mathcal{L}_{M}^T(\bm \theta_G, \bm \theta_F) = \sum_t \|\left( F\left(\left[\hat{\bm x}_{t-c+1:t}, G(\hat{\bm x}_{t} ; \bm \theta_G)\right] ;\bm \theta_F \right) - \left(\hat{\bm f}^d_{t} + \hat{\bm m}_t \right) \right) \|_2^2 ,
\end{equation}
where $\bm \theta_G$ includes all parameters in the generator $G$. Note that $\hat{\bm x}_{t}$ and $\hat{\bm f}_t^d$ are the predicted output and leaked motion feature from time step $t-1$. The superscript $T$ in $\mathcal{L}_{M}^T$ indicates $M$ as a ``Teacher''.
The total loss function for the generator is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gen_loss}
\mathcal{L}_{gen}(\bm x_{t+1}, \hat{\bm x}_{t+1}) = \mathcal{L}_{recons}(\bm x_{t+1}, \hat{\bm x}_{t+1}) + \gamma \mathcal{L}_{M}^T.
\end{equation}
$\mathcal{L}_{recons}$ is the reconstruction loss, including a pixel-wise cross-entropy/MSE loss and the gradient difference loss (GDL)~\cite{mathieu2015deep}.
The whole model is updated iteratively for each component. A pseudo-algorithm is given in Alg.~\ref{alg:lmvp} in the Appendix. The discriminator loss~\eqref{eq:discr_loss} is first evaluated and $\bm \theta_D$ is updated. Then the motion guider parameters $\bm \theta_M$ are updated using only real samples of $\bm x$. The generated parameters $\bm \theta_G$, together with the leaked feature extractor parameters $\bm \theta_F$ are updated using loss function~\eqref{eq:gen_loss}. In practice, Adam~\cite{kingma2014adam} is used to perform the gradient descent optimization.
\section{Experiments} \label{sec:experiments}
\begin{wraptable}{r}{0.5\textwidth}
\vspace{-4mm}
\centering
\resizebox{.5\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\hline
& BCE & SSIM & PSNR \\
\hline
ConvLSTM \cite{xingjian2015convolutional} & $8.96 \times 10^{-2}$ & $0.61$ & $10.74$ \\
\hline
FPM \cite{srivastava2015unsupervised} & $8.33 \times 10^{-2}$ & - & - \\
\hline
DFN \cite{jia2016dynamic} & $6.89 \times 10^{-2}$ & $0.83$ & $18.4$ \\
\hline
LMVP & \textbf{$6.13 \times 10^{-2}$} & $0.87$ & $19.6$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Binary cross-entropy, SSIM and PSNR scores results on Moving MNIST dataset.}
\label{tab:MNIST_result}
\end{wraptable}
\textbf{Moving MNIST}: Each video in the Moving MNIST dataset~\cite{srivastava2015unsupervised} is $20$ frames long, with two handwritten digits bouncing inside a $64 \times 64$ patch. Given $10$ frames, the task is to predict the motion of the digits of the following $10$ frames. We follow the same training and testing procedure as~\cite{srivastava2015unsupervised}. Evaluation metrics include Binary Cross Entropy (BCE), Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR), and Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM)~\cite{wang2004image} between the ground truth $\bm x$ and the prediction $\hat{\bm x}$. Small values of BCE or large values of SSIM and PSNR indicate good prediction results. In this task, we need to keep the digit shape the same across time (spatial consistency) while giving them reasonable movements (temporal consistency).
Table \ref{tab:MNIST_result} gives the comparison of LMVP and baseline models. The BCE of LMVP achieves $0.061$ per pixel over $10$ frames, which is better than state-of-the-art models~\cite{xingjian2015convolutional,srivastava2015unsupervised,jia2016dynamic,villegas2017decomposing}. The predictions from LMVP and DFN~\cite{jia2016dynamic} are shown in Figure \ref{fig:visual}. Input is given in the first row, followed by ground truth of the output, and results from DFN model and our LMVP model. To prove that our model has consistently good result in to the future, Figure \ref{fig:evaluations} in the Appendix gives the SSIM and PSNR comparison over $(t=T_0+1,\cdots,T)$. LMVP achieves higher SSIM and PSNR scores than other baseline models through all time steps.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Figures/comp-small.jpg}
\caption{Two prediction examples for the Moving MNIST dataset. From top to down: concatenation of input and ground truth, prediction result of DFN, and prediction result of our model.}
\label{fig:visual}
\end{figure}
\begin{wraptable}{r}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\hline
& MSE & SSIM & PSNR \\
\hline
{Last Frame} & $10.34 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.83$ & $22.11$ \\
\hline
DFN \cite{jia2016dynamic} & $3.08 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.92$ & $26.95$ \\
\hline
LMVP & $2.67 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.927$ & $27.23$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{MSE (per pixel), SSIM and PSNR scores results on highway driving video dataset.}
\label{tab:highway}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{wraptable}
\textbf{Highway Drive}:
We next test the proposed model on the highway driving data. The videos were collected from a car-mounted camera during car driving on a highway. This dataset contains rich temporal dynamics, including both self-motion of the car and the motion of other objects in the scene~\cite{lotter2016deep}. Following the setting in \cite{jia2016dynamic}, we split the approximately $20,000$ frames of the $30$-minutes video into a training set of $16,000$ frames and a test set of $4,000$ frames. Each frame is of size $64 \times 64$. The task is to predict three frames in the future given the past three.
The prediction results are compared in Table~\ref{tab:highway} and two samples from the test set are selected in Figure \ref{fig:highway_comp}. In the prediction results of DFN, the rail of the guidepost becomes curving. However, in the prediction results of LMVP, the rail keeps straight in the first and second predicted frames. To help the visual comparison, this part has been highlighted by a red circle.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{./Figures/highway_comp_cir-small.png}
\caption{Qualitative prediction examples for the highway driving video dataset. From top to down: concatenation of input and ground truth, prediction result of DFN, and prediction result of our LMVP.}
\label{fig:highway_comp}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-7mm}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
We have proposed the Leaked Motion Video Predictor (LMVP) to handle the spatio-temporal consistency in video prediction. For the dynamics in video, the motion guider learns motion features from real data and guides the prediction. Since the motion guider learns features from video sequences, it can also alleviate the error accumulated in a standard RNN video predictor. This is more robust against frame-level feature extraction. For structures in video background, the adaptive filter generates input-aware filters when predicting the next frame, ensuring spatial consistency. Further, A discriminator is adopted to further improve the prediction result. On both synthetic and real datasets, LMVP shows superior results over state-of-the-art approaches.
\bibliographystyle{plainalt}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
Video combines structured spatial and temporal information in high dimensions. The strong spatio-temporal dependencies among consecutive frames in video greatly increases the difficulty of modeling. For instance, it is challenging to effectively separate moving objects from background, and predict a plausible future movement of the former~\cite{chao2017forecasting,henaff2017prediction,villegas2017decomposing,vondrick2017generating,walker2016uncertain,xue2016visual}. Though video is large in size and complex to model, video prediction is a task that can leverage the extensive online video data without the need of human labeling. Learning a good video predictor is an essential step toward understanding spatio-temporal modeling. These concepts can also be applied to various tasks, like weather forecasting, traffic-flow prediction, and disease control~\cite{wang2017deepsd,wang2018will,wang2016etcps}.
The recurrent neural network (RNN) is a widely used framework for spatio-temporal modeling. In most existing works, motion is estimated by the subtraction of two consecutive frames and the background is encoded by a convolutional neural network (CNN)~\cite{cai2017deep,patraucean2015spatio,villegas2017decomposing,villegas2017learning}. The CNN ensures spatial consistency, while temporal consistency is considered by the recurrent units, encouraging motion to smoothly progress through time. However, information in two consecutive frames is usually insufficient to learn the dynamics. Using 3D convolution to generate future frames can avoid these problems~\cite{vondrick2016generating,vondrick2017generating}, although generating videos by 3D-convolution usually lacks sharpness.
We propose a Leaked Motion Video Predictor (LMVP) for robust future-frame prediction. LMVP generates the prediction in an adversarial framework: we use a generative network to predict next video frames, and a discriminative network to judge the generated video clips.
For the motion part, we propose to learn the dynamics by introducing a motion guider, connecting the generator and the discriminator. The motion guider learns the motion feature through training on real video clips, and guides the prediction process by providing possible motion features. At the same time, in contrast with estimating motions by subtracting two consecutive frames, we allow the discriminator to leak high-level extracted dynamic features to the motion guider to further help the prediction. Such dynamic features provide more informative guidance about dynamics to the generator. The spatial dependencies of video are imposed by a convolutional filter network conditioned on the current frame. This idea is inspired by a conventional signal processing technique named adaptive filter, which can increase the flexibility of the neural network~\cite{jia2016dynamic}. It is assumed that, each pixel of the predicted frame is a nonlinear function of the neighborhood pixels of the current one, where the nonlinear function is implemented via LMVP as a deep neural network.
\vspace{-2mm}
\section{Models}\label{sec:models}
\vspace{-2mm}
The video frames are represented as $\bm x \in \mathbb{R}^{T \times H \times W \times C}$, where $T$ is the total number of frames, $H$ is the frame height, $W$ is the width and $C$ is the channel number. Given the first $T_0$ ($T_0 < T$) frames, the task is to predict the following $T-T_0$ frames. $\bm x_t$ and $\hat{\bm x}_t$ represent for real and predicted video frame at time $t$, respectively. The model framework is given in Figure~\ref{fig:framework}. It mainly contains a generator $G$, a motion guider $M$, and a discriminator $D$. $D$ distinguishes between the real and predicted video clips. $M$ learns the temporal dependencies among the video through the features leaked from $D$, and generator $G$ uses the output of motion guider $M$ to predict the next frame based on the current.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{framework-nips-workshop.png
\caption{Model Framework.}\label{fig:framework}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-5mm}
\subsection{Leaked Features from $D$ as Motion Signals}\label{subsec:discriminator}
The discriminator $D$ (shown in top of Figure~\ref{fig:framework}) is designed as both a discriminator and a motion feature extractor. The bottom layers of $D$ is a feature extractor $F(\cdot; \bm \theta_F)$, followed by several convolutional and fully connected layers to classify real/fake samples, parameterized by $\bm \theta_C$. Mathematically, given input video clips $\bm x_{t-c:t}$, we have $D(\bm x_{t-c:t}; \bm \theta_D) = \text{CNN}(F(\bm x_{t-c:t}; \bm \theta_F); \bm \theta_C)$,
where $\bm \theta_D = \{ \bm \theta_F, \bm \theta_C \}$. The extracted motion feature from $\bm x_{t-c:t}$ is denoted as $\bm f_t^d=F(\bm x_{t-c:t};\bm \theta_F)$, which is the input of motion guider $M$.
The feature extractor $F$ is implemented as a convolutional network. The output $\bm f_t^d$ is expected to capture motion from $\bm x_{t-c:t}$. The difference between $\bm f_{t+1}^d$ and $\bm f_{t}^d$ is treated as the dynamic motion feature between two consecutive frames, which is denoted as $\bm m_t$. In contrast of the direct subtraction of two consecutive frames~\cite{villegas2017decomposing}, our dynamic motion feature is extracted from two consecutive video clips of length $c$. Since previous video frames are also included, it can still give reasonable output even if the model fails at previous time step. The discriminator loss can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discr_loss}
\mathcal{L}_{dis} (\bm \theta_D) = -\mathbb{E}_x[\log D(\bm x; \bm \theta_D)] - \mathbb{E}_{\hat{x}} [\log (1 - D(\hat{\bm x}; \bm \theta_D))].
\end{equation}
\subsection{Learning and teaching game of $M$}\label{subsec:motion_guide}
To utilize the leaked motion information $\bm f_t^d$ from $D$, we introduce a motion guider module $M$, which is inspired by the leaky GAN model~\cite{guo2017long} for text generation task.
The structure of $M$ is displayed in the green dotted box in Figure~\ref{fig:framework}.
$M$ has a recurrent structure that takes the extracted motion feature $\bm f_t^d$ as input at each time step $t$, and outputs a predicted motion feature $\hat{\bm m}_t$.
Specifically, the motion guider plays two roles in the model: learner and teacher.
As a learner, $M$ learns the motion in video via leaked feature from $D$ from real video. At time step $t$, $M$ receives the leaked information $\bm f_t^d$ exacted by $D$, and predicts the dynamic motion feature between time $t$ and $t+1$, by forcing $\hat{\bm m}_t = M(\bm f_t^d; \bm \theta_M)$ close to $\bm m_t = \bm f_{t+1}^d - \bm f_{t}^d$.
Denoting the parameters of the motion guider as $\bm \theta_M$, the learner loss function can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:motion_guide_loss}
\mathcal{L}_{M}^L(\bm \theta_M) = \sum_t|| M(\bm f_t^d; \bm \theta_M) - (\bm f_{t+1}^d - \bm f_{t}^d )||_2^2.
\end{equation}
Note that only real video samples are used to update $\bm \theta_M$. The superscript $L$ means ``Leaner''.
As a teacher, $M$ serves as a guider by providing predicted dynamic motion features to $G$.
During this step, $\bm \theta_M$ is fixed while the generator is updated under the guidance of $M$. Given the leaked features $\hat{\bm f}_t^d=F(\hat{\bm x}_{t-c:t};\theta_F)$ of predicted data $\hat{\bm x}_{t-c:t}$ at time $t$, the output $\hat{\bm m}_t = M(\hat{\bm f}_{t}^d; \bm \theta_M)$ serves as an input to the generator to predict the next frame $\hat{\bm x}_{t+1}$. This is detailed in the next section.
Since the dynamic motion feature is extracted from a real \emph{video clip} instead of a single frame, $M$ is robust against fail predictions at previous time step, i.e., even if the previous predicted frame diverges from the ground truth.
\subsection{Generating the next frame under guide from $M$}\label{subsec:predictor}
The structure of the generator is shown at the bottom of Figure~\ref{fig:framework}. It contains a spatial feature encoder, a temporal feature encoder, and a filter network. The spatial feature encoder is designed to learn the static background structure $\bm f_t^s$, while temporal feature $\bm f_t^m$ are computed from dynamic motion feature $\hat{\bm m}_t$. Note that only predicted samples have their motion guider output $\hat{\bm m}_t$ flow back to the generator. The spatio-temporal features $\bm f_t^s$ and $\bm f_t^m$ are concatenated and further fed into the filter network. The next frame is predicted by applying the generated adaptive filter from $[\bm f_t^s, \bm f_t^m]$ on the current frame. This technique is also known as visual transformation~\cite{vondrick2017generating}.
As mentioned in Section~\ref{subsec:motion_guide}, $M$ is updated during the learning step. When generating the next frame $\hat{\bm x}_{t+1}$ in the teaching step, $M$ is fixed and outputs the motion guide $\hat{\bm m}_t$.
Specifically, to ensure $G$ generates the next frames following the guidance of $M$, the dynamic motion feature between the generated video clips at time $t+1$ and $t$, which is denoted as $\hat{\bm f}_{t+1}^d - \hat{\bm f}_t^d$, should be close to $\hat{\bm m}_t$ from $M$. Then, the generator is updated by minimizing the following loss function:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:motion_guide_fake}
\mathcal{L}_{M}^T(\bm \theta_G) = \sum_t \|\left( F (\left[\hat{\bm x}_{t-c+1:t}, G(\hat{\bm x}_{t}, \hat{\bm m}_t ; \bm \theta_G)\right]) - \hat{\bm f}^d_{t} \right) - \hat{\bm m}_t \|_2^2 ,
\end{equation}
where $\bm \theta_G$ includes all parameters in the generator $G$. The gradient is taken w.r.t $\bm \theta_G$, while $\hat{\bm f}_t^d$ and $\hat{\bm m}_t$ are treated as inputs. Note that $\hat{\bm x}_{t}$ and $\hat{\bm f}_t^d$ are the predicted output and leaked motion feature from time step $t$, respectively. The superscript $T$ in $\mathcal{L}_{M}^T$ indicates $M$ as a ``Teacher''.
The total loss function for the generator is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gen_loss}
\mathcal{L}_{gen}(\bm \theta_G) = \mathcal{L}_{recons}(\bm \theta_G) + \gamma \mathcal{L}_{M}^T(\bm \theta_G).
\end{equation}
$\mathcal{L}_{recons}$ is the reconstruction loss function of $\bm x_{t+1}, \hat{\bm x}_{t+1}$, including a pixel-wise cross-entropy/MSE loss and the gradient difference loss (GDL)~\cite{mathieu2015deep}.
The whole model is updated iteratively for each component. A pseudo-algorithm is given in Alg.~\ref{alg:lmvp} in the Appendix. The discriminator loss~\eqref{eq:discr_loss} is first evaluated and $\bm \theta_D$ is updated. Then the motion guider parameters $\bm \theta_M$ are updated using only real samples of $\bm x$. The generated parameters $\bm \theta_G$ is updated using loss function~\eqref{eq:gen_loss}.
In practice, Adam~\cite{kingma2014adam} is used to perform the gradient descent optimization.
\begin{wraptable}{r}{0.5\textwidth}
\vspace{-6mm}
\centering
\resizebox{.5\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\hline
& BCE & SSIM & PSNR \\
\hline
ConvLSTM \cite{xingjian2015convolutional} & $8.96 \times 10^{-2}$ & $0.61$ & $10.74$ \\
\hline
FPM \cite{srivastava2015unsupervised} & $8.33 \times 10^{-2}$ & - & - \\
\hline
DFN \cite{jia2016dynamic} & $6.89 \times 10^{-2}$ & $0.83$ & $18.4$ \\
\hline
LMVP & \textbf{$6.13 \times 10^{-2}$} & $0.87$ & $19.6$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Binary cross-entropy, SSIM and PSNR scores results on Moving MNIST dataset.}
\label{tab:MNIST_result}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{wraptable}
\section{Experiments} \label{sec:experiments}
\textbf{Moving MNIST}: Each video in the Moving MNIST dataset~\cite{srivastava2015unsupervised} has $20$ frames in total, with two handwritten digits bouncing inside a $64 \times 64$ patch. Given $10$ frames, the task is to predict the motion of the digits of the following $10$ frames. We follow the same training and testing procedure as~\cite{srivastava2015unsupervised}. Evaluation metrics include Binary Cross Entropy (BCE), Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR), and Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM)~\cite{wang2004image} between the ground truth $\bm x$ and the prediction $\hat{\bm x}$. Small values of BCE or large values of SSIM and PSNR indicate good prediction results. In this task, we need to keep the digit shape the same across time (spatial consistency) while giving them reasonable movements (temporal consistency).
Table \ref{tab:MNIST_result} gives the comparison of LMVP and baseline models. The BCE of LMVP achieves $0.061$ per pixel over $10$ frames, which is better than state-of-the-art models~\cite{xingjian2015convolutional,srivastava2015unsupervised,jia2016dynamic,villegas2017decomposing}. The predictions from LMVP and DFN~\cite{jia2016dynamic} are shown in Figure \ref{fig:visual}. Input is given in the first row, followed by ground truth of the output, and results from DFN model and our LMVP model. To prove that our model has consistently good result in to the future, Figure \ref{fig:evaluations} in the Appendix gives the SSIM and PSNR comparison over $(t=T_0+1,\cdots,T)$. LMVP achieves higher SSIM and PSNR scores than other baseline models through all time steps.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{comp-small.jpg}
\caption{Two prediction examples for the Moving MNIST dataset. From top to down: concatenation of input and ground truth, prediction result of DFN, and prediction result of our model.}
\label{fig:visual}
\end{figure}
\begin{wraptable}{r}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\hline
& MSE & SSIM & PSNR \\
\hline
{Last Frame} & $10.34 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.83$ & $22.11$ \\
\hline
DFN \cite{jia2016dynamic} & $3.08 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.92$ & $26.95$ \\
\hline
LMVP & $2.67 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.927$ & $27.23$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{MSE (per pixel), SSIM and PSNR scores results on highway driving video dataset.}
\label{tab:highway}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{wraptable}
\textbf{Highway Drive}:
The dataset contains videos were collected from a car-mounted camera during car driving on a highway. The videos contain rich temporal dynamics, including both self-motion of the car and the motion of other objects in the scene~\cite{lotter2016deep}. Following the setting used in \cite{jia2016dynamic}, we split the approximately $20,000$ frames of the $30$-minutes video into a training set of $16,000$ frames and a test set of $4,000$ frames. Each frame is of size $64 \times 64$. The task is to predict three frames in the future given the past three.
The prediction results are compared in Table~\ref{tab:highway} and two samples from the test set are selected in Figure \ref{fig:highway_comp}. In the prediction results of DFN, the rail of the guidepost becomes curving. However, in the prediction results of LMVP, the rail keeps straight in the first and second predicted frames. To help the visual comparison, this part has been highlighted by a red circle.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{highway_comp_cir-small.png}
\caption{Qualitative prediction examples for the highway driving video dataset. From top to down, left to right: concatenation of input and ground truth, prediction result of DFN, and prediction result of our LMVP.}
\label{fig:highway_comp}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-7mm}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
We have proposed the Leaked Motion Video Predictor (LMVP) to handle the spatio-temporal consistency in video prediction. For the dynamics in video, the motion guider learns motion features from real data and guides the prediction. Since the motion guider learns features from video sequences, it is more robust compared to using only single frames as input. For structures of the background, the adaptive filter generates input-aware filters when predicting the next frame, ensuring spatial consistency. Further, A discriminator is adopted to further improve the prediction result. On both synthetic and real datasets, LMVP shows superior results over the state-of-the-art approaches.
\bibliographystyle{plainalt}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:sec1}
The aim of this paper is to answer many questions researchers may have when they fit their data, such as what are the differences between parametric, semi/nonparamertic models? which one should be used to model a real data set? what estimation method should be used?, and which type of modeling is better? These questions and others are addressed by examples.
Assume that a researcher collected data about Y, a response variable, and explanatory variables, $X=(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_k)$. The model that describes the relationship between Y and X can be written as
\begin{equation}
Y=f(X,\boldsymbol\beta)+\epsilon,
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol\beta$ is a vector of $k$ parameters, $\epsilon$ is an error term whose distribution may or may not be normal, $f(\cdot)$ is some function that describe the relationship between Y and X.
The model choice from parametric, semiparametric and nonparametric regression model depends on the prior knowledge of the functional form relationship, $f(\cdot)$, and the random error distribution. If the form is known and it is correct, the parametric method can model the data set well. However, if a wrong functional form is chosen, this will result in larger bias as compared to the other compititve models (Fan and Yao, 2003). The most common functional form is parametric linear model, as a type of parametric regression, is frequently used to describe the relationship between a dependent variable and explanatory variables. Parametric linear models require the estimation of a finite number of parameters, $\boldsymbol\beta$.
Parametric models are easy to work with, estimate, and interpret. So, why are semiparametric and nonparametric regression important? Over the last decade, increasing attention has been devoted to these regression models as new techniques for estimation and forecasting in different areas, such as epidemiology, agriculture, and economics. Nonparametric regression analysis relaxes the assumption of the linearity or even knowledge about the functional form priori in the regression analysis and enables one to explore the data more flexibly. However, in high dimensions variance of the estimates rapidly increases, called as curse of dimensionality, due to the sparseness of data. To solve this problem, some semiparametric methods have been proposed, such as single index model (SIM). In application, the three modeling approaches are compared in terms of fitting and prediction (Rajarathinan and Parameter 2011; Dhekale et al. 2017) and Mahmoud et al. (2016) showed that if the link function in generalized linear models is misspecified, semiparametric models are better than parametric models. In Section 2, the three types of models are introduced. In Section 3, which model should be used is addressed. In Section 4, common estimation methods for semiparametric and nonprametric models are displayed. In Section 5, multiple case is presented. Robust nonparametric regression method is introduced in Section 6. Section 7 is discussion and conclusion.
\section{Parametric, semi and nonparametric regression models}
To differentiate between the three types of regression models, without less of generality, assume we have a response variable, Y, and two explanatory variables, $x_1$ and $x_2$. The regression model that describes the relationship between the response variable and two the explanatory variables can be written as:
\begin{equation}
Y=f_1(x_1,\beta_1)+f_2(x_2,\beta_2)+\epsilon,
\end{equation}
where $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ are some parameters need to be estimated, $\epsilon$ is a random error term, and $f_1(\cdot)$ and $f_2(\cdot)$ are functions describe the relationships.
\subsection{Parametric models}
Parametric models are models in which the vector of parameters, $\boldsymbol\beta$ in model (1), is a vector in finite $p-$dimensional space ($p$ may be less or greater than $k$). Our interest in this case is estimating the vector of parameters. In parametric models, the researcher assumes completely the form of the model and its assumptions. Applying on model (2), $f_1(\cdot)$ and $f_2(\cdot)$ need to be known functions and $\epsilon$ distribution is known periori for inference purposes. For example, the researcher may assume they are linear and the error term follow normal distribution. In general, $f_1(\cdot)$ and $f_2(\cdot)$ can be assumed linear in parameters or nonlinear in the parameters $\beta$'s. For model validity, after fitting the data by the assumed model, the researcher needs to check whether the assumptions are correct using residuals.
\subsubsection{Linear models}
Linear models are linear in the parameters (i.e., linear in the $\beta$'s). For example, polynomial regression that is used to model curvature in a data set by using higher-ordered values of the predictors is a linear model in $\beta$'s. However, the final regression model is just a linear combination of higher-ordered predictors. There are many examples of linear models, below are a few of them
\begin{itemize}
\item $Y=\beta_0+\beta_1 x_1+\beta_2 x_2+\epsilon$ (Multiple linear regression model)
\item $Y=\beta_0+\beta_{10} x_1+\beta_{11} x_1^2+\beta_{20} x_2+\beta_{21} x_2^2+\epsilon$ (Polynomial regression model of second order)
\item $\log (\mu)=\beta_0+\beta_1 x_1+\beta_2 x_2 $ (Poisson regression when Y is count data)
\end{itemize}
These models are linear in the parameters and the number of parameters is greater that the number of the explanatory variables with one ($p=k+1$). For this setting, there are many estimation methods for parameter estimation, such an ordinary least square method and maximum likelihood method. The main interest of the researcher, in this case, is estimating the vector of parameters. Once he estimated the parameters, everything is easy afterwards.
\subsubsection{Nonlinear models}
The nonlinear regression models are parametric models and the function $f(\cdot)$ is known but nonlinear in the parameters. Below are some examples
\begin{itemize}
\item $Y=\beta_0+\beta_1 x_1+\beta_2 e^{(\beta_3 x_2)} +\epsilon$
\item $Y=\frac{e^{\beta_0+\beta_1x_1}}{1+e^{\beta_0+\beta_1x_1}}+\epsilon$
\item $Y=\beta_0+(0.4-\beta_0) e^{-\beta_1(x_1-5)}+\beta_2x_2+\epsilon$
\end{itemize}
For these setting, nonlinear least square method can be used to estimate the model parameters. There are many algorithms for nonlinear least squares estimation, such as
\begin{enumerate}
\item Newton's method which is based on a gradient approach but it can be computationally challenging and dependents on initial values.
\item Gauss-Newton algorithm, it is a modification of Newton's method that gives an approximation of the solution that Newton's method but it is not guaranteed to converge.
\item Levenberg-Marquardt method, it has less computational difficulties compared to the other methods but it requires much work to reach the optimal solution.
\end{enumerate}
There are some nonlinear models that can be made linear in the parameters by a simple transformation. For example:
\begin{center}
$Y=\frac{\beta_0x}{\beta_1+x}$
\end{center}
can be written as
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{Y}=\frac{1}{\beta_0}+\frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0}\frac{1}{x}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
Y^*=\theta_0+\theta_1 x^*
\end{equation}
The last equation is linear in the parameters, so it is a linear model.
If the researcher found that the relationship between the response and explanatory variable is not linear, simple solutions may work to fix the problem before working with nonlinear, nonparametric or semiparametric modeling, such as
\begin{itemize}
\item Use a nonlinear transformation to the dependent and/or independent variables such as a log transformation, square root, or power transformation.
\item Add another regressor which is a nonlinear function of one of the other variables. For example, if you have regressed Y on X, it may make sense to regress Y on both X and $X^2$ (i.e., X-squared).
\end{itemize}
In real application, parametric models do not work for fitting data in many applications (Rajarathinan and Parmar (2011).
\subsection{Nonparametric models}
The parametric and nonparametric models differ in that the model form is not specified a priori but is instead determined from data set. The term nonparametric does not mean that such models are completely lack parameters, but that the number of the parameters are flexible and not fixed periori. In parametric models, the vector of parameter, $\boldsymbol\beta$, is a vector in finite $p-$ dimensional space and our main interest is estimating that vector of parameters. In contrast, in nonparametric models, the set of parameters is a subset of infinite dimensional vector spaces. The primary interest is in estimating that infinite-dimensional vector of parameters. In nonparametric regression models, the relationship between the explanatory variables and response is unknown. Applying on model (2), $f_1$ and $f_2$ both are unknown functions. These functions can take any shape but they are unknown to the researcher, they maybe linear or nonlinear relationship but they are unknown to the researcher.
In parametric modeling, you know which model exactly you use to fit to the data, e.g., linear regression line. The data tells you what the regression model should look like; the data will decide what the functions, $f_1$ and $f_2$, looks like
\begin{figure}[h!]
\footnotesize
\hspace{0.5cm}\stackunder[5pt]{\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,height=6cm]{age}}{(a)}
\stackunder[5pt]{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm]{Nonp.JPG}}{(b)}
\stackunder[5pt]{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm]{IncPres}}{(c)}
\hspace{0.5cm}%
\stackunder[5pt]{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm]{EduPres}}{(d)}
\caption{A scatter plot of age and strontium ratio (a), age versus log of wage (b), income and prestige (c), and education and prestige (d).}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Semiparametric models}
Semiparametric modeling is a hybrid of the parametric and nonparametric approaches of statistical models.
It may appear at first that semiparametric model include nonparametric model, however, semiparametric model is considered to be "smaller" than a completely nonparametric model because we are often interested only in the finite-dimensional component of $\boldsymbol\beta$. By contrast, in nonparametric models, the primary interest is in estimating the infinite-dimensional parameter. In result, the estimation is statistically harder in nonparametric models compared to semiparametric models.
While parametric models are being easy to understand and easy to work with, they fail to give a fair representation of what is happening in the real world. Semiparametric models allow you to have the best of both worlds: a model that is understandable and offering a fair representation of the messiness that is involved in real life.
Semiparametric regression models take many different structures. One is a form of regression analysis in which a part of the predictors do not take predetermined forms and the other part takes known forms with the response. For example, in model (2), $f_1$ may be known (assume linear) and $f_2$ is unknown, it can be written as
\begin{center}
$Y=\beta_0+\beta_1 x_1+f(x_2)+\epsilon$
\end{center}
In this setting, the relationship between $x_1$ and the response is linear but the relationship between the response and $x_2$ is unknown.
Another form of semiparametric regression modeling which is a well-known example is the single index model (SIM) that is extensively studied and has many applications. In general, it takes the form
\begin{equation}
Y=f(X\boldsymbol\beta)+\epsilon,
\end{equation}
where $f$ is an unknown function, $X = (x_1, \ldots, x_k)$ is a $n \times k$ matrix of regressors values, $\boldsymbol\beta$ is a $k \times 1$ vector of parameters, and and $\epsilon$ is the error satisfying E$(\epsilon|X) = 0$. The term $X \boldsymbol\beta$ is called a ``single index" because it is a scalar (a single index). The functional form of $f(\cdot)$ is unknown to the researcher. This model is semiparametric since the functional form of the linear index is specified, while $f(\cdot)$ is unspecified. SIM is extensively studied and applied in many different fields including biostatistics, medicine, economics, financial econometrics and epidemology (Ruppert et al. 2003; Mahmoud et. al 2016, 2019; Toma and Fulga 2018; Li, et al. 2017; Qin et al. 2018).
SIM is more flexible compared to parametric models and does not lack from curse of dimentionality problem compared to nonparametric models. It assumes the link between the mean response and the explanatory variables is unknown and estimates it nonparametrically. This gives the single index model two main advantages over parametric and nonparametric models: (1) It avoids mispecifying the link function and its misleading results (Horowitz and Hardle, 1996) and (2) the reduction of dimension which is achieved by assuming the link function to be a univariate function applied to the projection of explanatory covariate vector on to some direction. For estimation, the coefficient of one component of X is set to be equal to one and needs to be continuous to fix the identifiability problem (Ichimura 1993, Sherman 1994) or to set $\boldsymbol\beta$=1 (Lin and Kulasekera 2007, Xia et al. 2004).
Model (2) can be written in the form of single index model as
\begin{equation}
Y=f(\beta_1 x_1+\beta_2 x_2)+\epsilon
\end{equation}
Figure 1 shows different relationships between a response variable and an explanatory variable. For Figure 1(a) - 1(c), the relationship between the response and explanatory variable is not linear, so a researcher may use nonparamteric model to fit this data or try to find a polynomial regression model that can fit the data because there is no known model for these data sets. Figure 1(d) shows a linear relationship between the two variables.
\section{Which type of modeling you should use to fit your data?}
The first step in statistical analysis is summarizing the data numerically and graphically for the response (dependent) variable and the explanatory (independent) variables. The researcher should look at scatter plots, boxplots, histograms, numerical summery and others. That is to get an initial knowledge about the data and see whether the model assumptions are satisfied and whether there are outliers.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between age and log of wage is nonlinear. Figure 2 display the fitted lines of linear, quadratic, cubic and the 4th degree of polynomial along with the scatterplot.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=16.5cm, height=12cm]{Poly}
\caption{A scatterplot of age and log(wage) along with different polynomial regression lines: linear $y=\beta_0+\beta_1x$ (top left), quadratic $y=\beta_0+\beta_1x+\beta_2x^2$ (top right), cubic $y=\beta_0+\beta_1x+\beta_2x^2+\beta_3x^3$ (bottom left), and quartic $y=\beta_0+\beta_1x+\beta_2x^2+\beta_3x^3+\beta_4x^4$ (bottom right).}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=15.5cm, height=10.3cm]{Linear}
\vskip -5mm
\caption{Residual plots for the linear model, $y=\beta_0+\beta_1x$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=15.5cm, height=10.3cm]{quad}
\vskip -5mm
\caption{Residual plots for the $4^{th}$ degree polynomial model, $y=\beta_0+\beta_1x+\beta_2x^2+\beta_3x^3+\beta_4x^4$.}
\end{figure}
Assume that a researcher used the linear model to fit data. To check linearity, the researcher needs to look at residual plots. Figure 3 shows that linearity is not satisfied because fitted values versus residuals reveals nonlinearlty form and also Normality is not satisfied from Normal Q-Q plot. Compared the linear model to $4^{th}$ degree polynomial model, Figure 4 shows a better fitted versus residuals graph and normality of residual is much better. In addition, we need to look at p-value associated with the fitted model. For the linear model, p-value = 0.0008407 which is significant, however it is clear that linear model is not suitable to fit these data and R-squared = 0.05357 which is very small. For the 4th degree polynomial regression, p-value = 1.202e-15, R-squared = 0.315. Now we need to cover semi and nonparametric regression models.
\section{Common estimation methods of semi and nonparamteric regression models}
Estimating the unknown function nonparametrically means the data itself is used to estimate the function, $f(\cdot)$, that describes the relationship between explanatory variables and a response. There are two commonly used approaches to nonparametric regression term:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf Kernel Regression:} estimates the conditional expectation of Y at given value $x$ using a weighted filter to the data.
\item {\bf Spline Smoothing:} minimize the sum of squared residuals plus a term which penalizes the roughness of the fit.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Kernel Regression}
One of the most popular methods for nonparametric kernel regression was proposed by Nadaraya (1965) and Watson (1964) and is known as the Nadaraya-Watson estimator (also known as the local constant estimator), though the local polynomial estimator has emerged as a popular alternative. For more details in kernel smoothing, see Wand and Jones (1995).
The Kernel regression estimation is to estimate the mean function at a given value of $x$ with a polynomial with order $p$ using a kernel function that assign high weight to the point $x$ and proportional weight to the other values based on the distance. To estimate $\hat{f}(x)$ at a given value $x$ as a locally weighted average of all $y's$ associated to the values around $x$, the Nadaraya-Watson estimator is:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{f}_h(x)=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n K(\frac{x-x_i}{h}) y_i}{\sum_{i=1}^nK(\frac{x-x_i}{h})}
\end{equation}
where K is a Kernel function (weight function) with a bandwidth $h$. $K$ function should give weights decline as one moves away from the target value.
Local polynomial estimate, $\boldsymbol\beta^T=(\beta_0, \beta_1, \ldots, \beta_p)$, is obtained by minimizing the following quantity:
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{i=1}^{n}K_h(x_i-x)\{Y_i-[\beta_0+\beta_1(x_i-x)+\ldots, \frac{1}{j!} \beta_p(x_i-x)^p]\}^2,
\end{equation}
where K is a kernel function and $h$ is a bandwidth controlling the degree of smoothing. When $p=0$, the local polynomial is a local constant. Loader (1999) explained cross validation (CV), $CV(h)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}[y_i-\hat{f_{h,-i}}(x_i)]^2$, and generalized cross-validation (GCV) are criteria for bandwidth selection in local polynomial. Also there is a rule of thumb in case Gaussian function is used then it can be shown that the optimal choice for $h$ is
\begin{center}
$h = \left(\frac{4\hat{\sigma}^5}{3n}\right)^{\frac{1}{5}} \approx 1.06 \hat{\sigma} n^{-1/5}$,
\end{center}
where $\hat{\sigma}$ is the standard deviation of the samples and $n$ is the sample size. Below are some common kernel functions
\begin{itemize}
\item Epanechnikov: $K(\cdot)= \frac{3}{4}(1-d^2)$, $d^2 <$ 1, 0 otherwise,
\item Minimum var: $K(\cdot)=\frac{3}{8}(1-5d^2)$, $d^2<$ 1, 0 otherwise,
\item Gaussian density: $exp(-\frac{x-x_i}{h})$
\item Tricube function: $W(z)=(1-|z|^3)^3$ for $|z|<1$ and 0 otherwise.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\footnotesize
\stackunder[5pt]{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm]{local}}{(a)}%
\hspace{0.5cm}%
\stackunder[5pt]{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm]{kernel}}{(b)}
\caption{Scatter plot and kernel smoothing at $h$ smoothing parameter (a), and estimating the unknown function by Kernel smoothing using $Ksmooth$ function at different value of smoothing parameter, $h$.}
\end{figure}
Bandwidth has an impact on the estimation of the nonparametric function. Figure 5(lest) shows the idea of bandwidth and Figure 5(right) show the effect of the bandwidth on the smoothness of the estimated function. Kernel smoothing of the unknown function and its derivative can be used to see if the curvature is significant or not. Figure 6 shows the smoothed estimated function and its derivative along with 95\% confidence interval using the optimal value of bandwidth. The figure shows the function is increasing and at some point it is a constant.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\footnotesize
\stackunder[5pt]{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm]{fun}}{(a)}%
\hspace{0.5cm}%
\stackunder[5pt]{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm]{der}}{(b)}
\caption{Estimate of the unknown function (a), and its derivative with 95\% confidence interval (b) using $npreg$ function at optimal smoothing parameter, $h$, determined my CV criteria.}
\end{figure}
Kernel smoothing does not work well at the boundaries especially if local constant smoothing is used, that is why confidence interval is wide at the boundaries.
\subsection{Spline Smoothing}
Spline is a piecewise polynomial. The polynomials of order $j$ are pieced together at a sequence of knots ($\theta_1 < \theta_2<..... < \theta_C$) such that spline and its first $j-1$ derivative of the spline are continuous at those knots. In spline estimate, the unknown function is approximated by a a power series of degree $p$,
$f(x)=\beta_0+\beta_1x+\beta_2x^2+\beta_3x^3+ ....+\beta_px^p+\sum_{c=1}^C\beta_{1c}(x-\theta_c)_+^p,$\\
where $(x-\theta_k)_+=x-\theta_c, x > \theta_c $ and 0 otherwise.
$\boldsymbol\beta$ is obtained by minimizing the following quantity which has a "roughness penalty", $\lambda$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Sigma_{i=1}^{n}[Y_i-\hat{f}(x_i)]^2+\lambda \int[\hat{f^{''}}(x)]^2dx,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\lambda$ is a tunning parameter controls smoothness and $\hat{f^{''}}(x)$ is the second derivative estimate. There are many methods for choosing $\lambda$, such as CV and GCV (Wahba 1977). For more details in spline smoothing, see Wang (2011).
How many knots need to be used? and where those knots should be located? A possible solution is to consider fitting a spline with knots at every data point, so it could fit perfectly and estimate its parameters by minimizing the usual sum of squares plus a roughness penalty. The smoothing parameter $\lambda$ has the same effect on smoothing such as $h$ in kernel smoothing regression. When $\lambda$ is very big the smoothing ling would be similar to linear regression line and when it is small, the smoothing line would be wiggly. Figure 7(left) shows the smoothed estimated function using optimal $\lambda$ and Figure 7(right) show the effect of the smoothing parameter on the smoothness of the estimated function. Spline smoothing of the unknown function and its derivative can be used to see if the curvature is significant or not. Figure 8 shows the smoothed estimated function and its derivative along with 95\% confidence interval using the optimal value of bandwidth.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\footnotesize
\stackunder[5pt]{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=5.5cm]{sp3}}{(a)}%
\hspace{0.5cm}%
\stackunder[5pt]{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=5.5cm]{sp4}}{(b)}
\caption{Estimate of the unknown function using optimal $\lambda$ determined my GCV criteria (a), and estimation using different values of penalty value, $\lambda$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\stackunder[5pt]{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=4.8cm]{sp}}{(a)}%
\stackunder[5pt]{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=4.8cm]{dersp}}{(b)}
\end{center}
\caption{Estimate of the unknown function (a), and its derivative with 95\% confidence interval (b) using $spm$ function at optimal smoothing parameter, $\lambda$, determined my REML criteria. Number of knots used is equal to 10 and $\lambda=25.65$.}
\end{figure}
There are many R functions that can be used to estimate semi/nonparametric regression models using kernel and smoothing splines techniques. Table 1 display R packages and functions to estimate the unknown function nonparametrically.
\begin{table}[h!]\footnotesize
\caption{Different R packages and functions for estimating the nonparametric function and its derivative}
\centering
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lllc}
\hline
&Package & Function& Smooth parameter\\
\hline
Local Polynomial &locfit & locfit & GCV\\
Kernel smoothing&KernSmooth & locpoly & ---\\
&lokern & glkerns & plug-in$$\\
&lpridge & lpridge & ---\\
&np& npreg&\\
&stats& ksmooth&\\
\hline
Spline&pspline & smooth.Pspline & CV/GCV\\
&sfsmisc & D1D2 & GCV\\
&SemiPar & spm & RE(ML)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:tab1}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Multiple Case}
These methods, kernel and spline smoothing, can be extended to any number of explanatory variables. Assume a researcher wanted to fit prestige as a response variable with education and income. Figure 1 shows that the relationship between education and prestige is linear and the relationship between income and prestige is nonlinear (unknown). So the following semiparametric model can be assumed
\begin{equation}
Y=\beta_0+\beta_1education+f(income)+\epsilon,
\end{equation}
where $f(\cdot)$ is a nonparametric function and needs to be estimated.
Smoothing splines or kernel regression can be used to fit this the nonparametric term. Figure 9 shows the estimated two functions: a linear function of prestige and education and the nonparametric function of prestige and income. Also the two relationships can be assumed unknown and the following model can be assumed
\begin{equation}
Y=f(education)+f(income)+\epsilon,
\end{equation}
where $f_1(\cdot)$ and $f_1(\cdot)$ are nonparametric functions and need to be estimated.
Figure 10 reveals the estimated nonparametric functions assuming both relationships are unknown,
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\vskip -1mm
\includegraphics[width=16cm, totalheight=7cm]{sp2}
\end{center}
\vskip -7mm
\caption{Estimated relationship between eduacation, income and prestige using smoothing spline for the model $Y=\beta_0+\beta_1Education + f(Income)+\epsilon$}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\vskip -5mm
\includegraphics[width=16cm, totalheight=7cm]{nonp}
\end{center}
\vskip -7mm
\caption{Estimated relationship between eduacation, income and prestige using smoothing spline for the model $Y=f(education) + f(income)+\epsilon$}
\end{figure}
Another example for multiple case, an application from Wooldridge (2003, pg. 226) is considered. These data has quantitative and categorical variables and number of observation is 526. It is available in R in $"np"$ R package. The response variable is log(wage) and the explanatory variables are educ (years of education), exper (the number of years of experience), and tenure (the number of years of current employment), female (Female or Male), and married (Married or Notmarried). The scatterplots are shown in Figure 11 that shows the scatterplots of the explanatory variables with the response. A researcher can assume the relationships between the response and quantitative variables are unknown and estimate them nonparametrically and fit the following model
\begin{center}
$Y=\beta_0+\beta_1 female+f_1(edu)+f_2(exper)+f_3(tenure)+\epsilon$,
\end{center}
where the categorical variable is considered as a factor and the the form of the other relationships, $f_1(\cdot)$, $f_2(\cdot)$, and $f_3(\cdot)$, are unknown.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11cm, totalheight=7cm]{all}
\end{center}
\vskip -6mm
\caption{Scatter plots of wage data}
\end{figure}
The output are displayed below and the smoothed functions are showed in Figure 12.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=11cm, totalheight=5.5cm]{out1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm, totalheight=8cm]{all1}
\end{center}
\vskip -6mm
\caption{Smoothed estimated functions of wage data for the model $Y=\beta_0+\beta_1 female+f(edu)+f(exper)+f(tenure)+\epsilon$}
\end{figure}
Another structure of semiparametric regression modeling, may assumed to this data set, is single index model which takes the following form
\begin{center}
$Y=f(\beta_1tenure+\beta_2female+\beta_3edu+\beta_4exper)+\epsilon$,
\end{center}
where $f(\cdot)$ is unknown function, $\boldsymbol\beta=(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_4)$ is the single index coefficient vector parameters, and $\epsilon$ is the random error term. The estimated index parameters, R-square, and optimal bandwidth are displayed below and the smoothed fitted function, $\hat{f}(\cdot)$, is showed in Figure 13.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=9cm, totalheight=5cm]{out2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13cm, totalheight=8cm]{sim}
\end{center}
\vskip -6mm
\caption{Smoothed estimated single index function of wage data for the model $Y=f(\beta_1tenure+\beta_2female+\beta_3edu+\beta_4exper)+\epsilon$}
\end{figure}
\vskip 15cm
\section{Robust Nonparametric Estimation}
Outliers may affect kernel or spline nonparametric estimation. So robust estimation is needed in this case. In kernel smoothing, at a point $x$, the smoothing is obtained from fitting the $p$th-degree polynomial model using weighted least squares with kernel weights as described in equation (7). The kernel function $K$ is usually taken to be a symmetric positive function with $K(d)$ is decreasing as the absolute distance, $|d|$, increases. That is, this polynomial is locally fitted by minimizing the quantity in equation (8). To down weight the effect of unusual values, these weights need to be adjusted to be a function of residuals.
The robust weights are defined as $R_{j}(x)=w^k_j(x)*w^r_j$, $(j=1,2,\ldots,n)$, where $w^r_j$ will be explained below and is obtained from the derivative of some appropriately chosen smooth convex loss function such as Huber or bisquare function. $R_{j}(x)$ is expected to downweight the effect of unusual values on estimation.
How to obtain $w^r_j$? It is defined as a function of the rescaled residuals to have small weight value for outlying observations. It takes the form
\begin{align}\label{eq7}
w_j^r=\frac{\phi^{'}\{[y_j-\hat{f}(x_j)]/\hat{s}\}}{[y_j-\hat{f}(x_j)]/\hat{s}}=\frac{\phi^{'}(r^s_j)}{r^s_ j},\,\, j=1,2,\ldots,n,
\end{align}
where $y_j$ is the response value, $\hat{f}(x_j)$ is the estimated mean using locally weighted polynomial regression, $\hat{s}$ is the interquartile range of the residuals, and $r^s_ j=[y_j-\hat{f}(x_j)]/\hat{s}$ is the rescaled residual associated with the value $x_j$. When $x_j$ is an unusual value, $r^{s}_j$ is expected to be large, so the weight $w^{r}_j$ will be small.
To evaluate the performance of the robust weights compared to kernel weights, 100 observations are generated form $f(x)=\{1+e^{-20(x-0.5)}\} ^{(-1)}$ where $x$ is generated from Uniform(0, 1) and two outliers or unusual data points are added, (0.8, 0.6) and (0.75, 0.62), manually to the data. Figure 14 shows the estimated function with the outliers added to the data using kernel, spline and robust weights. Figure 14 shows that kernel and spline are not robust at the interval contain the outliers but the robust estimation does not get affected by these added outliers. They do not get affected only at these two points but also in an interval contain these outlying points.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11cm, totalheight=8cm]{robust2}
\end{center}
\vskip -6mm
\caption{Simulated data from $f(x)=\{1+e^{-20(x-0.5)}\} ^{(-1)}$ along with two added outliers points, (0.8, 0.6) and (0.75, 0.62), and the smoothed function by kernel regression, spline and robust nonparametric regression at the same bandwidth, $h=0.046$. }
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion and conclusion}
In this article, three types of modeling are discussed by applications, parametric, semiparametric, nonparametric modeling. Nonparametric and semiparametric regression models are flexible compared to parametric models. Semiparametric is hybrid of both parametric and nonparametric which allow to have the best of both worlds: a model that is understandable and offering a fair representation of the data in the real life. However, semi/nonparametric regression requires larger sample sizes than regression based on parametric models because the data must supply the model structure as well as the model estimates. semi/nonparametric are flexible and avoid the misleading results when we use a wrong model. One of the well-known semiparametric models is single index model. It assumes the link between the mean response and the explanatory variables is unknown and estimates it nonparametrically. This gives the single index model two main advantages over parametric and nonparametric models: (1) it avoids mispecifying the link function and its misleading results and (2) the reduction of dimension which is achieved by assuming the link function to be a univariate function applied to the projection of explanatory covariate vector on to some direction. Semi/nonparametric is not resistant to outliers, a robust method is introduced. The R code for all the graphs and analyses presented here, in this article, is available in the Appendix.
\vskip 10mm
\noindent
{\Large{\bf References}}
\par\vskip 2mm\noindent\refhg Fan, J., and Yao, Q. (2003). {\it Nonlinear time series: nonparametric and parametric methods}. Springer: New York.
\par\vskip 2mm\noindent\refhg Dhekale, B. S., Sahu, P. K., Vishwajith, K. P., Mishra, P., and Narsimhaiah, L. (2017). Application of parametric and nonparametric regression models for area, production and productivity trends of tea (Camellia sinensis) in India. {\it Indian Journal of Ecology}, 44(2), 192-200.
\par\vskip 2mm\noindent\refhg Ichimura, H. (1993). Semiparametric least squares (SLS) and weighted SLS estimation of single-index models. {\it Journal of Econometrics}, 58, 71-120.
\par\vskip 2mm\noindent\refhg Jialiang Li, Chao Huang, Zhub Hongtu, for the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. (2017). A functional varying-coefficient single-index model for functional response data. {\it Journal of the American Statistical Association}, 112:519, 1169-1181
\par\vskip 2mm\noindent\refhg Lin, W., and Kulasekera, K. B. (2007). Identifiability of single index models and additive index models. {\it Biometrika}, 94, 496-501.
\par\vskip 2mm\noindent\refhg Loader, C. (1999). Bandwidth selection: classical or plug-in?. {\it The Annals of Statistics}, 27(2), 415-438.
\par\vskip 2mm\noindent\refhg Mahmoud, H. F. F., Kim, I., and Kim, H. (2016). Semiparametric single index multi change points model with an application of environmental health study on mortality and temperature. {\it Environmetrics}, 27(8), 494-506.
\par\vskip 2mm\noindent\refhg Mahmoud, H. F. F., and Kim, I. (2019). Semiparametric spatial mixed effects single index models. {\it Computational Statistics \& Data Analysis}, 136, 108-112.
\par\vskip 2mm\noindent\refhg Nadaraya, E. A. (1964). On estimating regression. {\it Theory of probability and its applications}, 9, 141-142.
\par\vskip 2mm\noindent\refhg Qin. J., Yu, T, Li, P., Liu, H., and Chen, B. (2018). Using a monotone single index model to stabilize the propensity score in missing data problems and causal inference. {\it Statistics in Medicine}. 38(8) 1442-1458.
\par\vskip 2mm\noindent\refhg Rajarathinan, A. and Parmar, R. S. (2011). Application pf parametric and nonparametric regression models for area, production and productivity trends of castor corn. {\it Asian Journal of Applied Sciences}, 4(1), 42-52.
\par\vskip 2mm\noindent\refhg Ruppert, D., Wand, M. P., and Carrol, R. J. (2003). {\it Semiparametric regression}. New York: Cambridge University Press.
\par\vskip 2mm\noindent\refhg Wang, Y. (2011). {\it Smoothing splines: methods and applications}. FL: CRC Press, Boca Raton.
\par\vskip 2mm\noindent\refhg Wand, M. P., and Jones, M.C. (1995). {\it Kernel smoothing}. London; New York: Chapman and Hall.
\par\vskip 2mm\noindent\refhg Watson, G. S. (1964). Smooth regression analysis. {\it Sankhya, Series A}, 26, 359-372.
\newpage
\vskip 10mm
\noindent
{\Large{\bf Appendix}}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=R]
library(SemiPar); library(np); library(car); library(stats)
library(graphics); data(fossil) # Load fossil data
attach(fossil)
fit = spm(strontium.ratio ~ f(age))
plot(fit)
points(age, strontium.ratio)
plot(age, strontium.ratio)
# ------------------------------------------------------------------
# Dataset cps71 from the np package, which consists of a random sample of
# wage data for 205 male individuals having common education (grade 13).
data(cps71)
attach(cps71)
str(cps71) # gives information about the variables
cps71 # print the data
plot(age, logwage)
# ------------------------------------------------------------------
# Prestige of Canadian Occupations data set. This data have 6 variables:
# education, income, women, prestige, census, and type. Source: Canada
# (1971) Census of Canada.
data(Prestige)
attach(Prestige)
Prestige
plot(Prestige)
plot(education, prestige, xlab="Education", ylab="Prestige")
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
# ---- Fixing nonlinearity by using polynomial regression
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
par(mfrow=c(2,2))
plot(age, logwage, xlab="Age", ylab="log(wage)", main="")
linear.model=lm(logwage~age)
lines(age,fitted(linear.model), lty=1, lwd=2, col=4)
plot(linear.model) # check the assumptions
summary(linear.model)
plot(age, logwage, xlab="Age", ylab="log(wage)", main="")
Quad.model <- lm(logwage ~ age + I(age^2))
lines(age,fitted(Quad.model), lty=1, lwd=2, col=4)
plot(Quad.model)
cubic.model <- lm(logwage ~ age + I(age^2)+ I(age^3))
plot(age, logwage, xlab="Age", ylab="log(wage)", main="")
lines(age,fitted(cubic.model), lty=1, lwd=2, col=4)
plot(cubic.model)
Quart.model <- lm(logwage ~ age + I(age^2)+ I(age^3)+ I(age^4))
plot(age, logwage, xlab="Age", ylab="log(wage)", main="")
lines(age,fitted(Quart.model), lty=1, lwd=2, col=7)
plot(Quart.model)
summary(Quart.model)
anova(linear.model, Quart.model)
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
# --------------- First method: Kernel regression
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
data(cps71)
attach(cps71)
Kernel.smooth <- npreg(logwage~age)
plot(Kernel.smooth, plot.errors.method="asymptotic",
plot.errors.style="band" ,ylim=c(11,15.2),
main="Estimated function and its 9
points(age,logwage)
summary(Kernel.smooth)
# -------------- Another R function can be used to estimate
# ------------- the unknown function using kernel regression
# -------------- Effect of bandwidth on smoothing
plot(age, logwage)
lines(ksmooth(age, logwage, "normal", bandwidth =.5), col = 1, lwd=2)
lines(ksmooth(age, logwage, "normal", bandwidth =1), col = 2, lwd=2)
lines(ksmooth(age, logwage, "normal", bandwidth = 2), col = 3, lwd=2)
lines(ksmooth(age, logwage, "normal", bandwidth = 5), col = 4, lwd=2)
lines(ksmooth(age, logwage, "normal", bandwidth = 10), col = 5, lwd=2)
lines(ksmooth(age, logwage, "normal", bandwidth = 100),col = 6, lwd=2)
legend(20,15, c("h=0.5", "h=1"),lwd =2, col = 1:2, bty="n")
legend(28,12.5, c("h=2", "h=5", "h=10","h=100"),lwd =2, col = 3:6, bty="n")
# ------------ Smoothing splines
fit <- spm(logwage ~ f(age, degree=3), spar.method="ML")
plot(fit, col=1, shade=FALSE, ylab="logwage")
summary(fit)
plot(fit, se=FALSE)
plot(fit, drv=1, col=1, lwd=2, shade=FALSE, xlab="age", ylab="")
# ------------------------------------------------------------------
# ------------- Second method: Spline regression
# ------------------------------------------------------------------
# ------ Study the effect of lambda on smoothing
plot(smooth.spline(age, logwage, spar = .1), xlab="age", ylab="logwage",
type="l", xlim=c(20,70), ylim=c(11.5, 14.5), lwd=2)
points(age, logwage)
lines(smooth.spline(age, logwage, spar = .2), type="l", lwd=2, col=2)
lines(smooth.spline(age, logwage, spar = .5), type="l", lwd=2, col=3)
lines(smooth.spline(age, logwage, spar = 1), type="l", lwd=2, col=4)
lines(smooth.spline(age, logwage, spar = 2), type="l", lwd=2, col=5)
legend(20,14.7, c("lambda=0.1", "lambda=.2"),lwd =2, col = 1:2, bty="n")
legend(30,12.1, c("lambda=.5", "lambda=1"), lwd =2, col = 3:4, bty="n")
legend(50,12.1, c("lambda=2"), lwd =2, col = 5, bty="n")
# --------- Fit the function using the optimal soothing value
plot(age, logwage)
lines(smooth.spline(age, logwage), col=1, type="l", lwd=2)
spline=smooth.spline(age, logwage)
plot(spline, type="l", xlim=c(20,70), ylim=c(11, 15), lwd=2)
points(age, logwage)
spline
R2=cor(fitted(spline), logwage); print(R2)
#------------------------------------------------------------------
#--------- Multiple Case
#-------------------- Kernel Regression ------------------------
data(wage1); wage1
lwage=wage1$lwage; female=wage1$female; married=wage1$married; edu=wage1$edu
exper=wage1$exper; tenure=wage1$tenure
data=data.frame(lwage, female, married, edu, exper, tenure)
par(mfrow=c(2,2))
plot(female, lwage, type="p") ;plot(edu, lwage); plot(exper, lwage)
plot(tenure, lwage)
bw <- npregbw(lwage ~ factor(female) + educ +
exper + tenure, regtype = "ll", bwmethod = "cv.ls",
data = wage1, tol = 0.1, ftol = 0.1)
npplot(bw, plot.errors.method = "asymptotic", common.scale = FALSE)
summary(bw)
# --------------------- nonparamtric Smoothing Spline ----------
data(Prestige)
attach(Prestige)
library(mgcv)
plot(income, prestige)
plot(education, prestige)
mod.gam <- gam(prestige ~ s(income) + s(education))
mod.gam
plot(mod.gam)
# ----------------------- Single index model --------------------
bw <- npindexbw(formula=lwage ~ edu+ exper +tenure + factor(female)
, data=data)
model.index <- npindex(bws=bw, gradients=TRUE)
summary(model.index)
index=model.index$index; est=fitted(model.index)
plot(model.index)
plot(index,est)
fit=spm(est ~ f(index), spar.method="REML")
plot(fit)
# ---------------------------------------------------------------
data(Prestige)
attach(Prestige)
fit1=spm(prestige ~ education + f(income)) # using spline smoothing
fit1=spm(prestige ~ f(education) + f(income)) # using spline smoothing
plot(fit1)
par(mfrow=c(1,2))
plot(fit1, ylab="prestige")
fit2 = npindex(prestige ~ education + income, gradients=TRUE, data =Prestige)
plot(fit2, plot.errors.method="bootstrap",
plot.errors.center="bias-corrected",
plot.errors.type="quantiles")
# ---------------------------------------------------------
#------------- Robust Derivative Estimation technique
x=runif(100,0,1); y=(1+exp(-20*(x-0.5)))^-1 +rnorm(100,0,0.05)
ydash=-(1+exp(-20*(x-0.5)))^-2*(-20)*exp(-20*(x-0.5))
ss=data.frame(x, y, ydash)
newdata <- ss[order(ss[,1]),]
x=newdata[,1]; y=newdata[,2]; ydash=newdata[,3]
x[99]=0.8; y[99]=0.6 ; x[98]=0.75; y[98]=0.62
ss=data.frame(x, y)
newdata <- ss[order(ss[,1]),]
x=newdata[,1]; y=newdata[,2]
# ------------- Kernel smoothing get affected by outliers
Kernel.smooth <- npreg(y~x)
plot(Kernel.smooth, main="", ylim=c(-0.1,1.1))
points(x,y)
summary(Kernel.smooth)
# ------------- Spline soomth also get affected by outliers
cars.spl <- sm.spline(x, y)
lines(cars.spl, col = "red")
# -------------- Robust kernel estimation
n=length(y) #sample size
ch=1.345
band=.046
delta=rep(1,n)
whiillr=c(); seyhat=c(); yhat=c(); w=c()
for (ii in 1:8){
der=c(); est=c()
for (i in 1:length(x))
{
u=x-x[i]
h0j<-exp(-(u/band)^2)
sumh<-sum(h0j)
h0j<-h0j/sumh
w0j=h0j*delta
wxbar=sum(w0j*x)/sum(w0j)
wssx=sum(w0j*(x-wxbar)^2)
w0jllr=(w0j/sum(w0j)) + ((x[i]-wxbar)*w0j*(x-wxbar))/wssx
whiillr[i]=w0jllr[i]
seyhat[i]=sum(w0jllr^2)
w[i]=delta[i]
one=rep(1, length(x))
X=cbind(one,u)
W=diag(w0j)
beta=solve(t(X)\%*\%W\%*\%X)\%*\%t(X)\%*\%W\%*\%y
est[i]=beta[1]
der[i]=beta[2]
}
yhat=est
r=y-yhat
m=median(r)
mad=(median(abs(r-m)))/.6745 #mad is the mad estimate of scale
rs=r/mad #rs are the rescaled residuals
for (j in 1:n){
if (abs(rs[j]) <= ch){delta[j]=1} else {delta[j]=ch/abs(rs[j])}
}
all=cbind(x, y, yhat ,rs ,delta)
print(all[1:10,])
}
dferror=sum(w)-sum(whiillr) #error degrees of freedom
sigma2=sum(w*(y-yhat)^2)/dferror #estimate of sigma squared
tvalue=2 #invcdf .975 tvalue
seyhat=sqrt(sigma2*seyhat) #seyhat contains the se(yhat)
lclm=yhat-tvalue*seyhat
uclm=yhat+tvalue*seyhat
points(x, typ="l", yhat, col="blue", lwd=2)
#lines(x,lclm, col="blue", lwd=2)
#lines(x,uclm, col="blue", lwd=2)
\end{lstlisting}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
The notion of n-Lie algebras was introduced by Filippov in \cite{FV}, which are closely related to the fields of mathematics and physics, and the algebraic structure of n-Lie algebras corresponds to Nambu mechanics \cite{Gautheron P, Dirac, Takhtajan, Awata}. In particular, as a special case of n-Lie algebras, 3-Lie algebras are extensively studied because they play a significant role in string theory and M-theory \cite{Bagger, Gustavsson, Bandos, Sheikh-Jabbari,Gauntlett}. For example, the basic model of Bagger-Lambert-Gustavsson theory is based on the structure of metric 3-Lie algebras, and the
Jacobi equation of 3-Lie algebras is the foundation for defining the $N=8$ supersymmetry action.
Lie bialgebras have widespread applications in geometry and physics. The structure of Lie bialgebras is very important since it contains coboundary theory, which makes the structure of Lie bialgebras relate to the classical Yang-Baxter equation \cite{Gerstenhaber}. In general,
a Lie bialgebra is actually a vector space endowed with a Lie algebra structure $(A,[\cdot,\cdot])$ and a Lie coalgebra structure $(A, \Delta )$ (where $\Delta: A\rightarrow \wedge^2 A$ is the comultiplication) satisfying the compatibility condition which is proposed based on the Hamitonian dynamics and Poisson Lie groups \cite{Drinfeld, Etingof, Loday, Joni}. In \cite{BaiGL, BCM5}, the authors studied 3-Lie bialgebra structures and Manin-triple for 3-Lie algebras.
In this paper, we mainly study the structure of 3-Lie algebras with involutive derivations. By means of an involutive derivation of an $n$-dimensional 3-Lie algebra $A$, we construct a $4n$-dimensional Manin triple $(B_1\oplus B_2,$ $ [ \cdot, \cdot, \cdot]_1,$ $ [ \cdot, \cdot, \cdot]_2,$ $ B_1, B_2)$ of 3-Lie algebras, and study its structure. We also construct a 16-dimensional Manin triple $(B, [ \cdot, \cdot, \cdot])$ of 3-Lie algebras by means of an involutive derivation $D$ on a four dimensional 3-Lie algebra $A$ with $\dim A^1=2$, which is a 16-dimensional 3-Lie algebra with $\dim B^1=12.$
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we recall some elementary facts on 3-Lie algebras, and give the description of
the semi-direct product 3-Lie algebras associated with the coadjoint representations of 3-Lie algebras which have involutive derivations. In section 3, by means of involutive derivations, we construct a class of local cocycle $3$-Lie bialgebras. In section 4, based on the
coadjoint representations of semi-direct product 3-Lie algebras and the dual structures of the 3-Lie coalgebras, we construct a class of Manin triples and Matched pairs of 3-Lie algebras.
In the paper, we suppose that all algebras and vector spaces are over a field $\mathbb F$ of characteristic zero, and for a subset $S$ of a vector space $V$, we use $\langle S\rangle$ to denote the
subspace of $V$ spanned by $S$.
\section{The semi-direct product 3-Lie algebra $A\ltimes_{ad^*}A^*$}
First we recall the notion of 3-Lie algebras with involutive derivations.
{\it A 3-Lie algebra} is a vector space $A$ with a linear multiplication (or 3-Lie bracket)
$[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]:\wedge^{3}A\rightarrow A$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
[x_1,x_2,[x_3,x_4, x_5]]=[[x_1,x_2, x_3],x_4,x_5]+[x_3,[x_1,x_2, x_4],x_5]+[x_3,x_4,[x_1,x_2, x_5]],
\label{eq:jacobi1}
\end{equation}
for $\forall x_{i}\in A, 1\leq i\leq 5$.
{\it A derivation} $D$ of a 3-Lie algebra $A$ is a linear map $D:A\rightarrow A$ satisfying,
\begin{equation}
D([x_1,x_2,x_3])=[D(x_1),x_2,x_3]+[x_1,D(x_2),x_3]+[x_1,x_2,D(x_3)],\forall x_1,x_2,x_3\in A.
\label{eq:der}
\end{equation}
In addition, if $D^2=I_d$, then $D$ is called an {\it involutive derivation} on $A$.
Thanks to \eqref{eq:jacobi1}, for $\forall x_1, x_2\in A,$ the left multiplication
$$ad_{x_1x_2}:\wedge^{2}A\rightarrow gl(A)$$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ad}
ad_{x_{1}x_{2}}x=[x_{1},x_{2},x], ~~~ \forall x\in A,
\end{equation}
satisfies
\begin{equation}
ad_{x_{1}x_{2}}[x_{3},x_{4},x_{5}]=[ad_{x_{1}x_{2}}x_{3},x_{4},x_{5}]+[x_{3},ad_{x_{1}x_{2}}x_{4},x_{5}]+[x_{3},x_{4},ad_{x_{1}x_{2}}x_{5}],
\label{eq:ad2}
\end{equation}
which is called {\it an inner derivation}.
Let $A$ be an $n$-dimensional 3-Lie algebra with an involutive derivation $D$. Then $A$ has a decomposition
\begin{equation}
A=A_1 ~\dot+~ A_{-1},
\label{eq:1}
\end{equation}
where $A_1=\{x\in A \mid Dx=x\}$ and $ A_{-1}=\{
x\in A \mid Dx=-x\}$, and there is a basis $\{x_1, \cdots, x_n\}$ of $A$ such that
$x_1,\cdots,x_s\in A_{1},$ and $x_{s+1},\cdots,x_n\in A_{-1}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:bb}
Let $A$ be a finite dimensional 3-Lie algebra with an
involutive derivation $D$.
Then
\begin{equation}
\hspace{15mm}[A_1, A_1, A_1]=[A_{-1}, A_{-1}, A_{-1}]=0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
[A_1, A_1, A_{-1}]\subseteq A_1, \quad [A_1, A_{-1}, A_{-1}]\subseteq A_{-1}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Apply Theorem 4 in \cite{Derivation}.
\end{proof}
{\it A representation (or an $A$-module)}\cite{KA} of a 3-Lie algebra $A$ over a field $\mathbb F$ is a pair $(V, \rho)$, where $V$ is a vector space over $\mathbb F$, and $\rho$ is an $\mathbb F$-linear map $\rho:\wedge^{2}A \rightarrow gl(V)$ satisfying, for $\forall x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}, x_{4}\in A,$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:i}
[\rho(x_{1},x_{2}),\rho(x_{3},x_{4})]=\rho([x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}],x_{4})+\rho(x_{3},[x_{1},x_{2},x_{4}]),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ii}\rho([x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}],x_{4})=\rho (x_{1},x_{2})\rho (x_{3},x_{4})+\rho (x_{2},x_{3})\rho (x_{1},x_{4})+\rho (x_{3},x_{1})\rho (x_{2},x_{4}).
\end{equation}
There is an equivalent description for an $A$-module, that is, $(V, \rho)$ is an $A$-module if and only if
$(A\oplus V, \mu)$ is a 3-Lie algebra, where $\mu: (A\oplus V)^3\rightarrow A\oplus V$, for all $x_1, x_2, x_3\in A, v\in V$,
$$\mu(x_1, x_2, x_3)=[x_1, x_2, x_3], ~~ \mu(x_1, x_2, v)=\rho(x_1, x_2)v, ~~ [A, V, V]=[V, V, V]=0.$$
The 3-Lie algebra $(A\oplus V, \mu)$ is called {\it the semi-direct product 3-Lie algebra of $A$ associated with $(V, \rho),$} which is denoted by $A\ltimes_{\rho}V. $ \cite{RE}
Let $(A,[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot])$ be a 3-Lie algebra. Thanks to \eqref{eq:ad} and \eqref{eq:ad2}, $(A, ad)$ is a representation, where $ad:\wedge^{2} A\rightarrow gl(A)$, for all $x_1, x_2\in A$, $ad(x_1\wedge x_2)=ad_{x_1x_2}$, which is called the {\it adjoint representation} of $A$. The dual representation $(A^{*}, ad^{*})$ of $(A, ad)$ is called the {\it coadjoint representation}, where $ad^*: \wedge^2A\rightarrow gl(A^*)$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:one}
\langle ad^{*}_{x_1x_2}x_{c}^*, x_{t}\rangle=-\langle x_{c}^*,ad_{x_1x_2}x_{t}\rangle, ~ \forall x_1,x_2,x_{t}\in A, x_{c}^*\in A^*.
\end{equation}
The semi-direct product 3-Lie algebra $(A\ltimes _{ad^*} A^*,\mu)$ associated with $(A^*, ad^*)$ is denoted by $B_1.$ Then
for all $x_i\in A, x_{i}^{*}\in A^{*}, 1\leq i \leq 3$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:*}
\small\mu(x_1+x_{1}^{*},x_2+x_{2}^{*},x_3+x_{3}^{*})=[x_1,x_2,x_3]+ad^{*}_{x_1x_2}x_{3}^{*}+ad^{*}_{x_3x_1}x_{2}^{*}+ad^{*}_{x_2x_3}x_{1}^{*}.
\end{equation}
For describing the structure of the semi-direct product 3-Lie algebra $(A\ltimes _{ad^*} A^*,\mu)$, we need the structural constant in a basis of the 3-Lie algebra $A$.
Let $A$ be a 3-Lie algebra with a basis $\{x_1,\cdots,x_n\}, $ and let $ \{{x_1^{*},\cdots,x_n^{*}}\}$ be the dual basis of the dual space $A^{*},$ that is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sasa}
\langle x_i,x^{*}_j\rangle=\delta_{ij}, 1\leq i,j\leq n.
\end{equation}
Suppose the multiplication of $A$ in the basis \{$x_1,\cdots,x_n$\} is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ooo}
[x_a,x_b,x_c]=\sum_{k=1}^n \Gamma ^{k}_{abc}x_{k}, \quad \Gamma ^{k}_{abc}\in \mathbb F,\quad 1\leq a,b,c,k\leq n.
\end{equation}
By the above notations, we have the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:semimu} Let $A$ be a 3-Lie algebra with an involutive derivation $D$, and let the multiplication of $A$ in the basis $\{x_1,\cdots,x_n\}$ be \eqref{eq:ooo}, where
$$A_1=\langle x_1, \cdots, x_s\rangle, \quad A_{-1}=\langle x_{s+1}, \cdots, x_n\rangle.$$
Let furtherd $\{x_1^{*},\cdots,x_n^{*}\}$ be the dual basis of the dual space $A^*$. Then the mulitiplication $\mu$ of the semi-direct product 3-Lie algebra $B_{1}=A\ltimes_{ad^*} A^*$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1}
\mu(x_a,x_b,x_c)=\begin{cases}\begin{split}
\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{k}_{abc}x_{k}, &1\leq a,b\leq s<c\leq n,\\
\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{k}_{abc}x_{k}, &1\leq a\leq s<b,c\leq n,\\
0,~ &~~1\leq a,b,c\leq s ~~or~ s+1\leq a,b,c\leq n.\\
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2}
\hspace{-1.2cm}\mu(x_a,x_b,x_c^{*})=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
-\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{c}_{abk}x_{k}^{*},&~~ 1\leq a,b,c\leq s,\\
-\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{c}_{abk}x_{k}^{*}, &~~ s+1\leq a,b,c\leq n,\\
-\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{c}_{abk}x_{k}^{*},&~~ 1\leq a,c\leq s<b\leq n,\\
-\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{c}_{abk}x_{k}^{*},&~~ 1\leq a\leq s<b,c\leq n,\\
0, &~~ 1\leq a,b\leq s<c\leq n,\\
0,&~ 1\leq c\leq s<a,b\leq n,\\
\end{split}\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and $$\mu(x_a, x_b^*, x_c^{*})=\mu(x_a^*,x_b^*,x_c^{*})=0, \quad \forall 1\leq a, b, c\leq n.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} From \eqref{eq:*}, we can suppose
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ppp}
\mu(x_{a},x_{b}, x_{c}^{*})=ad^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}x_{c}^{*}=\sum_{k=1}^n\lambda_{abc}^{k}x_{k}^{*}, \quad \lambda_{abc}^{k}\in F,\quad 1\leq a,b,c,k\leq n.
\end{equation}
Thanks to Lemma \ref{lem:bb} and Eq \eqref{eq:ooo}, a direct computation yields \eqref{eq:1}.
By Eqs \eqref{eq:one} and \eqref{eq:ppp}, for $\forall x_{a}, x_{b}, x_{t}\in A, x_{c}^{*}\in A^{*},$
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
\langle\mu(x_{a},x_{b}, x_{c}^{*}),x_{t}\rangle=&\langle\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda^{k}_{abc}x_{k}^{*},x_{t}\rangle=\lambda_{abc}^{t},\\
\langle\mu(x_{a},x_{b}, x_{c}^{*}),x_{t}\rangle =&-\langle x_{c}^{*},ad_{x_{a},x_{b}}x_{t}\rangle=-\langle x_{c}^{*},\sum_{k=1}^n \Gamma^{k}_{abt}x_{k}\rangle=-\Gamma^{c}_{abt}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Therefore,$$ \lambda_{abc}^{t}=-\Gamma^{c}_{abt}, \quad \forall 1\leq a, b, c, t\leq n.$$
By \eqref{eq:ppp}, $$\mu(x_a,x_b,x_c^{*})=\sum_{k=1}^n\lambda_{abc}^{k}x_{k}^{*}=-\sum_{k=1}^n\Gamma_{abk}^{c}x_{k}^{*}, \quad \forall 1\leq a, b, c, t\leq n.$$
Follows from \eqref{eq:1}, we obtain \eqref{eq:2}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\section{The local cocycle 3-Lie bialgebras induced by involutive derivations}
For a 3-Lie algebra $A$ with an involutive derivation $D$, we will construct a 3-Lie algebra $B_2$ on the dual space $(A\oplus A^*)^{*}$.
But before that, we need to construct a local cocycle 3-Lie bialgebra structure on the semi-direct product 3-Lie algebra $A\ltimes_{ad^*}A^*$.
First we recall some definitions.
Let $A$ be a 3-Lie algebra, $A^*$ be the dual space of $A$, and $\Delta: A\rightarrow A\wedge A\wedge A$ be a linear mapping. Then the dual mapping $\Delta^*$ of $\Delta$ is a linear mapping
$\Delta^*: A^*\wedge A^*\wedge A^*\rightarrow
A^*$ satisfying,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dualdelta}
\langle \Delta^*(\alpha, \beta, \gamma), x\rangle=\langle \alpha\otimes \beta\otimes \gamma, \Delta (x)\rangle, ~~ \forall \alpha, \beta, \gamma\in A^*, ~~x\in A.
\end{equation}
{\it A local cocycle 3-Lie bialgebra} \cite{BCM5} is a pair $(A, \Delta)$, where $A$ is a 3-Lie algebra, and
$$\Delta=\Delta_1+\Delta_2+\Delta_3:A\rightarrow A\wedge
A\wedge A$$ is a linear mapping satisfying that
\begin{itemize}
\item $(A^*, \Delta^*)$ is a 3-Lie algebra,
\item $\Delta_{1}$ is a $1$-cocycle associated to the $A$-module $(A\otimes A\otimes A,ad\otimes 1\otimes 1)$,
\item $\Delta_{2}$ is a $1$-cocycle associated to the $A$-module $(A\otimes A\otimes A,1\otimes ad\otimes 1)$,
\item $\Delta_{3}$ is a $1$-cocycle associated to the $A$-module $(A\otimes A\otimes A,1\otimes 1\otimes ad)$.
\end{itemize}
For $r=\sum_i x_i\otimes y_i\in A\otimes A$, denotes
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
[[r,r,r]]: \equiv&\sum_{i,j,k}\big([x_i,x_j,x_k]\otimes y_i\otimes y_j\otimes y_k+x_i\otimes [y_i,x_j,x_k]\otimes y_j\otimes y_k\\
&+ x_i\otimes x_j\otimes [y_i, y_j,x_k]\otimes y_k+ x_i\otimes x_j\otimes x_k\otimes [y_i,y_j,y_k]\big).
\end{split}
\label{eq:rrr}
\end{equation}
The equation
\begin{equation}
[[r,r,r]]=0
\label{eq:CYBE}
\end{equation}
is called the {\it 3-Lie classical Yang-Baxter equation} in the 3-Lie algebra $A$, and simply denoted by {\it CYBE}.
Let $A$ be a 3-Lie algebra with a basis $\{x_{1}, \cdots, x_{n}\}$, $\{x^*_{1},$ $\cdots, $ $x^*_{n}\}$ the dual basis of $A^*$, and $D$ an involutive derivation of $A$. Define the tensor $\overline D\in A^{*}\otimes A$ by,
\begin{equation}
\overline{D}(x,\xi)=\langle \xi, Dx\rangle, ~~ \forall x\in A, \xi \in A^{*}.
\end{equation}
Thanks to Theorem 3.3 in \cite{involutive}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:barD}
r=\overline{D}-\sigma_{12}\overline{D}
\end{equation}
is a skew-symmetric solution of {\it CYBE} in the semi-direct product 3-Lie algebra $A\ltimes_{ad^*} A^*$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Dr}
\overline{D}=\sum_{i=1}^n x_{i}^{*}\otimes Dx_i, ~~~~ r=\sum_{i=1}^n x_{i}^{*}\otimes Dx_i-\sum_{i=1}^n Dx_{i}\otimes x^*_i\in A^{*}\otimes A,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{12}$ is the exchanging mapping. And $r$ in \eqref{eq:Dr} induces a local cocycle 3-Lie bialgebra $(A\ltimes_{ad^*} A^*, \Delta)$ on the semi-direct product 3-Lie algebra $(A\ltimes_{ad^*} A^*, \mu)$, where $\forall x\in A\ltimes_{ad^*} A^*,$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Delta1}
\begin{array}{l}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\Delta_1(x)=\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n [x,x_i^{*},-Dx_j]\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes Dx_i+\sum\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n[x,-Dx_i^{*},x_j^{*}]\otimes Dx_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}\\
\vspace{2mm}\hspace{1.5cm}+ \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n[x,Dx_i^{*},Dx_j]\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*},\\
\vspace{2mm}\Delta_2(x)=\sigma_{13}\sigma_{12}\Delta_1(x),\\
\vspace{2mm}\Delta_3(x)=\sigma_{12}\sigma_{13}\Delta_1(x),\\
\vspace{2mm}\Delta(x)~=\Delta_1(x)+\Delta_2(x)+\Delta_3(x).\\
\end{array}\right.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
If we suppose that $x_1, \cdots, x_s\in A_1$ and $x_{s+1}, \cdots, x_n\in A_{-1}$. By a direct computation we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:999}
\begin{aligned}
\Delta_1(x)&=\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=1}^s [x,x_i^{*},-x_j]\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes x_i
+\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=s+1}^n [x,x_i^{*},x_j]\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes x_i\\&+\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=1}^s [x,x_i^{*},-x_j]\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes (-x_i)+\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=s+1}^n [x,x_i^{*},x_j]\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes (-x_i)\\&+\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=1}^s [x,-x_i,x_j^{*}]\otimes x_j\otimes x_i^{*}+\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=s+1}^n [x,-x_i,x_j^{*}]\otimes (-x_j)^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}\\&+\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=1}^s [x,x_i,x_j^{*}]\otimes x_j\otimes x_i^{*}+\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=s+1}^n [x,x_i,x_j^{*}]\otimes (-x_j)\otimes x_i^{*}\\&+\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=1}^s [x,x_i,x_j]\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}+\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=s+1}^n [x,x_i,-x_j]\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}\\&+\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=1}^s [x,-x_i,x_j]\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}+\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=s+1}^n [x,x_i,x_j]\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*},\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:9991}
\begin{aligned}
&\Delta_2(x)=\sigma_{13}\sigma_{12}\Delta_1(x)\\
=&\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=1}^s x_i\otimes[x,x_i^{*},-x_j]\otimes x_j^{*}+\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=s+1}^n x_i\otimes[x,x_i^{*},x_j]\otimes x_j^{*}\\
-&\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=1}^s x_i\otimes[x,x_i^{*},-x_j]\otimes x_j^{*}-\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=s+1}^n x_i\otimes[x,x_i^{*},x_j]\otimes x_j^{*} \\
-&\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=1}^s x_i^{*}\otimes[x,x_i,x_j^{*}]\otimes x_j +\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=s+1}^n x_i^{*}\otimes[x,x_i,x_j^{*}]\otimes x_j^{*}\\
+&\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=1}^sx_i^{*}\otimes [x,x_i,x_j^{*}]\otimes x_j-\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=s+1}^n x_i^{*}\otimes[x,x_i,x_j^{*}]\otimes x_j
\\+&\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=1}^s x_i^{*}\otimes[x,x_i,x_j]\otimes x_j^{*}-\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=s+1}^n x_i^{*} \otimes [x,x_i,x_j]\otimes x_j^{*}\\
-&\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=1}^s x_i^{*} \otimes[x,x_i,x_j]\otimes x_j^{*}+\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=s+1}^n x_i^{*} \otimes[x,x_i,x_j]\otimes x_j^{*},\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:9992}
\begin{aligned}
&\Delta_3(x)=\sigma_{12}\sigma_{13}\Delta_1(x)\\
=&\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=1}^s x_j^{*}\otimes x_i\otimes[x,x_i^{*},-x_j]
+\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=s+1}^n x_j^{*}\otimes x_i\otimes[x,x_i^{*},x_j]\\
+&\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=1}^s x_j^{*}\otimes x_i\otimes[x,x_i^{*},x_j] -\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=s+1}^n x_j^{*}\otimes x_i\otimes[x,x_i^{*},x_j]\\
-&\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=1}^s x_j\otimes x_i^{*}\otimes[x,x_i,x_j^{*}]+\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=s+1}^n x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}\otimes[x,x_i,x_j^{*}]\\
+&\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=1}^s x_j\otimes x_i^{*}\otimes[x,x_i,x_j^{*}]-\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=s+1}^n x_j\otimes x_i^{*}\otimes[x,x_i,x_j^{*}]\\
+&\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=1}^s x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}\otimes[x,x_i,x_j]+\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=s+1}^n x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}\otimes[x,x_i,-x_j] \\
-&\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=1}^s x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}\otimes[x,x_i,x_j]+\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=s+1}^n x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}\otimes[x,x_i,x_j].\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
For convenience, in the following, the semi-direct product 3-Lie algebra $(A\ltimes_{ad^*}A^*, \mu)$ is denoted by $B_1$, and the 3-Lie algebra $((A\oplus A^*)^{*}, \Delta^*)$ is denoted by $B_2$, where
$$\Delta^*:(A\oplus A^*)^{*}\wedge(A\oplus A^*)^{*}\wedge (A\oplus A^*)^{*}\rightarrow (A\oplus A^*)^*$$ is the dual mapping of $\Delta=\Delta_1+\Delta_2+\Delta_3$ defined as \eqref{eq:dualdelta}.
Suppose that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Pi1}
\Pi_{1}=\{x_{1}, \cdots, x_{s},x_{s+1},\cdots, x_{n},x_{1}^{*},\cdots, x_{s}^{*},x_{s+1}^{*},\cdots, x_{n}^{*}\}
\end{equation}
is a basis of $B_{1}$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Pi2}
\Pi_{2}=\{y_{1},\cdots, y_{s},y_{s+1},\cdots, y_{n},y_{1}^{*},\cdots, y_{s}^{*},y_{s+1}^{*},\cdots, y_{n}^{*}\}
\end{equation}
is a basis of $B_2$ such that $x_i\in A, x_i^*\in A^*$ for $1\leq i\leq n$ and
$x_k\in A_1$, $x_l\in A_{-1}$, $1\leq k\leq s$, $s+1\leq l\leq n$, satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bbb}
\langle x_{i},y_{j}^{*} \rangle= \langle x_{i}^{*},y_{j} \rangle=\langle x_i, x_j^*\rangle=\delta_{ij},
\langle x_{i},y_{j} \rangle=\langle x_{i}^{*},y_{j}^{*} \rangle=0,~~~~~1\leq i,j\leq n,
\end{equation}
and the multiplication of the 3-Lie algebra $A$ in the basis $x_1, \cdots x_s, x_{s+1}, \cdots, x_n$ is \eqref{eq:ooo}.
Thanks to Theorem \ref{thm:semimu} and Eqs \eqref{eq:999}, \eqref{eq:9991}, \eqref{eq:9992} and \eqref{eq:ooo}, for $\forall 1\leq t\leq n$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:AAA}
\small\begin{aligned}
\Delta(x_{t})=&\big(-\sum_{i,j=1}^s\sum_{k=s+1}^n+\sum_{i,k=1}^s \sum_{j=s+1}^n
+\sum_{i,k=s+1}^n\sum_{j=1}^s-\sum_{i,j=s+1}^n\sum_{k=1}^s\big)~\Gamma_{tjk}^{i}x_k^{*}\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes x_i\\
&-\big(\sum_{i,j,k=1}^s+\sum_{i,j,k=s+1}^n\big)\Gamma_{tjk}^{i}x_k^{*}\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes x_i+\big(\sum_{i,j=1}^s\sum_{k=s+1}^n-\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j,k=s+1}^n
\big)\Gamma_{tik}^{j}x_i^{*}\otimes x_k^{*}\otimes x_j\\
&
+\big(-\sum_{i=s+1}^n\sum_{j,k=1}^s+\sum_{i,k=s+1}^n\sum_{j=1}^s+\sum_{i,j,k=1}^s+\sum_{i,j,k=s+1}^n\big)~\Gamma_{tik}^{j}x_i^{*}\otimes x_k^{*}\otimes x_j
\\
&+\sum_{i,j,k=1}^s\Gamma_{tij}^{k}x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}\otimes x_k
-\big(\sum_{i,k=1}^s\sum_{j=s+1}^n+\sum_{i=1}^s\sum_{j,k=s+1}^n\big)\Gamma_{tij}^{k}x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}\otimes x_k\\
&+\big(\sum_{i=s+1}^n\sum_{j,k=1}^s-\sum_{i,k=s+1}^n\sum_{j=1}^s+\sum_{i,j=s+1}^n\sum_{k=1}^s\big)
\Gamma_{tij}^{k}x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}\otimes x_k,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BBB}
\small\begin{aligned}
\Delta(x_{t}^{*})&=\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=1}^s \sum_{k=s+1}^n \big(-\Gamma_{ijk}^{t})(x_{k}^{*}\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}+x_i^{*}\otimes x_{k}^{*}\otimes x_j^{*}+x_j^{*}\otimes x_{i}^{*}\otimes x_k^{*}\big)\\&+
\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=s+1}^n \sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma_{ijk}^{t}\big(x_{k}^{*}\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}+x_i^{*}\otimes x_{k}^{*}\otimes x_j^{*}+x_j^{*}\otimes x_{i}^{*}\otimes x_k^{*}\big)\\&+
\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=s+1}^n \sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma_{ijk}^{t}\big(x_{k}^{*}\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}+x_i^{*}\otimes x_{k}^{*}\otimes x_j^{*}+x_j^{*}\otimes x_{i}^{*}\otimes x_k^{*}\big)\\&+
\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=1}^s \sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma_{ijk}^{t}\big(x_{k}^{*}\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}+x_i^{*}\otimes x_{k}^{*}\otimes x_j^{*}+x_j^{*}\otimes x_{i}^{*}\otimes x_k^{*}\big)\\&+
\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=1}^s \sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma_{ijk}^{t}\big(x_{k}^{*}\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}+x_i^{*}\otimes x_{k}^{*}\otimes x_j^{*}+x_j^{*}\otimes x_{i}^{*}\otimes x_k^{*}\big)\\&
\sum_{i=s+1}^n \sum_{j=s+1}^n \sum_{k=1}^s \big(-\Gamma_{ijk}^{t})(x_{k}^{*}\otimes x_j^{*}\otimes x_i^{*}+x_i^{*}\otimes x_{k}^{*}\otimes x_j^{*}+x_j^{*}\otimes x_{i}^{*}\otimes x_k^{*}\big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Then we get the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:B2} Let $A$ be a 3-Lie algebra with an involutive derivation $D$, and let the multiplication of $A$ in the basis $\{x_1, \cdots, x_s,$ $ x_{s+1}, \cdots, x_n\}$ be \eqref{eq:ooo}, where $A_1=\langle x_1,$ $ \cdots, x_s\rangle$ and $A_{-1}=\langle x_{s+1},$ $ \cdots, x_n\rangle$. Then the multiplication of the 3-Lie algebra $(B_{2}, \Delta^*)$ in the basis $\{y_{1},\cdots,$ $ y_{s},$ $y_{s+1}\cdots y_{n},$ $y_{1}^{*},\cdots, y_{s}^{*},$ $y_{s+1}^{*},\cdots ,y_{n}^{*}\}$ is as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MB21}
\begin{cases}
\Delta^{*}(y_a,y_b,y_c)=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
-\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{k}_{abc}y_{k}, &~~1\leq a,b\leq s<c\leq n,\\
-\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{k}_{abc}y_{k},& ~~1\leq a\leq s<b,c\leq n,\\
0,~& ~~~1\leq a,b,c\leq s, \\
&~~or~~ s+1\leq a,b,c\leq n.\\
\end{split}
\end{cases}\\\\
\Delta^{*}(y_a,y_b,y_c^{*})=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{c}_{abk}y_{k}^{*},&~~ 1\leq a,b,c\leq s,\\
\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{c}_{abk}y_{k}^{*}, & ~~s+1\leq a,b,c\leq n,\\
\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{c}_{abk}y_{k}^{*},& ~~1\leq a,c\leq s<b\leq n,\\
\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{c}_{abk}y_{k}^{*}, & ~~1\leq a\leq s<b,c\leq n,\\
0, & ~~1\leq a,b\leq s<c\leq n,\\
& ~~or~1\leq c\leq s<a,b\leq n,\\
\end{split}\end{cases}\\\\
\Delta^{*}(y_a,y_b^{*},y_c^{*})=\Delta^{*}(y_a^{*},y_b^{*},y_c^{*})=0, 1\leq a, b, c\leq n.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose
\begin{equation}\label{eq:qqq1}
\Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c)=\sum\limits_{k=1}^n \lambda^{k}_{abc}y_{k}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^n \mu^{k}_{abc}y_{k}^{*},~~~~ \lambda^{k}_{abc},~~ \mu^{k}_{abc}\in F,~~~ 1\leq a,b,c,k\leq n.
\end{equation}
Thanks to \eqref{eq:bbb},
$$\langle\Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c),x_{t}\rangle=\langle \sum\limits_{k=1}^n \lambda^{k}_{abc}y_{k}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^n \mu^{k}_{abc}y_{k}^{*}, x_t\rangle=\mu_{abc}^{t},~~1\leq a,b,c,t\leq n,$$
$$\langle\Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c),x_{t}^{*}\rangle=\sum\limits_{k=1}^n \lambda^{k}_{abc}y_{k}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^n \mu^{k}_{abc}y_{k}^{*}, x_t^*\rangle=\lambda_{abc}^{t},~~1\leq a,b,c,t\leq n.$$
By Eqs \eqref{eq:AAA} and \eqref{eq:BBB}, if $1\leq a,b,c\leq s, 1\leq t\leq n,$ then
$$\langle \Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c),x_{t}\rangle=\langle y_a\otimes y_b\otimes y_c,\Delta(x_{t})\rangle=0,$$
$$\langle \Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c),x_{t}^{*}\rangle=\langle y_a\otimes y_b\otimes y_c,\Delta(x_{t}^{*})\rangle=0.$$
Therefore,~$\lambda_{abc}^{t}=\mu_{abc}^{t}=0,$
and $\Delta^{*}(y_a,y_b,y_c)=0.$
For $\forall ~1 \leq a,b\leq s<c\leq n, 1\leq t\leq n,$
$$\langle \Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c),x_{t}\rangle=\langle y_a\otimes y_b\otimes y_c,\Delta(x_{t})\rangle=0,$$
\begin{equation*}
\langle \Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c),x_{t}^{*}\rangle=\langle y_a\otimes y_b\otimes y_c,\Delta(x_{t}^{*})\rangle=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
-\Gamma_{abc}^{t}, &~~1\leq t\leq s,\\
0, &~~s+1\leq t\leq n.
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Therefore, ~$\mu_{abc}^{t}=0, \lambda_{abc}^{t}=-\Gamma_{abc}^{t},$
and
$$\Delta^{*}(y_a,y_b,y_c)=-\sum\limits_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{k}_{abc}y_{k}.$$
For $\forall ~~1\leq a\leq s<b,c\leq n, 1\leq t\leq n,$
$$\langle \Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c),x_{t}\rangle=\langle y_a\otimes y_b\otimes y_c,\Delta(x_{t})\rangle=0,$$
\begin{equation*}
\langle \Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c),x_{t}^{*}\rangle=\langle y_a\otimes y_b\otimes y_c,\Delta(x_{t}^{*})\rangle=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
0, &~~1\leq t\leq s,\\
-\Gamma_{abc}^{t}, &~~s+1\leq t\leq n.
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\\
we get $\mu_{abc}^{t}=0,~~ \lambda_{abc}^{t}=-\Gamma_{abc}^{t},$
and $$\Delta^{*}(y_a,y_b,y_c)=-\sum\limits_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{k}_{abc}y_{k}.$$
Similarly, suppose
$$\Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c^{*})=\sum\limits_{k=1}^n \lambda^{k}_{abc}y_{k}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^n \mu^{k}_{abc}y_{k}^{*},~~~ \lambda^{k}_{abc}, \mu^{k}_{abc}\in F, 1\leq a,b,c,k\leq n.
$$
Thanks to \eqref{eq:bbb},
$$\langle\Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c^{*}),x_{t}\rangle=\langle y_a\otimes y_b\otimes y_c^{*}), \Delta(x_t)\rangle=\mu_{abc}^{t},~~1\leq a,b,c,t\leq n,$$
$$\langle\Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c^{*}),x_{t}^{*}\rangle=\langle y_a\otimes y_b\otimes y_c^{*}), \Delta(x_t^*)\rangle=\lambda_{abc}^{t},~~1\leq a,b,c,t\leq n.$$
For $\forall ~ 1\leq a,b,c\leq s, 1\leq t\leq n,$ by Eqs \eqref{eq:AAA} and \eqref{eq:BBB},
\begin{equation*}
\langle \Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c^{*}),x_{t}\rangle=\langle y_a\otimes y_b\otimes y_c^{*},\Delta(x_{t})\rangle=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
0, &~~1\leq t\leq s,\\
\Gamma_{abt}^{c}, &~~s+1\leq t\leq n.
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
$$\langle \Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c^{*}),x_{t}^{*}\rangle=\langle y_a\otimes y_b\otimes y_c^{*},\Delta(x_{t}^{*})\rangle=0$$
Therefore,$$\lambda_{abc}^{t}=0, \mu_{abc}^{t}=\Gamma_{abt}^{c}, ~~\Delta^{*}(y_a,y_b,y_c^{*})=\sum\limits_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{c}_{abk}y_{k}^{*}.$$
For $\forall ~1\leq a,c\leq s<b\leq n, 1\leq t\leq n,$
\begin{equation*}
\langle \Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c^{*}),x_{t}\rangle=\langle y_a\otimes y_b\otimes y_c^{*},\Delta(x_{t})\rangle=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
\Gamma_{abt}^{c}, &~~1\leq t\leq s,\\
0, &~~s+1\leq t\leq n.
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
$$\langle \Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c^{*}),x_{t}^{*}\rangle=\langle y_a\otimes y_b\otimes y_c^{*},\Delta(x_{t}^{*})\rangle=0$$
Therefore,$$\lambda_{abc}^{t}=0, \mu_{abc}^{t}=\Gamma_{abt}^{c} ,~~\Delta^{*}(y_a,y_b,y_c^{*})=\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{c}_{abk}y_{k}^{*}.$$
For $\forall ~ 1\leq a\leq s<b,c\leq n, 1\leq t\leq n,$
\begin{equation*}
\langle \Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c^{*}),x_{t}\rangle=\langle y_a\otimes y_b\otimes y_c^{*},\Delta(x_{t})\rangle=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
0, &~~1\leq t\leq s,\\
\Gamma_{abt}^{c}, &~~s+1\leq t\leq n.
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
$$\langle \Delta^*(y_a,y_b,y_c^{*}),x_{t}^{*}\rangle=\langle y_a\otimes y_b\otimes y_c^{*},\Delta(x_{t}^{*})\rangle=0.$$
Therefore,$$\lambda_{abc}^{t}=0, \mu_{abc}^{t}=\Gamma_{abt}^{c},~~ \Delta^{*}(y_a,y_b,y_c^{*})=\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{c}_{abk}y_{k}^{*}.$$
By the similar discussion to the above, we get the result for other cases. We omit the computation process.
\end{proof}
\section{Manin triples and matched pairs of 3-Lie algebras induced by involutive derivations }
{\it A metric} on a 3-Lie algebra $A$ is a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form $( \cdot, \cdot): A\otimes A\rightarrow \mathbb F$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
([x_1,x_2, x_3], x_4)+ ([x_1,x_2, x_4], x_3)=0,~~\forall x_1,x_2, x_3,x_4\in A.
\label{eq:jacobi}
\end{equation}
The pair $(A, ( \cdot, \cdot)) $ is called {\it a metric 3-Lie algebra}, or simply $A$ is a metric 3-Lie algebra.
If there are two subalgebras $A_1$ and $A_2$ of $(A, ( \cdot , \cdot))$ such that $A=A_1\oplus A_2$ (as vector spaces),
$(A_1, A_1 )=0$, $(A_2, A_2)=0$, $[A_1, A_1, A_2]\subseteq A_2$ and $[A_2, A_2, A_1]\subseteq A_1$,
then the 5-tuple
\[
(A, [\cdot, \cdot, \cdot], ( \cdot, \cdot ), A_1, A_2) \quad (\text{ or 4-tuple } (A, ( \cdot, \cdot ), A_1, A_2))
\]
is called {\it a Manin triple} \cite{BCM5}.
Let $(A, ( \cdot, \cdot)_{A},A_{1},A_{2})$ be a Manin triple, and $(A', ( \cdot, \cdot)_{A'})$ be a metric 3-Lie algebra.
If there is a 3-Lie algebra isomorphism $f: A\rightarrow A'$
satisfying $$~(x, y)_{A}=(f(x),f(y))_{A^{'}},~~~\forall x, y\in A,$$ then
$(A', ( \cdot, \cdot)_{A'}, f(A_1), f(A_2))$ is also a Manin triple. And in this case we say that $(A,(\cdot,\cdot)_{A}, A_{1}, A_{2})$ is isomorphic to $(A',(\cdot,\cdot)_{A'}, A_{1}', A_{2}')$, where
$f(A_{1})=A_{1}^{'}, ~f(A_{2})=A_{2}^{'}. $
Let $(A,[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot])$ and $(A^{'},[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]')$ be two 3-Lie algebras. Suppose
$$\rho: A\wedge A\rightarrow Der(A'), ~~ \mbox{ and} ~~\chi: A'\wedge A'\rightarrow Der(A)$$
are linear mappings.
For $\forall x_{i}\in A$ and $a_{i}\in A^{'}, 1\leq i\leq 3$ we give the following identities:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:22'}
\aligned
&ad_{x_1x_2}\chi(a_1, a_2)x_3-\chi(a_1, a_2)ad_{x_1x_2}x_3\\
=&\chi(\rho(x_1, x_2)a_1, a_2)x_3+\chi(a_1, \rho(x_1, x_2)a_2)x_3,
\endaligned
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:22''}
\aligned
&ad'_{a_1a_2}\rho(x_1, x_2)a_3-\rho(x_1, x_2)ad'_{a_1a_2}a_3\\
=&\rho(\chi(a_1, a_2)x_1, x_2)a_3+\rho(x_1, \chi(a_1, a_2)x_2)a_3,
\endaligned
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:33'}
\aligned
&ad_{x_1 x_2}\chi(a_1, a_2)x_3=\chi(\rho(x_1, x_2)a_1, a_2)x_3\\
-&\chi(a_1, \rho(x_3, x_1)a_2)x_2-\chi(a_1, \rho(x_2, x_3)a_2)x_1,
\endaligned
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:33''}
\aligned
&ad'_{a_1 a_2}\rho(x_1, x_2)a_3=\rho(\chi(a_1, a_2)x_1, x_2)a_3\\
-&\rho(x_1, \chi(a_3, a_1)x_2)a_2-\rho(x_1, \chi(a_2, a_3)x_2)a_1,
\endaligned
\end{equation}
where $(A', ad')$ is the adjoint representation of the 3-Lie algebra $(A', [\cdot, \cdot, \cdot]')$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:AoplusA'}
Suppose that $(A,[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot])$ and $(A^{'},[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]')$ are 3-Lie algebras, and there are linear mappings
$\rho:\wedge^{2}A\rightarrow Der(A')$ and $\chi:\wedge^{2}A^{'}\rightarrow Der(A)$ such that $(A', \rho)$ is an $A$-module, $(A, \chi)$ is an $A'$-module, and Eqs \eqref{eq:22'}, \eqref{eq:22''}, \eqref{eq:33'} and \eqref{eq:33''} hold.
Then $(A\oplus A', [\cdot, \cdot, \cdot]_{A\oplus A'})$ is a 3-Lie algebra, where for~ $\forall x_{i}\in A, a_{i}\in A^{'}, 1\leq i\leq 3,$
\begin{equation}
\aligned \
&[x_{1}+a_{1},x_{2}+a_{2},x_{3}+a_{3}]_{A\oplus A^{'}}\\
=&[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}]+\rho(x_{1},x_{2})a_{3}+\rho(x_{3},x_{1})a_{2}+
\rho(x_{2},x_{3})a_{1}\\
+&[a_{1},a_{2},a_{3}]^{'}+\chi(a_{1},a_{2})x_{3}+\chi(a_{3},a_{1})x_{2}+\chi(a_{2},a_{3})x_{1}.\\
\endaligned
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Apply Proposition 4.4 in \cite{BCM5}.
\end{proof}
The 4-tuple $(A, A', \rho, \chi)$ is called a {\it matched pair of 3-Lie algebras.}
\vspace{2mm}Let $(A,[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot])$ and $(A^{*},[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_{*})$ be 3-Lie algebras, where $A^*$ is the dual space of $A$. There is a natural
non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form $( \cdot , \cdot ): (A\oplus A^{*})\otimes (A\oplus A^{*})\rightarrow \mathbb F$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:+}
(x_1+\xi,x_2+\eta)=\langle x_1,\eta\rangle+\langle\xi,x_2\rangle, \forall x_1, x_2\in A, \xi,\eta \in A^{*}.
\end{equation}
Then $(A, A)=(A^*, A^*)=0.$
Define linear multiplication $[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_{A\oplus A^{*}} :(A\oplus A^{*})^{\wedge 3}\rightarrow A\oplus A^{*}$ by, $\forall x_i\in A,$ $y_i\in A^*$ for $1\leq i\leq 3,$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:oplus}
\aligned \
&[x_{1}+y_{1},x_{2}+y_{2},x_{3}+y_{3}]_{A\oplus A^{*}}\\
=&[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}]+ad^{*}_{x_{1}x_{2}}y_{3}+ad^{*}_{x_{3}x_{1}}y_{2}
+ad^{*}_{x_{2}x_{3}}y_{1}\\
+&a\phi^{*}_{y_{1}y_{2}}x_{3}+a\phi^{*}_{y_{3}y_{1}}x_{2}
+a\phi^{*}_{y_{2}y_{3}}x_{1}+[y_{1},y_{2},y_{3}]_{*},\\
\endaligned
\end{equation}
where $(A^*, ad^*)$ is the coadjoint representation of the 3-Lie algebra $(A, [\cdot, \cdot, \cdot]$, and $(A, a\phi^*)$ is the coadjoint representation of the 3-Lie algebra $(A^*, [\cdot, \cdot, \cdot]_*)$.
Then by \eqref{eq:+} and \eqref{eq:oplus}, for $\forall x_i\in A,$ $y_i\in A^*$ for $1\leq i\leq 4,$
\begin{equation*}
\aligned
&([x_{1}+y_{1},x_{2}+y_{2},x_{3}+y_{3}]_{A\oplus A^{*}},x_4+y_4)+ (x_{3}+y_{3}, [x_{1}+y_{1},x_{2}+y_{2}, x_4+y_4]_{A\oplus A^{*}})\\
=&([x_{1},x_{2},x_3]+a\phi^{*}_{y_1y_2}x_3+a\phi^{*}_{y_3y_1}x_{2}
+a\phi^{*}_{y_2y_3}x_1, y_4)\\
&+(ad^{*}_{x_1,x_2}y_3+ad^{*}_{x_3x_1}y_2
+ad^{*}_{x_2x_3}y_1+[y_1,y_2,y_3]_{*}, x_4)\\
&+(y_3, [x_1,x_2,x_4]+a\phi^{*}_{y_1y_2}x_4+a\phi^{*}_{y_4y_1}x_2
+a\phi^{*}_{y_2y_4}x_1)\\
&+(x_3, ad^{*}_{x_1x_2}y_4+ad^{*}_{x_4x_1}y_2
+ad^{*}_{x_2x_4}y_1+[y_1,y_2,y_4]_{*})\\
=&([x_1,x_2,x_3], y_4)-(x_3, [y_1,y_2, y_4]_*)-(x_2, [y_3,y_1, y_4]_*)-(x_1, [y_2,y_3, y_4]_*)\\
&+(x_4,[y_1,y_2,y_3]_*)-([x_1,x_2, x_4], y_3)-([x_3,x_1, x_4], y_2)-([x_2,x_3, x_4], y_1)\\
&+([x_1,x_2,x_3], y_4)-(x_4, [y_1,y_2, y_3]_*)-(x_2, [y_4,y_1, y_3]_*)-(x_1,[y_2,y_4, y_3]_*)\\
&+(x_3, [y_1,y_2,y_4]_*)-([x_1,x_2, x_3], y_4)-([x_4,x_1, x_3], y_2)-([x_2,x_4, x_3], y_1)=0,\\
\endaligned
\end{equation*}
and $(A, A)=(A^*, A^*)=0.$
We find that the non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form $( \cdot , \cdot )$ defined by \eqref{eq:+} satisfies product invariance, and $A$, $A^*$ are isotropic in the 3-algebra $(A\oplus A^{*},[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_{A\oplus A^{*}})$. Therefore, if $(A\oplus A^{*},[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_{A\oplus A^{*}})$ is a $3$-Lie algebra, then $(A\oplus A^{*},[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_{A\oplus A^{*}}, ( \cdot , \cdot ))$ is a metric 3-Lie algebra with isotropic
subalgebras $A$ and $A^{*}$, and $(A\oplus A^{*}, [\cdot, \cdot, \cdot]_{A\oplus A^*}, (\cdot,\cdot), A, A^{*})$ is a Manin triple, which is called {\it the standard Manin triple.}
\vspace{4mm}
Thanks to Theorem \ref{thm:AoplusA'} and Eq \eqref{eq:oplus}, for arbitrary two 3-Lie algebras
$(A,[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot])$ and $(A^{*},[\cdot,$ $\cdot,\cdot]_{*})$, the 5-tuple $(A\oplus A^{*},$ $ [\cdot, \cdot, \cdot]_{A\oplus A^*}, $ $(\cdot,\cdot), A, A^{*})$
is a standard Manin triple if and only if $(A, A^{*}, ad^{*}, a\phi^{*})$ is a matched pair.
\vspace{2mm} In the following we suppose that $A$ is a 3-Lie algebra with an involutive derivation $D$, and the multiplication of $A$ in the basis $\{ x_1, $ $\cdots, x_s, $ $x_{s+1},$ $ \cdots, x_n \}$ is \eqref{eq:ooo}, where $x_i\in A_1, x_j\in A_{-1}$, $1\leq i\leq s,$ $s+1\leq j\leq n$;
$B_1=(A\ltimes A^*, \mu)$ is the semi-direct product 3-Lie algebra of $A$ with the multiplication \eqref{eq:1} and \eqref{eq:2} in the basis $\Pi_1$ (defined by \eqref{eq:Pi1} ), and $B_{2}=((A\oplus A^*)^{*}, \Delta^*)$ is the 3-Lie algebra induced by the local cocycle 3-Lie bialgebra $(A\oplus A^*, \Delta)$ with the multiplication \eqref{eq:MB21} in the basis $\Pi_2$
(defined by \eqref{eq:Pi2} ).
\vspace{2mm}Let
$$a\delta^{*}: B_{1}\wedge B_{1}\rightarrow gl(B_{2}), $$
be the coadjoint representations of the 3-Lie algebra $(B_{1}, \mu)$ on $B_{2}=(A\oplus A^*)^*=B_1^*$, and
$$ a\psi^{*}:B_{2}\wedge B_{2}\rightarrow gl(B_{1}=B_2^*)$$
be the coadjoint representation of the 3-Lie algebra $(B_{2}, \Delta^*)$ on $B_1=B_2^*$.
Then for $\forall y_{a}, y_{b}, y_{c},$ $y^{*}_{a}, y^{*}_{c},$ $ y_{t}, y_{r}^{*}\in \Pi_2$, and $\forall x_{a}, x_{b}, x_{c},$ $x_{e}^{*}, x^{*}_{d},$ $ x_{t},x_{t}^{*}\in \Pi_{1}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:qqq1}
\begin{array}{llll}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{2mm}\langle a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{t},x_{c}\rangle =-\langle y_{t},\mu (x_{a},x_{b},x_{c}) \rangle,\\
\vspace{2mm}\langle a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{t},x^{*}_{d}\rangle =-\langle y_{t},\mu (x_{a},x_{b},x_{d}^{*}) \rangle,\\
\vspace{2mm}\langle a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{r}^{*},x_{c}\rangle =-\langle y_{r}^{*},\mu (x_{a},x_{b},x_{c}) \rangle,\\
\vspace{2mm}\langle a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{r}^{*},x^{*}_{d}\rangle =-\langle y_{r}^{*},\mu (x_{a},x_{b},x_{d}^{*}) \rangle,\\
\vspace{2mm}\langle a\delta^{*}_{x_{d}^{*}x_{b}}y_{t},x_{c}\rangle =-\langle y_{t},\mu (x_{d}^{*},x_{b},x_{c}) \rangle,\\
\vspace{2mm}\langle a\delta^{*}_{x_{d}^{*}x_{b}}y_{t},x^{*}_{e}\rangle =-\langle y_{t},\mu (x_{d}^{*},x_{b},x_{e}^{*}) \rangle.
\end{array}\right.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ppp1}
\begin{array}{llll}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{2mm} \langle a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{t},y_{c}\rangle =-\langle x_{t},\Delta^{*} (y_{a},y_{b},y_{c}) \rangle,\\
\vspace{2mm} \langle a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_b}x_{t},y^{*}_{c}\rangle =-\langle x_{t},\Delta^{*} (y_{a},y_{b},y_{c}^{*}) \rangle,\\
\vspace{2mm}\langle a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{t}^{*},y_{c}\rangle =-\langle x_{t}^{*},\Delta^{*} (y_{a},y_{b},y_{c}) \rangle,\\
\vspace{2mm} \langle a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{t}^{*},y^{*}_{c}\rangle =-\langle x_{t}^{*},\Delta^{*} (y_{a},y_{b},y_{c}^{*}) \rangle,\\
\vspace{2mm} \langle a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}^{*}y_{b}}x_{t},y_{c}\rangle =-\langle x_{t},\Delta^{*} (y_{a}^{*},y_{b},y_{c}) \rangle,\\
\vspace{2mm}\langle a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}^{*}y_{b}}x_{t},y^{*}_{c}\rangle =-\langle x_{t},\Delta^{*} (y_{a}^{*},y_{b},y_{c}^{*}) \rangle.\\
\end{array}\right.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
By the above notations, we have the following result.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:B1B2} The multiplication $[\cdot, \cdot, \cdot]_1: \wedge^3(B_1\oplus B_2)\rightarrow B_1\oplus B_2 $ of the semi-direct product 3-Lie algebra $B_1\ltimes_{a\delta^{*}}B_2=(B_1\oplus B_2, [ \cdot, \cdot, \cdot]_1)$ in the basis
$\Pi_1\cup\Pi_2=\{x_1, \cdots, x_s, x_{s+1},$ $ \cdots, x_n$, $x_1^*, \cdots, x_s^*,$ $ x_{s+1}^*, \cdots, x_n^*$, $y_1, \cdots,$ $ y_s, y_{s+1},$ $ \cdots, y_n$, $y_1^*, $ $\cdots, y_s^*,$ $ y_{s+1}^*, \cdots, y_n^*\}$, is as following, for $\forall 1\leq a, b,$ $ c, d, e, g, $ $p, q, r, f, h, t\leq n,$
$$[x_{a},x_{b},x_{c}]_1=\mu(x_a, x_b, x_c),~~ [x_{a},x_{b},x_{d}^*]_1=\mu(x_a, x_b, x_d^*),
$$are defined as \eqref{eq:1} and \eqref{eq:2},
and
$$[x_{a},x_{d}^*,x_{e}^*]_1=[x_d^*, x_e^*, x_g^*]_1=[x_{a},y_{p},y_{q}]_1=[x_{a},y_{p},y_{t}^*]_1=0,$$
$$[x_{a},y_{f}^*, y_{t}^*]_1=[y_{p},y_{q},y_{r}]_1=[y_{p},y_{q}^*, y_{t}^*]_1=[y_f^*, y_h^*, y_t^*]_1=0,$$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:coadjoint1}
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
{[}x_a,x_b,y_t]_1=a\delta^*_{x_ax_b}y_t=&
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{k}_{abt}y_{k}, &~~1\leq a,b\leq s<t\leq n,\\
\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{k}_{abt}y_{k}, &~~1\leq a,t\leq s<b\leq n,\\
\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{k}_{abt}y_{k}, &~~1\leq t\leq s<a,b\leq n,\\
\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{k}_{abt}y_{k}, &~~1\leq a\leq s<b,t\leq n,\\
0,~ &~~1\leq a,b,t\leq s ~~\\
&~~or~~ s+1\leq a,b,t\leq n;\\
\end{split}\end{cases}\\
{[}x_a,x_b,y_t^{*}]_1=a\delta^*_{x_ax_b}y^*_t=&
\begin{cases}
\begin{split}
-\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{t}_{abk}y_{k}^{*}, &~~1\leq a,b,t\leq s,\\
-\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{t}_{abk}y_{k}^{*},&~~s+1\leq a,b,t\leq n,\\
-\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{t}_{abk}y_{k}^{*},&~1\leq a,t\leq s<b\leq n, ~\\
-\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{t}_{abk}y_{k}^{*},&~ 1\leq a\leq s<b,t\leq n,\\
0,&~1\leq a,b\leq s<t\leq n,~\\
&~~or~1\leq t\leq s<a,b\leq n;\\
\end{split}
\end{cases}\\
{[}x_a^{*},x_b,y_t]_1=a\delta^*_{x^*_ax_b}y_t=&
\begin{cases}
\begin{split}
\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{a}_{bkt}y_{k}^{*},&~~ 1\leq a,b,t\leq s,\\
\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{a}_{bkt}y_{k}^{*},&~~s+1\leq a,b,t\leq n,\\
\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{a}_{bkt}y_{k}^{*},&~~1\leq a,b\leq s<t\leq n,~\\
&~~or~1\leq a,t\leq s<b\leq n,\\
\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{a}_{bkt}y_{k}^{*},&~~1\leq t\leq s<a,b\leq~n,\\
&~~or~1\leq b\leq s<a,t\leq n,\\\\
0,&~~~~1\leq a\leq s<b,t\leq n,~\\
&~~~~or~1\leq b,t\leq s<a\leq n.
\end{split}\end{cases}
\end{split}\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} For $\forall 1\leq a, b, c, t\leq n$, suppose
$$[x_a,x_b,y_t]_1=\sum\limits_{k=1}^n \lambda^{k}_{abt}y_{k}+\sum_{k=1}^n \nu^{k}_{abt}y_{k}^{*}, ~~ \lambda^{k}_{abt}, \nu^{k}_{abt}\in F.$$
By Eq \eqref{eq:bbb}, if $1\leq a,b,c\leq n, 1\leq t\leq n,$ then
$$\langle a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{t},x_{c}\rangle=\langle \sum\limits_{k=1}^n \lambda^{k}_{abt}y_{k}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^n \nu^{k}_{abt}y_{k}^{*},x_{c}\rangle=\nu_{abt}^{c},$$
$$\langle a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{t},x^{*}_{c}\rangle=\langle\sum\limits_{k=1}^n \lambda^{k}_{abt}y_{k}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^n \nu^{k}_{abt}y_{k}^{*},x_{c}^{*}\rangle=\lambda_{abt}^{c}.$$
Thanks to Eqs \eqref{eq:1}, \eqref{eq:2}, \eqref{eq:bbb} and \eqref{eq:qqq1}, for all $1\leq c \leq n,$
$$\langle a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{t},x_{c}\rangle =-\langle y_{t},\mu (x_{a},x_{b},x_{c}) \rangle=0, ~~ 1\leq a,b\leq s,1\leq t \leq n,$$
\begin{equation*}
\langle a\delta^*_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{t},x^{*}_{c}\rangle =-\langle y_{t},\mu (x_{a},x_{b},x_{c}^{*}) \rangle=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
0, &~~1\leq a,b\leq s,~~1\leq t\leq s,\\
\Gamma_{abt}^{c}, &~~1\leq a,b\leq s,, ~~s+1\leq t\leq n.
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Therefore, $\nu_{abt}^{c}=0,\lambda_{abt}^{c}=\Gamma_{abt}^{c}$ for $1\leq a,b\leq s, s+1\leq t\leq n,$ and
\begin{equation*}
[x_a,x_b,y_t]_{1}=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
0, &~~1\leq a,b,t\leq s,\\
\sum\limits_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{k}_{abt}y_{k}, &~~1\leq a,b\leq s<t\leq n.
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
In the case $ s+1\leq a,b\leq n,$ $1\leq t\leq n,$ we have that for all $1\leq c\leq n,$
$$\langle a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{t},x_{c}\rangle =-\langle y_{t},\mu (x_{a},x_{b},x_{c}) \rangle=0,$$
\begin{equation*}
\langle a\delta^*_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{t},x^{*}_{c}\rangle =-\langle y_{t},\mu (x_{a},x_{b},x_{c}^{*}) \rangle=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
\Gamma_{abt}^{c}, &~~1\leq t\leq s,\\
0, &~~s+1\leq t\leq n,
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
and $\nu_{abt}^{c}=0,\lambda_{abt}^{c}=\Gamma_{abt}^{c},$ $1\leq t\leq s.$ Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
[x_a,x_b,y_t]_{1}=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
0, &~~s+1\leq a,b,t\leq n,\\
\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma_{abt}^{k}y_{k}, &~~1\leq t\leq s<a,b\leq n.
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
If $\forall 1\leq a\leq s<b\leq n,$ $1\leq t\leq n,$ then for all $1\leq c\leq n,$
$$\langle a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{t},x_{c}\rangle =-\langle y_{t},\mu (x_{a},x_{b},x_{c}) \rangle=0,$$
\begin{equation*}
\langle a\delta^*_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{t},x^{*}_{c}\rangle =-\langle y_{t},\mu (x_{a},x_{b},x_{c}^{*}) \rangle=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
\Gamma_{abt}^{c}, &~~1\leq t\leq s,\\
\Gamma_{abt}^{c}, &~~s+1\leq t\leq n,
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
and $\nu_{abt}^{c}=0,\lambda_{abt}^{c}=\Gamma_{abt}^{c}, $ $1\leq t\leq n.$ Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
[x_a,x_b,y_t]_{1}=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma_{abt}^{k}y_{k}, &~~s+1\leq a,t\leq s<b\leq n,\\
\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma_{abt}^{k}y_{k}, &~~1\leq a\leq s<b,t\leq n.
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
By a completely similar discussion to the above, for others cases, we get the expression of $[x_a,x_b,y_t^{*}]_1$ and $[x_a^*,x_b,y_t^{*}]_1$, respectively.
We omit the calculation process. The identities in
\eqref{eq:coadjoint1} follow.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:B2B1} The multiplication $[\cdot, \cdot, \cdot]_2: \wedge^3(B_2\oplus B_1)\rightarrow B_2\oplus B_1 $ of the semi-direct product 3-Lie algebra $B_2\ltimes_{a\psi^{*}}B_1=(B_1\oplus B_2, [ \cdot, \cdot, \cdot]_2)$ in the basis
\vspace{5mm}\hspace{5mm}$\Pi_1\cup\Pi_2=\{x_1, \cdots, x_s, x_{s+1},$ $ \cdots, x_n$, $x_1^*, \cdots, x_s^*,$ $ x_{s+1}^*, \cdots, x_n^*$,
\vspace{5mm}\hspace{23mm}$y_1, \cdots,$ $ y_s, y_{s+1},$ $ \cdots, y_n$, $y_1^*, $ $\cdots, y_s^*,$ $ y_{s+1}^*, \cdots, y_n^*\}$,
\vspace{5mm}\hspace{-5mm} is as follows, ~for $\forall ~~ 1\leq a, b, c, $ $d, e, g,$ $ p, q, r, $ $f, h, t\leq n,$
$$
[y_{a},y_{b},y_{c}]_2=\Delta^*(y_a, y_b, y_c),~~~ [y_{a},y_{b},y_{d}^*]_2=\Delta^*(y_a, y_b, y_d^*)
$$ are defined as \eqref{eq:MB21}, ~
$$[y_{a},y_{d}^*,y_{e}^*]_2=[y_d^*, y_e^*, y_g^*]_2=[y_{a},x_{p},x_{q}]_2=[y_{a},x_{p},x_{t}^*]_2=0,$$
$$[y_{a},x_{f}^*, x_{t}^*]_2=[x_{p},x_{q},x_{r}]_2=[x_{p},x_{q}^*, x_{t}^*]_2=[x_f^*,x_h^*, x_t^*]_2=0,$$
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:coadjoint411}
{[}y_a,y_b,x_t]_2=a\psi^*_{y_ay_b}x_t=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
-\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{k}_{abt}x_{k},&~ 1\leq a,b\leq s<t\leq n,\\
-\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{k}_{abt}x_{k},&~ 1\leq a,t\leq s<b\leq n,\\
-\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{k}_{abt}x_{k},&~ 1\leq t\leq s<a,b\leq n,\\
-\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{k}_{abt}x_{k},&~ 1\leq a\leq s<b,t\leq n,\\
0,&~~ 1\leq a,b,t\leq s,\\
&~~ ~or~ s+1\leq a,b,t\leq n;\\
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:coadjoint412}
{[}y_a,y_b,x_t^{*}]_2=a\psi^*_{y_ay_b}x^*_t=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{t}_{abk}x_{k}^{*},&~ 1\leq a,b,t\leq s,\\
\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{t}_{abk}x_{k}^{*},&~s+1\leq a,b,t\leq n,\\
\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{t}_{abk}x_{k}^{*},&~1\leq a,t\leq s<b\leq n,\\
\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{t}_{abk}x_{k}^{*},&~ 1\leq a\leq s<b,t\leq n,\\
0,&~1\leq a,b\leq s<t\leq n,\\
&~~ ~or~ 1\leq t\leq s<a,b\leq n;
\end{split}\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:coadjoint413}
{[}y_a^{*},y_b,x_t]_2=a\psi^*_{y^*_ay_b}x_t=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
-\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{a}_{bkt}x_{k}^{*},&~ 1\leq a,b,t\leq s,\\
-\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{a}_{bkt}x_{k}^{*},&~ s+1\leq a,b,t\leq n,\\
-\sum_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{a}_{bkt}x_{k}^{*},&~ 1\leq a,b\leq s<t\leq n,\\
&~~or~1\leq a,t\leq s<b\leq n,\\
-\sum_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{a}_{bkt}x_{k}^{*},&~ 1\leq t\leq s<a,b\leq n,\\&~~
or~1\leq b\leq s<a,t\leq n,\\\\
0,&~1\leq a\leq s<b,t\leq n,\\&~~~or~1\leq b,t\leq s<a\leq n.
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} For $\forall 1\leq a, b, t\leq n,$ suppose
$$[y_a,y_b,x_t]_2=\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda^{k}_{abt}x_{k}+\sum_{k=1}^n \nu^{k}_{abt}x_{k}^{*}, ~~~\lambda^{k}_{abt}, \nu^{k}_{abt}\in F.$$
By Eqs \eqref{eq:AAA} and \eqref{eq:BBB}, for $1\leq a,b,c\leq n, 1\leq t\leq n,$ we have
$$\langle a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{t},y_{c}\rangle=\langle\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda^{k}_{abt}x_{k}+\sum_{k=1}^n \nu^{k}_{abt}x_{k}^{*},y_{c}\rangle=\nu_{abt}^{c},$$
$$\langle a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{t},y^{*}_{c}\rangle=\langle\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda^{k}_{abt}x_{k}+\sum_{k=1}^n \nu^{k}_{abt}x_{k}^{*},y_{c}^{*}\rangle=\lambda_{abt}^{c}.$$
Thanks to Eqs \eqref{eq:bbb}, \eqref{eq:MB21} and \eqref{eq:ppp1},
for $\forall y_{a},y_{b},y_{c}\in \Pi_2, $ $x_{t}\in \Pi_{1}$, if $1\leq a,b\leq s$, $1\leq c,t\leq n$, then
$$\langle a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{t},y_{c}\rangle =-\langle x_{t},\Delta^{*} (y_{a},y_{b},y_{c}) \rangle=0,$$
\begin{equation*}
\langle a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{t},y^{*}_{c}\rangle =-\langle x_{t},\Delta^{*} (y_{a},y_{b},y_{c}^{*}) \rangle=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
0, &~~1\leq t\leq s,\\
-\Gamma_{abt}^{c}, &~~s+1\leq t\leq n.
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Therefore, $\nu_{abt}^{c}=0,\lambda_{abt}^{c}=-\Gamma_{abt}^{c},$ and
\begin{equation*}
[y_a,y_b,x_t]_2=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
-\sum\limits_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{k}_{abt}x_{k}, &~~1\leq a,b\leq s<t\leq n,\\
0, &~~1\leq a,b,t\leq s.
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
If $1\leq a\leq s<b\leq n$, $1\leq c,t\leq n$, then
$\nu_{abt}^{c}=0,\lambda_{abt}^{c}=-\Gamma_{abt}^{c},$ and
\begin{equation*}
[y_a,y_b,x_t]_2=
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
-\sum\limits_{k=1}^s \Gamma ^{k}_{abt}x_{k}, &~~1\leq a,t\leq s<b\leq n,\\
-\sum\limits_{k=s+1}^n \Gamma ^{k}_{abt}x_{k}, &~~1\leq a\leq s<b,t\leq n.
\end{split}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
We get \eqref{eq:coadjoint411}.
By Eqs \eqref{eq:AAA}, \eqref{eq:BBB}, \eqref{eq:bbb}, \eqref{eq:MB21} and \eqref{eq:ppp1}. A similar discussion to the above,
we get \eqref{eq:coadjoint412} and \eqref{eq:coadjoint413}. We omit the calculation process. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:RelationJacobi} Let $A$ be a 3-Lie algebra with an involutive derivation $D$, and the multiplication of $A$ in the basis $\{ x_1, $ $\cdots, x_s, $ $x_{s+1},$ $ \cdots, x_n \}$ be \eqref{eq:ooo}, where $x_i\in A_1, x_j\in A_{-1}$, $1\leq i\leq s,$ $s+1\leq j\leq n$.
Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Jacobi1}
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
&\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=1}^s\big(\Gamma^{k}_{ija}\Gamma^{t}_{kbc}+
\Gamma^{k}_{ijb}\Gamma^{t}_{akc}+\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{t}_{abk}\big)=0,\\
&\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=1}^s\big(\Gamma^{c}_{abk}\Gamma^{k}_{ijt}+
\Gamma^{k}_{ija}\Gamma^{t}_{kbt}+\Gamma^{k}_{ijb}\Gamma^{c}_{akt}\big)=0, \\
&\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=1}^s(\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{c}_{jkt}+
\Gamma^{c}_{jak}\Gamma^{k}_{bit}+
\Gamma^{c}_{jbk}\Gamma^{k}_{iat})=0,\\
&\sum_{t=1}^s(\sum_{k=1}^s(\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{c}_{kjt}+
\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{c}_{ikt})-
\sum_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{c}_{abk}\Gamma^{k}_{ijt})=0,\\
&\sum_{t=1}^s(\sum_{k=1}^s(\Gamma^{k}_{cja}\Gamma^{t}_{kbi}+\Gamma^{k}_{cjb}\Gamma^{t}_{aki}-
\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{t}_{cjk})+
\sum_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{cji}\Gamma^{t}_{abk})=0,\\
&\sum_{t=1}^s(\sum_{k=1}^s(\Gamma^{b}_{aik}\Gamma^{k}_{cjt}+
\Gamma^{k}_{cja}\Gamma^{b}_{kit}-\Gamma^{b}_{cjk}\Gamma^{k}_{ait})+
\sum_{k=s+1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{cji}\Gamma^{b}_{akt})=0,\\
&\sum_{t=1}^s(\sum_{k=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{k}_{aij}\Gamma^{b}_{ckt}+\Gamma^{b}_{cak}\Gamma^{k}_{ijt})+
\sum_{k=1}^s(\Gamma^{b}_{cik}\Gamma^{k}_{jat}+
\Gamma^{b}_{cjk}\Gamma^{k}_{ait}))=0,\\
&\sum_{t=1}^s(\sum_{k=1}^s(\Gamma^{k}_{bci}\Gamma^{t}_{akj}+
\Gamma^{k}_{bcj}\Gamma^{t}_{aik})-
\sum_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{aij}\Gamma^{t}_{bck})=0,\\
&\mbox{where} ~ 1\leq a,b,c\leq s, ~~ s+1\leq i,j\leq n,\\
\end{split}\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Jacobi2}
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
&\sum_{t=s+1}^n\big(\sum_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{c}_{abk}\Gamma^{k}_{ijt}+
\sum_{k=1}^s\big(\Gamma^{k}_{ija}\Gamma^{c}_{kbt}+
\Gamma^{k}_{ijb}\Gamma^{c}_{akt}+
\Gamma^{c}_{ijk}\Gamma^{k}_{abt}\big)\big)=0,\\
&\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=s+1}^n\big(\Gamma^{i}_{jak}\Gamma^{k}_{bct}+
\Gamma^{i}_{jbk}\Gamma^{k}_{cat}+
\Gamma^{i}_{jck}\Gamma^{k}_{abt}\big)=0,\\
&\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{b}_{ajk}\Gamma^{k}_{ict}+
\Gamma^{k}_{icj}\Gamma^{b}_{akt})+
\sum_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{b}_{ick}\sum_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{ajt}=0,\\
&\sum_{t=s+1}^n\big(\sum_{k=1}^s(\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{i}_{ckt}+\Gamma^{i}_{cjk}\Gamma^{k}_{abt})+
\sum_{k=s+1}^n\big(\Gamma^{i}_{cak}\Gamma^{k}_{bjt}+\Gamma^{i}_{cbk}\Gamma^{k}_{jat}\big)\big)=0,\\
&\mbox{where}~~ 1\leq a,b,c, i\leq s, ~~ s+1\leq j\leq n,
\end{split}\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Jacobi3}
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
&\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=s+1}^n\big(\Gamma^{k}_{ija}\Gamma^{t}_{kbc}+
\Gamma^{k}_{ijb}\Gamma^{t}_{akc}+\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{t}_{abk}\big)=0,\\
&\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=s+1}^n\big(\Gamma^{c}_{abk}\Gamma^{k}_{ijt}+
\Gamma^{k}_{ija}\Gamma^{c}_{kbt}+\Gamma^{k}_{ijb}\Gamma^{c}_{akt}\big)=0, \\
&\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{k}_{ibc}\Gamma^{a}_{jkt}+
\Gamma^{a}_{jbk}\Gamma^{k}_{cit}+
\Gamma^{a}_{jck}\Gamma^{k}_{ibt})=0,\\
&\sum_{t=s+1}^n(\sum_{k=1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{jbi}\Gamma^{t}_{kac}+
\sum_{k=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{k}_{jba}\Gamma^{t}_{ikc}+
\Gamma^{k}_{jbc}\Gamma^{t}_{iak}-
\Gamma^{k}_{iac}\Gamma^{t}_{jbk}))=0,\\
&\sum_{t=s+1}^n(\sum_{k=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{c}_{iak}\Gamma^{k}_{jbt}+\Gamma^{k}_{jba}\Gamma^{c}_{ikt}-
\Gamma^{c}_{jbk}\Gamma^{k}_{iat})-\sum_{k=1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{jbi}\Gamma^{c}_{kat})=0,\\
&\sum_{t=s+1}^n(\sum_{k=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{t}_{kjc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{t}_{ikc})-
\sum_{k=1}^s\Gamma^{c}_{abk}\Gamma^{k}_{ijt})=0,\\
&\sum_{t=s+1}^n(\sum_{k=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{t}_{kjc}+
\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{t}_{ikc})-
\sum_{k=1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{t}_{abk})=0,\\
&\sum_{t=s+1}^n\big(\sum_{k=1}^s(\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{a}_{bkt}+\Gamma^{a}_{bck}\Gamma^{k}_{ijt})+
\sum_{k=s+1}^n\big(\Gamma^{a}_{bik}\Gamma^{k}_{jct}+\Gamma^{a}_{bjk}\Gamma^{k}_{cit}\big)\big)=0,\\
&\mbox{where} ~~s+1\leq a,b,c\leq n,~~1\leq i,j\leq s,\\
\end{split}\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Jacobi4}
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
&\sum_{t=1}^s\big(\sum_{k=1}^s\Gamma^{c}_{abk}\Gamma^{k}_{jit}+
\sum_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{jia}\Gamma^{c}_{kbt}+
\sum_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{jib}\Gamma^{c}_{akt}\big)+
\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=s+1}^n\Gamma^{c}_{jik}\Gamma^{k}_{abt}=0,\\
&\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=1}^s(\Gamma^{i}_{jak}\Gamma^{k}_{bct}+
\Gamma^{i}_{jbk}\Gamma^{k}_{cat}+
\Gamma^{i}_{jck}\Gamma^{k}_{abt})=0,\\
&\sum_{t=1}^s(\sum_{k=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{k}_{jbc}\Gamma^{i}_{akt}+\Gamma^{i}_{ajk}\Gamma^{k}_{bct})+
\sum_{k=1}^s(\Gamma^{i}_{abk}\Gamma^{k}_{cjt}+
\Gamma^{i}_{ack}\Gamma^{k}_{jbt}))=0,\\
&\sum_{t=1}^s(\sum_{k=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{c}_{jbk}\Gamma^{k}_{iat}+
\Gamma^{k}_{iaj}\Gamma^{c}_{kbt})+
\sum_{k=1}^s\Gamma^{c}_{iak}\Gamma^{k}_{jbt})=0,\\
&\mbox{where}~~~1\leq j\leq s, ~~ s+1\leq a,b,c, i\leq n.
\end{split}\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Thanks to \eqref{eq:jacobi1}, \eqref{eq:1} and \eqref{eq:2}, for all $1\leq a,b,c\leq s,~~$ $ s+1\leq i,j\leq n,$
$0=\mu(x_{i},x_{j},\mu(x_{a},x_{b},x_{c}))$
\hspace{2mm} $=\mu(\mu(x_{i},x_{j},x_{a}),x_{b},x_{c})+\mu(x_{a},\mu(x_{i},x_{j},x_{b}),x_{c})
+\mu(x_{a},x_{b},\mu(x_{i},x_{j},x_{c}))$
\vspace{1mm} \hspace{2mm}$=(\sum\limits_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ija}\sum\limits_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{t}_{kbc}+\sum\limits_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ijb}\sum\limits_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{t}_{akc}+
\sum\limits_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\sum\limits_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{t}_{abk})x_{t}.$
\vspace{2mm} Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
\aligned \
&\sum_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ija}\sum_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{t}_{kbc}+
&\sum_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ijb}\sum_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{t}_{akc}+
&\sum_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\sum_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{t}_{abk}=0,
\endaligned
\end{equation*}
and
\hspace{2mm}$\mu(x_{i},x_{j},\mu(x_{a},x_{b},x_{c}^{*}))=-\sum\limits_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{c}_{abk}\sum\limits_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{ijt}x_{t}^{*},$
\vspace{2mm}\hspace{2mm} $\mu(\mu(x_{i},x_{j},x_{a}),x_{b},x_{c}^{*})+\mu(x_{a},\mu(x_{i},x_{j},x_{b}),x_{c}^{*})+\mu(x_{a},x_{b},\mu(x_{i},x_{j},x_{c}^{*}))$,\\
\vspace{2mm} $=(\sum\limits_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ija}\sum\limits_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{t}_{kbt}+
\sum\limits_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ijb}\sum\limits_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{c}_{akt})x_{t}^{*}.$
It follows
$$\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=1}^s\big(\Gamma^{c}_{abk}\Gamma^{k}_{ijt}+
\Gamma^{k}_{ija}\Gamma^{t}_{kbt}+\Gamma^{k}_{ijb}\Gamma^{c}_{akt}\big)=0.$$
By a similar discussion, for others cases of $1\leq a, b, c, i, j\leq n$, we get \eqref{eq:Jacobi2}-\eqref{eq:Jacobi4}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:RelationDeribation1} Let $a\delta^{*}$ and $a\psi^{*}$ be defined as \eqref{eq:qqq1} and \eqref{eq:ppp1}, respectively. Then $a\delta^{*}$ and $a\psi^{*}$ satisfy $$a\delta^{*}(B_{1}\wedge B_{1})\subseteq Der B_{2}~~~ \mbox{ and }~~~a\psi^{*}( B_{2}\wedge B_{2})\subseteq Der B_{1}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} First we prove $a\delta^{*}( B_{1}\wedge B_{1})\subseteq Der B_{2}$.
Thanks to \eqref{eq:MB21}, and \eqref{eq:coadjoint1}-\eqref{eq:coadjoint413}, we have the following identities
$$
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
&\Delta^{*}(a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{a},y_{b},y_{c})+
\Delta^{*}(y_{a},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{b},y_{c})+ \Delta^{*}(y_{a},y_{b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{c})=0,\\
&a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}\Delta^{*}(y_{a},y_{b},y_{c})=0, \\
&\mbox{where}1\leq a,b,c\leq s, 1\leq i,j\leq s, ~\mbox{ or}~~ 1\leq i\leq s<j\leq n;
\\ &~\mbox{or}~~ 1\leq a,b\leq s <c\leq n, ~~ 1\leq i,j\leq s;
\end{split}
\end{cases}$$
$$
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
&\Delta^{*}(a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{a},y_{b},y_{c})+
\Delta^{*}(y_{a},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{b},y_{c})+ \Delta^{*}(y_{a},y_{b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{c})\\
&=(\sum\limits_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ija}\sum\limits_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{t}_{kbc}+
\sum\limits_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ijb}\sum\limits_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{t}_{akc}+
\sum\limits_{k=s+1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\sum\limits_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{t}_{abk})y_{t},\\
&a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}\Delta^{*}(y_{a},y_{b},y_{c})=0,\\
&\mbox{where} ~~s+1\leq i, j\leq n,~~1\leq a, b, c\leq s;
\end{split}
\end{cases} $$
$$
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
&
\Delta^{*}(a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{a},y_{b},y_{c})+
\Delta^{*}(y_{a},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{b},y_{c})+ \Delta^{*}(y_{a},y_{b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{c})\\
&=(\sum\limits_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ija}\sum\limits_{t=s+1}^n\Gamma^{t}_{kbc}+
\sum\limits_{k=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ijb}\sum\limits_{t=s+1}^n\Gamma^{t}_{akc})y_{t},\\
&a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}\Delta^{*}(y_{a},y_{b},y_{c})=\sum_{k=1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{abc}\sum_{t=s+1}^n\Gamma^{t}_{ijk}y_{t},~\\
& ~\mbox{where} ~~s+1\leq i, j\leq n,~~ 1\leq a, b\leq s<c\leq n;\end{split}
\end{cases}$$
$$
\begin{cases}\begin{split}
&\Delta^{*}(a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{a},y_{b},y_{c})+
\Delta^{*}(y_{a},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{b},y_{c})+ \Delta^{*}(y_{a},y_{b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{c})\\
&=(-\sum_{k=1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{ija}\sum_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{t}_{kbc}-
\sum_{k=1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{ijb}\sum_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{t}_{akc}-
\sum_{k=s+1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\sum_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{t}_{abk})y_{t},\\
&a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}\Delta^{*}(y_{a},y_{b},y_{c})=-\sum_{k=1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{abc}\sum_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{t}_{ijk}y_{t},\\
& \mbox{where} ~~1\leq a,b\leq s<c\leq n, 1\leq i\leq s<j\leq n,\\
&~~ \mbox{or}~~1\leq j\leq s<i\leq n.
\end{split}
\end{cases}$$
By the above discussion and Eqs \eqref{eq:Jacobi1}-\eqref{eq:Jacobi4}, we get
$$a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}\Delta^{*}(y_{a},y_{b},y_{c})=\Delta^{*}(a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{a},y_{b},y_{c})+
\Delta^{*}(y_{a},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{b},y_{c})+ \Delta^{*}(y_{a},y_{b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{c}),$$
that is, $a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}\in Der(B_2)$, for all $1\leq i, j\leq n$.
Apply Lemma \ref{lem:B2B1}, Lemma \ref{lem:RelationJacobi} and a similar discussion to the above, we get
$a\psi^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}\in Der(B_1)$, for all $1\leq i, j\leq n$. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:last} Let $(B_1\oplus B_2, [ \cdot, \cdot, \cdot]_1)$ and $(B_1\oplus B_2, [ \cdot, \cdot, \cdot]_2)$ be 3-Lie algebras in Lemma \ref{lem:B1B2} and Lemma \ref{lem:B2B1}, respectively. Then
the 5-tuple $(B_{1}\oplus B_{2}, [\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_{B_{1}\oplus B_{2}}, ( \cdot , \cdot ), B_{1}, B_{2})$ is a $4n$-dimensional standard Manin triple of 3-Lie algebras, where for $\forall u, v, w\in B_{1}, \alpha, \beta, \xi\in B_{2}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:manin}
[u+\alpha, v+\beta, w+\xi]_{B_1\oplus B_2}=[u+\alpha, v+\beta, w+\xi]_1+[u+\alpha, v+\beta, w+\xi]_2,
\end{equation}
and for $\forall x\in B_1, \theta\in B_2$, $(x, \theta)=\langle x, \theta\rangle.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Lamma \ref{lem:RelationDeribation1}, $a\delta^{*}$ and $a\psi^{*}$ satisfy $a\delta^{*}( B_{1}\wedge B_{1})\subseteq Der B_{2}$ and $a\psi^{*}( B_{2}\wedge B_{2})\subseteq Der B_{1}$, respectively.
Next we only need to prove that identities \eqref{eq:JOCABI1}, \eqref{eq:JOCABI2}, \eqref{eq:JOCABI3} and \eqref{eq:JOCABI4} below hold, since
\eqref{eq:JOCABI1} is equivalent to \eqref {eq:22'}, \eqref{eq:JOCABI2} is equivalent to \eqref {eq:22''}, \eqref{eq:JOCABI3} is equivalent to \eqref {eq:33'}, and \eqref{eq:JOCABI4} is equivalent to \eqref {eq:33''} in the 3-algebra
$(B_{1}\oplus B_{2}, [\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_{B_{1}\oplus B_{2}})$, respectively, where, $\forall x_a, x_b, x_c,$ $ y_i, y_j, y_a,$ $ y_b, y_c, x_i,$ $ x_j, x^*_a, x^*_b, x^*_c,$ $ y^*_i, y^*_j,$ $ y^*_a, y^*_b, y^*_c,$ $ x^*_i, x^*_j\in \Pi_1\cup\Pi_2$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:JOCABI1}
\begin{array}{llll}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c}),\\
\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c}^{*})=[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}^{*}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}^{*}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c}^{*}),\\
\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}^{*}y_{j}}x_{c})=[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i}^{*},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i}^{*},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}^{*}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c}),\\
\mu({x_a^{*}, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c}),\\
\mu({x_a^{*}, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c}^{*})=[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}^{*}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}^{*}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c}^{*}),\\
\mu({x_a^{*}, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}^{*}y_{j}}x_{c})=[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i}^{*},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i}^{*},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}^{*}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c}),\\
\end{array}\right.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:JOCABI2}
\begin{array}{llll}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\Delta^{*}({y_a, y_b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{c})=[a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{i},x_{j},y_{c}]_1+
[x_{i},a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{j},y_{c}]_1+a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}\Delta^{*}({y_{a},y_{b}},y_{c}),\\
\Delta^{*}({y_a, y_b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{c}^{*})=[a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{i},x_{j},y_{c}^{*}]_1+
[x_{i},a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{j},y_{c}^{*}]_1+a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}\Delta^{*}({y_{a},y_{b}},y_{c}^{*}),\\
\Delta^{*}({y_a, y_b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}^{*}x_{j}}y_{c})=[a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{i}^{*},x_{j},y_{c}]_1+
[x_{i}^{*},a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{j},y_{c}]_1+a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}^{*}x_{j}}\Delta^{*}({y_{a},y_{b}},y_{c}),\\
\Delta^{*}({y_a^{*}, y_b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{c})=[a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{i},x_{j},y_{c}]_1+
[x_{i},a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{j},y_{c}]_1+a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}\Delta^{*}({y_{a},y_{b}},y_{c}),\\
\Delta^{*}({y_a^{*}, y_b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{c}^{*})=[a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{i},x_{j},y_{c}^{*}]_1+
[x_{i},a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{j},y_{c}^{*}]_1+a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}\Delta^{*}({y_{a}y_{b}},y_{c}^{*}),\\
\Delta^{*}({y_a^{*}, y_b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}^{*}x_{j}}y_{c})=[a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{i}^{*},x_{j},y_{c}]_1+
[x_{i}^{*},a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{j},y_{c}]_1+a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}^{*}x_{j}}\Delta^{*}({y_{a},y_{b}},y_{c}),\\
\end{array}\right.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:JOCABI3}
\begin{array}{llll}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2-
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{c}x_{a}}y_{j},x_{b}]_2-[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{b}x_{c}}y_{j},x_{a}]_2,\\
\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c}^{*})=[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}^{*}]_2-
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{c}^{*}x_{a}}y_{j},x_{b}]_2-[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{b}x_{c}^{*}}y_{j},x_{a}]_2, \\
\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}^{*}y_{j}}x_{c})=[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i}^{*},y_{j},x_{c}]_2-
[y_{i}^{*},a\delta^{*}_{x_{c}x_{a}}y_{j},x_{b}]_2-[y_{i}^{*},a\delta^{*}_{x_{b}x_{c}}y_{j},x_{a}]_2,\\
\mu({x_a^{*}, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}^{*}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2-
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{c}x_{a}^{*}}y_{j},x_{b}]_2-[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{b}x_{c}}y_{j},x_{a}^{*}]_2,\\
\mu(x_a^{*}, x_b,a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c}^{*})=[a\delta^{*}_{x_a^*x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x^*_c]_2-
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{c}^{*}x_{a}^{*}}y_{j},x_{b}]_2-[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{b}x_{c}^{*}}y_{j},x_{a}^{*}]_2,
\\
\mu({x_a^{*}, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}^{*}y_{j}}x_{c})=[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}^{*}x_{b}}y_{i}^{*},y_{j},x_{c}]_2-
[y_{i}^{*},a\delta^{*}_{x_{c}x_{a}^{*}}y_{j},x_{b}]_2-[y_{i}^{*},a\delta^{*}_{x_{b}x_{c}}y_{j},x_{a}^{*}]_2,\\
\end{array}\right.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:JOCABI4}
\begin{array}{llll}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\Delta^{*}({y_a, y_b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{c})=[a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{i},x_{j},y_{c}]_1-
[x_{i},a\psi^{*}_{y_{c}y_{a}}x_{j},y_{b}]_1-[x_{i},a\psi^{*}_{y_{b}y_{c}}x_{j},y_{a}]_1,\\
\Delta^{*}({y_a, y_b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{c}^{*})=[a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{i},x_{j},y_{c}^{*}]_1-
[x_{i},a\psi^{*}_{y_{c}^{*}y_{a}}x_{j},y_{b}]_1-[x_{i},a\psi^{*}_{y_{b}y_{c}^{*}}x_{j},y_{a}]_1,\\
\Delta^{*}({y_a, y_b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}^{*}x_{j}}y_{c})=[a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}y_{b}}x_{i}^{*},x_{j},y_{c}]_1-
[x_{i}^{*},a\psi^{*}_{y_{c}y_{a}}x_{j},y_{b}]_1-[x_{i}^{*},a\psi^{*}_{y_{b}y_{c}}x_{j},y_{a}]_1,\\
\Delta^{*}({y_a^{*}, y_b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{c})=[a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}^{*},y_{b}}x_{i},x_{j},y_{c}]_1-
[x_{i},a\psi^{*}_{y_{c}y_{a}^{*}}x_{j},y_{b}]_1-[x_{i},a\psi^{*}_{y_{b}y_{c}}x_{j},y_{a}^{*}]_1,\\
\Delta^{*}({y_a^{*}, y_b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}x_{j}}y_{c}^{*})=[a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}^{*}y_{b}}x_{i},x_{j},y_{c}^{*}]_1-
[x_{i},a\psi^{*}_{y_{c}^{*}y_{a}^{*}}x_{j},y_{b}]_1-[x_{i},a\psi^{*}_{y_{b}y_{c}^{*}}x_{j},y_{a}^{*}]_1,\\
\Delta^{*}({y_a^{*}, y_b},a\delta^{*}_{x_{i}^{*}x_{j}}y_{c})=[a\psi^{*}_{y_{a}^{*}y_{b}}x_{i}^{*},x_{j},y_{c}]_1-
[x_{i}^{*},a\psi^{*}_{y_{c}y_{a}^{*}}x_{j},y_{b}]_1-[x_{i}^{*},a\psi^{*}_{y_{b}y_{c}}x_{j},y_{a}^{*}]_1.\\
\end{array}\right.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
First we discuss Eq \eqref{eq:JOCABI1}. Thanks to \eqref{eq:coadjoint1} in Lemma \ref {lem:B1B2}, \eqref{eq:coadjoint411}-\eqref{eq:coadjoint413} in Lemma \ref{lem:B2B1}, and \eqref{eq:1}, we obtain
$$
[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c})=0, ~\mbox{and}$$
$$\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=0, ~\mbox{where} ~ 1\leq a,b,c\leq s,
1\leq i,j\leq s, ~\mbox{or} ~1\leq i\leq s<j\leq n.
$$
$$
[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c})=0, ~\mbox{and}$$
$$\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=0, ~\mbox{where} ~ s+1\leq a,b,c\leq n,
s+1\leq i,j\leq n, ~\mbox{or} ~1\leq i\leq s<j\leq n.
$$
$$[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c})$$
$$=-\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{t}_{kjc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{t}_{ikc})x_{t},~\mbox{and}$$
$$\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=-\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{t}_{abk}x_{t}, ~\mbox{where} ~ 1\leq a,b,c\leq s, ~~s+1\leq i,j\leq n.$$
$$[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c})$$
$$=-\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=1}^s(\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{t}_{kjc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{t}_{ikc})x_{t}, ~\mbox{and}$$
$$\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=-\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{t}_{abk}x_{t}, ~\mbox{where} ~ s+1\leq a,b,c\leq n, ~~ 1\leq i,j\leq s+1.
$$
Thanks to Eqs \eqref{eq:Jacobi1} and
\eqref{eq:Jacobi3},
we get
$$\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{t}_{abk}x_{t}= \sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{t}_{kjc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{t}_{ikc})x_{t}, $$
for ~~ $1\leq a,b,c\leq s,~~ s+1\leq i, j\leq n;$
and
$$\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{t}_{abk}x_{t}=\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=1}^s(\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{t}_{ikc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abc}\Gamma^{t}_{ijk})x_{t},$$
for ~~$s+1\leq a,b,c\leq n,~~ 1\leq i, j\leq s.$
Therefore, for $1\leq a,b,c\leq s$, or $s+1\leq a,b,c\leq n,$
$$ \mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c}), 1\leq i, j\leq n.$$
By a similar discussion to the above, we have
$$[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c})=0, ~~\mbox{and}~$$
$$\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=0,$$
where~ $1\leq a,b\leq s<c\leq n, 1\leq i,j\leq s
~\mbox{or}~~1\leq c\leq s<a,b\leq n, ~~ s+1\leq i,j\leq n.
$
$$
[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c})
$$
$$=-\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{t}_{kjc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{t}_{ikc}
+\Gamma^{k}_{abc}\Gamma^{t}_{ijk})x_{t}, ~~\mbox{and}~$$
$$\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=0,$$
~~where~ $1\leq a,b\leq s<c\leq n, s+1\leq i,j\leq n.$
$$[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c})$$
$$=-\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=1}^s(\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{t}_{ikc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abc}\Gamma^{t}_{ijk})x_{t},~~\mbox{and}~$$
$$\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=-\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{t}_{abk}x_{t},$$
~~where~ $1\leq a,b\leq s<c\leq n, 1\leq i\leq s<j\leq n.$
$$[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c})
=-\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=1}^s(\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{t}_{kjc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abc}\Gamma^{t}_{ijk})x_{t},$$
$$\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=-\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{t}_{abk}x_{t},$$
~~where~$ 1\leq a,b\leq s<c\leq n, 1\leq j\leq s<i\leq n.$
$$[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c})$$
$$=-\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=1}^s(\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{t}_{kjc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{t}_{ikc}
+\Gamma^{k}_{abc}\Gamma^{t}_{ijk})x_{t},~\mbox{and}~$$
$$\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=0,~~where~ 1\leq c\leq s<a,b\leq n, 1\leq i,j\leq s.$$
$$[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c})$$
$$=-\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{t}_{kjc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abc}\Gamma^{t}_{ijk})x_{t},~\mbox{and}~$$
$$\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=-\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{t}_{abk}x_{t},
~~where~ 1\leq c\leq s<a,b\leq n, 1\leq i\leq s<j\leq n.$$
$$[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c})$$
$$=-\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{t}_{ikc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abc}\Gamma^{t}_{ijk})x_{t}, ~\mbox{and}~$$
$$\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=-\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{t}_{abk}x_{t},$$
~~where~ $1\leq c\leq s<a,b\leq n, 1\leq j\leq s<i\leq n.$
Thanks to \eqref{eq:Jacobi1} (in Lemma \ref {lem:RelationJacobi}), for all $1\leq a,b\leq s<c\leq n,$ we have
$$\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=1}^s(\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{t}_{kjc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{t}_{ikc}
+\Gamma^{k}_{abc}\Gamma^{t}_{ijk})x_{t}=0,~s+1\leq i,j\leq n;$$
$$\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{t}_{abk}x_{t}=
\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=1}^s(\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{t}_{ikc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abc}\Gamma^{t}_{ijk})x_{t},
~1\leq i\leq s<j\leq n;$$
$$\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=1}^s\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{t}_{abk}x_{t}=
\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=1}^s(\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{t}_{kjc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abc}\Gamma^{t}_{ijk})x_{t},
~, 1\leq j\leq s<i\leq n.$$
By \eqref{eq:Jacobi3} (in Lemma \ref {lem:RelationJacobi}), for $1\leq c\leq s<a,b\leq n$, we have $$\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{t}_{kjc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{t}_{ikc}
+\Gamma^{k}_{abc}\Gamma^{t}_{ijk})x_{t}=0,~1\leq i,j\leq s;$$
$$\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{t}_{abk}x_{t}=
\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{k}_{abi}\Gamma^{t}_{kjc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abc}\Gamma^{t}_{ijk})x_{t},
~1\leq i\leq s<j\leq n;$$
$$\sum_{k=1}^s\sum_{t=s+1}^n\Gamma^{k}_{ijc}\Gamma^{t}_{abk}x_{t}=
\sum_{k=s+1}^n\sum_{t=s+1}^n(\Gamma^{k}_{abj}\Gamma^{t}_{ikc}+\Gamma^{k}_{abc}\Gamma^{t}_{ijk})x_{t},
~ 1\leq j\leq s<i\leq n.$$
Therefore, for $ 1\leq i, j\leq n,$ $1\leq a,b\leq s<c\leq n,$ or $1\leq c\leq s<a,b\leq n,$ we have
$$ \mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c}).$$
Summarizing the above discussion, we get that for $1\leq a,b,c\leq n,~1\leq i, j\leq n,$
$$\mu({x_a, x_b},a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}x_{c})=[a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{i},y_{j},x_{c}]_2+
[y_{i},a\delta^{*}_{x_{a}x_{b}}y_{j},x_{c}]_2+a\psi^{*}_{y_{i}y_{j}}\mu({x_{a},x_{b}},x_{c}),$$
this is, the first identity in \eqref{eq:JOCABI1} holds. By a similar discussion to the above, we get \eqref{eq:JOCABI2}-\eqref{eq:JOCABI4}.
Thanks to Theorem \ref{thm:AoplusA'}, $(B_{1}\oplus B_{2}, [\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_{B_{1}\oplus B_{2}}, ( \cdot , \cdot ), B_{1}, B_{2})$ is a standard Manin triple of 3-Lie algebras. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{coro}
Let $(B_1\oplus B_2, [\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_1)$ and $(B_1\oplus B_2, [\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_2)$ be 3-Lie algebras in Lemma \ref{lem:B1B2} and Lemma \ref{lem:B2B1}, respectively.
Then $((B_1\oplus B_2, [\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_1),(B_1\oplus B_2, [\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_2),a\delta^{*},a\psi^{*})$ is an $4n$-dimensional matched pair.
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}
Apply Proposition 4.7 in \cite{BCM5} and Theorem \ref{thm:last}.
\end{proof}
At last of the paper, we construct a sixteen dimensional Manin triple of 3-Lie algebras by an involutive derivation.
\begin{exam}\label{exam:1}
Let $A$ be a 4-dimensional 3-Lie algebra with $\dim A^1=2$, and the multiplication of $A$ in the basis $\{x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4}\}$ be as follows
$$
[x_1, x_3, x_4]=x_2, ~~ [x_1, x_3, x_4]=x_1.
$$
Then the linear mapping $D: A \rightarrow A$ defined by $D(x_i)=x_i$ for $1\leq i\leq 3$ and $D(x_4)=-x_4$ is an involutive derivation of $A$, and
satisfies $x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}\in A_{1}$ and $x_{4}\in A_{-1}.$
By Theorem \ref{thm:last}, $(B_{1}\oplus B_{2}, [\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_{B_{1}\oplus B_{2}}, ( \cdot , \cdot ), B_{1}, B_{2})$ is a sixteen dimensional Manin triple of 3-Lie algebras in the basis $\{x_{1}, \cdots, x_{16}\}$, where $B_1=\langle x_1, \cdots, x_8\rangle$, $B_2=\langle x_9, \cdots, x_{16}\rangle$, and the multiplication $[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_{B_{1}\oplus B_{2}}$ is defined as \eqref{eq:manin}.
For convenience, let $B=B_1\oplus B_2$, and $[\cdot, \cdot, \cdot]_B$ the multiplication $[\cdot, \cdot, \cdot]_{B_1\oplus B_2}$.
Then the multiplication of the Manin triple of 3-Lie algebras in the basis $\{x_{1}, \cdots, x_{16}\}$ is as follows:
$$
[x_{2},x_{3},x_{4}]_B=x_{1},~~ ~[x_{1},x_{3},x_{4}]_B=x_{2},~~~
~[x_{1},x_{4},x_{6}]_B=x_{7},~~~ [x_{2},x_{5},x_{3}]_B=x_{8},$$
$$ [x_{2},x_{4},x_{5}]_B=x_{7}, ~~[x_{3},x_{5},x_{4}]_B=x_{6}, ~~[x_{3},x_{6},x_{4}]_B=x_{5},
~~[x_{3},x_{4},x_{9}]_B=x_{10}, $$
$$[x_{3},x_{1},x_{14}]_B=x_{16},
[x_{3},x_{2},x_{13}]_B=x_{16},
[x_{6},x_{3},x_{9}]_B=x_{16}, ~~[x_{3},x_{6},x_{12}]_B=x_{13}, $$
$$[x_{4},x_{6},x_{9}]_B=x_{15},
[x_{6},x_{4},x_{11}]_B=x_{13},
[x_{2},x_{3},x_{12}]_B=x_{10}, [x_{4},x_{1},x_{11}]_B=x_{10}, $$
$$[x_{2},x_{3},x_{12}]_B=x_{9},
[x_{4},x_{2},x_{11}]_B=x_{9},[x_{1},x_{14},x_{4}]_B=x_{15},[x_{2},x_{4},x_{13}]_B=x_{15},$$
$$[x_{4},x_{3},x_{13}]_B=x_{14},
[x_{4},x_{3},x_{14}]_B=x_{13},
[x_{1},x_{5},x_{11}]_B=x_{16}, [x_{5},x_{2},x_{12}]_B=x_{15},$$
$$[x_{5},x_{3},x_{10}]_B=x_{16},
[x_{3},x_{5},x_{12}]_B=x_{14},
[x_{4},x_{5},x_{10}]_B=x_{15}, [x_{5},x_{4},x_{11}]_B=x_{14},$$
$$[x_{1},x_{6},x_{11}]_B=x_{16},
[x_{6},x_{1},x_{12}]_B=x_{15},
[x_{9},x_{4},x_{11}]_B=x_{2}, [x_{9},x_{12},x_{3}]_B=x_{2},$$
$$[x_{10},x_{4},x_{11}]_B=x_{1},
~~[x_{10},x_{12},x_{3}]_B=x_{1},
[x_{11},x_{1},x_{12}]_B=x_{2}, [x_{11},x_{10},x_{12}]_B=x_{1},~ $$
$$[x_{10},x_{11},x_{5}]_B=x_{8},
[x_{10},x_{5},x_{12}]_B=x_{7},
[x_{11},x_{12},x_{5}]_B=x_{6}, [x_{9},x_{11},x_{6}]_B=x_{8},$$
$$[x_{9},x_{6},x_{12}]_B=x_{7},
[x_{11},x_{12},x_{6}]_B=x_{5},
[x_{13},x_{10},x_{3}]_B=x_{8}, [x_{13},x_{4},x_{10}]_B=x_{7}, $$
$$[x_{13},x_{2},x_{11}]_B=x_{8},
[x_{13},x_{11},x_{4}]_B=x_{6}, [x_{13},x_{12},x_{2}]_B=x_{7},[x_{13},x_{3},x_{12}]_B=x_{6},$$
$$[x_{14},x_{9},x_{3}]_B=x_{8},
[x_{14},x_{4},x_{9}]_B=x_{7}, [x_{14},x_{1},x_{11}]_B=x_{8}, [x_{14},x_{11},x_{4}]_B=x_{5}, $$
$$[x_{14},x_{12},x_{1}]_B=x_{7},
~~[x_{14},x_{3},x_{12}]_B=x_{5},
[x_{10},x_{12},x_{11}]_B=x_{9}, [x_{9},x_{12},x_{11}]_B=x_{10},$$
$$[x_{9},x_{11},x_{14}]_B=x_{16}, ~[x_{9},x_{14},x_{12}]_B=x_{15},
[x_{10},x_{11},x_{13}]_B=x_{16}, [x_{10},x_{13},x_{12}]_B=x_{15},$$
$$ ~~[x_{1},x_{6},x_{3}]_B=x_{8}, ~~[x_{3},x_{4},x_{10}]_B=x_{9}, [x_{11},x_{12},x_{13}]_B=x_{14}, [x_{11},x_{14},x_{12}]_B=x_{13}.
$$
\end{exam}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:last} The 16-dimensional 3-Lie algebra $B$ in Example \ref{exam:1} is 2-solvable but non-nilpotent, and $B$ has the smallest ideal
$$I=\langle x_1, x_2, x_7, x_8, x_9, x_{10}, x_{15}, x_{16}\rangle,$$
which $I$ is an abelian ideal, and $\dim B^1=12$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}From the multiplication, $$I=\langle x_1, x_2, x_7, x_8, x_9, x_{10}, x_{15}, x_{16}\rangle$$
is the smallest ideal of $B$, and satisfies $[I, I, B]_B=0.$ Therefore, $I$ is an abelian ideal.
It is clear that $B$ is a 16-dimensional 3-Lie algebra with $\dim B^1=12$, and
$$B^1=[B, B, B]_B=\langle x_1, x_2, x_5, x_6, x_7, x_8, x_9, x_{10}, x_{13}, x_{14}, x_{15}, x_{16}\rangle.$$
Since for any positive integer $r$, $B^r=B^1$, $B$ is non-nilpotent.
From
$$B^{(2)}=[B^1, B^1, B]_B=I, ~~~ B^{(3)}=[B^{(2)}, B^{(2)}, B ]_B=[I, I, B]_B=0,$$
$B$ is a 2-solvable
3-Lie algebra.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
Ruipu Bai was supported by the Natural
Science Foundation of Hebei Province (A2018201126).
|
\section{Introduction}
The massive nature of neutrinos
remains one of the major open questions in physics
that cannot be explained by the minimal Standard Model.
Among the various ways for directly probing the absolute neutrino mass,
$\beta$ decay is the least model dependent
unlike cosmology (cosmological models)\cite{cosmology}
or neutrinoless double beta decay (nuclear models and quenching).\cite{bb0n} Kinematics alone defines the $\beta$-decay spectrum,
from which the electron-antineutrino mass,
in the form of the effective mass
$m^2_{\mathrm{eff}}(\nu_{\mathrm{e}}) = \Sigma_\mathrm{i} |U^2_{\mathrm{ei}}|m^2_{\mathrm{i}}$, will determine the spectral-shape modification
very near the high-energy endpoint.
A good candidate for very precise $\beta$ spectral measurements is tritium (T). Tritium ($^3$H) decays into $^3$He
with the emissions of an electron and an antineutrino.
The relatively low $Q$ value of $18.3\,$keV means
that the fractional change to the spectrum
by the neutrino mass would be large.
A high-luminosity tritium source,
necessary for high statistics
since only a small fraction of the decays are near the endpoint energy,
can be designed due to the tritium half-life being 12.3 years.
The previous generation of tritium beta-decay experiments,
located at Troitsk and at Mainz,
set a limit on the antineutrino mass at $\sim\!2\,$eV at 90$\%$ c.l.\cite{Troitsk, Mainz}
KATRIN is a next-generation tritium experiment
that has recently started taking data.
The ultimate sensitivity of KATRIN
is expected to be $\sim\!0.2\,$eV at 90$\%$ c.l.,
an improvement by an order of magnitude.
\section{Experiment Description}\label{experiment}
The KATRIN experiment can achieve its desired sensitivity
due to a high-activity, gaseous molecular-tritum (T$_2$) source
and a high-resolution spectrometer.
A $\beta$ electron will be adiabatically guided by magnetic fields
to travel down the entire 70-meter beamline to the detector.
After the decay takes place in the windowless, gaseous T$_2$ source,
a two-stage transport section eliminates the non-$\beta$-electron components
(ions and neutral atoms) ahead of the main spectrometer.
The main spectrometer,
with the Magnetic Adiabatic Collimation
combined with an Electrostatic
filter design,
will select with fine energy resolution
($0.93\,$eV at the endpoint energy of $18.6\,$keV)
only $\beta$ electrons above a specific energy to pass.
This filter adiabatically transforms the $\beta$ electrons' momenta
to the longitudinal direction,
the same direction as the precisely set spectrometer voltage,
allowing the endpoint silicon PIN diode detector
to count essentially just the number of electrons
with decay energies above an energy threshold.
A more detailed description of the KATRIN experimental setup
can be found in Ref.\ \refcite{KATRIN_JINST}.
In normal KATRIN operation,
an integrated spectrum of $\beta$ decay is measured.
The measurement-time distribution,
i.e.,
where and how long to scan the $\beta$ spectrum
via the main spectrometer potential setting,
is optimized for the best neutrino mass sensitivity.
Reference \refcite{KATRIN} lists the theoretical modification to the $\beta$ spectrum
that KATRIN will need to consider.
From the integrated spectrum with those effects considered,
the neutrino mass will be one of four fundamental parameters to be fitted,
alongside the background,
the amplitude,
and the endpoint energy,
which is also important for Lorentz-violation (LV) searches.
\section{Prospects for LV searches with KATRIN}
The Standard-Model Extension (SME) provides a framework
for small, testable Lorentz and CPT breakdown.\cite{SME}
In the neutrino sector of the SME,
the majority of LV coefficients are expected to be heavily suppressed
by the tiny ratio of the electroweak and Planck scales
($m_w$/$m_p$) of about $10^{-17}$.
However,
four oscillation-free operators
may be examples of the rare {\it countershaded} LV;
these effects may be large but difficult to detect,
akin to a shark's different color on its belly and its back.
These four operators are renormalizable,
flavor blind,
and of mass dimension three;
other than breaking Lorentz and CPT symmetry,
all other physics is conventional.\cite{LV_betadecay}
The corresponding countershaded coefficients to these operators
are one timelike $(a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{00}$
and three spacelike $(a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{1m}$
with $m = 0,\pm 1$.
While the $00$ term is independent of apparatus location,
the spacelike terms depend on $\chi$, $\xi$, and $\theta_0$
representing the coordinate change
to the standard choice of SME frame;
for terrestrial experiments like KATRIN,
the leading contribution to this transformation
arises from the rotation of the Earth around its axis.
The paper by
D\'\i az {\it et al.},
on {\it Lorentz violation and beta decay}\cite{LV_betadecay}
both analyzed the published Troitsk and Mainz results\cite{Troitsk, Mainz}
to get the current best limits
on two of the oscillation-free operators
and provided the road map to figure out the other two operators,
which requires binning the data based on sidereal time.
The rest of this section will mostly summarize that paper.
For the tritium-decay energy range $\Delta T$ near the endpoint energy $T_0$,
i.e.,
$\Delta T = T_0 - T$ is small,
the decay rate can be written as
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\Gamma}{dT}
\simeq B + C\Big[\big(\Delta T + k(T_{\oplus})\big)^2-\tfrac{1}{2}m_{\nu}^2\Big],
\label{aba:eq1}
\end{equation}
where $B$ is the experimental background rate and $C$ is approximately constant.
The SME coefficients contribute to the function $k(T_{\oplus})$,
which depends on the sidereal time $T_{\oplus}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
k(T_{\oplus}) &=&
\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi}}(a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{00}
-\sqrt{\tfrac{3}{4\pi}} \cos^2\!\tfrac{1}{2}\theta_0\,
\sin{\chi}\,\cos\xi\,(a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{10}
\nonumber\\
&&{}-\sqrt{\tfrac{3}{2\pi}}\cos^2\!\tfrac{1}{2}\theta_0\,
\Big[\sin\xi\,{\mathrm{Im}}
\big((a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{11}e^{i\omega_{\oplus}T_{\oplus}}\big)
\nonumber\\
&&{}+\cos{\chi}\,\cos\xi\,{\mathrm{Re}}\big((a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{11}^*e^{-i\omega_{\oplus}T_{\oplus}}\big)\Big],
\label{aba:eq2}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\mathrm{Re}}(a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{11} = (a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{11}$ and ${\mathrm{Im}}(a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{11} = (a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{1-1} \equiv -(a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{11}^*$.
Equation \ref{aba:eq2} shows
that $k(T_{\oplus})$ will only shift the endpoint energy of the decay spectrum
without changing the shape
and is independent of the neutrino mass.
Without knowing the sidereal time,
the harmonic oscillation effects of the $1-1$ and $11$ terms on the spectrum
will average out.
Limits on $({a}^{(3)}_{\rm of})_{00}$ and $({a}^{(3)}_{\rm of})_{10}$
can then be obtained
from the limit on the potential endpoint energy shift.
By conservatively taking $<5\,$eV to be the Troitsk and Mainz sensitivity,
$|(a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{00}| < 2 \times 10^{-8}\,$GeV
and $|(a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{10}| < 5 \times 10^{-8}\,$GeV limits were set.
For comparison,
the neutrinoless double beta-decay experiment EXO-200
also searched for $(a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{00}$
from the two-neutrino double beta-decay spectrum shape;\cite{EXO200_LV}
their limit of
$-9.39 \times 10^{-5}\,$GeV$ <(a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{00}
< 2.69 \times 10^{-5}\,$GeV
is significantly worse
than what a single $\beta$-decay experiment can do.
Reference \refcite{LV_betadecay} predicts
that 30 days of nominal KATRIN run
can improve the limit on $(a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{00}$
by two orders of magnitude.
A KATRIN analysis that considers sidereal time
can set the first limits
on $(a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{11}$ and $(a^{(3)}_{\mathrm{of}})_{1-1}$.
\section{Outlook}
An initial tritium injection June 5th--18th, 2018
resulted in a successful ``First Tritium" run of 81 hours worth of tritium data.
The data taken from March until May of 2019
with a higher concentration of tritium,
named ``KNM1,"
will be the first KATRIN run to be used for a neutrino mass result.
With some off-season adjustments,
KATRIN plans to operate at the nominal settings starting in 2020.
A three-year run spanning five calendar years
should allow KATRIN to reach the design sensitivity of $0.2\,$eV.
The timeline for a KATRIN LV result
will depend on the prior release of neutrino mass results.
Even if the blinding scheme for the neutrino mass analysis
does not mask the endpoint energy result
that is needed for the LV analysis,
a comprehensive understanding of the endpoint energy systematics
will not be available until after the completion of the main neutrino mass analysis.
With some strong theoretical motivations to search for LV
with the $\beta$-spectrum method,
KATRIN will likely produce LV results
following each neutrino mass result release
in the coming years.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work is supported by the DOE Office of Science under award no.\ $\#$DE-SC0019304.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
More than a century ago, a bright jet in the Virgo cluster was discovered
by \cite{Curtis1918}. The jet is connected to a nucleus that resides in
the center of M\,87, which is an elliptical galaxy. Since its discovery,
the jet of M\,87 has been subject to extensive radio observations
\citep{bolton1949,mills1952,baade1954,turland1975,owen2000,gasperin2012},
and various mm observations; 7 mm (43 GHz)
\citep{Junor1999,Ly2004,Walker2008,hada2011,hada2013,hada2016,walker2018},
3 mm (86 GHz) \citep{krichbaum2006,hada2013,kim2018}, and 1.3 mm (228
GHz) \citep{doeleman2012}. At mm-wavelengths, the radio emission shows a
source morphology that is consistent with a jet launched from the
putative supermassive black hole in the centre of the radio core with a
mass of $M_{\rm BH} = 6.2 \times 10^9 ~{M}_{\odot}$ \citep{gebhardt2011} and at
a distance of $d = 16.7$ Mpc \citep{mei2007}. This black hole is one of
the primary targets of global mm-VLBI observations by the Event Horizon
Telescope Collaboration, which has the aim to spatially resolve black-hole
shadows \citep{falcke2000,goddi2017}, and succeeded in the case of M 87
\citep{eht-paperI,eht-paperII,eht-paperIII,eht-paperIV,eht-paperV,eht-paperVI}. The
shadow of a black hole is a depression of flux in the radiation field
surrounding the black-holes event horizon, for a non-rotating black hole
its size on the sky is given by $2\sqrt{27}G M/(c^2 D)$, with $G$ the
Gravitational constant, $M$ the black-hole mass, $c$ the speed of light,
and $D$ the distance to the black hole. Due to the large set of
observations available across the electromagnetic spectrum \citep[see
e.g.,][]{prieto2016} and the event horizon scale mm-VLBI observations,
it is possible to use the M\,87 jet as a laboratory to study jet
launching and particle acceleration.
Since the discovery of M\,87, relativistic jets have been studied in
great detail in theory. The analytical model by \cite{blandford1979}
describes an isothermal jet model that can explain the observed flat
radio spectra of jets. They recover the observed relation between source
size ($r$) and frequency ($\nu$) to be $r\propto \nu^{-1}$. An addition
to this model was made by \cite{falcke1995}, who connected the accretion
rate to the jet.
\cite{broderick2009} modeled M\,87 with an analytic, force-free jet
model. Their best-fit model is consistent with 43 GHz observations. The
model parameters include a black-hole spin of $a_* = {J c}/{G
M^2}=0.998$, a viewing angle of $i=25^\degree$, and a jet foot-point
at $r=10~r_{\rm g}$, where the gravitational radius $r_{\rm g}$ is defined as
$r_{\rm g} = {GM}/{c^2}$. The disk consists of both thermal and accelerated
electrons, but the fraction of accelerated electrons is low
(around one percent). Inside the jet, only an accelerated
electron population is present. Their model uses a black-hole mass
of $M=3.4\times10^9 {M}_{\odot}$ \citep{walsh2013}.
General-relativistic magnetohydrodynamical (GRMHD) simulations are often
used to study the dynamics of accretion flows. Next, we review some of
the earlier GRMHD based models of the M\,87 jet. The first model of M\,87
based on GRMHD simulations was presented by \cite{dexter2012}, who
computed synthetic synchrotron maps based on a high-spin GRMHD
simulation. Their models included a thermal electron population in the
disk and a power-law based electron population in the jet. Their best-fit
model, at an inclination of $25^\degree$, showed counter-jet dominated
emission, meaning that most of the radiation detected by the observer
originates in the jet that points away from the
observer. \cite{dexter2012} obtained a mass-accretion rate of $\dot{M}
\approx 10^{-3} ~{M}_{\odot} /$yr, and a power-law index of the non-thermal
electron distribution function of $p=3.25-3.5$, where they used a
constant electron-to-proton temperature ratio of $T_{\rm p}/T_{\rm e}=10$.
\cite{moscibrodzka2016} used GRMHD simulations and a Monte Carlo-based
radiative-transfer code to model the full spectral energy distribution
(SED) of an accreting supermassive black hole from radio to X-ray, as
well as ray-traced images of the accretion flow at $43, 86$ GHz, and
$230$ GHz. A thermal distribution function of the electrons was assumed
across the simulation domain, and the electron physics was modeled by
coupling the ion-to-electron temperature as a function of plasma $\beta =
P/P_{\rm mag}$, where $P$ is the gas pressure and $P_{\rm mag}$ the
magnetic pressure. The electrons were thermally distributed both in the
disk and the jet. The authors obtained a mass accretion rate of $\dot{M}
\approx 9\times10^{-3} ~{M}_{\odot}$, a favored inclination angle of
$20^\degree$ or $160^\degree$ and a ion-to-electron temperature ratio in
the disk of $T_i/T_e=100$. Smaller values of the ion-to-electron
temperature ratio resulted in an excess of X-ray emission. The 230 GHz
images showed counter-jet dominated emission. Subsequently,
\cite{moscibrodzka2017} performed polarised radiative transfer
calculations of the jet launching foot point of M\,87 to obtain Faraday
rotation measurements. It is shown that the best-fit jet-dominated model
from \cite{moscibrodzka2016} recovers the observed 1\% polarization
fraction and rotation measure of the jet base in M\,87.
Recently, \cite{ryan2018} performed 2D-axisymmetric two-temperature GRMHD
simulations that include radiative cooling. The authors conclude that
radiative cooling is important in the inner region ($r$<$10~r_{\rm g}$) of the
accretion flow, and that the black-hole mass of $M=6.2\times10^{9}
~{M}_{\odot}$ and spin $a_* = 0.9375$ simulation recovers the observed radio
and X-ray emission and image size at 230 GHz. The jet opening angle in
their model at lower frequencies is too narrow compared to the
mm-observations of the jet base in M 87 and the model assumes a thermal
electron population in the entire simulation domain. \cite{chael2019}
also performed a two-temperature radiative GRMHD model of a Magnetically
Arrested Disc (MAD) \citep{narayan2003, tchekhovskoy2011}. The model
recovers observables such as jet opening angle, image size, core shift,
and radio SED. This model also considers a thermal electron population
and, therefore, does not fit the NIR/optical emission.
In 2019, the Event Horizon Telescope published its first set of results,
showing an asymmetric ring-like structure in the radio core of M 87 at 228 GHz. This ring-like structure is evidence for the existence of a black hole shadow and consistent with predictions from GRMHD models
\citep{eht-paperI,eht-paperII,eht-paperIII,eht-paperIV,eht-paperV,eht-paperVI}. A
detailed comparison of GRMHD models with the data can be found in
\cite{eht-paperV}. The main assumption in these models that we want to
address in this work is that the electron distribution function is taken
to be \textit{thermal} in the entire simulation domain.
All of the models have in common that they are based on GRMHD simulations
that use spherical polar coordinates with a radial grid that is
logarithmically spaced. Such a grid has the advantage of high resolution
close to the event horizon but introduces a polar axis that needs careful
treatment, potentially resulting in numerical issues that affect the jet
outflow. GRMHD codes often track only the dynamically important ion
fluid, with no direct knowledge of the electrons available. One of the
open questions in modeling the electromagnetic radiation emerging from
accreting black holes is, therefore, the shape of the distribution
function of the radiatively important electrons. The often-made
assumption that the electrons in the full simulation domain are in a
thermal-relativistic Maxwell-J\"uttner distribution potentially breaks
down in regions where non-ideal effects are important.
These non-ideal effects are expected to be strongest in the highly
magnetized regions of the jet, where they can be associated with magnetic
reconnection accelerating electrons to very large energies. In the case
of M\,87, features of electron acceleration are observed in the
NIR/optical wavebands \citep[see e.g.,][and references
therein]{prieto2016}. We, therefore, need a distribution function that
describes the electrons that are not in thermal equilibrium. Particle
ensembles that are not in thermal equilibrium {can be} described in the
framework of Tsallis statistical mechanics \citep{Tsallis1988}. In this
framework, the $\kappa$-distribution function plays a key role. In
Fig.~\ref{fig:distr} we show that the $\kappa$-distribution function is a
combination of a thermal core at low values of the Lorentz factor
$\gamma$, which asymptotically turns into to a power-law with power-law
index $p=\kappa-1$ for large $\gamma$ values. In the limit of $\kappa
\rightarrow \infty$, the $\kappa$-distribution becomes the
Maxwell-J\"uttner distribution function \citep{Rezzolla_book:2013}. The
$\kappa$-distribution function is observed at a variety of astrophysical
systems such as the solar wind, solar magnetosphere, Jovian
magnetospheres, planetary nebula, and many others (see for a review
\cite{pierrard2010} and references therein).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/distributions.pdf}
\caption{Maxwell-J\"uttner distribution (black),
$\kappa$-distribution (orange) for a $\kappa$ value of 3.5, and
a power-law distribution (yellow) with $p=2.5$.}
\label{fig:distr}
\end{figure}
In \cite{davelaar2018}, we introduced a $\kappa$-jet model for the
accreting black hole in the center of the Milky Way, Sagittarius A* (Sgr
A*). This model is a combination of a thermal and a $\kappa$-distributed
electron population. In the accretion disk, we inject thermal electrons,
while in the jet we inject a mix of thermal and $\kappa$-distributed
electrons. The ratio between the two species is a free parameter of the
model. In the case of Sgr A*, we found that $\sim 5-10\%$ of
the electrons is $\kappa$-distributed in the event of flares, and they
are negligible in the quiescent state. The injection method used in this
model was a uniform injection in the outflow of the simulation domain
with a fixed power-law index.
To improve the model we here connect the electron-acceleration parameters
to information from local kinetic plasma simulations. Kinetic plasma, or
particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations, are capable of resolving the
micro-physics scales that GRMHD simulations cannot reach. Although local,
these type of simulations can provide first-principle parametrizations of
particle-acceleration processes. For our model, we consider a
parametrization of the power-law index for trans-relativistic
reconnection as found by \cite{ball2018}. Reconnection is known to be an
efficient particle accelerator in magnetized environments \citep[see
e.g.,][]{sironi2014,guo2014,sironi2015,werner2016,petropoulou2016,werner2017,werner2018}. Besides
this parametrization,we also extended our model with an injection radius,
which corresponds to the footpoint of the jet where electron acceleration
can become important.
In this work, we apply thermal and $\kappa$-jet models to the accreting
black hole in M\,87. The dynamics of the accretion flow are drawn from
GRMHD simulations performed in Cartesian-Kerr-Schild (CKS)
coordinates. {This prevents numerical artefacts and directional biases of
the jet caused by the presence of a polar axis, this will be studied in
detail a future work}. In addition, the use of adaptive mesh refinement
(AMR) allows us to capture the instabilities in the jet sheath, and, at
the same time, to resolve the magneto-rotational instability (MRI) in the
disk. We use the results of this simulation to generate SEDs, synthetic
synchrotron maps (images), and optical-depth maps of the jet-launching
region in M\,87. We extend the general-relativistic-ray-tracing (GRRT)
code {\tt RAPTOR}, rendering it compatible with AMR data structures. We
fit synthetic SEDs obtained from our GRRT simulations to observational
data.
The plan of the paper is as follows: in Section \ref{sec:methods} we
describe our GRMHD simulation setup, as well as the electron model
that we use in our radiative-transfer calculations. In Section
\ref{sec:results} we compute SEDs, synchrotron and opacity maps, source
sizes, and core shifts. In Section \ref{sec:disc}, we compare our results
to previous works and observations. We summarize our results in Section
\ref{sec:conc}.
\section{Methods}\label{sec:methods}
In this Section, we describe the GRMHD simulation setup, the coordinates
used to simulate the accretion flow and radiation transport, and
introduce our electron-physics model.
\subsection{GRMHD simulations}
The dynamics of the accretion flow onto the black hole are simulated
using the Black Hole Accretion Code \citep[\texttt{BHAC},][]{porth2017},
which solves the GRMHD equations
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\mu} (\rho u^{\mu}) &= 0 \,, \\
\nabla_{\mu} T^{{\mu \nu}} &= 0 \,, \\
\nabla_{\mu}\, ^{*}\!F^{\mu\nu} &= 0 \,, \label{eq:grmhd}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\nabla_{\mu}$ denotes the covariant derivative, $\rho$ the
rest-mass density, $u^\mu$ the fluid 4-velocity, $T^{{\mu \nu}}$ the
energy-momentum tensor of the combined perfect fluid and electromagnetic
fields, and $^{*}\!F^{\mu\nu}$ the dual of the Faraday tensor
($F^{\alpha\beta}$).
The system is closed by the ideal-MHD approximation corresponding to a
plasma with infinite conductivity $F^{\mu\nu}u_\nu =0$, and by the
equation of state of an ideal fluid \citep[see,
e.g.,][]{Rezzolla_book:2013} $h(\rho,P)= 1
+\frac{\hat{\gamma}}{\hat{\gamma}-1}\frac{P}{\rho}$, where $h$ and $P$
are the specific enthalpy and gas pressure in the fluid frame, and the
adiabatic index $\hat{\gamma}=4/3$. The simulation is initialized with a
Fishbone-Moncrief torus \citep{fm1976} with its inner radius at $6~r_{\rm g}$
and its pressure maximum at $12~r_{\rm g}$. The initial configuration of the
magnetic field is a single poloidal loop described by the vector
potential $A_\phi \propto \max(\rho/\rho_{\rm max} - 0.2,0)$. The
initial density and pressure are normalized so that $\rho_{\rm max} =
1$. The initial magnetic field is also normalized such that the ratio
between maximum gas pressure $P_{\rm max}$ and maximum magnetic pressure
$P_{\rm mag,max}$ is ${P_{\rm max}}/{P_{\rm mag,max}} = 100$. The disk
is, therefore, weakly magnetized. In order to break the initial
equilibrium state and accelerate the development of the MRI, we add 5\%
`white noise' random perturbations to the pressure. This triggers the
MRI, which transports angular momentum and allows accretion onto the
black hole \citep{Balbus1991}.
The black-hole's dimensionless spin parameter was set to be $a_* =
0.9375$, where $J$ is the angular momentum. For this value of $a_*$ the
inner horizon is at $r\approx 1.34799 ~r_{\rm g}$.
\subsection{AMR grid in Cartesian-Kerr-Schild coordinates}
\begin{table}
\caption{Maximum AMR refinement radii in $r_{\rm g}$ for the different AMR
levels. The jet region is defined as the region where
$\theta<15^\degree$ or $\theta>165^\degree$, where the disk region is
$15^\degree < \theta < 165^\degree$. }
\label{tab:amrlevels}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
\hline
Level & jet & disk \\
\hline
8 & $2$ & $2$ \\
7 & $50$ & $22$ \\
6 & $100$ & $25$ \\
5 & $150$ & $40$ \\
4 & $200$ & $100$ \\
3 & $400$ & $200$ \\
2 & $800$ & $400$ \\
1 & $1000$ & $1000$ \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The simulation is performed on a Cartesian (rectangular) grid. The
covariant metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ of a rotating black hole in
Cartesian-Kerr-Schild (CKS) coordinates is given by \citep[see,
e.g.,][]{Rezzolla_book:2013}
\begin{equation}
g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + f l_\mu l_\nu,
\end{equation}
where $\eta_{\mu\nu}={(-1,1,1,1)}$ is the Minkowski metric, and
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
f &= \frac{2r^3}{r^4 + a^2 z^2},\\
l_\nu &= \left(1, \frac{rx+ay}{r^2 + a^2}, \frac{ry-ax}{r^2 + a^2}, \frac{z}{r}\right),
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $r$ is given by
\begin{equation}
r^2 = {\frac{R^2 - a^2 + \sqrt{(R^2 - a^2)^2 + 4a^2z^2}}{2} },
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
R^2 = x^2+y^2+z^2.
\end{eqnarray}
All units of length are scaled by the gravitational radius $r_{\rm g}$ which is
given by $r_{\rm g} = {GM}/{c^2}$. In the limit of $r \gg 0$, the radius $r
\rightarrow R$. The contravariant metric is given by
\begin{equation}
g^{\mu\nu} = \eta^{\mu\nu} - f l^\mu l^\nu,
\end{equation}
where $l^\nu$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
l^\nu = \left(-1, \frac{rx+ay}{r^2 + a^2}, \frac{ry-ax}{r^2 + a^2}, \frac{z}{r}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
The use of AMR allows us to increase the resolution in regions of
interest during runtime. The decision to refine is made based on the
L\"ohner scheme \citep{Loehner87}, which quantifies variations of the
density and the plasma magnetization $\sigma$, defined as
$\sigma=b^2/\rho$, where $b=\sqrt{b^{\mu}b_{\mu}}$ is the magnetic-field
strength in the fluid frame. The code is allowed to refine up to a
maximum level of refinement that depends on the location in the
computational domain; greater levels of refinement are allowed in the
regions where the jet is expected to form and the disk is expected to
reside. This distinction is made based on a radius $r$ and polar angle
$\theta$, and for the jet this region is between $\theta<15^\degree$ or
$\theta>165^\degree$. The maximum allowed refinement level as a function
of radius and polar angle are shown in Table \ref{tab:amrlevels}. The
base resolution of the grid is $96 \times 96 \times 192$ cells in $x$,
$y$, and $z$-directions, respectively. The simulation domain is $x \in
(-500 ~r_{\rm g},500 ~r_{\rm g})$, $y \in (-500 ~r_{\rm g},500 ~r_{\rm g})$ and $z \in (-1000
~r_{\rm g},1000 ~r_{\rm g})$. We simulate up to $t_{\rm f}=10^4 ~\rg/c$, which
corresponds to $37.5$ orbital periods of the accretion disk at the
pressure maximum. At the end of the simulation, the domain contains
around 70 million cells.
\subsection{Ray tracing in AMR CKS grid}
In order to perform general-relativistic ray-tracing calculations in
Cartesian coordinates within the block-based AMR data structure of BHAC,
it has been necessary to extend our general-relativistic ray-tracing code
{\tt RAPTOR} \citep{bronzwaer2018}. In particular, the initial conditions
for the rays, also called the ``virtual camera'', employ a tetrad basis
in which the initial wave-vectors are described \citep{noble2007}, a
description of the implementation of this in {\tt RAPTOR} can be found in
\cite{davelaar2018b}. The tetrad camera uses a set of trial vectors to
generate a tetrad basis by using a Gramm-Schmidt orthogonalization
procedure. In spherical coordinate systems, the trial vectors are unit
vectors pointing along the $t,r,\theta,\phi$-directions. In our case, we
have to transform this into Cartesian coordinates. The virtual camera is
constructed at a position ($x_{\rm c},y_{\rm c},z_{\rm c}$) in space
which is computed based on the following parameters: \textit{(i)} the
radial distance between the camera and the black hole $r_{\rm c}$;
\textit{(ii)} the inclination with respect to the black hole spin axis
$\theta_{\rm c}$; \textit{(iii)} the azimuthal angle around the black
hole spin axis $\phi_{\rm c}$. The tetrad trial vectors can then be
defined as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
t^\mu_{0} &= (1 ,0 ,0 ,0), \\
t^\mu_{1} &= (0, -\sin(\theta_{\rm c})\cos(\phi_{\rm c}), -\sin(\theta_{\rm c})\sin(\phi_{\rm c}),-\cos(\theta_{\rm c})),\\
t^\mu_{2} &= (0, -\sin(\phi_{\rm c}),\cos(\phi_{\rm c})),\\
t^\mu_{3} &= (0, -\cos(\theta_{\rm c})\cos(\phi_{\rm c}), -\cos(\theta_{\rm c})\sin(\phi_{\rm c}),-\sin(\theta_{\rm c})).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The choice of trial vectors results in a right-handed basis where the
observer is facing the black hole.
The integration of the geodesic equations is done by solving the
second-order differential equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{{\rm d}^2 x^{\alpha}}{{\rm d}\lambda^2} = -\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\ \mu
\nu} \frac{{\rm d}x^{\mu}}{{\rm d}\lambda} \frac{{\rm d}x^{\nu}}{{\rm
d}\lambda}.
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\ \mu \nu}$ are the connection coefficients,
$x^{\alpha}$ is the geodesic position, and $\lambda$ is the affine
parameter. We use a fourth-order Runge-Kutta algorithm, where the
connection coefficients are evaluated using a finite-difference
derivative of the metric.
The step-sizing for the geodesic integration in {\tt RAPTOR} was adopted
since it relies on spherical logarithmic coordinates. First we compute a
required step-size based on the geodesic wave-vector
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
{\rm d} \lambda_{x} &= \Delta \ / \left( \left| k^x \right| + \delta \right), \\
{\rm d} \lambda_{y} &= \Delta \ / \left( \left| k^y \right| + \delta \right), \\
{\rm d} \lambda_{z} &= \Delta \ / \left( \left| k^z \right| + \delta \right), \\
{\rm d} \lambda_{\rm geod}&=\frac{R}{{\left| {\rm d}\lambda_{x} \right|}^{-1} + {\left| {\rm d}\lambda_{y}\right|}^{-1} + {\left| {\rm d}\lambda_{z} \right|}^{-1}},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $k^{x,y,z}$ are the wave-vector components in the $x,y,z$
directions, $\delta$ is a small real number to prevent divisions by zero,
and $\Delta$ is a scale factor for the step-size (typically $\Delta\approx0.01$.
Then we compute a required step-size based
the AMR cell size ${\rm d}x$
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
k_{\rm max} &= \max(k^x ,\max(k^y,k^z)),\\
{\rm d} \lambda_{\rm grid} &= \frac{{\rm d}x}{n k_{\rm max}},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $n$ sets the amount of steps per cell. We typically use at least
two steps per cell. We then compare both the geodesic and AMR based
step-sizes and use the smallest of the two to ensure convergence; ${\rm d}
\lambda = \min({\rm d} \lambda_{\rm geod},{\rm d} \lambda_{\rm grid})$.
For the radiative-transfer part of the ray-tracing calculation, we need
the plasma variables at the location of the geodesics. We interfaced {\tt
RAPTOR} with the AMR data structure of {\tt BHAC}, and reconstruct the
full AMR grid. The {\tt BHAC} AMR block-based data structure is parsed by
the code. When we integrate the geodesics we use a nearest-neighbor
approach to interpolate the grid-based plasma variables to the geodesics.
\subsection{Electron model and radiative-transfer model parameters}
Since GRMHD simulations are scale-free, we have to re-scale the plasma
variables from code units to c.g.s. units. Units of length are scaled
with ${\mathcal L}=r_{\rm g}$, while units of time are scaled with ${\mathcal
T} = \rg/c$, the mass unit is set by ${\mathcal
M}=1.8\times10^{29}\,{\rm gram}$. Estimates of the mass of M\,87 are used to
constrain the length and time units, we use a mass of
$M=6.2\times10^9~{M}_{\odot}$ \citep{gebhardt2011}, the mass used in
this work is slightly smaller than the mass of $M=(6.5\pm0.7)\times10^9~{M}_{\odot}$
reported in \cite{eht-paperI}, but the used value for the black hole mass is within the error margins.
The mass unit $\mathcal{M}$, which sets the accretion rate,
however, is unknown. It is, therefore, a fit parameter. The mass unit is
directly proportional to the accretion rate via $\dot{M}_{\rm cgs} =
\dot{M}_{\rm sim} {\mathcal M} {\mathcal T}^{-1}$, where $\dot{M}_{\rm
sim}$ is the accretion rate in simulation units. In order to scale the
relevant plasma quantities to c.g.s units, the following scaling
operations are performed: $\rho_0 = \mathcal{M}/\mathcal{L}^3$,
$u_{0}=\rho_0 c^2$, and $B_0=c\sqrt{4\pi \rho_0}$.
As mentioned before, our GRMHD simulation only simulates the dynamically
important protons. Therefore, we need to parametrize the electron
properties, such as their distribution functions, densities, and
temperatures, in post-processing. The plasma is assumed to be
charge-neutral, so that $n_{\rm e} = n_{\rm p}$ throughout the
domain. For the electron temperature we employ the parametrization of
\cite{moscibrodzka2016}:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
T_{\rm ratio}&= T_{\rm p}/T_{\rm e} = R_{\rm low}\frac{1}{1+\beta^2} + R_{\rm high} \frac{\beta^2}{1+\beta^2},\\
\Theta_{\rm e} &= \frac{U(\hat{\gamma} - 1) m_{\rm p}/m_{\rm e}}{\rho T_{\rm ratio}},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $m_{\rm p}$ is the proton mass, $m_{\rm e}$ is the electron mass,
$U$ is the internal energy, $\Theta_{\rm e}$ is the dimensionless
electron temperature that can be re-scaled to c.g.s units via $T =
{\Theta_{\rm e} m_{\rm e} c^2}/{k_{\rm b}} $, where $k_{\rm b}$ is the
Boltzmann constant. The parameters $R_{\rm low}$ and $R_{\rm high}$ are
free parameters of the model; $R_{\rm low}$ sets the temperature ratio in
the jet, where $\beta \ll 1$, and $R_{\rm high}$ sets the temperature
ratio in the disk where $\beta \gg 1$.
For the electrons' energy-distribution function, we follow a similar
recipe as described in \cite{davelaar2018}. we use the relativistic
{ isotropic} $\kappa$-distribution function for the
electrons, which is given by \citep{xiao2006}
\begin{equation}
\frac{dn_{\rm e}}{d\gamma} = N \gamma \sqrt{\gamma^2 -1} \left( 1 +
\frac{\gamma -1}{\kappa w}\right)^{-(\kappa + 1)},
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor of the electrons,
$\kappa$ is the parameter that sets the
power-law index $p$ via $p=\kappa-1$, $w$ sets the width of the
distribution function, and $N$ is a normalization factor such that
the electron distribution function contains $n_e$ electrons.
The width $w$ of the $\kappa$ distribution sets the amount of energy in
the distribution. In the case that $\kappa w \gg 1$ the total energy in
the $\kappa$ distribution is given by
\begin{equation}
E_{\kappa} = \frac{3 \kappa}{\kappa -3} n_{\rm e} w.
\end{equation}
We couple this energy to the energy present in a thermal distribution
($E_{\rm thermal} = 3 n_{\rm e} \Theta_{\rm e}$) and add a source term
based on the magnetic energy
\begin{equation}
E_{\kappa} = \frac{3 \kappa}{\kappa -3} n_{\rm e} w = 3 n_{\rm e}
\Theta_{\rm e} + \tilde{\epsilon} \frac{B^2}{8\pi},
\end{equation}
here $\tilde{\epsilon}$ is used to join smoothly between between the
$\kappa$-distribution and the magnetic energy. After a bit of algebra, we
can rewrite the width as
\begin{equation}
w = \frac{ \kappa -3 }{\kappa} \Theta_{\rm e} + \tilde{\epsilon}
\frac{ \kappa -3 }{6 \kappa} \frac{m_{\rm p}}{m_{\rm e}} \sigma.
\end{equation}
In the limit of $\sigma \ll 1$, the $\kappa$-distribution energy is set
by the thermal energy, while in the magnetized regime the energy is set
by the magnetic energy. The $\tilde{\epsilon}$ parameter is set by
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\epsilon} = \epsilon \frac{1}{2}\left(1 + \tanh( r - r_{\rm inj} )\right).
\end{equation}
where $r_{\rm inj}$ is the injection radius from which we start injecting
electron based on the magnetic energy, and $\epsilon$ is the base value
for radii larger than $r_{\rm inj}$; hereafter, we will consider two
cases: where $\epsilon$ is zero or non-zero.
The power-law index of the electrons distribution functions (eDFs) is
based on sub-grid particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations of
trans-relativistic reconnection by \cite{ball2018}, who simulated
two-dimensional reconnection layer (Harris sheath) for an electron-ion
plasma for multiple values of the plasma $\beta$ and of the magnetization
$\sigma$. One of the benefits of this type of plasma simulation is that
one obtains eDFs from first principles. In \cite{ball2018} these eDFs are
then used to fit the power-law index $p$ as a function of $\beta$ and
$\sigma$ as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
p &= A_p + B_p \tanh\left(C_p \beta\right)\\
A_p &= 1.8 + 0.7/ \sqrt{\sigma}\\
B_p &= 3.7\, \sigma^{-0.19}\\
C_p &= 23.4\, \sigma^{0.26}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
These fits are obtained for $10^{-4}<\beta<1.5$ and $0.1<\sigma<7.2$,
which corresponds to the typical values that we find in the jet sheath,
which is the main source of synchrotron emission in our jet-models.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/pic.pdf}
\caption{The $\kappa$ parameter as function of $\beta$ and
$\sigma$ from the parameterisation as found by
\cite{ball2018}. A high value of $\kappa$ corresponds to steep
particle spectra with power-law index $p=\kappa-1$. We
overplotted contours of constant $\kappa$ in black. }
\label{fig:injection}
\end{figure}
Finally, we exclude all emission from regions where $\sigma>5.0$, this is
what we call the jet spine. These regions are unreliable for modeling
since the thermal energy in highly magnetized regions is unreliable in
GRMHD simulations. We also exclude all emission from regions where floor
values are applied, {these regions typically resides inside the
magnetized jet}. This results in three regions inside our simulation
domain; the disk, the jet sheath, and jet spine. The disk resides where
$\sigma$ is much smaller than one and plasma $\beta$ is large than one,
the jet sheath resides where $\sigma$ is of the order unity and $\beta$
is smaller than one. In the case of our $\kappa$-jet model we set the
electron distribution function to a relativistic $\kappa$-distribution
function into the disk and jet sheath and no
electrons are present in the jet spine.
The emission and absorption coefficients for the thermal electron
distributions are taken from \cite{leung2011}, and in the case of the
$\kappa$-distribution, the fit formula taken are from \cite{pandya2016}.
\subsection{SED cut off}
The SED of M\,87 shows a clear cut-off in flux around $\nu = 10^{15}$ Hz
\citep{prieto2016}. We will consider three potential sources for this
cut-off.
First, we assume that the cut-off is caused by synchrotron cooling in
the jet, which becomes important when the synchrotron-cooling time of the
electron is comparable with the typical dynamical time. Under these
conditions, the cooling (cut-off) frequency is given by
\begin{equation}
\nu_{\rm cool} = \frac{18 \pi}{\sigma_T^2} \frac{m_e c^2 e }{B^3 z_{\rm jet}},
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_T$ is the Thomson cross-section, and $z_{\rm jet}$ the
position along the jet.
Second, we assume that the break takes place at the synchrotron burn-off
limit, that is, at the maximum energy that a particle can gain while
emitting synchrotron radiation. The maximum Lorentz factor in this case
is
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{\rm max} = \sqrt{\frac{3m_{\rm e}^2 c^4 E}{4\pi e^3 B^2}},
\end{equation}
where $E$ is the electric field, and the cut-off frequency is then given
by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cut-off}
\nu_{\rm cut-off} = \frac{3}{2} \gamma_{\rm max}^2 \nu_c,
\end{equation}
with $\nu_c = {eB}/(2 \pi m_{\rm e} c)$.
Finally, we assume that break is given by the Hillas criterion \citep{hillas1984},
stating that the maximum Lorentz factor achievable can be estimated by equating the
gyration radius of the electron and the size of the acceleration region
$L$. This results in a maximum Lorentz factor of
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hillas}
\gamma_{\rm max} = \frac{eBL}{m_{\rm e} c^2},
\end{equation}
which results in a cut-off frequency of $\nu\approx10^{15}$ Hz after
using Eq. \eqref{eq:hillas} in \eqref{eq:cut-off}. In this way, we can
also we can estimate the typical size $L$ of the acceleration-region
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lengthscale}
L = \sqrt{\frac{4\pi \nu_{\rm cut-off} m_{\rm e}^3 c^5}{e^3 B^3}} \approx 4.5 \times 10^{7} {\rm cm} \sqrt{\frac{(\nu_{\rm cut-off}/10^{15} {\rm Hz})}{{(B/1 ~{\rm G})^3}}}.
\end{equation}
Interestingly, the maximum size $L$ can be interpreted as the
size of plasmoids as was done by \cite{petropoulou2016} and
\cite{christie2019} for blazars.
\section{Results}\label{sec:results}
In this Section, we present the results of our GRMHD simulations and how
the SEDs they produce can be compared with the observational data. at
three observational relevant frequencies at two inclinations. We also
show how we can compute from the synthetic images the source size and
core shifts, and how they compare with the observations.
\subsection{Structure of the accretion disk and jet in the AMR simulation}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/Cart_many_panels_xz_1000.pdf}
\caption{Left panels: slice in the $(x,z)$ and $(x,y)$ planes of
the density in code units. Middle panels: slice along the
$(x,z)$ and $(x,y)$ planes of the magnetization parameter
$b^2/\rho$, over-plotted with the grid block sizes. Right
panels: slice along the $(x,z)$ and $(x,y)$ planes of the
dimensionless ion temperature. Shown with a black circle is the
location of the event horizon. }
\label{fig:snapshots}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/acc.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/jet-power.pdf}
\caption{Left panel: Accretion rate in code units as a function
of time. Right panel: Jet and wind power in code units as a
function of time.}
\label{fig:acc-ljet}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{figures/lineprofiles.pdf}
\caption{Radial profiles of the dimensionless electron density
(left), magnetic-field strength (middle) and electron temperature
(right). Black lines correspond to jet averaged quantities, dashed
yellow lines to disk-averaged quantities and the red dashed lines
correspond to power-law profiles predicted in analytical works by
\cite{blandford1979} and \cite{falcke1995}. Also, the jet sheath is close to isothermality.}
\label{fig:lineprof}
\end{figure*}
A representative snapshot of the simulation is shown in
Fig. \ref{fig:snapshots}. The simulation produces a well-resolved
relativistic jet up to the edge of the simulation domain at $1000 ~r_{\rm g}$
in the $z$-direction. At $z=40~r_{\rm g}$ the jet diameter is resolved with 160
cells, and with 32 cells at $z=1000~r_{\rm g}$. The accretion rate through the
event horizon is shown in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:acc-ljet} as a
function of time; note that the accretion rate initially increases
sharply, and then settles around $0.2$ (in code units) at later
times. The jet and wind power are instead shown in the right panel of
Fig.~\ref{fig:acc-ljet}; both of the quantities are calculated by
performing the integral over the constant $r=100~r_{\rm g}$ surface
\begin{equation}
\dot{E} = \int_0^{2\pi}\int_{0}^{\pi} (- T^r_t - \rho u^r)\,
\chi_{(\cdot)}\, \sqrt{-g} \, d\theta \, d\phi
\end{equation}
where the function $\chi_{(\cdot)}$ selects only material in the jet,
wind, or disk following the setting
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\chi_{\rm jet} &= (b^2/\rho >1 ~{\rm or}~ \mu > 2)\\
\chi_{\rm wind} &= ({\rm not} ~\chi_{\rm jet} ~{\rm and}~ -h u_t > 1) \\
\chi_{\rm disk} &= ({\rm not} ~\chi_{\rm jet} ~{\rm and} ~{\rm not}~ \chi_{\rm wind}),
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and $\mu$ denotes the energy flux normalized to the rest-mass energy in
the radial direction $\mu=(-T^r_t-\rho u^r)/(\rho u^r)$. Hence,
the jet is defined as the region which reaches
asymptotic Lorentz factors of at least 2. The optional condition
$b^2/\rho>1$ also selects the flow in the inner axial region, where the
Poynting flux necessarily vanishes. The disk wind is then the remaining
unbound material and the disk itself is composed of the bound material.
Analytic work on radial profiles of relativistic jets was performed by
\cite{blandford1979} and subsequently by \cite{falcke1995}. In these
Blandford-K\"onigl jet-models, the electron density decreases as a
function of radius as $\rho_{\rm e}\propto r^{-2}$, the magnetic field
strength as $B \propto r^{-1}$, and the equipartition electron
temperature in the jet is constant. The temperature in the disk is set by
the virial theorem, and follows $T_e \propto r^{-1}$. To compare our
simulations with these analytical formulae, we compute averages on
spherical shells at different fixed radii of the electron density $\rho_e
$, magnetic-field strength $B$, and electron temperature $T_e$. This is
done by performing the following integral
\begin{equation}
q(r) = \frac{1}{\Delta t} \int \left(\frac{\int
\int_0^{2\pi} q(t,r,\theta,\phi) \sqrt{-\gamma(r,\theta)} d\theta d\phi}{\int
\int_0^{2\pi} \sqrt{-g(r,\theta)} d\theta d\phi} \right) dt.
\end{equation}
where $\gamma(r,\theta)$ is the determinant of the three metric
The integral in the $\theta$-direction depends on the
local plasma criteria. We consider two regions of interest; a jet sheath,
for which $0.1 < \sigma < 5.0$, and the accretion disk, $\sigma < 0.For$.
The time average, on the other hand, is performed using snapshots of the
simulation between $t=5000 ~\rg/c$ and $t=10^4 ~\rg/c$, with a total of
hundred snapshots. The computed radial profiles are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:lineprof} and are over-plotted with the analytic
predictions \citep{blandford1979,falcke1995}. The
equipartition electron temperature in the jet (right panel) shows a flat
profile up to $200~r_{\rm g}$, followed by is an increase of temperature that
correlates with the break in the profile of the electron density. The
break is caused by de-collimation of the jet, whose origin could be due
to the limited initial size of the torus. Note that the wind emitted by
the disk effectively acts as a collimation agent; however, because of its
limited size, the collimation stalls at radii $r>200 ~r_{\rm g}$.
\subsection{Spectra and synchrotron images: dependency on electron distribution function}
In this Section, we discuss the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of
our thermal-jet and $\kappa$-jet models. The SEDs are calculated at an
inclination of $i=160^\degree$, which ensures that the emitting region is
in the South, as suggested by the EHT results
\citep{eht-paperI,eht-paperV}. Furthermore, the field-of-view of the
camera is set to be $1000~r_{\rm g}$ in both the $x$ and $y$-directions, while
the resolution is set to be $2000 \times 2000$ pixels.
\subsubsection{Fitting the SED}
After averaging in time the SEDs from our models between $t=5000 ~\rg/c$
and $t=10^4 ~\rg/c$), these have been fitted to non-simultaneous
observations by
\cite{doeleman2012,akiyama2015,prieto2016,walker2018,kim2018}. The fit
parameters are shown in Table \ref{tab:modelpar}, which highlights that
the thermal-jet and $\kappa$-jet models differ in the accretion rate by a
factor $\approx 2$. The corresponding SEDs are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}, which shows that $\kappa$-jet models recovers
well the NIR flux. In particular, when comparing the $\epsilon=0.0$ and
the $\epsilon=0.015$ models (the latter uses an injection radius of
$r_{\rm inj}=10~r_{\rm g}$ and has a slightly lower accretion rate), it is
possible to appreciate that the $\epsilon=0.015$ model has a larger and
flatter radio spectrum at frequencies below $\nu=228$ GHz.
\begin{table}
\label{tab:modelpar}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
\hline
Parameter & Thermal& $\kappa$, {$\epsilon=0$} & $\kappa$ , {$\epsilon=0.015$}\\
\hline
$i$ & $160^{\degree}$ & $160^{\degree}$ & $160^{\degree}$\\
$\mathcal{M}~[{\rm g}]$ & $1.8\times10^{29}$ & $10^{29}$ & $8\times10^{28}$\\
$P_{\rm jet} \,{\rm ~[erg~s^{-1}]}$ & $1.1\times10^{43}$ & $5.9\times10^{42}$ & $4.7\times10^{42}$ \\
$\langle \dot{M} \rangle_t \,~[M_\odot {\rm yr}^{-1}]$ & $8.4 \times 10^{-3} $ & $4.7 \times 10^{-3} $ & $3.8 \times 10^{-3} $ \\
$B_0 ~[G]$ & $1.6\times10^3$ & $1.2\times10^3$ & $1.1\times10^3$ \\
$n_0 ~[{\rm cm}^{-3}]$ & $1.34\times10^8$ & $7.5\times10^7$ & $6\times10^7$ \\
$R_{\rm high}$ & 100 & 100 & 100\\
$R_{\rm low}$ & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$r_{\rm inj}$ & - & - & $10~r_{\rm g}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{List of parameters are used in the radiative-transfer
simulations. }
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.97\textwidth]{figures/spectrum.pdf}
\caption{SEDs for the thermal-jet (orange) and $\kappa$-jet
(black) with their corresponding rms, overplotted with
observational data points by
\cite{doeleman2012,akiyama2015,prieto2016,kim2018}.}
\label{fig:spectrum}
\end{figure*}
After $228$ GHz both $\kappa$-jet models recover a power-law with an
index of $\alpha \approx -0.7$, where $\alpha=-(p-1)/2$ for a power law
distribution of non-thermal electrons $F_\nu \propto
\nu^\alpha$. Furthermore, when compared to the thermal model, the flux in
the $\kappa$-jet models is higher at lower frequencies ($\nu<10^{11}$ Hz)
and at the higher frequencies ($5\times10^{12} {\rm Hz} <\nu$).
When considering the various cut-off models, the cooling cut-off turned
out to be unimportant, in agreement with the findings of
\citep{moscibrodzka2016,broderick2015}. On the other hand, the for the
synchrotron burnoff, the correct cut-off is obtained if $E/B\approx
10^{-6}$, but no physical model is possible that recovers such a
ratio. The only criterion that recovers the cut-off frequency is the
Hillas criterion, which is obtained when the plasmoid size is set to
$L\approx 10^5 - 10^7$ cm, depending on the local magnetic field
strength.
\subsubsection{Synchrotron maps}
The synthetic synchrotron maps are computed at three frequencies: $43,
86$, and $228$ GHz. The same inclination used for the SEDs is employed
here and the images for the thermal case are shown in the top rows of
Fig. \ref{fig:img-160}, with the the $\kappa$-jet models shown in the
second and third rows. The maps shown are computed with a single GRMHD
snapshot at $t=10^4~\rg/c$. The forward jet at 43 GHz is aligned with
the observed jet position angle at 43 GHz VLBI observations
\citep{Janssen2019}, namely, $250^\degree$. The assumed mass and distance
are $M_{\rm BH} = 6.2 \times 10^9 ~{M}_{\odot}$ \citep{gebhardt2011} and $d =
16.7$ Mpc \citep{mei2007}, which results in a field of view of: $0.744,
0.372$ and $0.186$ mas for the $43, 86$, and $228$ GHz maps, respectively.
The thermal-jet and $\epsilon=0.0$
$\kappa$-jet model show a similar source morphology at $43$ GHz and $86$ GHz,
and $\epsilon=0.015$ $\kappa$-jet model is more extended in jet
length. At $228$ GHz both $\kappa$-jet models deviate from the
thermal-jet model, the width of the ring around the shadow decreases when
particle acceleration is present. {In all 228 GHz images two rings are
visible, the outer ring is the photon ring and marks the shadow of the
black hole, the fainter smaller ring is emission originating from the
jet facing the observer, see Appendix \ref{appendixA} for more
details.}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{{figures/img_thermal_160.00}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{{figures/img_pic_thermal_160.00}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{{figures/img_pic_160.00}.pdf}
\caption{ {From left to right: $43, 86$, and $228$ GHz}. Top row:
synthetic images at a single snapshot of the thermal-jet at an
inclination of $i=160^\degree$. Second row: same as top row but for
the $\epsilon=0.0$ $\kappa$-jet. Bottom row: same as the first and
second row but for the $\epsilon=0.015$
$\kappa$-jet.} \label{fig:img-160}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{{figures/tau_160.00}.pdf}
\caption{Logarithmic optical-depth maps at {228 GHz} of a single snapshot of the models at an inclination of $i=160^\degree$.}
\label{fig:tau-160}
\end{figure*}
The logarithmic optical-depth maps at $228$ GHz are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:tau-160},
where the size of the optically thick region (in blue) decreases when
particle acceleration is present. This is in agreement with the less
extended structure visible in the intensity-maps of
Fig. ~\ref{fig:img-160}. The reason behind this behaviour is that lower
mass-accretion rates decrease both the density and the magnetic field
strength, hence decreasing the optical thickness of the jet base. As a
result, for any given frequency, accelerated particles at lower
mass-accretion rates contribute more than their thermal counterpart.
\subsubsection{Origin of the jet emission}
To obtain a quantitative understanding of how much flux originates either
from the forward or the counter-jet, i.e., the jet facing away from the
observer, we computed synthetic images where the emission coefficient was
set to zero either in the southern or northern hemisphere, while keeping
the absorption coefficients in place. We computed the time-averaged ratios and the spread of the
flux originating from the southern to flux from the northern hemisphere of
both our models for all slices between 5000 and $10^4~\rg/c$
at $43, 86$, and $228$ GHz and have reported them in Table
\ref{tab:ratios}. When electron acceleration is present,
the overall trend is that at $43$ and $86$ GHz, the ratio shifts to the
counter-jet, while at $228$ GHz no large shifts are seen. We therefore conclude that the
counter jet at $43$ and $86$ GHz is more dominant in
the $\kappa$-jet models compared to the thermal models.
Appendix \ref{appendixA} provides a simple phenomenological model
that is capable of reproducing this effect, where it is caused
by a combination of gravitational lensing and the blocking of light
by the black-hole's event horizon.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
\hline
& 43 GHz & 86 GHz & 228 GHz \\
\hline
Thermal-jet & $8.3\pm2.2$ & $2.3\pm0.6$ & $0.4\pm0.1$ \\
$\kappa$-jet, $\epsilon=0.0$ & $2.6 \pm 0.7$ & $0.9 \pm 0.2$ & $0.3 \pm 0.09$ \\
$\kappa$-jet, $\epsilon=0.015$ & $2.6 \pm 0.7$ & $1.1\pm0.3$ & $0.5 \pm 0.2$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Table showing the ratio in flux between the forward and
counter jet at $43, 86$, and $228$ GHz for the thermal-jet and
$\kappa$-jet models.}
\label{tab:ratios}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Core size and shift}
We computed the source size of our models at $43, 86$, and $228$ GHz by
using image moments \citep{hu1962}. The sources sizes are computed over a
range of $5000$ to $10^4 ~\rg/c$ and in Table \ref{tab:sizes} we report
the time-averaged major and minor full-width half maxima (FWHM) and their
corresponding spread.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
\hline
$\theta_{\rm major}$ ($\mu$as) & ${43 ~{\rm GHz}}$ & ${86 ~{\rm GHz}}$ & ${228 ~{\rm GHz}}$ \\
\hline
Thermal-jet & $141\pm25$ & $87\pm 12$ & $45\pm4$ \\
$\kappa$-jet, $\epsilon=0.0$ & $128\pm20$ & $73\pm9$ & $41\pm3$ \\
$\kappa$-jet, $\epsilon=0.015$ & $142\pm18$ & $87\pm10$ & $53\pm6$ \\
\hline
\hline
$\theta_{\rm minor}\ (\mu$as) & & & \\
\hline
Thermal-jet & $56\pm 4$ & $43\pm2$ & $33\pm1$ \\
$\kappa$-jet, $\epsilon=0.0$ & $54\pm3$ & $43\pm1$ & $32\pm1$ \\
$\kappa$-jet, $\epsilon=0.015$ & $60\pm3$ & $48\pm2$ & $36\pm2$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Top: FWHM along the major axis for the thermal-jet and
$\kappa$-jet at $43, 86$, and $228$ GHz. Bottom: same as top
but along the minor axis.}
\label{tab:sizes}
\end{table}
We computed the core shift with respect to the black-hole's center at the
following observational frequencies; $2.3, 5, 8.4, 15.4, 23.8, 43, 86$,
and $228$ GHz. The core shift was calculated by computing the first-order
image moments of time-averaged images and the comparison of the values
obtained with the observational fit of \cite{hada2011}, i.e., $r_{\rm
RA}(\nu) = (1.4\pm0.16) \nu^{-0.94\pm0.09}$, is shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:coreshift}. The observed core shift is in agreement with
the analytical predictions for which the core position should shift for a
conical jet as a function of frequency as $r_{\rm core} \propto \nu^{-1}$
\citep{blandford1979,falcke1995,davelaar2018}, and in agreement with
simulations of collimated jets \citep{porth2011}. The $\kappa$-jet models
show smaller core shifts with respect to the thermal-jet model, probably
because the counter-jet is more dominant.
\subsubsection{Comparison with 43 GHz data}
Finally, we compared our thermal-jet and $\kappa$-jet models with the 43
GHz VLBI observations, where M\,87 was tracked for 8 hours with all VLBA
stations \footnote{PI: R. Craig Walker, project code: BW0106}. The
data was recorded with a bandwidth of 256\,MHz, with
the calibration and imaging of the data having been described by
\citet{Janssen2019}.
To compare with this observational data, we re-computed synthetic images
with a large field of view of 3.7 mas and convolved them with a
$0.3\times 0.1\,{\rm mas}^2$ beamsize by using the eht-imaging library
\citep{chael2016b,chael2018b}. The result of the comparison can be seen
in Fig.~\ref{fig:img-obs-data} and highlights that the $\kappa$-jet
models show more extended structure with respect to the thermal-jet
model. Note that at 43 GHz all models deviate from the VLBI observations
at larger scales. Furthermore, in the observed image the flux levels
upstream of the jet are higher and the jet opening angle is wider.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/coreshift.pdf}
\caption{ RA offset from the 43 GHz core as a function of
frequency. Orange triangles correspond to a thermal-jet, black
dots to a $\kappa$-jet, grey line represent the observational
fit $r_{\rm RA}(\nu) = (1.4\pm0.16) \nu^{-0.94\pm0.09}$ to the
M\,87 core by \cite{hada2011}.}
\label{fig:coreshift}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{{figures/M87-data-comp}.pdf}
\caption{First panel from the left: 43 GHz radio map of M\,87
\citep{Janssen2019}. Second panel: synchrotron map of the
thermal-jet model , convolved with a 2D Gaussian beam. Third
panel: same as the second panel but now for a $\kappa$-jet
model with $\epsilon=0.0$. Fourth panel: Same as the third
panel but now with $\epsilon=0.015$. The white ellipse
indicates the beam used to convolve the images. All models
produce a jet that is too narrow compared to the VLBI
map. The extent of the jet increases when electron
acceleration is present, and is maximum for
$\epsilon=0.015$.}
\label{fig:img-obs-data}
\end{figure*}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:disc}
\subsection{CKS GRMHD simulations}
Current models of the radio emission near the supermassive black hole in
M\,87 are based on GRMHD simulations using spherical polar
coordinates. In this work, we used instead Cartesian coordinates, which
do not require specialized treatment of the polar axis which represents a
coordinate singularity (of the inverse metric) in spherical
coordinates. The addition of AMR resulted in a highly resolved jet
region, the jet diameter at $z=40 ~r_{\rm g}$ is resolved by 160 cells and at
$z=1000 ~r_{\rm g}$ is resolved by 32 cells. The obtained jet resolution is
well above the values of 20-26 cells per jet radius reported in
convergence studies of jets by \cite{anjiri2014,massaglia2016}. We
computed the mass-accretion rate and radial profiles of density,
magnetic-field strength and temperature which are consistent with their
spherical counterparts, the comparison of this can be found in
\cite{PorthChatterjeeEtAl2019}. The downside of the Cartesian grid is
that in spherical grids it is possible to use a logarithmic grid in the
radial direction, which results in higher resolutions close to the
horizon. To ensure that the MRI is not under-resolved, we have computed
the relativistic MRI quality factors \citep{noble2010} finding they are
normally above ten in the bulk of the accretion disk, thus satisfying the
requirements for a sufficiently resolved MRI found by
\cite{Sano2004}. Furthermore, in parallel works
\citep{Olivares2019,PorthChatterjeeEtAl2019} it was shown that the
Cartesian CKS simulations show a behaviour in the nonlinear phase that is
similar to the spherical simulations.
\subsection{The effect of electron acceleration on the SED}
We computed spectra for our thermal-jet model and $\kappa$-jet models,
wherein the latter case we parametrize the power-law index of the eDF
based on sub-grid PIC simulations by \cite{ball2018}. The addition of
accelerated electrons in the jet sheath leads to a very good fit to the
observational data from radio up to the NIR. Our $\kappa$-jet model is an
extension of the model presented by \cite{moscibrodzka2016}, which only
studied the thermal-jet case. Our models use their best-fit inclination
angle of $i=160^\degree$, such that the emitting region is in the South
and the orientation of the asymmetry is in agreement with the image in
\cite{eht-paperI}. The radio SED shows a flat spectrum in both the
thermal and $\kappa$-jet models. This is consistent with more recent work
by \cite{ryan2018,chael2019}, who have evolved the thermal electron
population as a separate fluid in the GRMHD simulation.
In contrast to previous works, our $\kappa$-jet models also recover the
observed NIR flux by extending the optically thin emission with a
power-law. The results are similar to the ones presented by
\cite{dexter2012}, who also injected accelerated electrons based on the
amount of available magnetic energy. The $\kappa$-jet models yield a jet
power of the order of $10^{43}$ ergs s$^{-1}$, which is in agreement with
observations of the jet core power by \cite{reynolds1996}, and is
approximately two times lower than the thermal-jet models. This is
probably due to the fact that in the $\kappa$-jet models there is a
larger contribution of electrons in the tail of the distribution
functions with respect to the thermal-models. Since these electrons emit
at higher $\gamma$ values, this results in a higher flux contribution per
unit mass.
After defining the radiative efficiency as $\epsilon_{\rm
rad}=L/\dot{M}c^2$, we found that the thermal-jet has $\epsilon_{\rm
rad}=0.003$. This is to be contrasted with $\epsilon_{\rm rad}=0.013$
and $\epsilon_{\rm rad}=0.020$ for the $\kappa$-jet models with
$\epsilon=0.0$ and $\epsilon=0.015$, respectively. An important note
is that we do no include X-ray emission in this work. Although,
the obtained values are well below the thin disk efficiency, thus justifying our assumption that the radiation can be decoupled from the evolution of the dynamics of the plasma.
\subsection{The effect of electron acceleration on synchrotron maps}
At 43 and 86 GHz, both $\kappa$-jet models show a more dominant
counter-jet when compared to the thermal-jet model, hinting to a
behaviour that could be observable by future GMVA-ALMA
observations. There is also a clear difference in the extent of the
emission of the forward jet in the $\epsilon=0.015$ $\kappa$-jet model
when compared to the $\epsilon=0.0$ $\kappa$-jet and to the thermal-jet
model, with the emitting region being more compact in the $\kappa$-jet
models at $228$ GHz. The reason for this is that there is more energy
available at higher $\gamma$ in the eDF, which results in a higher flux
contribution per unit mass. Indeed, to obtain a fit to the data, a lower
mass-accretion rate is needed. Since our mass-accretion rate sets the
scaling of the densities and magnetic fields, it also changes the optical
thickness of the source. As a result, a more optically thin model will
show a more compact emission region.
A comparison with the result from \cite{moscibrodzka2016} shows that
similar source morphologies at all frequencies for the thermal
model. However, at $228$ GHz our images show a more optically thick inner
ring feature that partially blocks the view to the shadow. The reason for
this is that our initial conditions differ from those of
\cite{moscibrodzka2016}, as they used a disk with a pressure maximum at
$24 ~r_{\rm g}$, resulting in an outer radius of $r=240 ~r_{\rm g}$, while we used a
pressure maximum at $12 ~r_{\rm g}$ and outer radius of $r=40 ~r_{\rm g}$. A larger
disk is initially seeded with larger toroidal magnetic-field loops, and a
larger loop increases the magnetic flux at the horizon at later
times. These stronger magnetic fields will affect the overall source
morphology, resulting in wider opening angles which lead to less
obscuration of the shadow by the forward jet.
\subsection{Core size, shift, and jet opening angle}
The obtained core sizes for our models are close to the observed values:
$ \theta^{43 ~{\rm GHz}} = 0.13 \pm 0.01$, $ \theta^{86 ~{\rm GHz}} =
0.079 \pm 0.021$ \citep{hada2013}, and $ \theta^{228 ~{\rm GHz}} = 0.040
\pm 0.002$ \citep{doeleman2012}. If we compare these to values reported
in Tables \ref{tab:sizes}, we find that our models at 43 and 86 GHz are
within the error margins of the observations. At 228 GHz, the
$\epsilon=0.0$ $\kappa$-jet {recovers the observational value}. The
thermal-jet model is slightly larger, this is probably caused by the
larger emission region around the shadow. In the $\epsilon=0.015$ case,
the deviation is caused by a more pronounced jet feature.
We obtain core-shift relations for both our models by calculating the
core position that follows the trend found by \cite{hada2011}. They
computed the core shift with respect to the $43$ GHz core. Their obtained
fit is then extrapolated to higher frequencies where they find an offset
of 40 $\mu$as at 228 GHz. At frequencies below $10$ GHz, deviations with
the fit from \cite{hada2011} are present. A possible explanation for this
is the limited simulation domain of $1000~r_{\rm g}$ and the de-collimation of
the jet after $r\approx300~r_{\rm g}$.
An important remark to make is that we have here considered a Standard
And Normal Evolution (SANE) simulation. This results in a low magnetic
flux at the event horizon when compared to Magnetically Arrested Disc
(MAD) simulations that result in the maximum amount of flux that can
penetrate the event horizon \citep{narayan2003,tchekhovskoy2011}. If we
compare our results with the MAD simulation from \cite{chael2019}, our
jet opening angle is smaller and our models are inconsistent with the
observational constraints on the jet opening angle at 43 GHz
($55^\degree$ \citealt{walker2018,Janssen2019}); by contrast,
\cite{chael2019} showed that their thermal MAD simulations do match the
observed opening angle.
\subsection{Reconnection as the source of particle acceleration}
The electrons' energy-distribution function is one of the key open
questions in modeling the appearance of jets launched by supermassive
black holes. Simulations of these acceleration mechanisms rely on
non-ideal effects, which are not captured in GRMHD-based
simulations. Fully resistive treatments of the plasma using non-ideal
GRMHD simulations
(\citealt{Palenzuela:2008sf,Ohsuga2009,Dionysopoulou2013,Bucciantini2012,delzanna2016,qian2017,qian2018,ripperda2019})
or general-relativistic PIC simulations
(\citealt{watson2010,levinson2018,parfrey2018}) are being developed and
will help to provide detailed answers to these questions in the
future. In principle, alternative acceleration mechanisms could be at
work, such as shocks. In our model, the main region of emission is where
the magnetization $\sigma$ is around unity, where shocks are known to be
less efficient \citep[see e.g.,][]{sironi2015}.
\subsection{The Event Horizon Telescope results}
In \cite{eht-paperV}, GRMHD models were used to interpret the first image
of a black hole. In the post-processing of the GMRHD models, only a
thermal distribution function were considered. In this work, we show the
effect of electron acceleration by performing a comparison with a purely
thermal model. The overall trend is that the emission region is optically
thinner and smaller in size. Also the accretion rates and jet-power drop,
which could have implication for some of the models reported in
\cite{eht-paperV}. A detailed comparison with respect to the EHT data is
beyond the scope of this work, but realistic synthetic data generation
based on the models presented here will be discussed by
\cite{Roelofs2019}.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conc}
We have presented a $\kappa$-jet model for the accreting black hole in
M\,87 based on an AMR GRMHD simulation in Cartesian-Kerr-Schild
coordinates, coupled to radiative-transfer calculations that include
sub-grid models for electron acceleration based on reconnection in the
magnetized jet. {The use of a Cartesian grid with AMR resulted in a
high-resolution jet simulation that we used to model the jet launching
point in M\,87.} We have demonstrated that we can obtain a fit to the
M\,87 SED from radio up to NIR if there is an accelerated electron
population present in the jet. The model does not evolve the electron
distribution function in time and does not include cooling; both of these
aspects will be considered in future works. The jet opening angle at
43GHz is too narrow, \cite{chael2019} showed that a MAD type accretion
disk can recover this opening angle, and we plan to explore this setup in
future works with the addition of particle acceleration. The model
reproduces the broadband SED from radio up to NIR, observed source sizes,
core shifts and recovers a jet power that is consistent with
observations.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank M. Moscibrodzka, C. Gammie, A. Philippov, Z. Younsi,
and B. Ripperda for valuable discussions and feedback during the
project. This work was funded by the ERC Synergy Grant
``BlackHoleCam-Imaging the Event Horizon of Black Holes'' (Grant 610058,
\cite{goddi2017}). The GRMHD simulations were performed on the Dutch
National Supercomputing cluster Cartesius and are funded by the NWO
computing grant 16431. The VLBA data shown in Figure \ref{fig:img-obs-data}
is from project code: BW0106 PI: R. Craig Walker. This research has made use
of NASA's Astrophysics Data System.\\
{\it Software:} {\tt BHAC} \citep{porth2017}, {\tt RAPTOR} \citep{bronzwaer2018}, {\tt eht-imaging} \citep{chael2016b,chael2018}, {\tt python} \citep{travis2007,jarrod2011}, {\tt scipy} \citep{jones2001}, {\tt numpy} \citep{walt2011}, {\tt matplotlib} \citep{hunter2007}, and {\tt rPICARD} \citep{Janssen2019}.
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Halfspaces, or Linear Threshold Functions (henceforth LTFs),
are Boolean functions $f: \mathbb{R}^d \to \{ \pm 1\}$ of the form
$f(\mathbf{x}) = \mathrm{sign}(\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle- \theta)$, where $\mathbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ is the weight vector and $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$ is the threshold.
(The function $\mathrm{sign}: \mathbb{R} \to \{ \pm 1\}$ is defined as $\mathrm{sign}(u)=1$ if $u \geq 0$ and $\mathrm{sign}(u)=-1$ otherwise.)
The problem of learning an unknown halfspace is as old as the field of machine learning --- starting
with Rosenblatt's Perceptron algorithm~\cite{Rosenblatt:58} --- and has arguably been the most influential problem
in the development of the field. In the realizable setting, LTFs are known to be efficiently learnable
in Valiant's distribution-independent PAC model~\cite{val84} via Linear Programming~\cite{MT:94}.
In the presence of corrupted data, the situation is more subtle and crucially depends on the underlying noise model.
In the agnostic model~\cite{Haussler:92, KSS:94} -- where an adversary is allowed to arbitrarily corrupt
an arbitrary $\eta<1/2$ fraction of the labels -- even weak learning is known to be computationally
intractable~\cite{GR:06, FGK+:06short, Daniely16}. On the other hand,
in the presence of Random Classification Noise (RCN)~\cite{AL88} -- where each label is flipped
independently with probability exactly $\eta<1/2$ -- a polynomial time algorithm is known~\cite{BlumFKV96, BFK+:97}.
\noindent In this work, we focus on learning halfspaces with Massart noise~\cite{Massart2006}:
\begin{definition}[Massart Noise Model] \label{def:massart-learning}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a class of Boolean functions over $X= \mathbb{R}^d$, $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}$
be an arbitrary distribution over $X$, and $0 \leq \eta <1/2$.
Let $f$ be an unknown target function in $\mathcal{C}$.
A {\em noisy example oracle}, $\mathrm{EX}^{\mathrm{Mas}}(f, \mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}, \eta)$,
works as follows: Each time $\mathrm{EX}^{\mathrm{Mas}}(f, \mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}, \eta)$ is invoked,
it returns a labeled example $(\mathbf{x}, y)$, where $\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}$, $y = f(\mathbf{x})$ with
probability $1-\eta(\mathbf{x})$ and $y = -f(\mathbf{x})$ with probability $\eta(\mathbf{x})$,
for an {\em unknown} parameter $\eta(\mathbf{x}) \leq \eta$.
Let $\mathcal{D}$ denote the joint distribution on $(\mathbf{x}, y)$ generated by the above oracle.
A learning algorithm is given i.i.d. samples from $\mathcal{D}$
and its goal is to output a hypothesis $h$ such that with high probability
the error $\mathbf{Pr}_{(\mathbf{x}, y) \sim \mathcal{D}} [h(\mathbf{x}) \neq y]$ is small.
\end{definition}
\noindent An equivalent formulation of the Massart model~\cite{Sloan88, Sloan92} is the following:
With probability $1-\eta$, we have that $y = f(\mathbf{x})$, and with probability $\eta$
the label $y$ is controlled by an adversary. Hence, the Massart model lies in between the RCN and the agnostic models.
(Note that the RCN model corresponds to the special case that
$\eta(\mathbf{x}) = \eta$ for all $\mathbf{x} \in X$.)
It is well-known (see, e.g.,~\cite{Massart2006}) that \newblue{$\mathrm{poly}(d, 1/\epsilon)$} samples
information-theoretically suffice to compute a hypothesis with misclassification error
$\mathrm{OPT}+ \epsilon$, where $\mathrm{OPT}$ is the misclassification error of the optimal halfspace.
Also note that $\mathrm{OPT} \leq \eta$ by definition. The question is whether a polynomial
time algorithm exists.
The existence of an efficient distribution-independent learning algorithm for halfspaces
(or even disjunctions) in the Massart model has been posed as an open question
in a number of works. In the first COLT conference~\cite{Sloan88} (see also~\cite{Sloan92}),
Sloan defined the malicious misclassification noise model
(an equivalent formulation of Massart noise, described above)
and asked whether there exists an efficient learning algorithm for disjunctions
in this model. About a decade later, Cohen~\cite{Cohen:97}
asked the same question for the more general class of all LTFs.
The question remained open --- even for weak learning of disjunctions! --- and was highlighted
in Avrim Blum's FOCS 2003 tutorial~\cite{Blum03}. Specifically, prior to this work,
even the following very basic special case remained open:
\begin{center}
{\em Given labeled examples from an unknown disjunction, corrupted with $1\%$ Massart noise,\\
can we efficiently find a hypothesis that achieves misclassification error $49\%$?}
\end{center}
The reader is referred to slides 39-40 of Avrim Blum's FOCS'03 tutorial~\cite{Blum03},
where it is suggested that the above problem might be easier than agnostically learning
disjunctions. As a corollary of our main result (Theorem~\ref{thm:main-informal}), we
answer this question in the affirmative. In particular, we obtain an efficient algorithm
that achieves misclassification error arbitrarily close to $\eta$ for all LTFs.
\subsection{Our Results} \label{ssec:results}
The main result of this paper is the following:
\begin{theorem}[Main Result] \label{thm:main-informal}
There is an algorithm that for all $0 < \eta < 1/2$, on input
a set of i.i.d. examples from a distribution
$\mathcal{D}= \mathrm{EX}^{\mathrm{Mas}}(f, \mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}, \eta)$ on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$,
where $f$ is an unknown halfspace on $\mathbb{R}^d$,
it runs in $\mathrm{poly}(d, b, 1/\epsilon)$ time, where $b$ is an upper bound
on the bit complexity of the examples, and outputs a hypothesis $h$
that with high probability satisfies $\mathbf{Pr}_{(\mathbf{x}, y) \sim \mathcal{D}} [h(\mathbf{x}) \neq y] \leq \eta +\epsilon$.
\end{theorem}
\new{
\noindent See Theorem~\ref{thm:general-case} for a more detailed formal statement.
For large-margin halfspaces, we obtain a slightly better error guarantee;
see Theorem~\ref{thm:margin-case} and Remark~\ref{rem:margin-error}.}
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Discussion.}
We note that our algorithm is non-proper, i.e., the hypothesis $h$
itself is not a halfspace. The polynomial dependence on $b$ in the runtime cannot be removed,
even in the noiseless case, unless one obtains strongly-polynomial algorithms
for linear programming. Finally, we note that the misclassification error of
$\eta+\epsilon$ translates to error \new{$2\eta+\epsilon$}
with respect to the target LTF.
\noindent Our algorithm gives error $\eta+\epsilon$, instead of the information-theoretic optimum
of $\mathrm{OPT}+\epsilon$. To complement our positive result,
we provide some evidence that improving on our $(\eta+\epsilon)$ error guarantee
may be challenging. Roughly speaking, we show
(see Theorems~\ref{thm:lb-surr} and~\ref{thm:lb-thresh})
that natural approaches --- involving convex surrogates and refinements thereof ---
inherently fail, \new{even under margin assumptions}. (See Section~\ref{ssec:techniques} for a discussion.)
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Broader Context.}
This work is part of the broader agenda of designing robust estimators
in the distribution-independent setting with respect to natural noise models.
A recent line of work~\cite{KLS09, ABL17, DKKLMS16, LaiRV16, DKK+17, DKKLMS18-soda,
DKS18a, KlivansKM18, DKS19, DKK+19-sever}
has given efficient robust estimators for a range of learning tasks (both supervised and unsupervised)
in the presence of a small constant fraction of adversarial corruptions.
A limitation of these results is the assumption that the good data
comes from a ``tame'' distribution, e.g., Gaussian or isotropic log-concave distribution.
On the other hand, if {\em no} assumption is made on the good data
and the noise remains fully adversarial, these problems
become computationally intractable~\cite{Bernholt, GR:06, Daniely16}. This suggests
the following general question:
{\em Are there realistic noise models that allow for efficient algorithms
without imposing (strong) assumptions on the good data?}
Conceptually, the algorithmic results of this paper could be viewed as an affirmative
answer to this question for the problem of learning halfspaces.
\subsection{Technical Overview} \label{ssec:techniques}
In this section, we provide an outline of our approach
and a comparison to previous techniques.
Since the distribution on the unlabeled data is arbitrary, we can assume w.l.o.g.
that the threshold $\theta=0$.
\paragraph{Massart Noise versus RCN.}
Random Classification Noise (RCN)~\cite{AL88} is the special case of Massart
noise where each label is flipped with probability {\em exactly} $\eta <1/2$.
At first glance, it might seem that Massart noise is easier to deal with computationally than RCN.
After all, in the Massart model we add {\em at most as much noise} as in the RCN model
\new{with noise rate $\eta$}.
It turns out that this intuition is fundamentally flawed. Roughly speaking,
the ability of the Massart adversary to choose {\em whether} to perturb a given label
and, if so, with what probability (which is {\em unknown} to the learner),
makes the design of efficient algorithms in this model challenging.
In particular, the well-known connection between learning with RCN
and the Statistical Query (SQ) model~\cite{Kearns93, Kearns:98}
no longer holds, i.e., the property of being an SQ algorithm does {\em not} automatically suffice
for noise-tolerant learning with Massart noise. We note that this connection with the SQ model
is leveraged in~\cite{BlumFKV96, BFK+:97} to obtain their polynomial time
algorithm for learning halfspaces with RCN.
\paragraph{Large Margin Halfspaces.}
To illustrate our approach, we start by describing
our learning algorithm for {\em $\gamma$-margin} halfspaces on the unit ball.
That is, we assume $| \langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x} \rangle | \geq \gamma$ for every $\mathbf{x}$ in the support,
where $\mathbf{w}^{\ast} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ with $\| \mathbf{w}^{\ast} \|_2 = 1$ defines the target halfspace
$h_{\mathbf{w}^{\ast}}(\mathbf{x}) = \mathrm{sign}(\langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x} \rangle)$. Our goal is to design
a $\mathrm{poly}(d, 1/\epsilon, 1/\gamma)$ time learning algorithm in the presence of Massart noise.
In the RCN model, the large margin case is easy
because the learning problem is essentially convex. That is, there is a convex surrogate
that allows us to formulate the problem
as a convex program. We can use SGD to find a near-optimal solution to this convex program,
which automatically gives a {\em strong proper} learner. This simple fact
does not appear explicitly in the literature, but follows easily from standard tools.
\cite{Bylander94} showed that a variant of the Perceptron algorithm
(which can be viewed as gradient descent on a particular convex objective)
learns $\gamma$-margin halfspaces in $\mathrm{poly}(d, 1/\epsilon, 1/\gamma)$ time.
The algorithm in~\cite{Bylander94} requires an additional \new{anti-concentration}
condition about the distribution, which is easy to remove.
In Appendix~\ref{sec:rcn}, we show that a ``smoothed'' version of Bylander's
objective suffices as a convex surrogate under only the margin assumption.
Roughly speaking, the reason that a convex surrogate works for RCN
is that the expected effect of the noise on each label is known a priori.
Unfortunately, this is not the case for Massart noise.
We show (Theorem~\ref{thm:lb-surr} in Appendix~\ref{sec:lb})
that no convex surrogate can lead to a {\em weak learner},
even under a margin assumption.
That is, if $\widehat{\mathbf{w}}$ is the minimizer of $G(\mathbf{w})=\mathbf{E}_{(\mathbf{x},y)\sim \mathcal{D}}[\phi(y\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x}\rangle)]$,
where $\phi$ can be any convex function, then the hypothesis $\mathrm{sign}(\langle \widehat{\mathbf{w}}, \mathbf{x}\rangle)$
is not even a weak learner. So, in sharp contrast with the RCN case, the problem is non-convex
in this sense.
Our Massart learning algorithm for large margin halfspaces still uses
a convex surrogate, but in a qualitatively different way.
Instead of attempting to solve the problem in one-shot,
our algorithm adaptively applies a sequence of convex optimization problems
to obtain an accurate solution in disjoint subsets of the space.
Our iterative approach is motivated by a new structural lemma (Lemma~\ref{lm:structural})
establishing the following: {\em Even though minimizing a convex proxy does not lead to small
misclassification error over the entire space, there exists a region with non-trivial probability
mass where it does.} Moreover, this region is efficiently identifiable by a simple thresholding rule.
Specifically, we show that there exists a threshold $T>0$ (which can be found algorithmically)
such that the hypothesis $\mathrm{sign}(\langle \widehat{\mathbf{w}}, \mathbf{x}\rangle)$ has error bounded by $\eta+\epsilon$
in the region $R_T = \{\mathbf{x}: |\langle \widehat{\mathbf{w}}, \mathbf{x} \rangle | \geq T \}$. Here $\widehat{\mathbf{w}}$ is any
near-optimal solution to an appropriate convex optimization problem, defined
via a convex surrogate objective similar to the one used in~\cite{Bylander94}.
We note that Lemma~\ref{lm:structural}
is the main technical novelty of this paper and motivates our algorithm.
Given Lemma~\ref{lm:structural}, in any iteration $i$
we can find the best threshold $T^{(i)}$ using samples,
and obtain a learner with misclassification error $\eta+\epsilon$ in the corresponding region.
Since each region has non-trivial mass, iterating this scheme a small number of times
allows us to find a non-proper hypothesis (a decision-list of halfspaces)
with misclassification error at most $\eta+\epsilon$ in the entire space.
The idea of iteratively optimizing a convex surrogate was used in~\cite{BlumFKV96}
to learn halfspaces with RCN {\em without} a margin.
Despite this similarity, we note that the algorithm of ~\cite{BlumFKV96} fails
to even obtain a weak learner in the Massart model.
We point out two crucial technical differences: First, the iterative approach in~\cite{BlumFKV96}
was needed to achieve polynomial running time. As mentioned already,
a convex proxy is guaranteed to converge to the true solution with RCN,
but the convergence may be too slow (when the margin is tiny).
In contrast, with Massart noise (even under a margin condition)
convex surrogates cannot even give weak learning in the entire domain.
Second, the algorithm of~\cite{BlumFKV96} used a fixed threshold in each iteration,
equal to the margin parameter obtained after an appropriate
pre-processing of the data (that is needed in order to ensure a weak margin property).
In contrast, in our setting, we need to find
an appropriate threshold $T^{(i)}$ in each iteration $i$,
according to the criterion specified by our Lemma~\ref{lm:structural}.
\paragraph{General Case.}
Our algorithm for the general case (in the absence of a margin)
is qualitatively similar to our algorithm for the large margin case, but the details are more elaborate.
We borrow an idea from~\cite{BlumFKV96} that in some sense allows
us to ``reduce'' the general case to the large margin case. Specifically,
~\cite{BlumFKV96} (see also~\cite{DV:04}) developed
a pre-processing routine that slightly modifies the distribution
on the unlabeled points and guarantees the following {\em weak margin} property:
After pre-processing, there exists an explicit margin parameter $\sigma = \Omega(1/\mathrm{poly}(d, b))$,
such that any hyperplane through the origin has at least a non-trivial
mass of the distribution at distance at least $\sigma$ from it.
Using this pre-processing step, we are able to adapt our algorithm
from the previous subsection to work without margin assumptions in
$\mathrm{poly}(d, b, 1/\epsilon)$ time. While our analysis is similar in spirit
to the case of large margin, we note that the margin property
obtained via the~\cite{BlumFKV96,DV:04} preprocessing step
is (necessarily) weaker, hence additional careful analysis is required.
\paragraph{Lower Bounds Against Natural Approaches.}
We have already explained our Theorem~\ref{thm:lb-surr}, which shows
that using a convex surrogate over the entire space cannot not give a weak learner.
Our algorithm, however, can achieve error $\eta+\epsilon$ by iteratively optimizing
a specific convex surrogate in disjoint subsets of the domain.
A natural question is whether one can obtain qualitatively better accuracy, e.g.,
$f(\mathrm{OPT})+\epsilon$, by using a {\em different} convex objective function in our iterative thresholding approach.
We show (Theorem~\ref{thm:lb-thresh}) that such an improvement is not possible: Using
a different convex proxy cannot lead to error better than $(1-o(1)) \cdot \eta$.
It is a plausible conjecture that improving on the error guarantee of our algorithm is computationally hard.
We leave this as an intriguing open problem for future work.
\subsection{Prior and Related Work} \label{ssec:related}
Bylander~\cite{Bylander94} gave a polynomial time
algorithm to learn large margin halfspaces with RCN (under an additional anti-concentration assumption).
The work of Blum {\em et al.}~\cite{BlumFKV96, BFK+:97}
gave the first polynomial time algorithm for distribution-independent
learning of halfspaces with RCN without any margin assumptions.
Soon thereafter,~\cite{Cohen:97} gave a polynomial-time proper learning algorithm for the problem.
Subsequently, Dunagan and Vempala~\cite{DunaganV04} gave a rescaled perceptron algorithm for solving
linear programs, which translates to a significantly simpler and faster proper learning algorithm.
The term ``Massart noise'' was coined after~\cite{Massart2006}.
An equivalent version of the model was previously studied by
Rivest and Sloan~\cite{Sloan88, Sloan92, RivestSloan:94, Sloan96},
and a very similar asymmetric random noise model goes back to Vapnik~\cite{Vapnik82}.
Prior to this work, essentially no efficient algorithms with non-trivial error guarantees
were known in the distribution-free Massart noise model. It should be noted that
polynomial time algorithms with error $\mathrm{OPT}+\epsilon$
are known~\cite{AwasthiBHU15, ZhangLC17, YanZ17} when the marginal distribution
on the unlabeled data is uniform on the unit sphere.
For the case that the unlabeled data comes from an isotropic log-concave distribution,
\cite{AwasthiBHZ16} give a \newblue{$d^{2^{\mathrm{poly}(1/(1-2\eta))}}/\mathrm{poly}(\epsilon)$} sample and time algorithm.
\subsection{Preliminaries} \label{ssec:prelims}
For $n \in \mathbb{Z}_+$, we denote $[n] \stackrel{{\mathrm {\footnotesize def}}}{=} \{1, \ldots, n\}$.
We will use small boldface characters for vectors
and we let $\mathbf{e}_i$ denote the $i$-th vector of an orthonormal basis.
For $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d$,
and $i \in [d]$, $\mathbf{x}_i$ denotes the $i$-th coordinate of $\mathbf{x}$, and
$\|\mathbf{x}\|_2 \stackrel{{\mathrm {\footnotesize def}}}{=} (\mathop{\textstyle \sum}_{i=1}^d \mathbf{x}_i^2)^{1/2}$ denotes the $\ell_2$-norm
of $\mathbf{x}$. We will use $\langle \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y} \rangle$ for the inner product between $\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^d$.
We will use $\mathbf{E}[X]$ for the expectation of random variable $X$ and $\mathbf{Pr}[\mathcal{E}]$
for the probability of event $\mathcal{E}$.
An origin-centered halfspace is a Boolean-valued function $h_{\mathbf{w}}: \mathbb{R}^d \to \{\pm 1\}$
of the form $h_{\mathbf{w}}(\mathbf{x}) = \mathrm{sign} \left(\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle \right)$,
where $\mathbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^d$. (Note that we may assume w.l.o.g. that $\|\mathbf{w}\|_2 =1$.)
We denote by $\mathcal{H}_{d}$
the class of all origin-centered halfspaces on $\mathbb{R}^d$.
We consider a classification problem where labeled examples $(\mathbf{x},y)$ are drawn i.i.d.
from a distribution $\mathcal{D}$. We denote by $\mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}$ the marginal of $\mathcal{D}$ on $\mathbf{x}$, and for any $\mathbf{x}$
denote $\mathcal{D}_y(\mathbf{x})$ the distribution of $y$ conditional on $\mathbf{x}$.
Our goal is to find a hypothesis classifier $h$ with low misclassification error.
We will denote the misclassification error
of a hypothesis $h$ with respect to $\mathcal{D}$ by $\mathrm{err}_{0-1}^{\mathcal{D}}(h) = \mathbf{Pr}_{(\mathbf{x}, y) \sim \mathcal{D}}[h(\mathbf{x}) \neq y]$.
Let $\mathrm{OPT} = \min_{h \in \mathcal{H}_{d}} \mathrm{err}_{0-1}^{\mathcal{D}}(h)$ denote the optimal misclassification
error of any halfspace, and $\mathbf{w}^{\ast}$ be the normal vector to a halfspace $h_{\mathbf{w}^\ast}$ that achieves this.
\section{Algorithm for Learning Halfspaces with Massart Noise} \label{sec:alg}
In this section, we present the main result of this paper, which is an efficient algorithm
that achieves $\eta+\epsilon$ misclassification error for distribution-independent
learning of halfspaces with Massart noise, where $\eta$ is an upper bound on the noise rate.
\yellow{Our algorithm uses (stochastic) gradient descent on a convex proxy function $L(\mathbf{w})$ for the misclassification error
to identify a region with small misclassification error. The loss function penalizes the points which are misclassified
by the threshold function $h_{\mathbf{w}}$, proportionally to the distance from the corresponding hyperplane, while it rewards the correctly classified points at a smaller rate. Directly optimizing this convex objective does not lead to a separator with low error, but guarantees that for a non-negligible fraction of the mass away from the separating hyperplane the misclassification error
will be at most $\eta + \epsilon$. By classifying points in this region according to the hyperplane and recursively working on the remaining points, we obtain an improper learning algorithm that achieves $\eta + \epsilon$ error overall.
}
We now develop some necessary notation before proceeding with the description and analysis of our algorithm.
Our algorithm considers the following convex proxy for the misclassification error
\green{as a function of the weight vector $\mathbf{w}$}:
$$L(\mathbf{w}) = \mathop{{\bf E}\/}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}} [ \mathrm{LeakyRelu}_\lambda(-y \langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle )] \;,$$
under the constraint $\ltwo{\mathbf{w}} \le 1$, where
$\mathrm{LeakyRelu}_\lambda(z) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(1-\lambda) z & \mbox{if } z \geq 0 \\
\lambda z & \mbox{if } z < 0
\end{array}
\right.$
and $\lambda$ is the \emph{leakage} parameter, which we will set to be $\lambda \approx \eta$.
We define the per-point misclassification error and the error of the proxy function as
$\mathrm{err}(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) = \mathbf{Pr}_{y \sim \mathcal{D}_y(\mathbf{x})} [ \mathbf{w}(\mathbf{x}) \neq y ]$ and
$\ell(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) = \mathop{{\bf E}\/}_{y \sim \mathcal{D}_y(\mathbf{x})} [ \mathrm{LeakyRelu}_\lambda(-y \dotp{\mathbf{w}}{\mathbf{x}} )]$ \green{respectively}.
Notice that $\mathrm{err}_{0-1}^{\mathcal{D}}(h_\mathbf{w}) = \mathop{{\bf E}\/}_{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}} [ \mathrm{err}(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) ]$ and $L(\mathbf{w}) = \mathop{{\bf E}\/}_{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}} [ \ell(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) ]$.
Moreover, $\mathrm{OPT} = \mathop{{\bf E}\/}_{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}} [ \mathrm{err}({\mathbf{w}^{\ast}},\mathbf{x}) ] = \mathop{{\bf E}\/}_{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}} [ \eta(\mathbf{x}) ]$.
\paragraph{Relationship between proxy loss and misclassification error} We first relate
the proxy loss and the misclassification error:
\begin{claim}\label{claim:relationship}
For any $\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}$, we have that $\ell(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) = (\mathrm{err}(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) - \lambda) | \dotp{ \mathbf{w}}{ \mathbf{x} } |$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
We consider two cases:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item {\bf Case $\mathrm{sign}(\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle) = \mathrm{sign}(\langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x} \rangle)$}: In this case, we have that
$\mathrm{err}(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) = \eta(\mathbf{x})$, while
$\ell(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) = \eta(\mathbf{x}) (1-\lambda) |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| - (1-\eta(\mathbf{x})) \lambda |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| = (\eta(\mathbf{x}) - \lambda) |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle|$.
\item {\bf Case $\mathrm{sign}(\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle) \neq \mathrm{sign}(\langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x} \rangle)$}: In this case, we have that
$\mathrm{err}(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) = 1-\eta(\mathbf{x})$, while
$\ell(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) = (1-\eta(\mathbf{x})) (1-\lambda) |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| - \eta(\mathbf{x}) \lambda |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| = (1 - \eta(\mathbf{x}) - \lambda) |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle|$.
\end{itemize}
This completes the proof of Claim~\ref{claim:relationship}.
\end{proof}
\noindent Claim~\ref{claim:relationship} shows that minimizing
$\mathop{{\bf E}\/}_{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}} \left[ \frac{ \ell(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) } { | \dotp{ \mathbf{w}}{ \mathbf{x} } | } \right]$
is equivalent to minimizing the misclassification error. Unfortunately, this objective is hard
to minimize as it is non-convex, but one would hope that minimizing $L(\mathbf{w})$ instead
may have a similar effect. As we show in Section~\ref{sec:lb}, this is not true because $| \dotp{ \mathbf{w}}{ \mathbf{x} } |$
might vary significantly across points, and in fact it is not possible to
use a convex proxy that achieves bounded misclassification error directly.
Our algorithm circumvents this difficulty by approaching the problem indirectly
to find a non-proper classifier. Specifically, \newblue{our} algorithm works in multiple rounds,
where within each round only points with high value of $| \dotp{ \mathbf{w}}{ \mathbf{x} } |$ are considered.
The intuition is based on the fact that the approximation of the convex proxy
to the misclassification error is more accurate for those points that have comparable distance to the halfspace.
\noindent In Section~\ref{ssec:alg-margin}, we handle the large margin case
and in Section~\ref{thm:margin-case} we handle the general case.
\subsection{Warm-up: Learning Large Margin Halfspaces} \label{ssec:alg-margin}
We consider the case that there is no probability mass within distance $\gamma$
from the separating hyperplane $\langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast} ,\mathbf{x} \rangle = 0$, $\|\mathbf{w}^{\ast} \|_2=1$. Formally,
assume that for every $\mathbf{x}\sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}$, $\|\mathbf{x}\|_2 \le 1$ and that $|\langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge \gamma$.
The pseudo-code of our algorithm is given in Algorithm~\ref{alg:main-algorithm}.
Our algorithm returns a decision list $[(\mathbf{w}^{(1)},T^{(1)}), (\mathbf{w}^{(2)},T^{(2)}), \cdots]$ as output.
To classify a point $\mathbf{x}$ given the decision list, the first $i$ is identified such that $|\langle \mathbf{w}^{(i)}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T^{(i)}$ and $\mathrm{sign}(\langle \mathbf{w}^{(i)}, \mathbf{x} \rangle)$ is returned. If no such $i$ exists, an arbitrary prediction is returned.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Main Algorithm (with margin)}
\label{alg:main-algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Set $S^{(1)} = \mathbb{R}^d$, $\lambda = \eta + \epsilon$, $m = \tilde {O}(\frac 1 {\gamma^2 \epsilon^4})$.
\State Set $i \leftarrow 1$.
\State \label{step:Dx-emp}\green{Draw $O\left((1/\epsilon^2) \log(1/(\epsilon \gamma))\right)$ samples from $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}$
to form an empirical distribution $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\mathbf{x}}$.}
\While{$\mathbf{Pr}_{\mathbf{x} \sim \green{\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\mathbf{x}}} \left[ \mathbf{x} \in S^{(i)} \right] \ge \green{\epsilon} $}
\State Set $\mathcal{D}^{(i)} = \mathcal{D}|_{S^{(i)}}$, the distribution conditional on the unclassified points.
\State Let $L^{(i)}(\mathbf{w}) = \mathop{{\bf E}\/}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}^{(i)}} [ \mathrm{LeakyRelu}_\lambda(-y \langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle )]$
\State \label{step:sgd} Run SGD on $L^{(i)}(\mathbf{w})$ for $\green{\tilde{O}}(1/(\gamma^2 \epsilon^2))$ iterations to get $\mathbf{w}^{(i)}$
with $\|\mathbf{w}^{(i)}\|_2 = 1$ such that $L^{(i)}(\mathbf{w}^{(i)}) \le \min_{\mathbf{w}: \|\mathbf{w}\|_2 \leq 1} L^{(i)}(\mathbf{w}) + \gamma \epsilon / 2$.
\State Draw $m$ samples from $\mathcal{D}^{(i)}$ to form an empirical distribution $\mathcal{D}_m^{(i)}$.
\State \label{step:thresholdestimation} Find a threshold $T^{(i)}$ such that
$\mathbf{Pr}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}_m^{(i)}} [ |\langle \mathbf{w}^{(i)}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T^{(i)} ] \ge \gamma \epsilon$
and the empirical misclassification error,
$\mathbf{Pr}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}_m^{(i)}} [h_{\mathbf{w}^{(i)}}(\mathbf{x}) \neq y \, \big| \, |\langle \mathbf{w}^{(i)}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T^{(i)}]$, is minimized.
\State Update the unclassified region $S^{(i+1)} \leftarrow S^{(i)} \setminus \{\mathbf{x} : |\langle \mathbf{w}^{(i)}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T^{(i)} \} $ and set $i \leftarrow i + 1$.
\EndWhile
\State Return the classifier $[(\mathbf{w}^{(1)},T^{(1)}), (\mathbf{w}^{(2)},T^{(2)}), \cdots]$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\noindent The main result of this section is the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:margin-case}
Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a distribution on $\mathbb{B}_d \times \{\pm 1 \}$ such that $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}$ satisfies the $\gamma$-margin
property with respect to $\mathbf{w}^{\ast}$ and $y$ is generated by $\mathrm{sign}(\langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast} ,\mathbf{x} \rangle)$
corrupted with Massart noise at rate $\eta<1/2$. Algorithm~\ref{alg:main-algorithm} uses
$\tilde O(1/(\gamma^3 \epsilon^5))$ samples from $\mathcal{D}$, runs in $\mathrm{poly}(d, 1/\epsilon, 1/\gamma)$ time,
and returns, with probability $2/3$, a classifier $h$ with misclassification error $\mathrm{err}_{0-1}^{\mathcal{D}}(h) \leq \eta+\epsilon$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent Our analysis focuses on a single iteration of Algorithm~\ref{alg:main-algorithm}.
We will show that a large fraction of the points is classified at every iteration within error $\eta+\epsilon$.
To achieve this, we analyze the convex objective $L$.
We start by showing that the optimal classifier $\mathbf{w}^{\ast}$ obtains a \new{sufficiently small} negative objective value.
\begin{lemma}\label{lm:opt_val}
If $\lambda \ge \eta$, then $L(\mathbf{w}^{\ast}) \le - \gamma (\lambda - \mathrm{OPT})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any fixed $\mathbf{x}$, {using Claim \ref{claim:relationship}}, we have that $$\ell(\mathbf{w}^{\ast},\mathbf{x}) = (\mathrm{err}(\mathbf{w}^{\ast},\mathbf{x}) - \lambda) | \langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x} \rangle | = (\eta(\mathbf{x}) - \lambda) |\langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \le - \gamma (\lambda - \eta(\mathbf{x})) \;,$$
since $|\langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge \gamma$ and $\eta(\mathbf{x}) - \lambda \le 0$.
Taking expectation over $\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}$, the statement follows.
\end{proof}
\yellow{Lemma~\ref{lm:opt_val} is the only place where the Massart noise assumption is used in our approach
and establishes that points with sufficiently \new{small} negative value exist.
As we will show, any weight vector $\mathbf{w}$ with this property can be found with few samples
and must accurately classify some region of non-negligible mass away from it (Lemma~\ref{lm:structural}).}
We now argue that we can use stochastic gradient descent (SGD) to efficiently identify
a point $\mathbf{w}$ that achieves comparably small objective value to the guarantee
of Lemma~\ref{lm:opt_val}. We use the following standard property of SGD:
\begin{lemma}[see, e.g., Theorem 3.4.11 in~\cite{Duchi16}]\label{lm:sgd_guarantees}
Let $L$ be any convex function. Consider the (projected) SGD iteration that is initialized at
$\mathbf{w}^{(0)} = \bold 0$ and for every step computes
$$\mathbf{w}^{(t+\frac 1 2)} = \mathbf{w}^{(t)} - \rho \mathbf{v}^{(t)} \quad \text{ and } \quad
\mathbf{w}^{(t+1)} = \arg\min_{\mathbf{w}: \ltwo{\mathbf{w}} \le 1} \ltwo{ \mathbf{w} - \mathbf{w}^{(t+\frac 1 2)} } \;,$$
where $\mathbf{v}^{(t)}$ is a stochastic gradient such that for all steps $\mathop{{\bf E}\/}[ \mathbf{v}^{(t)} | \mathbf{w}^{(t)} ] \in \partial L(\mathbf{w}^{(t)}) $
and $\ltwo{\mathbf{v}^{(t)}} \le 1$.
Assume that SGD is run for $T$ iterations with step size $\rho = \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}$ and let $\bar \mathbf{w} = \frac 1 T \sum_{t=1}^T \mathbf{w}^{(t)}$. Then, for any $\epsilon, \delta > 0$, after $T = \Omega(\log(1/\delta)/\epsilon^2)$ iterations with probability
with probability at least $1-\delta$ we have that
$L(\bar \mathbf{w}) \le \min_{\mathbf{w}: \ltwo{\mathbf{w}} \le 1} L(\mathbf{w}) + \epsilon$.
\end{lemma}
By Lemma \ref{lm:opt_val}, we know that $\min_{\mathbf{w}: \|\mathbf{w}\|_2 \le 1 } L(\mathbf{w}) \le - \gamma (\lambda - \mathrm{OPT})$.
By Lemma~\ref{lm:sgd_guarantees}, it follows that by running SGD on $L(\mathbf{w})$ with projection to the unit $\ell_2$-ball for
$O\left(\log(1/\delta) / (\gamma^2(\lambda - \mathrm{OPT})^2) \right)$ steps,
we find a $\mathbf{w}$ such that $L(\mathbf{w}) \le - \gamma (\lambda - \mathrm{OPT})/2$ \green{with probability at least $1-\delta$}.
\noindent
Note that we can assume
without loss of generality that $\|\mathbf{w}\|_2=1$, as increasing the magnitude of $\mathbf{w}$ only decreases the objective value.
\medskip
We now consider the misclassification error of the halfspace $h_{\mathbf{w}}$ conditional
on the points that are further than some distance $T$ from the separating hyperplane.
We claim that there exists a threshold $T>0$ where the restriction has non-trivial mass
and the conditional misclassification error is small:
\begin{lemma}\label{lm:structural}
Consider a vector $\mathbf{w}$ with $L(\mathbf{w}) < 0$. There exists a threshold $T \ge 0$ such that
(i) $\mathbf{Pr}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}} [ |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T ] \ge \frac{|L(\mathbf{w})|}{2 \lambda},$ and
(ii) $\mathbf{Pr}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}} [h_\mathbf{w}(\mathbf{x}) \neq y \, \big| \, |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T ] \le \lambda - \frac{|L(\mathbf{w})|}{2}.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will show there is a $T \ge 0$ such that
$\mathbf{Pr}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}} [h_\mathbf{w}(\mathbf{x}) \neq y \, \big| \, |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T ] \le \lambda - \zeta$,
where $\zeta \stackrel{{\mathrm {\footnotesize def}}}{=} |L(\mathbf{w})|/2$, or equivalently,
$\mathop{{\bf E}\/}_{{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}}}[
(\mathrm{err}(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) - \lambda + \zeta)
\mathds{1}_{|\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T}] \le 0.$
\noindent For a $T$ drawn uniformly at random in $[0,1]$, we have that:
\begin{align*}
\int_0^1 \mathop{{\bf E}\/}_{{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}}}[
(\mathrm{err}(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) - \lambda + \zeta)
1_{|\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T}] dT &= \mathbf{E}_{{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}}}[
(\mathrm{err}(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) - \lambda) |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle|] + \zeta \mathbf{E}_{{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}}}[
|\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle|]\\
&\le \mathbf{E}_{{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}}}[
\ell(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x})] + \zeta = L(\mathbf{w}) + \zeta = L(\mathbf{w}) / 2 < 0 \;,
\end{align*}
\new{where the first inequality uses Claim~\ref{claim:relationship}.}
Thus, there exists a $\bar T$ such that
$$\mathbf{E}_{{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}}}[(\mathrm{err}(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) - \lambda + \zeta) \mathds{1}_{|\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge \bar T}] \le 0 \;.$$
Consider the minimum such $\bar T$. Then we have
$$\int_{\bar T}^1 \mathbf{E}_{{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}}}[
(\mathrm{err}(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) - \lambda + \zeta)
\mathds{1}_{|\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T}] dT \ge - \lambda \cdot \mathbf{Pr}_{\newblue{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}}}[ |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge \bar T ] \;.$$
\green{By definition of $\bar T$, it must be the case that
$$\int_0^{\bar T} \mathbf{E}_{{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}}}[
(\mathrm{err}(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) - \lambda + \zeta)
\mathds{1}_{|\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T}] dT \ge 0 \;.$$
Therefore,
$$\frac{L(\mathbf{w})}{2}\ge\int_{\bar T}^1 \mathbf{E}_{{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}}}[
(\mathrm{err}(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}) - \lambda + \zeta)
\mathds{1}_{|\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T}] dT \ge - \lambda \cdot \mathbf{Pr}_{\newblue{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}}}[ |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge \bar T ] \;,$$
which implies that $\mathbf{Pr}_{\newblue{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}}} [|\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge \bar T ] \ge \frac{|L(\mathbf{w})|}{2\lambda} $. This completes the proof of Lemma~\ref{lm:structural}.
}
\end{proof}
Even though minimizing the convex proxy $L$ does not lead to low misclassification error overall,
Lemma~\ref{lm:structural} shows that there exists a region of non-trivial mass where it does.
This region is identifiable by a simple threshold rule.
We are now ready to prove Theorem \ref{thm:margin-case}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:margin-case}]
We consider the steps of Algorithm~\ref{alg:main-algorithm} in each iteration of the while loop.
At iteration $i$, we consider a distribution $\mathcal{D}^{(i)}$ consisting only of points not handled in previous iterations.
We start by noting that with high probability the total number of iterations is \newblue{$\tilde{O}(1/(\gamma \epsilon))$}.
This can be seen as follows: The empirical probability mass under $\mathcal{D}_m^{(i)}$
of the region $\{\mathbf{x} : |\langle \mathbf{w}^{(i)}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T^{(i)} \}$ removed from $S^{(i)}$
to obtain $S^{(i+1)}$ is at least $\gamma \epsilon$ (Step~\ref{step:thresholdestimation}).
Since $m = \tilde {O}(1/(\gamma^2 \epsilon^4))$, the DKW inequality~\cite{DKW56} implies that the true
probability mass of this region is at least $\gamma \epsilon/2$ with high probability.
By a union bound over $i \leq K = \Theta(\log(1/\epsilon)/(\epsilon\gamma))$, it follows
that with high probability we have that $\Pr_{\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}}[S^{(i+1)}] \leq (1-\gamma \epsilon/2)^i$ for all $i \in [K]$.
After $K$ iterations, we will have that $\Pr_{\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}}[S^{(i+1)}] \leq \epsilon/3$.
Step~\ref{step:Dx-emp} guarantees that the mass of $S^{(i)}$ under $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\mathbf{x}}$
is within an additive $\epsilon/3$ of its mass under $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}$, for $i \in [K]$. This implies that
the loop terminates after at most $K$ iterations with high probability.
By Lemma~\ref{lm:opt_val} and the fact that every $\mathcal{D}^{(i)}$ has margin $\gamma$, it follows
that the minimizer of the loss $L^{(i)}$ has value less than
$-\gamma (\lambda - \mathrm{OPT}^{(i)}) \le - \gamma \epsilon$, as $\mathrm{OPT}^{(i)} \le \eta$ and $\lambda = \eta + \epsilon$.
By the guarantees of Lemma~\ref{lm:sgd_guarantees}, running SGD in line~\ref{step:sgd} on $L^{(i)}( \cdot )$ with projection
to the unit $\ell_2$-ball for $O\left(\log(1/\delta)/(\gamma^2 \epsilon^2)\right)$ steps,
we obtain a $\mathbf{w}^{(i)}$ such that, with probability at least $1-\delta$, it holds
$L^{(i)}(\mathbf{w}^{(i)}) \le - \gamma \epsilon/2$ and $\|\mathbf{w}^{(i)}\|_2 = 1$.
Here $\delta>0$ is a parameter that is selected so that the following claim
holds: With probability at least $9/10$, for all iterations $i$ of the while loop
we have that $L^{(i)}(\mathbf{w}^{(i)}) \le - \gamma \epsilon/2$. Since the total number of iterations
is \newblue{$\tilde{O}(1/(\gamma \epsilon))$}, setting $\delta$
to $\tilde{\Omega}(\epsilon \gamma)$ and applying a union bound over all iterations gives the previous claim.
Therefore, the total number of SGD steps per iteration is $\tilde{O}(1 / (\gamma^2\epsilon^2))$.
For a given iteration of the while loop, running SGD requires $\tilde{O}(1 / (\gamma^2\epsilon^2))$
samples from $\mathcal{D}^{(i)}$ which translate to at most $\tilde{O}\left(1/(\gamma^2 \epsilon^3)\right)$ samples from $\mathcal{D}$,
as $\mathbf{Pr}_{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}} \left[ \mathbf{x} \in S^{(i)} \right] \geq 2\epsilon/3$.
Lemma~\ref{lm:structural} implies that there exists $T \ge 0$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] $\mathbf{Pr}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}^{(i)}} [ |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T ] \ge \gamma \epsilon,$ and
\item[(b)] $\mathbf{Pr}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}^{(i)}} [h_\mathbf{w}(\mathbf{x}) \neq y \, \big| \, |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T ] \le \eta + \epsilon.$
\end{enumerate}
Line~\ref{step:thresholdestimation} of Algorithm~\ref{alg:main-algorithm} estimates the threshold using samples. By the
DKW inequality~\cite{DKW56}, we know that with $m = \tilde {O}(1/(\gamma^2 \epsilon^4))$ samples we can estimate the CDF
within error $\gamma \epsilon^2$ with probability $1-\mathrm{poly}(\epsilon,\gamma)$. This suffices to estimate the probability
mass of the region within additive $\gamma \epsilon^2$ and the misclassification error within $\epsilon/3$.
This is satisfied for all iterations with constant probability.
In summary, with high constant success probability, Algorithm~\ref{alg:main-algorithm}
runs for \newblue{$\tilde{O}(1/(\gamma \epsilon))$} iterations and draws
$\tilde {O}(1/(\gamma^2 \epsilon^4))$ samples per round for a total of
$\tilde {O}(1/(\gamma^3 \epsilon^5))$ samples. As each iteration runs in polynomial time,
the total running time follows.
When the while loop terminates, we have that $\mathbf{Pr}_{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}} [ \mathbf{x} \in S^{(i)}] \le 4\epsilon/3$,
i.e., we will have accounted for at least a $(1-4\epsilon/3)$-fraction of the total probability mass.
Since our algorithm achieves misclassification error at most $\eta + 4\epsilon/3$ in all the regions we accounted for,
its total misclassification error is at most $\eta + 8\epsilon/3$.
Rescaling $\epsilon$ by a constant factor gives Theorem~\ref{thm:margin-case}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:margin-error}
If the value of $\mathrm{OPT}$ is smaller than $\eta - \xi$ for some value $\xi > 0$,
Algorithm~\ref{alg:main-algorithm} gets misclassification error less
than $\eta - \Omega( \gamma^2 \xi^2 )$ when run for $\epsilon = O(\gamma^2 \xi^2)$.
This is because, in the first iteration, $L^{(1)}(\mathbf{w}^{(1)}) \le - \gamma (\lambda - \mathrm{OPT}) / 2 \le - \gamma \xi / 2$,
which implies, by Lemma~\ref{lm:structural}, that the obtained error in $S^{(1)}$
is at most $\lambda - \gamma \xi / 4$. The misclassification error in the remaining regions
is at most $\lambda + \epsilon$, and region $S^{(1)}$ has probability mass at least $\gamma \xi / 4$.
Thus, the total misclassification error is at most
$\lambda + \epsilon - \gamma^2 \xi^2 / 16 = \eta - \Omega( \gamma^2 \xi^2 )$,
when run for $\epsilon = O(\gamma^2 \xi^2)$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The General Case} \label{ssec:alg-general}
In the general case, we assume that $\mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}$ is an arbitrary distribution supported on $b$-bit integers.
While such a distribution might have exponentially small margin in the dimension $d$ (or even $0$),
we will preprocess the distribution to ensure a margin condition by removing outliers.
We will require the following notion of an outlier:
\begin{definition}[\cite{DV:04}]
We call a point $\mathbf{x}$ in the support of a distribution $\mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}$ a $\beta$-outlier,
if there exists a vector $\mathbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ such that
$\dotp{\mathbf{w}}{\mathbf{x}}^2 \geq \beta \mathop{{\bf E}\/}_{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}}[ \dotp{\mathbf{w}}{\mathbf{x}}^2 ].$
\end{definition}
We will use Theorem~3 of~\cite{DV:04},
which shows that any distribution supported on $b$-bit integers can be efficiently
preprocessed using samples so that no large outliers exist.
\begin{lemma}[Rephrasing of Theorem 3 of \cite{DV:04}]\label{lm:outlier}
Using $m = \tilde{O}(d^2 b)$ samples from $\mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}$, one can identify with high probability an ellipsoid $E$ such that $\mathbf{Pr}_{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}} [ \mathbf{x} \in E ] \ge \frac 1 2$ and $\mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x} |_E$ has no $\Gamma^{-1} = \tilde{O}(d b)$-outliers.
\end{lemma}
Given this lemma, we can adapt Algorithm~\ref{alg:main-algorithm} for the large margin case to work in general.
The pseudo-code is given in Algorithm~\ref{alg:main-algorithm-general}.
It similarly returns a decision list [$(\mathbf{w}^{(1)},T^{(1)},E^{(1)})$, $(\mathbf{w}^{(2)},T^{(2)},E^{(2)})$, $\cdots$] as output.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Main Algorithm (general case)}
\label{alg:main-algorithm-general}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Set $S^{(1)} = \mathbb{R}^d$, $\lambda = \eta + \epsilon$, $\Gamma^{-1} = \tilde{O}(d b)$, $m = \tilde {O}(\frac 1 {\Gamma^2 \epsilon^4})$.
\State Set $i \leftarrow 1$.
\State \label{step:Dx-emp-gen}\green{Draw $O\left((1/\epsilon^2) \log(1/(\epsilon \Gamma))\right)$ samples from $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}$
to form an empirical distribution $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\mathbf{x}}$.}
\While{$\mathbf{Pr}_{\mathbf{x} \sim \green{\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\mathbf{x}}}} \left[ \mathbf{x} \in S^{(i)} \right] \ge \green{\epsilon} $}
\State Run the algorithm of Lemma~\ref{lm:outlier} to remove $\Gamma^{-1}$-outliers from the distribution $\mathcal{D}_{S^{(i)}}$ by filtering points outside the ellipsoid $E^{(i)}$.
\State Let $\Sigma^{(i)} = \mathop{{\bf E}\/}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}^{(i)}|_{S^{(i)}}} [ \mathbf{x} \mathbf{x}^T ]$ and set $\mathcal{D}^{(i)} = \Gamma \Sigma^{(i)-1/2} \cdot \mathcal{D}|_{S^{(i)} \cap E^{(i)}}$ be the distribution $\mathcal{D}|_{S^{(i)} \cap E^{(i)}}$ brought in isotropic position and rescaled by $\Gamma$ so that all vectors have \new{$\ell_2$-norm at most $1$}.
\State Let $L^{(i)}(\mathbf{w}) = \mathop{{\bf E}\/}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}^{(i)}} [ \mathrm{LeakyRelu}_\lambda(-y \dotp{ \mathbf{w}}{ \mathbf{x} } )]$
\State \label{step:sgd-general} Run SGD on $L^{(i)}(\mathbf{w})$ for $\green{\tilde{O}}(1/(\Gamma^2 \epsilon^2))$ iterations,
to get $\mathbf{w}^{(i)}$ with $\|\mathbf{w}^{(i)}\|_2 = 1$ such that $L^{(i)}(\mathbf{w}^{(i)}) \le \min_{\mathbf{w}: \|\mathbf{w}\|_2 \leq 1} L^{(i)}(\mathbf{w}) + \Gamma \epsilon / 2$.
\State Draw $m$ samples from $\mathcal{D}^{(i)}$ to form an empirical distribution $\mathcal{D}_m^{(i)}$.
\State \label{step:thresholdestimation-gen} Find a threshold $T^{(i)}$ such that $\mathbf{Pr}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}_m^{(i)}} [ |\langle \mathbf{w}^{(i)}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T^{(i)} ] \ge \Gamma \epsilon$ and the empirical misclassification error, $\mathbf{Pr}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}_m^{(i)}} [h_\mathbf{w}(\mathbf{x}) \neq y \, \big| \, |\langle \mathbf{w}^{(i)}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T^{(i)} ]$, is minimized.
\State Revert the linear transformation by setting $\mathbf{w}^{(i)} \leftarrow \Gamma \Sigma^{(i)-1/2} \mathbf{w}^{(i)}$.
\State Update the unclassified region $S^{(i+1)} \leftarrow S^{(i)} \setminus \{\mathbf{x} : \mathbf{x} \in E^{(i)} \wedge |\langle \mathbf{w}^{(i)}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T^{(i)} \} $ and set $i \leftarrow i + 1$.
\EndWhile
\State Return the classifier $[(\mathbf{w}^{(1)},T^{(1)},E^{(1)}), (\mathbf{w}^{(2)},T^{(2)},E^{(2)}), \cdots]$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\noindent Our main result is the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:general-case}
Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a distribution over $(d+1)$-dimensional labeled examples with bit-complexity $b$,
generated by an unknown halfspace corrupted by Massart noise at rate $\eta<1/2$.
Algorithm~\ref{alg:main-algorithm-general} uses $\tilde O(d^3 b^3/\epsilon^5)$ samples,
runs in $\mathrm{poly}(d, 1/\epsilon, b)$ time, and returns, with probability $2/3$, a classifier $h$ with
misclassification error $\mathrm{err}_{0-1}^{\mathcal{D}}(h) \leq \eta+\epsilon$.
\end{theorem}
We now analyze Algorithm~\ref{alg:main-algorithm-general} and establish Theorem~\ref{thm:general-case}.
To do this, we need to adapt Lemma~\ref{lm:opt_val} to the case without margin.
We replace the \new{margin} condition by requiring that the minimum eigenvalue of the covariance
matrix is at least $\Gamma$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lm:opt_val_general}
Let $\mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}$ be any distribution over points with $\ell_2$-norm bounded by 1, with covariance having minimum eigenvalue at least $\Gamma$. If $\lambda \ge \eta$, then $\min_{\mathbf{w}: \ltwo{\mathbf{w}} \le 1} L(\mathbf{w}) \le - \Gamma (\lambda - \eta)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will show the statement for the \new{optimal} unit vector $\mathbf{w}^{\ast}$.
For any fixed $\mathbf{x}$, we have that $$\ell(\mathbf{w}^{\ast},\mathbf{x}) = (\mathrm{err}(\mathbf{w}^{\ast},\mathbf{x}) - \lambda) | \langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x} \rangle | = (\eta(\mathbf{x}) - \lambda) |\langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \le - (\lambda - \eta) |\langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x} \rangle|.$$
Taking expectation over $\mathbf{x}$ drawn from $\mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}$, we get the statement as
$$\mathop{{\bf E}\/}[|\langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x} \rangle|] \ge \mathop{{\bf E}\/}[|\langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x} \rangle|^2] \ge \Gamma,$$
where we used the fact that for all points $\mathbf{x}$, $|\langle \mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \le \ltwo{\mathbf{x}}^2 \le 1$.
\end{proof}
With Lemma~\ref{lm:opt_val_general} in hand, we are ready to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:general-case}. We will use Lemma~\ref{lm:sgd_guarantees} and Lemma~\ref{lm:structural} whose statements do not require that the distribution
of points has large margin.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:general-case}]
We again consider the steps of Algorithm~\ref{alg:main-algorithm-general} in every iteration $i$. At every iteration, we consider a distribution $\mathcal{D}^{(i)}$ consisting only of points not handled in previous iterations.
Similar to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:margin-case}, we start by noting that with high probability the total number of iterations is $\tilde{O}(1/(\Gamma \epsilon))$. This is because at every iteration, the empirical probability mass under $\mathcal{D}_m^{(i)}$
of the region $\{\mathbf{x} : |\langle \mathbf{w}^{(i)}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T^{(i)} \}$ removed from $S^{(i)}$
to obtain $S^{(i+1)}$ is at least $\Gamma \epsilon$ and thus by the DKW inequality~\cite{DKW56} implies the true
probability mass of this region is at least $\Gamma \epsilon/2$ with high probability.
After $K = \Theta(\log(1/\epsilon)/(\epsilon\Gamma))$ iterations, we will have that $\Pr_{\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}}[S^{(i+1)}] \leq \epsilon/3$.
Step~\ref{step:Dx-emp-gen} guarantees that the mass of $S^{(i)}$ under $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\mathbf{x}}$
is within an additive $\epsilon/3$ of its mass under $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}$, for $i \in [K]$. This implies that
the loop terminates after at most $K$ iterations with high probability.
At every iteration, the distribution $\mathcal{D}^{(i)}$ is rescaled so that the norm of all points is bounded by $1$ and the covariance matrix has minimum eigenvalue $\Gamma$ as guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{lm:outlier}. By Lemma~\ref{lm:opt_val_general}, it follows
that the minimizer of the loss $L^{(i)}$ has value less than
$- \Gamma (\lambda - \eta) \le - \Gamma \epsilon$.
By the guarantees of Lemma~\ref{lm:sgd_guarantees}, running SGD in line~\ref{step:sgd-general} on $L^{(i)}( \cdot )$ with projection
to the unit $\ell_2$-ball for $O\left(\log(1/\delta)/(\Gamma^2 \epsilon^2)\right)$ steps,
we obtain a $\mathbf{w}^{(i)}$ such that, with probability at least $1-\delta$, it holds
$L^{(i)}(\mathbf{w}^{(i)}) \le - \Gamma \epsilon/2$ and $\|\mathbf{w}^{(i)}\|_2 = 1$.
Here $\delta>0$ is a parameter that is selected so that the following claim
holds: With probability at least $9/10$, for all iterations $i$ of the while loop
we have that $L^{(i)}(\mathbf{w}^{(i)}) \le - \Gamma \epsilon/2$. Since the total number of iterations
is \newblue{$\tilde{O}(1/(\Gamma \epsilon))$}, setting $\delta$
to $\tilde{\Omega}(\epsilon \Gamma)$ and applying a union bound over all iterations gives the previous claim.
Therefore, the total number of SGD steps per iteration is $\tilde{O}(1 / (\Gamma^2\epsilon^2))$.
For a given iteration of the while loop, running SGD requires $\tilde{O}(1 / (\Gamma^2\epsilon^2))$
samples from $\mathcal{D}^{(i)}$ which translate to at most $\tilde{O}\left(1/(\Gamma^2 \epsilon^3)\right)$ samples from $\mathcal{D}$,
as $\mathbf{Pr}_{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}} \left[ \mathbf{x} \in S^{(i)} \right] \geq 2\epsilon/3$.
Then, similar to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:margin-case}, Lemma~\ref{lm:structural} implies that there exists a threshold $T \ge 0$, such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\mathbf{Pr}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}^{(i)}} [ |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T ] \ge \Gamma \epsilon,$ and
\item[(b)] $\mathbf{Pr}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}^{(i)}} [h_\mathbf{w}(\mathbf{x}) \neq y \, \big| \, |\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle| \ge T ] \le \eta + \epsilon.$
\end{itemize}
Line~\ref{step:thresholdestimation-gen} of Algorithm~\ref{alg:main-algorithm-general} estimates the threshold using samples. By the
DKW inequality~\cite{DKW56}, we know that with $m = \tilde {O}(\frac 1 {\Gamma^2 \epsilon^4})$ samples we can estimate the CDF
within error $\Gamma \epsilon^2$ with probability $1-\mathrm{poly}(\epsilon,\Gamma)$. This suffices to estimate the probability
mass of the region within additive $\Gamma \epsilon^2$ and the misclassification error within $\epsilon/3$.
This is satisfied for all iterations with constant probability.
In summary, with high constant success probability, Algorithm~\ref{alg:main-algorithm-general}
runs for \newblue{$\tilde{O}(1/(\Gamma \epsilon))$} iterations and draws
$\tilde {O}(1/(\Gamma^2 \epsilon^4))$ samples per round for a total of
$\tilde {O}(1/(\Gamma^3 \epsilon^5))$ samples. As each iteration runs in polynomial time,
the total running time follows.
When the while loop terminates, we have that $\mathbf{Pr}_{\mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathbf{x}} [ \mathbf{x} \in S^{(i)}] \le 4\epsilon/3$,
i.e., we will have accounted for at least a $(1-4\epsilon/3)$-fraction of the total probability mass.
Since our algorithm achieves misclassification error at most $\eta + 4\epsilon/3$ in all the regions we accounted for,
its total misclassification error is at most $\eta + 8\epsilon/3$.
Rescaling $\epsilon$ by a constant factor gives Theorem~\ref{thm:general-case}.
\end{proof}
\section{Lower Bounds Against Natural Approaches} \label{sec:lb}
In this section, we show that certain natural approaches for learning halfspaces
with Massart noise inherently fail, even in the large margin case.
We begin in Section~\ref{min_surrogate} by showing that the common
approach of using a convex surrogate function for the 0-1 loss cannot lead
to non-trivial misclassification error. (We remark that this comes in sharp contrast
with the problem of learning large margin halfpaces with RCN, where a convex surrogate
works, see, e.g., Theorem~\ref{thm:rnc} in Section~\ref{sec:rcn}).
In Section~\ref{ssec:thresh}, we provide evidence that improving the misclassification guarantee of $\eta+\epsilon$
achieved by our algorithm requires a genuinely different approach. In particular, we show that the approach
of iteratively using {\em any} convex proxy followed by thresholding gets stuck
at error $\Omega(\eta)+\epsilon$, even in the large margin case.
\subsection{Lower Bounds Against Minimizing a Convex Surrogate Function}\label{min_surrogate}
\new{One of the most common approaches in machine learning is to replace the 0-1 loss
in the ERM by an appropriate convex surrogate and solve the corresponding convex optimization problem.
In this section, we show that this approach inherently fails to even give
a weak learner in the presence of Massart noise --- even under a margin assumption.}
In more detail, we construct distributions over a finite sets of points in the two-dimensional unit ball
for which the method of minimizing a convex surrogate will always
\new{have misclassification error $\min\{1/2,\Theta(\eta/\gamma)\}$},
where $\gamma$ is the maximum margin with respect to any hyperplane.
\new{Our proof is inspired by an analogous construction in~\cite{LongS10},
which shows that one cannot achieve non-trivial misclassification error
for learning halfspaces in the presence of RCN, using certain convex boosting techniques.}
\new{Our argument is more involved in the sense that we need to distinguish
two cases and consider different distributions for each one. Furthermore, by leveraging the additional strength of the Massart noise model, we are able to show that the misclassification error has to
be larger than the noise level $\eta$ by a factor of $1/\gamma$.}
In particular, our first case corresponds to \new{the situation where} the convex surrogate function
is such that misclassified points are penalized by a fair amount and therefore the effect of noise
of correctly classified points on the gradient is significant. This allows a significant amount of
probability mass to be in the region where the true separating hyperplane and the one defined
by the minimum of the convex surrogate function disagree. The second case, which is the
complement of the first one, uses the fact that the contribution of a correctly classified point
on the gradient is not much smaller than that of a misclassified point, again allowing a
significant amount of probability mass to be given to the aforementioned disagreement region.
Formally, we prove the following:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:lb-surr}
Consider the family of algorithms that produce a classifier
$\mathrm{sign}(\langle\mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x}\rangle)$, where $\mathbf{w}^{\ast}$ is the minimum
of the function $G(\mathbf{w})=\mathbf{E}_{(\mathbf{x},y)\sim \mathcal{D}}[\phi(y\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x}\rangle)]$.
For any decreasing convex \footnote{\new{The function is not necessarily differentiable. In case it is not,
being \emph{convex} means that the sub-gradients of the points are monotonically non-decreasing.}}
function $\phi: \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, there exists a distribution $\mathcal{D}$ over
$\mathbb{B}_2 \times \{ \pm 1\}$with margin $\gamma\leq \frac{\sqrt{3}-1}{4}$ such that the classifier
$\mathrm{sign}(\langle\mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x}\rangle)$, misclassifies a $\min\{\frac{\eta}{8\gamma},\frac12\}$ fraction of the points.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We consider algorithms that perform ERM with a convex surrogate, i.e.,
minimize a loss of the form
$G(\mathbf{w})=\mathbf{E}_{(\mathbf{x},y)\sim \mathcal{D}}[\phi(y\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x}\rangle)]$,
for some convex function $\phi: \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
for \new{$\|\mathbf{w}\|_2\leq 1$}.
\new{
We can assume without loss of generality that $\phi$ is differentiable and its derivative is non-decreasing.
Even if there is a countable number of points in which it is not, there is a subderivative
that we can pick for each of those points such that the derivative is increasing overall,
since we have assumed that $\phi$ is convex. Therefore, our argument still goes through even without
assuming differentiability.}
We start by calculating the gradient of $G$ as a function of the derivative of $\phi$ at the minimum of $G$.
Suppose that $ \mathbf{v}\in \mathbb{R}^d$ is the minimizer of $G$ subject to \new{$\|\mathbf{w}\|_2\leq 1$}.
This requires that \new{either $\nabla G(\mathbf{v})$ is parallel to $\mathbf{v}$, in case the unconstrained minimum
lies outside the region $\|\mathbf{w}\|_2\leq 1$, or $\nabla G(\mathbf{v})=\mathbf{0}$.}
Therefore, we have that \new{for every $i>1$, the following holds}:
\[
\frac{\partial G}{\partial \mathbf{w}_i}(\mathbf{v})=\mathbf{E}_{(\mathbf{x},y)\sim \mathcal{D}}[\phi^\prime(y\langle \mathbf{v}, \mathbf{x}\rangle)(y \mathbf{x}_i)]=0 \;.
\]
\new{Our lower bound construction produces a distribution $\mathcal{D}$ over $(\mathbf{x}, y)$
whose $\mathbf{x}$ marginal, $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{x}}$, is supported on the $2$-dimensional unit ball.}
We need to consider two complementary cases for the convex function $\phi$.
For each case, we will define judiciously chosen distributions, $\mathcal{D}_1,\mathcal{D}_2$ for which the result holds.
\paragraph{Case I:} There exists $z\in [0,\sqrt{3}/2]$ such that:
$|\phi^\prime(z)|<\frac12 \frac{\eta}{1-\eta}|\phi^\prime(-z)|$.
\smallskip
\noindent In this case, we consider the distribution shown in Figure~\ref{fg:case1} (left),
where the point $(z,-\gamma)$ has probability mass $p$ and
the remaining $1-p$ mass in on the point $(z,\sqrt{1-z^2})$.
We need to pick the parameter $p$ so that $ \mathbf{v}=\mathbf{e}_1$ is the minimum of $G(\mathbf{w})$.
Note that the misclassification error is
$\new{\mathrm{err}_{0-1}^{\mathcal{D}_1} (\mathrm{sign}(\langle\mathbf{v},\mathbf{x}\rangle))} = p+(1-p)\cdot \eta$.
The condition that $\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{e}_1$ is
a minimizer of $G(\mathbf{w})$ is equivalent to
$\mathbf{E}_{(\mathbf{x},y) \sim \mathcal{D}_1}[\phi^\prime(y\langle\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{x}\rangle)(y \mathbf{x}_2)]=0$.
Substituting for our choice of $\mathcal{D}_1$
with noise level $\eta$ on $(z,-\gamma)$ and $0$ on $(z,\sqrt{1-z^2})$, we get:
\[
p\cdot\phi^\prime(-z)\cdot\gamma+(1-p)\cdot(1-\eta)\phi^\prime(z)\cdot \sqrt{1-z^2}
+(1-p)\cdot\eta\cdot \phi^\prime(-z)\cdot (-\sqrt{1-z^2})=0 \;.
\]
Equivalently, we have:
\[
(1-p)\cdot\eta\cdot |\phi^\prime(-z)|\cdot \sqrt{1-z^2}=
p\cdot\gamma\cdot|\phi^\prime(-z)|+(1-p)\cdot(1-\eta)|\phi^\prime(z)| \sqrt{1-z^2} \;.
\]
Now, suppose that $|\phi^\prime(z)|=(1-\alpha) \frac{\eta}{1-\eta}|\phi^\prime(-z)|$, for some $\alpha>\frac12$.
By substituting and simplifying, we get:
$$ p\cdot\gamma=\alpha(1-p)\eta \sqrt{1-z^2}=(1-p)\eta\Delta \;,
$$
where $\Delta=\alpha\sqrt{1-z^2}$, which in turns gives that
$$p=\frac{\eta\Delta}{\gamma+\eta\Delta} \;.$$
Thus, the misclassification error i
\[\new{\mathrm{err}_{0-1}^{\mathcal{D}_1} (\mathrm{sign}(\langle\mathbf{v},\mathbf{x}\rangle))}=p+(1-p)\eta=\eta+(1-\eta)p=\eta+\frac{(1-\eta)\eta\Delta}{\gamma+\eta\Delta}=\frac{\eta(\gamma+\Delta)}{\gamma+\eta\Delta}\geq \frac{1}{1+\frac{\gamma}{\eta\Delta}} \;.\]
Note that for margin $\gamma\leq \eta\cdot \Delta$, we have that
$\new{\mathrm{err}_{0-1}^{\mathcal{D}_1} (\mathrm{sign}(\langle\mathbf{v},\mathbf{x}\rangle))}\geq \frac12$, and we can achieve error exactly $\frac12$ by setting the point $Q_1$
at distance exactly $\eta\cdot \Delta$. On the other hand, when the margin is
$\gamma\leq \eta\cdot\Delta$, we have:
$\new{\mathrm{err}_{0-1}^{\mathcal{D}_1} (\mathrm{sign}(\langle\mathbf{v},\mathbf{x}\rangle))} \geq \frac{\eta\Delta}{2\gamma}\geq \frac{\eta}{8\gamma}$.
The last inequality comes from the fact that $\Delta=\alpha\sqrt{1-z^2}\geq 1/4$, since $\alpha\geq 1/2$ and $z\leq \sqrt{3}/2$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{case1.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{case2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Probability distribution for Case I
is on the left and for the complementary Case II
is on the right.}
\label{fg:case1}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Case II:} For all $z\in [0,\sqrt{3}/2]$ we have that $|\phi^\prime(z)|\geq\frac12 \frac{\eta}{1-\eta}|\phi^\prime(-z)|$.
\smallskip
\noindent In this case, we consider the distribution shown in Figure~\ref{fg:case1} (right),
where the only points that have non-zero mass are: $(0,-2\gamma)$, which has probability mass $p$,
and $(1/2,-r)$, with mass $1-p$. We need to appropriately select the parameters $p$ and $r$,
so that $\mathbf{v}$ is actually the minimizer of the function $G(\mathbf{w})$, and the misclassification error
(which is equal to $p$ in this case) is maximized.
Note that $\mathbf{v}$ satisfies $\mathbf{E}_{(\mathbf{x},y)\sim \mathcal{D}_2}[\phi^\prime(y \langle\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{x}\rangle)(y\cdot \mathbf{x}_2)]=0$.
Substituting for this particular distribution $\mathcal{D}_2$ with noise level $0$ on both points,
we get:
\[ p\cdot \phi^\prime(0)\cdot (2\gamma) +(1-p)\phi^\prime(1/2)\cdot(-r)=0 \;. \]
Since $\phi^\prime$ is monotone, we get:
\[ p|\phi^\prime(0)|\cdot (2\gamma) =(1-p)|\phi^\prime(1/2)|\cdot r \;. \]
By rearranging, we get:
\[
p=\frac{|\phi^\prime(1/2)|\cdot r}{|\phi^\prime(1/2)|\cdot r + 2\gamma|\phi^\prime(0)|} \;.
\]
By the definition of Case II and the fact that $\phi$ is decreasing and convex,
we have that:
$$|\phi^\prime(1/2)|\geq (\eta/2) |\phi^\prime(-1/2)| \geq (\eta/2) |\phi^\prime(0)| \;.$$
Therefore, we can get misclassification error:
\[
\new{\mathrm{err}_{0-1}^{\mathcal{D}_2} (\mathrm{sign}(\langle\mathbf{v},\mathbf{x}\rangle))}=p \geq \frac{|\phi^\prime(1/2)|\cdot r}{|\phi^\prime(1/2)|\cdot r + \frac{4\gamma}{\eta}|\phi^\prime(1/2)|}=\frac{1}{1+\frac{4\gamma}{\eta r}} \;.
\]
We note that $r$ must be chosen within the interval $\left[0,\sqrt{3}/2-2\gamma\right]$,
so that the $\gamma$-margin requirement is satisfied.
For margin $\frac{\sqrt{3}-1}{4}\gamma\leq \frac{\eta r}{4}$, we get $\new{\mathrm{err}_{0-1}^{\mathcal{D}_2} (\mathrm{sign}(\langle\mathbf{v},\mathbf{x}\rangle))}> 1/2$,
and we can achieve error exactly $1/2$ by moving the probability mass $p$
from $Q_1(0,-2\gamma)$ to $Q_3(0,-\frac{\eta r}{2})$.
If $\gamma\geq \frac{\eta r}{4}$, then $\new{\mathrm{err}_{0-1}^{\mathcal{D}_2} (\mathrm{sign}(\langle\mathbf{v},\mathbf{x}\rangle))}\geq \frac{\eta r}{4\gamma}\geq \frac{\eta r}{8\gamma}$.
The last inequality comes from the fact that we can pick $r= 1/2 \leq \sqrt{3}/2-2\gamma$.
This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:lb-surr}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Lower Bound Against Convex Surrogate Minimization Plus Thresholding} \label{ssec:thresh}
The lower bound established in the previous subsection does not preclude the possibility
that our algorithmic approach in Section~\ref{sec:alg} giving misclassification error $\approx \eta$
can be improved by replacing the $\mathrm{LeakyRelu}$ function by a different convex surrogate.
In this section, we prove that using a different convex surrogate in our thresholding approach
indeed does not help.
That is, we show that any approach which attempts
to obtain an accurate classifier by considering a thresholded region
cannot get misclassification error better than $\Omega(\eta)$ within that region, i.e.,
the bound of our algorithm cannot be improved with this approach.
Formally, we prove:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:lb-thresh}
Consider the family of algorithms that produce a classifier $\mathrm{sign}(\langle\mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x}\rangle)$,
where $\mathbf{w}^{\ast}$ is the minimizer of the function
$G(\mathbf{w})=\mathbf{E}_{(\mathbf{x},y)\sim \mathcal{D}}[\phi(y\langle \mathbf{w},\mathbf{x}\rangle)]$.
For any decreasing convex function $\phi: \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$,
there exists a distribution $\mathcal{D}$ over $\mathbb{B}_2 \times \{\pm 1\}$with margin $\gamma\leq \sqrt{3}/8$
such that the classifier $\mathrm{sign}(\langle\mathbf{w}^{\ast}, \mathbf{x}\rangle)$ misclassifies a
$(1-O(\gamma))\cdot\Omega(\eta)$ fraction of the points $\mathbf{x}$ that lie in the region $\{\mathbf{x}: \langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x} \rangle>T \}$
for any threshold $T$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Our proof proceeds along the same lines as the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:lb-surr}, but with some crucial modifications. In particular, we argue that Case I above remains unchanged but Case II requires a different construction.
Firstly, we note that the points $Q_1,Q_2$ in Case I are the only points
that are assigned non-zero mass by the distribution and they are at equal
distance $z$ from the output classifier's hyperplane. Therefore, any set
of the form $\mathds{1}_{\langle\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{x}\rangle >T}$, where $\mathbf{v}$ is the unit
vector perpendicular to the hyperplane, will either contain the entire
probability mass or $0$ mass. Thus, for all the meaningful choices
of the threshold $T$, we get the same misclassification error as with $T=0$.
This means that the example distribution and the analysis for Case I remain unchanged.
However, Case II in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:lb-surr} requires modification as the points $Q_1,Q_2$
are at different distances from the classifier's hyperplane.
\new{Here we will restrict our attention to the case where the distances
of the two points from the classifier's hyperplane are actually equal
and get a lower bound nearly matching the upper bound in Section \ref{sec:alg}.
This lower bound applies, due to reasons explained above,
to all approaches that use a combination of minimizing a convex surrogate function and thresholding.}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{case2b.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Probability Distribution for Modified Case II.}
\label{fg:case2b}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Modified Case II:}
We recall that in this case the following assumption on the function $\phi$ holds:
For all $z \in [0,\sqrt{3}/2]$ it holds $|\phi^\prime(z)|\geq\frac12 \frac{\eta}{1-\eta}|\phi^\prime(-z)|$.
\smallskip
\noindent The new distribution \new{$\mathcal{D}_2^\prime$} is going to be as shown in Figure \ref{fg:case2b}.
That is, we assign mass $p$ on the point $Q_1(1/4,\sqrt{3}/4+2\gamma)$
and mass $1-p$ on the point $Q_2(1/4,\sqrt{3}/4-2\gamma)$.
Similarly to the previous section, we use the equation:
$\mathbf{E}_{(\mathbf{x},y)\sim \mathcal{D}}[\phi^\prime(y\langle \mathbf{v}, \mathbf{x}\rangle)(y\cdot \mathbf{x}_2)]=0$,
that holds for $\mathbf{v}$ being the minimum of $G(w)=\mathbf{E}_{(\mathbf{x},y)\sim D}[\phi(y\langle \mathbf{w}, \mathbf{x}\rangle)]$,
to get:
\[
p\cdot \phi^\prime(-1/4)\cdot \left(\sqrt{3}/4+2\gamma\right)+
(1-p)\cdot \phi^\prime(1/4)\cdot \left[-\left(\sqrt{3}/4-2\gamma \right)\right] =0 \;,
\]
or equivalently:
\begin{align*}
p=\frac{|\phi(1/4)|\left(\sqrt{3}/4-2\gamma \right)}{|\phi(1/4)|\left(\sqrt{3}/4-2\gamma \right)
+|\phi(-1/4)|\left(\sqrt{3}/4+2\gamma \right)}&\geq \frac{\left(\sqrt{3}/4-2\gamma \right)}{\left(\sqrt{3}/4-2\gamma \right)
+\frac{2(1-\eta)}{\eta}\left(\sqrt{3}/4+2\gamma \right)}\\
&\geq \frac{\left(\sqrt{3}/4-2\gamma \right)}{\left(\sqrt{3}/4+2\gamma \right)}\cdot \frac{1}{1+\frac{2(1-\eta)}{\eta}}\\
&\geq \left(1-8\gamma\sqrt{3}/3\right)\frac{\eta}{4(1-\eta)} \;.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:lb-thresh}.
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conc}
The main contribution of this paper is the first non-trivial learning
algorithm for the class of halfspaces (or even disjunctions)
in the distribution-free PAC model with Massart noise.
Our algorithm achieves misclassification error $\eta+\epsilon$ in time
$\mathrm{poly}(d, 1/\epsilon)$, where $\eta<1/2$ is an upper bound on the Massart noise rate.
The most obvious open problem is whether this error guarantee
can be improved to $f(\mathrm{OPT})+\epsilon$ (for some function $f:\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ such that $\lim_{x \to 0} f(x)=0$)
or, ideally, to $\mathrm{OPT}+\epsilon$. It follows from our lower bound constructions that such an improvement
would require new algorithmic ideas. It is a plausible conjecture that obtaining better error guarantees
is computationally intractable. This is left as an interesting open problem for future work.
Another open question is whether there is an efficient {\em proper} learner matching the
error guarantees of our algorithm. We believe that this is possible, building on the ideas in~\cite{DunaganV04},
but we did not pursue this direction.
More broadly, what other concept classes admit non-trivial algorithms in the Massart noise model?
Can one establish non-trivial reductions between the Massart noise model and the agnostic model?
And are there other natural semi-random input models that allow for efficient PAC learning algorithms
in the distribution-free setting?
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
The Sun's surface and its outer atmosphere -- the corona -- forms the time-dependent inner boundary of the heliosphere, and therefore, forces it. Magnetic field dynamics in the corona including magnetic reconnection and heating is induced by photospheric flux emergence and evolution. In turn this coronal dynamics spawn the solar wind, solar flares, coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and energetic particle flux and high energy radiation which collectively create hazardous space environmental conditions. Understanding the origin of space weather at the Sun and building predictive capabilities is a high priority goal in the space sciences \citep{Schrijver2015AdSpR}. Although the origin of space weather can be traced back to the dynamics of magnetic fields in the Sun's corona, direct observations of coronal magnetic fields is challenging because of the low photon flux associated with the tenuous coronal plasma. Thus computational approaches based on our theoretical understanding of how the Sun's magnetic fields emerge through the surface, evolve and permeate the corona are essential to model and understand coronal dynamics.
The Alfv\'{e}n speed in the corona (the speed at which magnetic disturbances propagate) is much faster (of the order of 1000 kms$^{-1}$) than the large-scale surface motions that drive coronal evolution ($1$ to $3$ kms$^{-1}$). Consequently, a reasonable approach in theoretical models is to assume that the coronal magnetic field distribution evolves quasi-statically in response to photospheric forcing. These models can be categorized into four broad classes: potential field source surface extrapolation models, force-free models, magnetohydrostatic models, and full magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) models. While the first three primarily provide the three-dimensional close-to-equilibrium magnetic field structure in the solar corona, the last approach can self-consistently provide the magnetic field as well as thermal characteristics. All these modeling approaches have their own advantages and limitations and often a particular model is chosen based on the balance of convenience and sophistication necessary for a particular problem. For a detailed account on coronal magnetic field models see \cite{Mackay2012LRSP,Yeates2015SoPh}.
Testing these theoretical modeling approaches through ``true'' predictions and constraining them through observations is best achieved at the time of solar eclipses when lunar occultation masks the bright solar disk revealing the Sun's faint coronal structure. In an earlier work, \cite{Nandy2018ApJ} postulated a novel methodology for long-term coronal field prediction. Post-eclipse assessment demonstrated that they successfully predicted all the major large-scale structures of the Great American solar eclipse (2019 August 21) including a pseudo-streamer that was not captured in an alternative prediction methodology \citep{Mikic2018NatAs}.
\cite{Nandy2018ApJ} used a data-driven Predictive Solar Surface Flux Transport (PSSFT) model developed at CESSI \citep{Bhowmik2018Natcomm} to first predict the surface magnetic field distribution and then feed this into a potential field extrapolation model to obtain the prediction of the coronal magnetic field structure. The PSSFT model simulates the evolution of the surface magnetic field driven by the emergence of tilted active regions and redistribution of associated magnetic flux mediated via large-scale plasma flows and supergranular diffusion. This process is known as the Babcock Leighton (B-L) mechanism \citep{Babcock1961ApJ,Leighton1969ApJL,Wang1989Sci,Ballegooijen1998ApJ,Schrijver2001ApJ,Sheely2005LRSP,Cameron2010ApJ,Mackay2012LRSP} in the context of dynamo theory and bridges solar inetrnal dynamics with coronal field evolution.
The CESSI PSSFT model used in \cite{Nandy2018ApJ} is driven by observed sunspot data over century time scale and calibrated with polar flux observations spanning multiple solar cycles \citep{Bhowmik2018Natcomm,Munoz2012ApJ}. The slow evolution of the photospheric magnetic field aids in building up a long-term memory (due to mostly deterministic surface flux transport processes) in the PSSFT model. This enables the model to make long-term predictions of the large-scale surface field distribution including the high latitude polar fields \citep{Bhowmik2018Natcomm} -- which can be used as inputs for making coronal field predictions. An accurately predicted surface magnetic field map ensures evaluation of large-scale structures of the coronal magnetic field \citep{Schrijver2003SoPh} with better precision. Under low plasma-$\beta$ (i.e., magnetic pressure dominating over gas pressure) and current-free approximations the potential field source surface (PFSS) extrapolation technique \citep{Altschuler1969SoPh,Schatten1969SoPh} may be employed to simulate coronal magnetic fields. We note that dynamic coronal simulations based on magnetofrictional approaches transmit this surface memory to the corona \citep{yang1986apj,ballegooijen2000apj,yeates2014solarphy}, while PFSS-like extrapolation relies on the memory of the surface field itself.
Here we utilize the \cite{Nandy2018ApJ} prediction methodology -- a combination of the PSSFT and PFSS models -- to predict the large-scale coronal magnetic structure of the 2019 July 2 total solar eclipse. A short research note with the predicted coronal magnetic structure is communicated in \cite{Dash2019rnaas}. This work contains description of the methodology with detailed in-depth analysis of the coronal magnetic field structure and topology including the possibility of a pseudo-streamer appearing in the future. Additionally, here we present forward-modeled polarization maps for the coronal emission expected during the eclipse which may be compared with coronal magnetometry observations. The rest of the paper is structured as follows: a brief description of the computational models is provided in section~2; results are presented in Section~3; concluding discussions follow in Section~4.
\section{Numerical Models and Sunspot Data Input}
Evolution of magnetic field on the solar surface is governed by the magnetic induction equation. As photospheric magnetic field is predominantly in the radial direction \citep{Solanki1993SSRv}, in our PSSFT model we solve only the radial component ($B_r$) of the induction equation which in spherical polar coordinates is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial B_r}{\partial t} = - \omega(\theta)\frac{\partial B_r}{\partial \phi} - \frac{1}{R_\odot \sin \theta} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\bigg(v(\theta)B_r \sin \theta \bigg)
+\frac{\eta_h}{R_\odot^2}\bigg[\frac{1}{\sin \theta} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\bigg(\sin \theta \frac{\partial B_r}{\partial \theta}\bigg) + \frac{1}{\sin \theta ^2}\frac{\partial ^ 2 B_r}{\partial \phi ^2}\bigg] + S(\theta, \phi, t).
\label{ind_surf}
\end{equation}
\noindent The symbols, $\theta$ and $\phi$ represent co-latitude and longitude, $R_\odot$ is the solar radius. The large-scale velocity fields, the differential rotation and meridional circulation on the solar surface are denoted by $\omega(\theta)$ and $v(\theta)$, respectively. These plasma flows are modeled using empirical functions \citep{Bhowmik2018Natcomm}, which are observationally verified \citep{Snodgrass1983ApJ,Ballegooijen1998ApJ}. The parameter $\eta_h$ is the effective diffusion coefficient associated with the turbulent motion of supergranules and $S(\theta, \phi,t)$ is the source term describing the emergence of new sunspots. We note that any new spot is included in the PSSFT model when it has the maximum area coverage on the solar surface during its lifetime (or period of visibility on the solar disk).
The century-scale PSSFT simulation utilizes sunspot data recorded by Royal Greenwich Observatory (RGO) and United States Air Force (USAF)/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for the period 1913 August until 2016 September \citep{Bhowmik2018Natcomm}. The database provides essential details associated with active regions such as position on the solar surface, area coverage, and the corresponding time, etc. From 2016 October onwards, the observed sunspot data used in the PSSFT model is acquired from the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) on board NASA's Solar Dynamic Observatory (SDO). The sunspot area given by HMI is scaled down by a constant factor for consistency with the RGO-NOAA/USAF recorded area; this cross-instrument calibration is necessary as the original calibration of the century-scale PSSFT simulation is based on the later database. The requirement of such cross-instrumental calibration arises due to the different techniques employed for recording sunspot data \citep{Munoz2015ApJ}. The scaling factor is evaluated by comparing the area associated with 1174 active regions recorded in both the NOAA/USAF and HMI database for an overlapping period of six years (2010 May -- 2016 September). We measure the ratio between the area recorded by the two databases and use a Gaussian fit to the distribution for calculating the mean. The mean ratio ($0.244$) is utilized to scale down the HMI-recorded area. The magnetic flux of the active region is evaluated based on a linear empirical relation \citep{Sheeley1966ApJ,Dikpati2006GeoRL}: $\Phi(A) = 7.0 \times 10^{19} A$ maxwells, where $A$ is the area in unit of micro-hemispheres. We assume all active regions appearing on the solar surface are ideal $\beta$-spots where the magnetic flux is equally distributed between the leading and following polarity spots. The associated tilt angle is decided by Joy's law with a cycle-dependent refinement (see equation 5 of \citealt{Bhowmik2018Natcomm}).
The last observed active region included in the PSSFT model is AR12741 -- which attained its maximum area coverage on 2019 May 12. The PSSFT model is then forward run until the day of the eclipse on 2019 July 2 (assuming no new sunspot emergence till then) to generate the predicted surface magnetic field distribution.
To model the corresponding coronal magnetic field structure we use an PFSS extrapolation technique with the predicted surface magnetic field used as the bottom boundary of the computational domain. The extrapolation is extended up to the source surface ($2.5 R_{\odot}$) beyond which we assume the magnetic field to become radial \citep{Davis1965IAUS}. We utilize the PFSS extrapolation model developed by \cite{anthony_yeates_2018_1472183}\footnote{{\href{https://github.com/antyeates1983/pfss}{\color{black}Github link for the code: \color{blue}https://github.com/antyeates1983/pfss}}}.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Prediction of the Coronal Magnetic Field Structure}
The PSSFT predicted surface magnetic field distribution corresponding to 2019 July 2 is depicted in Fig.\ref{fig1}(a). The radial component of the magnetic field ($B_r$) obtained from forward running the PSSFT simulation is plotted as a function of latitude and longitude. The region between the east and west limbs represents the surface magnetic field map on the solar disk during the eclipse. As the Sun has entered the minimum phase of solar cycle 24, we witness strong concentrations of unipolar magnetic flux of opposite polarities at both polar caps. This is indicative of a large-scale magnetic configuration with dominant dipolar characteristics. Note that the locally confined clusters of magnetic field near the equatorial region (in this and the following figures) correspond to the residual flux of the emerged active regions and should not be mistaken as new spot emergence. Figure.\ref{fig1}(b) represents the polarity distribution of the surface magnetic field which is evaluated by calculating the quantity, $P(\theta, \phi) = B_r(\theta, \phi)/|B_r(\theta, \phi)|$. This image represents how the magnetic polarity is distributed in the large-scale structures on the surface.
The predicted surface magnetic field is then utilized in the PFSS extrapolation model as its lower boundary condition to obtain the global coronal magnetic field. The surface field is mapped on the circular disk of Fig.\ref{fig2}(a), where the white curves correspond to the magnetic polarity inversion lines. The PFSS model generated coronal field lines near the limb are extracted to represent the plane of sky corona expected on the day of the eclipse. The locations marked as Regions $1$ and $3$ correspond to the north and the south pole. Based on the polarity of the magnetic field at the foot-points the open field lines are color-coded in light red (radially outward) and cyan (radially inward) while all closed lines are colored in black. The predicted coronal field has two prominent streamer structures, one on the west limb (whose tip or cusp is denoted as Region $2$) and the other on the east limb (Region $4$). The set of closed black curves in Fig.\ref{fig2}(a) corresponding to large-scale closed loop structures separate open flux (coronal holes) of opposite polarities -- the defining characteristic of helmet streamers \citep{wang2007solar}. Although the foot-points of the closed magnetic field lines associated with streamers are extended across the solar equator and major portion of the two hemispheres (north and south) they still have a directional sense. The cusp of the streamer on the east limb (Region $4$) is centred below the solar equatorial plane. The cusp of the streamer on the west limb (Region $2$) is centred above the equatorial plane. Based on this we predict extended coronal plumes visible in large-angle coronagraphs such as LASCO/SOHO to be oriented through the streamer cusps marked as Regions $2$ and $4$. The presence of closed field lines (somewhat inclined to the plane of sky) on the northern edge of the streamer (Region $5$) on the east limb is expected to smooth out the cusp on the northern edge of this streamer and may also host an extended coronal plume beyond the source surface overlying Region $5$.
The large-scale plasma motion or supergranular convection on the photosphere can generate foot-point motion resulting in the rise of the closed loops within the helmet streamers. This can trigger a three-dimensional reconnection with the overlying open field lines. Consequently, plasma materials get energized resulting in heating and emission. In addition, Thomson scattering of photons from regions with enhanced charged particle density (such as in magnetic loops) contribute to the overall appearance of the white light corona (structured by magnetic fields). These are processes we cannot capture with our simplistic coronal field model, however, our coronal magnetic field may be utilized to generate a ``synthetic'' white light corona. Figure.\ref{fig2}(b) is a representation of the white-light corona based on the simulated magnetic field distribution. Here the magnetic field lines are plotted using a single color (white) wherein closed field lines are assigned more weight compared to the open ones. Additionally, an inverse $r^2$ filter is used on the resulting image to generate the ``synthetic'' corona. This image may be taken as a qualitative guide to what the white light corona (within $2.5 R_{\odot}$) might appear like on 2019 July 2,
\subsection{Coronal Magnetometry: Forward Modeled Coronal Polarization Characteristics}
The stokes $I$, $Q$, $U$, $V$ polarization vectors have shown considerable potential to be used as a direct diagnostic of coronal magnetism \citep{lin2004coronal}. The line of sight magnetic field strength provided by the longitudinal Zeeman effect is manifested in circular polarization, $V$. The linear polarization represented by Stokes vectors $Q$ and $U$ originate due to resonance scattering of photons by the electrons in the corona. These Stokes vectors $Q$ and $U$ contain information about the direction of the magnetic field projected onto the plane of sky of the corona. To generate the synthetic Stokes data \citep{judge2006spectral} we utilize the FORWARD tool set \citep{gibson2016forward} using a simple spherically symmetric hydrostatic temperature and density model for the background corona \citep{gibson1999solar}. FORWARD uses the Coronal Line Emission polarimetry code developed by \cite{ judge2001synthesis} to synthesize Stokes ($I$, $Q$, $U$, $V$) line profiles. When the magnetic field is oriented at the Van Vleck angle = 54.74$^{\circ}$ relative to the radial direction (in the solar coordinate system) the linear polarization ($L=\sqrt{Q^2+U^2}$) becomes zero \citep{ van1925quantum}. We refer to the regions where this occur as ``Van Vleck nulls''. The Stokes $V/I$ profile gives the line-of-sight intensity-weighted average magnetic field strength ($B_{LOS}$).
In Fig.\ref{fig3} we present the FORWARD modelled polarimetric maps derived from the predicted coronal magnetic field structure for 2019 July 2. Figure \ref{fig3}(a) shows the linear polarization vectors (blue lines) corresponding to emission from the Fe XIII transition at 1074.7 nm. The magnetic field vectors in the plane of sky are denoted as red arrows. As expected, the linear polarization vectors correctly identify the direction of the plane-of-sky magnetic field, including the diverging and converging radial fields from the north and south solar poles and the curvature underlying the closed streamer belts. The degree of linear polarization $L/I$ projected on to the plane of sky is shown in Fig.\ref{fig3}(b), wherein, the dark regions corresponding to Van Vleck nulls denote curved field lines of closed streamer loops (oriented at the Van Vleck angle to the local radial direction); note the correspondence with Fig.\ref{fig2}(a). Intriguingly, the low-lying double-loop structure evident at high latitudes in the north-east limb hints at the existence of a pseudo-streamer \citep{Rachmeler2014ApJL}, to which we come back later. Figure.\ref{fig3}(c) depicts the circular polarization given by Stokes $V/I$ which is proportional to the line-of-sight magnetic field strength. Note that Stokes $V \propto B_{LOS} \cos \theta$, where $\theta$ is the polar angle of the magnetic field relative to the line of sight \citep{casini1999spectral}. Therefore, its sign indicates the direction of the field towards or away from the line of sight. Blue shading indicates line of sight integrated magnetic fields directed away from the observer (while red denotes field directed towards the observer). The plot indicates the presence of clock-wise closed loops (as viewed from solar north) connecting the positive polarity patch near the east limb to a negative polarity patch behind the limb which we confirm from the full 3D coronal magnetic field structure (not shown here).
Such predicted polarization characteristics can, on the one hand, aid in the interpretation of coronal magnetometry studies during solar eclipses. On the other hand, the observations themselves can help constrain coronal field magnetic field models which underlie the forward modeled polarization characteristics.
\subsection{Evaluating the Possibility of a Pseudo-streamer}
The coronal magnetic field generated from the PSSFT$-$PFSS coupled model has a narrow collimated structure (marked as Region $6$ on the north-east limb of Fig.\ref{fig2}(a)) with a localized void and very low-lying field loops closing near the surface. Such a magnetic configuration is indicative of a pseudo-streamer which has not quite matured to be visible. Visible pseudo-streamers, in general, materialize under certain conditions in the coronal regions which overlie surface magnetic field distribution where a narrow region of one polarity separates two surrounding opposite polarity open flux patches \citep{wang2007solar,Rachmeler2014ApJL,Abbo2015SoPh}. The surface polarity configuration of this region of interest is highlighted within the rectangular box of the surface magnetic field in Fig.\ref{fig1}(b). We observe a narrow region of negative polarity separating two positive polarity patches on the solar surface and two associated polarity inversion lines. This region is centred around $42^{\circ}$ N on the east limb. Could this region with pseudo-streamer favourable surface magnetic field distribution mature into a visible pseudo-streamer?
A basic pseudo-streamer configuration is characterized by two polarity inversion lines under the cusp of the streamer and a pair of loop arcades (consisting of closed field regions) within the streamer. When conditions are favourable (e.g., induced footpoint motions due to shearing or differential rotation) the closed loops can rise and undergo two types of interchange reconnection with the surrounding open field lines. One possibility is that closed field lines at the outer edge of any arcade can undergo three dimensional reconnection with adjacent open field lines. Another possibility is that sheared closed field lines can rise and expand in to the corona where they reconnect with opposite polarity open field lines across the null point (near the source surface). The former necessitates loop arcades with field strength similar to the adjacent open field and the latter necessitates loop arcades which are high enough to form an x-point with the adjacent open field lines.
We investigate the coronal magnetic field configuration and the underlying surface magnetic field distribution in this region of interest in Fig.\ref{fig4}. We find that the weak field closed loops (black) are extremely low-lying and have not yet matured in to arcade-like structures (see Fig.\ref{fig4}(a)). Given the weak underlying fields at this time they are also unlikely to reach higher altitudes to form an x-point with the open field lines (light red). The possibility of interchange reconnection that could trigger a visibly stable pseudo-streamer by 2019 July 2, is therefore, low. Intriguingly, however, a longer forward run of the PSSFT model for a further solar rotational timescale indicates that transport of positive radial flux towards the north pole is still ongoing which is expected to increase the field strength of the open field patch just south of the region of interest; note the increasing height of the local peak indicated by the arrow in Fig.\ref{fig4}(b). We cannot at this time rule out the possibility that this future flux pile-up could give rise to a visible pseudo-streamer under favourable conditions that may occur after the eclipse of 2019 July 2.
\section{Concluding Discussions}
In summary, here we predict the Sun's coronal magnetic field structure expected to be observed during the total solar eclipse of 2019 July 2. We also present forward modeled polarization characteristics of the coronal magnetic field that should inform and aid in the interpretation of observations during the eclipse.
It is our belief that the usage of the PSSFT model allows for better prediction of the surface magnetic field, especially at high latitudes enabled via surface plasma flux transport processes. Such models assimilating surface magnetic field data provide ideal boundary conditions for simulating and predicting the large-scale coronal structure. We note that our scheme is not perfect. We have ignored any non-linear effects on the plasma transport in the surface flux evolution (whose impact is expected to be minimal during declining phases of the cycle). Also PFSS extrapolations for simulating the corona cannot account for current carrying large-scale sheared structures. Neither can we account for the impact of the heliospheric current sheet near the source surface and beyond, interactions with which can deflect the cusps of streamer belts and coronal plumes at larger distances from the Sun. Detailed comparisons with observations are expected to pinpoint the deficiencies which need to be addressed. Based on such comparisons we plan to refine our predictive scheme with the addition of more advanced MHD models which can capture a broader range of coronal phenomena more accurately.
The coronal magnetic fields, which evolve in response to driving from the solar surface, govern spatial and temporal variations of the slow and fast components of the solar wind and heliospehric open flux. They also spawn solar flares and CMEs which have severe space weather impacts. Several future facilities are focusing on coronal magnetometry and gearing up to return coronal magnetic field measurements. These include the ground-based facilities DKIST\footnote{\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_K._Inouye_Solar_Telescope}} and CoMP \citep{CoMP2008SoPh}. ISRO's Aditya-L1 space mission, currently under development, will fly the Solar Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (SUIT; \citealt{SUIT2017cursci}) and the Variable Emission Line Coronagraph (VELC; \citealt{VELC2017cursci}) instruments which would simultaneously observe filament-prominence-arcade systems and coronal magnetic fields. We expect these multi-viewpoint, multi-wavelength observations to revolutionize the field of coronal magnetometry. Collective endeavours combining theoretical modeling with these coronal observations are expected to lead to refined data-driven operational forecasting models for solar activity induced space weather.
\acknowledgements CESSI is funded by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. S.D. acknowledges funding from the INSPIRE program of the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. We acknowledge utilization of data from the NASA/SDO HMI instrument maintained by the HMI team and the Royal Greenwich Observatory/USAF-NOAA active region database compiled by David H. Hathaway. Additional graphics and text related to this prediction are available online at \url{http://www.cessi.in/solareclipse2019}.
\bibliographystyle{aasjournal}
|
\section{Introduction}
For many years, neutron diffraction instruments have been able to provide high-precision measurements of strain (down to $\sigma = 1\times10^{-5}$ uncertainty). by observing changes in the atomic lattice spacing $d$ within a polycrystalline samples \citep{noyan87}. These measurements can be performed with resolution down to $0.5$mm$^3$ based on practical limitations in gauge volume size.
These measurements rely on Bragg's law, which provides the condition for constructive interference of neutron radiation in a lattice:
\begin{equation*}
\lambda = 2d \sin{\vartheta},
\end{equation*}
where $\lambda$ is the neutron wavelength, $d$ the average spacing of all planes within the gauge volume aligned with the direction $\boldsymbol{\hat{\kappa}}$ bisecting the incident and diffracted beams, and $\vartheta$ the half-angle of diffraction, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:1}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center} \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig1}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\caption{A neutron beam interacts with the lattice of a polycrystalline material \citep{wensrich14}. Some neutrons are diffracted constructively according to Bragg's Law.}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig:1} \end{center}
\end{figure}
In conventional neutron strain scanning, $\lambda$ is known and $\vartheta$ measured or vice-versa and the average strain in the $\boldsymbol{\hat{\kappa}}$ direction is then calculated by:
\begin{equation*}
\langle \epsilon \rangle = \frac{d-d_0}{d_0},
\end{equation*}
where $d_0$ is the lattice spacing in a reference (unstrained) sample.
By taking a number of measurements from different sample orientations, it is possible to resolve the entire triaxial strain tensor at one or a number of points within a body. This `pointwise' approach has obvious application where the area of interest is known; e.g. probing the stress at a fixed location as a function of some external stimulus, or examining the effects of a crack/weld/other feature.
Where full-field strain maps are required (e.g. when evaluating the residual strains locked-in by novel manufacturing techniques), it is commonplace to interpolate between sets of discrete, distributed, point-wise measurements. Such interpolations present two significant issues:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The quality of the interpolation is dependent on the resolution of the pointwise measurements. Achieving sufficient resolution (particularly in 3 dimensions) is not always practical as beamtime is a limited resource.
\item Interpolations are not guaranteed to represent the underlying field with a high level of fidelity --- i.e. they may not satisfy physical constraints such as equilibrium or compatibility.
\end{enumerate}
In recent years, a number of algorithms for full-field strain tomography from neutron \emph{transmission} measurements have been developed and have shown promise both in simulation and on experimental data \citep{,abbey09,abbey12,kirkwood15,wensrich16a,wensrich16b,hendriks2017,gregg2017axi,gregg2018resid,hendriks2018traction,jidling2018probabilistic}.
These algorithms rely on Bragg-edge imaging, whereby the the transmitted (as opposed to diffracted) neutrons are counted \citep{santisteban02b}. Presently, only a handful of facilities are suitable for performing strain tomography using these techniques.
We propose that strain imaging is also possible using diffraction geometry and instrumentation, and that the recently developed reconstruction algorithms can be extended to this problem.
If successful, this will significantly extend the utility of these algorithms in two major ways. First, this may allow strain tomography at the multitude of existing diffraction strain scanners around the world, and secondly, this may open the door for a combined reconstruction algorithm which utilises transmission and diffraction measurements in tandem. This tantalising prospect has the potential to reduce beamtime requirements and improve the quality of strain reconstructions.
In this paper, we present a method and algorithm for strain tomography using diffraction geometry. As a proof-of-concept, we restrict this demonstration to axisymmetric systems. We first demonstrate the approach using simulated measurements, and then reconstruct the strain within a crushed, axisymmetric disc from experimental data. We conclude by briefly discussing potential improvements to the algorithm and the considerations in extending this method to arbitrary 2D systems.
\section{Method}
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
We propose that conventional diffraction strain scanners can be utilised to obtain `ray-like' measurements and perform strain imaging analogous to a transmission setup. The forward mapping has been examined in \cite{luzin19}. This technique may be feasible for both constant-wavelength (e.g. see Figure \ref{fig:2}) and time-of-flight strain scanners. While the finer details will differ, we provide a general overview for the former:
\begin{enumerate}
\item A polychromatic beam of neutrons is generated by a reactor source and is directed toward the instrument via a shielded beam line.
\item This beam is simultaneously redirected, focussed, and reduced to a single wavelength using a curved monochromator.
\item The monochromatic beam floods the sample (i.e. a fully-open primary slit) and neutrons are scattered outward in various directions by the many, differently oriented planes according to Bragg's law.
\item A cadmium secondary slit defines an effective gauge volume in the form of a long, thin region that can be approximated as a ray\footnote{Obviously, the secondary slit width $w$ has an effect on the validity of the ray assumption. This is discussed in Section \ref{sec:ext}.} --- see Figure \ref{fig:3}.
\item Analogous to conventional strain scanning, the measured lattice spacing $d$ then provides the average normal strain in the $\boldsymbol{\hat{\kappa}}$ direction along this ray.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig2}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{Schematic of a typical constant-wavelength neutron strain scanner. \citep{wensrich14}}
\label{fig:2} \end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
By sweeping the sample past the secondary slit (essentially varying $x$ in Figure \ref{fig:3}), it is possible to obtain a profile of measurements analogous to those which can be measured using pixelated detectors in a transmission setup.\footnote{For time-of-flight instruments, it may be possible to achieve something equivalent using a collimator and imaging detector.}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{fig3}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{Coordinate System and measurement geometry for diffraction tomography.}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\label{fig:3} \end{center}
\end{figure}
Many of the algorithms already developed for Bragg-edge transmission tomography may be adapted to this geometry. Two significant differences exist;
\begin{enumerate}
\item In this regime, the measurement direction is not aligned with the direction of a ray.
\item The incident and diffracted beams are not collinear, meaning attenuation along the neutron ray must be considered.
\end{enumerate}
Attenuation provides a significant challenge --- each measurement now represents a weighted average of the strains along a ray. The contribution from each point along the ray is dependent on the total path length seen by a neutron diffracted at that point.
\subsection{Measurement Model}
Considering the effect of attenuation, we propose that diffraction tomography measurements can be modelled by a ray transform of the form:
\begin{equation}
\langle \epsilon \rangle = \frac{1}{\int_0^L e^{-\mu L_T(s)}\; \text{d}s} \int_0^L e^{-\mu L_T(s)} \boldsymbol{\hat{\kappa}}^\mathsf{T}\bs{\epsilon}(s)\\\boldsymbol{\hat{\kappa}} \; \text{d}s.
\label{eqn:aLRT}
\end{equation}
For a given measurement, strain in the $\boldsymbol{\hat{\kappa}}$ direction is averaged along the ray with length $L$ as shown in Figure \ref{fig:3}. $L_T(s)$ is the total path length seen by a neutron diffracted at a point $s$ units along this ray (including the incident path). $\mu$ is the effective neutron attenuation coefficient of the material being measured.
\subsection{Algorithm Selection}
A number of algorithms \citep{,abbey09,abbey12,kirkwood15,wensrich16a,wensrich16b,hendriks2017,gregg2017axi,gregg2018resid,hendriks2018traction,jidling2018probabilistic} have recently been presented for transmission strain tomography, and most could be modified to suit the problem at hand.
Of the those presented thus far, the most promising algorithms have been those which model the unknown strain field as a Gaussian Process (GP). Compared to other approaches, the convergence of GP regression algorithms for strain reconstruction has generally been significantly more rapid, partially owing to their implicit implementation of the equilibrium constraint and explicit implementation of known boundary (loading) conditions \citep{hendriks2018traction}.
GP regression also presents a number of other benefits compared to other algorithms. Being a probabilistic approach, GPs are able to utilise the confidence of each measurement in the resulting reconstruction (i.e. by giving less weighting to more uncertain measurements). The GP technique also allows the confidence interval of the reconstruction to be calculated at every point.
Finally, the GP technique is non-parametric. This means that complexity does not increase with the resolution of the reconstruction. While a small, fixed number of so-called \emph{hyperparameters} influence the reconstruction, these can be optimised from the measurements alone using a likelihood maximisation method.
For these reasons, we will implement a GP reconstruction algorithm in this paper.
\subsection{Brief Introduction to Gaussian Processes}
GP regression is explained in detail in \citep{rasmussen2006gaussian}. Specifics related to implementing this technique for strain reconstruction can be found in \citep{hendriks2018traction,jidling2018probabilistic}.
Briefly, a GP is a machine learning technique that models an unknown field as a Gaussian random distribution of functions $\bs{f(x)}, \; \bs{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{\text{dim}(\bs{x})}$.
This distribution is characterised by a mean function $\bs{m(x)}$ and covariance function $\bs{K(x,x')}$, where;
\begin{align*}
\bs{m(x)} &= \mathbb{E}\left[\bs{f(x)}\right] \\
\bs{K(x,x')} &= \mathbb{E}\left[(\bs{f(x)}-\bs{m(x)})(\bs{f(x')}-\bs{m(x')})^\mathsf{T}\right]
\end{align*}
The choice of covariance function $\bs{K(x,x')}$ can have a significant impact on the resulting reconstruction. For this application, we build a GP around the squared-exponential covariance function, which assumes a high degree of smoothness and has shown promise in modelling strain \citep{hendriks2019robust,hendriks2018traction,jidling2018probabilistic} --- a usually smooth phenomena;
\begin{equation*}
\bs{K(x,x')} = \sigma_f^2 \; \text{exp}\left(\frac{-\norm{\bs{x}-\bs{x'}}^2}{2\ell^2}\right).
\end{equation*}
Here, $\sigma_f^2$ is the variance on the prior (sometimes called the signal variance), and $\ell$ is a length-scale. These hyperparameters inform the most likely functions to be drawn from the GP.
For instance, a small length-scale favours rapidly changing reconstructions, while larger length-scales motivate smoother, slower-varying realisations.
Gaussian process regression involves estimating a function value at a user specified sample point $\bs{x_*}$ given a set of data, $\mathcal{D} = \left\{y_i,\bs{\eta}_i \; \vert \; \forall \; i=1,\dots,n\right\}$, where each measurement is of the form;
\begin{equation*}
y_i = \boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}_{\bs{\eta}_i} \bs{f(x)} + e_i.
\end{equation*}
Here, $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}_{\bs{\eta}_i} \bs{f(x)}$ is a linear transformation of the underlying function $\bs{f(x)}$ that is parametrised by the set $\bs{\eta}_i$. $e_i\sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_i^2)$ is assumed zero-mean Gaussian noise with standard deviation $\sigma_i$.
Given that GPs are closed under linear operators \citep{papoulis2002probability,wahlstrom2015modeling}, the measurements $\bs{Y} = [y_1, y_2, \ldots y_n]^\mathsf{T}$ and a function value estimate $\hat{f}(\bs{x_*})$ are jointly Gaussian \citep{rasmussen2006gaussian};
\begin{equation*}
\begin{bmatrix}
\bs{Y} \\
\bs{\hat{f}(x_*)}
\end{bmatrix} \sim \mathcal{N} \left(
\begin{bmatrix}
\bs{\mu_y} \\
\bs{m(x_*)}
\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix}
\bs{K_{yy'}+\Sigma_m} & \bs{K_{y\hat{f}'}}\\
\bs{K_{\hat{f}y'}} & \bs{K(x_*,x_*)}
\end{bmatrix}
\right)
\end{equation*}
Where $\bs{\Sigma_m}$ is a diagonal matrix in which the $i^{\text{th}}$ entry corresponds to the variance of the $i^{\text{th}}$ measurement, and the cross-covariance matrix $\bs{K_{y\hat{f}'}}$ and covariance matrix $\bs{K_{yy'}}$ are given by\footnote{note: $\bs{K_{\hat{f}y'}} = \bs{K_{y\hat{f}'}}^\mathsf{T}$}:
\begin{equation*}
\bs{K_{y\hat{f}'}} = \begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}_{\bs{\eta}_1} \bs{K}(\bs{x},\bs{x_*}) \\
\vdots \\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}_{\bs{\eta}_n} \bs{K}(\bs{x},\bs{x_*})
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\begingroup
\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\bs{K}_{\bs{y}\bs{y}'} = \begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}_{\bs{\eta}_1} \bs{K}(\bs{x},\bs{x_*})\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}_{\bs{\eta}_1} '^\mathsf{T} & \cdots & \boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}_{\bs{\eta}_1} \bs{K}(\bs{x},\bs{x_*})\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}_{\bs{\eta}_n}'^\mathsf{T} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}_{\bs{\eta}_n} \bs{K}(\bs{x},\bs{x_*})\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}_{\bs{\eta}_1} '^\mathsf{T} & \cdots & \boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}_{\bs{\eta}_n} \bs{K}(\bs{x},\bs{x_*})\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}_{\bs{\eta}_n} '^\mathsf{T} \\
\end{bmatrix}.
\endgroup
\end{equation*}
Here, the notation $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}'$ is used to distinguish a linear transform operating on $\bs{f(x')}$ from a linear transform $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}$ operating on $\bs{f(x)}$.
Finally, we can condition the prior estimate $f(\bs{x_*})$ on the known measurement values to give a posterior estimate with mean and variance obtained from;
\begin{align*}
\bs{\mu}_{\bs{f}_*|\bs{Y}} &= \bs{m}(\bs{x}_*) + \bs{K_{\hat{f}y'}}\left(\bs{K}_{\bs{yy}'}+\bs{\Sigma_m} \right)^{-1}(\bs{Y}-\bs\mu_y), \\
\Sigma_{\bs{f}_*|\bs{Y}} &= \bs{K}(\bs{x}_*,\bs{x}_*) - \bs{K_{\hat{f}y'}}\left(\bs{K}_{\bs{yy}'}+\bs{\Sigma_m}\right)^{-1}\bs{K_{y\hat{f}'}}.
\end{align*}
\subsection{A Gaussian Process for Diffraction Tomography}
In this paper, we develop an algorithm for axisymmetric, 2D systems. This choice is motivated by the simplifications afforded by geometry and the reduced measurement time required for validation in this proof-of-concept study.
Conceptually, there is well defined path to extend this method to arbitrary 2D and even 3D systems. Practical issues may arise --- these are discussed in Section \ref{sec:ext}.
In the process, we also contribute a GP for strain which leverages the strong constraint provided by axisymmetry --- this formulation may be useful outside this specific problem.
We assume a 2D circular sample of radius $R$ with origin at it's centre and are concerned with reconstructing the tensor strain distribution, $\bs{\epsilon}$, within this sample. Naturally, we will work in polar coordinates $(r,\theta)$. Under an axisymmetry assumption, the strain tensor can be written in terms of two nonzero in-plane components which vary only in the radial direction: $\bs{\epsilon}(r) = \begin{bmatrix} \epsilon_{rr}(r) & \epsilon_{\theta \theta}(r) \end{bmatrix}^\mathsf{T}.$
Our problem is constrained by equilibrium, which is described in terms of the stress tensor, $\bs{\sigma}(r) = \begin{bmatrix} \sigma_{rr}(r) & \sigma_{\theta \theta}(r) \end{bmatrix}^\mathsf{T}$ --- a linear transformation of strain --- in polar coordinates by the differential equation:
\begin{equation}
\pd{\sigma_{rr}}{r} + \frac{1}{r}\bigg(\sigma_{rr}(r)-\sigma_{\theta \theta}(r)\bigg)=0.
\label{eq:eql}
\end{equation}
To encode this constraint, we define stress via a scalar potential $\phi(r)$ through the following mapping:
\begin{equation*}
\bs{\sigma}(r) = \begin{bmatrix} \sigma_{rr}(r) \\
\sigma_{\theta \theta}(r) \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} \phi(r) \\
r \pd{\phi}{r} + \phi(r) \end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
By relating the components of stress in this way, any stress field resulting from the potential $\phi(r)$ automatically satisfies equilibrium\footnote{Direct substitution into Equation \ref{eq:eql} confirms this.}.
This approach closely resembles the Airy stress function technique first encoded in a GP in \citep{jidling2018probabilistic}, but avoids the singularity near $r=0$ present in the Airy stress mapping for polar coordinates. The mapping chosen here also encodes a key constraint that arises from the axisymmetric polar coordinate system; $\sigma_{rr}(0) = \sigma_{\theta \theta}(0)$.
In this paper, we develop our algorithm assuming plane-stress\footnote{A minor modification is required for plane-strain.}, for which Hooke's Law takes the form:
\begin{align*}
\bs{\epsilon}(r) = \begin{bmatrix} \epsilon_{rr}(r) \\
\epsilon_{\theta \theta}(r) \end{bmatrix} = \frac{1}{E}\begin{bmatrix} \sigma_{rr}(r)- \nu \sigma_{\theta \theta}(r) \\
-\nu\sigma_{rr}(r) + \sigma_{\theta \theta}(r) \end{bmatrix}
\end{align*}
We then have the following relationships between the scalar potential for which we build our GP, $\phi(r)$, and the strains we wish to estimate:
\begin{equation*}
\bs{\epsilon}(r) = \frac{1}{E}\begin{bmatrix} (1-\nu) -\nu r \pd{}{r} \\ (1-\nu) + r \pd{}{r} \end{bmatrix}\phi(r). \end{equation*}
To improve numerical stability, we neglect the scaling factor $1/E$ and relate the potential to the strains through the mapping $\bs{H}$ by:
\begin{equation*}
\bs{\epsilon}(r) = \begin{bmatrix} (1-\nu) -\nu r \pd{}{r} \\ (1-\nu) + r \pd{}{r} \end{bmatrix}\phi(r) = \bs{H} \phi(r). \end{equation*}
The strain field is mapped to a measurement through the measurement model:
\begin{equation*}
\langle \epsilon \rangle = \begin{bmatrix} W_\mu \int_0^{L} w_\mu(s)w_r(s) (\cdot) \; \text{d}s \\ W_\mu \int_0^{L} w_\mu(s)w_\theta(s) (
\cdot) \; \text{d}s \end{bmatrix}^\mathsf{T} \bs{\epsilon}(r) = \bs{M} \bs{\epsilon}(r).
\end{equation*}
With weights $W_\mu, w_\mu(s), w_r(s)$ and $w_\theta(s)$ as defined in Appendix \ref{app:A}. These mappings $\bs{H}$ and $\bs{M}$ together comprise the linear transformation $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}_\eta $ that acts on $\phi(r)$ to provide a measurement $\langle \epsilon \rangle$:
\begin{align*}
\langle \epsilon \rangle = \bs{M} \bs{\epsilon} = \bs{MH} \phi(r) = \boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}_\eta \phi(r)
\end{align*}
\subsection{Hyperparameter Selection}
The GP hyperparameters $\bs{h}=\begin{bmatrix}\ell & \sigma_f \end{bmatrix}^\mathsf{T}$ can have a significant impact on the fidelity of a reconstruction. Selection of these hyperparameters does not require \emph{a-priori} knowledge of the system, or user intervention --- they can be determined from the measurements alone.
This is achieved by posing an optimisation problem to maximise the marginal likelihood of the measurements given a set of hyperparameters $\bs{h}$ \cite{rasmussen2006gaussian}. In practice, for numerical stability, the hyperparameters are estimated by maximising the log marginal likelihood:
\begin{equation*}
\argmax{\bs{h}} \Big(\log\text{det}(\bs{K}_{\bs{yy}}(\bs{h})+ \bs{\Sigma}_m) -\bs{y}^\mathsf{T}(\bs{K}_{\bs{yy}} (\bs{h})+ \bs{\Sigma}_m)^{-1}\bs{y} \Big).
\end{equation*}
There may be several local minima for a given set of measurements. These can correspond to different interpretations of the data. For instance, the same data may involve noisy measurements of a smooth function or precise measurements of a quickly-varying function. Use of a multi-start optimisation procedure and/or non-gradient based method (e.g. simulated annealing) can help to avoid these local minima and find the hyperparameters that are most likely given a set of measurements.
\section{Demonstration}
\subsection{Simulation}
We first demonstrate our algorithm for the axisymmetric strain field previously examined in \citep{gregg2017axi}:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{bmatrix} \epsilon_{rr}(r) \\ \epsilon_{\theta\theta}(r)
\end{bmatrix} = e_0
\begin{bmatrix} \frac{(7+5\nu)R^2 + (1+\nu)(9r^2-16Rr)}{12R^2} -\left(1-\frac{r}{R} \right)^2 \\
\frac{(7+5\nu)R^2 + (1+\nu)\left(3r^2-8Rr\right)}{12R^2} -\left(1-\frac{r}{R} \right)^2
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation*}
where $e_0$ is a scaling factor and $R$ the sample radius.
This field satisfies equilibrium but not compatibility (i.e. is residual), and corresponds to the elastic component of strain set up in response to a hydrostatic eigenstrain of the form $\epsilon^*_{rr}(r)=\epsilon^*_{\theta \theta}(r) = e_0(1-\tfrac{r}{R})^2.$ The method by which this field was generated is described in detain in the appendix of \citep{gregg2017axi}.
A total of 15 diffraction tomography measurements were simulated across the width of a sample with radius $R=6.5$mm via Equation \ref{eqn:aLRT} to form the profile shown in Figure \ref{fig:5}(a). Material properties and attenutation characteristics of steel were chosen: $E = 220$ GPa, $\nu = 0.3$, $\mu=120$ m$^{-1}$. Measurements were corrupted by simulated mean-zero Gaussian measurement noise with standard deviation $\sigma=0.5\times10^{-4}$ --- typical of that which can be expected on a diffraction strain scanner given gauge volumes of this size and sensible measurement times \citep{kirstein2009strain}.
Hyperparameters $\bs{h} = \begin{bmatrix}\ell & \sigma_f \end{bmatrix}^\mathsf{T}$ of the covariance function were determined by the likelihood maximisation procedure described earlier and were found to be 11.2mm and $6.7\times10^{-3}$, respectively.
Reconstruction results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:5}(b) and (c), and show close agreement with the true field, which lies within the 1-$\sigma$ confidence interval of the reconstruction over it's entire span.
The reconstruction differs most significantly from the true field near the sample centre (at small $r$). The confidence interval of the result is also widest here. The cause seems to be twofold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Strains near $r=0$ do not contribute at all to the majority of measurements as only rays passing close to the sample centre can see these strains (the smallest $r$ seen by a given ray is $|x|$).
\item Those rays which do manage to probe strains at small $r$ do so with large path lengths and consequently the relative weighting of points near $r=0$ in the average is small.
\end{enumerate}
The reconstruction was seen to converge to the true field as additional measurements were added near $x=0$ and as less attenuation was simulated.
Overall, this simulation shows a similar quality reconstruction as \cite{gregg2017axi}, however it should be noted that this algorithm required far fewer measurements (15 vs 512) to achieve this result. This is largely owed to the intrinsic equilibrium constraint encoded in the GP.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig4}
\put (28,87) {\Large$\displaystyle\text{(a)}$}
\put (28,55) {\Large$\displaystyle\text{(b)}$}
\put (28,29) {\Large$\displaystyle\text{(c)}$}
\end{overpic} \\ \ \\
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\caption{(a) Simulated Tomography profile. (b) Reconstructed and true strain fields. (c) Corresponding stress fields.}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\label{fig:4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
\subsection{Experiment}
Following success in simulation, the reconstruction algorithm was applied to data collected on the KOWARI constant wavelength diffractometer within the Australian Centre for Neutron Scattering (ACNS) at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) \citep{kirstein2009strain,kirstein2010kowari}.
\subsubsection*{Sample Design}
The sample consisted of a stack of small aluminium discs, which, with respect to Figure \ref{fig:5}, were manufactured as follows.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*)]
\item Five stepped discs were manufactured from $D\approx 12$mm diameter 7075-T6 aluminium round bar with dimensions as shown.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\item These discs were then individually crushed in a deformation-controlled process to a uniform thickness of $2.89\pm0.02$ mm.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\item The crushed discs were then each symmetrically faced to a thickness of $t=1$ mm.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\item Finally, the discs were stacked and glued together to form one sample.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig5}
\put (18,49) {\Large$\displaystyle\text{(a)}$}
\put (68,49) {\Large$\displaystyle\text{(b)}$}
\put (18,0) {\Large$\displaystyle\text{(c)}$}
\put (68,0) {\Large$\displaystyle\text{(d)}$}
\end{overpic} \\ \ \\
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{Sample dimensions after (a) Initial machining, (b) Deformation, (c) Final machining, and (d) Final assembly.}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\label{fig:5}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The final dimensions of each disc are in line with the typical rule-of-thumb for plane stress systems ($D/t \approx 10$) \citep{beer2010mechanics}. Stacking was essential to provide sufficient material for both validation and diffraction tomography measurements to be performed in the limited available beamtime.
\subsubsection*{Calibration and Experimental Setup}
Initial work centred on characterising the beam and finding an optimal focussing condition for the monochromator on KOWARI.
Intensity variation across the beam introduces an additional non-uniform weighting to the measured average strain along a ray. The intensity profile was characterised using an iron-powder standard sample and tracking the Fe (110) reflection. The position of this peak is similar to that of the Al (200) reflection used for the tomography measurements, however Fe provided faster measurements.
By adjusting the monochromator focus, variation in this profile was minimised. The final condition achieved less than 10\% variation across the sample and was assumed constant.
Nominally 90-degree geometry was adopted (89.6$^\circ$), and after line scans to find the sample edges, 11 diffraction tomography measurements were taken across the width of the sample using a $w=1$ mm secondary slit width ($1\times L \times 5$ mm gauge volumes). Measurements were performed until 5000 counts had been recorded at each point. Total measurement time was approximately 12 hours.
Validation measurements of the hoop, radial and axial components of strain were performed using a $1\times1\times 5$ mm gauge volume and tracking the Al (311) reflection and were also performed over 12 hours. Results from the two experiments were correlated using a standard powder sample which was measured under both regimes. The unstrained lattice parameter $d_0$ was calculated from the three measured strain components using the plane-stress assumption.
\subsubsection*{Results}
Reconstruction results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:6}. In general, the reconstruction shows excellent agreement with the validation measurements --- with almost all measurements lying within the 1-$\sigma$ confidence interval of the reconstruction.
Quantitatively, the difference between the tomographic reconstruction and validation measurements was Gaussian, with mean $\approx-5.5\times10^{-5}$ and standard deviation $\approx2.8\times10^{-4}$ --- respectively two and one order of magnitude less than the strains under examination. This suggests that the difference is largely due to unrejected measurement noise and not a systematic bias. Note that the systematic error near $r=0$ due to attenuation seen in the simulated example are not present here --- aluminium has an attenuation coefficient nearly ten times smaller than steel.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig6}
\put (28,87) {\Large$\displaystyle\text{(a)}$}
\put (28,55) {\Large$\displaystyle\text{(b)}$}
\put (28,29) {\Large$\displaystyle\text{(c)}$}
\end{overpic} \\ \ \\
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\caption{(a) Measured Tomography profile, (b) Reconstructed strain fields against validation measurements, (c) Corresponding stresses.}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\label{fig:6}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
\section{Discussion and Potential Future Extensions}
\label{sec:ext}
This proof-of-concept demonstration leaves many potential improvements to the technique on the table for future implementation:
\begin{enumerate}
\item A sensitivity analysis was performed as to the effect of secondary-slit width on simulated tomography profiles. It was found that the variation was minimal up to slit widths of 2 mm for some smooth strain fields. However, this effect may be more important for discontinuous fields (e.g. ring-and-plug) or regions of high strain gradient. Future implementations of this technique could implement slit width into the measurement model, treating each measurement as an area rather than line integral.
\item Intensity variation across the beam could be normalised in this case, but might be unavoidable at other neutron sources. Further improvements to the reconstruction algorithm could be made by implementing a weighting due to intensity in the measurement model. This weighting could either then be measured at the source in question or determined via hyperparameter optimisation.
\item Intensity variation due to sample texture was also not found to play a significant role in this experiment, but again could be implemented as an additional weighting in the measurement model and either measured or optimised for.
\item For the validation measurements, $d_0$ was calculated from the three measured strain components and the plane-stress condition. An average, constant $d_0$ was assumed for the tomography measurements. In some cases --- particularly with unannealed/preprocessed samples, $d_0$ variation can result in significant pseudostrains. It is possible to estimate $d_0$ alongside the strains using the GP technique and such an extension to the reconstruction algorithm may be useful in some cases --- see \citep{hendriks2019robust} for more information.
\end{enumerate}
Extension of the algorithm presented here to 2D and 3D strain fields is conceptually straightforward, though practical issues may arise. A 2D implementation could involve taking projections of a sample by sweeping it past the secondary slit, then rotating the sample about it's centre and repeating the process. A 2D reconstruction algorithm would likely resemble that in \citep{hendriks2018traction}, with modifications made for attenuation and measurement direction.
While the results of this study found that diffraction tomography reconstructions can achieve results in agreement with conventional `pointwise' measurements in equal or less beamtime, further work is required to show that this technique is viable for 2D systems, particularly with larger samples where attenuation of the beam may prove a limiting factor.
That being said, preliminary results suggest that --- particularly for better scattering materials such as steel --- projections of a similar confidence could be had in as little as 2 hours, compared to 7 hours to collect three components with conventional pointwise scanning (using a 1 mm slit width in both cases).
If a method for collecting entire projections at once is developed (e.g. using parallel collimators and a pixelated detector on a time-of-flight instrument), projections could be obtained in the time it presently takes to perform a single diffraction tomography measurement.
One of the more promising outcomes of this demonstration is the prospect of combined neutron transmission-diffraction tomography. In this case, both measurements could be performed concurrently and then processed by single reconstruction algorithm that takes into account their relative uncertainty.
Extension of this method to 2D systems, time-of-flight instruments and integration with existing transmission reconstruction algorithms forms a natural basis for future work.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we proposed a new technique for strain measurement that we call neutron diffraction tomography. This technique draws on the recent activity in the field of Bragg-edge transmission strain tomography and aims to achieve similar results using conventional strain scanning geometry and instrumentation.
Reconstructions from simulated and experimental data were achieved and showed close agreement with validation measurements for axisymmetric systems with similar beamtime requirements.
We believe the method is viable. Future work involves extension to arbitrary 2D systems, where it may also be valuable in a combined transmission-diffraction strain reconstruction algorithm.
\section{Acknowledgements}
This work was supported by the Australian Research Council through a Discovery Project Grant No. DP17010 2324. Access to the KOWARI instrument was made possible through the ANSTO user-access program (Proposal No. 7318). The authors would also like to thank AINSE Limited for providing financial assistance (PGRA) and support to enable work on this project.
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{H}{uman} faces have abundant attributes that can implicitly indicate the family heredity from visual appearance. This phenomenon has been studied in psychology, with the aim of discovering how humans visually identify kin related cues from face~\cite{debruine2009kin, dal2010lateralization, dal2006kinin, wu2013male}. Driven by this research, the computer vision and machine learning communities have addressed this new problem --- \emph{kinship verification} from facial images. In this context, specialized techniques have been proposed to automatically verify whether two facial images have kin relation. This topic has received much attention since the first study on kinship verification from facial images by Fang~\emph{et. al}~\cite{fang2010towards} in 2010.
In the literature, kinship verification is mainly explored from a perspective of visual appearance~\cite{fang2010towards}\cite{lu2014neighborhood}\cite{kohli2018supervised}, with most techniques based on still images. Just as people with kin relations tend to share common facial attributes, they may also share common voice attributes. In the genetic study domain, to determine how the human voice is passed down through generations, and to study the key factors influencing our voice, researchers from University of Nottingham carried out a pilot study on the heritability of human voice parameters\footnote{\url{https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/2016/january/help-the-scientists-find-out-why-you-sound-like-your-parents.aspx}}. Inspired by this study, we address, for the first time, the use of vocal information for kinship verification. Despite the long history of speech research, assessing kinship relation from voice has received very little attention in literature --- some studies have addressed potential performance degradation of \emph{automatic speaker verification} (ASV) when tested with the voice of persons with close kinship relation, such as identical twins~\cite{ariyaeeinia_test_2008, kunzel_automatic_2011}.
Furthermore, many related applications, like expression recognition in affective computing, have benefited from using techniques that combine face and voice modalities~\cite{tzirakis2017end, chowdhury2018msu, liu2018towards, neverova2016moddrop}. In this paper, we hypothesize that fusing face and voice modalities captured in video sequences can improve the accuracy and robustness of systems for kinship verification.
Audio-visual kinship verification has many potential applications ranging from social media analytics, forensics,
surveillance and security to kin-related authentication. For instance, social media applications involve an overwhelming amount of data, including face images and videos. Automatic kinship verification could be used in semi-automatic organization of kin relations within different social relations, such as friends or colleagues. Another application of audio-visual kinship verification is to find missing children after some years, even when their appearance changes due to ageing, rather than expensive and invasive DNA test. It can also be employed in surveillance and security control in abnormal behavior detection. Through the analysis of surveillance footage video and verifying kinship relations, crime such as children kidnapping can be detected and kinship verification could be a decision support tool for forensic investigation.
Automatic kinship verification system can also be used in kin related authentication. For instance, the United States Department allows people with relatives resided in the U.S. to enter as refugees~\cite{kohli2018supervised}. Audio-visual kinship verification can implement the real-time kin test with low cost. Audio-visual kinship analysis can also be used for automatic video organization and annotation.
This work focuses on kinship verification using audio-visual information. We investigate verification systems that allow for fusion of facial and vocal modalities to encode a discriminative kin information. The main contributions of this work are summarized as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Since no available kinship database is available for studying multi-modal kinship verification, we collected and analysed a new kinship database called \emph{TALking KINship} (TALKIN). It consists of both visual (facial) and audio (vocal) information of individuals captured talking in videos. We consider four kin relations: Father-Son (FS), Father-Daughter (FD), Mother-Son (MS) and Mother-Daughter (MD).
\item We consider sub-problems driven by the TALKIN database: kinship verification from facial images, voice, and from audio-visual information. We investigate the impact on performance (accuracy and complexity) when going from uni-modal to multi-modal cases. Benchmark results for uni-modal kinship verification are provided and then for several fusion methods are analysed and compared with state-of-the-art uni-modal and multi-modal fusion techniques.
\item A deep Siamese fusion network with contrastive loss is proposed for audio-visual information fusion, to enhance the reliability of kinship predictions. Experiments show that the proposed fusion methods outperform baseline uni-modal and multi-modal fusion methods.
\end{enumerate}
This paper extends our preliminary investigation on audio-visual kinship verification~\cite{Talkin2019} in several ways. In particular: (1) a comprehensive analysis of related literature from the perspective of kinship verification, automatic speaker verification from close kin relations and multi-modal methods, for a more self-contained presentation; (2) a detailed description of the proposed and baseline methods for kinship verification based on face, voice and multiple modalities; and (3) more proof-of concept experimental results and interpretations, including a detailed analysis of performance for audio vs. video based kinship verification.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec:related work} provides background and previous research related to existing kinship databases, proposed kinship verification techniques, automatic speaker verification for identical twins and multi-modal fusion applications. Section~\ref{sec:db} introduces the \emph{TALking Kinship} (TALKIN) dataset. In Section~\ref{sec:methodology}, kinship verification problem are presented from from a perspective of one modality (face \emph{vs.} voice) and multiple modalities (face \& voice). Techniques for both uni-modal and multi-modal kinship verification are presented. Section~\ref{sec:experiment setup}, describes the experiment methodology employed for performance evaluation. Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:experiment} the experimental results are presented and discussed.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related work}
\subsection{Databases}
Since 2010, several kinship databases have been published: Cornell KinFace~\cite{fang2010towards}, UB KinFace~\cite{xia2011kinship,shao2011genealogical,xia2012understanding}, KinFaceW~\cite{lu2014neighborhood}, UvA-NEMO Smile~\cite{dibekliouglu2012you,dibeklioglu2013like}, TSKinFace~\cite{qin2015tri}, KFVW \cite{yan2018video} and FIW~\cite{robinson2018visual}. All these datasets address the general problem of kinship verification modeling using facial images or videos, but differ both in their exact task settings as well as the quality and quantity of data. We provide below a brief review of each dataset.
\textbf{Cornell KinFace}~\cite{fang2010towards} is the first kinship database that aims to verify kin relations using computer vision and machine learning methods. It includes 150 parent-child face image pairs of celebrities. The facial images were collected from the Internet by researchers at Cornell University, and represent therefore uncontrolled, \emph{in the wild} style data with no control over environments, cameras or poses.
\textbf{UB KinFace}~\cite{xia2011kinship,shao2011genealogical,xia2012understanding} is the only kinship verification database that includes images of parents when they were both young and old. UB KinFace consists of two parts focused on Asian and non-Asian subjects, respectively. Each part has 100 groups of facial images. Each group has one image of child and one image for both young and old parent. Thus, in total there are 600 ($2\times 100 \times 3$) facial images. The resolution of images is 89 $\times$ 96.
\textbf{KinFaceW}~\cite{lu2014neighborhood} has two subsets, KinFaceW-I and KinFace-II. Images of each parent-child pair from KinFaceW-I are collected from different photos while image pairs in KinFaceW-II are from the same family photograph. The facial images are aligned according to eye position and cropped into size of 64 $\times$ 64.
\textbf{TSKinFace}~\cite{qin2015tri} database addressed the problem that children may partially seem like one parent and also partially look like the other parent. It consists 1015 tri-subject groups (Father-Mother-Child) totally.
\textbf{Families in the Wild} (FIW)~\cite{robinson2018visual} is the largest and most comprehensive visual kinship database with over 13,000 family photos of 1,000 families (with average of 13 of each family). Facial images are resized into 224 $\times$ 224.
\textbf{UvA-NEMO Smile}~\cite{dibekliouglu2012you,dibeklioglu2013like} database addresses the problem of video based kinship verification. It is collected under constrained environment with limited real-world variation that people make a smile face spontaneously and deliberately. To carry out the study of video based kinship verification from more complex environment, Yan~\emph{et al.} collected \textbf{Kinship Face Videos in the Wild} (KFVW)~\cite{yan2018video} database under unconstrained environment. It was collected from the TV show on the Internet with 418 pairs of facial videos.
While the above databases cover multiple aspects of kinship verification from faces, no publicly available audio-visual kinship verification database exists. To explore the problem of kinship verification from face and voice modalities, we collected and analysed the TALKIN dataset (see Section~\ref{sec:db}).
\subsection{Kinship verification from faces}
Kinship verification from facial images was first addressed by Fang~\emph{et al.}~\cite{fang2010towards} in 2010. Since then, many works have been proposed and several competitions have been organized~\cite{lu2014kinship,lu2015fg,Robinson2017RFIW,robinson2017recognizing}. We briefly review below related works on visual kinship verification from still images and videos.
\subsubsection{Image-based verification:}
Initial works focused on feature based methods. Fang~\emph{et al.}~\cite{fang2010towards} extracted 22 facial features and selected the 14 most discriminative ones for classification; distance between two images is calculated and fed into \emph{K-nearest Neighbor} (KNN) and \emph{Support Vector Machine} (SVM) back-ends to verify the kin/non-kin relation. Yan~\emph{et al.}~\cite{yan2014prototype} proposed \emph{prototype-based discriminative feature learning} (PDFL) method to learn a feature representation from the labeled face in the wild (LFW) dataset without kin labels. Wu~\emph{et al.}~\cite{wu2016usefulness} extracted color texture features to study the importance of color in kinship verification problem. Besides the works on feature representation, metric learning also showed good performance. Lu~\emph{et al.}~\cite{lu2014neighborhood} proposed \emph{neighborhood repulse metric learning} (NRML) method which aims to repulse the images without kin relation and minimize the distance between images with kin relation. Liu~\emph{et al.}~\cite{liu2017status}, in turn, proposed \emph{status-aware projection metric learning} (SPML) method to solve the asymmetric problem as parent and child are considered with different status that parent is usually older than child. Finally, \emph{deep learning} \cite{Goodfellow-et-al-2016} shows high performance in the field of computer vision, kinship verification being no exception~\cite{zhang12kinship,lu2017discriminative}. Zhang~\emph{et al.}~\cite{zhang12kinship} proposed an end-to-end \emph{convolutional neural network} (CNN) architecture for kinship verification that uses a pair of two RGB images as input, and a softmax layer to predict the kinship relation. Compared with other state-of-the-art methods, such as \emph{discriminative multimetric learning} (DMML)~\cite{yan2014discriminative}, it yielded 5.2$\%$ and 10.1$\%$ improvement on KinFaceW-I and II, respectively. To further demonstrate the discrimination of CNN, Lu~\emph{et al.}~\cite{lu2017discriminative} presented \emph{discriminative deep metric learning} (DDML) method to learn a non-linear distance metric. The back-propagation algorithm was used to train the model where the distance between the positive pairs was narrowed and distance between negative pairs was enlarged.
\subsubsection{Video-based verification}
Video based kinship verification attracted less attention compared to still image based kinship verification. However, facial expression dynamics can provide useful information for kinship verification. It has been shown that people from the same family display similar facial expressions, such as anger, joy, or sadness~\cite{peleg2006hereditary}. Video-based kinship verification problem was studied by Dibeklioglu~\emph{et al.}~\cite{dibeklioglu2013like}. The authors localized 17 facial landmarks and used temporal \emph{Completed Local Binary Pattern} (CLBP) descriptors to describe the expressions. Combined with the spatial facial features, temporal CLBP features are fed into SVM to classify kin or non-kin relation. Then, Boutellaa~\emph{et al.}~\cite{Boutellaa_ICB16} proposed to use both shallow spatio-temporal features and deep features to characterize a dynamic face, which got a further improvement. Unconstrained video based kinship verification was recently proposed by Yan~\emph{et al.}~\cite{yan2018video}. They collected a new kinship database with videos in the wild condition. Several state-of-the-art metric learning algorithms were evaluated on video based kinship verification problem. Yet, previous work is mainly performed from computer vision domain. There is no study that has focused on kinship verification combining face and voice cues.
\subsection{Speaker verification for identical twins}
As far as we know, there are neither no specifically focused databases nor kinship verification studies using voice. Some related work exists within reliability assessment of speaker recognition. Voice from two different persons with a close kinship relation might be confusable. One special case --- voice of identical twins --- was addressed almost five decades ago~\cite{rosenberg_listener_1973}, when it was found to confuse listeners in same/different speaker discrimination.
More recent studies, involving mostly automatic systems, have also demonstrated that voice of identical twins can be confusable also for automatic systems. The authors of~\cite{ariyaeeinia_test_2008} studied \emph{automatic speaker verification} (ASV) performance using voice of identical twins collected at a twin research institute in the UK. There are totally 49 identical twin pairs (40 female and 9 male pairs) involved. A Gaussian mixture model - universal background model (GMM-UBM)~\cite{reynolds_speaker_2000} with 2048 Gaussians was trained. They reported 0.4\% equal error rate (EER) when tested with all speakers, which degraded to 5.2\% EER when tested with twin voice. The EER increased from 2.8\% (all) to 10.5\% EER (twins) with short utterance.
The author of~\cite{kunzel_automatic_2011} studied the performance of a commercial forensic automatic speaker recognition with identical twin data. The author compared graphically likelihood ratio distributions and reported EERs from various experiments. Under matched-text condition, the author reported 0\% and 0.5\% EERs for males and females, respectively, when unrelated speakers were used as non-targets; these errors increased, respectively, to 11\% (male) and 19.2\% (female) when twins were used as non-targets. This 19.2\% was increased up to 48\% with mismatched texts. In summary, the tested automatic system experienced performance degradation for both genders and much worse for females.
Besides observing the performance change of automatic systems, a number of studies focus on acoustic differences of twins. For instance, \cite{zuo_formant_2015} studies formant dynamics of 8 Shanghainese-Mandarin bilingual identical twin pairs, focused on common diphthong /ua/ found in both languages. The authors discovered that although very similar, identical twins did have significant differences in their formant dynamics. The authors constructed a simple \emph{linear discriminant analysis} (LDA) classifier formed from the first three formants (F1 to F3) and reported speaker classification rates between ~80\% to 90\%.
Despite the use of small datasets, the above review does suggest that voice of identical twins are potentially confusable by some listeners and ASV systems. While detrimental for ASV, the news are positive from the perspective of kinship verification: it looks possible to devise a system or a method that is sensitive to kinship cues in the human voice, to be used for detecting how closely two speakers are related. While identical twins are a rare special case in the general population, an interesting open question is how accurately kinship relations could be determined from voice for more common kinship relationships addressed in the visual kinship studies. One of the main aims to introduce our TALKIN database is to help answering this question.
\begin{table*}[htb!]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Main characteristics of existing datasets for kinship verification.}
\label{database}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\bf{Database}} & \bf{Modalities} & \bf{Size} & \bf{Resolution ratio} & \bf{Family structure} & \bf{Controlled environment}\\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{Cornell KinFace~\cite{fang2010towards}} & Image & 150 pairs & $100\times 100$ & No & No\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{UB KinFace~\cite{xia2012understanding}\cite{xia2011kinship}\cite{shao2011genealogical}} & Image & 200 groups & $89\times 96$ & No & No\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{KinFaceW~\cite{lu2014neighborhood}} & KinFaceW-I & Image & 533 pairs & $64\times 64$ & No & No\\
\cline{2-7}
& KinFaceW-II & Image & 1000 pairs & $64 \times 64 $ & No & No\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{TSKinFace~\cite{qin2015tri}} & Image & 1015 tri-subjects & $64 \times 64$ & No & No\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{UvA-NEMO Smile~\cite{dibekliouglu2012you}\cite{dibeklioglu2013like}} & Video & 1240 videos & $1920\times 1080$ & No & Yes\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{FIW~\cite{robinson2018visual}} & Image & 1000 family trees & $224\times 224$ & Yes & No\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{KFVW~\cite{yan2018video}} & Video & 418 pairs of videos & $900 \times 500$ & No & No\\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{TALKIN (ours)} & Video \& Audio & 400 pairs of videos & 1920 $\times$ 1080 & No & No\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Multi-modal methods}
Multi-modal fusion methods have successfully improved the recognition accuracy in many applications found in affective computing~\cite{tzirakis2017end}, person recognition~\cite{chowdhury2018msu}, large-scale video classification~\cite{liu2018towards} and gesture recognition~\cite{neverova2016moddrop}, because they can exploit complementary sources of information. Different sources of information are typically integrated through early fusion (feature level) or through late fusion (score or decision levels)~\cite{baltruvsaitis2018multimodal}. Feature-level fusion using concatenation or aggregation (\emph{e.g.}, \emph{canonical correlation analysis} or CCA~\cite{correa2010canonical}) is often considered to provide a high level of accuracy, although feature patterns may also be incompatible and increase system complexity. Techniques for score-level fusion using deterministic (\emph{e.g.}, average fusion) or learned functions are commonly employed, but are sensible to the impact of score normalization methods on the overall decision boundaries
and the availability of representative training samples. Despite reducing the information content about modalities, techniques for decision-level fusion (e.g., majority voting) can provide a simple framework for combination, although limitations are placed on decision boundaries due to the restricted operations that can be performed on binary decisions.
In the deep learning literature, Neverova~\emph{et al.}~\cite{neverova2016moddrop} proposed a multi-scale and multi-modal early fusion method --- \emph{multimodal dropout} (ModDrop) --- for gesture recognition problems. First, the weights of each modality are pre-trained. Then, a gradual fusion method is proposed by randomly dropping separate channels to learn cross-modal correlations while preserving uni-modality specific representation.
Liu~\emph{et al.}~\cite{liu2018towards}, in turn, introduced \emph{multi-modal factorized bi-linear pooling} (MFB)~\cite{yu2017multi} method to combine visual and audio representations for video-based classification. In affective computing applications, Tzirakis~\emph{et al.}~\cite{tzirakis2017end} proposed an end-to-end multimodal deep NN for emotion recognition. Visual and speech modalities are first trained separately to speed up the fusion training phase. Then, the fusion network is trained in an end-to-end fashion.
Concerning late fusion, authors of ~\cite{chowdhury2018msu} considered multiple score fusion techniques for indoor surveillance person recognition. Experimental results showed the efficiency of multimodal methods over the unimodal approaches.
To sum up, prior results in literature suggest that improvements in accuracy and robustness can be obtained by using multi-modal methods over uni-modal techniques. To improve the accuracy and robustness of kinship verification, we therefore investigate algorithms for the fusion of face and voice modalities.
To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first attempt to study the kinship verification from both visual and audio information.
\section{The TALKIN Database}
\label{sec:db}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7in]{figure/pipeline.pdf}
\caption{The pipeline employed to collect and analyse the TALKIN database. \textsl{Kin list.} A list of candidates is first summarized as the preparatory work. \textsl{Search videos from YouTube.} The facial videos with vocal information are searched and downloaded from YouTube. \textsl{Raw data.} Several samples from the TALKIN are shown. From the top to the bottom, there are father-son, father-daughter, mother-son and mother-daughter. As can be seen, TALKIN database has varieties of environment, background, pose and illumination. \textsl{Data preparation.} Videos and audio are pre-processed. Then the embeddings for video and audio are extracted for the task of kinship analysis.}
\label{Talkin pipeline}
\end{figure*}
In this section, we describe our new kinship database called \emph{TALking KINship} (TALKIN). Compared with existing kinship databases with facial videos (UvA-NEMO Smile~\cite{dibekliouglu2012you}\cite{dibeklioglu2013like} and KFVW~\cite{yan2018video}), TALKIN contains both videos and audio under unconstrained environment. It contains several videos of subjects talking in the wild environment (under unconstrained background, illumination and recording condition). The purpose of collecting our new database is to investigate the problem of audio-visual kinship verification in the wild. A comparison of TALKIN with existing kinship databases is shown in Table~\ref{database}.
\subsection{Data collection pipeline}
The overall collection pipeline of the TALKIN dataset is shown in Fig.~\ref{Talkin pipeline}.
\textbf{Step 1. List of celebrities or family TV shows.}
First, we prepared a name list that we intend to obtain videos from. The target amount of video for each relation is 100 pairs of clips. Most of the list is formed by celebrities, such as musicians, actors, politician~\emph{et al.}, with rest of it from TV series involving family interactivity (non-celebrities).
\textbf{Step 2. Downloading videos from YouTube.}
We downloaded the videos from YouTube by searching the name of celebrities or TV series. To avoid biases encountered in some of the previous kinship databases~\cite{miguel2016,dawson2018same}, we collected parent's videos and child's videos from \emph{different} video clips corresponding to different backgrounds and recording conditions.
\textbf{Step 3. Data preparation.} After we getting the raw data from the web, we did data pre-processing. For face detection and alignment, we employed \emph{Multi-task Cascaded Convolutional Networks} (MTCNN) algorithm~\cite{MTCNN} to detect 5 face landmarks in every frame of the video. Finally, the videos are cropped and aligned according to the landmarks. The facial regions are then re-sized into 224$\times$224. Both hand-crafted features and deep features are extracted to represent each individual. To represent the audio information, we directly extracted audio from the video clips. The sample rates are all set to 44.1 kHz. Three standard techniques in the speech field, namely GMM-UBM, i-vectors and Deep Neural Network, are used for text-independent kinship analysis.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\caption{The ethnicity distribution (\%) of TALKIN dataset.}
\label{table: ethnicity}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
British & American & French & Australian & Chinese & Dutch & Italian & Swedish & Turkish \\ \hline
56.50 & 33.50 & 6.50 & 2.00 & 0.50 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.25 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Parameters of the dataset}
The TALKIN dataset focuses on four kin relations: Father-Son (FS), Father-Daughter (FD), Mother-Son (MS) and Mother-Daughter (MD), with 100 pairs of videos (with audio) for each relation. As all the data originates from uncontrolled Internet sources, the speech contents vary from subject to subject and video to video, making the voice-related sub-task \emph{text-independent kinship verification}, analogous with text-independent speaker verification. That is, the task is to verify kinship relations regardless of what was said between individuals.
TALKIN incorporates a wide range of backgrounds, recording environments, poses, occlusions and ethnicities. Table~\ref{table: ethnicity} shows the distribution of ethnicity in TALKIN. The distribution is count by kin pair rather than individuals, in case that one parent might appear multiple times with more than one kid. Note, however, that we exclude mixed-race trials, \emph{i.e.} the parent and child in a trial has the same ethnicity. The dataset has two parts: video and audio. The length of the video varies from 4.032 seconds to 15 seconds with a resolution of $1920 \times 1080$. Audio is extracted from video files. Besides the varied text content, the audio files contain substantial channel variations (\emph{e.g.} due to differing recording devices). Some of them also contain reverberation and additive noise.
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec:methodology}
In this section, we will focus on the kinship verification problem using both uni-modal (face \emph{vs.} voice) and multi-modal methods. Fig.~\ref{fig: uni-structure} shows examples of signal employed for kinship verification from face and voice modalities. Fig.~\ref{fig: multi-structure} illustrates the architectures proposed for uni-modal systems. We address kinship detection as a \emph{hypothesis testing} problem -- given a pair of signals (a pair of video sequences or speech utterances), say $(S_1,S_2)$, the task is to evaluate support for two mutually exclusive hypotheses, \emph{null} hypothesis $H_0$ and \emph{alternative} hypothesis,
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
H_0: & \text{$S_1$ and $S_2$ are of the same kin}\nonumber \\
H_1: & \text{$S_1$ and $S_2$ are of different kin.}\nonumber
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
In practice, we represent $S_1$ and $S_2$ using frame-level feature vectors that are then used to derive recording-level representations of fixed size (regardless of the number of frames). Kinship score -- a numerical indicator with higher values associated with stronger support in favor of $H_0$ -- is then obtained by computing similarity score between the feature representations. We consider both hand-crafted and data-driven (learned) feature representations and similarity scoring techniques. The following three subsections present methods for face-based, voice-based feature representations and data fusion, respectively.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{figure/Uni-modal-structure-video.pdf}
\label{subfig:face-modal structure}}
\hfil
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{figure/Uni-modal-structure_audio.pdf}
\label{subfig:voice-modal structure}}
\hfil
\caption{Kinship verification from a single modality. In~\ref{subfig:face-modal structure} we determine whether two persons have kin relation from facial videos, while in~\ref{subfig:voice-modal structure} from voice.}
\label{fig: uni-structure}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6in]{figure/Uni-modals--v3.pdf}
\caption{Architecture of the proposed uni-modal methods. Both the face and voice modalities use the similar but specialized convolutional architectures trained for each modality separately. The convolutional layers learn data-driven feature extractors. Face network is formulated by VGG embeddings with a layer of LSTM to integrate the spatial-temporal information, while LSTM is trained with back propagation with contrastive loss. The voice network is based on \emph{ResNet-50} that is pre-trained with \emph{VoxCeleb} dataset. We optimize the last layer of \emph{ResNet-50} with the Siamese architecture. This way, we obtain 512- and 2880-dimensional discriminative voice and face embeddings, respectively. Their dimensionalities are further reduced by principal component analysis (PCA). After we get the reduced dimensional feature, distance metric is calculated to classify whether they have kin relation or not.
}
\label{fig: uni-architecture}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Face-based kinship verification}
\label{subsec:face-based kinship}
We employed both hand-crafted and deep feature representations for facial kinship verification. In particular, we adopted image-based representations produced with \emph{binarized statistical image feature} (BSIF)~\cite{bsif_icpr12}, \emph{local phase quantization} (LPQ)~\cite{lpq_isp08}, and \emph{local binary pattern} (LBP)~\cite{ojala1996comparative,ahonen2006face} descriptors. These features are extracted from each video frame and averaged over the frames to represent a video sequence. In addition, we considered \emph{local binary patterns from three orthogonal planes} (LBP-TOP)~\cite{zhao2007dynamic} that is more naturally suited for representation of faces over multiple frames in a video. Besides these conventional hand-crafted features, we further included state-of-the-art deep Siamese architecture. The Siamese network is a pair-wise match, where feature representations are extracted through metric learning. To assess the kinship similarity score between two video sequences, we computed \emph{cosine similarity} measure between two feature representation vectors, $\Vec{x_1}$ and $\Vec{x_2}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cosine}
\text{sim}(\Vec{x_1},\Vec{x_2})=\frac{\Vec{x_1} \cdot \Vec{x_2}}{\|\Vec{x_1}\|\cdot\|\Vec{x_2}\|} .
\end{equation}
A threshold is applied to $\text{sim}(\Vec{x_1},\Vec{x_2})$ to determine whether two inputs have a kin relation.
\subsubsection{Image-based representation}
In~\cite{wu2016usefulness}, the authors demonstrated the effectiveness of HSV color space for kinship verification problem. We first converted the facial images into HSV color space. We considered several descriptors for extracting the features from the facial images. BSIF is a binary texture descriptor that uses a small set of natural images~\cite{hyvarinen2009natural} as a training set to learn filters. LPQ is a blur-invariant image texture descriptor. LBP shows its effectiveness in face analysis. It computes a binary code for each pixel in an image. The binary patterns are counted into a histogram to represent the image texture.
\subsubsection{Video-based representation}
LBP-TOP is an extension of LBP, in which the local binary patterns are extracted from three orthogonal planes of a frame sequence: XY, XT and YT, where X and Y denote the spatial coordinates and T means the time coordinate. For a video or a sequence of image, it can be viewed as a stack of XY planes in axis T, XT planes in axis Y and YT planes in axis X. LBP-TOP extracts features from each separate plane and concatenates them into one feature vector.
\subsubsection{Face network} While the above hand-crafted face descriptors have the benefits of being simple and interpretable, they are not specifically optimized for kinship cue representation. Similar to other visual pattern classification tasks, we expect substantially better results by leveraging from data-driven approaches that are directly optimized for a given task. To this end, we implemented the VGG-Face~\cite{Parkhi15} CNN cascaded with an Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM)~\cite{hochreiter1997long} network for the facial representations. VGG-Face network is trained on a large face dataset with 2.6 million images of over 2662 people~\footnote{\url{http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~vgg/software/vgg\_face/}}.
This network has shown interesting performance on face verification using both images and videos. Furthermore, it also shown the effectiveness of kinship verification with constrained facial videos~\cite{Boutellaa_ICB16}. As shown at the top of Fig.~\ref{fig: uni-architecture}, it consists of 13 convolution layers, each followed by \emph{rectified linear unit} (ReLU). Some of them are also followed by max pooling operator. The last two layers are FC layers that have 4096 outputs.
We fed the facial frames one by one and collected the deep features from layer fc7~\cite{Boutellaa_ICB16}.
A layer of LSTM with 4096 cells is stack on the basis of VGG-Face descriptor and trained to integrate the spacial information to spatial-temporal features. The network is trained in `Siamese' fashion using \emph{contrastive loss}~\cite{li2016kinship}. Here, the contrastive loss is defined as:
\begin{equation}\label{contrastive}
\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{n=1}^{N} (y_n d_n^{2} + (1-y_n)\max(M-d_n,0)^2),
\end{equation}
where threshold $M$ denotes \emph{margin}, $N$ is the mini-batch size, $d_n=\left \| \Vec{a_n}-\Vec{b_n} \right \|^{2}$, $\Vec{a_n}$ and $\Vec{b_n}$ denote two sample feature vectors that are collected from the last state of LSTM, $y_n$ is the label of the sample pair. $y_n$ equals 1 when the inputs have the kin relation and $y_n$ equals 0 the otherwise.
\subsection{Voice-based kinship verification}
\label{sub-sec:voice-based kinship}
As for the voice modality, we adopted three methods from the related task of \emph{automatic speaker verification} (ASV). Two of them, \emph{Gaussian mixture model --- universal background model} (GMM-UBM) \cite{reynolds_speaker_2000} and \emph{identity vector} (i-vector) \cite{dehak2011front}, are standard statistical classifiers while the last one uses deep learning.
\subsubsection{GMM-UBM}
We first trained UBM from a training set of disjoint speakers to those used for kinship scoring. The UBM, denoted here by $\Vec{\theta}_\text{ubm}$, models speaker-independent distribution of the MFCC features. It serves both as \emph{a prior} model to obtain speaker-dependent models via \emph{maximum a posterior} (MAP) adaptation, and as the likelihood model for the alternative hypothesis modeling. If we denote the MFCC sequence of a test utterance by $X=\{\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_2,\dots,\vec{x}_T\}$ and the speaker model of $i$th speaker by $\vec{\theta}_i$, the detection score is given by the log-likelihood ratio (LLR) $\ell=\log p(X|\vec{\theta}_i) - \log p(X|\vec{\theta}_\text{ubm}$). When the speaker identities of $X$ and $\vec{\theta}_i$ are the same, LLR score is high (relative to situation when their identities differ).
For kinship modeling, speakers with a positive kin relation share the same source identity (kin label). When we evaluate a particular kin hypothesis, we compare the MFCCs of the test speaker against the speaker model of \emph{another} speaker. A positive kinship trial occurs when the test speaker (source of $X$) and the reference speaker (source of $\vec{\theta}_i$) have a positive kin relation (\emph{e.g.} mother-son). Pairs with no kin relation constitute negative trials. From this perspective, GMM-UBM is used exactly the same way as in ASV, though the trial labels are defined differently. Note that in kinship verification, all the compared speaker pairs have disjoint identities.
\subsubsection{I-vector based method} I-vector \cite{dehak2011front,Kenny12-small-footprint} is a compact representation of a speech recording. It is extensively used in speaker and language recognition to represent speech utterances of different lengths as fixed-dimensional embeddings. Akin to GMM-UBM, the i-vector paradigm builds upon GMM modeling of short-term spectral observations. Unlike GMM-UBM, however, the i-vector model leverages from statistical redundancy across different recordings by imposing subspace constraints to the mean vectors of a GMM. In specific, the model assumes that the mean vector of the $c$th Gaussian in recording $r$, denoted by $\vec{\mu}_{c,r}$,
can be expressed as,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:supervector}
\vec{\mu}_{c,r} = \vec{m}_c + \vec{T}_c\vec{\omega}_r,
\end{equation}
where
$\vec{m}_c$ is recording-independent mean (from the UBM), $\vec{T}_c$ is recording-independent factor loading matrix and
$\vec{\omega}_r$ is a latent random variable with a normal standard prior, $\vec{\omega}_r \sim \mathcal{N}(\vec{0},\vec{I})$. Here, $(\vec{m}_c, \vec{T}_c)_{c=1}^C$, where $C$ is the number of Gaussians, are the model hyper-parameters trained from offline data (\emph{i.e.} speakers disjoint from those used in kinship training/testing). The i-vector itself, denoted by $\vec{w}_r$, is the \emph{posterior mean} of $\vec{\omega}_r$ conditioned on recording-specific \emph{Baum-Welch sufficient statistics} collected using the UBM. We point the interested reader to \cite{Kenny12-small-footprint} for further details.
A key point is that an i-vector serves as a recording-level feature vector to compactly represent stationary recording-level cues embedded in the GMM means. Importantly, the i-vector extractor is trained in an \emph{unsupervised} way: the training of $\{\vec{m}_c\}$ (the UBM means) and $\{\vec{T}_c\}$ (the factor loading matrices) are done via dedicated \emph{expectation-maximization} (EM) approach that requires no training labels. This makes the i-vector itself agnostic to a given classification task at hand. To be useful for a given task (here, kinship verification), one further trains a back-end classifier with labeled i-vectors (here, with known family identity). The support towards positive kinship hypothesis for a pair of i-vectors (\emph{e.g.} hypothesized mother-son) can be then evaluated with the back-end classifier. After a number of tentative experiments, we ended up to \emph{linear discriminant analysis} (LDA) trained with family labels, followed by cosine scoring.
\begin{table*}[htb]
\centering
\caption{Summary and comparison of uni-modal methods on TALKIN dataset.}
\label{Table: methods summarize}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Modality} & \multirow{2}{*}{Techniques} & \multirow{2}{*}{Operation} & \multirow{2}{*}{External data usage} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Kinship verification procedure}
\\ \cline{5-7}
& & & & \begin{tabular}[l]{@{}c@{}}Representation extraction\\ (Frozen layers)\end{tabular} & Layers for fine-tune & Kinship classifier
\\ \hline
\multirow{5}{*}{Video} & BSIF & Average & - & - & - & \multirow{5}{*}{Cosine score}
\\ \cline{2-6}
& LPQ & Average & - & - & - &
\\ \cline{2-6}
& LBP & Average & - & - & - &
\\ \cline{2-6}
& LBP-TOP & \begin{tabular}[l]{@{}l@{}}From three\\orthogonal planes\end{tabular} & - & - & - &
\\ \cline{2-6}
& VGG+LSTM & Data-driven & VGGFace~\cite{Parkhi15} & VGG-Face & LSTM &
\\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Audio} & I-vector & Data-driven & No-Within TALKIN\footnotemark[3] & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{Train UBM from scratch} & LDA+Cosine score
\\ \cline{2-7}
& GMM-UBM & Data-driven & No-Within TALKIN\footnotemark[3] & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{Train UBM and T matrix from scratch} & \begin{tabular}[l]{@{}c@{}}Log-likelihood\\ ratio (LLR)\end{tabular}
\\ \cline{2-7}
& ResNet-50 & Data-driven & Voxceleb2~\cite{Chung18b} & \begin{tabular}[l]{@{}l@{}}Layers except for last\\two layers\end{tabular} & Last two layers & Cosine score
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.5in]{figure/Multi-modal-structure.pdf}
\caption{Kinship verification from both face and voice modalities. We propose to fuse both visual information from face appearance and dynamics and vocal information to form a more complementary feature of one person.}
\label{fig: multi-structure}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Voice network} Both the GMM-UBM and the i-vector methods are built upon fixed acoustic feature extractor (MFCC extractor), followed up by data-driven recording-level representation learning and back-end scoring. Even if both techniques have been successful in a number of speech-related tasks, one may question the usefulness of a fixed acoustic front-end. To this end, we wanted to further replace the i-vector embedding with a deep neural network model that uses convolutive models to extract features from the spectrogram, instead. In specific,
we rely on a pre-trained \emph{ResNet-50} model trained from a very large speaker verification dataset called VoxCeleb2~\cite{Chung18b}. We then fine-tune with TALKIN data to get feature embedding from it for audio based kinship verification, where we fix the convolutional layers and finetune the last fully connected layer.
The audio samples are first converted into single-channel and down sampled to 16 kHz to be consistent with VoxCeleb2. Then the audio samples are segmented into 3-second chunks. A Hamming-window of duration 25ms and 10ms step is applied on the audio. Following ~\cite{Chung18b}, spectrograms with the size of 512 frequency bins $\times$ 300 frames are extracted. After performing mean and variance normalization on the frequency bin of the spectrum, the normalized spectrograms are fed into the ResNet-50. Similar to the face network, to pull positive pairs (with kin relations) together and push negative pairs (without kin relations) away, the voice network is established as a Siamese network with contrastive loss at the end.
The overall uni-modal kinship verification methods are summarized in Table~\ref{Table: methods summarize}.
\footnotetext[3]{Disjoint speakers from those used in kinship training and scoring}
\subsection{Multi-modal kinship verification}
Up to this point, we have considered the visual and voice modalities in isolation from each other. In this sub-section we study effective ways to combine the modalities, where audio-visual kinship verification problem is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig: multi-structure}. This includes
introducing a novel deep Siamese network for the fusion of the two modalities,
and the use of traditional early and late fusion strategies.
\subsubsection{Baseline fusion methods}
Two baseline methods for multi-modal kinship verification, early (feature) level and late (score) level fusion methods, are applied. For the early fusion method, after extracting features from face and voice network,
PCA is used to make it consistent size for video and audio. Z-score normalization is used to normalize video and audio features separately.
Then the video and audio features are concatenated together into one feature vector as the fused feature. Cosine similarity is calculated to classify whether they have kin relation.
For the late fusion method, the evaluation for the video based and audio based kinship verification are performed separately, with corresponding match score $S_1$ and $S_2$. Then, the average score is selected as the fused score.
\subsubsection{A Siamese network for A-V fusion}
The overall architecture of the deep Siamese network is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig: multi-architecture}. It is trained to evaluate pair-wise similarities based on face and voice modalities. In a particular implementation, we fine-tune the VGG-Face~\cite{Parkhi15} CNN cascaded with an LSTM network for the face modality, which is described in detail in subsection~\ref{subfig:face-modal structure}. For the voice modality (described in subsection~\ref{subfig:voice-modal structure}) extracted from videos, we fine-tune a ResNet-50 with TALKIN which is pre-trained on VoxCeleb2~\cite{Chung18b}. For each voice and face network, we use contrastive loss to learn the intra-class similarity and inter-class dissimilarity among subjects.
After training the face and voice networks, we collected their features -- 4096 features
from the face network and 512 features from the voice network. To make the dimensional balance of both facial and vocal representations, we applied PCA to reduce both facial and vocal feature dimensions into 130. Then they are concatenated into a 260-dimensional feature, followed by a FC layer with 260 nodes. During the training procedure, our system is trained on TALKIN, using backpropagation and contrastive loss to learn the correlation between parent and child based on audio visual modalities, which has no family overlap between training and testing procedure.
By adding contrastive loss during the fusion part, we can automatically learn the fusion rule for kinship verification to narrow the distance between pairs with a kin relation, and to enlarge the distance between the negative pairs. After training the network, the feature extracted from the added FC layer is viewed as fusion feature of one facial video and audio signal. Then, the cosine similarity $\text{sim}(\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_2)$ is calculated to represent the distance between two inputs (\emph{e.g.} parent and child represented by feature vectors $\vec{x}_1$ and $\vec{x}_2$). A threshold is applied to $\text{sim}$ to determine a kin relation.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{figure/Multi-modals--v4.pdf}
\caption{Architecture of the proposed deep Siamese fusion network. The facial and vocal feature are extracted from the face and voice networks, respectively, that share the same parameters as Fig.~\ref{fig: uni-architecture}. After PCA, the concatenation of facial and vocal feature is connected with a fully connected layer to learn the fusion rule. It is trained in a Siamese fashion with pair-wise input with contrastive loss at last. Then the fully connected layer is represented as the fused feature for one subject.}
\label{fig: multi-architecture}
\end{figure}
\section{Experimental setup}
\label{sec:experiment setup}
The TALKIN dataset is used to evaluate the performance of uni-modal and multi-modal kinship verification. For each kin relation ---FS, FD, MS and MD--- there are 100 pairs of videos with a positive kin relation. Likewise, we randomly generate 100 pairs of videos without any kin relation as the negative pairs. Thus, for each sub-task, we have 100 pairs of positive and 100 pairs of negative pairs. We use 5-fold cross-validation setup in our experiment: for a given test fold of 40 pairs, we train a kinship detector from the held-out 160 pairs. There is no family overlap between the 5 folds.
\subsection{Parameter setup of methods}
\subsubsection{Hand-crafted features}
We employed the following image-based feature representations: BSIF, LPQ and LBP. We averaged these frame-by-frame features to represent each video by a single feature vector. The facial frames are first converted into HSV color space~\cite{wu2016usefulness} with size of 64 $\times$ 64 $\times$ 3. For BSIF feature extraction, images are divided into non-overlapping 32 $\times$ 32 blocks in each color channel. Each block is represented using 256 features and the whole face with 256 $\times$ 4 $\times$ 3 = 3072 features. For LPQ feature extraction, images are divided into non-overlapping 32 $\times$ 32 blocks in each color channel. Each block is represented using 256 features, leading to 3072-dimensional (256 $\times$ 4 $\times$ 3) feature representation for the whole face. For LBP feature extraction, the images are divided into non-overlapping 16 $\times$ 16 blocks in each color channel. The parameters of LBP are: the radius is set as 1 and the sampling number is 8. 59 histogram values are used to represent each block. Thus, each facial image is represented using 59 $\times$ 16 $\times$ 3 = 2832 features. Furthermore, we also evaluated the video representation, LBP-TOP. In the experiments, the frames are converted into gray scale. Then the face frames are divided into 56 $\times$ 56 non-overlapping blocks. All features extracted from each block volume are connected to represent the appearance and motion of the kinship video. The radius is 1. For each block volume, we extracted 59 histogram features in XY, XT and YT planes, respectively. Thus, one video can be represented as a 59 $\times$ 3 $\times$ 16 = 2832 face features. At last, we computed the cosine similarity between two facial features.
\subsubsection{Face network}
We fed the facial frames one by one with size of 90 $\times$ 224 $\times$ 224 $\times$ 3. The network is trained with 3 epochs with mini batch size of 40. Learning rate is set to $10^{-5}$. After collecting features from the last state of LSTM, PCA is performed to reduce the dimension into 110.
\subsubsection{GMM-UBM \& I-vector}
We used MSR Identity Toolkit~\cite{msr-identity-toolbox-v1-0-a-matlab-toolbox-for-speaker-recognition-research-2} to implement the GMM-UBM and i-vector methods. For both GMM-UBM and I-vector methods, we extract 12 Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCCs) from the audio samples with frame size of 256 and sample rate of 44.1 kHz. The UBM is trained with 128 Gaussian components. At last, we got i-vectors with dimensionality of 100. We used LDA to reduce the number of dimensions further down to 79 dimensions.
\subsubsection{Voice network}
The voice network is pre-trained on VoxCeleb2 dataset. Then we fine-tune the last two layers of network with learning rate of $10^{-3}$. The network is trained with mini batch size of 40 for 10 epochs. After training the network, audio features are extracted from the last fully connected layer of dimensionality of 512. PCA is performed to reduce the feature dimension into 144.
\subsubsection{Baseline fusion methods}
During both early fusion and late fusion, we kept the 144 dimensions of both video and audio features with PCA.
\subsubsection{Siamese network for A-V fusion} The fusion network is trained with mini batch size of 40 for 5 epochs. The learning rate is $10^{-5}$. Further, face network and Siamese network for A-V fusion are performed on TensorFlow~\cite{abadi2015tensorflow} with Nvidia Tesla P100 GPU running CentOS 7.6.1810, while voice network is performed on MatConvNet~\cite{vedaldi15matconvnet}.
\subsection{Performance evaluation}
In our experiments, we adopted the Equal Error Rate (EER), and ROC curves with Area Under Curve (AUC) as measures to evaluate and compare the accuracy techniques. Note that small EER and high AUC indicate the good performance of an algorithm.
\section{Experiment results and discussion}
\label{sec:experiment}
In this section, we present the experimental results and analyze on TALKIN videos for different uni-modal and multi-modal kinship verification methods.
\subsection{Uni-modal kinship verification}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{EER (\%) for the face modality on TALKIN dataset}
\label{tab:face-results-EER}
\newcommand{\tabincell}[2]{\begin{tabular}{@{}#1@{}}#2\end{tabular}}
\begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\bf{Techniques} & FS & FD & MS & MD & \tabincell{c}{Average} \\ \hline \hline
BSIF-Average~\cite{bsif_icpr12} & 49.0 & 50.0 & 46.0 & 45.0 & 47.5\\ \hline
LPQ-Average~\cite{lpq_isp08} & 44.0 & 50.0 & 50.0 & 50.0 & 48.5\\ \hline
LBP-Average~\cite{ahonen2006face,ojala1996comparative} & 50.0 & 44.0 & 45.0 & 46.0 & 46.3\\ \hline
LBP-TOP~\cite{zhao2007dynamic} & 45.0 & 46.0 & 38.0 & 49.0 & 44.5\\ \hline
VGG-Face + LSTM & \textbf{27.0} & \textbf{35.0} & \textbf{34.0} & \textbf{34.0} & \textbf{32.5} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{EER (\%) for the voice modality on TALKIN dataset.}
\label{Audio results---EER}
\newcommand{\tabincell}[2]{\begin{tabular}{@{}#1@{}}#2\end{tabular}}
\begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\bf{Techniques} & FS & FD & MS & MD & \tabincell{c}{Average} \\ \hline \hline
I-vector~\cite{dehak2011front} & 47.0 & 47.0 & 44.0 & 48.0 & 46.5 \\ \hline
GMM-UBM~\cite{reynolds_speaker_2000} & 48.0 & 50.0 & \textbf{44.0} & 45.0 & 46.8 \\ \hline
Resnet-50 & \textbf{32.0} & \textbf{45.0} & \textbf{44.0} & \textbf{40.0} & \textbf{40.3}\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Face-based kinship verification}
Table~\ref{tab:face-results-EER} shows the EERs of visual kinship verification from four relations and average accuracy. From the overall average, our proposed VGG cascaded with a layer of LSTM shows better performance with about more than 29.3\% lower EER compared with hand-crafted features.
The EERs in Table \ref{tab:face-results-EER} indicate the difficulty of kinship detection from faces. The EERs are notoriously high. In fact, as the chance level is 50\%, the hand-crafted feature extraction techniques shown in the first four rows do little (or no) better than random guessing. This may not be surprising, remembering that none of the methods uses kinship/family labels. Equivalently, cosine scoring assumes all the feature dimensions to be equally informative, which may not hold for in-the-wild data such as TALKIN.
Even if the EERs from the VGG + LSTM approach indicate performance better than random guessing, the error rates are too high to be of practical relevance. This motivates the study of voice-based and bi-modal kinship methods.
\subsubsection{Voice-based kinship verification}
EERs for voice-based kinship verification are shown in Table
~\ref{Audio results---EER}.
As with the face modality, the EERs are high. There is little difference between the two GMM-based techniques (GMM-UBM and i-vector), both yielding results close to the chance rate. As expected, here too the deep approach (Resnet-50) provides the lowest overall EER.
\subsubsection{Comparison of face and voice cases}
Tables~\ref{tab:face-results-EER} and ~\ref{Audio results---EER} indicate that deep modal trained with Siamese fashion has the potential to outperform traditional rule-based methods.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{EER (\%) from uni-modal and multi-modal techniques on TALKIN dataset.}
\label{results-all-eer}
\newcommand{\tabincell}[2]{\begin{tabular}{@{}#1@{}}#2\end{tabular}}
\begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\bf{Techniques} & FS & FD & MS & MD & \tabincell{c}{Average} \\ \hline \hline
Resnet-50 (audio) & 32.0 & 45.0 & 44.0 & 40.0 & 40.1 \\ \hline
VGG+LSTM (video) & 27.0 & 35.0 & 34.0 & 34.0 & 32.5 \\ \hline
Late fusion & \textbf{20.0} & 37.0 & 37.0 & \textbf{30.0} & 31.0 \\ \hline
Early fusion & \textbf{20.0} & 38.0 & 35.0 & \textbf{30.0} & 30.8 \\ \hline
\tabincell{c}{Deep Siamese\\ Network (ours)} & 23.0 & \textbf{34.0} & \textbf{31.0} & 31.0 & \textbf{29.8} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\subfigure[FS relation]{\includegraphics[width=1.67in]{figure/FS.eps}
\label{FS}}
\hfil
\subfigure[FD relation]{\includegraphics[width=1.67in]{figure/FD.eps}
\label{FD}}
\hfil
\subfigure[MS relation]{\includegraphics[width=1.67in]{figure/MS.eps}
\label{MS}}
\hfil
\subfigure[MD relation]{\includegraphics[width=1.67in]{figure/MD.eps}
\label{MD}}
\hfil
\caption{ROC curves uni- and multi-modal techniques for kinship verification on TALKIN dataset. The numbers in parentheses are the Area Under the ROC Curve for each method.}
\label{fig: ROC_fusion}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Multi-Modal Kinship Verification}
\label{subsec:multi-modal}
The comparison of different fusion methods and uni-modal performance is given in Table~\ref{results-all-eer} for EERs and Fig.~\ref{fig: ROC_fusion} for ROC curves. In Fig.~\ref{fig: ROC_fusion}, \emph{area under the ROC curve} (AUC) values are also provided. From Table~\ref{results-all-eer}, proposed fusion method with deep Siamese network gets the highest performance in average EER. For FS and MD relation, early fusion and late fusion get the best performance with EER of 20.0\% and 30.0\% separately.
Compared with uni-modal kinship verification methods, fusing both face and voice modalities can lead to better performance with about 3\%-10\% lower in average EER, which also demonstrates that face and voice modalities can give complementary information in kinship verification task. Multi-modal techniques can help to improve the robustness of kinship verification system.
\section{Conclusion and Future Directions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
Using machine learning techniques for kinship verification has become a application of interest within the computer vision committee.
Inspired by a study where people with a kinship relation share similar vocal features and can confuse the speaker verification system, we proposed leveraging vocal information for kinship verification.
In the absence of a kinship database that contains vocal information, we collected a new TALKIN kinship database that is comprised of both facial and vocal information captures from videos while subjects talking. First, we conducted experiments for uni-modal kinship verification from both face and voice aspects. Two state-of-the-art deep architectures (face \& voice) were trained in a Siamese fashion with contrastive loss to provide the best average accuracy. We also proposed a deep Siamese fusion network for kinship verification to combine visual and vocal information that compares favourably to baseline late and early fusion methods. The experimental results also showed that multi-modal kinship verification provide a higher level of accuracy compared with uni-modal kinship verification.
In the future, we plan to investigate deep architectures for spatio-temporal fusion of visual and audio signals. Discriminative analysis will be carried out to explore the discriminative capability of face modality and voice modalities. Additionally, the efficiency of deep learning models for feature extraction and fusion are also a concern. We are currently enlarging the database and planning to make it publicly available for the research community.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The authors wish to acknowledge CSC-IT Center for Science, Finland, for computational resources. The initial help from Dr. Miguel Bordallo López and Dr. Elhocine Boutellaa is also acknowledged. The authors wish to thank T.H.~Kinnunen and A. Hadid for their technical advice for this paper.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
With estimated 174,650 new cases and 31,620 deaths in 2019, prostate
cancer remains the most common type of cancer diagnosed in men in
the US~\cite{Siegel_2019}. Seed implant brachytherapy, which involves
permanent implantation of radioactive sources (seeds) within the prostate
gland, is the standard option for low and intermediate risk prostate
cancer~\cite{Chin_2017}. Despite various improvements in planning
and seed delivery, the actual radiation dose distribution may deviate
from the plan due to various factors such as needle positioning variations,
prostate deformation, seed delivery variations and seed migration.
Therefore, post-implant dosimetry (PID) is recommended to assure the
quality of the implantation and to establish the relationship between
radiation dose and clinical outcomes~\cite{Stock_2002}. PID is typically
performed at day 30 following implantation that utilizes CT to image
the implanted area, from which prostate and surrounding organs at
risk (OARs) are outlined and seed locations are identified.
Accurate localization of implanted seeds is essential to quantify
the dose distribution to those organs. However, manual identification
of these seeds is time consuming given a large number of seeds implanted,
typically taking 10 - 20 minutes to identify 60 to 100 seeds per patient.
Therefore, accurate and automated methods for seed localization are
of great demand. While the radio-opaque seeds appear with high contrast
on the CT images, automatic seed localization is in practice a challenging
task due to the following two unique characteristics, as shown
in Fig. \ref{fig-challenges}. Firstly, the presence of fudicial markers introduces
severe metal artifacts on CT images, which significantly increases
the complexity of seed identification. Secondly, due to seed delivery
variations and seed migration, some implanted seeds are very close
to each other to form seed clusters. This highly-overlapped appearance
make it hard to identify individual seed on CT images.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figure1-final-arxiv.png} \caption{An example of seed appearance in CT images in axial (left), sagittal
(middle) and coronal (right) view, respectively. Yellow arrows indicate
the metal artifacts and red dots represent mannually annotated seed
locations. Clustered seeds can be clearly seen in saggital and coronal
views, as indicated by the blue arrows.}
\label{fig-challenges}
\end{figure}
Several automatic approaches have been developed to localize seeds
in CT images such as geometry-based recognition method~\cite{Liu_2003}
and Hough transform ~\cite{Holupka_2004}. Recently, Nguyen et al.~\cite{Nguyen_2014} proposed a cascaded method that involves thresholding
and connected component analysis as initial detection of seed candidates,
and followed by a modified k-means method to separate groups of seeds
based on a priori intensity and volume information. Zhang et al.~\cite{Zhang_2017}
employed canny edge detection and an improved concave points matching
to separate touching seeds after gray-level-histogram based thresholding.
All these methods use hand-crafted features that require specialized
domain knowledge. Meanwhile, sophisticated pre- and post-processing
steps are usually introduced to facilitate the seed localization procedure.
As a result, the evaluation of these methods was mainly conducted
with physical phantom or small amount of clinical cases.
Recently, deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have become popular
in medical image analysis~\cite{Litjens_2017} and have achieved
state-of-the-art performance in various medical image computing tasks
such as lung nodule detection~\cite{Setio_2017}, gland instance
segmentation in histology images~\cite{Xu_2017}, liver and tumor
segmentation~\cite{Bilic_2019}, skin lesion segmentation~\cite{Yuan_2017}
and classification~\cite{Yu_2017}. Due to the capability of learning
hierarchical features directly from raw image data, CNNs usually yield
better generalization performance especially when evaluating on a
large scale of dataset.
Enlightened by the latest advances in deep learning research, we propose
a novel framework based on deep CNNs to automatically localize the
implanted seeds in 3D CT images. Our contributions in this paper are
three fold. Firstly, we model seed localization as a regression problem
and introduce a fully automated solution by leveraging the discriminative
power of deep CNNs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first
attempt of using deep neural networks to tackle this challenging task.
Secondly, instead of directly predicting the seed coordinates in 3D
space, we design a probability map of seed locations to account for
the uncertainty of manual identification, which improves the robustness
of model prediction. Finally, we evaluated the proposed method on
a large clinical database with $7820$ seeds in 100 patients, and
compared the results with a commercial seed finder software (VariSeed,
Varian, Palo Alto, CA).
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figure2-final-arxiv.png} \caption{(a) The target probability maps created from the dot manual annotations
in Figure 1. (b) The corresponding predicted probability maps inferred
from the proposed deep regression network.}
\label{fig-model}
\end{figure}
\section{Methodology}
\subsection{Deep Regression Model}
As shown in Fig. \ref{fig-challenges}, the ground truth is provided
as dot annotations, where each dot corresponds to one seed. However,
considering the seed has a finite dimension (about 0.8 mm in diameter
and 4.5 mm in length), any dot annotation should be considered as correct
as long as it's located on the seed. As a result, a large variation
can be observed in the ground truth in terms of the annotation positions
on the seeds, which makes it unnecessarily challenging and prone to
overfitting if the exact annotation positions are directly used as
learning target. Instead, we convert the discrete dot annotations
into a continuous probability map $P(\vec{x})$ ($\vec{x}\in R^{3}$)
and cast the seed localization task as a supervised regression problem
that learns a mapping between a 3D CT image set $I(\vec{x})$ and
$P(\vec{x})$, denoted as $\hat{P}(\vec{x},\,\vec{w})=F(I(\vec{x}),\,\vec{w})$
for $\hat{P}(\vec{x})$ the inferred probability map and $\vec{w}$
the learned parameters (weights).
For each training image $I_{i}(\vec{x})$ that is annotated with a
set of 3D points $\vec{C}_{i}=\{C_{1},\ldots,C_{N(i)}\}$, where $N(i)$
is the total number of seeds annotated by the user, we define the
ground truth probability map to be a kernel density estimation based
on the provided points:
\begin{equation}
\forall\vec{x}\in I_{i},\;P_{i}(\vec{x})=\sum_{C\in\vec{C}_{i}}\mathcal{N}(\vec{x};\,C,\Sigma),\;\;\;\;\;\Sigma=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\sigma_{x}^{2} & 0 & 0\\
0 & \sigma_{y}^{2} & 0\\
0 & 0 & \sigma_{z}^{2}
\end{array}\right].
\end{equation}
Here $\vec{x}$ denotes the coordinates of any voxel in image $I_{i}$,
and $\mathcal{N}(\vec{x};\;C,\Sigma)$ is the normalized 3D Gaussian
kernel evaluated at $\vec{x}$, with the mean at the user annotation
$C$ and a diagonal covariance matrix $\Sigma$. Considering the physical
seed dimension and the magnification effect during CT imaging, we
fixed $\sigma_{x}=\sigma_{y}=1\,mm$ and $\sigma_{z}=2\,mm$ in our
study. Figure \ref{fig-model} (a) shows several examples of the probability
map that are created from the dot manual annotations in Fig. \ref{fig-challenges},
and (b) are the corresponding predicted maps inferred from the proposed
deep regression model.
We train a deep regression network (DRN) to map the input CT images
to the probability map using a symmetric convolutional encoding-decoding
structure, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig-drn}. Convolution and max-pooling
are employed to aggregate contextual information of CT images in the
encoding pathway, and transpose convolution is used to recover the
original resolution in the decoding pathway. Each convolutionl layer
is followed by batch normalization and rectified linear unit (ReLU)
to facilitate gradient back-propagation. Long-range skip connections,
which bridge across the encoding blocks and the decoding blocks, are
also created to allow high resolution features from encoding pathway
be used as additional inputs to the convolutional layers in the decoding
pathway. By explicitly assembling low- and high-level features, DRN
benefits from local and global contextual information to reconstruct
more precise probability map of seed locations. Considering the target
probability map is non-negative, we use $softplus$ as the activation
function in the last convolutional layer to ensure a positive output
of DRN, which approximates the ReLU function as:
\begin{equation}
softplus(x)=\frac{1}{\beta}\cdot log(1+exp(\beta\cdot x)).
\end{equation}
In this study, we set $\beta=1$. The convolutional kernel size is
fixed as $3$ and stride as $1$, except for transpose convolution
where we set both kernel size and stride as $2$ for upscaling purpose.
Zero-padding is used to ensure the same dimension during convolution.
All the operations are performed in 3D space.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figure3-arxiv.png} \caption{Architecture of the proposed deep regression network (DRN). DRN is
a fully 3D model that employs convolution and max-pooling to aggregate
contextual information, and uses transpose convolution and long-range
skip connection for better determination of seed locations. The numbers
under each block represent the dimensions of its output, in which
the first dimension denotes the feature channel.}
\label{fig-drn}
\end{figure}
Training DRN is achieved by minimizing a loss function between the
predicted probability map $F((I\vec{x}),\,\vec{w})$ and the target
map $P(\vec{x})$. Since the majority of voxels in the target probability
map belongs to background, DRN tends to focus more on learning background
rather than the Gaussian-shaped seed annotations. In order to account
for this imbalance between background and seed annotations, we use
a weighted Mean Squared Error (MSE) as the loss function, with the
weight as the target map $P(\vec{x})$:
\begin{equation}
L(\vec{w})=\frac{1}{N}\cdot\sum_{n=1}^{N}[P(\vec{x}_{n})\cdot(P(\vec{x}_{n})-\hat{P}(\vec{x}_{n},\,\vec{w}))^{2}],
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the total number of voxels in the training mini batch.
\subsection{Implementation}
Our DRN was implemented with Python using Pytorch (v.0.4) package. Training DRN took 500 iterations from scratch
using Adam stochastic optimization method with a batch size
of $4$. The initial learning rate was set as $0.003$, and learning
rate decay and early stopping strategies were utilized when validation
loss stopped decreasing. In order to reduce overfitting, we randomly
flipped the input volume in left/right, superior/inferior, and anterior/posterior
directions on the fly for data augmentation. We used seven-fold cross
validation to evaluate the performance of our model on the training
dataset, in which a few hyper-parameters were also experimentally
determined via grid search. All the experiments were conducted on
a workstation with four Nvidia GTX 1080 TI GPUs.
As for pre-processing, we simply truncated the voxel values of all CT scans to the range of $[-80,\,175]$ HU to eliminate the irrelevant
image information. The CT images were resampled to $0.5$ mm isotropically
and $128\times128\times96$ volume of interest (VOI) centered on the
prostate was extracted from the entire CT image as input to DRN. During
inference, the new CT images were pre-processed following the same
procedure as training data preparation, then the trained DRN was applied
to VOI to yield a 3D probability map. We used a 3D watershed segmentation
algorithm to convert the probability map to the final seed locations.
\section{Experiments}
We assembled a database of $100$ prostate cancer patients treated
with seed implant brachytherapy from 2008 to 2019 in our institution.
The number of implanted seeds (Palladium 103) ranged from $48$ to
$156$. Seventy patients with $5534$ seeds were randomly selected
for model training and validation, while the remaining $30$ patients
with $2286$ seeds were reserved for independent testing. A CT scan
was performed on each patient $30$ days after implantation, with
in-plane resolution ranging from $0.6\times0.6$ to $1.4\times1.4$
mm and slice thickness from $2.5$ to $3.0$ mm.
The ground truth was obtained by a semi-automatic procedure, in which
VariSeed seed finder algorithm was first used to search implanted
seeds near prostate region in the CT images. Since this automatic
procedure usually results in a few erroneous seed placements, user
intervention was required to correct these errors based on the seed
locations in the CT images. The seed localization as well as the reconstructed
radiation dose distribution were finally approved by a radiation oncologist.
We evaluated the performance of the proposed method by comparing the
pair-wise distance between the predicted seed locations and the ground-truth
locations. For a seed obtained from the automated method and one from
ground truth, if their distance was the shortest among the list of
seeds that needed to be paired, they were considered as a pair and
removed from the list. If a pair-wise distance was smaller than $3$ mm,
the corresponding ground truth seed was considered as being correctly
identified by the automated method.
Figure \ref{fig-results} shows two examples of PID study in CT images
in axial, sagittal and coronal views, respectively, in which $77$
seeds were implanted in patient (a) and $143$ seeds in (b). Also
shown are the corresponding DRN predictions of the probability map.
It clearly shows that the metal artifacts and seed overlap appearance
are significantly suppressed, which makes the seed localization much
easier. The plots on the right show the 3D distributions of the ground
truth and the seeds identified by DRN. Overall, it took about $60$
seconds for DRN to recover the number of implanted seeds on $30$
testing patients. The median pair-wise distance was $0.70$ mm {[}$25\%-75\%$:
$0.36-1.28$ mm{]}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figure4-final-arxiv.png} \caption{Two examples of PID study in CT images in axial, sagittal and coronal
views. The second and fourth rows are the corresponding probability
maps generated by the proposed DRN model. The right column shows the
overall 3D distributions of the ground truth and seeds identified
by DRN. In each figure, the red dots represent the ground truth while
the cyan dots are seed locations identified by DRN.}
\label{fig-results}
\end{figure}
Table \ref{tab-compare} details the comparison between DRN and VariSeed
seed finder in seed detection, in which the first and fourth rows
list the number of implanted seeds. For a large range of number of
implanted seeds (from $48$ to $143$), the proposed DRN outperformed
VariSeed by a big margin on almost every patient. Overall, DRN correctly
identified 2150 out of 2286 seeds ($94.1\%$) in $30$ testing patients,
achieving $16\%$ improvement as compared to VariSeed ($81.0\%$).
\begin{table}
\caption{Comparison between DRN and VariSeed in seed detection accuracy on
the $30$ testing patients. Bold values are the numbers of implanted
seeds in each patient.}
\label{tab-compare} %
\begin{tabular}{l||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
\textbf{No. of seeds} & \textbf{48} & \textbf{50} & \textbf{52} & \textbf{52} & \textbf{58} & \textbf{58} & \textbf{60} & \textbf{62} & \textbf{66} & \textbf{66} & \textbf{66} & \textbf{69} & \textbf{69} & \textbf{71} & \textbf
{71}\tabularnewline
\hline
DRN (\%) & 95.8 & 92.0 & 96.2 & 98.1 & 94.8 & 87.9 & 91.7 & 91.9 & 86.4 & 97.0 & 97.0 & 94.2 & 91.3 & 93.0 & 95.8\tabularnewline
VariSeed (\%) & 79.2 & 48.0 & 42.3 & 65.4 & 79.3 & 77.6 & 76.7 & 69.4 & 75.8 & 81.8 & 90.9 & 84.1 & 79.7 & 74.6 & 91.5\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
\textbf{No. of seeds} & \textbf{72} & \textbf{72} & \textbf{74} & \textbf{77} & \textbf{78} & \textbf{79} & \textbf{82} & \textbf{84} & \textbf{88} & \textbf{95} & \textbf{99} & \textbf{100} & \textbf{108} & \textbf{117} & \textbf
{143}\tabularnewline
\hline
DRN (\%) & 94.4 & 93.1 & 91.9 & 96.1 & 94.9 & 94.9 & 93.9 & 97.6 & 95.5 & 90.5 & 94.0 & 92.0 & 90.7 & 100.0 & 95.8\tabularnewline
VariSeed (\%) & 77.8 & 90.3 & 79.7 & 87.0 & 67.9 & 87.3 & 100.0 & 76.2 & 84.1 & 81.1 & 85.9 & 73.0 & 85.2 & 94.0 & 92.3\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we pioneered the application of deep learning in the
task of identifying radioactive seeds in CT-based post-implant dosimetry
study for patients undergoing prostate brachytherapy. Despite the
challenges in seed localization in CT images, the proposed deep regression
model achieved much higher detection accuracy as compared to a widely-used
commercial software on a large clinical database. Also, our model
was found to be very efficient, taking about 2 seconds on average
for a new test case. Instead of manually drawing 3D bounding box or
mask on each seed, our method only requires dot annotations as ground
truth for model training, which greatly simplifies the data labelling
procedure. This weakly-supervised learning framework can be easily
generalized to other object detection tasks such as fudicial marker
tracking in 2D/3D real-time imaging and source/catheter positioning
in high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work is partially supported by grant UL1TR001433 from the National
Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of
Health, USA.
|
\subsection{The algorithm}
We assume that an initial grid $\Omega_0 \subseteq \Omega$ is given (e.g. a coarse Euclidean grid).
Given a discretization $\Omega_k$, we can define a discretized primal problem \eqref{eq:discretePrimal}
\begin{align*} \label{eq:discretePrimal}
\tag{$\mathcal{P}(\Omega_k)$} \inf_{\mu \in \mathcal{M}(\Omega_k)} \norm{\mu}_{\mathcal{M}} + f(A\mu),
\end{align*}
and its associated dual \eqref{eq:discreteDual}
\begin{align*}
\tag{$\mathcal{D}(\Omega_k)$} \sup_{q \in \mathbb{R}^m, |A^*q(x)|\leq 1, \ \forall x\in \Omega_k} - f^*(q). \label{eq:discreteDual}
\end{align*}
In this paper, we will investigate the exchange rule below:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:exchange_rule}
\Omega_{k+1}=\Omega_{k} \cup X_{k} \mbox{ where } X_k \mbox{ is defined in } \eqref{eq:defXk}.
\end{equation}
The implementation of this rule requires finding $X_k$, the set of all the local maximizers of $\abs{A^*q_k}$ exceeding $1$.
\subsection{A generic convergence result}
\label{sec::conv-exchange}
The exchange algorithm above converges under quite weak assumptions.
For instance, it is enough to assume that the function $f$ is differentiable.
\begin{assumption} \label{ass:grid}
The data fitting function $f:\mathbb{R}^m \to \mathbb{R}$ is differentiable with $L$-Lipschitz continuous gradient.
\end{assumption}
Alternatively, we may assume that the initial set $\Omega_0$ is fine enough, which in particular implies that $|\Omega_0|\geq m$.
\begin{assumption} \label{ass:grid2}
The initial set $\Omega_0$ is such that $A$ restricted to $\Omega_0$ is surjective.
\end{assumption}
We may now present and prove our first result.
\begin{theo}[Generic convergence\label{thm:generic_convergence}]
Under assumptions \ref{ass:f}, \ref{ass:A} and \ref{ass:grid} or \ref{ass:grid2}, a subsequence of $(\mu_k,q_k)$ will converge in the weak-$*$-topology towards a solution pair $(\mu^\star,q^\star)$ of \eqref{eq:primal} and \eqref{eq:dual}, as well as in objective function value. If the solution of \eqref{eq:primal} and/or \eqref{eq:dual} is unique, the entire sequence will converge.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
First remark that the sequence $(\|\mu_k\|_\mathcal{M} +f(A\mu_k))_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ is non-increasing since the spaces $\mathcal{M}(\Omega_k)$ are nested. Due to the boundedness below of $f$, the same must be true for $(\norm{\mu_k}_\mathcal{M})$. Hence there exists a subsequence $(\mu_k)$, which we do not relabel, that weak-$*$ converges towards a measure $\mu_\infty$.
Now, we will prove that the sequence of dual variables $(q_k)_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded.
If Assumption \ref{ass:grid} is satisfied, then $f^*$ is strongly convex and since $0$ is a feasible point, we must have $q_k\in \{q\in \mathbb{R}^m, f^*(q)\leq f^*(0)\}$, which is bounded.
Alternatively, if Assumption \ref{ass:grid2} is satisfied, notice that $1\geq \|A_k^* q_k\|_\infty \geq \|A_0^* q_k\|_\infty$. Since $A_0$ is surjective, the previous inequality implies that $(\|q_k\|_2)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded. Hence, in both cases, the sequence $(q_k)_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ converges up to a subsequence to a point $q_\infty$.
The key is now to prove that $\|A^*q_\infty\|_\infty \leq 1$. To this end, let us first argue that the family $(A^*q_k)_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ is equicontiuous. For this, let $\epsilon>0$ be arbitrary. Since the functions $a_i \in \mathcal{C}_0(\Omega)$ all are uniformly continuous, there exists a $\delta>0$ with the property
\begin{align*}
\norm{x-y}_2 < \delta \, \Rightarrow \, \abs{a_i(x)-a_i(y)} < \frac{\epsilon}{\sup_{k} \norm{q_k}_1} \text{ for all } i.
\end{align*}
Consequently,
\begin{align}
\norm{x-y}_2 < \delta \, \Rightarrow \, \abs{(A^*q_k)(x)- (A^*q_k)(y)} &= \abs{\sum_{i=1}^m (a_i(x)-a_i(y))q_k(i)} \leq \sum_{i=1}^m \abs{a_i(x)-a_i(y)}\abs{q_k(i)} \nonumber \\
&< \frac{\epsilon}{\sup_{k} \norm{q_k}_1} \sum_{i=1}^m \abs{q_k(i)} \leq \epsilon. \label{eq:uniformcont}
\end{align}
Due to the convergence of $(q_k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$, the sequence $(A^*q_k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ is converging strongly to $A^*q_\infty$. We will now prove that $\|A^*q_\infty\|_\infty \leq 1$. If for some $k$, $\norm{A^*q_k}_\infty \leq 1$, we will have $A^*q_\ell = A^*q_k$ for all $\ell \geq k$, and in particular $q_\infty = q_k$ and thus $\norm{A^*q_\infty}\leq 1$. Hence, we may assume that $\norm{A^*q_k}_\infty >1$ for each $k$, i.e. that we add at least one point to $\Omega_k$ in each iteration.
Now, towards a contradiction, assume that $\norm{A^*q_\infty}_\infty =1 + 2\epsilon$ for an $\epsilon>0$. Set $\delta$ as in \eqref{eq:uniformcont}. For each $k \in \mathbb{N}$, let $x_k^\star$ be the element in $\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_x \abs{(A^*q_k)(x)}$ which has the largest distance to $\Omega_k$. Due to $a_\ell \in \mathcal{C}_0(\Omega)$ for each $k$, there needs to exist a compact subset $C \subseteq \Omega$ such that $(x_k^\star)_k \subseteq C$. Indeed, there exists for each $\ell=1, \dots, m$ a $C_\ell$ such that $\abs{a_\ell(x)}\leq (\sup_{k} \norm{q_k}_1)^{-1}$ for all $x \notin C_\ell$. Now, if $x \notin C\ensuremath{\stackrel{\mbox{\upshape\tiny def.}}{=}} \bigcup_{\ell=1}^m C_\ell$, we get
\begin{align*}
\abs{A^*q_k(x)} =\abs{\sum_{i=1}^m a_i(x)q_k(i)} \leq \sum_{i=1}^m \abs{a_i(x)}\abs{q_k(i)} \nonumber < \frac{1}{\sup_{k} \norm{q_k}_1} \sum_{i=1}^m \abs{q_k(i)} \leq 1
\end{align*}
for every $k$. Since $\abs{A^*q_k(x_k^\star)}>1$, we conclude $(x_k^\star)_k \subseteq C$. Consequently, a subsequence (which we do not rename) of $(x_k^\star)$ must converge. Thus, for some $k_0$ and every $k > k_0$, we have $\norm{x_k^\star- x_{k_0}^\star}_2 < \delta$. We then have
\begin{align*}
\norm{A^*q_k}_\infty = \abs{(A^*q_k)(x_k^\star)} < \abs{(A^*q_k)(x_{k_0}^\star)} + \epsilon \leq 1+ \epsilon.
\end{align*}
In the last estimate, we used the constraint of \eqref{eq:discreteDual} and the fact that $x_{k_0}^\star \in \Omega_k$. Since the last inequality holds for every $k\geq k_0$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\norm{A^*q_\infty}_\infty = \lim_{k \to \infty} \norm{A^*q_k}_\infty \leq 1+ \epsilon,
\end{align*}
where we used the fact that $(A^*q_k)_k$ converges strongly towards $A^*q_\infty$. This is a contradiction, and hence, we do have $\norm{A^*q_\infty}_\infty \leq 1$.
Overall, we proved that the primal-dual pair $(\mu_\infty,q_\infty)$ is feasible. It remains to prove that it is actually a solution.
To do this, let us first remark that $\norm{\mu_\infty}_\mathcal{M} + f(A\mu_\infty) \geq - f^*(q_\infty)$ by weak duality. To prove the second inequality, first notice that the weak-$*$-continuity of $A$ implies that $A\mu_k \to A\mu_\infty$. Assumption \ref{ass:f} furthermore implies that $f$ is lower semi-continuous. As a supremum of linear functions, so is $f^*$. Since also $q_k \to q_\infty$, we conclude
\begin{align*}
f^*(q_\infty) + f(A\mu_\infty) \leq \liminf_{k \to \infty} f^*(q_k) + f(A\mu_k).
\end{align*}
Assumptions \ref{ass:f}, \ref{ass:A} together with Proposition \ref{prop:duality} imply exact duality of the discretized problems. This means $f^*(q_k) + f(A\mu_k) = -\norm{\mu_k}_\mathcal{M}$. Since the norm is weak-$*$-l.s.c. , we thus obtain
\begin{align*}
\liminf_{k \to \infty} f^*(q_k) + f(A\mu_k) = \liminf_{k \to \infty} - \norm{\mu_k}_\mathcal{M} \leq - \liminf_{k \to \infty} \norm{\mu_k}_\mathcal{M} \leq -\norm{\mu_\infty}_\mathcal{M}.
\end{align*}
Reshuffling these inequalities yields $\norm{\mu_\infty}_\mathcal{M} + f(A\mu_\infty) \leq - f^*(q_\infty)$, i.e., the reverse inequality.
Thus, $\mu_\infty$ and $q_\infty$ fulfill the duality conditions, and are solutions. The final claim follows from a standard subsequence argument.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Let us mention that the convergence result in Theorem \ref{thm:generic_convergence} and its proof, is not new, see e.g. \cite{reemtsen1990modifications}. The proof technique can be applied to prove similar statements for other refinement rules.
For instance, the result still holds if we add the single most violating point:
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{k+1} \supseteq \Omega_k \cup \{x_k\} \mbox{ with } x_k \in \mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_{x\in \Omega} |A^*q_k|.
\end{equation}
\end{rem}
The result that we have just shown is very generally applicable. It however does not give us any knowledge of the convergence rate. The next section will be devoted to proving a linear convergence rate in a significant special case.
\subsection{Non degenerate source condition}
\label{sec::exchange::assumption}
The idea behind adding points to the grid adaptively is to avoid a uniform refinement, which results in computationally expensive problems \eqref{eq:discreteDual}. However, there is a priori no reason for the exchange rule not to refine in a uniform manner.
In this section, we prove that additional assumptions improve the situation.
First, we will from now on work under Assumption \eqref{ass:grid}. It implies that the dual solutions $q_k$ are unique for every $k$, since Proposition \eqref{eq:duality_lipschitz_stronglyconvex} ensures the strong convexity of the Fenchel conjugate $f^*$. We furthermore assume that the $a_j$ are smooth.
\begin{assumption}[Assumption on the measurement functionals \label{ass:regf}]
The measurement functions $a_j$ all belong to $\mathcal{C}_0^2(\Omega) \ensuremath{\stackrel{\mbox{\upshape\tiny def.}}{=}} \mathcal{C}_0(\Omega) \cap \mathcal{C}^2(\Omega)$ and their first and second order derivatives are uniformly bounded on $\Omega$. We hence may define
\begin{align*}
\kappa \ensuremath{\stackrel{\mbox{\upshape\tiny def.}}{=}} \sup_{\|q\|_2\leq 1} \norm{A^*q}_\infty= \sup_{x\in \Omega} \norm{A(x)}_2, \quad \kappa_\nabla \ensuremath{\stackrel{\mbox{\upshape\tiny def.}}{=}} \sup_{\|q\|_2\leq 1} \norm{(A^*q)'}_\infty, \quad \kappa_{\hess} \ensuremath{\stackrel{\mbox{\upshape\tiny def.}}{=}} \sup_{\|q\|_2\leq 1} \norm{(A^*q)''}_\infty.
\end{align*}
\end{assumption}
We also assume the following regularity condition on the solution $q^\star$ of \eqref{eq:dual}, and its corresponding primal solution $\mu^\star$.
\begin{assumption}[Assumption on the primal-dual pair] \label{ass:dualCert}
We assume that \eqref{eq:primal} admits a unique $s$-sparse solution $\mu^\star$ supported on $\xi= (\xi_i)_{i=1}^s\in \Omega^s$:
\begin{equation}
\mu^\star = \sum_{i=1}^s \alpha_i^\star \delta_{\xi_i}.
\end{equation}
Let $q^\star$ denote the associated dual pair. We assume that the only points $x$ for which $\abs{A^*q^\star(x)}=1$ are the points in $\xi$, and that the second derivative of $\abs{A^*q^\star}$ is negative definite in each point $\xi_i$. It follows that there exists $\tau_0>0$ and $\gamma>0$ such that
\begin{align} \label{eq:reg}
|A^*q^\star|''(x) \preccurlyeq - \gamma \Id \text{ and } |A^*q^\star|(x) \geq \frac{\gamma\tau_0^2}{2} &\text{ for $x$ with } \dist(x, \xi) \leq \tau_0. \\
\abs{(A^*q^\star)(x)} \leq 1- \frac{\gamma \tau_0^2}{2} \ &\text{ for $x$ with } \dist(x, \xi) \geq \tau_0. \label{eq:reg2}
\end{align}
We note that if Equations~\eqref{eq:reg} and \eqref{eq:reg2} are valid for some $(\gamma,\tau_0)$, they are also valid for any $(\tilde \gamma,\tilde \tau_0)$ with
$\tilde \gamma \le \gamma$ and $\tilde \tau_0 \le \tau_0$.
\end{assumption}
Assumption \eqref{ass:dualCert} may look very strong and hard to verify in advance.
Recent advances in signal processing actually show that it is verified under clear geometrical conditions. First, there will always exists at most $m$-sparse solutions to problem \eqref{eq:primal}, \cite{Zuhovickii1948,fisher_spline_1975,boyer2018representer}.
Therefore, the main difficulty comes from the uniqueness of the primal solution and from the two regularity conditions \eqref{eq:reg} and \eqref{eq:reg2}. These assumptions are called \emph{non-degenerate source condition} of the \emph{dual certificate $A^*q^\star$} \cite{duval2015exact}. Many results in this direction have been shown for $f= \xi_{\set{b}}$ or $f(\cdot)=\frac{L}{2}\|\cdot - b\|_2^2$, where $b=A\mu_0$ with $\mu_0$ a finitely supported measure. The papers \cite{candes2014towards, tang2013compressed,dossal2017sampling} deal with different Fourier-type operators, \cite{bodmann2018compressed} about a few other special cases whereas \cite{poon2018support} provides an analysis for arbitrary integral operators sampled at random.
\subsection{Auxiliary results}
\label{sec::exchange::auxiliary}
In this and the following sections, we always work under Assumptions \ref{ass:f}, \ref{ass:A}, \ref{ass:grid} without further notice. We derive several lemmata that are direct consequences of the above assumptions. The first two rely strongly on the Lipschitz regularity of the gradient of $f$.
\begin{lem}[Boundedness of the dual variables \label{lem:boundedness_dual}]
Let $\bar q=\mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}_{q\in \mathbb{R}^m} f^*(q)$ denote the prox-center of $f^*$. For all $k\in \mathbb{N}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\|q_k\|_2\leq \sqrt{2L (f^*(0)-f^*(\bar q))} + \|\bar q\|_2 \ensuremath{\stackrel{\mbox{\upshape\tiny def.}}{=}} R.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:boundedness_dual}]
For all $k\in \mathbb{N}$, we have $0\in \{q\in \mathbb{R}^m, \|A^*_k q\|_\infty \leq 1\}$, hence $f^*(q_k)\leq f^*(0)$. By strong convexity of $f^*$ and optimality of $\bar q$ and $q_k$, we get:
\begin{equation}
f^*(0)\geq f^*(q_k) \geq f^*(\bar q)+\frac{1}{2L}\|q_k-\bar q\|_2^2.
\end{equation}
Therefore $\|q_k-\bar q \|_2\leq \sqrt{2L (f^*(0)-f^*(\bar q))}$ and the conclusion follows from a triangle inequality.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop} \label{prop:supvsq_raw}
Let $q^\star$ be the solution of \eqref{eq:dual}.
Let
\begin{equation*}
\rho\ensuremath{\stackrel{\mbox{\upshape\tiny def.}}{=}} \sqrt{\sup_{w\in \partial f^*(q^\star)} -L \sprod{w,q^\star}}.
\end{equation*}
Then for any $q$, we have
\begin{align*}
f^*(q^\star)-f^*(q) + \frac{1}{2L} \norm{q-q^\star}_2^2 \leq \rho^2 L^{-1}(\sup_{x\in \xi} |A^*q|(x) -1).
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Let $M=\{q\in\mathbb{R}^m, f^*(q)\leq f^*(q^\star)\}$ denote the sub-level set of $f^*$ and $
D = \set{q\in \mathbb{R}^n \, \vert \, \sup_{x\in \xi} |A^*q|(x) \leq 1}$. We first claim that $M$ and $D$ only have the point $q^\star$ in common. Indeed $\mu^\star$ solves the problem $\mathcal P(\xi)$ and by strong duality of the problem restricted to $\mathcal{M}(\xi)$, $q^\star$ solves $\mathcal D(\xi)$.
By strong convexity of $f$, $q^\star$ is the unique solution $\mathcal D(\xi)$, this exactly means $M\cap D= \{q^\star\}$.
The fact that $M\cap D= \{q^\star\}$ implies that there exists a separating hyperplane there. Since the hyperplane must be tangent to $M$, it can be written as $\set{ q \, \vert \, \sprod{w, q} = \sprod{w,q^\star}}$ for a $w \in \partial f^*(q^\star)$, with $D \subset \set{ q \, \vert \, \sprod{w, q} \geq \sprod{w,q^\star}}$. Consequently, letting $\epsilon=\sup_{x\in \xi} |A^*q(x)|-1$, we have
$$(1+\epsilon)D \subset \set{ q \, \vert \, \sprod{w, q} \geq (1+\epsilon)\sprod{w,q^\star}}= \set{ q \, \vert \, \sprod{w, q- q^\star} \geq \epsilon \sprod{w,q^\star}}.$$
Now, the strong convexity of $f^*$ implies for every $q \in (1+\epsilon)D \cap M$,
\begin{align*}
f^*(q) \geq f^*(q^\star) + \sprod{w, q-q^\star} + \frac{1}{2L} \norm{q-q^\star}_2^2 \geq f^*(q^\star) + \epsilon \sprod{w, q^\star} + \frac{1}{2L} \norm{q-q^\star}_2^2.
\end{align*}
Rearranging this, we obtain
\begin{align*}
-\epsilon \sprod{w, q^\star} \geq f^*(q^\star) -f^*(q) + \frac{1}{2L} \norm{q-q^\star}_2^2.
\end{align*}
which is the claim.
\end{proof}
Before moving on, let us record the following proposition:
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Lipschitz_A_Aprime}
We have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:kappa:taylor}
\norm{A(x)-A(y)}_2\le \kappa_\nabla \Vert x-y\Vert_2 \quad \text{ and }\quad
\norm{A'(x)-A'(y)}_F\le \kappa_{\hess} \Vert x-y\Vert_2.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof of the first inequality of \eqref{eq:kappa:taylor} is a standard Taylor expansion :
\begin{align*}
\norm{A(x) - A(y)}_2 &= \sup_{\substack{q \in \mathbb{R}^m \\ \norm{q}_2=1}} \sprod{q, A(x) - A(y)} = \sup_{\substack{q \in \mathbb{R}^m \\ \norm{q}_2=1}} \abs{(A^*q)(x) - (A^*q)(y)} \\
&\leq \sup_{\substack{q \in \mathbb{R}^m \\ \norm{q}_2=1}} \sup_{z \in [x,y]} \sprod{(A^*q)'(z),x-y} \leq \sup_{\substack{q \in \mathbb{R}^m \\ \norm{q}_2=1}} \norm{(A^*q)'}_\infty \norm{x-y}_2 \leq \kappa_\nabla \Vert x-y\Vert_2.
\end{align*}
The proof of the second part of \eqref{eq:kappa:taylor} follows the same lines as the first part and is left to the reader.
\end{proof}
The next two lemmata aim at transferring bounds from the geometric distances of the sets $X_k$, $\Omega_k$ and $\xi$ to bounds on $|A^* q_k(\xi)|$. Using Proposition~\ref{prop:supvsq_raw}, we may then transfer these bounds to bounds on the errors of the dual solutions and the dual (or primal) objective values.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:SupVsq}
The following inequalities hold
\begin{align}
\norm{A^*q_k}_\infty \leq 1 + \frac{R\kappa_{\hess}}{2} \dist(\Omega_k, X_k)^2, \label{eq:normBound}
\end{align}
\begin{align*}
f^*(q^\star) -f^*(q_k) &\leq \frac{R\kappa_{\hess}\rho^2}{2L} \dist(\Omega_k, X_k)^2, \\
\norm{q_k - q^\star}_2 &\leq \dist(\Omega_k, X_k) \sqrt{R\kappa_{\hess}} \rho.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:SupVsq}]
To show \eqref{eq:normBound}, first notice that
\begin{align}
\norm{A^*q_k}_\infty \leq 1 + \norm{(A^*q_k)''}_\infty \frac{\dist(\Omega_k, X_k)^2}{2}. \label{eq:normBound2}
\end{align}
Indeed, by definition, the global maximum $z$ of $|A^*q_k|$ lies in $X_k$ and satisfies $(A^*q_k)'(z)=0$. Furthermore, by construction, all points $x$ in $\Omega_k$ satisfy $|A^*q_k(x)|\leq 1$.
Using a Taylor expansion, we get for all $x\in \Omega$
\begin{align*}
\abs{A^*q_k(x)-A^*q_k(z)} \leq \norm{(A^*q_k)''}_\infty \frac{\norm{x-z}_2^2}{2}.
\end{align*}
Taking $x$ as the point in $\Omega_k$ minimizing the distance to $z$ leads to \eqref{eq:normBound2}. In addition, we have $\norm{(A^*q_k)''}_\infty\leq R\kappa_{\hess}$ by Lemma \ref{lem:boundedness_dual}, so that $\norm{A^*q_k}_\infty \leq 1+\epsilon$ with $\epsilon=R\kappa_{\hess} \frac{\dist(\Omega_k, X_k)^2}{2}$.
Now, letting $C= \set{q \, \vert \, \norm{A^*q}_\infty \leq 1}$, we have just proven that $q_k \in (1+\epsilon)C$. Furthermore, due to the optimality of $q_k$ for the discretized problem and to the fact that $q^\star$ is feasible for that problem, we will have $f^*(q_k) \leq f^*(q^\star)$, i.e., $q_k$ is included in the $f^*(q^\star)$-sub-level set of $f^*$: $M=\{q\in \mathbb{R}^m | f^*(q)\leq f^*(q^\star) \}$. An application of Proposition~\ref{prop:supvsq_raw} now yields the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem} \label{lem:gridVsQ}
Suppose that $\dist(X_k,\xi)\leq \delta$ and $\dist(\Omega_k,\xi)\leq \delta$. Then
\begin{align*}
f^*(q^\star) - f^*(q_k) &\leq \frac{2R\kappa_{\hess}\rho^2}{L} \cdot \delta \dist(\Omega_k,\xi) \\
\norm{q_k- q^\star}_2 &\leq \rho\sqrt{2R\kappa_{\hess}}\sqrt{ \delta \cdot \dist(\Omega_k, \xi)}.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $y_k^i$ (resp. $x_k^i$) be the point closest to $\xi_i$ in $\Omega_k$ (resp. $X_k$).
By assumption, we have $\|x_k^i-y_k^i\|_2\leq 2\delta$.
For all $i$, we have
\begin{align}
|A^*q_k(\xi_i)|\leq |A^*q_k(y_k^i)| + \sup_{z\in [y_k^i, \xi_i]} \|(A^*q_k)'(z)\|_2 \|\xi_i -y_k^i\|_2 \leq 1 + \sup_{z\in [y_k^i, \xi_i]} \|(A^*q_k)'(z)\|_2 \|\xi_i -y_k^i\|_2.
\end{align}
Then, for all $z\in [y_k^i, \xi_i]$, using the fact that $(A^*q_k)'(x_k^i)=0$, we get
\begin{equation*}
\|(A^*q_k)'(z)\|_2 \leq R\kappa_{hess} \|z-x_k^i\|_2 \leq 2\delta R\kappa_{\hess}.
\end{equation*}
Hence, we have $|A^*q_k(\xi_i)| \leq 1 + 2\delta R\kappa_{\hess} \|\xi_i -y_k^i\|_2 \leq 1 + 2\delta R\kappa_{\hess} \dist(\Omega_k,\xi)$.
To conclude, we use Proposition~\ref{prop:supvsq_raw} again.
\end{proof}
The last assertion takes full advantage of Assumption~\ref{ass:dualCert} and the fact that the function $|A^*q^\star|$ is uniformly concave around its maximizers. It allows to transfer bounds from $\Vert q_k-q^\star\Vert_2$ to bounds on the distance from $X_k$ to $\xi$.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:qVsRegime}
Define $c_q=\gamma \min\left(\frac{\tau_0^2}{2\kappa},\frac{\tau_0}{\kappa_{\nabla}},\frac{1}{\kappa_{\hess}}\right)$ and assume that $\norm{q_k-q^\star}_2 < c_q$, then
\[\dist(\xi,X_k) \le \frac{\kappa_\nabla}{\gamma} \norm{q_k-q^\star}_2. \]
Moreover, for each $i$, if $B_i$ is the ball or radius $\tau_0$ around $\xi_i$, then $X_k$ contains at most one point in $B_i$ and $A^*q_k$ has the same sign as $A^*q^\star(\xi_i)$ in $B_i$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Define $\tau=\frac{\kappa_\nabla}{\gamma}\norm{q_k-q^\star}$ and note that $\tau < \tau_0$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:Lipschitz_A_Aprime}, we have for each $x\in \Omega$
\begin{align*}
\abs{(A^*q_k)(x)-(A^*q^\star)(x)}&\leq\norm{A^*(q_k-q^\star)}_\infty \leq \kappa\norm{q_k-q^\star}_2 < \frac{\gamma\tau_0^2}{2} \\
\norm{(A^*q_k)'(x)-(A^*q^\star)'(x)}_2 & \le \norm{(A^*(q_k-q^\star))'}_\infty \le \kappa_\nabla \norm{q_k-q^\star}_2 = \gamma\tau\\
\norm{(A^*q_k)''(x)-(A^*q^\star)''(x)}_2 &\le \norm{(A^*(q_k-q^\star))''}_\infty \le \kappa_{\hess} \norm{q_k-q^\star}_2 <\gamma.
\end{align*}
The above inequalities together with Assumption~\ref{ass:dualCert} imply the following for all $1\leq i \leq s$:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item For $x$ with $\norm{x-\xi_i}_2 \leq \tau_0$, we have
$
\sgn(A^*q_k)(x) = \sgn(A^*q^\star)(x) =\sgn(A^*q^\star)(\xi_i).
$ \item For $x$ with $\norm{x-\xi_i}_2 \leq \tau_0$, we have
$
(\abs{A^*q_k})''(x) \prec (\abs{A^*q^\star})''(x) + \gamma\id \prec 0.
$
\item For $x$ with $\norm{x-\xi_i}_2 \geq \tau_0$, we have
$\abs{(A^*q_k)(x)}<\abs{(A^*q^\star)(x)} + \frac{\gamma\tau_0^2}{2} \leq 1 - \frac{\gamma \tau_0^2}{2} + \frac{\gamma\tau_0^2}{2} =1.
$
\item For $x$ with $\tau < \norm{x-\xi_i}_2 \leq \tau_0$
, we have
$\norm{(A^*q_k)'(x)}_2\ge \norm{(A^*q^\star)'(x)}_2 - \gamma\tau > 0.$
\end{enumerate}
The estimate $\norm{(A^*q^\star)'(x)}_2 > \gamma\tau$ deserves a slightly more detailed justification than the others. Define $w = x-\xi_i$ and $g(\theta) = \sprod{(A^*q)'(\xi_i+\theta w),w} $ for $\theta \in (0,1)$. We may apply the mean value theorem to conclude that
\begin{align*}
g(1)-g(0) = g'(\hat{\theta}) = \sprod{(A^*q)''(\xi_i+\hat{\theta}w) w,w}
\end{align*}
for some $\hat{\theta}\in (0,1)$. Since $g(0)=\sprod{(A^*q^\star)'(\xi_i),w}=\sprod{0,w} =0$, and $\sprod{(A^*q^\star)''(\xi_i+\hat{\theta}w) w,w} \leq -\gamma \norm{w}_2^2$, due to $(\abs{A^*q^\star})'' \preccurlyeq - \gamma \id$ in $\{x\in \Omega, \|x-\xi_i\|_2\leq \tau_0\}$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\norm{(A^*q^\star)'(x)}_2 \geq \frac{1}{\norm{w}_2} \abs{\sprod{(A^*q^\star)'(x),w}} = \frac{\abs{g(1)}}{\norm{w}_2} \geq \frac{\gamma \norm{w}_2^2}{\norm{w}_2} > \gamma \tau,
\end{align*}
since $\norm{w}_2=\norm{x-\xi_i}_2 > \tau$ by assumption. The last estimate was the claim $(iv)$.
This implies a number of things. First, any local maximum of $\abs{A^*q_k}$ with $\abs{A^*q_k}\geq 1$ must lie within a distance of $\tau$ from the set $\xi$ (since for all other points, we have $\abs{A^*q_k} < 1$ -- via $(iii)$ -- or $(Aq_k)'\neq 0$ -- via $(iv)$). Since $\abs{A^*q_k}$ is locally concave on the $\tau_0$-neighborhoods of the $\xi_i$ -- this follows from $(ii)$ -- at most one local extremum furthermore exists in each such neighborhood. This is the claim.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Fixed grids estimates}
\label{sec::exchange::fixed:grids}
In this section, we consider a fixed grid $\Omega_0$ and ask what we need to assume about it in order to guarantee that the set of local maxima of $ \abs{A^*q_0(x)}$ is close to true support $\xi$. We express our result in terms of a geometrical property that we can control, the \emph{width} of the grid $\dist(\Omega_0,\Omega)$.
\begin{theo} \label{th:fixedGrid}
Assume that
$\dist(\Omega_0,\Omega) \le \frac{c_q}{\rho\sqrt{\kappa_{\hess}}}$,
then
\begin{align*}
\dist(\xi, X_0) &\leq \frac{\kappa_\nabla\sqrt{R\kappa_{\hess}}\rho}{2\gamma} \dist(\Omega_0,\Omega)\\
\norm{q_0 - q^\star}_2 &\le \rho \sqrt{R\kappa_{\hess}}\dist(\Omega_0,\Omega) \\
\inf (\mathcal P(\Omega_0)) &\leq \inf \eqref{eq:primal} + \frac{R\kappa_{hess}\rho^2}{2L} \dist(\Omega_0,\Omega)^2
\end{align*}
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
It is trivial that $\dist(\Omega_0,X_0) \le \dist(\Omega_0,\Omega)$. Applying Lemma~\ref{lem:SupVsq}, we immediately obtain the bound on $\norm{q_0-q^\star}_2$. By the same lemma,
\begin{align*}
\inf (\mathcal P(\Omega_0)) &= \sup (\mathcal D(\Omega_0)) = -f^*(q_0) \leq -f^*(q^\star) + \frac{R\kappa_{hess}\rho^2}{2L} \dist(\Omega_0,X_0)^2 \\
&= \sup \eqref{eq:dual} + \frac{R\kappa_{hess}\rho^2}{2L} \dist(\Omega_0,\Omega)^2 = \inf \eqref{eq:primal} + \frac{R\kappa_{hess}\rho^2}{2L} \dist(\Omega_0,\Omega)^2.
\end{align*}
In order to obtain the first bound, remark that $\norm{q_0-q^\star}_2 \leq c_q$ and use Proposition~\ref{prop:qVsRegime}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:dist_not_reflexive}
Note that Theorem~\ref{th:fixedGrid} allows to control $\dist(\xi, X_0)$ but not $\dist(X_0, \xi)$. Indeed each $x \in X_0$ is guaranteed to be close to a $\xi_i$, but not every $\xi_i$ needs to have a point in $X_0$ closeby. Note however that the bounds on the optimal value indicates that in this case the missed $\xi_i$ is not crucial to produce a good candidate for solving the primal problem. We will provide more insight on this, in the case of $f$ being strongly convex, in Section \ref{sec:nonConvex}.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Eventual linear convergence rate}
\label{sec::exchange:linear}
In this section, we provide a convergence rate for the iterative algorithm. As a follow-up to Remark~\ref{rem:dist_not_reflexive}, the proof of convergence relies on the fact that the distances $\dist(X_k, \xi)$ and $\dist( \xi,X_k)$ are equal. In order to ensure this fact, one has to wait for a finite number of iterations, this is exactly the purpose of the next proposition.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:Good_Localization}
Let $B_i=\{x\in \Omega, \|x - \xi_i \|_2<\tau_0 \}$. There exists a finite number of iterations $N$, such that for all $k\geq N$, $X_k$ has exactly $s$ points, one in each $B_i$. It follows that $dist(X_k,\xi)=dist(\xi,X_k)$. Moreover if $S_k$ is the set of active point of $\mathcal D(\Omega_k)$, that is
\[ S_k=\{z \in \Omega_k \text{ s.t. } |A^* q_k(z)|=1\}, \] then $S_k\subset \cup_i B_i$ and for each $i$, $B_i \cap S_k \ne \emptyset$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We first prove that $B_i$ contains a point in $S_k$. To this end, define the set of measures $\mathcal{M}_-=\{\mu \in \mathcal{M}(\Omega), \exists i\in \{1,\hdots, s\}, \supp(\mu)\cap B_i = \emptyset\}$ and
\begin{equation*}
J_{+} = \min_{\mu \in \mathcal{M}_-} \norm{\mu}_{\mathcal{M}} + f(A\mu).
\end{equation*}
By assumption \eqref{ass:dualCert}, $J_{+}>J^\star$. Since $(J(\mu_k))_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to $J(\mu^\star)$, there exists $k_2\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\forall k\geq k_2$, $J(\mu_k)<J_{+}$. Hence $\mu_k$ must for each $1\leq i \leq s$ have points $z_{k}^i\in \Omega_k$ such that $\mu_k$ has non-zero mass at $z_{k}^i$. Consequently, $|A^*q_k(z_{k}^i)|=1$, hence, each $B_i$ contains \emph{at least} one point in $\Omega_k$ such that $|A^*q_k(z_{k}^i)|=1$.
Notice that $q_k$ converges to $q^\star$ by Theorem \ref{thm:generic_convergence}. Hence there a finite number of iterations $k_1$ such that $\Vert q_k-q^\star\Vert< c_q$ for all $k\ge k_1$.
By item $(iii)$ of the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:qVsRegime}, $|A^*q_k| <1$ outside $\cup _i B_i$,
and by item $(ii)$, $|A^*q_k|$ is strictly concave in each $B_i$. Hence each $B_i$ contains exactly one maximizer of $|A^*q_k|$ exceeding one.
\end{proof}
We now move on to analyzing our exchange approach. Before formulating the main result, let us introduce a term: \emph{$\delta$-regimes}.
\begin{defi}
We say that the algorithm enters a \emph{$\delta$-regime} at iteration $k_\delta$ if for all $k \ge k_\delta$, we have $\dist(\xi,X_k) \le \delta$. In particular it means that only points with a distance at most $\delta$ from $\xi$ are added to the grid.
\end{defi}
\begin{lem} \label{lem:regimeChange}
Let $\bar \tau_0 = \frac{\kappa_\nabla}{\gamma}c_q$ and $A=2^{d+1}d^{d/2}\left( \frac{\rho \sqrt{R\kappa_{hess}}\kappa_{\nabla}}{\gamma}\right)^{3d}$. Let $N$ be as in Proposition~\ref{prop:Good_Localization}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any $\tau$, the algorithm enters a \emph{$\tau$-regime} after a finite number of iterations.
\item Assume that $N$ iterations have passed and that the algorithm is in a $\tau$-regime with $\tau \leq \bar \tau_0$. Then for every $\alpha \in (0,1)$ it takes no more than $\left\lceil \frac{A}{\alpha^{2d}} \right\rceil +1$ iterations to enter an $\alpha\tau$-regime.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that for any $\delta \le \bar \tau_0$, if there exists $p\in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq::entering:tau:regime}
\|q_k-q^\star\|_2 \leq \frac{\gamma}{\kappa_{\nabla}}\delta \quad \text{ for all }k\geq p,
\end{equation} we will enter an $\delta$-regime after iteration $p$ by applying Proposition \ref{prop:qVsRegime}.
To prove $(1)$, note that we without loss of generality can assume that $\tau \le \bar \tau_0$ (since entering a $\tau$-regime means in particular entering a $\tau'$-regime for any $\tau'\ge \tau$.) Then , since $\norm{q_k-q^\star}_2$ tends to zero as $k$ goes to infinity,
\eqref{eq::entering:tau:regime} with $\delta =\tau$ is true after a finite number of iterations.
To prove $(2)$, we proceed as follows :
Proposition \ref{prop:Good_Localization} ensures that in each iteration, exactly one point is added in each ball $\{x\in \Omega, \|x-\xi_i\|_2\leq \tau\}$. Let $k_0$ be the actual iteration, a covering number argument \cite{vapnik2013nature} ensures, for any $\Delta$ that after $\delta_0 =\left\lceil 2d^{d/2}\left(\frac{\tau}{\Delta} \right)^d\right\rceil$ iterations, each point in $X_k$ needs to lie at a distance at most $\Delta$ from $\Omega_k$, i.e., $\dist(\Omega_{k},X_k)\leq \Delta$.
Now, if we choose $\Delta=\left(\frac{\gamma}{\kappa_\nabla\rho \sqrt{R\kappa_{hess}}}\right)^3\frac{\alpha^2\tau}{2}$, Lemma \ref{lem:SupVsq} together with Proposition \ref{prop:qVsRegime} imply
\begin{align*}
\dist(\Omega_{k_0+\delta_0+1},\xi)\leq \dist(X_{k_0+\delta_0},\xi) \leq \frac{\kappa_\nabla}{\gamma} \rho\sqrt{R\kappa_{hess}} \dist(\Omega_{k_0+\delta_0},X_{k_0+\delta_0}) \leq \left( \frac{\gamma\alpha}{\kappa_{\nabla}\rho} \right)^2\frac{\tau}{2R\kappa_{hess}}
\end{align*}
Since $\Omega_{k+1}\subset \Omega_k$ for all $k$, the distance $\dist(\Omega_k,\xi)$ is non-increasing. As a result $\dist(\Omega_{k},\xi)\leq \left( \frac{\gamma\alpha}{\kappa_{\nabla}\rho} \right)^2\frac{\tau}{2R\kappa_{hess}}$ for all $k\geq k_0+\delta_0+1$. Since we are in $\tau$-regime, we know that $\dist(X_k,\xi)\leq \tau$ and $\dist(\Omega_k,\xi)\leq \tau$. Hence we can apply Lemma \ref{lem:gridVsQ} to obtain that
\begin{align*}
\|q_k-q^\star\|_2\leq \sqrt{2R\kappa_{\hess} \tau \cdot \dist(\Omega_k,\xi)} \rho \leq \frac{\gamma}{\kappa_\nabla}\alpha \tau.
\end{align*}
Then inequality \eqref{eq::entering:tau:regime} is satisfied with $\delta=\alpha\tau$ and the algorithm enters a $\alpha\tau$-regime.
\end{proof}
The main result will tell us how many iterations we need to enter a $\tau$-regime.
\begin{theo} \label{th:MainExchange}
Let $\tau \leq \bar{\tau}_0\ensuremath{\stackrel{\mbox{\upshape\tiny def.}}{=}}\frac{\kappa_\nabla}{R\gamma}c_q$ and $k_0$ be the iteration on which the algorithm enters a $\bar \tau_0$-regime. Then $k_0 < \infty$, and the algorithm will enter a $\tau$-regime after no more than $k_0 + k_\tau$ iterations, where
\begin{align*}
k_\tau := \left\lceil e 2^{d+1}d^{d/2}\left( \frac{\rho \sqrt{R\kappa_{\hess}}\kappa_{\nabla}}{\gamma}\right)^{3d}+1\right\rceil \left\lceil 2d \log\left( \frac{\bar \tau_0}{\tau}\right) \right\rceil.
\end{align*}
Additionally, we will have
\begin{align}
\norm{q_k - q_*}_2 &\leq \tau \sqrt{2R\kappa_{\mathrm{hess}}}\rho \nonumber \\
\inf \eqref{eq:discretePrimal} &\leq \inf \eqref{eq:primal} + \frac{2R\kappa_{\hess}\rho^2}{L} \cdot \tau^2 \label{eq:cvrate_cost_primal}
\end{align}
for $k \geq k_0+k_\tau+1$.
In other words, the algorithm will eventually converge linearly.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
The fact that $k_0< \infty$ is the first assertion of Lemma~\ref{lem:regimeChange}. As for the other part, we argue as follows: Fix $\alpha \in (0,1)$. Since we have entered a $\bar \tau_0$-regime at iteration $k_0$, Lemma \ref{lem:regimeChange} implies that it will take no more than $\left\lceil \frac{A}{\alpha^{2d}} \right\rceil +1$ additional iterations to enter a $\alpha \bar \tau_0$. Repeating this argument, we see that after no more than
\begin{align*}
n \cdot \left(\left\lceil \frac{A}{\alpha^{2d}} \right\rceil +1\right)
\end{align*}
iterations, we will have entered a $\alpha^n \bar \tau_0$ regime. Choosing $\alpha = e^{-1/2d}$ and $n = \lceil 2d \log\left( \bar{\tau}_0/ \tau \right) \rceil$, we obtain the first statement.
The second statement immediately follows from Lemma \ref{lem:gridVsQ} (as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:fixedGrid}) and the fact that entering a $\tau$-regime exactly amounts to that $\dist(X_k,\xi)\leq \tau$ for all future $k$, and therefore in particular $\dist(\Omega_{k+1},\xi)\leq \tau$.
\end{proof}
The inequality \eqref{eq:cvrate_cost_primal} upper-bounds the cost function for the problem \eqref{eq:discretePrimal}.
In practice, the numerical resolution of this problem is hard since $\Omega_k$ contains clusters of points and in practice it is beneficial to solve the simpler discrete problem
\begin{align*}
\widehat{\mu}_k=\mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}_{\mu \in \mathcal{M}(X_k)} \|\mu\|_{\mathcal{M}} + f(A\mu) \tag{$\mathcal{P}(X_k)$} \label{eq:simplePrimal}
\end{align*}
For this measure, we also obtain an a posteriori estimate of the convergence rate.
\begin{prop} Define $\widehat{\mu}_k$ as the solution of \eqref{eq:simplePrimal}, if $\dist(X_k,\xi)\leq \tau$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:XkOptVal}
J(\widehat{\mu}_k)\leq J(\mu^\star) + \left(\norm{\alpha^\star}_1 \frac{\kappa_{\hess} \norm{q^\star}_2}{2} + \frac{L}{2} \|\alpha^\star\|_1^2 \kappa_\nabla^2\right) \tau^2.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For any $i$, denote $x^i_k$ a point in $X_k$ closest to $\xi_i$ and define $\tilde \mu_k = \sum_{i=1}^s \alpha_i^\star \delta_{x_k^i}$. We have $J(\widehat{\mu}_k)\leq J(\tilde \mu_k)$ and $\|\tilde \mu_k\|_\mathcal{M} \le \|\mu^\star\|_\mathcal{M}$. Furthermore, we have
\begin{align*}
f(A\tilde \mu_k) & \leq f(A\mu^\star) + \langle \nabla f(A\mu^\star), A\tilde \mu_k - A\mu^\star\rangle + \frac{L}{2} \|A\tilde \mu - A\mu^\star\|_2^2.
\end{align*}
The last term in the inequality is dealt with the following estimate:
\begin{align*}
\|A\tilde \mu - A\mu^\star\|_2\leq \sum_{i=1}^s |\alpha_i^\star| \|A(x_k^i)-A(\xi_i)\|_2
\leq \sum_{i=1}^s |\alpha_i^\star| \kappa_\nabla\|x_k^i-\xi_i\|_2 \leq \|\alpha^\star\|_1 \kappa_\nabla\tau.
\end{align*}
As for the penultimate term, remember that $q^\star = - \nabla f(A\mu^\star)$. This implies
\begin{align*}
\sprod{\nabla f(A\mu^\star), A \tilde{\mu}_k - A \mu^\star} = \sprod{A^*q^\star, \mu^\star - \tilde{\mu}_k} = \sum_{i=1}^s \alpha_i^\star \left((A^*q^\star)(\xi_i)-A^*q^\star(x_k^i) \right)
\end{align*}
By making a Taylor expansion of $A^*q^\star$ in each $\xi_i$, utilizing that the derivative vanishes there, and that $\norm{(A^*q^\star)''(x)} \leq \kappa_{\hess} \norm{q^\star}_2$ for each $x \in \Omega$, we see that $\abs{(A^*q^\star)(x_k^i)-(A^*q^\star)(\xi_i)} \leq \frac{\kappa_{\hess} \norm{q^\star}_2}{2}\norm{x_k^i-\xi_i}_2^2$ for each $i$. This yields
\begin{align*}
\sprod{\nabla f(A\mu^\star), A \tilde{\mu}_k - A \mu^\star} \leq \norm{\alpha^\star}_1 \frac{\kappa_{\hess} \norm{q^\star}_2 \tau^2}{2}.
\end{align*}
Overall, we obtain
\begin{align*}
J(\widehat{\mu}_k)\leq J(\tilde \mu_k) = \|\tilde \mu_k\|_\mathcal{M} + f(A\tilde \mu_k) \leq J(\mu^\star) + \norm{\alpha^\star}_1 \frac{\kappa_{\hess} \norm{q^\star}_2 \tau^2}{2} + \frac{L}{2} \|\alpha^\star\|_1^2 \kappa_\nabla^2\tau^2.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{The problem}
The main objective of this paper is to develop and analyze iterative algorithms to solve the following infinite dimensional problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:primal}
\tag{$\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$} \inf_{\mu \in \mathcal{M}(\Omega)} J(\mu)\ensuremath{\stackrel{\mbox{\upshape\tiny def.}}{=}} \norm{\mu}_{\mathcal{M}} + f(A\mu),
\end{equation}
where $\Omega$ is a bounded open domain of $\mathbb{R}^d$, $\mathcal{M}(\Omega)$ is the set of Radon measures on $\Omega$, $\norm{\mu}_{\mathcal{M}}$ is the total variation (or mass) of the measure $\mu$, $f:\mathbb{R}^m\to \mathbb{R}\cup\{+\infty\}$ is a convex lower semi-continuous function with non-empty domain and $A: \mathcal{M}(\Omega) \to \mathbb{R}^m$ is a linear measurement operator.
An important property of Problem \eqref{eq:primal} is that at least one of its solutions $\mu^\star$ has a support restricted to $s$ distinct points with $s\leq m$ (see e.g. \cite{Zuhovickii1948,fisher_spline_1975,boyer2018representer}), i.e. is of the form
\begin{equation}
\mu^\star = \sum_{i=1}^s \alpha_i^\star \delta_{\xi_i},
\end{equation}
with $\xi_i\in \Omega$ and $\alpha_i^\star\in \mathbb{R}$. This property motivates us to study a class of \emph{exchange} algorithms. They were introduced as early as 1934 \cite{remes1934procede} and then extended in various manners \cite{rettich98}. They consist in discretizing the domain $\Omega$ coarsely and then refining it adaptively based on the analysis of so-called dual certificates. If the refinement process takes place around the locations $(\xi_i)$ only, these methods considerably reduce the computational burden compared to a finely discretized mesh.
Our main results consist in a set of convergence rates for this algorithm that depend on the regularity of $f$ and on the non-degeneracy of a dual certificate at the solution. We also show the linear convergence rate for first order algorithms that continuously vary the coefficients $\alpha_i$ and $x_i$ of a discrete measure. Finally, we show that algorithms alternating between an exchange step and a continuous method share the best of both worlds: the global convergence guarantees of exchange algorithms together with the efficiency of first order methods. This yields a fast adaptive method with strong convergence guarantees for total variation minimization and related problems.
\subsection{Applications}
Our initial motivation to study the problem \eqref{eq:primal} stems from signal processing applications.
We recover an infinite dimensional version of the \emph{basis pursuit} problem \cite{chen2001atomic} by setting
\begin{equation*}
f(x)=\iota_{\{y\}}(x) = \begin{cases}
0 & \textrm{ if } x=y \\
+\infty & \textrm{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Similarly, the choice $f(x) = \frac{\tau}{2}\|x-y\|_2^2$, leads to an extension of the LASSO \cite{tibshirani1996regression} called Beurling LASSO \cite{de2012exact}. Both problems proved to be extremely useful in engineering applications. They got a significant attention recently thanks to theoretical progresses in the field of super-resolution \cite{de2012exact,tang2013compressed,candes2014towards,duval2015exact}. Our results are particularly strong for the quadratic fidelity term.
\subsection{Numerical approaches in signal processing}
The progresses on super-resolution \cite{de2012exact,tang2013compressed,candes2014towards,duval2015exact} motivated researchers from this field to develop numerical algorithms for the resolution of Problem \eqref{eq:primal}. By far the most widespread approach is to use a fine uniform discretization and solve a finite dimensional problem. The complexity of this approach is however too large if one wishes high precision solutions. This approach was analyzed from a theoretical point of view in \cite{tang2013sparse,duval2015exact} for instance. The first papers investigating the use of \eqref{eq:primal} for super-resolution purposes advocated the use of semi-definite relaxations \cite{tang2013compressed,candes2014towards}, which are limited to specific measurement functions and domains, such as trigonometric polynomials on the 1D torus $\mathbb{T}$.
The limitations were significantly reduced in \cite{de2017exact}, where the authors suggested the use of Lasserre hierarchies. These methods are however currently unable to deal with large scale problems.
Another approach suggested in \cite{bredies2013inverse}, and referred to as a Frank-Wolfe algorithm, consists in adding one point to a discretization set iteratively, where a so-called dual certificate is maximal.
More recently, \cite{traonmilin2018basins} began investigating the use of methods that continuously vary the positions $(x_i)$ and amplitudes $(\alpha_i)$ of discrete measures parameterized as $\mu=\sum_{i=1}^s \alpha_i \delta_{x_i}$. The authors gave sufficient conditions for a simple gradient descent on the product-space $(\alpha,x)$ to converge.
In \cite{boyd2017alternating} and \cite{denoyelle2018sliding}, this method was used alternatively with a Frank-Wolfe algorithm, the idea being to first add Dirac masses roughly at the right locations and then to optimize their locations and position continuously, leading to promising numerical results. Surprisingly enough, it seems that the connection with the mature field of semi-infinite programming has been ignored (or not explicitly stated) in all the mentioned references.
\subsection{Some numerical approaches in semi-infinite programming}
A semi-infinite program \cite{rettich98,hettich1993semi} is traditionally defined as a problem of the form
\begin{align}\label{eq:SIP}
\tag{SIP$[\Omega]$} \min_{\substack{q \in Q\\ c(x,q) \leq 0 , x \in \Omega}} u(q)
\end{align}
where $Q$ and $\Omega$ are subsets of $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $\mathbb{R}^m$ respectively, $u: Q \to \mathbb{R}$ and $c : \Omega \times Q\to \mathbb{R}$ are functions. The term semi-infinite stems from the fact that the variable $q$ is finite-dimensional, but it is subject to infinitely many constraints $c(x,q) \leq 0$ for $x\in \Omega$. In order to see the connection between the semi-infinite program \eqref{eq:SIP} and our problem \eqref{eq:primal}, we can formulate its \emph{dual}, which reads as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dual}
\tag{$\mathcal{D}(\Omega)$} \sup_{q \in \mathbb{R}^m, \|A^*q\|_\infty \leq 1} - f^*(q).
\end{equation}
This dual will play a critical role in all the paper and it is easy to relate it to a SIP by setting $Q=\mathbb{R}^m$, $u= f^*$ and $c= \abs{(A^*q)(x)}-1$.
Many numerical methods have been and are still being developed for semi-infinite programs and we refer the interested reader to the excellent chapter 7 of the survey book \cite{rettich98} for more insight. We sketch below two classes of methods that are of interest for our concerns.
\subsubsection{Exchange algorithms}
A canonical way of discretizing a semi-infinite program is to simply control finitely many of the constraints, say $c(x,q) \leq 0$ for $x \in \Omega_0 \subseteq \Omega$, where $\Omega_0$ is finite. The discretized problem SIP$[\Omega_0]$ can then be solved by standard proximal methods or interior point methods. In order to obtain convergence towards an exact solution of the problem, it is possible to choose a sequence $(\Omega_k)$ of nested sets such that $\bigcup_{k} \Omega_k$ is dense in $\Omega$. Solving the problems SIP$[\Omega_k]$ for large $k$ however leads to a high numerical complexity due to the high number of discretization points.
The idea of exchange algorithms is to iteratively update the discretization sets $\Omega_k$ in a more clever manner than simply making them denser. A generic description is given by Algorithm \ref{alg:exchange}.
\begin{algorithm}[htbp]
\caption{A Generic Exchange Algorithm\label{alg:exchange}}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State \textbf{Input:} Objective function $u$, Constraint function $c$, Constraint sets $\Omega$ and $Q$, Initial discretization set $\Omega_0$.
\While{Not converged}
\State Set $\displaystyle q_k\in \mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}_{\substack{q \in Q \\ c(x,q)\leq 0, x\in \Omega_k}} u(q)$ \\
\State Set $\Omega_{k+1} = \mathrm{Update\_Rule}(\Omega_k,q_k,k)$.
\EndWhile
\State \textbf{Output:} The last iterate $q_\infty$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
In this paper, we consider $\mathrm{Update\_Rule}$s of the form
\begin{align*}
\Omega_{k+1} \subset \Omega_k \cup \{x_k^1,\hdots, x_k^{p_k}\},
\end{align*}
where the points $x_k^{i}$ are \emph{local maximizers} of $c(\cdot,q_k)$. At each iteration, the set of discretization points can therefore be updated by adding and dropping a few prescribed points, explaining the name 'exchange'. The simplest rule consists of adding the single most violating point, i.e.
\begin{align}\label{eq:Frank_Wolfe}
\Omega_{k+1}= \Omega_k \cup \mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_{x\in \Omega} c(x, q_k).
\end{align}
It seems to be the first exchange algorithm and is nearly equivalent to the Remez algorithm from the 30's \cite{remes1934procede}. It can be shown to be equivalent to a Frank-Wolfe (a.k.a. conditional gradient) method up to an epigraphical lift \cite{denoyelle2018sliding}. These methods were introduced in the field of signal processing in \cite{bredies2013inverse} and the connection with exchange algorithms was proposed in \cite{eftekhari2018bridge}.
The update rule \eqref{eq:Frank_Wolfe} is sufficient to guarantee convergence in the generic case and to ensure a decay of the cost function in $O\left(\frac{1}{k}\right)$, see \cite{levitin1966constrained}. Although 'exchange' suggests that points are both added and subtracted, methods for which $\Omega_k \subseteq \Omega_{k+1}$ are also coined exchange algorithms. The use of such rules often leads to easier convergence analyses, since we get monotonicity of the objective values $u(q_k)$ for free \cite{hettich1993semi}. Other examples \cite{hettich1982} include only adding points if they exceed a certain margin, i.e. $c(x,y) \geq \epsilon_k$, or all local maxima of $c(q_k,\cdot)$. In the case of convex functions $f$, algorithms that both add and remove points can be derived and analyzed with the use of cutting plane methods. All these instances have their pros and cons and perform differently on different types of problems. Since a semi-infinite program basically allows to minimize \emph{arbitrary} continuous and finite dimensional problems, a theoretical comparison should depend on additional properties of the problem.
\subsubsection{Continuous methods}
Every iteration of an exchange algorithm can be costly: it requires solving a convex program with a number of constraints that increases if no discretization point is dropped. In addition, the problems tend to get more and more degenerate as the discretization points cluster, leading to numerical inaccuracies. In practice it is therefore tempting to use the following two-step strategy: i) find an approximate solution $\mu_k=\sum_{i=1}^{p_k} \alpha_k^i \delta_{x_k^i}$ of the primal problem \eqref{eq:primal} using $k$ iterations of an exchange algorithm and ii) continuously move the positions $X=(x_i)$ and amplitudes $\alpha=(\alpha_i)$ starting from $(\alpha_k,X_k)$ to minimize \eqref{eq:primal} using a nonlinear programming approach such as a gradient descent, a conjugate gradient algorithm or a Newton approach.
This procedure supposes that the output $\mu_k$ of the exchange algorithm has the right number $p_k=s$ of Dirac masses, that their amplitudes satisfy $\sgn(\alpha_i)=\sgn(\alpha_i^\star)$ and that $\mu_k$ lies in the basin of attraction of the optimization algorithm around the global minimum $\mu^\star$. To the best of our knowledge, knowing a priori when those conditions are met is still an open problem and deciding when to switch from an exchange algorithm to a continuous method therefore relies on heuristics such as detecting when the number of masses $p_k$ stagnates for a few iterations.
The cost of continuous methods is however much smaller than that of exchange algorithms since they amount to work over a small number $s(d+1)$ of variables. In addition, the instabilities mentioned earlier are significantly reduced for these methods. This observation was already made in \cite{boyd2017alternating,denoyelle2018sliding} and proved in \cite{traonmilin2018basins} for specific problems.
\subsection{Contribution}
Many recent results in the field of super-resolution provide sufficient conditions for a \emph{non degenerate source condition} to hold \cite{candes2014towards, tang2013compressed,dossal2017sampling,bodmann2018compressed,poon2018support}. The non degeneracy means that the solution $q^\star$ of \eqref{eq:dual} is unique and that the \emph{dual certificate} $|A^*q^\star|$ reaches $1$ at exactly $s$ points, where it is strictly concave. The main purpose of this paper is to study the implications of this non degeneracy for the convergence of a class of exchange algorithms and for continuous methods based on gradient descents. Our main results are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We show an eventual linear convergence rate of a class of exchange algorithms for convex functions $f$ with Lipschitz continuous gradient. More precisely, we prove that after a finite number of iterations $N$ the algorithm outputs vectors $q_k$ such that the set
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defXk}
X_k \ensuremath{\stackrel{\mbox{\upshape\tiny def.}}{=}} \{x\in \Omega \, \vert \, x_k \text{ local maximizer of } \abs{A^*q_k}, \ |A^*q_k|(x)\geq 1\}
\end{equation}
contains exactly $s$-points $(x_k^1, \hdots, x_k^s)$.
Letting $\widehat{\mu}_k=\sum_{i=1}^s \alpha_i^{k} \delta_{x_i^k}$ denote the solution of the finite dimensional problem $\inf_{\mu \in \mathcal{M}(X_k)} \|\mu\|_{\mathcal{M}} + f(A\mu)$, we also show the linear convergence rate of the cost function $J(\mu_k)$ to $J(\mu^\star)$ and of the support in the following sense: after a number $N$ of initial iterations, it will take no more that $k_\tau= C\log(\tau^{-1})$ iterations to ensure that $\dist(X_{k_\tau + N},\xi)\leq \tau$. A similar statement holds for the coefficient vectors $\alpha^{k}$.
\item We also show that a well-initialized gradient descent algorithm on the pair $(\alpha,x)$ converges linearly to the true solution $\mu^\star$ and explicit the width of the basin of attraction.
\item We then show how the proposed guarantees may explain the success of methods alternating between exchange methods and continuous methods at each step, in a spirit similar to the sliding Frank-Wolfe algorithm \cite{denoyelle2018sliding}.
\item We finally illustrate the above results on total variation based problems in 1D and 2D.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgement}
The authors acknowledge support from ANR
JCJC OMS.
\section{Introduction}
\input{Introduction.tex}
\section{Preliminaries}
\input{Preliminaries.tex}
\section{An Exchange Algorithm and its convergence}
\input{Exchange_simple.tex}
\section{Convergence of continuous methods} \label{sec:GradientDescent}
\input{Non_Convex.tex}
\section{Description of the hybrid approach} \label{sec:hybrid}
\input{Hybrid.tex}
\section{Numerical Experiments} \label{sec:numerics}
\input{Numerical.tex}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\subsection{Stopping criterion for the exchange algorithm}
\subsection{Existence of a basin of attraction}
This section is devoted to proving the existence of a basin of attraction of a descent method in $G$. Under two additional assumptions, we state our result in Proposition~\ref{prop:G}.
\begin{assumption} \label{ass:strongConv}
The function $f$ is twice differentiable and $\Lambda$-strongly convex.
\end{assumption}
The twice differentiability assumption is mostly due to convenience, but the strong convexity is crucial. The second assumption is related to the structure of the support $\xi$ of the solution $\mu^\star$.
\begin{assumption} \label{ass:TransMatrix}
For any $x,y \in \Omega$ denote $K(x,y)=\sum_{\ell} a_\ell (x)a_\ell (y)$.
The \emph{transition matrix}
\begin{align*}
T(\xi)=\begin{bmatrix}
[K(\xi_i,\xi_j)]_{i,j=1}^s &[\nabla_x K(\xi_i,\xi_j)^*]_{i,j=1}^s \\
[\nabla_x K(\xi_i, \xi_j)]_{i,j=1}^s &[\nabla_x \nabla_y K(\xi_i,\xi_j)^*]_{i,j=1}^s
\end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{s+sd,s+sd} .
\end{align*}
is assumed to be positive definite, with a smallest eigenvalue larger than $\Gamma>0$.
\end{assumption}
It is again possible to prove for many important operators $A$ that this assumption is satisfied if the set $\xi$ is separated. See the references listed in the discussion about Assumption \ref{ass:dualCert}. The following proposition describes the links between minimizing $G$ and solving \eqref{eq:primal}.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:G}
Let $\mu^\star=\sum_{i=1}^s \alpha^\star_i \delta_{\xi_i} \neq 0$ be the solution of \eqref{eq:primal}. Under Assumption \ref{ass:strongConv} and \ref{ass:TransMatrix}, $(\alpha^\star,\xi)$ is global minimum of $G$. Additionally, $G$ is differentiable with a Lipschitz gradient and strongly convex in a neighborhood of $(\alpha^\star,\xi)$.
Hence, there exists a basin of attraction around $(\alpha^\star,\xi)$ such that performing a gradient descent on $G$ will yield the solution of \eqref{eq:primal} at a linear rate.
\end{prop}
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:G}. Let us begin by stating a simple auxiliary result.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:posDefProd}
Let $U$ and $V$ be vector spaces and $C: V \to V$ be a linear operator with $C \succcurlyeq \lambda \id_V$ for a $\lambda \geq 0$. Then, for any $B:U \to V$
\begin{align*}
B^*CB \succcurlyeq \lambda B^*B.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If $B^*CB-\lambda B^*B$ is positive semidefinite, we claim holds. Since for $v \in U$ arbitrary
\begin{align*}
\sprod{(B^*CB-\lambda B^*B)v,v} = \sprod{C(Bv),Bv} - \lambda \sprod{Bv,Bv} \geq \lambda \norm{Bv}_V^2 - \lambda \norm{Bv}_V^2 =0,
\end{align*}
the latter is the case.
\end{proof}
Let us introduce some notation that will be used in this section: for an $X=(x_1,\hdots,x_p) \in \Omega^p$ for some $p$, $A(X)$ denotes the matrix $[a_i(x_j)]$. Analogously, $A'(X)$ and $A''(X)$ denote the operators
\begin{align*}
A'(X) : (\mathbb{R}^d)^p \to \mathbb{R}^m, (v_i)_{i=1}^p \mapsto \left(\sum_{i=1}^p \partial_x a_j(x_i)v_i\right)_j, \quad A''(X): (\mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R}^d)^p \to \mathbb{R}^m, (v_i,w_i)_{i=1}^p \mapsto \sum_{i=1}^p A''(x_i)[v_i,w_i]
\end{align*}
respectively. Note that for $q \in \mathbb{R}^m$ and $X \in \Omega^p$,
\begin{align*}
A(X)^*q &= ((A^*q)(x_i))_{i=1}^p \ensuremath{\stackrel{\mbox{\upshape\tiny def.}}{=}} (A^*q)(X) \in \mathbb{R}^p \\
A'(X)^*q &= (\nabla (A^*q)(x_1), \dots, \nabla (A^*q)(x_p)) \in (\mathbb{R}^d)^p \\
A''(X)^*q &= ((A^*q)''(x_1), \dots , (A^*q)''(x_p)) \in (\mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R}^d)^p
\end{align*}
We will also use the shorthands $\mu= \sum_{i} \alpha_i \delta_{x_i}$, $G_f(\alpha,X) = f(A\mu)$, and, for $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}^p$, $D(\alpha)$ denotes the operator
\begin{align*}
D(\alpha): (\mathbb{R}^d)^p \to (\mathbb{R}^d)^p, (v_i)_{i=1}^p \mapsto (\alpha_i v_i)_{i=1}^p.
\end{align*}
We have
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial G_f}{\partial \alpha}(\alpha,X) \beta &= \sprod{\nabla f(A\mu),A(X)\beta} \\
\frac{\partial G_f}{\partial X} \updelta &= \sprod{\nabla f(A\mu), A'(X)D(\alpha)\updelta},
\end{align*}
so that in points $(\alpha,X)$ with $\alpha_i \neq 0$ for all $i$, and in particular in a neighborhood of $(\alpha^\star,\xi)$, $G$ is differentiable and its gradient is given by :
\begin{align}
\label{eq:formula:gradient:G}
\mathbb{R}^p \times (\mathbb{R}^p)^d \ni \nabla G(\alpha,X) = \left(\sgn(\alpha) - (A^*q)(X), -D(\alpha)(A^*q)'(X) \right), \quad \text{ with } q=-\nabla f(A\mu).
\end{align}
As for the second derivatives, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 G_f}{\partial^2 \alpha}(\alpha,X) [\beta, \gamma] &= f''(A\mu)(A(X) \beta,A(X)\gamma) \\
\frac{\partial^2 G_f}{\partial \alpha \partial X}(\alpha, X)[ \beta,\updelta] &= f''(A\mu) (A(X) \beta, A'(X)D(\alpha)\updelta) + \sprod{\nabla f(A\mu), A'(X)D(\beta) \updelta} \\
\frac{\partial^2 G_f}{\partial^2 X} (\alpha,X)[\updelta, \upepsilon] &= f''(A\mu)(A'(X)D(\alpha)\updelta ,A'(X)D(\alpha)\upepsilon) + \sprod{\nabla f(A\mu), A''(X)(D(\alpha) \updelta, \upepsilon)}.
\end{align*}
We may now prove our claims.
\begin{proof}[Proof \ref{prop:G}] First, let us note that due to the optimality conditions of \ref{eq:primal}, we know that
\begin{align*}
q^\star = - \nabla f(A\mu^\star).
\end{align*}
Letting $q=-\nabla f(A\mu)$, it is furthermore fruitful to decompose the Hessian of $G$ into two parts:
\begin{align*}
H_1(\alpha,X)&= \begin{bmatrix}
A(X)^*f''(A\mu) A(X) & A(X)^* f''(A\mu) A'(X)D(\alpha) \\
D(\alpha)^* A'(X)^*f''(A\mu)A(X) & D(\alpha)^*A'(X)^*f''(A\mu)A'(X)D(\alpha)
\end{bmatrix} \\
H_2(\alpha,X) [(\beta,\updelta),(\gamma,\upepsilon)] &= -\sum_{i=1}^s \beta_i (A^*q)'(x_i)\epsilon_i + \gamma_i (A^*q)'(x_i)\updelta_i +\alpha_i(A^*q)''(x_i)[\updelta_i,\upepsilon_i] ,
\end{align*}
Now, $\abs{A^*q^\star}$ has local maxima in the points $\xi_i$, so that $(A^*q^\star)'(\xi)=0$. In these points, we furthermore have that $\sgn(\alpha_i^\star)= A^*q^\star(\xi_i)$, so that the gradient of $G$ given in \eqref{eq:formula:gradient:G} vanishes.
To prove the rest, it is enough to show that the Hessian of $G_f$ is positive definite in a neighborhood around $(\alpha^\star,\xi)$. Let $(\alpha,X)$ be arbitrary. $H_1$ is an operator of the form $M_1^*M_2(X)^*{\mathcal L} M_2(X)M_1$, with ${\mathcal L}= f''(A\mu): \mathbb{R}^m \to \mathbb{R}^m$ and
\begin{align*}
M_1= \begin{bmatrix}\id& 0 \\ 0 & D(\alpha)
\end{bmatrix} : \mathbb{R}^p \times (\mathbb{R}^d)^s \to \mathbb{R}^s \times (\mathbb{R}^d)^s, \quad M_2(X)= \begin{bmatrix}A(X) & A'(X)
\end{bmatrix}: \mathbb{R}^s \times (\mathbb{R}^d)^s \to \mathbb{R}^m.
\end{align*}
Due to the $\Lambda$-strong convexity of $f$, $\mathcal{L} \succcurlyeq \Lambda \id$. We furthermore have
\begin{align*}
M_1^*M_1 = \begin{bmatrix} \id & 0 \\ 0 & D(\alpha)^*D(\alpha) \end{bmatrix}
\end{align*}
Let us now turn to $M_2(X)^*M_2(X)$. If we define $M_2(\xi) = \begin{bmatrix}A(\xi) & A'(\xi)\end{bmatrix}$, we have
\begin{align*}
M_2(\xi)^*M_2(\xi) = \begin{bmatrix} A(\xi)^*A(\xi)& A(\xi) A'(\xi)^*\\
A'(\xi)^*A(\xi) & A'(\xi)^*A'(\xi)^*
\end{bmatrix} = T(\xi) \succcurlyeq \Gamma \id
\end{align*}
by Assumption \eqref{ass:TransMatrix}. We however have
\begin{align*}
\norm{M_2(X)^*M_2(X) -M_2(\xi)^*M_2(\xi)}_2 \leq \norm{M_2(X)^*}_2 \norm{M_2(X)-M_2(\xi)}_2 + \norm{M_2(X)-M_2(\xi)}_2 \norm{M_2(\xi)}_2.
\end{align*}
Now, by definition of $\kappa$ and $\kappa_\nabla$,
\begin{align*}
\norm{M_2(\xi)^*}_2^2 = \sup_{\norm{q}_2\leq 1} \sum_{i=1}^s\norm{(A^*q)(\xi_i)}_2^2 + \norm{(A^*q)'(\xi_i)}_2^2 \leq s( \kappa^2 + \kappa_\nabla^2),
\end{align*}
and similarly for $ \norm{M_2(X)}_2 = \norm{M_2(X)^*}_2$. Also, we have, by \eqref{eq:kappa:taylor}:
\begin{align*}
\norm{M_2(X)-M_2(\xi)}_2^2
&\leq s(\kappa_\nabla^2+\kappa_{\hess}^2) \sup_i\norm{x_i-\xi_i}_2^2,
\end{align*}
so that all in all
\begin{align*}
M_2^*M_2 \geq \Gamma - s \max_i\norm{x_i-\xi_i}_2 \sqrt{\kappa^2+\kappa_\nabla^2} \sqrt{\kappa_{\hess}^2+\kappa_\nabla^2}
\end{align*}
We may now apply Lemma \ref{lem:posDefProd} twice to conclude
\begin{align}
\label{eq:proofofG:H1:bound}
H_1 &\succcurlyeq \Lambda\left(\Gamma - s \max_i\norm{x_i-\xi_i}_2 \sqrt{\kappa^2+\kappa_\nabla^2} \sqrt{\kappa_{\hess}^2+\kappa_\nabla^2} \right) \begin{bmatrix} \id & 0 \\ 0 & D(\alpha)^*D(\alpha) \end{bmatrix} \\ &=: \Lambda (\Gamma - G_1(X)) \begin{bmatrix} \id & 0 \\ 0 & D(\alpha)^*D(\alpha) \end{bmatrix}, \nonumber
\end{align}
where we defined
\begin{align*}
G_1(X)&= s \max_{1 \leq i \leq s} \norm{x_i-\xi_i}_2 \sqrt{\kappa^2+\kappa_\nabla^2} \sqrt{\kappa_{\hess}^2 + \kappa_\nabla^2}
\end{align*}
It remains to analyze $H_2$. Define the bilinear form
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}_2[(\beta,\updelta),(\gamma,\upepsilon)] :=
-\sum_{i=1}^s \beta_i (A^*q^\star)'(x_i)\updelta_i +\gamma_i (A^*q^\star)'(x_i)\upepsilon_i + \alpha_i(A^* q^\star)''(x_i)[\updelta_i,\upepsilon_i].
\end{align*}
Then, if we define $w= \nabla f(A\mu) - \nabla f(A\mu^\star)=q^\star-q$, we have
\begin{align*}
(H_2(\alpha,X) -\mathcal{H}_2)[(\beta,\updelta),(\gamma,\upepsilon)] &= \sum_{i=1}^s \beta_i (A^*w)'(x_i)\upepsilon_i + \gamma_i (A^*w)'(x_i)\updelta_i + \alpha_i(A^* w)''(x_i)[\updelta_i,\upepsilon_i].
\end{align*}
This makes it evident that
\begin{align*}
\norm{H_2(\alpha, X)- \mathcal{H}_2}_{2\to 2} \leq 2s\norm{(A^\star w)'}_\infty+
\norm{\alpha}_1 \norm{(A^\star w)''}_\infty
\le
(2s\kappa_\nabla+ \norm{\alpha}_1 \kappa_{\hess}) \norm{w}_2.
\end{align*}
The $L$-Lipschitz gradient of $f$ proves that $\norm{w}_2\leq L \norm{A\mu-A\mu_*}_2$. Using \eqref{eq:kappa:taylor} yields directly:
\begin{align*}
\norm{A\mu-A\mu^\star}_2 &\leq \norm{A(X)(\alpha-\alpha^\star)}_2 + \norm{A(X)\alpha^\star-A(\xi)\alpha^\star}_2 \\
&\leq \kappa \norm{\alpha-\alpha^\star}_1 +\kappa_\nabla \max_i\norm{x_i-\xi_i}_2\norm{\alpha^*}_1.
\end{align*}
We still need to bound $\mathcal{H}_2$. First remember that Assumption \ref{ass:dualCert} asserts that for each $i$, $\sgn \alpha_i^\star (A^*q^\star)'' \preccurlyeq -\gamma \id$ and $\sgn(\alpha_i)=\sgn(\alpha_i^\star)$ in the ball of radius $\tau_0$ around $\xi_i$. Consequently, if $(\alpha,X)$ is chosen so that for each $i$, $\norm{x_i-\xi_i}_2\leq \tau_0$ we get $-\alpha_iA^*q^\star(x_i) \succcurlyeq \abs{\alpha_i} \gamma \id$, and
\[\mathcal{H}_2[(\beta,\updelta),(\beta,\updelta)] \geq \sum_{i=1}^s \gamma \abs{\alpha_i} \norm{\updelta_i}_2^2 -2\beta_i (A^*q^\star)'(x_i)\updelta_i\]
By definition of $\kappa_{\hess}$, we can further estimate
\[\Vert (A^*q^\star)'(x_i)-(A^*q^\star)'(\xi_i)\Vert_2 \le \kappa_{\hess} \norm{q^\star}{\norm{x_i-\xi_i}}_2.\]
Using $(A^*q^\star)'(\xi_i)=0$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}_2 \succcurlyeq \gamma\begin{bmatrix}0 & 0 \\ 0 & D(\abs{\alpha}) \end{bmatrix}- 2\norm{q^\star}_2\kappa_{\hess}s \max_i\norm{x_i-\xi_i}_2 \id.
\end{align*}
If we now define
\begin{align*}
G_2(\alpha,X)= \kappa \norm{\alpha-\alpha^\star}_1+ \kappa_\nabla \norm{x_i-\xi_i}_2 \norm{\alpha^\star}_1 + 2 \norm{q^\star} \kappa_{\hess}s \max_i \norm{x_i-\xi_i}_2,
\end{align*}
we obtain
\begin{align*}
H_2(\alpha,X) &\succcurlyeq \begin{bmatrix}-G_2(\alpha,X)\id & 0 \\ 0 & \gamma D(\abs{\alpha})-G_2(\alpha,X) \id \end{bmatrix}
\end{align*}
Further utilizing the definition of $G_1$ and \eqref{eq:proofofG:H1:bound}, we arrive at
\begin{align*}
H_1(\alpha,X) + H_2(\alpha,X) \geq \begin{bmatrix}\left( \Lambda(\Gamma- G_1(X)) - G_2(\alpha,X)\right)\id & 0 \\ 0 & \gamma D(\abs{\alpha}) + \Lambda(\Gamma- G_1(X)) D(\alpha^2) - G_2(\alpha,X)\id\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align*}
Since $G_1(X), G_2(\alpha,X) \to 0$ for $\alpha \to \alpha^\star$ and $X \to \xi$, we obtain the claim.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Eventually entering the basin of attraction}
The following proposition shows that $(\tilde{\alpha},X_k)$ defined as the amplitudes and positions of the Dirac-components of the solution $\widehat{\mu}$ of \eqref{eq:simplePrimal},
$(\tilde{\alpha}, X_k)$ will lie in the basin described by Proposition \ref{prop:G}. This result is stated in Corollary~\ref{cor:alphaClose}, the rest of this section is dedicated to proving it.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:alphaClose}
Assume that Assumptions \ref{ass:strongConv} and \ref{ass:TransMatrix} are true. Consider an $s$-sparse measure
\begin{align*}
\tilde{\mu} = \sum_{\ell=1}^s \tilde{\alpha}_\ell \delta_{\tilde{x}_\ell}
\end{align*}
for some $\tilde{\alpha} \in \mathbb{R}^s$ and $(\tilde{x}_\ell)_{\ell=1\dots s}$ pairwise different points of $\Omega$. We then have
\begin{align*}
\norm{\tilde{\alpha}-\alpha^\star}_2 \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{\Gamma}} \left(\kappa_\nabla \norm{\tilde{\mu}}_\mathcal{M} \sup_{\substack{1 \leq \ell \leq s}} \norm{\xi_\ell-\tilde{x}_\ell}_2 + \sqrt{\frac{2}{\Lambda}\left(J(\tilde{\mu})-J(\mu^\star)\right)}\right).
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $A(\xi)^\dagger$ be the Moore-Penrose inverse of $A(\xi) =[A(\xi_1), \dots, A(\xi_s)]$. Due to Assumption \ref{ass:TransMatrix}, $A(\xi)^\dagger$ has full rank and has an operator norm no larger than $\Gamma^{-1/2}$. Since
\begin{align*}
\tilde{\alpha} = \alpha^\star + A(\xi)^\dagger ( A(\xi) \tilde{\alpha} - A \tilde{\mu}) + A(\xi)^\dagger(A\tilde{\mu} - A(\xi)\alpha^\star),
\end{align*}
bounds on $A(\xi) \tilde{\alpha} - A \tilde{\mu}$ and $A\tilde\mu - A(\xi)\alpha^\star$ will therefore transform to a bound on $\tilde{\alpha}-\alpha^\star$.
Let us begin with the former. We have
\begin{align*}
\norm{A(\xi) \tilde{\alpha}-A \tilde{\mu}}_2 \leq \sum_{\ell=1}^s \abs{\alpha_\ell} \norm{A(\xi_\ell) - A(\tilde{x}_\ell)} \leq \sum_{\ell=1}^s \kappa_\nabla \abs{\tilde{\alpha}_\ell} \norm{\xi_\ell-\tilde{x}_\ell}_2 = \kappa_\nabla \norm{\tilde{\alpha}}_1 \sup_{\substack{1 \leq \ell \leq s \\ \tilde{\alpha}_\ell \neq 0}} \norm{\xi_\ell-\tilde{x}_\ell}_2,
\end{align*}
where we used the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in the last step.
To bound the latter, recall that $\Lambda$-strong convexity of $f$ means that
\begin{align} \label{eq:variation}
f(A\tilde{\mu}) \geq f(A\mu^\star) + \sprod{\nabla f(A\mu^\star), A\tilde{\mu}-A \mu^\star} + \frac{\Lambda}{2} \norm{A\tilde{\mu}-A\mu^\star}_2^2.
\end{align}
The optimality conditions for \eqref{eq:primal} tell us that $q^\star= - \nabla f(A\mu^\star)$, and hence
\begin{align*}
\sprod{\nabla f(A\mu^\star), A\tilde{\mu}-A \mu^\star} = \sprod{A^*q^\star, \mu^\star-\tilde{\mu})}= \sum_{\ell=1}^s \alpha_\ell^\star (A^* q^\star)(\xi_\ell) - \tilde{\alpha}_\ell A^*q^\star(\tilde{x}_\ell) \geq \norm{\alpha^\star}_1 - \norm{\tilde{\alpha}}_1,
\end{align*}
where we in the last step used that $\norm{A^*q^\star}_\infty \leq 1 $. Plugging the above inequality in \eqref{eq:variation} yields
\begin{align*}
\frac{\Lambda}{2} \norm{A\tilde{\mu}-A\mu^\star}_2^2 \leq J(\tilde{\mu})- J(\mu^\star).
\end{align*}
The claim follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:alphaClose}
By Proposition~\ref{prop:Good_Localization}, if $k$ is large enough then $X_k$ contains exactly $s$ points. In this case, let $\widehat{\mu}_k=\sum_{i=1}^s \widehat{ \alpha}_i \delta_{\hat{x}_i^k}$ be the solution of \eqref{eq:simplePrimal}. Applying Proposition~\ref{prop:alphaClose}, recalling that $\max_{i} \norm{\xi_i-\hat{x}_i^k}_2 \le \dist(X_k,\xi)$ and using the bound \eqref{eq:XkOptVal}, we obtain :
\begin{align*}
\norm{\widehat{\alpha}-\alpha^\star}_2 \leq \frac{\dist(X_k,\xi)}{\sqrt{\Gamma}} \left(\kappa_\nabla \norm{\widehat{\mu}_k}_\mathcal{M} + \sqrt{\frac{2}{\Lambda}\left(\norm{\alpha^\star}_1 \frac{\kappa_{\hess} \norm{q^\star}_2}{2} + \frac{L}{2} \|\alpha^\star\|_1^2 \kappa_\nabla^2\right)}\right).
\end{align*}
Since $\dist(X_k,\xi)$ is guaranteed to eventually converge to zero by Theorem \ref{th:MainExchange} and $\Vert \widehat{\mu}_k \Vert_\mathcal{M}$ are bounded
( e.g. by lower boundedness of $f$ and upper boundedness of $J(\widehat\mu_k)$)
, $(\widehat{\alpha},X_k)$ will eventually lie in the basin of attraction of $G$.
\end{cor}
\subsection{Example 1: Super-resolution from Fourier measurements in 1D.}
We start by testing our algorithm on a popular instance of problem \eqref{eq:primal}: super-resolution of a measure $\mu \in \mathcal{M}(0,1)$ from finitely many of its Fourier moments
\begin{align*}
y_k= \sprod{a_k, \mu} = \int_{0}^1 \exp(-ikx)d\mu, -m/2\leq k \leq m/2-1.
\end{align*}
We use a quadratic data fidelity term $f(z) = \frac{L}{2} \norm{z-y}_2^2$. This example is well studied by the signal processing community \cite{tang2013compressed,candes2014towards,duval2015exact,poon2018support}.
We chose $m$ to be equal to $30$, and a vector $y$ generated as $A\mu_0$, where $\mu_0$ is chosen at random as a $5$-sparse atomic measure with amplitudes close to $1$ or $-1$. The positions of the Dirac masses were chosen as a small random perturbation from a uniform grid. The initial grid $\Omega_0$ was chosen as a uniform grid with $8$ points, i.e. $[0, \frac{1}{8}, \dots, \frac{7}{8}]$. We made $100$ experiments, with $20$ iterations of the exchange algorithm. The evolution of $\mu_k$ and $q_k$ for the first iterations for a typical iteration is displayed in Figure \ref{fig:Fourier_evol1}. We see that after already $8$ iterations, $A^*q_k$ appears to be very close to $A^*q^\star$. Before this iteration, the algorithm 'chooses' to add points relatively uniformly to the grid, but after that, new points are only added close to $\xi$. This is further emphasized by Figure \ref{fig:Fourier_evol2}, in which $X_k$ is plotted for each iteration, along with size of $\Omega_k$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/Fourier_FW_evolution.pdf}
\caption{Above: $\mu_k$ for $k=0,2,4,6,8,20$ along one run of the algorithm. Below: $A^*q_k$ for $k=0,2,4,6,8,20$ along the same run. Note that the range of the first plot is different from the others. \label{fig:Fourier_evol1} }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/Fourier_grid_evol.pdf}
\caption{Left: The set $X_k$ of added points for each iteration along a run of the algorithm. Right: The total number of points in $\Omega_k$ along the same run.\label{fig:Fourier_evol2}}
\end{figure}
To track the success of the algorithm a bit more systematically, we chose to track the evolution of $\dist(\xi,X_k)$, $\dist(\Omega_k,X_k)$ and $\dist(\Omega_k,\xi)$. The median over the 100 iterations, along with confidence intervals covering all experiments but the top and bottom $5\%$ are plotted in Figures \ref{fig:distances}. We see that all of the quality measures seem to converge linearly to 0.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/dist_errors_stat.pdf}
\caption{Logarithmic plot of $\dist(\xi,X_k)$, $\dist(\Omega_k,X_k)$ and $\dist(\Omega_k,\xi)$. Shown is the median value (oblique line) along with confidence intervals(dashed) covering all but the top and lower $5\%$. \label{fig:distances}}
\end{figure}
Finally, we performed the same analysis for the optimum gap $\min \eqref{eq:discretePrimal}-\min\eqref{eq:primal}$, the error $\norm{q_k-q^\star}_2$ and the sizes of the grids $\Omega_k$. ($\min\eqref{eq:primal}$ was in each case chosen as the lowest value of $\min \eqref{eq:discretePrimal}$ over all iterations $k$, and $q^\star$ as the corresponding dual solution). We see that the optimum gap seems to converge exponentially to $0$ right from the first iteration, wheras the error $\norm{q_k-q^\star}_2$ initially does not. The 'two-phase'-effect is also easy to spot: After about $5-6$ iterations, the algorithm switches from adding many points to adding only few points close to $\xi$. Interestingly, the plateau of the $q$-errors seems to be simultaneuos with the 'phase-transition'.
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/grid_sizes_q_err_stat.pdf}
\caption{Plot of the evolution optimum gap, $q$-error and grid sizes. The top two plots are logarithmic, while the bottom one is not. The oblique lines are represent the median iterations, the dashed ones are confidence intervals covering all but the top and bottom $5\%$ values. \label{fig:Pqn}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Example 2: Super-resolution from Gaussian measurements in 2D}
Next, we perform a study in a two-dimensional setting.
We consider $\Omega=[-1,1]^2$ and measurement functions of the form
\begin{align*}
a_i(x) = \exp\left( - \frac{\norm{x-x_i}^2}{2\sigma^2} \right),
\end{align*}
where the points $x_i$ live on a Euclidean grid of size $64\times 64$, restricted to the domain $[-0.5,0.5]^2$.
We then add white Gaussian noise to the measurements, leading to pictures of the type shown in Fig. \ref{fig:super_resolution_2D}. Here, the true underlying measure contains $11$ Dirac masses with random positive amplitudes and random locations on $[-0.4,0.4]^2$.
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{Figures/XP_Exch_2D_Image.png}
\caption{Measurements $y$ associated to a super-resolution experiment. A sparse measure is convolved with a Gaussian kernel and Gaussian white noise is added. \label{fig:super_resolution_2D}}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Exchange algorithm}
The evolution of the grids $\Omega_k$ and of the dual certificates $|A^*q_k|$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig:Dual_Certificate}. As can be seen, points are initially added anywhere in the domain, but after a few iterations, they all cluster around the true locations, as expected from the theory. To further stress this phenomenon and illustrate our theorems and lemmata, we display many quantities of interest appearing in our main results in Fig. \ref{fig:SeveralQuantities}.
the distance from $X_k$ to $\xi$ (where $\xi$ is estimated as $X_{40}$) on Fig. \ref{sub:distX}, the distance from $\Omega_k$ to $\xi$ on Fig. \ref{sub:distO}, the evolution of $J(\widehat \mu_k)-J(\widehat \mu_{40})$ on Fig. \ref{sub:distJ}, $\|A^*q_k\|_\infty-1$ on Fig. \ref{sub:viol}. Finally, the number of maxima of $|A^*q_k|$ is shown on Fig. \ref{sub:max}.
As can be seen, the number of maxima quickly stabilizes, suggesting that we reached a $\tau_0$-regime. Then all the quantities (cost function, distance from $\xi$, violation of the constraints) seem to converge to $0$ linearly. This is not true after iteration 15, and we suspect that this is solely due to numerical inaccuracies when computing the solution of the discretized problems. Notice however that the accuracy of the Dirac locations drops below $10^{-3}$ after 14 iterations, and that this accuracy is more than enough for the particular super-resolution application. Notice that if we wished to reach this accuracy with a fixed grid, we would need a Euclidean discretization containing $10^6$ points, while we here needed only 152 ($|\Omega_{14}|=152$). In addition, the $\ell^1$ resolution is stable since it is accomplished on a grid $X_{14}$ containing only $11$ points.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[$|A^*q_1|$]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/XP_Exch_2D_DualCert1.png}}
\subfloat[$|A^*q_2|$]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/XP_Exch_2D_DualCert2.png}}
\subfloat[$|A^*q_4|$]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/XP_Exch_2D_DualCert4.png}}
\subfloat[Grid 1]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/XP_Exch_2D_Grid1.png}}
\subfloat[Grid 2]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/XP_Exch_2D_Grid2.png}}
\subfloat[Grid 4]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/XP_Exch_2D_Grid4.png}}
\subfloat[$|A^*q_8|$]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/XP_Exch_2D_DualCert6.png}}
\subfloat[$|A^*q_{10}|$]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/XP_Exch_2D_DualCert10.png}}
\subfloat[$|A^*q_{12}|$]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/XP_Exch_2D_DualCert12.png}}
\subfloat[Grid 8]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/XP_Exch_2D_Grid6.png}}
\subfloat[Grid 10]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/XP_Exch_2D_Grid10.png}
\label{sub:ref6}}
\subfloat[Grid 12]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/XP_Exch_2D_Grid12.png}}
\caption{Evolution of the dual certificate and of the grid through the 12 first iterations. This is a contour plot with the levels from 1 to the maximum of $|A^*q_i|$ indicated.}
\label{fig:Dual_Certificate}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[$J(\widehat \mu_k)-J(\mu_{40})$]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/Cost.png} \label{sub:distJ}}
\subfloat[$\dist(\Omega_k,\xi)$]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/DistanceOmega.png} \label{sub:distO}}
\subfloat[$\dist(X_k,\xi)$]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/DistanceX.png} \label{sub:distX}}
\subfloat[$\|q_k-q_{40}\|_2$]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/Distanceq.png} \label{sub:distq}}
\subfloat[$\|A^*q_k\|_\infty-1$]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/Violation.png} \label{sub:viol}}
\subfloat[$|X_k|$]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/NumberMax.png} \label{sub:max}}
\caption{Plot of several quantities of interest along the exchange algorithm's iterates.}
\label{fig:SeveralQuantities}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Continuous method}
In this experiment, we evaluate the behavior of the gradient descent \eqref{eq:continuous_gradient} depending on the initialization $(\alpha^{(0)},X^{(0)})$ and on the number of iterations.
We use the same setting as in the previous section.
The left graph of Fig. \ref{fig:continuous_method} illustrates that the gradient descent typically converges linearly when initialized close enough to the true minimizer $(\alpha^{\star},\xi)$.
This was predicted by Theorem \ref{prop:G}.
In this case (and actually all the others related to this experiment), it converges to machine precision in less than 1000 iterations.
This is remarkable since the gradient descent is a simple algorithm that can be easily improved by using e.g. Nesterov acceleration (we proved that the function is locally convex) or other optimization schemes such as L-BFGS.
In order to evaluate the size of the basin of attraction around the global minimizer, we start from random points of the form $(\alpha^{(0)},X^{(0)}) = (\alpha^{\star},\xi) + (\Delta_\alpha, \Delta_X)$, where $\Delta_\alpha$ and $\Delta_X$ are random perturbations with an amplitude set as $\|(\Delta_\alpha, \Delta_X)\|_2 = \gamma \|(\alpha^{\star},\xi)\|_2$, with $\gamma$ in $[0,1]$. We then run $50$ gradient descents with different realizations of $(\alpha^{(0)},X^{(0)})$ and record the success rate (i.e. the number of times the gradient descent converges to $(\alpha^{\star},\xi)$ with an accuracy of at least $10^{-6}$). We plot this success rate with respect to $\gamma$ in Fig. \ref{sub:success_rate}. As can be seen, the success rate is always $1$ when the relative error $\gamma$ is less than $5\%$, showing that for this particular problem, a rather rough initialization suffices for the gradient descent to converge to the global minimizer.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[$G(\alpha^{(t)},X^{(t)})-G(\alpha^{\star},\xi)$]{\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/Convergence_Rate_Continuous.png}}
\subfloat[Success rate VS starting point \label{sub:success_rate}]{\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/Success_Rate_Continuous.png}}
\caption{Left: Typical convergence curve in logarithmic scale when the initial guess $(\alpha^{(0)},X^{(0)})$ is good enough. Right: Success rate of the continuous descent method over 50 runs of the algorithm, depending on the relative amplitude of the perturbation. \label{fig:continuous_method}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Alternating method}
The alternating method suggested in Algorithm \ref{alg:hybrid} turns out to converge in a single iteration when applied to the setting described above.
We therefore apply it to a more challenging scenario with 30 Dirac masses instead of 11 and more noise.
The measurements $y$ are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:second_measurements}.
We compare three implementations: a pure exchange method, an alternating method as in Algorithm \ref{alg:hybrid} without line 14 and an alternating method as in in Algorithm \ref{alg:hybrid} with line 14.
The conclusions are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item All methods rapidly conclude that the underlying measure contains 30 Dirac masses. (The pure exchange algorithm after 10 iterations, the alternating method with line 14 already after the first).
\item The pure exchange algorithm quickly gets to a point close to the optimum. The positions then slowly converge to the tue locations. It does however eventually find the basin of attraction of $G$ (in this example, it needed 10 iterations).
\item Line 14 in the alternating method improves the convergence significantly. In fact, omitting it, we need 10 iterations to find the basin of attraction, whereas the version with the line finds it directly. Investigating this effect more closely is an interesting line of future research.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[Measurements $y$ (dense)]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figures/XP_Exch_2D_Image2.png}}\ \
\subfloat[Ground truth and recovered solution]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figures/Solution2.pdf}}
\caption{Left: measurements associated to a denser measure with more noise. Right: 3D illustration of the recovery results. The blue vertical bars with circles indicate the locations and amplitude of the ground truth. The red bars with crosses indicated the recovered measures. Apart from a slight bias in amplitude due to the $\ell^1$-norm, the ground truth is near perfectly recovered. \label{fig:second_measurements}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Notation}
In all the paper, $\Omega$ designs an open \emph{bounded} domain of $\mathbb{R}^d$. The boundedness assumptions plays an important role to control the number of elements in discretization procedures.
A \emph{grid} $\Omega_k$ is a finite set of points in $\Omega$. Its cardinality is denoted by $|\Omega_k|$.
The distance between two sets $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\dist(\Omega_1,\Omega_2)=\sup_{x_2\in \Omega_2} \inf_{x_1\in \Omega_1} \|x_1-x_2\|_2.
\end{equation}
Note that this definition of distance is not symmetric: in general $\dist(\Omega_1,\Omega_2)\neq \dist(\Omega_2,\Omega_1)$.
We let $\mathcal{C}_0(\Omega)$ denote the set of continuous functions on $\Omega$ vanishing on the boundary.
The set of Radon measures $\mathcal{M}(\Omega)$ can be identified as the dual of $\mathcal{C}_0(\Omega)$, i.e. the set of continuous linear forms on $\mathcal{C}_0(\Omega)$.
For any sub-domain $\Omega_k\subset \Omega$, we let $\mathcal{M}(\Omega_k)$ denote the set of Radon measures supported on $\Omega_k$. For $p\in [1,+\infty]$, the $L^p$-norm of a function $u\in \mathcal{C}_0(\Omega)$ is denoted by $\|u\|_p$.
The total variation of a measure $\mu \in \mathcal{M}(\Omega)$ is denoted $\norm{\mu}_{\mathcal{M}}$. It can be defined by duality as
\begin{equation}
\norm{\mu}_{\mathcal{M}} = \sup_{\substack{ u\in \mathcal{C}_0(\Omega) \\ \|u\|_\infty\leq 1}} \mu(u).
\end{equation}
The $\ell^p$-norm of a vector $x\in \mathbb{R}^m$ is also denoted $\|x\|_p$. The Frobenius norm of a matrix $M$ is denoted by $\|M\|_F$.
Let $f:\mathbb{R}^m\to \mathbb{R}\cup\{+\infty\}$ denote a convex lower semi-continuous function with non-empty domain $\dom(f) = \{x\in \mathbb{R}^m, f(x)<+\infty\}$.
Its subdifferential is denoted $\partial f$. Its Fenchel transform $f^*$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
f^*(y)=\sup_{x\in \mathbb{R}^m} \langle x,y \rangle - f(x).
\end{equation*}
If $f$ is differentiable, we let $f'\in \mathbb{R}^m$ denote its gradient and if it is twice differentiable, we let $f''\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times m}$ denote its Hessian matrix. We let $\|f'\|_\infty=\sup_{x\in \Omega} \|f'(x)\|_2$ and $\|f''\|_\infty=\sup_{x\in \Omega} \|f''(x)\|$, where $\|f''(x)\|$ is the largest singular value of $f''(x)$.
A convex function $f$ is said to be $l$-strongly convex if
\begin{equation}
f(x_2)\geq f(x_1) + \langle \eta , x_2-x_1 \rangle + \frac{l}{2}\|x_2-x_1\|_2^2
\end{equation}
for all $(x_1,x_2)\in \mathbb{R}^m\times \mathbb{R}^m$ and all $\eta \in \partial f(x_1)$.
A differentiable function $f$ is said to have an $L$-Lipschitz gradient if it satisfies $\|f'(x_1)-f'(x_2)\|_2\leq L \|x_1-x_2\|_2$. This implies that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:LSmoothVariation}
f(x_2)\leq f(x_1) + \langle f'(x_1) , x_2-x_1 \rangle +\frac{L}{2}\|x_2-x_1\|_2^2 \mbox{ for all } (x_1,x_2)\in \mathbb{R}^m\times \mathbb{R}^m.
\end{equation}
We recall the following equivalence \cite{hiriart2013convex}:
\begin{prop}\label{eq:duality_lipschitz_stronglyconvex}
Let $f:\mathbb{R}^m\to \mathbb{R}\cup\{+\infty\}$ denote a convex and closed function with non empty domain.
Then the following two statements are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item $f$ has an $L$-Lipschitz gradient.
\item $f^*$ is $\frac{1}{L}$-strongly convex.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
The linear measurement operators $A$ considered in this paper can be viewed as a collection of $m$ continuous functions $(a_i)_{1\leq i\leq m}$. For $x\in \Omega$, the notation $A(x)$ corresponds to the vector $[a_1(x),\hdots, a_m(x)] \in \mathbb{R}^m$.
\subsection{Existence results and duality}
In order to obtain existence and duality results, we will now make further assumptions.
\begin{assumption} \label{ass:f}
$f: \mathbb{R}^m \to \mathbb{R} \cup \set{\infty}$ is convex and lower bounded. In addition, we assume that either $\dom(f)=\mathbb{R}^m$ or that $f$ is polyhedral (that is, its epigraph is a finite intersection of closed halfspaces).
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption} \label{ass:A}
The operator $A$ is weak-$*$-continuous. Equivalently, the \emph{measurement functionals} $a_i^*$ defined by $\sprod{a_i^*, \mu} = (A(\mu))_i$ are given by
\begin{align*}
\sprod{a_i^*, \mu} = \int_{\Omega} a_i d\mu,
\end{align*}
for functions $a_i \in \mathcal{C}_0(\Omega)$. In addition, we assume that $A$ is surjective on $\mathbb{R}^m$.
\end{assumption}
The following results relate the primal and the dual.
\begin{prop}[Existence and strong duality] \label{prop:duality}
Under Assumptions \ref{ass:f} and \ref{ass:A}, the following statements are true:
\begin{itemize}
\item The primal problem \eqref{eq:primal} and its dual \eqref{eq:dual} both admit a solution.
\item The following strong duality result holds
\begin{equation}
\min_{\mu \in \mathcal{M}(\Omega)} \norm{\mu}_{\mathcal{M}(\Omega)} + f(A\mu) = \max_{q \in \mathbb{R}^m, \|A^*q\|_\infty \leq 1} - f^*(q).
\end{equation}
\item Let $(\mu^\star,q^\star)$ denote a primal-dual pair. They are related as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq:primal_dual_relationship}
A^*q^\star \in \partial_{\|\cdot\|_\mathcal{M}}(\mu^\star) \mbox{ and } -q^\star\in \partial f(A\mu^\star).
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The stated assumptions ensure the existence of a feasible measure $\mu$. In addition, the primal function is coercive since $f$ is bounded below. This yields existence of a primal solution. The existence of a dual solution stems from the compactness of the set $\{q \in \mathbb{R}^m, \|A^*q\|_\infty \leq 1\}$ (which itself follows from the surjectivity of $A$) and the continuity of $f^*$ on its domain. The strong duality result follows from \cite[Thm 4.2]{Borwein1992}. The primal-dual relationship directly derives from the first order optimality conditions.
\end{proof}
The left inclusion in equation \eqref{eq:primal_dual_relationship} plays an important role, which is well detailed in \cite{duval2015exact}. It implies that the support of $\mu^\star$ satisfies: $\supp(\mu^\star)\subseteq \{x\in \Omega, |A^*q^\star(x)|=1\}$.
|
\section{Introduction and Terminology}\label{subsec:introduction}
In the present chapter some basic concepts and terminology necessary for the sequel will be formally
introduced. The world of variables can be categorized into two categories: deterministic variables
and random variables. A deterministic variable takes a definite value; the same value will be the
outcome if the experiment that yielded this value is rerun. On contrary, a random variable is a
variable that takes a non-definite value with a probability value.
\begin{definition}
A random variable $X$ is a function from a sample space $S$ into the real numbers $\mathfrak{R}$,
that associates a real number, $x=X(s)$, with each possible outcome $s\in S$.
\end{definition}
Details on the topic can be found in \cite[Ch. 1]%
{Casella2002StatisticalInference}. For more rigorous treatment of random variables based on measure
theoretic approach see \cite{Billingsley1995Probability}. Variables can be categorized as well,
based on value, into: quantitative or metric, qualitative or categorical, and ordered categorical A
quantitative variable takes a value on $\mathfrak{R}$ and it can be discrete or continuous. A
qualitative or categorical variable does not necessarily take a numerical value; rather it takes a
value from a finite set. E.g., the set $\mathcal{G}=\{Red,Green,Blue\}$ is a set of possible
qualitative values that can be assigned to a color. An ordered categorical variable is a categorical
variable with relative algebraic relations among the values. E.g., the set
$\mathcal{G}=\{Small,Medium,Large\}$ includes ordered categorical values.
Variables in a particular process are related to each other in a certain manner. When variables are
random the process is said to be stochastic, i.e., when the inputs of this process have some
specified values there is no deterministic value for the output, rather a probabilistic one. The
output in this case is a random variable.
We next consider the general problem of statistical learning algorithms. Consider a sample
consisting of a number of cases---the words cases and observations may be used exchangeably---,
where each case is composed of the set of inputs that will be given to the algorithm together with
the corresponding output. Such a sample provides the means for the algorithm to learn during its
so-called \textquotedblleft design\textquotedblright\ stage. The goal of this learning or design
stage is to understand as much as possible how the output is related to the inputs in these
observations, so that when a new set of inputs is given in the future the algorithm will have some
means of predicting the corresponding output. The above terminology has been borrowed from the field
of machine learning. This problem is originally from the field of statistical decision theory, where
the terminology is somewhat different. In the latter field, the inputs are called the predictors
and the output is called the response. When the output is quantitative the learning algorithm is
called regression; when the output is categorical or ordered categorical the learning algorithm is
called classification. In the engineering communities that work on the pattern classification
problem, the terms input features and output class are used respectively. The learning process in
that setting is called training and the algorithm is called the classifier.
\begin{definition}
\label{Def_Learning}Learning is the process of estimating an unknown
input-output dependency or structure of a system using a limited number of observations.
\end{definition}
Statistical learning is crucial to many applications. For example, In the
medical imaging field, a tumor on a mammogram must be classified as malignant
or benign. This is an example of prediction, regardless of whether it is done
by a radiologist or by a computer algorithm (Computer Aided Diagnosis or CAD).
In either case the prediction is done based on learning from previous
mammograms. The features, i.e., predictors, in this case may be the size of
the tumor, its density, various shape parameters, etc. The output, i.e.,
response, is a categorical one which belongs to the set: $\mathcal{G}%
=\{benign,malignant\}$. There are so many such examples in biology and
medicine that it is almost a field unto itself, i.e., biostatistics. The task
may be diagnostic as in the mammographic example, or prognostic where, for
example, one estimates the probability of occurrence of a second heart attack
for a particular patient who has had a previous one. All of these examples
involve a prediction step based on previous learning. A wide range of
commercial and military applications arises in the field of satellite imaging.
Predictors in this case can be measures from the image spectrum, while the
response can be the type of land or crop or vegetation of which the image was taken
\bigskip
Before going through some mathematical details, it is convenient to introduce
some commonly used notation. A random variable---or a random vector---is
referred to by an upper-case letter, e.g., $X$. An instance, or observation,
of that variable is referred to by a lower-case letter, e.g., $x$. A
collection of $N$ observations for the $p$-dimensional random vector $X$ is
collected into an $N\times P$ matrix and represented by a bold upper-case
$\mathbf{X}$. A lower-case bold letter $\mathbf{x}$ is reserved for describing
a vector of any $N$-observations of a variable, even a tuple consisting of
non-homogeneous types. The main notation in the sequel will be as follows:
$\mathbf{t}:\left\{ {t_{i}=\left( {x_{i},y_{i}}\right) }\right\} $
represents an $n$-case training data set, i.e., one on which the learning
mechanism will execute. Every sample case $t_{i}$ of this set represents a
tuple of the predictors $x_{i}$ represented in a $p$-dimensional vector, and
the corresponding response variable $y_{i}$. All the $N$ observations $x_{i}%
$'s may be written in a single $N\times P$ matrix $\mathbf{X}$, while all the
observations $y_{i}$ may be written in a vector $\mathbf{y}$.
\section{Statistical Decision Theory}
\label{subsec:statistical}
This section provides an introduction to statistical decision theory, which
serves as the foundation of statistical learning. If a random vector $X$ and a
random variable$Y$ have a joint probability density $f_{X,Y}(x,y)$, the
problem is defined as follows: how to predict the variable $Y$ from an
observed value for the variable $X$. In this section we assume having a full
knowledge of the joint density $f_{X,Y}$, so there is no learning yet
(Definition \ref{Def_Learning}). The prediction function $\eta(X)$ is required
to have minimum average prediction error. The prediction error should be
defined in terms of some loss function $L(Y,\eta(X))$ that penalizes for any
deviation in the predicted value of the response from the correct value.
Define the predicted value by:
\begin{equation}
\hat{Y}=\eta(X) \label{eq1}%
\end{equation}
The risk of this prediction function is defined by the average loss, according
to the defined loss function, for the case of prediction:
\begin{equation}
R(\eta)=E\left[ {L(Y,\hat{Y})}\right] \label{eq2}%
\end{equation}
For instance, some constraint will be imposed on the response $Y$ by assuming
it, e.g., to be a quantitative variable. This is the starting point of the
statistical branch of regression, where (\ref{eq1}) is the regression
function. A form should be assumed for the loss function. A mathematically
convenient and widely used form is the squared-error loss function:
\begin{equation}
L\left( Y,\eta\left( X\right) \right) =\left( {Y-\eta\left( X\right)
}\right) ^{2} \label{eq3}%
\end{equation}
In this case (\ref{eq2}) becomes:
\begin{align}
R(\eta) & =\int\left( {Y-\eta(X)}\right) {^{2}dF_{X,Y}(X,Y)}\\
& =E_{X}\left[ E_{Y|X}\left[ \left( {Y-\eta(X)}\right) {^{2}|X}\right]
\right] \label{eq4}%
\end{align}
hence, (\ref{eq4}) is minimized by minimizing the inner expectation over every
possible value for the variable $X$. Ordinary vector calculus solves the
minimization for $\eta(X)$ and gives:
\begin{align}
\eta(X) & =\arg\min_{\eta(X)}\left( E_{Y|X}\left[ \left( {Y-\eta
(X)}\right) {^{2}|X}\right] \right) \label{eq5}\\
& =E_{Y}\left[ Y|X\right]
\end{align}
This means that if the joint distribution for the response and predictor is
known, the best regression function in the sense of minimizing the risk is the
expectation of the response conditional on the predictor. In that case the
risk of regression in (\ref{eq4}) will be:
\[
R_{\min}(\eta)=E_{X}\left[ {\operatorname{Var}}\left[ {Y|X}\right] \right]
\]
\bigskip
Recalling (\ref{eq2}), and lifting the constraint on the response being
quantitative, and setting another constraint by assuming it to be a
qualitative (or categorical) variable gives rise to the classification
problem. Now the loss function cannot be the squared-error loss function
defined in (\ref{eq3}), since this has no meaning for categorical variables.
Since $Y$ may take now a qualitative value from a set of size $k$, (see
Section \ref{subsec:introduction}), the loss function can be defined by the
matrix
\begin{equation}
L(Y,\eta\left( X\right) )=\left( \left( c_{ij}\right) \right)
,~~~1<i,~~~j<k \label{eq7}%
\end{equation}
where the non-negative element $c_{ij}$ is the cost, the penalty or the price,
paid for classifying an observation as $y_{j}$ when it belongs to $y_{i}$. In
the field of medical decision making this is often called the \textit{utility
matrix}. Under this assumption, the risk defined by (\ref{eq2}) can be
rewritten for the categorical variables to be:
\begin{align}
R(\eta) & =E_{X}E_{Y|X}\left[ {L}\left( {Y,\eta}\left( {X}\right)
\right) \right] \\
& =E_{X}\left[ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{k}{c_{ij}\Pr}\left[ {Y=y_{i}|X}\right]
\right] \label{eq8}%
\end{align}
where $\Pr\left[ Y|X\right] $ is the probability mass function for $Y$
conditional on $X$. Then the conditional risk for decision $y_{j}$
\begin{equation}
R(j,\eta)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k}{c_{ij}\Pr}\left[ {Y=y_{i}|X}\right]
\label{eq9}%
\end{equation}
is the expected loss when classifying an observation as belonging to $y_{j}$
and the expectation is taken over all the possible values of the response.
Again, (\ref{eq8}) can be minimized by minimizing the inner expectation to
give:
\begin{equation}
\eta(X)=\arg\min_{j}\left[ {\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k}{c_{ij}\Pr}}\left[
{{Y=y_{i}|X}}\right] \right] \label{eq10}%
\end{equation}
Expressing the conditional probability of the response in terms of Bayes law
and substituting in (\ref{eq10}) gives:
\begin{equation}
\eta(X)=\arg\min_{j}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k}{c_{ij}f_{X}}\left( {X|Y=y_{i}%
}\right) {\Pr}\left[ {y_{i}}\right] \label{eq11}%
\end{equation}
$\Pr\left[ y_{i}\right] $ is the prior probability for $y_{j}$ while
$\Pr\left[ y_{j}|X\right] $ is the posterior probability, i.e., the
probability that the observed case belongs to $y_{j}$, given the value of $X$.
This is what statisticians call Bayes classification, or Bayes decision rule
or alternatively, what engineers call the Bayes classifier.
Some special cases here may be of interest. The first case is when equal costs
are assigned to all misclassifications and there is no cost for correct
classification; this is called the 0-1 cost function. This reduces (\ref{eq10}) to:
\begin{align}
\eta(X) & =\arg\min_{j}\left[ {1-\Pr}\left[ {Y=y_{j}|X}\right] \right]
\label{eq12}\\
& =\arg\max_{j}\left[ {\Pr}\left[ {Y=y_{j}|X}\right] \right]
\end{align}
The rule thus is to classify the sample case to the class having maximum
posterior probability. Another special case of great interest is binary
classification, i.e., the case of $k=2$. In this case (\ref{eq10}) reduces
to:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Pr\left[ y_{1}|X\right] }{\Pr\left[ y_{2}|X\right] }\underset
{y_{2}}{\overset{y_{1}}{\gtrless}}\frac{\left( {c_{22}-c_{21}}\right)
}{\left( {c_{11}-c_{12}}\right) } \label{eq13}%
\end{equation}
Alternatively, this can be expressed as :
\begin{equation}
\frac{f_{X}(X=x|y_{1})}{f_{X}(X=x|y_{2})}\underset{y_{2}}{\overset{y_{1}%
}{\gtrless}}\frac{\Pr\left[ y_{2}\right] \left( {c_{22}-c_{21}}\right)
}{\Pr\left[ y_{1}\right] \left( {c_{11}-c_{12}}\right) } \label{eq14}%
\end{equation}
The decision taken in (\ref{eq10}) has the minimum risk, which can be
calculated by substituting back in (\ref{eq8}) to give:
\begin{equation}
R_{\min}(\eta)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k}{\int_{X}{c_{i,j(X)}\Pr}}\left[ {{y_{i}}%
}\right] {{dF_{X}(X|y_{i})}} \label{eq15}%
\end{equation}
where $j(X)$ is the class decision $\eta(X)$. For binary classification and
where there is no cost for a correct decision, i.e., $c_{11}=c_{22}=0$, this
reduces to:
\begin{equation}
R_{\min}(\eta)=c_{12}\Pr\left[ y_{1}\right] \int\limits_{R_{2}}%
{dF_{X}(X|y_{1})}+c_{21}\Pr\left[ y_{2}\right] \int\limits_{R_{1}}%
{dF_{X}(X|y_{2})} \label{eq16}%
\end{equation}
where each of $R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$ is the predictor hyperspace over which the
optimum decision (\ref{eq13}) predicts as class 1 or class 2 respectively. Latter, the response
variable Y may be referred to $\Omega$ in case of classification. To follow
the notation of Section \ref{subsec:introduction} the response of an
observation is assigned a value $\omega_{i},\,i=1,\ldots,k$ to express a
certain class.
To recap, this section emphasizes the fact that there is no distinction
between regression and classification from the conceptual point of view. Each
minimizes the risk of predicting the response variable for an observation,
i.e., a sample case with known predictor(s). If the joint probability
distribution function for the response and predictors is known, it is just a
matter of direct substitution in the above results. If the joint distribution
is known but its parameters are not known, a learning process is used to
estimate those parameters from a training sample $\mathbf{t}$ by methods of
statistical inference. However, if the joint distribution is unknown, this
gives rise to two different branches of prediction. These two branches are
parametric regression (or classification)---where the regression or
classification function is modeled and a training sample is used to build that
model---and nonparametric regression (or classification), where no particular
parametric model is assumed. Subsequent sections in this chapter give
introductions to these techniques.
\section{Parametric Regression and Classification}
\label{subsec:parametric}
The prediction method introduced in Section \ref{subsec:statistical} assumes,
as indicated, that the joint density of the response and the predictor is
known. If such knowledge exists, all the methods revolve around modeling the
regression function (\ref{eq1}) in the case of regression or the posterior
probabilities in (\ref{eq10}) in the case of classification.
\subsection{Linear Models}
\label{subsubsec:linear}
In linear model (LM) theory, $Y$ is assumed to be in the form:%
\begin{align}
Y & =E\left[ Y\right] +e\label{EqYinLM}\\
& =\alpha+{X}^{\prime}\beta+e \label{EqLM}%
\end{align}
where the randomness of $Y$ comes only from $e$, and it is assumed that the
conditional expectation of $Y$ is linear in the predictors $X$. The two basic
assumptions in the theory are the zero mean and constant variance of the
random error component $e$. The regression function (\ref{eq1}) is then
written as:
\begin{equation}
\eta(X)=\alpha+{X}^{\prime}\beta\label{eq17}%
\end{equation}
More generally, still a linear model, it can be rewritten as:%
\begin{align}
\eta(X) & =X_{new}^{\prime}{\beta,}\label{eq18}\\
X_{new}^{\prime} & =\left( f_{1}\left( X\right) ,\ldots,f_{d}\left(
X\right) \right) \label{EqXnew}%
\end{align}
where the predictor $X$ is replaced by a new $d$-dimensional vector, $X_{new}%
$, whose elements are scalar functions of the random vector $X$.
The intercept $\alpha$ in (\ref{eq17}) may be modeled, if needed, in terms of
(\ref{eq18}) by setting $f_{1}\left( X\right) =1$. Equation (\ref{eq18}) can
be seen as equivalent to (\ref{eq17}), where $X$ has been transformed to
$X_{new}$ which became the new predictor on which $Y$ will be regressed.
Now $\beta$ must be estimated, and this point estimation is done for some
observed values of the predictor. Writing the equations for $n$ observed
values gives:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{X^{\prime}}\beta+\mathbf{e} \label{eq21}%
\end{equation}
If (\ref{eq21}) is solved for $\beta$ to give the least sum of squares for the
components of error vector $\mathbf{e}$, this will give, as expected, the same
result as if we approximated the conditional expectation of $Y$ by the set of
observations $\mathbf{y}$. Solving either way gives:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\beta}=\left( \mathbf{XX}{\mathbf{^{\prime}}}\right) ^{-1}%
\mathbf{Xy} \label{eq22}%
\end{equation}
Then the prediction of $Y$ is done by estimating its expectation which is
given by:%
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\eta(X)}=\widehat{E\left[ Y\right] }=X\mathbf{^{\prime}}%
\widehat{\beta}%
\end{equation}
For short notation we always write $\widehat{Y}$ instead of $\widehat{E\left[
Y\right] }$.
Nothing up to this point involves statistical inference. This is just fitting a mathematical model
using the squared-error loss function. Statistical inference starts when considering the random
error vector $\mathbf{e}$ and the effect of that on the confidence interval for $\hat{\beta}$ and
the confidence in predicted values of the response for particular predictor variable, or any other
needed inference. All of these important questions are answered by the theory of linear
models. \cite{Bowerman1990LinearStatistical} is a very good reference for an applied approach to
linear models, without any mathematical proofs. For a theoretical approach and derivations the
reader is referred to \cite{Christensen2002PlaneAnswers}, \cite{Graybill1976TheoryAppLinModel}, and
\cite{Rencher2000LinearModels}. It is remarkable that if the joint distribution for the response and
the predictor is multinormal, the linear model assumption (\ref{EqLM}) is an exact expression for
the random variable $Y$. This fact arises from the fact that the conditional expectation for the
multinormal distribution is linear in the conditional variable. That is, by assuming that%
\begin{gather}
\left( {%
\begin{array}
[c]{l}%
Y\\
X
\end{array}
}\right) \sim N\left( {\mu,\Sigma}\right) ,~where\label{eq23}\\
\mu=\left( {%
\begin{array}
[c]{l}%
\mu_{Y}\\
\mu_{X}%
\end{array}
}\right) ,~\Sigma
=\begin{pmatrix} \Sigma_{11} & \Sigma_{12}\\ \Sigma_{21} & \Sigma_{22}\end{pmatrix},
\end{gather}
then the conditional expectation of $Y$ on $X$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
E\left[ {\left. Y\right\vert X=x}\right] =\mu_{Y}+\Sigma_{12}\Sigma
_{22}^{-1}(x-\mu_{X}) \label{eq24}%
\end{equation}
For more details on the multinormal properties, see
\cite{Anderson2003AnIntroduction}.
\bigskip
In the case of classification the classes are categorical variables but a dummy variable can be used as coding for the class labels. Then a
linear regression is carried out for this dummy variable on the predictors. A drawback of this approach is what is called class masking, i.e.,
if more than two classes are used, one or more can be masked by others and they may not be assigned to any of the observations in prediction.
For a clear example of masking see \cite[Sec. 4.2]{Hastie2001TheElements}.
\subsection{Generalized Linear Models}
\label{subsubsec:generalized}
In linear models the response variable is directly related to the regression
function by a linear expression of the form of (\ref{EqLM}). In many cases a
model can be improved by indirectly relating the response to the predictor
through a linear model---some times it is necessary as will be shown for the
classification problem. This is done through a transformation or \textit{link}
function $g$ by assuming:
\begin{equation}
g(E\left[ Y\right] )=X\mathbf{^{\prime}}\beta\label{EqYinGLM}%
\end{equation}
Now it is the transformed expectation that is modeled linearly. Hence, linear
models are merely a special case of the generalized linear models when the
link function is the identity function $g(E\left[ Y\right] )=E\left[
Y\right] $.
A very useful link function is the \textit{logit} function defined by:
\begin{equation}
g(\mu)=\log\frac{\mu}{1-\mu},~~~0<\mu<1 \label{EqLogit}%
\end{equation}
Through this function the regression function is modeled in terms of the
predictor as:%
\begin{equation}
E\left[ Y\right] =\frac{\exp(X^{\prime}\beta)}{1+\exp(X^{\prime}\beta)}
\label{eq27}%
\end{equation}
which is known as logistic regression. Equation (\ref{eq27}) implies a
constraint on the response $Y$, i.e., it must satisfy $0<E\left[ Y\right]
<1$, a feature that makes logistic regression an ideal approach for modeling
the posterior probabilities in (\ref{eq10}) for the classification problem.
Equation (\ref{EqLogit}) models the two-class problem, i.e., binary
classification, by considering the new responses $Y_{1}$ and $Y_{2}$ to be
defined in terms of the old responses $\omega_{1}\,$and $\omega_{2}$, the
classes, as:
\begin{align}
Y_{1} & =\Pr\left[ \omega_{1}|X\right] ,\label{eq28}\\
Y_{2} & =\Pr\left[ \omega_{2}|X\right] =1-\Pr\left[ \omega_{1}|X\right]
\end{align}
The general case of the $k$-class problem can be modeled using $K-1$
equations, because of the constraint $\sum\nolimits_{i}{\Pr}\left[
{\omega_{i}|X}\right] =1$, as:%
\begin{equation}
\log\frac{\Pr\left[ \omega_{i}|X=x\right] }{\Pr\left[ \omega_{k}%
|X=x\right] }=x\mathbf{^{\prime}}\beta_{i},~~~i=1,\ldots,K-1 \label{eq29}%
\end{equation}
Alternatively, (\ref{eq29}) can be rewritten as:%
\begin{align}
\Pr\left[ \omega_{i}|X=x\right] & =\frac{\exp\left( x\mathbf{^{\prime}%
}\beta_{i}\right) }{1+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{K-1}{\exp\left( x{\mathbf{^{\prime
}}\beta_{j}}\right) }},~~~1\leq i\leq K-1,\label{eq30}\\
\Pr\left[ \omega_{k}|X=x\right] & =\frac{1}{1+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{K-1}%
{\exp\left( x{\mathbf{^{\prime}}\beta_{j}}\right) }}%
\end{align}
The question now is how to estimate $\beta_{i}$ $\forall$ $i$. The multinomial
distribution for modeling observations is appropriate here. For illustration,
consider the case of binary classification; the log-likelihood for the
$n$-observations can then be written as:
\begin{align}
l(\beta) & =\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ {{y}_{i}{\log\Pr}\left[
{\omega_{1}|}X{_{i},\beta}\right] {+(1-y_{i})\log(1-\Pr}\left[ {\omega_{1}%
|}X{_{i},\beta}\right] }\right\} \label{eq31}\\
& =\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{\left\{ {y}_{i}x_{i}^{\prime}{\beta-\log
(1+e^{x_{i}^{\prime}\beta})}\right\} }%
\end{align}
To maximize this likelihood, the first derivative is set to zero to obtain:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial l\left( \beta\right) }{\partial\beta}=\sum\limits_{i=1}%
^{n}x{_{i}(y_{i}-\frac{e^{x_{i}^{\prime}\beta}}{1+e^{x_{i}^{\prime}\beta}}%
)}\overset{set}{=}0 \label{eq32}%
\end{equation}
This is a set of $k$ equations, where the vector $X$ can be the original
predictor $(x_{1},\ldots,x_{p})^{\prime}$ or any transformation $(f_{1}%
(X),\ldots,f_{d}(X))^{\prime}$ as in (\ref{EqXnew}). Equation (\ref{eq32}) is a set of non-linear equations, and can by solved by iterative
numerical methods like the Newton-Raphson algorithm. For more details with numerical examples see \cite[Sec. 4.4]{Hastie2001TheElements} or
\cite[Sec. 12.3]{Casella2002StatisticalInference}.
It can be noted that (\ref{eq31}) is valid under the assumption of the
following general distribution:
\begin{equation}
f(X)=\phi(\theta_{i},\gamma)h(X,\gamma)\exp(\theta_{i}^{\prime}X)
\end{equation}
with probability $p_{i}$, $i=1,2$, $p_{1}+p_{2}=1$, which is the exponential
family. So logistic regression is no longer an approximation for the posterior
class probability if the distribution belongs to the exponential family. For
insightful comparison between logistic regression and the Bayes classifier
under the multinormal assumption see \cite{Efron1975TheEfficiencyLogistic}.
\bigskip
It is very important to mention that logistic regression, and all subsequent
classification methods, assume equal a priori probabilities. Then the ratio
between the posterior probabilities will be the same as the ratio between the
densities that appear in (\ref{eq11}). Hence, the estimated posterior
probabilities from any classification method are used in (\ref{eq11}) as if
they are the estimated densities.
\subsection{Non-linear Models}
\label{subsubsec:mylabel1}
The link function in the generalized linear models is modeled linearly in the
predictors, (\ref{EqYinGLM}). Consequently, the response variable is modeled
as a non-linear function. In contrast to the linear models described in
Section \ref{subsubsec:linear}, in non-linear models the response can be
modeled non-linearly right from the beginning, without the need for a link function.
\section{Nonparametric Regression and Classification}
\label{subsec:nonparametric}
In contrast to parametric regression, the regression function (\ref{eq1}) is
not modeled parametrically, i.e., there is no particular parametric form to be
imposed on the function. Nonparametric regression is a versatile and flexible
method of exploring the relationship of two variables. It may appear that this
technique is more efficient than the linear models, but this is not the case.
Linear models and nonparametric models can be thought of as two different
techniques in the analyst's toolbox. If there is an a priori reason to believe
that the data follow a parametric form, then linear models or parametric
regression in general may provide an argument for an optimal choice. If there
is no prior knowledge about the parametric form the data may follow or no
prior information about the physical phenomenon that generated the data, there
may be no choice other than nonparametric regression.
There are many nonparametric techniques proposed in the statistical
literature. Some of these techniques have also been developed in the
engineering community under different names, e.g., artificial neural networks.
What was said above, when comparing parametric and nonparametric methods, can
also be said when comparing nonparametric methods to each other. None can be
preferred overall across all situations.
This section introduces some of the nonparametric regression and
classification methods. The purpose is not to present a survey as much as to
introduce the topic and show how it relates with the parametric methods to
serve one purpose, predicting a response variable, categorical or
quantitative. An excellent comprehensive source for regression and
classification methods, with practical approaches and illustrative examples,
is \cite{Hastie2001TheElements}.
\subsection{Smoothing Techniques}
\label{subsubsec:smoothing}
Smoothing is a tool for summarizing in a nonparametric way a trend between a
response and a predictor such that the resulting relationship is less variable
than the original response, hence the name smoothing. When the predictor is
unidimensional, the smoothing is called scatter-plot smoothing. In this
section, some methods used in scatter-plot smoothing are considered. These
smoothing methods do not succeed in higher dimensionality. This is one bad
aspect of what is called the curse of dimensionality, which will be discussed
in Section \ref{subsec:curse}.
\subsubsection{$K$-Nearest Neighbor}
\label{para:mylabel1}
The regression function (\ref{eq1}) is estimated in the $K$-nearest neighbor
approach by:
\begin{gather}
\eta(x)=\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{W_{i}(x)y_{i}},\label{eq34}\\
W_{i}(x)=\left\{ {%
\begin{array}
[c]{lll}%
n/k & & i\in\mathcal{J}_{x}=\left\{ i:x_{i}\in N_{k}(x)\right\} \\
0 & & otherwise
\end{array}
}\right.
\end{gather}
where $N_{k}(x)$ is the set consisting of the nearest $k$ points to the point
$x$. So in the case of regression, this technique approximates the conditional
mean, i.e., the regression function that gives minimum risk, by local
averaging for the response $Y$.
In the case of classification, the posterior probability is estimated by:
\begin{equation}
\Pr\left[ \omega_{j}|x\right] =\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}%
{W_{i}(x)I_{\omega_{i}=\omega_{j}}}%
\end{equation}
and $I$ is the indicator function defined by:
\begin{equation}
I_{cond}=\left\{ {%
\begin{array}
[c]{l}%
1~~cond~is~True\\
0~~cond~is~False
\end{array}
}\right. \label{eq56}%
\end{equation}
That is, replacing the continuous response in (\ref{eq34}) by an indicator
function for each class given each point. So, the posterior probability is
approximated by a frequency of occurrence in a $k$-point neighborhood.
\subsubsection{Nearest Neighbor}
\label{para:nearest}
This is a special case of the $K$-nearest neighbor method where $k=1$. It can
be thought of as narrowing the window $W$ on which regression is carried out.
In effect, this makes the regression function or the classifier more complex
because it is trying to estimate the distribution at each point.
\subsubsection{Kernel Smoothing}
In this approach a kernel smoothing function is assumed. This means that a
weighting and convolution (or mathematical smoothing) is carried out for the
points in the neighborhood of the predicted point according to the chosen
kernel function. Formally this is expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\eta(x)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{y_{i}\left( {\frac{K\left( \frac{x-x_{i}%
}{h_{x}}\right) }{\sum\limits_{i^{\prime}=1}^{n}{K}\left( {\frac
{x-x_{i^{\prime}}}{h_{x}}}\right) }}\right) } \label{eq36}%
\end{equation}
Choosing the band-width $h_{x}$ of the kernel function is not an easy task.
Usually it is done numerically by cross-validation. It is worth remarking that
$K$-nearest neighbor smoothing is nothing but a kernel smoothing for which the
kernel function is an unsymmetrical flat window spanning the range of the
$K$-nearest neighbors of the point $x$. The kernel (\ref{eq36}) is called
Nadaraya-Watson kernel.
Historically, \cite{Parzen1962OnEstimation} first introduced the window method
density function estimation; then his work was pioneered by
\cite{Nadaraya1964EstReg} and \cite{Watson1964SmoothReg} in regression.
\subsection{Additive Models}
\label{subsubsec:additive}
Recalling (\ref{eq18}) and noticing that the function $f_{i}(X)$ is a scalar
parametric function of the whole predictor shows that linear models are
parametric additive models. By dropping the parametric assumption and letting
each scalar function be a function of just one element of the predictor, i.e.,
$X_{i}$, allows defining a new nonparametric regression method, namely
additive models, as:
\begin{equation}
\eta(x)=\alpha+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{p}{f_{i}(X_{i})} \label{eq37}%
\end{equation}
where the predictor is of dimension $p$. The response variable itself, $Y$, is modeled as in (\ref{EqYinLM}) by assuming zero mean and constant
variance for the random component $e$. Then, $f_{i}(X_{i})$ is fit by any smoothing method defined in Section \ref{subsubsec:smoothing}. Every
function $f_{i}(X_{i})$ fits the value of the response minus the contribution of the other $p-1$ functions from the previous iteration. This is
called the back-fitting algorithm described in \cite[Sec. 4.3]{Hastie1990Generalized}
\subsection{Generalized Additive Models}
\label{subsubsec:mylabel2}
Generalized additive models can be developed in a way analogous to how
generalized linear models were developed above, i.e., by working with a
transformation of the response variable, hence the name generalized additive
models (GAM). Equation (\ref{eq37}) describes the regression function as an
additive model; alternatively it can be described through another link
function:
\begin{equation}
g\left( \eta(x)\right) =\alpha+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{p}{f_{i}(X_{i})}
\label{eq38}%
\end{equation}
Again, if a \textit{logit} function is used the model can be used for classification exactly as was done in the case of generalized linear
models. Rewriting the score equations (\ref{eq32}) for the GAM, using the posterior probabilities as the response variable, produces the
nonparametric classification method using the GAM. Details of fitting the model can be found in \cite[Sec. 4.5 and Ch.
6]{Hastie1990Generalized}.
\subsection{Projection Pursuit Regression}
\label{subsubsec:projection}
Projection Pursuit Regression (PPR), introduced by
\cite{Friedman1981ProjectionPursuit}, is a direct attack on the dimensionality
problem, since it considers the regression function as a summation of
functions, each of which is a function of a projection of the whole predictor
onto a direction (specified by some unit vector). Formally it is expressed
as:
\begin{equation}
\eta(x)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k}{g_{i}({\alpha}_{i}^{\prime}x)} \label{eq39}%
\end{equation}
The function $g_{i}$ for every selection for the direction $\alpha_{i}$ is to
be fit by a smoother in the new single variable $\alpha_{i}^{\prime}x$. It
should be noted that (\ref{eq39}) assumes that the function $g_{i}(\alpha
_{i}^{\prime}X)$, named the \textit{ridge function}, is constant along any
direction perpendicular to $\alpha_{i}$. Fitting the model is done by
iteratively finding the best directions $\alpha_{i}$'s that minimize(s) the
residual sum square of errors, hence the name pursuit. Details of fitting the
model and finding the best projection directions can be found in
\cite{Friedman1981ProjectionPursuit} and \cite{Hastie2001TheElements}.
In (\ref{eq39}) by deliberately setting each unit vector $\alpha_{i}$ to have
zero components except $\alpha_{ii}=1$, reduces the projection pursuit method
to additive models. Moreover, and interestingly as well, by introducing the
\textit{logit} link function to the regression function $\eta(x)$ in
(\ref{eq39}) suits the classification problem exactly as done in the GAM. This
turns out to be exactly the same as the single-hidden-layer neural network, as
will be presented in the next section.
\subsection{Neural Networks}
\label{subsubsec:neural}
Neural Networks (NN) have evolved in the engineering community since the
1950s. As illustrated in Figure \ref{fig1}, a neural network can be
considered as a process for modeling the output in terms of a linear
combination of the inputs.%
\begin{figure}
[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[
height=2.4in
]%
{NueralNetwrokStructure.png}%
\caption{Schematic diagram for a single hidden layer neural network.}%
\label{fig1}%
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The set of $p$ input features, i.e., the predictor components $X_{1}%
,\ldots,X_{p}$, are weighted linearly to form a new set of $M$ arguments,
$Z_{1},\ldots,Z_{M}$, that go through the sigmoid function $\sigma$. The
output of the sigmoid functions accounts for a hidden layer consisting of $M$
intermediate values. Then these $M$ hidden values are weighted linearly to
form a new set of $K$ arguments that go through the final output functions
whose output is the response variables $Y_{1},\ldots,Y_{K}$. This can be
expressed mathematically in the form:
\begin{align}
Z_{m} & =\sigma(\alpha_{om}+{\alpha}_{m}^{\prime}X),~~~m=1,2,\ldots,M,\\
Y_{k} & =f_{k}\left( \beta_{0k}+\sum\limits_{m=1}^{M}{\beta_{mk}Z_{m}%
}\right) ,~~~k=1,2,\ldots,K \label{EqNN}%
\end{align}
Figure \ref{fig2} shows the function under different values of $\alpha$
(called learning rate below).%
\begin{figure}
[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[
height=2.4in]{sigmoid.png}%
\caption{Sigmoid function under different learning rate $\alpha$}%
\label{fig2}%
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The sigmoid function is defined by:
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\mu)=\frac{1}{1+e^{-\mu}} \label{eq41}%
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{EqNN}) shows that if the function $f$ is chosen to be the
identity function, i.e., $f(\mu)=\mu$, the neural network is simply a special
case of the projection pursuit method defined in (\ref{eq39}), where the
sigmoid function has been explicitly imposed on the model rather than being
developed by any smoothing mechanism as in PPR. This is what is done when the
output of the network is quantitative. When it is categorical, i.e., the case
of classification, the contemporary trend is to model the function $f$ as:
\begin{equation}
f_{k}(\mu_{k})=\frac{e^{\mu_{k}}}{\sum\limits_{{k}^{\prime}=1}^{K}{e^{\mu
_{{k}^{\prime}}}}} \label{eq42}%
\end{equation}
In that case each output node models the posterior probability $\Pr\left[
\omega_{k}|X\right] $, which is exactly what is done by the multi-logistic
regression link function defined in (\ref{EqLogit}). Again, the model will be
an extension to the generalized additive models as defined at the end of
Section \ref{subsubsec:projection}. Excellent references for neural networks
are \cite{Bishop1995NeurNet} and \cite{Ripley1996PRandNN}. We conclude
this section by quoting the following statement from \cite{Hastie2001TheElements}:
\begin{quotation}
``There has been a great deal of hype surrounding neural networks, making them
seem magical and mysterious. As we make clear in this section, they are just
nonlinear statistical models, much like the projection pursuit regression
model discussed above.''
\end{quotation}
\section{Computational Intelligence}
The term computational intelligence was first coined by
\cite{Bezdek1992onRelationship} and \cite{Bezdek1994WhatIsCI}:
\begin{quote}
``A system is computationally intelligent when it: deals only with numerical
(low-level) data, has a pattern recognition component, and does not use
knowledge in the AI (Artificial Intelligence) sense; and additionally, when it
(begins to) exhibit (i) computational adaptivity; (ii) computational fault
tolerance; (iii) speed approaching human-like turnaround, and (iv) error rates
that approximate human performance.''
\end{quote}
Since that time the term Computational Intelligence (CI) has been accepted as
a generic term to the field that combine Neural Networks, Fuzzy Logic, and
Evolutionary Algorithms; see \cite{Schwefel2003AdvancesIn} and
\cite{Zimmermann2002AdvCI}. As a still-developing field, CI may incorporate
other methodologies as a coherent part. In \cite{Engelbrecht2002Computational}%
, the area of Swarm Detection is considered as a peer paradigm to the other
three mentioned above.
\bigskip In the spirit of what has been discussed in the preceding sections,
these methods assume nothing about the data distributions; they try to
approach the solution by merely dealing with the data, i.e., numbers (c.f. the
definition above). Hence, the CI methods, from a purely statistical point of
view, are considered as nonparametric methods. Sections
\ref{subsubsec:projection} and \ref{subsubsec:neural} illustrated,
mathematically, how Neural Networks, a basic building block in the CI field,
is a special case of the projection pursuit, a nonparametric regression method.
\section{No overall Winner among All Methods}
\label{subsec:mylabel1} This statement is important enough to be emphasized
under a separate title, even though it has been touched upon throughout
previous sections. If there is no prior information for the joint distribution
between the response and the predictor, and if there is no prior information
about the phenomenon to which that regression or classification will be
applied, there is no overall winner among regression or classification
techniques. If one classification method is found to outperform others in some
application, this is likely to be limited to that very situation or that
specific kind of problem; it may be beaten by other methods for other
situations. In the engineering community, this concept is referred to as the
\textit{No-Free-Lunch} Theorem
\citep[see][Sec. 9.2]{Duda2001PatternClassification}. This situation holds
because each method makes different assumptions about the application or the
process being modeled, and not all real-life applications are the same. If one
or more of the assumptions are not satisfied in a given application, the
performance will not be optimal in that setting.
\section{Curse of Dimensionality and Dimensionality Reduction}
\label{subsec:curse}
In general, smoothing is difficult to implement in higher dimensions. This is because for a fixed number of observations available, the volume
size needed to cover a particular percentage of the total number of observations increases by a power law, and thus exponentially, with
dimensionality. This makes it prohibitive to include the same sufficient number of observations within a small neighborhood, or bandwidth, for a
sample case to smooth the response. E.g., consider a unit hyper-cube in the $p$-dimensional subspace containing uniformly distributed
observations; the percentage of the points located inside a hyper-cube with side length $l$ is $l^{p}$. This means, if the suitable band-width
for a certain smoother is $l$, the effective number of sample cases in the $p$-dimensional problem will go as the power $1/p$. This deteriorates
the performance dramatically for $p$ higher than 3. This is why the additive model, Section \ref{subsubsec:additive}, and its variants are
expressed as summation of functions of just one dimension. This single dimension may be just a component of the predictor or a linear
combination.
\bigskip
A very crucial sub-field in statistical learning is dimensionality reduction;
alternatively it is called feature selection in the engineering community.
Qualitatively speaking, this means selecting those predictor components that
best summarize the relationship between the response and predictor. In
real-life problems, some features are statistically dependent on others; this
is referred to as multi-collinearity. On the other hand, there may also be
some components that are statistically independent from the response. These
add no additional information to the problem at all; thus they serve only as a
source of noise
This is a rapidly maturing sub-field. A remarkable publication in the
statistics literature in this regard is that by
\cite{Li1991SlicedInverseRegression}. It introduces the Sliced Inverse
Regression (SIR), in which each predictor component is regressed on the
response; hence the name inverse regression. In that sense, the problem is
reduced from regressing a single response on a $p$-dimensional predictor to
regressing $p$-responses on a single-dimensional new predictor, which is far
simpler than the former.
\section{Unsupervised Learning}
\label{subsec:unsupervised} It should be noticed that the formal definition of
the learning process, discussed thus far in the present chapter, assumed the
existence of a training data set, name it, $\mathbf{t}:\left\{ {t_{i}=\left(
{x_{i},y_{i}}\right) }\right\} $. Each element $t_{i}$, or sample case, in
this set has an already known value for the response variable; this is what
enables the learning process to develop the relationship between the predictor
and the response. This is what is called supervised learning. On the contrary,
in some applications the available data set is described by $\mathbf{t}%
:\left\{ {t_{i}=x_{i}}\right\} $ without any additional information. This
situation is called unsupervised learning. The objective in such a situation
is to understand the structure of the data from the available empirical
probability distribution of the points $x_{i}$. For the special case where the
data come from different classes, the data will be represented in the hyper
$p$-dimensional subspace , to some extent, as disjoint clouds of data. The
task in this case is called clustering, i.e., trying to identify those classes
that best describe, in some sense, the current available data. More formally,
if the available data set is $\mathbf{X}$, the objective is to find the class
vector $\Omega=[\omega_{1},\ldots,\omega_{k}{]}^{\prime}$ such that a
criterion $\mathcal{J}(\mathbf{X},\Omega)$ is minimized:
\begin{equation}
\Omega=\arg\min\mathcal{J}(\mathbf{X},\Omega) \label{eq43}%
\end{equation}
Different criteria give rise to different clustering algorithms. More
discussion on unsupervised learning and clustering can be found in
\cite{Duda2001PatternClassification, Fukunaga1990Introduction,
Hastie2001TheElements}. This dissertation is concerned with the problem of
supervised learning.
\section{Performance of Classification Rules}
\label{subsec:performance}
From what has been discussed until now, there is not any conceptual difference
between regression and classification for the problem of supervised learning.
Abstractly, both aim to achieve the minimum risk under a certain loss function
for predicting a response from a particular predictor. If the special case of
classification is considered, there should be some metric to assess the
performance of the classification rule. Said differently, if several
classifiers are competing in the same problem, which is better? One natural
answer is to consider the risk of each classifier, as was defined in
(\ref{eq8}).
A special case of classification, which is of great interest in many applications, is binary classification, where the number of classes is just
two. In that case the risk of each classifier is reduced to (\ref{eq16}), which can be rewritten as:
\begin{equation}
R_{\min}=c_{12}P_{1}e_{1}+c_{21}P_{2}e_{2} \label{eq44}%
\end{equation}
where $e_{1}$ is the probability of classifying a case as belonging to class 2
when it belongs to class 1, and $e_{2}$ is vice versa.
In the feature subspace, the regions of classification have the dimensionality
$p$, and it is very difficult to calculate the error components from
multi-dimensional integration. It is easier to look at (\ref{eq14}) as:
\begin{align}
& h(x)\underset{\omega_{2}}{\overset{\omega_{_{1}}}{\gtrless}}%
th,~where\label{eq45}\\
h(x) & =\log\frac{f_{X}(X=x|\omega_{1})}{f_{X}(X=x|\omega_{2})},\\
th & =\log\frac{\Pr\left[ \omega_{1}\right] \left( {c_{22}-c_{21}%
}\right) }{\Pr\left[ \omega_{2}\right] \left( {c_{11}-c_{12}}\right) },
\end{align}
and $h(X)$ is called the log-likelihood ratio. Now the log-likelihood ratio itself is a random variable whose variability comes from the feature
vector $X$, and has a PDF conditional on the true class. This is shown in Figure \ref{fig3}. It can be easily shown that the two curves in
Figure \ref{fig3} cross at $h(X)=0$, where the threshold is zero. In this case the two error components, appearing in (\ref{eq44}), are
written equivalently as:
\begin{subequations}\label{Eqe1e2}
\begin{align}
e_{1} & =\int_{-\infty}^{th}{f_{h}}\left( {h(x)|\omega_{1}}\right)
{dh(x)},\\
e_{2} & =\int_{th}^{\infty}{f_{h}}\left( {h(x)|\omega_{2}}\right) {dh(x)}%
\end{align}%
\end{subequations}%
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=2.4in]{logliklyhood.png}%
\caption{The probability of log-likelihood ratio conditional under each class.
The two components of error are indicated as the FPF and FNF, the conventional
terminology in medical imaging.}%
\label{fig3}%
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\bigskip
Now assume the classifier is trained under the condition of equal prevalence and cost, i.e., the threshold is zero. In other environments there
will be different a priori probabilities yielding to different threshold values. The error is not a sufficient metric now, since it is function
of a single fixed threshold. A more general way to assess a classifier is provided by the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. This is
a plot for the two components of error, $e_{1}$ and $e_{2}$ under different threshold values. It is conventional in medical imaging to refer to
$e_{1}$ as the False Negative Fraction (FNF), and $e_{2}$ as the False Positive Fraction (FPF). This is because diseased patients typically have
a higher output value for a test than non-diseased patients. For example, a patient belonging to class 1 whose test output value is less than
the threshold setting for the test will be called \textquotedblleft test negative\textquotedblright\ while the patient is in fact in the
diseased class. This is a false negative decision; hence the name FNF. The situation is reversed for the other error component.
Since the classification problem now can be seen in terms of the
log-likelihood, it is apparent that the error components are integrals over a
particular PDF. Therefore the resulting ROC is a monotonically non-decreasing
function. A convention in medical imaging is to plot the $TPF=1-FNF$ vs. the
$FPF$. In that case, the farther apart the two distributions of the
log-likelihood function from each other, the higher the ROC curve and the
larger the area under the curve (AUC). Figure \ref{fig4} shows ROC curves
for two different classifiers.%
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2.4in,height=2.4in]{ROC.png}
\caption{ROC curves for two different classifiers. ROC$_{1}$ is better than
ROC$_{2}$, since for any error component value, the other component of
classifier 1 is less than that one of classifier 2.}\label{fig4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The first one performs better since it has a lower value of $e_{2}$ at each value of $e_{1}$. Thus,
the first classifier unambiguously separates the two classes better than the second one. Also, the
AUC for the first classifier is larger than that for the second one. AUC can be thought of as one
summary metric for the ROC curve.
Formally the AUC is given by:
\begin{equation}
AUC=\int_{0}^{1}{TPF~d(FPF)} \label{eq47}%
\end{equation}
If two ROC curves cross, this means each is better than the other for a
certain range of the threshold setting, but it is worse in another range. In
that case some other metric can be used, such as the partial area under the
ROC curve in a specified region.
The two components of error in (\ref{eq44}), or the summary metric AUC in
(\ref{eq47}), are the parametric forms of these metrics. That is, these
metrics can be calculated by these equations if the posterior probabilities
are known parametrically, e.g., in the case of the Bayes classifier or by
parametric regression techniques as in Section \ref{subsec:parametric}.
On the contrary, if the posterior probabilities are not known in a parametric
form, the error rates can be estimated only numerically from a given data set,
called the testing data set. This is done by assigning equal probability mass
for each sample case, since this is the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE)
for the probability mass function under the nonparametric distribution. This
can be proven by maximizing the likelihood function:
\begin{equation}
L(F)=\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}{p_{i}} \label{eq48}%
\end{equation}
under the constraint $\Sigma_{i}p_{i}=1$. The likelihood (\ref{eq48}) can be
rewritten, by considering this constraint, using a Lagrange multiplier as:
\begin{equation}
L(F)=\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}{p_{i}}+\lambda\left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{p_{i}%
}-1\right) \label{eq49}%
\end{equation}
The likelihood (\ref{eq49}) is maximized by taking the first derivative and
setting it to zero to obtain:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial L(F)}{\partial p_{j}}=\prod\limits_{i\neq j}{p_{i}}%
+\lambda\overset{set}{=}0,~~~j=1,\ldots,n \label{eq50}%
\end{equation}
These $n$ equations along with the constraint $\Sigma_{i}p_{i}=1$ can be
solved straightforwardly to give:
\begin{equation}
\hat{p}_{i}=\frac{1}{n},~~~i=1,\ldots,n \label{eq51}%
\end{equation}
That is, the nonparametric MLE of the distribution will be:
\begin{equation}
\hat{F}:mass~\frac{1}{n}~on\,~t_{i},~i=1,\ldots,n \label{eq52}%
\end{equation}
where $n$ is the size of the testing data set. In this case (\ref{eq2}) will
be reduced to:
\begin{align}
\widehat{R(\eta)} & =E_{\hat{F}}\left[ {L(Y,\eta(X)}\right] \label{eq53}\\
& =\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{L}\left( {y_{i},\eta(x_{i})}\right)
\end{align}
where the expectation has been taken over the empirical distribution $\hat{F}$
of the variable. In the case of classification, (\ref{eq53}) can be reduced
further to:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{R(\eta)}=\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{c_{i,\eta(x_{i})}}
\label{eq54}%
\end{equation}
In the special case of zero loss for correct decisions in binary
classification, (\ref{eq54}) reduces further to:
\begin{align}
\widehat{R(\eta)} & =\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{\left( {c_{12}%
\,I_{\hat{h}(x_{i}|\omega_{1})<th}+c_{21}\,I_{\hat{h}(x_{i}|\omega_{2})>th}%
}\right) }\label{eq55}\\
& =\frac{1}{n}\left( {c_{21}\,\widehat{e_{1}}\,n_{1}+c_{21}\,\widehat{e_{2}%
}\,n_{2}}\right) \\
& =c_{21}\,\widehat{FNF\,}\widehat{P_{1}}+c_{21}\,\widehat{FPF}%
\,\widehat{P_{2}}%
\end{align}
which is the nonparametric approximation to (\ref{eq44}) and (\ref{Eqe1e2}).
The indicator function $I$ is defined in (\ref{eq56}). The values $n_{1}$ and
$n_{2}$ are the sizes of class-1 sample and class-2 samples respectively, and
$\widehat{P_{1}}$ and $\widehat{P_{2}}$ are the estimated a priori
probabilities. The function $\hat{h}(x_{i})$ is the estimated log-likelihood
ratio at case $t_{i}$ obtained from estimating the posterior probabilities
with any of the nonparametric classification methods (Section
\ref{subsec:nonparametric}). In the case of $c_{12}=c_{21}=1$, the so-called
\textquotedblleft0-1 loss function\textquotedblright, the risk is called
simply the error rate or (Probability of Misclassification (PMC).
The two components, $1-\widehat{FNF\,}$and $\widehat{FPF\,}$ give one point on
the empirical (estimated) ROC curve. To draw the complete curve in the
nonparametric situation, the estimated log-likelihood is calculated for each
point of the available data set. Then all possible thresholds are considered
in turn, i.e., the threshold values between every two successive estimated
log-likelihood values. At each threshold value a point on the ROC curve is
calculated. Then the AUC can be calculated numerically from the empirical ROC
curve using the trapezoidal rule:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{AUC}=\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n_{th}}{\left( {FNF_{i}%
-FNF_{i-1}}\right) (TPF_{i}+TPF_{i-1})} \label{eq57}%
\end{equation}
where $n_{th}$ is the number of threshold values taken over the data set. By
plotting the empirical ROC curve, it is easy to see that the AUC obtained from
the trapezoidal method is the same as the Mann-Whitney statistic---which is
another form of the Wilcoxon rank-sum test \citep[Ch.4]{Hajek1999TheoryOfRank}%
---defined by:
\begin{gather}
\widehat{AUC}=\frac{1}{n_{1}n_{2}}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n_{2}}{\sum
\limits_{i=1}^{n_{1}}{\psi\left( {\hat{h}\left( {x_{i}|\omega_{1}}\right)
,\hat{h}\left( {x_{j}|\omega_{2}}\right) }\right) }},\label{eq58}\\
\psi(a,b)=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}%
1 & & a>b\\
1/2 & & a=b\\
0 & & a<b
\end{array}
\right.
\end{gather}
The equivalence of the area under the empirical ROC and the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon statistic is the basis of its use in the assessment of
diagnostic tests; see \cite{Hanley1982TheMeaning}. \cite{Swets1986IndicesOfDiscrimination} has recommended it as a natural summary measure of
detection accuracy on the basis of signal-detection theory. Applications of this measure are widespread in the literature on human and
computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging, e.g., \cite{Jiang1999ImprovingBreast}. In the field of machine learning,
\cite{Bradley1997TheUseOfTheAreaUnder} has recommended it as the preferred summary measure of accuracy when a single number is desired. These
references also provide general background and access to the large literature on the subject.
\bigskip
It has been mentioned above that in the nonparametric situation these
performance measures are estimated from a single given data set, i.e., the
testing data set or, less formally, the testers. But as long as the
distribution is unknown it is not only impossible to calculate these
measures parametrically, but it is also impossible to generate, by
simulation, testing data sets on which these metrics can be estimated. In
that case the classifier might be trained and its performance measure
estimated from the same training data set. This estimation will be a random
variable whose randomness comes from the finite training data set ${\rm {\bf t}}$. That is, under different data sets even of the same size, the estimate
will vary. Therefore it is not sufficient to assess a classifier performance
by estimating its mean, either error or AUC, without estimating the
variability.
In general, the fundamental population parameters of interest are the
following: The true performance $AUC_{{\rm {\bf tr}}} $ conditional on a
particular training data set ${\rm {\bf tr}}$ of a specified size but over
the population of testing data sets---as if we trained on ${\rm {\bf tr}}$
then tested on infinite number of observations; the expectation of this
performance over the population of training data sets of the same size,
$E_{{\rm {\bf tr}}} AUC_{{\rm {\bf tr}}} $; and the measure of variability
of this performance over the population of training data sets, of the same
size, $\mathop {Var}\nolimits_{{\rm {\bf tr}}} AUC_{{\rm {\bf tr}}} $.
Estimators of these parameters, respectively, $\widehat{AUC_{{\rm {\bf tr}}}
}, \quad \widehat{E_{{\rm {\bf tr}}} AUC_{{\rm {\bf tr}}} },$ and
$\widehat{\mathop {Var}\nolimits_{{\rm {\bf tr}}} AUC_{{\rm {\bf tr}}} }$,
can be obtained in several ways. Parametric estimates can be obtained by
modeling the underlying distributions of the samples, e.g., as in \cite{Fukunaga1990Introduction}.
If the distributions of the samples are either unknown or not readily
modeled, then this is a problem of nonparametric estimation. There are
several traditional approaches to using the available data in this
estimation task. One approach is to have a common data set that is used for
training and testing; this approach often includes various resampling
strategies, including cross-validation and bootstrapping \citep{Efron1983EstimatingTheError, Efron1997ImprovementsOnCross, Stone1977AnAsymptotic}. Another approach is to maintain what
might be called the traditional data hygiene of two independent data sets,
the training data set ${\rm {\bf tr}}$(simply called trainers), and the
testing data set ${\rm {\bf ts}}=\{t_i :t_i =(x_i ,y_i ),\;i=1,...,n_{{\rm
{\bf ts}}} \}$ (simply called testers). Therefore, the reader should keep in
mind the fact that the three estimators above are functions of both ${\rm
{\bf tr}}$ and ${\rm {\bf ts}}$ although they are not ${\rm {\bf
ts}}$-subscripted.
The first two of these estimators, $\widehat{AUC_{{\rm {\bf tr}}} }$ and
$\widehat{E_{{\rm {\bf tr}}} AUC_{{\rm {\bf tr}}} }$, were discussed, along
with their variances, in \cite{Yousef2004ComparisonOf, Yousef2005EstimatingThe}, where there was
only one available data set for training and testing. In that paradigm,
training was pursued on different bootstrap replications from the available
data set while testing was done by testing on the remaining observations
that did not appear in the bootstrap replications. This technique was
developed in \cite{Efron1995CrossValidation, Efron1997ImprovementsOnCross}, and their performance index was the
total error, rather than the AUC.
There are some situations, e.g., in several public-policy-making or
regulatory settings, in which it could be highly recommended, or even
mandatory, that the training and testing sets be isolated as in the
so-called traditional hygiene. This technique is analyzed in \cite{Yousef2006AssessClass}.
It is worth mentioning that assessment in terms of the AUC as the index (or measure) is
straightforward to be extended to other summary measures of performance such as the partial area
under the curve (PAUC) in some specified region of interest; see \cite{Yousef2013PAUC}.
\section{Conclusion and Advice for Practitioners}
In this article, the importance of statistical learning is stressed through
demonstrating examples from different areas and applications. The
mathematical foundations of the field, along its different methods of
design, have been motivated. Last section was dedicated to the assessment
problem of a designed classifier. Bearing in mind that this article is
intended to be a tutorial article on the field, important and fundamental
references have been cited, wherever necessary, for readers interested in
more elaboration.
Many practitioners in the field leverage some methods, in designing their
classifier, without having enough insight; this leads to fallacies in
results or conclusions. Example of this is the exaggerated use of neural
networks with multiple layers leading to overtraining. Another pitfall is
using a small size training data set with respect to the dimensionality of
the problem. This is always the case in some fields, e.g., DNA microarrays.
However, a more elaborate assessment phase should follow the design phase in
these ill-posed applications. A third pitfall is assessing classifiers in
only the mean performance ignoring the variance arousing from the finite
sample size. Overlooking these conceptual and mathematical
foundations---which is always observed in the field---in both design and
assessment, drives practitioners to, at best, flukes; while their findings
and conclusions, sometimes, are fragile.
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-harv}
|
\section{Introduction}
The wrinkling of a thin film is a common occurrence, but elucidation of its underlying physics has far-reaching implications~\cite{Li_etal2012}. These include suggesting better ways to fabricate functional surfaces that change shape in predictable ways when subject to appropriate stimuli~\cite{TokarevMilko2008}, finding new and more accurate methods for measuring material properties~\cite{Wang2009,Chung_etal2011}, determining growth and form in biological tissues~\cite{thompson1942,LiangMaha2001}, and bringing insights into the fundamental mechanisms of pattern formation~\cite{bg2005,Davidovitch2011,Vella2011,King2012,Paulsen2015}. Many recent studies have focused on how wrinkling arises in isotropic materials as they respond to external effects, for example, when tension is applied to a freely suspended thin sheet~\cite{CerdaRavi-ChandarMahadevan2002,CerdaMahadevan2003,GeminardBernalMelo2004}, from compressing a film atop a soft substrate~\cite{ChenHutchinson2004,HuangHongSuo05,AudolyBoudaoud2008} or a fluid interface~\cite{Huang_etal2010,Brau2013,Oshri2015}, or through swelling mechanisms~\cite{GuvendirenYangBurdick2009}. However, less attention has been given to wrinkling instabilities in anisotropic materials, such as Nematic Liquid Crystal Elastomers (NLCE)~\cite{kf1991,WarnerTerentjev}.
NLCE are promising materials for studying and controlling surface pattern formation~\cite{wb2015,mwww2016,gymss2017,ahyxky2018,wm2018,kmgww2018,Lavrentovich2018,btghwsbl2018} due to unique effects that arise from the coupling between strain and nematic order~\cite{kf1994,uht2006,rkm2018}. For example, NLCE can display elastic soft modes, in which they can undergo deformation with negligible energy cost~\cite{KundlerFinkelmann1995,wbsww2016}. These materials, therefore, represent an extension of traditional anisotropic plates~\cite{rr2004,Lekhnitsky1957}, where the angle of anisotropy is now free to vary while the plate remains fixed. It has been shown that, under tension, thin sheets of NLCE can also develop intricate microstructures which suppress pattern formation at larger scales~\cite{pb2017}. Because the nematic phase is easily affected by electromagnetic fields, strain-order coupling also allows for nuanced actuation of these materials via light~\cite{dgn2016,tptw2018,gskabrw2018,awhkbgbdw2018}, and one can also measure and record their deformation electronically~\cite{rkbaspw2018}. They are also an excellent candidate for artificial muscle tissue~\cite{mp2018}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figure1.png}
\caption{\footnotesize A cartoon is used to represent the geometry and the parameters of the problem. A NLCE plate of thickness $t$, width $W$ and length $L$ is bonded to a substrate, which may be fluid or elastic. The bonded pair are compressed by a percentage $\gamma$ along the longitudinal direction, which we take to be $\hat{x}$. The nematic director is assumed to lie in the tangent plane of the thin film. The director is parameterized after dimensional reduction by the angle $\phi$ measured in the tangent plane, and the out-of-plane deformation is $\zeta(x,y)$. }
\label{setupf}
\end{figure}
Although the mechanics of NLCE has been considered by several authors~\cite{WarnerMahadevan2004,WarnerModesCorbett2010,AharoniSharonKupferman2014,CirakWarner2014,ad2017,ko2017,Nguyen2017}, a first principle derivation of a dimensionally reduced model from an effective theory for these materials in the limit of thin plates is still lacking. In this article we derive a F\"{o}ppl-von K\'{a}rm\'{a}n-like plate theory for NLCE and use this theory to study the wrinkling of such thin materials under compressive loads. The specific problem to be addressed is when a thin sheet of NLCE is placed on a soft isotropic elastic foundation, or a fluid sub-phase. Our problem is thus an inversion of already existent experiments and theory on wrinkling of an isotropic plate atop a thick nematic elastomer foundation~\cite{palffymuhorayNLCE,Soni2016}. As depicted in Fig.~\ref{setupf}, the wrinkling of the plate atop the foundation is induced by compressing both the foundation and the plate as a unit. In the absence of a foundation, the plate will choose an out-of-plane deformation which is a single arch; if the plate is bonded to the foundation, however, this deformation has a high energetic cost, due either to deformation of an elastic foundation or the gravitational energy stored in a fluid substrate.
In Sections \ref{3densec} and \ref{dimredsec}, we outline the dimensional reduction. We begin with a three-dimensional phenomenological energy and extend the kinematic and dynamic Kirchhoff-Love approximations with compatible approximations for the behavior of the nematic director. These approximations allow us to integrate across the thickness of the plate, thus reducing the three-dimensional energy to a two-dimensional energy comprised of two terms---a stretching-like term proportional to the thickness $t$, and a bending-like term proportional to $t^3$. These terms couple the geometry of the macroscopic sheet to the director orientation. We explore the ramifications of our model by considering a common wrinkling \emph{ansatz}, in which a base state of stress for a compressed but planar plate is energetically coupled to the strain resulting from out-of-plane displacement. The base state of stress is derived in Section \ref{inplanesec}. The approximations for the bending and stretching energies due to the \emph{ansatz} are discussed in Section \ref{outplanesec}, where the scaling of the wrinkle wavelength is also considered. The scaling has the same functional form as for an isotropic plate, but includes information from the nematogen-elastomer coupling strengths. We summarize our results in Section \ref{sumsec}.
\section{Three-dimensional energy}
\label{3densec}
We assume that the elastomer is prepared in such a way that the material was deep in the nematic phase at the time of cross-linking, and denote by $\bar{\mathbf{n}}$ the unit vector director field in this initial configuration, also known as the ``reference" configuration. This assumption is important in NLCE because there is an extra term in the energy for the elastomer depending on whether the material was prepared and cross-linked with the liquid crystal in the isotropic phase~\cite{Lubensky_etal2002,WarnerTerentjev}. When the NLCE is subject to external forces or torques, there exist\trp{s} an energetic cost to deform the elastomer and rotate the director field to a new configuration $\mathbf{n}$. To describe this energy, we review standard notions from continuum mechanics.
\trp{The reference configuration of the elastomer is a thin slab. We define an orthonormal basis $\{\mathbf{e}_i\}$ with $\mathbf{e}_{1}$ and $\mathbf{e}_2$ parallel to the plane of the slab, and $\mathbf{e}_3$ perpendicular to the slab. Cartesian coordinates $x_1$, $x_2$, $x_3$ determine the positions of points relative to this frame. The $x_i$ will also serve as Lagrangian coordinates for the deformed configuration, where the position of a material point $p$, originally at $\mathbf{x}$, is given by the deformation map $\mathbf{Y}(\mathbf{x})$. The deformation map defines another natural basis $\{\mathbf{g}_i\}$, where $\mathbf{g}_i=\partial_i\mathbf{Y}\equiv\partial\mathbf{Y}/\partial x_i.$ Due to the deformation, the distance between material points changes; the distance between material points is encoded in the metric tensor \trpa{$\boldmath{\mathsf{g}}=g_{ij}\mathbf{e}^i\otimes\mathbf{e}^j$, where} $g_{ij}=\mathbf{g}_i\cdot\mathbf{g}_j$. Denoting the inverse of the metric tensor by $g^{ij}$, we can define the dual basis $\{\mathbf{g}^i\}$ via $\mathbf{g}^i=g^{ij}\mathbf{g}_j$ so that $\mathbf{g}^i\cdot\mathbf{g}_j=\delta^i_j$. (Note that we use the Einstein convention of summing repeated indices.) For a deformed configuration, $\mathbf{g}^i\neq\mathbf{g}_i$, but $\mathbf{e}^i=\mathbf{e}_i$ for the Cartesian basis. The deformation tensor $\mathsf{F}$ maps the Cartesian basis vectors $\mathbf{e}_i$ onto the deformed basis vectors $\mathbf{g}_i$, i.e. $\mathsf{F}:\mathbf{e}_i\mapsto\mathbf{g}_i$. Thus, $\mathsf{F}=\mathbf{g}_i\otimes\mathbf{e}^i$, where $\otimes$ denotes the outer product. Note that $\mathsf{F}=\nabla\mathbf{Y}=\partial_jY_i\mathbf{e}^i\otimes\mathbf{e}^j$, \trpa{or $F_{ij}=\partial_j Y_i$}. We can define the Lagrangian or Green strain tensor $\boldsymbol\varepsilon$ in terms of reference-space quantities \trpa{$\mathrm{d}Y_i\mathrm{d}Y_i-\mathrm{d}x_i\mathrm{d}x_j=2\varepsilon_{ij}\mathrm{d}x_i\mathrm{d}x_j$}, and the Eulerian or Almansi strain tensor $\boldsymbol\varepsilon^*$ in terms of deformed- or ``target"-space quantities, \trpa{$\mathrm{d}Y_i\mathrm{d}Y_i-\mathrm{d}x_i\mathrm{d}x_j=2\varepsilon^*_{ij}\mathrm{d}Y_i\mathrm{d}Y_j$:}}
\begin{subequations}
\label{strainAG}
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol\varepsilon&= \frac{1}{2}\left[\mathsf{F}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathsf{F}-\mathsf{1}\right]=\varepsilon_{ij}\mathbf{e}^i\otimes\mathbf{e}^j
\label{strainG} \\
\boldsymbol\varepsilon^*&= \frac{1}{2}\left[\mathsf{1}^*-\mathsf{F}^{\mathrm{-T}}\mathsf{F}^{-1}\right]=\varepsilon^*_{ij}\mathbf{g}^i\otimes\mathbf{g}^j,
\label{strainA}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\mathsf{1}=\mathbf{e}_i\otimes\mathbf{e}^i$ \trp{is the identity on the reference space} and $\mathsf{1}^*=\mathbf{g}_i\otimes\mathbf{g}^i$ \trp{is the identity on the target space}.
The resistance of the cross-linked network to deformation is described by an energy density which is quadratic in the strain. The coupling between the orientational order and the strain of the polymer network is described by de Gennes' phenomenological energy~\cite{DeGennes1975,Mbanga2010,Sawa2011}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:EnergyTotal21}
{E}&=&\frac{1}{2}\int\mathrm{d}V\left[\lambda\left(\mathrm{Tr}\boldsymbol\varepsilon\right)^2+2\mu\mathrm{Tr}\left(\boldsymbol\varepsilon^2\right) \right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-2{\alpha}\left(\mathbf{n}\cdot\boldsymbol\varepsilon^*\cdot\mathbf{n}-\bar{\mathbf{n}}\cdot\boldsymbol\varepsilon\cdot\bar{\mathbf{n}}\right)+hf(\bar{\mathbf{n}},\mathbf{n})\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are the Lam\'{e} coefficients, and $\alpha$ and $h$ are coupling constants. The term proportional to $\alpha$ is the lowest-order term involving the nematic directors and strains. Since the reference director $\bar{\mathbf{n}}$ is a vector under the rotation group in the reference space, it must couple with the Green strain tensor in order to make the energy density a scalar~\cite{Lubensky_etal2002}, which gives the term $\bar{\mathbf{n}}\cdot\boldsymbol\varepsilon\cdot\bar{\mathbf{n}}$. Similarly, the deformed director $\mathbf{n}$ must couple with the Almansi strain tensor, thus $\mathbf{n}\cdot\boldsymbol\varepsilon^*\cdot\mathbf{n}$. The thermomechanical history of the sample is captured by the term proportional to $h$~\cite{Kenji_history}. For materials prepared deep in the nematic phase, the cross-links themselves resist rotating away from the reference state and, therefore, they ``remember'' the orientation of the nematic at the time of cross-linking~\cite{WarnerTerentjev}. A low value of $h$ corresponds to a soft nematic elastomer, which has a low cross-link density, whereas a high value of $h$ corresponds to a nematic glass with high cross-link density. The function $f(\bar{\mathbf{n}},\mathbf{n})$ captures the energetic cost of rotating the director relative to the polymer matrix background. The symmetries also restrict the possible forms of the function $f(\bar{\mathbf{n}},\mathbf{n})$, since it must behave as a scalar under rotations in both the reference and deformed spaces. Since $\bar{\mathbf{n}}=\bar{n}_i\mathbf{e}^i$ and $\mathbf{n}=n_i\mathbf{g}^i$, we choose to construct $f(\bar{\mathbf{n}},\mathbf{n})$ by using the deformation map in such a way that $\mathbf{n}$ is mapped back to the reference space. Therefore, we define $f(\bar{\mathbf{n}},\mathbf{n})\equiv \mathrm{Tr}\Delta\mathsf{Q}^2$, where $\Delta\mathsf{Q}\equiv\left(\mathsf{F}^{-1}\mathbf{n}\right)\otimes\left(\mathsf{F}^{-1}\mathbf{n}\right)-\bar{\mathbf{n}}\otimes\bar{\mathbf{n}}$.
A derivation of the coupling between strain and orientation order starting with the neoclassical NLCE energy~\cite{WarnerTerentjev} reveals that $0<\alpha<3\mu/2$~\cite{UchidaOnuki1999}. The only restriction on $h$ is that it must be positive.
\section{Dimensional Reduction}
\label{dimredsec}
The dimensional reduction procedure considered here follows standard methods available for isotropic thin plates or shells~\cite{Koiter1970,Ciarlet2005}. We assume that the volume element may be decomposed into $\mathrm{d}V=\mathrm{d}\mathcal{A}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}\,\mathrm{d}{x_3}$, where $\mathrm{d}\mathcal{A}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}=\mathrm{d}{x_1}\mathrm{d}{x_2}$ is the area element of the middle reference-plane and $\mathrm{d}{x_3}$ is the integration measure through the thickness, ${x_3}\in[-t/2,t/2]$. Furthermore, simplifications are made if we assume two \emph{a priori} conditions~\cite{John1965,Koiter1970,Ciarlet2005}: (i) a mechanical condition, which states that the state of stress inside the body as purely parallel to the mid-surface; and (ii) a kinematic condition, known as the Kirchhoff-Love condition, which states that points located along the normal to the middle plane remain along the normal after the deformation to an arbitrary surface, while their distance with respect to this mid-surface does not change. In order to complement (i) and (ii) in light of the problem at hand, we impose a third condition, which is a kinematic constraint on the distribution of nematic directors: (iii) on every surface of constant $x_3$, we shall assume that both the reference and deformed director field remain tangent to the mid-surface of the film, i.e. $\bar{n}_3=0$ and $n_3=0$. Note that this last equality applies to the director in the deformed space.
The embedding of the plate in the deformed configuration is explicitly given in normal coordinates by assuming that a point $p$ (such that $\mathbf{Y}:p=(x_1,x_2,x_3)\mapsto\mathbb{R}^3$) in the body is written in terms of a point in the mid-surface $p^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}$ (such that $\mathbf{S}:p^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}=(x_1,x_2)\mapsto\mathbb{R}^3$) through the relationship $p=p^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}+x_3\mathbf{e}_3$, where $\mathbf{Y}(p^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}})=\mathbf{S}(p^{(0)})$. It is, therefore, a critical step in the dimensional reduction to express the embedding evaluated at $p$ as a Taylor series about points in the mid-surface:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{Y}(p)=\mathbf{S}(p^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}})+x_3\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}\mathbf{e}_3+\cdots,
\end{equation}
were we have used the definition $\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}\equiv\left.\nabla\mathbf{Y}\right|_{p^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}}$. We note that $\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}$ is the deformation gradient of the mid-surface and, given the corresponding basis set on the mid-surface $\mathbf{a}_i=\left\{\mathbf{a}_\alpha,\mathbf{a}_3\right\}$, we may write $\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}=\mathbf{a}_\alpha\otimes\mathbf{e}^\alpha+\mathbf{a}_3\otimes\mathbf{e}^3$, where $\{\alpha,\beta,\cdots\}$ take values in the set $\{1,2\}$. An additional clarification is that the basis set is consistently defined using the mid-surface embedding, \emph{i.e.} $\mathbf{a}_\alpha\equiv\partial_\alpha\mathbf{S}$ and $\mathbf{a}^3=\mathbf{a}_3=\mathbf{a}_1\times\mathbf{a}_2/|\mathbf{a}_1\times\mathbf{a}_2|$. \trp{We can relate basis vectors $\mathbf{g}_i\equiv\partial_i\mathbf{Y}$ on surfaces of constant $x_3$ to the corresponding basis vectors $\mathbf{a}_i$ on the mid surface, and vice-versa, via a translation tensor $\mathsf{T}:\mathbf{a}_i\mapsto\mathbf{g}_i$ which is given by $\mathsf{T}=\mathbf{g}_i\otimes\mathbf{a}^i$ (and $\mathsf{T}^{-1}=\mathbf{a}_i\otimes\mathbf{g}^i$)}~\cite{Pietraszkiewicz1980}. Through the definition of the mid-surface metric tensor, $\mathsf{a}=a_{\alpha\beta}\mathbf{a}^\alpha\otimes\mathbf{a}^\beta=\mathbf{a}_\alpha\otimes\mathbf{a}^\alpha$, and curvature tensor, $\mathsf{b}=b_{\alpha\beta}\mathbf{a}^\alpha\otimes\mathbf{a}^\beta=-\partial_\alpha\mathbf{a}^3\otimes\mathbf{a}^\alpha$, we may write $\mathsf{T}=\mathsf{1}-x_3\mathsf{b}$ ($\mathsf{T}^{-1}=\mathsf{1}+x_3\mathsf{b}+\cdots$). From the above definition, we may also apply the translation tensor to the deformation gradient, which results in the relation $\mathsf{F}=\mathsf{T}\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}$. The above definitions allow us to write both strain tensors, in terms of their components, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol\varepsilon=\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}-x_3\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}\mathrm{T}}\mathsf{b}\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}+\frac{1}{2}x_3^2\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}\mathrm{T}}\mathsf{c}\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}},
\label{strainG2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{subequations}
\label{FF}
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}\mathrm{T}}\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}-\mathsf{1}\right]=\frac{1}{2}\left(a_{\alpha\beta}-\delta_{\alpha\beta}\right)\mathbf{e}^\alpha\otimes\mathbf{e}^\beta,
\label{IFF} \\
\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}\mathrm{T}}\mathsf{b}\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}=b_{\alpha\beta}\mathbf{e}^\alpha\otimes\mathbf{e}^\beta,
\label{IIFF} \\
\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}\mathrm{T}}\mathsf{c}\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}=c_{\alpha\beta}\mathbf{e}^\alpha\otimes\mathbf{e}^\beta,
\label{IIIFF}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with $c_{\alpha\beta}=\partial_\alpha\mathbf{a}^3\cdot\partial_\beta\mathbf{a}^3$ are the components of the third fundamental form. Also,
\begin{eqnarray}
\boldsymbol\varepsilon^*&=\mathsf{T}^{-1}\left(\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}*}-x_3\mathsf{b}+\frac{1}{2}x_3^2\mathsf{c}\right)\mathsf{T}^{-1}\nonumber\\
&=\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}*}-x_3\mathsf{b}+\frac{1}{2}x_3^2\mathsf{c}+\cdots,
\label{strainA2}
\end{eqnarray}
where higher-order terms in $x_3$ have been neglected, and
\begin{subequations}
\label{FFA}
\begin{align}
\!\!\!\!\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}*}\!=\!\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathsf{1}^*\!\!-\!\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}\mathrm{-T}}\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}-1}\right]\!\!=\!\frac{1}{2}\left(a_{\alpha\beta}-\delta_{\alpha\beta}\right)\mathbf{a}^\alpha\otimes\mathbf{a}^\beta
\label{IFFA} \\
\mathsf{b}=b_{\alpha\beta}\mathbf{a}^\alpha\otimes\mathbf{a}^\beta
\label{IIFFA} \\
\mathsf{c}=c_{\alpha\beta}\mathbf{a}^\alpha\otimes\mathbf{a}^\beta.
\label{IIIFFA}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
From the above expressions, it is clear that $\boldsymbol\varepsilon^*=\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}\mathrm{T}}\boldsymbol\varepsilon\mathsf{F}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}$ is satisfied. Despite differences in the Eulerian and Lagrangian formulations~\cite{Pietraszkiewicz1980}, Eqs.~\eqref{strainG2} and \eqref{strainA2} show that these two approaches yield identical tensorial components, in terms of the components of the fundamental forms in the deformed mid-surface~\cite{doCarmo1976}, expressed with different bases. In practical terms, the mixed contribution $\mathbf{n}\cdot\boldsymbol\varepsilon^*\cdot\mathbf{n}-\bar{\mathbf{n}}\cdot\boldsymbol\varepsilon\cdot\bar{\mathbf{n}}$ results in contractions with the same components for the strain measure. Therefore, if we define $\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}\equiv\left(a_{\alpha\beta}-\delta_{\alpha\beta}\right)/2-x_3b_{\alpha\beta}+x_3^2c_{\alpha\beta}/2$, the coupling terms become $\left(n^\alpha n^\beta-\bar{n}^\alpha\bar{n}^\beta\right)\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}$.
Note that the curvature with a raised index is defined with the inverse of the deformed metric, $b^\beta_\alpha\equiv\left(\mathsf{a}^{-1}\right)^{\beta\delta}b_{\delta\alpha}$, which satisfies the property $\left(\mathsf{a}^{-1}\right)^{\alpha\gamma}a_{\gamma\beta}=\delta^\alpha_\beta$. However, by definition, we may write $a_{\alpha\beta}=\delta_{\alpha\beta}+2\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}$, which through expanding in orders of the stain results in $\left(\mathsf{a}^{-1}\right)^{\alpha\beta}=\delta_{\alpha\beta}+\mathcal{O}\left(|\varepsilon|\right)$. Since the energy is already second-order in strain, we here assume the approximation that the Cartesian metric components $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ raises and lowers the indices for the contractions in the energy, thus allowing us to use either covariant or contravariant notation, knowing that their difference only yields higher order contributions.
From the definition of the components of the stress tensor as
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{ij}=\delta {E}/\delta\varepsilon_{ij}=\lambda\delta_{ij}\varepsilon_{kk}+2\mu\varepsilon_{ij}-\alpha\Delta Q_{ij},
\end{equation}
the condition (i) reads $\sigma_{33}=\sigma_{23}=\sigma_{13}=0$~\cite{landau_lifshitz_elas}. This step automatically implies that the third component of the three-dimensional strain tensor follows the constraint given by $\varepsilon_{33}=-\varepsilon_{\alpha\alpha}\lambda/(\lambda+2\mu)$, which allows us to rewrite the energy given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:EnergyTotal21} entirely in terms of components on the surfaces of constant $x_3$.
The final assumption (iii) tells us that the director field only has components parallel to the surfaces of constant ${x_3}$. We can therefore uniquely express the field $\mathbf{n}$ in terms of its projection onto the mid-surface, here defined by $n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\alpha$, via the relationship
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Map-director}
\mathbf{n}=n_\alpha\mathbf{g}^\alpha=\left[n_\alpha\left(\mathsf{T}^{-1}\right)^\alpha_\beta\right]\mathbf{a}^\beta\equiv n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\beta\mathbf{a}^\beta,
\end{equation}
which gives $n_\alpha= T_\alpha^\beta n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\beta$.
The dependence on $x_3$ coming from the nematic contribution to the energy is explicitly written though the following expression,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Order}
n_\alpha n_\beta &=&n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\alpha n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\beta-{x_3}B_{\alpha\beta}+\frac{1}{2}x_3^2C_{\alpha\beta},
\end{eqnarray}
where Eq.~\eqref{eq:Map-director} has been used, $B_{\alpha\beta}\equiv n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\alpha n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\delta b_{\delta\beta}+ b_{\alpha\delta} n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\delta n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\beta$, and $C_{\alpha\beta}\equiv 2 b_{\alpha\delta} n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\delta n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\gamma b_{\gamma\beta}$ (the approximation $b^\beta_\alpha\approx b_{\alpha\beta}$ has been employed in these definitions). Substituting these expansions into Eq.~\eqref{eq:EnergyTotal21} yields an energy density with an explicit functional dependence on ${x_3}$. Therefore, we may eliminate this degree of freedom by integrating along the body's thickness. The non-zero contributions to the two-dimensional energy come only from even powers of ${x_3}$, because of the choice of symmetric limits of integration, $[-t/2,t/2]$.
In this derivation, the terms proportional to $t^2\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{\alpha\beta}c_{\alpha\beta}$ and $t^2\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{\alpha\beta}C_{\alpha\beta}$ shall be neglected, as they are $\mathcal{O}\left(t^2\zeta^4/L^6\right)$ or smaller, where $\zeta$ is the scale of the typical out-of-plane deflection of material points in the $x_3$ direction and $L$ is a lateral length-scale of the plate. We write the two-dimensional energy in the usual thin-plate sense, ${E}=(1/2)\int\mathrm{d}\mathcal{A}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}\left[t\,\mathcal{E}_\mathrm{s} +(t^3/12)\mathcal{E}_\mathrm{b} \right]$, where the modified energy densities are written as follows:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{E}_\mathrm{s}&=2 \mu\left(\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}2}_{\alpha\alpha}+\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}2}_{\alpha\beta}\right)-2\alpha\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{\alpha\beta}\Delta{Q}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{\alpha\beta}+h\Delta{Q}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}2}_{\alpha\beta}\label{stretchingenergy} \\
\mathcal{E}_\mathrm{b}&=2 \mu\left(b_{\alpha\alpha}^2+b_{\alpha\beta}^2\right)-2 \alpha \left(b_{\alpha\beta}B_{\alpha\beta}+\frac{1}{2}c_{\alpha\beta}\Delta{Q}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{\alpha\beta}\right)\nonumber\\
&\quad+h\left(B_{\alpha\beta}^2+C_{\alpha\beta}\Delta{Q}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{\alpha\beta}\right), \label{bendingenergy}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\Delta{Q}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{\alpha\beta}\equiv n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\alpha n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\beta-\bar{n}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\alpha \bar{n}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\beta$ and $\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{\alpha\beta}\equiv\left(a_{\alpha\beta}-\delta_{\alpha\beta}\right)/2$. This energy is expressed entirely in terms of quantities defined on the mid-surface. Since the bulk modulus is typically much larger than the shear modulus in rubbery materials, we have assumed that the elastomer is nearly incompressible, \emph{i.e.} $\lambda/(\lambda+2\mu)\rightarrow1$ (or $\varepsilon_{33}=-\varepsilon_{\alpha\alpha}$). The first terms in Eqs.~\eqref{stretchingenergy}-\eqref{bendingenergy} are the usual stretching and bending, respectively, arising in isotropic plate theory. The last two terms in Eq.~\eqref{stretchingenergy} are readily seen to be inherited from the three-dimensional form of the bulk energy~(\ref{eq:EnergyTotal21}), while the last two in Eq.~\eqref{bendingenergy} couple bending to the orientational order.
It is noteworthy that in the limit $h \rightarrow \infty$, a limit associated with nematic glasses~\cite{bigginswarner2008,CirakWarner2014}, our energy recovers the strong coupling between nematic defects and elastomer curvature~\cite{wmc2010,modes_warner2011}. In particular, for the energy to be bounded in this limit, we must have $B^2_{\alpha\beta}+C_{\alpha \beta} \Delta Q^{(0)}_{\alpha \beta}=\mathcal{O}(1/h)$, which implies that products of the director field and second fundamental form components are small at every point. Because $C_{\alpha\beta}\equiv 2 b_{\alpha\delta} n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\delta n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_\gamma b_{\gamma\beta}$, in a defect-free texture where the nematic director $n^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}$ never vanishes, the only way for the energy to be bounded is to have the second fundamental form $b_{\alpha\delta}$ vanish. This implies that there is no curvature of the sheet for large $h$, which has large implications for wrinkling (since wrinkles induce curvature in the sheet), which we discuss in Section \ref{outplanesec}.
Next, we use our derived plate theory to address the particular example of a thin NLCE plate bonded to an elastic or fluid substrate and placed under compression. Following previous works, we first derive the in-plane stress in the absence of buckling. For an isotropic elastomer, this step is crucial to understand how the stress and therefore the stretching energy scales in a near threshold regime. For NLCE, it is in addition necessary to determine the director orientation, which affects both the in-plane stress and the effective bending modulus, and therefore ``tunes'' the wavelength and critical compression for wrinkles. Having derived these quantities, we then consider a standard \emph{ansatz} for the buckled shape, and solve for the amplitude, wavelength, and critical stress for buckling in both the cases of a fluid and elastic substrate.
\section{In-plane stress and director orientation}
\label{inplanesec}
First, we describe the state of stress in a flat configuration. We now adopt a global frame $(\hat{x},\hat{y},\hat{z})$ with $z$ being the thin direction, see Fig.~\ref{setupf}. The thin elastomer is of infinite width $0 < y < \infty$ and finite length $0 < x < L$, with initial director $\bar{\mathbf{n}}^{(0)} = \hat{\mathbf{x}}$ (we perform the analogous finite-width calculation in the Appendix). The plate is subjected to a compressive strain $\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx}=-\gamma$. We will assume the deformations are small and that the out-of-plane deflection $\zeta$ is identically zero. Therefore, we write $\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{\alpha\beta}=(\partial_\alpha u_\beta+\partial_\beta u_\alpha)/2$. We will often plot quantities against strains up to $25\%$, but the theory is expected to be numerically accurate only for small strains. To determine the base state of stress, we must solve the first F\"{o}ppl-von K\'{a}rm\'{a}n equation $\nabla \cdot \boldsymbol\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}} = 0$, where the stress is given by $\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{\alpha\beta}=\partial \mathcal{E}_\mathrm{s}/\partial\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{\alpha\beta}$ using the stretching energy density in Eq.~\eqref{stretchingenergy}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figure2.png}
\caption{\footnotesize Behavior of the director angle vs compressive strain $\gamma$ for different crosslinking strengths $h/\mu$ and strain-director couplings $\alpha/\mu$. For high $h/\mu$ and low $\alpha/\mu$ (black), the director will not rotate until a very high strain is reached. This critical strain becomes smaller as $h/\mu$ becomes smaller (gray-dashed). For $\alpha>h$, rotating the director becomes easier, and the director can even rotate a total of $\pi/2$ within a reasonable range of compressive strain (red). For increasing values of $\alpha/\mu$ (blue), the director rotates very quickly with any applied compressive strain $\gamma$, then more slowly until rotation is completed. For small $h/\mu$, there can be re-entrance as a function of $\alpha/\mu$ (red, blue-dashed, blue-solid).}
\label{tomographs}
\end{figure}
If $\phi$ is the angle between $\mathbf{n}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}$ and $\bar{\mathbf{n}}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}$, then these solutions are given by
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx}&=2\mu\left(2\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx}+\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{yy}\right)+\alpha\sin^2\phi,\label{e1}\\
\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{yy}&=2\mu\left(\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx}+2\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{yy}\right)-\alpha \sin^2\phi, \label{e2} \\
\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xy}&=2\mu\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xy}-\alpha\sin\phi\cos\phi. \label{e3}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Note that due to the use of the rotation from the deformed space when defining $\mathbf{n}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}$, the angle $\phi$ may be different from what is measured in the laboratory frame. To convert to the angle measured in the lab frame, it is necessary to apply a local rotation obtained by taking the polar decomposition of the deformation tensor, which includes local metric information \cite{mbanga2012hybrid}. However, the observables of interest in this work are macroscopic geometric quantities, such as the wavelength of wrinkles in the deformed state. Therefore, we do not convert from the measure $\phi$ to the director orientation measured in the laboratory frame. This orientation $\phi$ is determined by the balance equations $\partial\mathcal{E}_\mathrm{s}/\partial\phi=0$, which yields
\begin{equation}
\tan2\phi=\frac{2 \varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xy}}{\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx}-\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{yy}+h/\alpha}.\label{mbal}
\end{equation}
We suppose that due to the free boundary, $\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{yy}=\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xy}=0$. Since the $\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx}$ component of the strain is simply $-\gamma$, the imposed compression, equations (\ref{e2}--\ref{e3}) can be solved to give the remaining components of strain,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xy}&=\frac{\alpha}{2 \mu} \sin(\phi) \cos (\phi),\label{es1}\\
\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{yy}&= \frac{\gamma}{2}+\frac{\alpha}{4 \mu} \sin^2(\phi). \label{es2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Substituting these expressions into the balance equation for the nematic director, Eq. \eqref{mbal}, allows us to calculate the director angle in terms of compressive strain and parameters of the NLCE. This equation admits the trivial solutions $\phi = 0$, $\phi = \pi/2$, corresponding respectively to the states $\mathbf{n}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}} = \hat{\mathbf{x}}$ and $\mathbf{n}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}} = \hat{\mathbf{y}}$, but also admits a third intermediate solution given by
\begin{equation}
\phi_\mathrm{c} = \frac{1}{2} \cos^{-1} \left[\frac{8h \mu - \alpha ^2 - 12 \alpha \gamma \mu}{3 \alpha^2}\right]. \label{eq-critan}
\end{equation}
By considering the regions of existence ($-1 \leq \mathrm{arg}(\phi_\mathrm{c}) \leq 1$) for the three critical points $\phi=\left(0,\phi_\mathrm{c}, \pi/2\right)$, as well as their stability conditions,
\begin{equation}
\partial ^2 \mathcal{E}_\mathrm{s}/\partial \phi^2 = -3 \alpha^2 \cos(4 \phi) - (\alpha^2-8 h \mu + 12 \alpha \gamma \mu) \cos(2 \phi) \geq 0, \label{stabsecond}
\end{equation}
we are able to construct a phase diagram of the base nematic state. The different phases (unrotated nematic director, rotating nematic director leading to an elastic soft mode, fully-rotated nematic director) are separated by two critical strains:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\gamma_1&=\frac{2\mu h-\alpha^2}{3 \mu\alpha} ,\\
\gamma_2&= \frac{4\mu h+\alpha^2}{6 \mu\alpha},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where for $\gamma<\gamma_1$ the director is unrotated, and for $\gamma>\gamma_2$ the director is fully-rotated. We show examples from this phase diagram in Fig.~\ref{tomographs}. Depending on the values of $(\alpha/\mu,h/\mu)$ at which the sheet was prepared, there are a few possible distinct behaviors of the director under small amounts of applied compression: no rotation, rotation only after a moderate critical strain, and an immediate jump in rotation under any amount of applied compression. In all cases, the director angle increases monotonically under the applied compression $\gamma$ and decreases monotonically in $h/\mu$. The behavior as a function of $\alpha/\mu$ is more complicated. For low values of $h/\mu$ (roughly $h/\mu<0.1$), there is a phenomenon of re-entrance as $\alpha/\mu$ varies, meaning that $\phi$ is not a monotonic function of $\alpha/\mu$, and holding $(\gamma,h/\mu)$ fixed whilst increasing $\alpha/\mu$ can take the director out of the rotating phase into the fully rotated phase, and then back into the rotating phase. The mechanism of this re-entrance is remarkably similar to that previously described for the nematic-smectic A re-entrant phase transition~\cite{pershanprost1979}, insofar as Eq. (\ref{stabsecond}) expanded in a Taylor series gives a fourth-order term in $\phi$ with coefficient $47 \alpha^2 + 8 h \mu - 12 \alpha \gamma \mu$, which for particular fixed values of $(h,\gamma,\mu)$ (the analog of temperature in the nematic-smectic A) can change signs as a function of $\alpha$ (the analog of pressure), which leads to re-entrance as the transition changes from second-order to first-order.
When $\phi=\phi_c$, that is, the nematogen is neither unrotated nor fully rotated, we see the presence of a soft mode. This can be seen most easily by substituting Eq. \eqref{eq-critan} into Eq. \eqref{e1}, yielding
\begin{equation}
\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx}(\phi_c)=\alpha-2 \frac{h}{\alpha}\mu, \label{eq-softmodestress}
\end{equation}
which shows that the in-plane stress is effectively constant until the nematic finishes its rotation, even if the amount of compressive strain is increased. Additionally, this stress is not necessarily negative, an unusual feature in comparison to a classical elastomer. This gives a criterion for the suppression of wrinkling of a compressed plate which is completely independent of any substrate, because there can be no buckling if the stress is positive. In fact, such a plate would not be expected to buckle into a single arch in the absence of any substrate. We call this condition in which the plate would remain flat ``strong suppression'' of wrinkles: plates prepared with certain values of $(\alpha,h)$ would begin the soft mode (and also be in the regime where the soft mode leads to $\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx}>0$) under any amount of compressive strain, and would not complete the soft mode (i.e., rotate a total of $\pi/2$ from the base state) until a certain amount of strain was imposed, after which time buckling may be possible. Some examples are plotted in Fig.~\ref{nowrinkles}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figure3.png}
\caption{\footnotesize Colored areas correspond to parameter values for which the stress in the film is extensile ($\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx} >0$), which causes the sheet to remain flat no matter the compression of the substrate. This unusual situation arises from the presence of the soft mode of director rotation. Regions which are not colored either always have $\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx} <0$, no matter the material parameters and compressive strain, or else require such a large compressive strain to complete the soft mode that they may be well beyond our small-strain theory.}
\label{nowrinkles}
\end{figure}
\section{Out-of-plane displacement, critical buckling strain, and scaling of wrinkles}
\label{outplanesec}
We now assume an out-of-plane displacement which depends only on the in-plane coordinate $x$, $\zeta(x)=A \cos (q x)$ (we perform an analogous calculation for a plate of finite width $W$ and out-of-plane displacement $\zeta(x,y)$ in the Appendix, in which we demonstrate that identical results hold in comparison to this infinite, one-dimensional problem). Our particular choice of geometry allows us to simplify the bending energy \eqref{bendingenergy}. The bending energy per unit wavelength (and per unit width, so effectively an energy per unit area) reads
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}_\mathrm{b} = \frac{t^3}{24} \frac{q}{2 \pi} \int _0 ^{2 \pi/q} \mathrm{d}x \,\mathcal{B}(\phi) \left(\partial^2_{x}\zeta\right)^2 = \frac{t^3 \mathcal{B}(\phi) q^4 A^2}{48}, \label{bendingenergysimp}
\end{equation}
where the renormalized Young's modulus is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{B}(\phi) = \!4 \mu\!-\!\frac{\alpha}{2} \left[3\!+\!5 \cos (2 \phi)\right]\!+\!\frac{h}{2}\left[5\!+\!3 \cos (2 \phi )\right] \cos^2\phi.
\end{equation}
Following a standard calculation~\cite{CerdaMahadevan2003,Davidovitch2011,HuangHongSuo05, AudolyBoudaoud2008}, we write the stretching energy density as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{E}_\mathrm{s} &=& \frac{t}{2} \ \sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx} \left(\partial_x\zeta\right)^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx}$ is given by Eq. \eqref{e1}, and can be written in the form $\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx} = -3\mu \gamma + (3/2)\alpha\sin ^2 \phi$. While there are other contributions to the stretching energy, they are independent of the wavelength of wrinkling and will therefore not contribute to the variational problem which gives this wavelength. For instance, following \cite{HuangHongSuo05}, the total strain perpendicular to the wrinkles can be written as $\varepsilon^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx}=-\gamma+\frac{1}{4} q^2 A^2$, so that by Eq. \eqref{e1} the addition to the stress is simply $\mu q^2 A^2$. The stretching energy per unit area (keeping only terms proportional to $q$) is therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{E}_\mathrm{s} &=& \frac{t}{4} (\mu q^4 A^4 + \sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx} q^2 A^2 ). \label{exstretchen}
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, we assume that the thin NLCE film is bonded to an underlying foundation~\cite{landau_lifshitz_elas,CerdaMahadevan2003}, which can be either fluid or elastic. Because the energy of the foundation depends slightly differently on the wrinkling in each case---the elastic foundation energy depends both on the amplitude and the wavelength of wrinkles, whereas the fluid foundation energy depends only on the amplitude---we will treat each case separately below.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.9\columnwidth]{figure4.png}
\caption{\footnotesize Variation of the critical strain as a function of strain-director coupling and crosslinking strength. (a) Position of example values of $(\alpha,h)$ used, and regions where the example used represents the qualitative behavior of other plates. (b) The internal degree of freedom (nematic director angle) $\phi$ as a function of the applied compression $\gamma$, which does not depend on an underlying substrate. (c) The dependence of the critical strain for buckling (here, shown on the $x$-axis for convenience) on the Young's modulus $K$ of the underlying substrate, depends drastically on the internal degree of freedom as shown in (b). For instance, the blue plate never rotates, and obeys the classical buckling law; the orange plate remains entirely in the soft mode (and in the region of positive stress for $\gamma$ less than a very large value, even larger than those plotted in Fig.~\ref{nowrinkles}; therefore, it cannot buckle, and is not plotted here) for the whole range of $\gamma$ shown; the purple plate remains classical until it begins to rotate at $\gamma \approx 0.11$; the red plate goes through all three phases (unrotated, soft, fully-rotated). During the soft mode, the critical strain for buckling (when applicable) is highly insensitive to $K$.}
\label{fig-critstrain}
\end{figure*}
\subsection*{Elastic substrate}
Following previous derivations of the energetics for an elastic sheet atop an infinitely deep substrate of Young's modulus $K$~\cite{ChenHutchinson2004,HuangHongSuo05}, the wrinkling induces a normal stress $\bar{\sigma}_{zz}=K q \zeta$, so that the energy per area stored in the foundation can be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}_\mathrm{e}= \frac{q}{2 \pi} \int _0 ^{2\pi/q} \mathrm{d}x \, \frac{1}{2} K q \zeta^2 = \frac{1}{4} K q A^2, \label{elfund}
\end{equation}
and the total energy in the system (again, neglecting terms not proportional to $q$) is, collecting in terms of powers of $q$,
\begin{equation}
4 \mathcal{E}= t \mu q^4 A^4 + q^2 A^2 \left( \frac{t^3 \mathcal{B}(\phi) q^2}{12} + t \sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx} + \frac{K}{q} \right). \label{eltot}
\end{equation}
When viewed as a function of the wrinkling amplitude $A$, it is clear that wrinkling can only occur when the term inside the parentheses is negative, or else the optimal amplitude will always be zero. It is convenient to write this term as $ t \sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx} + \mathcal{B}(\phi) t \xi_\mathrm{e}$, where
\begin{equation}
\xi_\mathrm{e}=\frac{(t q)^2}{12}+\frac{K}{\mathcal{B}(\phi) q t}. \label{xie}
\end{equation}
When the thin plate is wrinkled, the energy is then minimized at an amplitude of
\begin{equation}
|A|= \frac{1}{q} \sqrt{\frac{-( \sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx}+\mathcal{B}(\phi) \xi_\mathrm{e})}{2 \mu}} \label{elamp}.
\end{equation}
Therefore the plate can only wrinkle if $|\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx}|> \mathcal{B}(\phi) \xi_\mathrm{e}$, and the stress must also be negative (compressive), which is not always the case, as seen in Sec. \ref{inplanesec}. Substituting Eq. \eqref{elamp} into Eq. \eqref{eltot} and minimizing the energy gives the wavelength $\lambda_\mathrm{e}$ of wrinkling on an elastic substrate,
\begin{equation}
\lambda_\mathrm{e} =\frac{ 2 \pi}{q_\mathrm{e}}= 2 \pi \,\ell_\mathrm{e} \left(\frac{\mathcal{B}(\phi)}{\mu}\right)^{1/3}, \label{elastscale}
\end{equation}
where $\ell_\mathrm{e}\equiv t[\mu/(6K)]^{1/3}$ is the natural length emerging in this problem. Eq. \eqref{elastscale} allows us to write the critical stress for wrinkling in the case where the stress remains compressive,
\begin{equation}
|\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx}|= \frac{1}{2} \left(3 K \right)^{2/3} \mathcal{B}^{1/3} . \label{elastcrit}
\end{equation}
On their face, Eqs. \eqref{elastscale} and \eqref{elastcrit} are identical to those found in the literature for a thin, non-nematic elastomer plate of infinite extent across an elastic foundation of infinite depth~\cite{ChenHutchinson2004,HuangHongSuo05,AudolyBoudaoud2008}. However, the renormalized Young's modulus $\mathcal{B}(\phi)$ as well as the in-plane stress $\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx}$ now carry information from the embedded nematic phase --- therefore, tuning parameters relevant to the nematic can both change the wavelength of wrinkles at a fixed amount of compression, $\gamma$, and can also change the threshold for buckling.
To demonstrate the interesting ways in which information from the nematic phase can affect the critical buckling strain of the entire sheet, we have plotted information about four representative elastomer plates in Fig.~\ref{fig-critstrain}. These four plates were chosen because they represent the four essential behaviors of the director angle which are seen in Fig.~\ref{tomographs} if the applied compressive strain never exceeds $\gamma=0.25$: no rotation (high $h$, low $\alpha$); a large soft mode characterized by rotation across the whole range of $\gamma$ (low $h$, high $\alpha$); rotation which begins only after a moderate applied strain (high $h$, high $\alpha$); and a plate which both begins and ends its rotation within the range of $\gamma$ used (low $\alpha$, low $h$). The curved lines in Fig.~\ref{fig-critstrain}(a) delimit the regions where the plate will never rotate for $\gamma<0.25$ (blue-purple) and where the soft mode induces positive stress (purple-orange). The flat line (blue-red) roughly delimits plates which begin and end rotation before $\gamma=0.25$. During the rotation of the director, the critical buckling strain becomes almost completely independent of the Young's modulus of the underlying substrate, which acts to suppress wrinkling. For instance, the red plate bonded to a substrate with $K/\mu=0.01$ has a critical buckling strain of roughly $\gamma=0.22$, whereas a blue plate atop the same substrate has a critical buckling strain of roughly $\gamma=0.03$.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{figure5.png}
\caption{\footnotesize Wave number of wrinkles on an elastic foundation, normalized by the natural length $\ell_\mathrm{e}\equiv t[\mu/(6K)]^{1/3}$, versus $\phi/\pi$. Different groups for the same value of $h/\mu$ (dashed $h/\mu=0.5$, dotted-dashed $h/\mu=10$, and solid $h/\mu=10^3$) refer to the strength of the anchoring term, whereas the color map represents the strength of the elasticity-order coupling, $0\leq \alpha/\mu \leq 3/2$. The solid black line gives the wavelength when there is no nematic, $\alpha/\mu=0$ and $h/\mu=0$, and the gray line sets the bound for a nematic glass, \emph{i.e.} $h \rightarrow \infty$.}
\label{weakdep}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Fluid substrate}
Atop a fluid substrate, the increase in the energy density is due to hydrostatic pressure, which has an energetic cost given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}_\mathrm{f}= \frac{1}{2} \int \mathrm{d}x \, \rho g \zeta^2 = \frac{1}{4} \rho g A^2, \label{flfund}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the density of the fluid and $g$ is the gravitational field. The analogue of the quadratic term in Eq. \eqref{xie} is therefore
\begin{equation}
\xi_\mathrm{f}=\frac{(q t)^2}{12} + \frac{\rho g}{t \mathcal{B}(\phi) q^2}. \label{xif}
\end{equation}
Eq. \eqref{elamp} and the critical stress for wrinkling are therefore unchanged (save for the substitution of $\xi_\mathrm{f}$ for $\xi_\mathrm{e}$); however, because of the extra factor of $q^{-1}$ in $\xi_\mathrm{f}$, the critical wavelength is slightly different:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_\mathrm{f} &=& \frac{2\pi}{q_\mathrm{f}}=2 \pi \,\ell_\mathrm{f}\left(\frac{\mathcal{B}(\phi)}{\mu} \right)^{1/4}, \label{fluidscale}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\ell_\mathrm{f}\equiv[t^3\mu/(12 \rho g)]^{1/4}$ is the natural length associated with the cost of deforming the fluid substrate. This expression is again identical to the equivalent expression for a regular, isotropic elastomer, aside from the fact that $\mathcal{B}(\phi)$ carries information from the nematic orientation, which is dictated by the in-plane problem. Therefore, the wavelength of the wrinkles or even their existence is highly dependent upon the base state of stress, much unlike the case of an isotropic elastomer. The critical stress, again in the case where the stress remains compressive, is
\begin{equation}
|\sigma^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{xx}|= \sqrt{\frac{\rho g t \mathcal{B}(\phi)}{3 }}, \label{fluidcrit}
\end{equation}
much of which can still be inferred from Fig.~\ref{nowrinkles}, though now the critical stress is dependent on the thickness $t$ of the elastomer plate.
We note that in addition to the region described in Fig.~\ref{nowrinkles} where wrinkling is forbidden due to a change from compressive to extensile stress, wrinkling is also suppressed for large $h$ due to effective stiffening of the sheet. We show this in Fig.~\ref{weakdep} for the case of an elastic substrate, although a nearly-identical result holds for the fluid substrate as well. Because this limit corresponds to a nematic glass~\cite{CirakWarner2014,Lubensky_etal2002}, the mechanism for instability suppression in this region is the strong coupling between curvature and defects in the nematic texture~\cite{modes_warner2011}. In Eq.~(\ref{bendingenergy}), we see that for $h \gg \alpha$ the bending energy is very large unless $B_{\alpha\beta}^2$ and $C_{\alpha\beta}\Delta{Q}^{\mbox{\tiny(0)}}_{\alpha\beta}$ are very small. Since our textures are free of defects, the presence of any curvature is highly penalized for arbitrarily-increasing $h$.
\section{Summary}
\label{sumsec}
In this work we derived a F\"{o}ppl-von K\'{a}rm\'{a}n type of plate theory for a thin NLCE which was cross-linked deep in the nematic phase. This was accomplished following the standard techniques of dimensional reduction for thin elastic bodies, employing the additional assumption that the nematic director was tangent to the mid-plane before and after the deformation. In the limit of small and large $h$, the coupling parameter for the ``memory'' or ``anchoring'' term corresponding to the fact that the elastomer was cross-linked in the nematic phase, our model corresponds to other objects studied in the literature: respectively, an elastomer cross-linked in the isotropic phase ($h \rightarrow 0$)~\cite{Lubensky_etal2002,WarnerTerentjev} or a nematic glass ($h \rightarrow \infty$)~\cite{bigginswarner2008,CirakWarner2014,wmc2010,modes_warner2011}. When both this coupling and the director-strain coupling parameter vanish, we recover the equations for the isotropic plate.
The model is fairly simple and solutions to certain geometries and boundary conditions can be found analytically. As a first step in this direction, we calculated the wavelength of wrinkles for a compressed NLCE plate atop a fluid or elastic foundation. The wave number is found to be non-monotonic in the compressive strain $\gamma$ and highly dependent on the nematic-elastomer coupling parameters, as it is shown in Fig.~\ref{weakdep}. For certain sets of coupling parameters the plate does not wrinkle until a very high strain threshold is reached. We therefore believe it will be possible to design NLCE which are not subject to the elastic instabilities of classical rubbers until a prescribed strain threshold is met.
In summary, NLCE plates present a new venue to study nontrivial pattern formation in thin sheet elasticity and also present an example of robust control of mechanical stability through the coupling of geometry and microstructure. We hope that our simplified model will be useful in further study of liquid crystal elastomers.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We are grateful to Thomas Powers for his guidance and the many discussions had concerning this project. We would also like to thank Badel Mbanga, Timothy Atherton, James Hanna, and Jonathan Selinger for helpful conversations.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction and Background}
Blind source separation (BSS) is the problem of recovering
unobserved signals (sources) from their observed mixtures. BSS finds applications
in a number of areas as biomedical signal processing, speech
and image processing, data mining and communications \cite{c3}.
The simplest and most common version of the BSS problem
consists in estimating two source signals
$s_{1}(t),s_{2}(t)$ from two observations
$x_{1}(t),x_{2}(t)$ that are {\it
instantaneous} linear mixtures of the sources
of the form $x_{i}(t)=a_{i1}s_{1}(t)+a_{i2}s_{2}(t),~i=1,2$.
Using matrix notation, we can write
\begin{equation}
X_t=\mathbf{A} S_t,
\end{equation}
where $X_t=[x_{1}(t),x_{2}(t)]^\intercal$ is the observation
vector, $S_t=[s_{1}(t),s_{2}(t)]^\intercal$ the source
signal vector and $\mathbf{A}$ a constant matrix comprised of the
mixing coefficient $a_{ij},~i,j=1,2$. We assume that the observation
sequence $\{X_t\}$ becomes available sequentially and we are interested in the \textit{on-line} estimation of the source sequence $\{S_t\}$. It is clear that, to
solve this problem, it is sufficient to estimate the matrix
$\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{A}^{-1}$ since then $S_t$ can be recovered
as $\mathbf{B} X_t$. Our results can be extended to cover multiple sources but we reserve the corresponding analysis for the more extended, journal version of our work.
For the solution of the BSS problem we concentrate on
adaptive algorithms. Therefore we will assume
that every time a new sample of the vector process $\{X_t\}$ becomes available we update an estimate $\mathbf{B}_t$ of the inverse $\mathbf{A}^{-1}$. We focus on adaptive algorithms of the form
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\hat{S}_t&=\mathbf{B}_{t-1}X_t\\
\mathbf{B}_t&=\mathbf{B}_{t-1}-\mu\mathbf{H}\big(\hat{S}_t\big)\mathbf{B}_{t-1},~\mathbf{B}(0)=\mathbf{I},
\end{split}
\label{eq:B}
\end{align}
where (see \cite{c3,c4,c13}) the most common form of the matrix function $\mathbf{H}(Z)$ is
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{H}(Z)=[ZZ^\intercal-\mathbf{I}]+[ZG^\intercal(Z)-G(Z)Z^\intercal],
\label{eq:ex_H}
\end{equation}
with $Z=[z_1\,z_2]^\intercal$, $G(Z)=[g_1(z_1)\,g_2(z_2)]^\intercal$,
$g_i(z)$ univariate functions,
$\mathbf{I}$ the identity matrix, and $\mu>0$ is
a scalar {\it step size} that controls the convergence behavior of the algorithm.
Vector $\hat{S}_t$ plays the role of the estimate of the source vector.
Although the algorithm defined by \eqref{eq:B}
is the one we apply in practice, for its analysis it is more convenient to adopt the following normalized version
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\hat{S}_t&=\mathbf{C}_{t-1}S_t\\
\mathbf{C}_t&=\mathbf{C}_{t-1}-\mu\mathbf{H}(\hat{S}_t)\mathbf{C}_{t-1},~\mathbf{C}(0)=\mathbf{A},
\end{split}
\label{eq:mapa}
\end{align}
with $\mathbf{C}_t=\mathbf{B}_t\mathbf{A}$ and where matrix
$\mathbf{A}$ appears now only as initial condition.
Substituting the first equation in \eqref{eq:mapa} into the second yields the final recursion
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C}_t=\mathbf{C}_{t-1}-\mu\mathbf{H}(\mathbf{C}_{t-1}S_t)\mathbf{C}_{t-1},~\mathbf{C}(0)=\mathbf{A},
\label{eq:calgor}
\end{equation}
which will be used in our subsequent analysis.
We will say that the adaptive algorithm solves the BSS
problem if $\mathbf{C}_t$ tends {\it in the mean} to a {\it
non-mixing matrix} $\mathbf{C}$ with the following possible forms
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C}=
\begin{bmatrix}
\pm c_1&0\\0&\pm c_2
\end{bmatrix},~\text{or}~
\mathbf{C}=
\begin{bmatrix}
0&\pm c_1\\ \pm c_2&0
\end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:non-mix}
\end{equation}
where $c_1,c_2$ \textit{positive}, nonzero quantities. In other words $\mathbf{C}$ must be either
diagonal or anti-diagonal with nonzero elements. These limits
impose an ambiguity in the ordering, power and sign of the estimated sources. Fortunately, in most applications these uncertainties can either be tolerated or corrected with simple means as, for example, employment of pilot signals, where periodically and at known time instances the source signals are synthetic and known before hand.
Remarkably, the algorithm defined in
\eqref{eq:calgor}, can converge even when very limited information about the statistical description of the sources is available. In fact, \cite{c4,c5} it is sufficient
that the functions $g_i(z)$ and the probability density
functions (pdf) of the sources satisfy certain symmetry
properties. We have the following theorem that summarizes
the existing results (for the two-source case).
\begin{theorem}\label{th:1}
Let the sources $\{s_{1}(t),s_{2}(t)\}$ satisfy the following assumptions:\\
A1. For every $t$, $s_{1}(t),s_{2}(t)$ are {\it independent}
random variables with {\it symmetric} densities and {\it at
most one} source can be Gaussian.
\noindent A2. For $\kappa_i=\mathsf{E}[g_i'(s_i)]\mathsf{E}[s_i^2]-\mathsf{E}[s_ig_i(s_i)],i=1,2,$ we have
$$
1+\kappa_1>0,~1+\kappa_2>0,~~(1+\kappa_1)(1+\kappa_2)>1.
$$
\noindent Then the adaptive scheme defined by (\ref{eq:calgor}) with $\mathbf{H}(Z)$ defined in \eqref{eq:ex_H} can
converge in the mean to a non-mixing matrix and the
corresponding limit is locally stable.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The proof can be found in \cite{c5}.\end{proof}
Theorem~1 does not guarantee global
convergence because of the nonlinear form of (\ref{eq:calgor}).
Worth mentioning is also the fact that in (\ref{eq:ex_H}) the first term in
$\mathbf{H}(Z)$, which uses only second order moments, plays
the role of a whitener of the observation vector $X_t$, whereas the
second term, with the help of nonlinear statistics, imposes
the final independence and achieves separation. The literature on BSS is very rich. One can find a detailed review of the existing methodologies for the case of independent sources in \cite{c3}.
\section{Proposed Algorithmic Scheme}
In this work, we extend the above result in two major directions. Specifically
\begin{itemize}
\item We show that there exists a rich
class of adaptive algorithms that can be applied to the BSS
problem with the same success as the algorithm defined in
\eqref{eq:B}, \eqref{eq:ex_H}. This algorithmic class not
only separates independent sources but also sources that are
{\it dependent}, provided that some simple symmetry
condition applies to the joint pdf of the source signals. It is in fact this symmetry that
guarantees separation and not independence.
\item We identify the type of dependent random sources that {\it cannot
be separated} under our proposed general algorithmic scheme, hence
extending the non-Gaussianity requirement of the
independent case.
\end{itemize}
The motivation for considering dependent sources,
except of course the obvious theoretical
challenge, is the fact that even when sources are
independent under nominal conditions, once we consider
simple contamination models, independence can be easily lost.
For example if $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$ denotes the joint pdf of the two sources, the following $\epsilon$-contamination model does not correspond to independent sources
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)=(1-\epsilon)\mathsf{f}_1(s_1)\mathsf{f}_2(s_2)+\epsilon \mathsf{g}_1(s_1)\mathsf{g}_2(s_2).
\label{eq:epscond}
\end{equation}
We see that with probability $1-\epsilon$
the two sources are independent following the pdfs $\mathsf{f}_1(s_1),\mathsf{f}_2(s_2)$ and with probability $\epsilon$ they are again independent but following the alternative pair of pdfs $\mathsf{g}_1(s_1),\mathsf{g}_2(s_1)$. It is a simple exercise to verify that $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$ does not correspond to independent sources. This raises the logical question as to whether the BSS algorithms will break under such mild divergence from the nominal conditions. There are of course applications \cite{c1,c2} where the source signals are genuinely dependent and we are interested in their separation. The existing literature for BSS methods for dependent sources is considerable. Here we only mention some representative articles for each available methodology. There are off-line techniques as Dependent Component Analysis \cite{c7,c8}, contrast functions \cite{c9}, time-frequency ratio of mixtures \cite{c10} and Kullback-Leibler divergence for copula densities \cite{c11} that are proposed to solve the problem. For on-line methods we find a technique based on nonnegative matrix factorization and the Kullback-Leibler divergence in \cite{c12}. For a more detailed list of references please consult: {\tt\small www.springeropen.com/collections/DCA}.
In this work, we adopt a purely algorithmic approach. Starting with the adaptive algorithm in \eqref{eq:B}, we examine what type of matrix functions $\mathbf{H}(Z)$ can be employed and combined with what type of dependent sources in order for the algorithm in \eqref{eq:B} to be successful, namely, the algorithm in \eqref{eq:calgor} to converge to one of the non-mixing matrices. The goal is, whatever results we develop, to be applicable to a wide variety of signals without requiring exact knowledge of the statistical description of the sources.
Let us now introduce the adaptation we propose as a
general alternative to the existing algorithm in \eqref{eq:B} and \eqref{eq:ex_H}. Our
scheme also follows \eqref{eq:B} but with
the matrix function $\mathbf{H}(Z)$ replaced by the more general
version
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{H}(Z)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\mathsf{h}_{11}(z_1,z_2)&\mathsf{h}_{12}(z_1,z_2)\\
\mathsf{h}_{21}(z_1,z_2)&\mathsf{h}_{22}(z_1,z_2)
\end{array}\right].
\label{eq:new_H}
\end{equation}
For the analysis of the corresponding adaptive algorithm we will use the equivalent adaptation introduced in (\ref{eq:calgor}) with $\mathbf{H}(Z)$ replaced by the expression introduced in \eqref{eq:new_H}. With our analysis we target the discovery of suitable constraints on $\mathbf{H}(Z)$ that will guarantee the correct performance of the corresponding algorithm, namely its convergence to one of the non-mixing matrices depicted in \eqref{eq:non-mix}.
\section{Limits and Stability}
Adaptive algorithms can be analyzed using Stochastic Approximation theory \cite{c6} when the step size $\mu$ is ``small''. Our main interest lies with the convergence in the mean which we consider next.
\subsection{Limit in the Mean}
The mean field $\{\mathsf{E}[\mathbf{C}_t]\}$ of the algorithm in \eqref{eq:calgor}, according to the Stochastic Approximation theory \cite{c13}, can be efficiently approximated by the sequence $\{\bar{\mathbf{C}}_t\}$ defined by the recursion
\begin{equation}
\bar{\mathbf{C}}_t=\bar{\mathbf{C}}_{t-1}-\mu\mathsf{E}_S[\mathbf{H}(\bar{\mathbf{C}}_{t-1}S_t)]\bar{\mathbf{C}}_{t-1}
\label{eq:meanfield}
\end{equation}
and the quality of the approximation is of the form
$$
\mathsf{E}[\mathbf{C}_t]=\bar{\mathbf{C}}_t+o(\sqrt{\mu}),
$$
where $\mathsf{E}_S[\cdot]$ denotes expectation only with respect to the source signal vector $S_t$. If we let $t\to\infty$ and assume that $\bar{\mathbf{C}}_t\to\bar{\mathbf{C}}_{\infty}$ with $\bar{\mathbf{C}}_{\infty}$ being an invertible matrix we obtain the following equation for $\bar{\mathbf{C}}_\infty$
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{E}_S[\mathbf{H}(\bar{\mathbf{C}}_{\infty}S_t)]=0.
\label{eq:limit}
\end{equation}
All matrices $\bar{\mathbf{C}}_\infty$ that satisfy \eqref{eq:limit} are equilibrium points of the recursion in \eqref{eq:meanfield} and potential limits in the mean of the adaptive algorithm in \eqref{eq:calgor}. Whether a specific equilibrium can actually become the limit of the recursion in \eqref{eq:meanfield} is, of course, a question of stability of the particular equilibrium point.
Let us ignore for the moment the stability issue and focus on the problem of \textit{imposing} a specific matrix as a possible equilibrium. We simply have to make sure that this matrix satisfies \eqref{eq:limit} when it replaces $\bar{\mathbf{C}}_\infty$.
To assure that the non-mixing matrices introduced in \eqref{eq:non-mix} are equilibrium points, we need for $i,j=1,2$ the following equations, corresponding to \eqref{eq:limit}, to be satisfied
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{E}[\mathsf{h}_{ij}(\pm c_1s_1,\pm c_2s_2)]=0
\label{eq:equat1}
\end{equation}
for the diagonal case, or
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{E}[\mathsf{h}_{ij}(\pm c_2s_2,\pm c_1s_1)]=0
\label{eq:equat2}
\end{equation}
for the anti-diagonal. We observe that, for simplicity, we have dropped the subscript ``$S$'' in the expectation $\mathsf{E}_S[\cdot]$ since, from now on, expectation is only with respect to the two sources.
We note that once the functions $\mathsf{h}_{ij}(z_1,z_2)$ are specified and the type of non-mixing matrix selected, then \eqref{eq:equat1} or \eqref{eq:equat2} constitutes a system of four equations in two unknowns ($c_1,c_2$). To have a solution of the desired form (diagonal or anti-diagonal) it is clear that two of the four equations must be satisfied \textit{automatically} and, most importantly, \textit{without exact knowledge} of the statistical description of the sources. It turns out that this is indeed possible if we assume that the joint pdf $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$ of the two sources exhibits the following property
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{f}(-s_1,s_2)=\mathsf{f}(s_1,-s_2)=\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2),
\label{eq:quad_sym}
\end{equation}
corresponding to quadrantal symmetry. We should point out that \eqref{eq:quad_sym} is not an unfamiliar constraint. Indeed in the case of independent sources where $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)=\mathsf{f}_1(s_1)\mathsf{f}_2(s_2)$ we recall from Theorem\,\ref{th:1}, Condition\,A1, that we need both marginal pdfs to be symmetric, which implies \eqref{eq:quad_sym}. Consequently we require the same symmetry to hold for the joint density when the two sources are dependent.
If we now impose some additional symmetries, this time on the functions $\mathsf{h}_{ij}(z_1,z_2)$, we can easily guarantee that the desired non-mixing matrices defined in \eqref{eq:non-mix} become equilibrium points. Specifically, we ask that the following conditions hold
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\mathsf{h}_{11}(-z_1,z_2)=\mathsf{h}_{11}(z_1,-z_2)=\mathsf{h}_{11}(z_1,z_2)\\
&\mathsf{h}_{22}(-z_1,z_2)=\mathsf{h}_{22}(z_1,-z_2)=\mathsf{h}_{22}(z_1,z_2)\\
&\mathsf{h}_{12}(-z_1,z_2)=\mathsf{h}_{12}(z_1,-z_2)=-\mathsf{h}_{12}(z_1,z_2)\\
&\mathsf{h}_{21}(-z_1,z_2)=\mathsf{h}_{21}(z_1,-z_2)=-\mathsf{h}_{21}(z_1,z_2).
\end{split}
\label{eq:mbafla1}
\end{align}
In other words, the two diagonal elements of the matrix $\mathbf{H}(Z)$ must be \textit{even} functions in each of their arguments while the anti-diagonal \textit{odd} functions. There are two desirable consequences when these properties are combined with the quadrantal symmetry of the joint pdf $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$.
\begin{itemize}
\item For any $c_1,c_2$, we have $\mathsf{E}[\mathsf{h}_{12}(\pm c_1s_1,\pm c_2s_2)]=\mathsf{E}[\mathsf{h}_{12}(\pm c_2s_2,\pm c_1s_1)]=0$ and the same property is true for $\mathsf{h}_{21}(z_1,z_2)$. This suggests that two out of the four equations in \eqref{eq:equat1} or \eqref{eq:equat2} are satisfied for free and for all possible signs of the non-mixing matrix.
\item If $(c_1,c_2)$ are roots of the system of the two equations
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{E}[\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)]=0,~\mathsf{E}[\mathsf{h}_{22}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)]=0,
\label{eq:sys1}
\end{equation}
corresponding to a diagonal non-mixing matrix, or of the system
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{E}[\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_2s_2,c_1s_1)]=0,~\mathsf{E}[\mathsf{h}_{22}(c_2s_2,c_1s_1)]=0,
\label{eq:sys2}
\end{equation}
corresponding to an anti-diagonal non-mixing matrix then so is any combination of signs $(\pm c_1,\pm c_2)$.
\end{itemize}
Both observations are very simple to demonstrate since they are a direct consequence of the symmetries imposed on $\mathsf{h}_{ij}(z_1,z_2)$ and $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$. Regarding $c_1,c_2$ we should point out that we only need their \textit{existence} since the exact values of these two quantities depend on the actual joint pdf $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$ which is assumed to be unknown.
So far, through the symmetries imposed on $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$ in \eqref{eq:quad_sym} and on $\mathsf{h}_{ij}(z_1,z_2)$ in \eqref{eq:mbafla1}, we can guarantee that the desired non-mixing matrices are equilibrium points for the mean field adaptation \eqref{eq:meanfield}. However, in order for these equilibriums to be actually accessible as limits by the adaptation we also need to establish some form of stability.
\subsection{Local Stability}
The next step consists in examining under what conditions the non-mixing equilibrium points are in fact stable limits of \eqref{eq:meanfield}. We will present our analysis for $\mathbf{C}=\mathrm{diag}\{c_1,c_2\}$, similar steps apply for the anti-diagonal case.
Establishing global stability in nonlinear updates is, unfortunately, very difficult and not always possible. We therefore limit ourselves (very common in adaptive algorithms) in testing only for \textit{local stability}. This means that we write $\bar{\mathbf{C}}_t=\mathbf{C}+\mathbf{\Delta}_t$ where $\mathbf{\Delta}_t$ is a perturbation matrix with ``small'' elements and analyze the evolution of $\mathbf{\Delta}_t$ with $t$ using linear system approximation. Stability requires $\mathbf{\Delta}_t\to0$ as $t\to\infty$. Specifically, assuming that the perturbation matrix is of the form
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\Delta}_t=\begin{bmatrix}\alpha_t&\gamma_t\\ \delta_t&\beta_t\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq:Delta}
\end{equation}
we have the following lemma that captures the evolution of $\mathbf{\Delta}_t$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:0}
The elements of the perturbation matrix $\mathbf{\Delta}_t$ satisfy the following recursions
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\begin{bmatrix}\alpha_t\\ \beta_t\end{bmatrix}=\mathbf{C}(\mathbf{I}+\mu\mathbf{F})\mathbf{C}^{-1}\begin{bmatrix}\alpha_{t-1}\\ \beta_{t-1}\end{bmatrix}\\
&\begin{bmatrix}\gamma_t\\ \delta_t\end{bmatrix}=\mathbf{C}(\mathbf{I}+\mu\mathbf{G})\mathbf{C}^{-1}\begin{bmatrix}\gamma_{t-1}\\ \delta_{t-1}\end{bmatrix},
\end{split}
\label{eq:mbofla9}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\!\!\mathbf{F}&=\textstyle\mathsf{E}\left[\begin{bmatrix}\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)\\\mathsf{h}_{22}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)\end{bmatrix}\!\!
\left[\frac{s_1\mathsf{f}_{s_1}(s_1,s_2)}{\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)}~\frac{s_2\mathsf{f}_{s_2}(s_1,s_2)}{\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)}\right]\right]
\label{eq:mbofla101}\\
\!\!\mathbf{G}&=\textstyle\mathsf{E}\left[\begin{bmatrix}\mathsf{h}_{12}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)\\\mathsf{h}_{21}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)\end{bmatrix}\!\!
\left[\frac{s_2\mathsf{f}_{s_1}(s_1,s_2)}{\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)}~\frac{s_1\mathsf{f}_{s_2}(s_1,s_2)}{\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)}\right]\right],~
\label{eq:mbofla102}
\end{align}
$\mathsf{f}_{s_i}(s_1,s_2)=\frac{\partial \mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)}{\partial s_i}$ and expectation in both formulas is with respect to the joint source pdf $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} If we assume that $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$ is uniformly bounded then in order for its two marginal densities to exist we need $\lim_{s_1\to\pm\infty}\mathsf{f}(s_1,\cdot)=\lim_{s_2\to\pm\infty}\mathsf{f}(\cdot,s_2)=0$. In fact we need to strengthen this property slightly so that the two expectations in \eqref{eq:mbofla101} and \eqref{eq:mbofla102} are bounded. In particular, for any fixed constants $c_1,c_2$ we require
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\lim_{s_1\to\pm\infty}\mathsf{h}_{ij}(c_1s_1,\cdot)s_1\mathsf{f}(s_1,\cdot)=0\\
&\lim_{s_2\to\pm\infty}\mathsf{h}_{ij}(\cdot,c_2s_2)s_2\mathsf{f}(\cdot,s_2)=0.
\end{split}
\label{eq:ouff}
\end{align}
Details of the proof are given in the Appendix.\end{proof}
From the recursions in \eqref{eq:mbofla9} we can find conditions that assure local stability of the desired equilibrium. The next lemma discusses exactly this point.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:3}
The equilibrium point $\mathbf{C}$ is locally stable if and only if the following inequalities hold
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{tr}\{\mathbf{F}\}<0,\mathrm{det}\{\mathbf{F}\}>0,~~~\mathrm{tr}\{\mathbf{G}\}<0,\mathrm{det}\{\mathbf{G}\}>0,
\label{eq:R-H}
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{tr}\{\cdot\},\mathrm{det}\{\cdot\}$ denote trace and determinant respectively.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} For local stability we need the two matrices $\mathbf{I}+\mu\mathbf{F}$, $\mathbf{I}+\mu\mathbf{G}$ to have their eigenvalues in the interior of the unit circle. This can happen \textit{for all sufficiently small step sizes} $\mu>0$ if and only if the two matrices $\mathbf{F},\mathbf{G}$ have eigenvalues with \textit{strictly} negative real parts. The two inequalities applied to each matrix correspond to the Routh-Hurwitz criterion that assures this fact.\end{proof}
\noindent\textbf{Remark\,1:} From our local analysis we observe that the mean estimates, when they are close to the limit, converge to the equilibrium \textit{exponentially} fast in the form of $(\mathbf{I}+\mu\mathbf{F})^t$ and $(\mathbf{I}+\mu\mathbf{G})^t$. In other words we have an exponential rate of convergence which is proportional to $\mu$. Of course this is true, provided that the conditions of Lemma\,\ref{lem:3} apply. As we can see, a smaller $\mu$ reduces the convergence speed towards the desired limit.
\vskip0.1cm
\noindent\textbf{Remark\,2:} We devoted all our efforts to assure convergence in the mean of the algorithmic scheme in \eqref{eq:calgor} to the desired non-mixing equilibrium. However, mean convergence by itself cannot guarantee satisfactory estimates. It is equally important that the \textit{variance} of the corresponding estimates is small. Fortunately, regarding this point, Stochastic Approximation comes to our rescue. Specifically, it is known \cite{c6} that when the limit in the mean is stable the corresponding covariance matrix of the estimates in \eqref{eq:calgor}, at steady-state, is proportional to $\mu$. Actually, there are even formulas that can compute the steady-state covariance matrix up to a first order approximation in $\mu$. Since the step size is selected to be small this suggests that, at steady-state, our estimates will differ from the desired non-mixing matrix by a random amount that has small power. Decreasing $\mu$ provides better steady-state estimates but, as mentioned in the previous remark, results in longer convergence periods of the mean field toward its desired limit.
\section{Non-Separable Sources}
One of the main issues in BSS is to identify the type of sources that cannot be separated. When the two sources are independent it is well known that the only combination that is non-separable by any off- or on-line method is the case of two Gaussians. If we allow the sources to be dependent with a joint pdf satisfying the symmetry in \eqref{eq:quad_sym} then the class of sources that are non-separable may increase. Unfortunately, under dependency it is very difficult to develop results of the same generality as in the independent case. Consequently, in order to come up with something meaningful, we propose a more modest characterization of the non-separable sources which, we believe, is equally interesting.
\vspace{0.1cm}
\noindent\textbf{Definition:} \textit{Two sources will be called non-separable if there is no algorithm of the form of \eqref{eq:calgor} for which a non-mixing equilibrium point $\mathbf{C}$ defined in \eqref{eq:non-mix} is stable.}
\vskip0.1cm
\noindent In other words, instead of referring to any on- or off-line method, we relate the separability property to our general algorithmic scheme. If our algorithm is unable to converge to a non-mixing matrix no matter which functions $\mathsf{h}_{ij}(z_1,z_2)$ we employ, then we regard the corresponding sources as non-separable.
The equilibrium point is unstable if at least one of the two matrices $\mathbf{F},\mathbf{G}$ has at least one eigenvalue with positive or \textit{zero} real part. Clearly this fact must be shared by \textit{all} combinations of functions $\mathsf{h}_{ij}(z_1,z_2)$ with symmetries specified in \eqref{eq:mbafla1}. We have the following theorem that identifies the joint probability density of sources that are non-separable, according to our definition.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:2}
Two dependent sources $s_1,s_2$ are non-separable by any version of the algorithm in \eqref{eq:calgor} if and only if their joint pdf $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$ is of the following form
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)=\omega(K_2s_1^2+K_1s_2^2),
\label{eq:th2-1}
\end{equation}
where $\omega(z)$ is a univariate function of $z$ and $K_1,K_2$ are positive constants.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The proof is very interesting and requires several steps. All details are given in the Appendix.\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.6\hsize]{fig1.pdf}}
\vskip-0.2cm
\caption{Contour lines of the joint pdf of a pair of non-separable dependent sources.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
Theorem\,\ref{th:2} identifies as non-separable, the sources with joint pdf $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$ that exhibits \textit{elliptical} quadrantal symmetry (due to the term $K_1s_1^2+K_2s_2^2$). Fig.\,\ref{fig:1} captures the typical form of the contour lines of the corresponding joint pdf.
An interesting question is what happens when we apply our definition of non-separability
to the independent case.
In particular, we would like to know whether our definition generates any additional, to the classical Gaussian pair, sources. The next corollary provides the necessary answer.
\begin{corollary}
When the two sources $s_1,s_2$ are independent the only combination which is non-separable by the algorithm in \eqref{eq:calgor} is the classical case of Gaussian sources.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
When the two sources are independent then $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)=\mathsf{f}_1(s_1)\mathsf{f}_2(s_2)$. If we use this fact in \eqref{eq:th2-1} and take the derivative with respect to $s_1$ and $s_2$ we obtain the following equalities
\begin{align*}
\mathsf{f}'_1(s_1)\mathsf{f}_2(s_2)&=2K_2s_1\omega_z(K_2s_1^2+K_1s_2^2)\allowdisplaybreaks\\\allowdisplaybreaks
\mathsf{f}_1(s_1)\mathsf{f}'_2(s_2)&=2K_1s_2\omega_z(K_2s_1^2+K_1s_2^2),
\end{align*}
where $\omega_z(a)=\frac{d\omega(z)}{dz}|_{z=a}$. From the two equations we conclude that
$$
\textstyle\frac{\mathsf{f}'_1(s_1)\mathsf{f}_2(s_2)}{2K_2s_1}=\frac{\mathsf{f}_1(s_1)\mathsf{f}'_2(s_2)}{2K_1s_2}
$$
which suggests
$$
\textstyle\frac{\mathsf{f}_1'(s_1)}{\mathsf{f}_1(s_1)2K_2s_1}=\frac{\mathsf{f}_2'(s_2)}{\mathsf{f}_2(s_2)2K_1s_2}=K.
$$
$K$ must be a function solely of $s_1$ and at the same time a function solely of $s_2$, therefore it is necessarily a constant. The previous expression gives rise to two differential equations in $s_1$ and $s_2$, with solutions $\mathsf{f}_1(s_1)=A_1e^{KK_2s_1^2}$, $\mathsf{f}_2(s_2)=A_2e^{KK_1s_2^2}$, i.e.~Gaussian pdfs. The corresponding function $\omega(z)$ has the form $\omega(z)=A_1A_2 e^{Kz}$.
\end{proof}
The Corollary guarantees that, even if we limit ourselves to separation algorithms of the form of \eqref{eq:calgor}, this does not augment the class of non-separable sources when the sources are independent. This result was, in a sense, expected since from the literature we know that adaptive algorithms of the form of \eqref{eq:B}, with $\mathbf{H}(Z)$ as in \eqref{eq:ex_H}, in simulation were seen to be able to separate independent sources except, of course, Gaussian pairs. Since our model for $\mathbf{H}(Z)$ in \eqref{eq:new_H}, with the particular symmetries imposed in \eqref{eq:mbafla1}, is more general than \eqref{eq:ex_H}, the corresponding adaptive algorithm will also be capable of separating the same class of independent sources. Of course, the main value of Theorem\,\ref{th:2} comes from the fact that it identifies non-separable \textit{dependent} sources which is clearly not a straighforward extension of the Gaussian-pair of the independent case.
In the next section we give examples of classical and non-classical $\mathbf{H}(Z)$ matrices and we test, using simulations, their capability to separate dependent sources. We also give examples of sources with elliptical quadrantal symmetry and verify that the algorithm in \eqref{eq:calgor} is unable to perform separation.
\section{Examples}
Let us start with the example where the pair $(s_1,s_2)$ is a mixture of independent Gaussian random variables. Specifically, with probability 0.5 the two sources $s_1$ and $s_2$ are independent $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$, $\mathcal{N}(0,4)$, while with probability 0.5 they are again independent $\mathcal{N}(0,4)$, $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ respectively. We consider two cases for the $\mathbf{H}(Z)$ matrix
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{H}(Z)&=\begin{bmatrix}z_1^2-1&z_1z_2+z_1z_2^3-z_2z_1^3\\
z_1z_2+z_2z_1^3-z_1z_2^3&z_2^2-1\end{bmatrix}\\
\mathbf{H}(Z)&=\begin{bmatrix}|z_1|-1&z_1z_2^2\textrm{sgn}(z_2)\\
z_2z_1^2\textrm{sgn}(z_1)&|z_2|-1\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align*}
The first matrix corresponds to the classical version introduced in \eqref{eq:ex_H} and, as we can see, it whitens the observations. On the other hand, the second matrix does not contain any whitening part. Both selections satisfy the symmetry properties set in \eqref{eq:mbafla1}. Furthermore, the analysis of the corresponding matrices $\mathbf{F},\mathbf{G}$ assures validity of \eqref{eq:R-H} for stability.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\vskip-0.2cm
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.44\hsize]{fig2a.pdf}}
\vskip-0.1cm
\centerline{\footnotesize(a)}
\vskip0.3cm
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.48\hsize]{fig2b.pdf}\hfill\includegraphics[width=0.48\hsize]{fig2c.pdf}}
\vskip-0.1cm
\centerline{\hbox to 0.48\hsize{\hfill\footnotesize(b)\hfill}\hfill\hbox to 0.48\hsize{\hfill\footnotesize(c)\hfill}}
\vskip-0.1cm
\caption{(a) Contour lines of the joint pdf of two sources $s_1,s_2$ that are independent $\mathcal{N}(0,1),\mathcal{N}(0,4)$ with probability 0.5 and independent $\mathcal{N}(0,4),\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ with probability 0.5. Evolution of the elements of $\mathbf{C}_t$ with the number of iterations (b) classical, (c) without whitening.}
\label{fig:2}
\vskip-0.2cm
\end{figure}
Fig.\,\ref{fig:2} depicts the simulation results.
In Fig.\,\ref{fig:2}(a) we can see the contour lines of the corresponding joint pdf. We observe that we have quadrantal symmetry which is not elliptical, consequently the sources can be separated. In Fig.\,\ref{fig:2}(b) and (c) we plot the elements of the normalized estimates $\mathbf{C}_t$ as they evolve in time for the two choices of $\mathbf{H}(Z)$. We recall that $\mathbf{C}_0=\mathbf{A}$ where $\mathbf{A}$ is unknown. We therefore initialized $\mathbf{C}_0$ with a random matrix corresponding to a random selection of $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}_0=\mathbf{I}$. Blue and magenta lines depict the diagonal elements of $\mathbf{C}_t$ whereas yellow and orange the anti-diagonal. As we can see, in both algorithms we have convergence towards a non-mixing matrix.
Let us now test the validity of Theorem\,\ref{th:2}. We are going to generate dependent sources with their pdf controlled by a parameter $d$. When $d\neq0$ the joint pdf will have quadrantal symmetry but not elliptical. For $d=0$ the quadrantal symmetry will also become elliptical. This means that in the former case we expect source separability while in the latter the sources will be non-separable. The source model we propose is the following: We start with $r,\theta$ independent random variables with $r$ uniformly distributed in [0,1] and $\theta$ uniformly distributed in $[-\pi,\pi]$. We apply the following transformations to produce the two signals
\begin{equation}
s_1=r\cos\theta;~~~s_2=r\{\sin\theta+d(\sin\theta)^2\mathrm{sgn}(\sin\theta)\}.
\label{eq:dep_sources}
\end{equation}
As we mentioned, $d=0$ is the only value that generates elliptical (actually cyclic) symmetry. We use the classical $\mathbf{H}(Z)$ matrix in order to demonstrate that the classical algorithms can also separate dependent sources. Fig.\,\ref{fig:3}(a) depicts the contour lines of the pdf and (b) the evolution of the elements of the normalized estimates for the case $d=1$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vskip0.3cm
\centerline{\hfill\includegraphics[width=0.4\hsize]{fig3a.pdf}\hfill\includegraphics[width=0.5\hsize]{fig3b.pdf}\hfill}
\vskip-0.1cm
\centerline{\hfill\hbox to 0.4\hsize{\hfil\footnotesize(a)\hfil}\hfill\hbox to 0.5\hsize{\hfil\footnotesize(b)\hfil}\hfill}
\vskip-0.2cm
\caption{(a) Contour lines of the joint pdf for sources following \eqref{eq:dep_sources} with $d=1$ and (b)~Evolution of the corresponding normalized estimates.}
\label{fig:3}
\vskip-0.5cm
\end{figure}
As we can see the adaptive algorithm converges to a non-mixing matrix.
In Fig.\,\ref{fig:4}, we present the simulation for $d=0$. Fig.\,\ref{fig:4}(a) has the contours which have indeed cyclic symmetry.
\begin{figure}[h]
\vskip0.2cm
\centerline{\hfill\includegraphics[width=0.4\hsize]{fig4a.pdf}\hfill\includegraphics[width=0.5\hsize]{fig4b.pdf}\hfill}
\vskip-0.1cm
\centerline{\hfill\hbox to 0.4\hsize{\hfil\footnotesize(a)\hfil}\hfill\hbox to 0.5\hsize{\hfil\footnotesize(b)\hfil}\hfill}
\vskip-0.2cm
\caption{(a) Contour lines of the joint pdf for sources following \eqref{eq:dep_sources} with $d=0$ and (b)~Evolution of the corresponding normalized estimates.}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure}
In (b), we have the evolution of $\mathbf{C}_t$ which, as predicted by our analysis, does not converge to a non-mixing matrix.
\section{Conclusion}
We considered adaptive algorithms that are capable of blindly separating dependent sources. We showed that if the sources exhibit a quadrantal symmetry in their statistical behavior, then simple adaptive algorithms can be employed to separate them. This result indicates that source separability is not a property due to ``independence'' but rather due to ``symmetric statistical behavior''. With our analysis we were also able to identify the dependent sources that are not separable thus extending the Gaussian case known for independent sources.
\section*{Appendix}
\subsection*{Proof of Lemma\,\ref{lem:0}}
The proof is somewhat involved but presents no particular analytical challenges. Since $\mathbf{C}$ is an equilibrium point satisfying $\mathsf{E}[\mathbf{H}(\mathbf{C} S)]=0$, where expectation is with respect to $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$, it is not very difficult to verify that the study of local stability of the mean field \eqref{eq:meanfield} at $\mathbf{C}$ is the same as studying the local stability of
$$
\bar{\mathbf{C}}_t=\bar{\mathbf{C}}_{t-1}-\mu\mathsf{E}[\mathbf{H}(\bar{\mathbf{C}}_{t-1}S)]\mathbf{C}
$$
at the same equilibrium. Consider now the perturbation $\bar{\mathbf{C}}_t=\mathbf{C}+\mathbf{\Delta}_t$. Next we will present the complete computation of the recursion for the element $\alpha_t$ defined in \eqref{eq:Delta} for the perturbation matrix. Similar steps can be applied for the other three terms to show the validity of the lemma. Without loss of generality assume that $\mathbf{C}=\mathrm{diag}\{c_1,c_2\}$, then for $\alpha_t$ we have
\vskip-0.8cm
\begin{multline*}
\alpha_t=\alpha_{t-1}-\\
~~~~~\mu c_1\mathsf{E}[\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1+\alpha_{t-1}s_1+\gamma_{t-1}s_2,c_2s_2+\delta_{t-1}s_1+\beta_{t-1}s_2)].
\end{multline*}
Applying first order Taylor expansion we obtain
\vskip-0.6cm
\begin{multline*}
\alpha_t=\alpha_{t-1}-\\
\mu c_1\big\{\mathsf{E}[\partial_{z_1}\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)s_1]\alpha_{t-1}+\\
\mathsf{E}[\partial_{z_1}\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)s_2]\gamma_{t-1}\\
+\mathsf{E}[\partial_{z_2}\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)s_1]\delta_{t-1}\\
+\mathsf{E}[\partial_{z_2}\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)s_2]\beta_{t-1}\big\},
\end{multline*}
where $\partial_{z_i}$ denotes partial derivative with respect to $z_i$. Since $\mathsf{h}_{11}(z_1,z_2)$ is even symmetric in $z_1$ this implies that $\partial_{z_1}\mathsf{h}_{11}(z_1,z_2)$ is odd in $z_1$ consequently $\partial_{z_1}\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)s_2$ is odd in both arguments $s_1,s_2$. Because $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$ exhibits quadrantal symmetry this suggests that $\mathsf{E}[\partial_{z_1}\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)s_2]=0$. Similar conclusion can be drawn for $\mathsf{E}[\partial_{z_2}\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)s_1]$. Because of this observation we can write
\vskip-0.6cm
\begin{multline*}
\alpha_t=\alpha_{t-1}-\\
\mu c_1\big\{\mathsf{E}[\partial_{z_1}\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)s_1]\alpha_{t-1}+\\
\mathsf{E}[\partial_{z_2}\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)s_2]\beta_{t-1}\big\}.
\end{multline*}
Let us now find a more convenient expression for the two expectations. First note that $\partial_{z_1}\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)=c_1^{-1}\partial_{s_1}\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)$. Using this equality we can write
\begin{multline*}
\mathsf{E}[\partial_{z_1}\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)s_1]=\allowdisplaybreaks\\ \allowdisplaybreaks\textstyle
c_1^{-1}\iint \partial_{s_1}\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)s_1\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)ds_1ds_2=\allowdisplaybreaks\\ \allowdisplaybreaks\textstyle
-c_1^{-1}\iint \mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)\,\partial_{s_1}\!\big(s_1\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)\big)ds_1ds_2=\allowdisplaybreaks\\ \allowdisplaybreaks
\textstyle-c_1^{-1}\mathsf{E}\left[\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)\left(1+\frac{s_1\mathsf{f}_{s_1}(s_1,s_2)}{\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)}\right)\right]=\allowdisplaybreaks\\ \allowdisplaybreaks
\textstyle-c_1^{-1}\mathsf{E}\left[\mathsf{h}_{11}(c_1s_1,c_2s_2)\frac{s_1\mathsf{f}_{s_1}(s_1,s_2)}{\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)}\right].
\end{multline*}
For the second equality we used integration by parts and \eqref{eq:ouff} and for the last we used \eqref{eq:sys1}. Similar computations can be performed for the second expectation in the recursion for $\alpha_t$ and for the corresponding terms in the recursions for $\beta_t,\gamma_t,\delta_t$. This can prove validity of the formulas for the two matrices $\mathbf{F},\mathbf{G}$ in \eqref{eq:mbofla101} and \eqref{eq:mbofla102}. This completes the proof of the lemma.\qed
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem\,\ref{th:2}}
As we mentioned, for non-separation we need at least one of the two matrices $\mathbf{F},\mathbf{G}$ to have an eigenvalue which is either positive of zero. This property must be true for \textit{all} functions $\mathsf{h}_{ij}(z_1,z_2)$ with symmetries as in \eqref{eq:mbafla1}. Note that a possible selection of $\mathsf{h}_{ij}(z_1,z_2)$ is the following
\begin{gather*}
\textstyle\mathsf{h}_{11}(z_1,z_2)\!=\!-z_1\frac{\mathsf{f}_{s_1}(z_1,z_2)}{\mathsf{f}(z_1,z_2)},\,
\mathsf{h}_{22}(z_1,z_2)\!=\!-z_2\frac{\mathsf{f}_{s_2}(z_1,z_2)}{\mathsf{f}(z_1,z_2)}\\
\textstyle\mathsf{h}_{12}(z_1,z_2)\!=\!-\frac{z_2\mathsf{f}_{s_1}(z_1,z_2)}{\mathsf{f}(z_1,z_2)},\,
\mathsf{h}_{21}(z_1,z_2)\!=\!-\frac{z_1\mathsf{f}_{s_2}(z_1,z_2)}{\mathsf{f}(z_1,z_2)},
\end{gather*}
which satisfies the system of equations \eqref{eq:equat1} with $c_1=c_2=1$. Denote the corresponding $\mathbf{F},\mathbf{G}$ matrices as $\mathbf{F}_*,\mathbf{G}_*$ then, using \eqref{eq:mbofla101}, \eqref{eq:mbofla102} we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{F}_*&=\textstyle-\mathsf{E}\left[\begin{bmatrix}\frac{s_1\mathsf{f}_{s_1}(s_1,s_2)}{\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)}\\ \frac{s_2\mathsf{f}_{s_2}(s_1,s_2)}{\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)}\end{bmatrix}
\left[\frac{s_1\mathsf{f}_{s_1}(s_1,s_2)}{\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)}~\frac{s_2\mathsf{f}_{s_2}(s_1,s_2)}{\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)}\right]\right]\\
\mathbf{G}_*&=
\textstyle-\mathsf{E}\left[\begin{bmatrix}\frac{s_2\mathsf{f}_{s_1}(s_1,s_2)}{\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)}\\ \frac{s_1\mathsf{f}_{s_2}(s_1,s_2)}{\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)}\end{bmatrix}
\left[\frac{s_2\mathsf{f}_{s_1}(s_1,s_2)}{\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)}~\frac{s_1\mathsf{f}_{s_2}(s_1,s_2)}{\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)}\right]\right].
\end{align*}
Both matrices are \textit{symmetric and nonnegative definite}, therefore the only hope to experience instability is \textit{if and only if} at least one of the two matrices has an eigenvalue equal to 0 (since nonzero eigenvalues are necessarily negative). The latter can happen only when we can find constants $K_1,K_2$ such that $[K_1\,-\!\!K_2]^\intercal$ is an eigenvector to a 0 eigenvalue for $\mathbf{F}_*$ or $\mathbf{G}_*$. Because both matrices are symmetric and nonnegative definite, this is possible if and only if, at least one of the following two equations is satisfied for \textit{all} $(s_1,s_2)$
\begin{align}
&\textstyle
K_1s_1\mathsf{f}_{s_1}(s_1,s_2)-K_2s_2\mathsf{f}_{s_2}(s_1,s_2)=0
\label{eq:App-1}\\
&\textstyle
K_1s_2\mathsf{f}_{s_1}(s_1,s_2)-K_2s_1\mathsf{f}_{s_2}(s_1,s_2)=0,
\label{eq:App-2}
\end{align}
with not necessarily the same constants $K_1,K_2$.
Summarizing: For the specific selection of the $\mathsf{h}_{ij}(z_1,z_2)$ functions, at least one of the two equations \eqref{eq:App-1}, \eqref{eq:App-2} is required to be true if the sources are non-separable.
It is a fact that: \textit{If
\eqref{eq:App-1} or \eqref{eq:App-2} is valid then for any other selection of $\mathsf{h}_{ij}(z_1,z_2)$ at least one of the corresponding $\mathbf{F}$ or $\mathbf{G}$ matrices will also have an eigenvalue equal to 0.}
This can be seen from \eqref{eq:mbofla101}, \eqref{eq:mbofla102} where we have the expression for $\mathbf{F},\mathbf{G}$ for arbitrary $\mathsf{h}_{ij}(z_1,z_2)$. If for example \eqref{eq:App-2} is true then $\mathbf{G}$ in \eqref{eq:mbofla102} will have the same $[K_1\,-\!\!K_2]^\intercal$ as a right eigenvector corresponding to a 0 eigenvalue. We can therefore conclude that if at least one of \eqref{eq:App-1}, \eqref{eq:App-2} is true then $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$ corresponds to non-separable sources.
Let us now examine what type of joint densities $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$ can satisfy \eqref{eq:App-1}, \eqref{eq:App-2}.
We start with \eqref{eq:App-1}. Due to the quadrantal symmetry we can limit ourselves to the first quadrant with $s_1,s_2$ nonnegative. Define $z=s_1^{K_2}s_2^{K_1}$ then we can express $s_1$ in terms of $z$ and $s_2$ as $s_1=z^{\frac{1}{K_2}}s_2^{-\frac{K_1}{K_2}}$. Call $\omega(z,s_2)=\mathsf{f}(z^{\frac{1}{K_2}}s_2^{-\frac{K_1}{K_2}},s_2)$ and compute its partial derivative with respect to $s_2$, we have
\begin{multline*}
\textstyle
\omega_{s_2}(z,s_2)=-\frac{K_1}{K_2}z^{\frac{1}{K_2}}s_2^{-\frac{K_1}{K_2}-1}\mathsf{f}_{s_1}(z^{\frac{1}{K_2}}s_2^{-\frac{K_1}{K_2}},s_2)+\allowdisplaybreaks\\
\textstyle\mathsf{f}_{s_2}(z^{\frac{1}{K_2}}s_2^{-\frac{K_1}{K_2}},s_2)\!=\!-\frac{1}{K_2s_2}\Big\{ K_1z^{\frac{1}{K_2}}s_2^{-\frac{K_1}{K_2}}\mathsf{f}_{s_1}(z^{\frac{1}{K_2}}s_2^{-\frac{K_1}{K_2}},s_2)\allowdisplaybreaks\\
-K_2s_2\mathsf{f}_{s_2}(z^{\frac{1}{K_2}}s_2^{-\frac{K_1}{K_2}},s_2)\Big\}=0\allowdisplaybreaks
\end{multline*}
with the last equality coming from \eqref{eq:App-1}. From $\omega_{s_2}(z,s_2)=0$ we conclude that $\omega(z,s_2)=\omega(z)$. Recalling the relationship between $\omega(z,s_2)$ and $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$ and replacing $z$ with its definition we prove that $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)=\omega(|s_1|^{K_2}|s_2|^{K_1})$. It turns out that functions of this form cannot be legitimate joint pdfs. This can be seen by integrating the equality over $s_2$ in order to identify the marginal pdf $\mathsf{f}_1(s_1)$. We note that
\begin{multline*}
\textstyle\allowdisplaybreaks
\mathsf{f}_1(s_1)=\int\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)ds_2=\int\omega(|s_1|^{K_2}|s_2|^{K_1})ds_2\allowdisplaybreaks\\\allowdisplaybreaks
\textstyle
=2\int_0^\infty\omega(|s_1|^{K_2}s_2^{K_1})ds_2\\=|s_1|^{-\frac{K_2}{K_1}}\frac{2}{K_1}\int_0^\infty z^{\frac{1}{K_1}-1}\omega(z)dz=|s_1|^{-\frac{K_2}{K_1}}A,
\end{multline*}
where constant $A$ is defined as $A=\frac{2}{K_1}\int_0^\infty z^{\frac{1}{K_1}-1}\omega(z)dz$.
The resulting form of $\mathsf{f}_1(s_1)$ is \textit{not} an integrable function over the whole real line for any value of the ratio $\frac{K_2}{K_1}$ and therefore cannot play the role of the marginal $\mathsf{f}_1(s_1)$. Consequently \eqref{eq:App-1} cannot be satisfied by any joint pdf $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)$.
Let us now analyze in the same way \eqref{eq:App-2}. If in this case we define
$z=K_2s_1^2+K_1s_2^2$, solve for $s_1$ and follow exactly the same steps as in the previous case, we end up with $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)=\omega(K_2s_1^2+K_1s_2^2)$. What is left to show is that $K_1,K_2$ must be of the same sign which, without loss of generality, can be considered positive. Note that if $K_2>0$ and $K_1<0$ then $K_2s_1^2+K_1s_2^2=r^2$, for fixed $r$, corresponds to a hyperbola. We can then express $s_1,s_2$ in terms of two alternative variables $r$ and $\theta$ as follows
$$\textstyle
s_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|K_2|}}r\cosh(\theta),~~s_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|K_1|}}r\sinh(\theta)
$$
where $r\geq0$ and $\theta$ can be any real. If the joint pdf of $s_1,s_2$ satisfies $\mathsf{f}(s_1,s_2)=\omega(K_2s_1^2+K_1s_2^2)$, then we can find the corresponding pdf of $r$ and $\theta$ by applying standard methodology for transformations of random variables, this yields
$$
\mathsf{f}(r,\theta)=\omega(r^2)r.
$$
The previous equation suggests that $r$ and $\theta$ are \textit{independent} and $r$ has a pdf of the form $A\omega(r^2)r$, where $A$ suitable constant, while $\theta$ a pdf equal to $A^{-1}$, namely, a \textit{uniform} density. The latter, however, is not possible since $\theta$ takes values on the whole real line and there is no uniform distribution that can support this unbounded range. Regarding this last point, one might argue that the density we are seeking exists and is known as ``degenerate uniform distribution''. However, we recall that this function is not an actual density but rather a \textit{limit} of a regular uniform density whose support increases without limit. The actual limiting function is \textit{not} a pdf since it is 0 everywhere on the real line. Consequently we cannot have $K_2>0$ and $K_1<0$ and the only legitimate choice for the joint pdf of a non-separable pair is a function with elliptical quadrantal symmetry. This completes the proof of the theorem.
\qed
|
\section{Introduction}
The ability to produce ultra-cold matter and macroscopic quantum systems with laser cooling and evaporation techniques \cite{Dalibard1989, Ketterle1996} has brought about new physics predicted by quantum mechanics. It has also enabled new tests of fundamental physics by using matter waves for precision measurements. Today, Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) \cite{Anderson1995} are employed as complex tools to test condensed matter phenomena, such as mimicking electronic solid state systems with atoms trapped in optical potentials \cite{Bloch2012}. Producing and controlling ultra-cold matter has also lead to ground-breaking methods for measuring inertial effects \cite{Barrett2014a}, time and frequency standards \cite{Ludlow2015}, and fundamental physical constants \cite{Clade2019} with high precision. This quantum toolbox opens exciting new prospects for inertial navigation \cite{Cheiney2018}, geodesy \cite{Trimeche2019}, tests of general relativity \cite{Overstreet2018}, and the detection of gravitational waves \cite{Canuel2018} and dark energy \cite{Elder2016}.
For all of these applications, gravity can be the ultimate limiting factor. The extremely low temperatures required to study some quantum phases of matter such as antiferromagnetism \cite{Mazurenko2017} are usually limited by gravitational sag. Temperatures of a few nK or below also correspond to very low energy and require long observation times hardly attainable under gravity. Finally, matter-wave interferometers require extended interrogation time \cite{LeCoq2006} to increase their sensitivity. Circumventing gravity can be achieved by using external forces to compensate the downward pull \cite{Leanhardt1513, Ricci2007} or to levitate the atoms \cite{Billy2008}. In each case, the additional magnetic or optical fields used to launch or hold the atoms against gravity results in residual perturbations. Moreover, when a magnetic field is used to support neutral atoms against the gravitational force, there is always a residual curvature which limits the adiabatic decompression of the trap \cite{Sackett2006}. Extended free-fall times can be achieved by launching atoms upward in an atomic fountain \cite{Kovachy2015}. Another method consists of letting the whole experiment fall freely under gravity, \emph{e.g.} in a drop tower \cite{VanZoest2010}, during parabolic flight in an aircraft \cite{Barrett2016} or a sounding rocket \cite{Becker2018}, or on the International Space Station \cite{Elliott2018}. Until now, BEC production on these platforms has been realized only with magnetic traps using atom chip technology.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Fig1-manip_simuv10light2.png}
\caption{(a) Schematic of the Einstein elevator. The payload (I), including the science chamber, cooling beam optics and imaging system, is driven vertically along two air-bearing translation stages. (b) Acceleration profile of the science chamber for sequential parabolas of 400 ms, separated by a dead time of 12 s required to let the motors cool down. (c) Absorption image of the BEC transition after a time-of-flight of 50 ms in 0g. The projection of the vertical axis shows the typical double structure of the cloud. The blue (violet) curve is a least-squares fit to the thermal distribution (condensed fraction).}
\label{fig:expsim}
\end{figure}
In this letter, we present an alternative method where $^{87}$Rb BECs are produced all-optically on an Einstein elevator, as shown in Fig.~ \ref{fig:expsim}. Our method relies on the combination of three optical techniques. First, we use a $\Lambda$-enhanced grey molasses on the $5^2$S$_{1/2} \rightarrow 5^2$P$_{3/2}$ D$_2$ transition to create a reservoir of cold atoms \cite{Rosi2018}. Second, our 1550 nm optical dipole trap (ODT) creates a transparency volume due to a strong light shift of the $5^2$P$_{3/2}$ excited state that results from coupling with the $5^2$D$_{5/2}$ state \cite{Clement2009}. In this way, it is possible to store the atoms in the dipole trap without emission and reabsorption of near-resonant photons \cite{Stellmer2013}. Third, we create a time-averaged or \emph{painted} potential by spatially modulating the ODT beam. This technique leads to both a high capture volume and fast evaporative cooling with a high collision rate \cite{Roy2016}. We produce a BEC in 1.4 s with a critical temperature of 140 nK before the Einstein elevator reaches the microgravity (0g) phase of its trajectory.
Our experimental apparatus has been previously developed for parabolic flights onboard the Novespace Zero-G aircraft \cite{Barrett2014a, Barrett2016}. It comprises fiber-based lasers, an ultra-stable frequency source and a titanium science chamber housed inside a magnetic shield [Fig.~ \ref{fig:expsim}(a)]. Figure \ref{fig:DipoleTrapScheme} shows the optical layout of the crossed ODT beams, which are derived from a $\lambda_D = 1550$ nm amplified fiber laser delivering up to 23 W. After a first telescope, an acousto-optic modulator (AOM) is used to control the optical power and to spatially modulate the beams for the painted potential. A second telescope adapts the beam profile to obtain a beam waist of $w_0 = 45$ $\mu$m at the location of the atoms. The trap is formed by two beams crossed at an angle of $70^\circ$.
\begin{figure}[!bt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Fig2-DT_scheme.pdf}
\caption{Details of the painted optical trap composed of two crossed beams and the imaging system.}
\label{fig:DipoleTrapScheme}
\end{figure}
The key advantage of the painted potential is to break the fixed power-law relationship between the trap depth $U$ and the frequencies $\omega$ by modifying the shape of the trap. We restrict the discussion to pure harmonic traps with frequencies $\omega_y^2 = \omega_y^2 = \frac{8\alpha P}{\pi m w_0^4} f_\omega(h/w_0)$ and $\omega_z^2 = \frac{4\alpha P}{\pi m w_0^2 z_R^2} f_{\omega}(h/w_0)$, and depths $U = \frac{2\alpha P}{\pi w_0^4} f_U(h/w_0)$, where $\alpha$ is the polarizability of the atomic ground state at $\lambda_D$, $P$ is the optical power, $m$ is the atomic mass, $z_R = \pi w_{0}^{2}/\lambda_D$ is the Rayleigh length, and $h$ is the amplitude of the spatial modulation. The functions $f_{\omega}(h/w_0)$ and $f_U(h/w_0)$ are the fractional reduction factors due to the spatial modulation of the beam \cite{Roy2016}. The capture volume is proportional to $h^2$ and can be increased with a good trade-off on the trap depth $U$ due to the factor $f_U(h/w_0)$.
We first load a 3D magneto-optical trap of approximately $5 \times 10^7$ $^{87}$Rb atoms from background vapour in 4 s. Atoms are cooled further by shifting the cooling beam detuning to $\Delta = -140$ MHz relative to the $|5^{2}$S$_{1/2},F=2\rangle \rightarrow |5^{2}$P$_{3/2},F'=3\rangle$ transition, while keeping the repumping beam near resonance with $|5^{2}$S$_{1/2},F=1\rangle \rightarrow |5^{2}$P$_{3/2},F'=2\rangle$. This repump frequency is derived from the cooling beam using a fibered electro-optic modulator (EOM) operating at 6.56 GHz. We then turn on the ODT with a spatial modulation amplitude of $h = 100$ $\mu$m. The frequency of the cooling beam is then shifted further to $\Delta = -240$ MHz, and we tune the repump to satisfy the Raman condition between $|F=1\rangle$ and $|F=2\rangle$ at a frequency difference of 6.834 GHz. This results in $\Lambda$-enhanced cooling and efficient ODT loading---combining the effects of grey molasses and velocity-selective coherent population trapping \cite{Rosi2018}.
Outside the dipole trap \footnote{This cooling process can also be implemented inside the dipole trap.}, grey-molasses cooling results from a spatially-varying light shift that allows moving atoms to undergo a Sisyphus-like cooling process until being optically pumped to a dark state $|{\rm DS}\rangle$. Atoms stay in $|\rm{DS}\rangle$ until velocity-induced motional coupling brings them back to a bright state where cooling begins again. The lifetime of $|{\rm DS}\rangle$, where atoms do not scatter light, sets the minimum achievable temperature. For the $|F = 2\rangle \rightarrow |F' = 2\rangle$ transition, only the ground states $|m_F = 0, p = 0\rangle$ and $|m_F = \pm 2, p = \pm 2\hbar k\rangle$ are coupled, where $m_F$ is a magnetic quantum number, $p$ is the momentum, and $k$ is the wavevector of the cooling light. Hence, the dark state can be written as the superposition of three momentum states $|{\rm DS}\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|-2,-2\hbar k\rangle - |0,0\rangle + |2,2\hbar k\rangle)$. As a result of this superposition, $|{\rm DS}\rangle$ is very short lived which limits the minimum temperature. In the $\Lambda$-enhanced scheme, the second laser is blue detuned from $|F = 1\rangle \rightarrow |F' = 1\rangle$, and is phase locked to the first via the EOM. Consequently, $|{\rm DS}\rangle$ will mix with states in the $F = 1$ manifold, forming a more complex but longer-lived non-coupled state $|{\rm NC}\rangle = (\Omega_H |G\rangle - \Omega_G |H\rangle)/ \sqrt{\Omega_G^2 + \Omega_H^2}$ where cold atoms are stored for larger durations---enhancing the cooling effect. Here, $|G\rangle$ and $|H\rangle$ represent superpositions of different magnetic sub-levels within the $F = 1$ and $F = 2$ manifolds, and $\Omega_{G,H}$ are effective optical pumping rates between these levels. The specific combinations of levels depends on the relative intensities of the cooling and repumping beams, and their polarization gradient potentials \cite{Grier2013}.
As atoms move toward the center of the ODT, the grey-molasses light becomes increasingly blue detuned from $|F=1,2\rangle \rightarrow |F'=2\rangle$, which strongly reduces light scattering. The total power in the ODT beams during this loading phase is 10 W. Under these conditions, the light shift of $|F'=2\rangle$ is $-170$ MHz at the trap center, as shown in Fig.~ \ref{fig:LoadingTrap}(a). This leaves the $|F=1,2\rangle \rightarrow |F'=3\rangle$ transitions far off resonance---enabling low temperature atoms to become trapped in the transparency volume of the ODT [see inset of Fig.~ \ref{fig:LoadingTrap}(b)]. In principle, the ODT-induced light shifts hinder grey molasses cooling \cite{Clement2009}. Nevertheless, in our painted potential, atoms still have a strong probability to be cooled and pumped into $|{\rm NC}\rangle$ because the pumping rate ($\sim 6$ MHz) is much higher than the modulation frequency of 280 kHz. Consequently a large fraction (about half) of the atoms should still undergo grey molasses cooling while being in the ODT volume. The sharp features in Fig.~ \ref{fig:LoadingTrap}(b) comply with this hypothesis. When the cooling beams are switched off, approximately $5 \times 10^6$ atoms remain in the painted potential with an in-trap temperature of 15 $\mu$K at a depth of 120 $\mu$K. We evaluate the gain of the grey molasses process by comparing it with a loading sequence using a standard red molasses. In this case, because of the light shifts, the optimal detuning varies strongly with the optical power of the ODT. In contrast, the grey molasses yields a 4-fold increase in atom number compared to the red molasses, as shown in Fig.~ \ref{fig:LoadingTrap}(b). Moreover, the grey molasses scheme is relatively insensitive to the ODT power, and it occurs on faster timescales ($< 1$ ms) than red molasses ($> 5$ ms) \cite{Rosi2018}, even though the final temperatures are comparable. This effect is consistent with our increased loading with the grey molasses: the longer times required for red molasses cooling lead to expansion of the atoms, which lowers the central density and therefore the loading efficiency.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Fig3-DT_load_9.pdf}
\caption{(a) Level structure of the atoms including the light shift due to the painted ODT ($P \simeq 10$ W, $h = 100$ $\mu$m). The cooling and repumping frequencies are shown for the grey (solid blue lines) and red (dashed pink lines) molasses. The light shift of the excited (ground) state at the center of the ODT is $\sim 170$ MHz (2.5 MHz). (b) ODT loading efficiency as a function of the detuning relative to $|F=2\rangle \rightarrow |F'=3\rangle$ for the red (pink squares) and grey (blue circles) molasses. Inset: absorption image of atoms in the ODT using near-resonant light. Atoms at the center of the trap are transparent to the cooling beams.}
\label{fig:LoadingTrap}
\end{figure}
After the molasses and loading phases, trapped atoms remaining in $|F=2\rangle$ are pumped into the $|F=1\rangle$ manifold using light resonant with $|F=2\rangle \rightarrow |F'=2\rangle$. The ODT is compressed by first increasing the laser power to 20 W in 50 ms with the modulation on. The modulation amplitude is then ramped down to zero over 150 ms while simultaneously decreasing the ODT power to 14 W. At this stage the trap depth is 390 $\rm{\mu}$K, the collision rate is 5000 s$^{-1}$, and the trap frequencies are $\omega_x = 2\pi \times 1375$ Hz, $\omega_y = 2\pi \times 1130$ Hz, and $\omega_z = 2\pi \times 780$ Hz. We then proceed to a forced evaporative cooling stage by decreasing the power by a factor 400 in 1.2 s using a sequence of three linear ramps with different slopes to take into account the reduction in collision rate. We verified the efficiency of this method by reaching a BEC for a critical temperature $T_{\rm c} = 200$ nK with $10^5$ atoms in standard gravity (1g).
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Fig4-Evap_motion3.pdf}
\caption{Adapted ODT parameters during the pull-up, injection and 0g phases (blue solid line). The parameters are calculated using the calibration of the ODT power and the measured acceleration. Calculations were validated by measuring the trap frequencies at three different times during the sequence: two in 1g and one in 0g. (a) ODT optical power. (b) Evolution of the ODT depth. (c) Average ODT frequency taking into account the acceleration sag. For comparison, a sequence using parameters appropriate for 1g (pink dashed line) shows vanishing trap depth and frequency because of the increased sag during the pull-up phase.}
\label{fig:FrequencyDepth}
\end{figure}
We realize BECs in microgravity by mounting our science chamber on an Einstein elevator developed by the French company Sym\'{e}trie (Fig.~ \ref{fig:expsim}), which undergoes pre-programmed parabolic trajectories that can provide up to 400 ms of weightlessness every 13.5 seconds. The residual acceleration during the motion, as measured with a low-noise mechanical accelerometer (Colibrys SF3600), yields a maximum amplitude of 1 m/s$^2$ and a root-mean-squared repeatability of 0.05 m/s$^2$ [see Fig.~ \ref{fig:expsim}(b)]. When operating on the elevator, the cooling sequence starts during the dead time between two parabolas, and the initial 800 ms of the evaporation process is the same as previously described. Just before the ``pull-up'' phase (when the acceleration increases above 1g), the total ODT power is $P = 250$ mW and the sample temperature is $T = 400$ nK. The evaporation sequence is optimized by experimentally maximizing the phase-space density at the end of the sequence. The varying acceleration during the pull-up phase strongly affects the trap depth and frequencies in time. To adapt to these changes, we apply a specific temporal profile to the ODT power (see Fig.~ \ref{fig:FrequencyDepth}). When the acceleration exceeds 1g, the trap is compressed adiabatically in 80 ms by increasing the power to $P = 426$ mW. This guarantees a depth sufficient (about 10 times the cloud temperature) to maintain the atoms in the trap when the acceleration reaches its maximum ($\sim 2$g). The evaporation is completed by ramping down the power in two steps until the end of the ``injection'' phase (when the acceleration decreases from 1g to 0g). Using this protocol, a BEC is obtained $\sim 100$ ms before the 0g phase, with $5 \times 10^4$ atoms at a critical temperature of $T_{\rm c} = 140$ nK. At this point, the trap frequencies are $\omega_x = 2\pi \times 109$ Hz, $\omega_y = 2\pi \times 103$ Hz, $\omega_z = 2\pi \times 71$ Hz. The total duration of the evaporation is 1.2 s.
At the beginning of the 0g phase, the ODT power is decreased in 40 ms to reach the minimum value required to keep the atoms in the trap. At this stage, our BEC contains $4 \times 10^4$ atoms for a spatial expansion corresponding to 35 nK. The ODT power is 10 mW for an average trap frequency of 39 Hz ($\omega_x = 2\pi \times 50$ Hz, $\omega_y = 2\pi \times 41$ Hz, $\omega_z = 2\pi \times 28$ Hz). We anticipate further improvements by implementing delta-kick collimation of the cloud \cite{Kovachy2015bis}. To illustrate the importance of reducing the temperature, we produced three samples with different temperatures and measured the fluorescence signal emitted from a small detection volume as a function of the time of flight in microgravity (see Fig.~ \ref{fig:zerogresults}). These data show that for $T \lesssim 100$ nK the atom number is constant inside the detection volume ($\sim 0.03$ cm$^3$) during the full time in free-fall. For larger temperatures, atoms expand outside the detection zone and the fluorescence signal decreases dramatically.
\begin{figure}[!b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Fig5-Detect_TOF_0g_v2.pdf}
\caption{Normalized atom number detected versus the time of flight in 0g for three different sample temperatures.}
\label{fig:zerogresults}
\end{figure}
In conclusion we have produced all-optical BECs of $^{87}$Rb in microgravity with a cycle time of 13.5 s. The painted ODT, combined with light-shift engineering and $\Lambda$-enhanced grey molasses cooling, enabled us to optimally cool and evaporate atoms to quantum degeneracy before the 400 ms of weightlessness available for scientific studies. These techniques can easily be adapted to other atomic species, and are compliant with sympathetic cooling for multi-species experiments. Our Einstein elevator is an alternative solution to realize experiments in microgravity as currently proposed for the ISS to study few body systems \cite{Elliott2018}, new topological quantum objects such bubble-shaped traps \cite{Lundblad2019}, and ultra-cold atoms at extremely low temperatures \cite{Sackett2018}. Continuous operation of the elevator results in one hour of microgravity per day in a standard laboratory environment. This constitutes a new tool to prepare future Space-based missions considering ultra-cold atom interferometers for satellite gravimetry \cite{Douch2018}, quantum tests of the UFF \cite{Aguilera2014, Williams2016}, and gravitational wave detection \cite{Hogan2011}.
This work is supported by the following agencies: CNES (Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales), l'Agence Nationale pour la Recherche and the D\'{e}l\'{e}gation G\'{e}n\'{e}rale de l'Armement under Grant ``HYBRIDQUANTA'' No. ANR-17-ASTR-0025-01, Grant ``TAIOL'' No. ANR-18-QUAN-00L5-02 and Grant ``EOSBECMR'' No. ANR-18-CE91-0003-01, the European Space Agency, IFRAF (Institut Francilien de Recherche sur les Atomes Froids), and the action sp\'{e}cifique GRAM (Gravitation, Relativit\'{e}, Astronomie et M\'{e}trologie). M.R. thanks CNES and IOGS for financial support. P.B. thanks Conseil R\'{e}gional d'Aquitaine for the Excellence Chair.
|
\section{Introduction}
Given $k\in\mathbb N$, the famous Erd\H os--S\'os conjecture from 1964 (see~\cite{Erdos64}) states that every graph with average degree greater than $k-1$ contains all trees with $k$ edges. This conjecture is tight for every $k\in\mathbb N$, which can be seen by considering the complete graph on $k$ vertices. This graph has average degree $k-1$ but it is too small to contain any tree with $k$ edges. A structurally different example is the {\it balanced} complete bipartite graph on $2k-2$ vertices (where by {\it balanced} we mean that the bipartition classes have equal sizes). This graph has average degree $k-1$ but does not contain the $k$-edge star. In order to obtain examples of larger order, one can consider the disjoint union of copies of the two {\it extremal graphs} we just described.
It is easy to see that the Erd\H os--S\'os conjecture is true for stars and double stars (the latter are graphs obtained by joining the centres of two stars with an edge). A classical result of Erd\H os and Gallai~\cite{Erdos1959} implies that it also holds for paths. In the early 90's Ajtai, Koml\'os, Simonovits and Szemer\'edi announced a proof of the Erd\H os--S\'os conjecture for large~$k$. Nevertheless, many particular cases has been settled since then. For instance, Brandt and Dobson~\cite{bradob} proved that the Erd\H os--S\'os conjecture is true for graphs with girth at least $5$, and Sacl\'e and Wo\'zniak~\cite{sacwoz} proved it for $C_4$-free graphs. Goerlich and Zak~\cite{goerlich2016} proved the Erd\H os--S\'os conjecture for graphs of order $n=k+c$, where~$c$ is a given constant and $k$ is sufficiently large depending on $c$. More recently, Rozho\v{n}~\cite{rohzon} gave an approximate version of the Erd\H os--S\'os conjecture for trees with linearly bounded maximum degree and dense host graph. Independently, the authors proved in~\cite{BPS1} a similar result but for trees with maximum degree bounded by $k^{\frac 1{67}}$ and dense host graphs.
Given a positive integers $k$ and $\Delta$, let $\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$ denote the set of all trees $T$ with~$k$ edges and $\Delta(T)\le\Delta$. The main result of this paper is that the Erd\H os--S\'os conjecture holds for all trees whose maximum degree is bounded by a constant and whose size is linear in the order of the host graph.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
For all $\delta>0$ and $\Delta\in \mathbb N$, there is $n_0\in\NN$ such that for each $k, n\in\mathbb N$ with $n\ge n_0$ and $n\ge k\ge \delta n$, and for each $n$-vertex graph $G$ the following holds. If $G$ satisfies $d(G)> k-1$, then $G$ contains every tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$.\end{theorem}
Our proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} splits into two cases. If $G$ is connected and considerably larger than $k$, we proceed as follows. After regularising $G$ we
inspect the components of the reduced graph, at least one of which has to have large average degree. If this component is large enough, then we can show it is either bipartite or contains a useful matching structure, and can embed any given tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$ using regularity and tools from~\cite{BPS1}. Otherwise, the reduced graph is a union of graphs corresponding to the description given in the first paragraph of the Introduction, that is, graphs which are almost complete and of size roughly $k$ or balanced almost complete bipartite graphs of size roughly $2k$. In that case we use an edge of $G$ to connect two components and embed $T$ there.
If, on the other hand, the order of the host graph is very close to $k$, if the host graph is close to being a bipartite graph of order $2k$, or if the host graph is the disjoint union of such graphs, then a different approach is needed. To take care of these cases, we prove the following result, Theorem~\ref{smalltheorem}.
This theorem might be of independent interest as it greatly improves the main result from~\cite{goerlich2016} for bounded degree trees. Note that given a graph $G$ with $d(G)>k-1$,
a standard argument\footnote{We iteratively remove from $G$ vertices of degree less than $\frac k2$. This will not affect the average degree, and result in the desired minimum degree, unless we end up removing all vertices. However, that cannot happen, as then $|E(G)|<\frac k2\cdot n\le d(G)\cdot \frac{n}2$, a contradiction.} shows that $G$ has a subgraph of minimum degree $\delta(G)\ge\frac k2$ that preserves the average degree. So, since in the Erd\H os-S\'os conjecture and all our theorems, we are looking for subgraphs, we may always assume that in addition to the average degree condition, $G$ fulfills a minimum degree condition. (In particular, this is assumed in Theorem~\ref{smalltheorem}.)
Given $\beta>0$, we say that a graph $H$ is $\beta$-bipartite if there is a partition $V(H)=A\cup B$ such that $e(A)+e(B)\le\beta e(H).$
\begin{theorem}\label{smalltheorem}
For each $k, \Delta \in\mathbb N$ and each graph $G$ with $d(G)>k-1$ and $\delta(G)\ge \frac k2$ the following holds.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item If $k\ge 10^{6}$ and $|G|\le (1+10^{-11})k$ then $G$ contains each tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\frac{\sqrt k}{1000})$.
\item If $k\ge 8\Delta^2$ and $G=(A,B)$ is $\frac 1{50\Delta^2}$-bipartite with $|A|,|B|\le (1+\frac 1{25\Delta^2})k$ then $G$ contains each tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
As a third result we prove an approximate version of the Erd\H os--S\'os conjecture for trees with linearly bounded maximum degree and dense host graph; this was independently proved by Rozho\v{n}~\cite{rohzon}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:es_app}
For all $\delta\in (0,1)$ there are $n_0\in\NN$ and $\gamma\in (0,1)$ such that for each $k$ and for each $n$-vertex graph $G$ with $n\ge n_0$ and $n\ge k\ge \delta n$ the following holds. If $G$ satisfies $d(G)\ge (1+\delta)k$, then $G$ contains every tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\gamma k)$.
\end{theorem}
Finally, let us briefly mention a well-known consequence of the Erd\H os--S\'os conjecture in Ramsey theory. Given an integer $\ell\ge 2$ and a graph $H$, the $\ell$-colour Ramsey number $r_\ell(H)$ of $H$ is the smallest $n\in\mathbb N$ such that every $\ell$-colouring of the edges of $K_n$ yields a monochromatic copy of $H$. In 1973, Erd\H os and Graham conjectured~\cite{ErdosGraham} that every tree $T$ with $k$ edges satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{ramsey:trees} r_\ell(T)=\ell(k+1)+O(1),\end{equation}
and they established the lower bound $r_\ell(T)>\ell(k+1)+1$ for large enough $\ell$ satisfying $\ell\equiv1\mod k$. Erd\H os and Graham also observed that the upper bound in~\eqref{ramsey:trees} would follow from the Erd\H os--S\'os conjecture. Indeed, for $n\ge \ell(k-1)+2$ note that the most popular colour in any $\ell$-colouring of $K_n$ has at least $\frac{1}{\ell}\binom{n}2$ edges and thus average degree at least $\frac{n-1}{\ell}>k-1$. So the Erd\H os--S\'os conjecture would imply that the most popular colour contains a copy of every tree with $k$ edges. Therefore, from Theorem~\ref{thm:main} we deduce the following result.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:Ramsey}
For all $\ell\ge 2$, $\Delta\in\mathbb N$ there exists $k_0\in\mathbb N$ such that for every $k\ge k_0$ and every tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$ we have
$r_\ell(T)\le \ell(k-1)+2.$
\end{corollary}
We remark that in Corollary~\ref{cor:Ramsey} one can actually find a copy of every tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$ in the same colour, at the same time.
The paper is organised as follows. After some preliminaries in Section~\ref{sec:prelim}, we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main} in Section~\ref{sec:smaaall}. That Section also contains the proof of Theorem~\ref{smalltheorem}, more precisely, Theorem~\ref{smalltheorem} follows directly from Propositions~\ref{prop:small:bip} and~\ref{prop:small} stated and proved in that section.
We finally prove Theorem~\ref{thm:es_app} in Section~\ref{sec:linear}.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:prelim}
\subsection{Notation}
For $\ell\in\mathbb{N}$, we write $[\ell]$ for the discrete interval $\{1,\ldots,\ell\}$. We write $a\ll b$ to indicate that given a constant $b$, constant $a$ is chosen significantly smaller. The explicit value for such~$a$ can be calculated from the proofs. Also, we write $a=b\pm c$ if $a\in[b-c,b+c]$.
Given a graph $H$, write $|H|=|V(H)|$ and $e(H)=|E(H)|$. Let $\delta(H)$, $d(H)$ and $\Delta(H)$ denote the minimum, average and maximum degree of $H$, respectively. As usual, $\deg_H(x)$ denotes the degree of a vertex $x\in V(H)$, and we write $N_H(x)$ for its neighbourhood in $H$, $N_H(x,S)=N_H(x)\cap S$ for its neighbourhood in $S\subseteq V(H)$ and $\deg_H(x,S)$ for the respective degree. For two sets $X,Y\subseteq V(H)$, we write $E_H(X,Y)$ for the family of edges $xy\in E(H)$ with $x\in X$ and $y\in Y$ and set $e_H(X,Y):=|E_H(X,Y)|$. Note that edges lying in the intersection of $X$ and $Y$ are counted twice.
In all of the above, we omit the subscript~$H$ if it is clear from the context.
Given $U\subset V(H)$ we write $H[U]$ for the graph induced in~$H$ by the vertices in $U$, and we say a vertex $x$ {\em sees} $U$ if it has at least one neighbour in $U$.
Given a collection of sets $\mathcal{F}$, we write $\bigcup \mathcal{F}$ for the union of all members of $\mathcal{F}$. If $\mathcal G$ is a collection of graphs, then $\bigcup\mathcal G$ denotes the graph which is the union of all graphs in $\mathcal G$.
\subsection{Regularity Lemma}\label{sec:regul}
Let us fix two parameters $\eps,\eta\in(0,1)$. Let $H=(A,B;E)$ be a bipartite graph with density $d(A,B):=\frac{e(A,B)}{|A||B|}$. We say that the pair $(A,B)$ is {\em $\varepsilon$-regular} if
$$|d(X,Y)-d(A,B)|<\varepsilon$$
for all $X\subseteq A$ and $Y\subseteq B$, with $|X|>\varepsilon|A|$ and $|Y|> \varepsilon |B|$.
Furthermore, we say that $(A,B)$ is $(\eps,\eta)$-regular if $(A,B)$ is $\eps$-regular and $d(A,B)\ge\eta$. Given an $\varepsilon$-regular pair $(A,B)$, with density $d$, we say that a subset $X\subseteq A$ is \textit{$\varepsilon$-significant} if $|X|> \varepsilon |A|$ (analogously for subsets of $B$). A vertex $x\in A$ is called \textit{$\varepsilon$-typical} to a significant set $Y\subseteq B$ if $\deg(x,Y)> (d-\varepsilon)|Y|$, and similar for a vertex $x\in B$. We will write just \textit{regular}, \textit{significant} or \textit{typical} if $\varepsilon$ is clear from the context.
Regular pairs behave like a typical random graph of the same edge density. For instance, almost every vertex is typical to any given significant set, and regularity is inherited by subpairs. Let us state these well-known facts in a precise form (see~\cite{regu} for a proof).
\begin{fact}\label{fact:1}Let $(A,B)$ be an $\varepsilon$-regular pair with density $d$. Then the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item For any $\varepsilon$-significant $Y\subseteq B$, all but at most $\varepsilon|A|$ vertices from $A$ are $\varepsilon$-typical to $Y$.
\item\label{fact:1,2} Let $\alpha\in (0,1)$. For any subsets $X\subseteq A$ and $Y\subseteq B$, with $|X|\ge\alpha|A|$ and $|Y|\ge\alpha|B|$, the pair $(X,Y)$ is $\frac{2\varepsilon}{\alpha}$-regular with density $d\pm\varepsilon$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{fact}
\noindent
Given a graph $G$, we say that a vertex partition $V(G)=V_1\cup\ldots\cup V_\ell$ is $(\varepsilon,\eta)$-regular if
\begin{enumerate}
\item $|V_1|=|V_2|=\ldots=|V_\ell|$;
\item $V_i$ is independent for all $i\in[\ell]$; and
\item for all $1\le i<j\le \ell$, the pair $(V_i,V_j)$ is $\varepsilon$-regular with density either $d(V_i,V_j)\ge\eta$ or $d(V_i,V_j)=0$.
\end{enumerate}
Szemer\'edi's regularity lemma~\cite{Sze78} states that every large graph has an almost spanning subgraph that admits a regular partition. We will use the following version (see for instance~\cite{regu}).
\begin{lemma}[Regularity lemma]\label{reg:deg}
For all $\varepsilon>0$ and $m_0\in\NN$ there are $N_0, M_0$ such that the following holds for all $\eta\in[0,1]$ and $n\ge N_0$. Any $n$-vertex graph $G$ has a subgraph $G'$, with $|G|- |G'|\le \varepsilon n$ and $\deg_{G'}(x)\ge \deg_G(x)-(\eta+\varepsilon)n$ for all $x\in V(G')$, such that $G'$ admits an $(\varepsilon,\eta)$-regular partition $V(G')=V_1\cup\ldots\cup V_\ell$, with $m_0\le \ell\le M_0$.
\end{lemma}
The {\em $(\varepsilon,\eta)$-reduced graph} $\mathscr R$ corresponding to the $(\varepsilon,\eta)$-regular partition that is given by Lemma~\ref{reg:deg} has vertex set $V(\mathscr R)=\{V_i:i\in[\ell]\}$, called \textit{clusters}, and an edge $V_iV_j$ for each $i,j$ with $d(V_i,V_j)\ge\eta$. We use calligraphic letters to refer to the reduced graph, or to subsets of its vertex set. Moreover, given $\mathscr C\subseteq V(\mathscr R)$, we write $|\mathscr C|$ for the number of clusters in $\mathscr C$. In contrast, we write $|\bigcup \mathscr C|$ for the number of vertices of the subgraph $\bigcup \mathscr C$ of $G$. Now we state some useful facts about the reduced graph (see~\cite{regu} for a proof).
\begin{fact}\label{fact:3}Let $G$ be a $n$-vertex graph and let $\mathscr R$ be an $(\eps,\eta)$-reduced graph of $G$. Then the following holds.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item\label{fact:3,1}Given a cluster $C\in V(\mathscr R)$ we have
\[\deg_{\mathscr R}(C)\ge \frac{1}{|C|}\sum_{v\in C}\deg(v)\cdot\frac{|\mathscr R|}n. \]
In particular, summing over all clusters we have $d(\mathscr R)\ge d(G)\cdot \frac{|\mathscr R|}{n}$.
\item\label{fact:3,2} Let $\mathscr{Y}$ be a collection of significant sets of clusters in $\mathscr R$ and let $C\in V(\mathscr R)$. Then
\[|\{Y\in \mathscr{Y}: v\text{ is typical to }Y\}|\ge (1-\sqrt{\eps})|\mathscr{Y}|\]
for all but at most $\sqrt{\eps}|C|$ vertices $v\in C$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{fact}
We close this subsection with a well-known lemma that illustrates why regularity is so useful for embedding trees. It states that a tree will always fit into a regular pair, if the tree is small enough (but it may still be linear in the size of the pair). A proof can be found for instance in~\cite{AKS,BPS1}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:T1}
Let $0<\beta\le\varepsilon\le \tfrac{1}{25}$. Let $(A,B)$ be a $(\varepsilon,5\sqrt{\varepsilon})$-regular pair with $|A|=|B|=m$, and let $X\subseteq A, Y\subseteq B, Z\subseteq A\cup B$ be such that $\min\{|X\setminus Z|, |Y\setminus Z|\}>\sqrt \varepsilon m$. \\
Then any tree $T$ on at most $\beta m$ vertices can be embedded into $(X\cup Y)\setminus Z$.
Moreover, for each $v\in V(T)$ there are at least $2\varepsilon m$ vertices from $(X\cup Y)\setminus Z$ that can be chosen as the image of $v$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Trees}\label{sec:trees}
Let us give some notation for trees. We will write $(T,r)$ for a tree $T$ rooted at $r\in V(T)$. Given any rooted tree $(T,r)$ and $x,y\in V(T)$, we say that $x$ is {\it below} $y$ (resp. $y$ is {\it above} $x$) if $y$ lies on the unique path from $x$ to $r$ (our trees grow from the top to the bottom). If in addition, $xy\in E(T)$, we say $x$ is a {\it child} of $y$, and $y$ is the {\it parent} of $x$.
The following lemma allow us to find a cut vertex which splits the tree into connected components of convenient sizes. See~\cite{BPS1, 2k3:2016, RS19a} for other variants and a proof.
\begin{lemma}\label{cut_off}
For all $0<\gamma\le 1$ and for all $k\ge \frac {200}\gamma$, any given tree $T$ with $k$ edges has a subtree $(T^*,t^*)$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\frac{\gamma k}2\le |V(T^*)|\le\gamma k$; and \label{Tstarsmall}
\item every component of $T-T^*$ is adjacent to $t^*$.\label{compo}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
A \textit{bare path} in a tree is a path all whose internal vertices have degree $2$ in the tree. The next lemma has been extensively used in the literature of tree embeddings. It states that the structure of any given tree satisfies a certain dichotomy. Namely, each tree contains either a large number of leaves or a large number of bare paths of some fixed constant length (we refer to~\cite{Krivilevich, Montgomery} for a more general statement and a proof, and note that here, the length of a path is its number of edges).
\begin{lemma}\label{bare}Let $\ell>2$ and let $T$ be a tree. Then either $T$ has at least $|T|/4\ell$ leaves or it has at least $|T|/4\ell$ vertex disjoint bare paths, each of length $\ell$.
\end{lemma}
Another well-known fact we shall use in our proof is the following. One can prove it by rooting the tree at any vertex in the smaller bipartition class, and comparing the number of vertices in a odd level to the number of vertices in the preceding level.
\begin{fact}\label{thisisafact}
Let $T$ be a tree with bipartition $V(T)=C\cup D$ and maximum degree $\Delta(T)\le \Delta$. Then
$\min\{|C|,|D|\}\ge \frac k\Delta.$
\end{fact}
\subsection{Tree embeddings}\label{sec:embeddings}
A greedy argument shows that every $k$-edge tree can be embedded into any graph of minimum degree at least $k$. We give two lemmas that generalise this simple observation.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:greedy}
Let $\Delta,h,k\in\NN$, let $(T,r)$ be a tree with $k-h$ edges and $\Delta(T)\le \Delta$, and let $G$ be a graph satisfying
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\delta(G)\ge\Delta+h$;
\item there are at most $h$ vertices $x\in V(G)$ with $\deg(x)< k$.
\end{enumerate}
Then $T$ can be embedded in $G$. Moreover, any vertex $v$ of $G$ can be chosen as the image of~$r$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We construct an embedding $\phi$ as follows. We set $\phi(r):=v$. Since $\deg(v)\ge \Delta+h$, we can embed each neighbour of $r$ into a neighbour of $v$ that has degree at least $k$. Since $T$ has $k-h$ vertices, we can then embed the rest of $T$ levelwise using only vertices of degree at least $k$ at each step.
\end{proof}
Observe that for $h=0$ Lemma~\ref{lem:greedy} recovers the greedy procedure we mentioned above
\noindent If the host graph $G$ is bipartite,
one can relax the minimum degree condition for one side of the bipartition of $G$. We leave the proof of the following lemma to the reader.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:greedy3}
Let $\Delta,h,k_1,k_2\in\NN$, let $(T,r)$ be a tree with colour classes $C,D$ of sizes $k_1-h$ and $k_2-h$, respectively, and $\Delta(T)\le\Delta$. Let $G=(A,B)$ be a bipartite graph such that
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\delta(G)\ge\Delta+h$;
\item there are at most $h$ vertices $a\in A$ with $\deg(x)< k_2$;
\item there are at most $h$ vertices $b\in B$ with $\deg(x)< k_1$.
\end{enumerate}
Then $T$ can be embedded into $G$ with $C$ going to $A$ and $D$ going to $B$. Moreover, if $r\in C$ (resp. $D$), then any vertex $a\in A$ (resp. $b\in B$) can be chosen as the image of $r$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Matching lemma}
Later on we will need the following lemma on matchings in graphs with large minimum degree. This lemma is a slight variation of Lemma~5.7 from~\cite{BPS1}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:matching2}
Let $\varepsilon,\eta\in(0,1)$, let $t,\ell\in\mathbb{N}$, and let $G$ be a graph on $n\ge 2t+\ell$ vertices with $\delta(G)\ge t+\ell$ which has an $(\varepsilon,\eta)$-regular partition into $\ell$ parts. Then $G$ has a subgraph $G'$ with $|G'|\ge n-\ell$ that admits a $(5\varepsilon,\eta-\varepsilon)$-regular partition with $2\ell$ parts whose corresponding reduced graph $\mathscr R$ contains a matching $\mathscr M$ and an independent family of clusters~$\mathscr I$, disjoint from~$\mathscr M$, such that
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\bigcup V(\mathscr M)\cup V(\bigcup\mathscr{I})=V(G')$;\label{cover}
\item $|\bigcup V(\mathscr M)|\geq 2t$; and\label{size}
\item there is a partition $V(\mathscr M)=\mathscr V_1\cup \mathscr V_2$ such that $N_{\mathscr R}(\mathscr I)\subseteq \mathscr V_1$ and every edge in $\mathscr M$ has one endpoint in $\mathscr V_1$ and one endpoint in $\mathscr V_2$.\label{partition}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\section{Trees with constant maximum degree }\label{sec:smaaall}
In this section we work towards the proof of our main result, Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, and along the way, we prove Theorem~\ref{smalltheorem}. This latter theorem follows directly from Propositions~\ref{prop:small:bip} and~\ref{prop:small}. These are proved in Sections~\ref{sec:almostcomplete} and~\ref{sec:almostcompletebip}, respectively. In Section~\ref{sec:robust} we use a regularity approach and results from~\cite{BPS1} to cover the case when the host graph is significantly larger than the tree.
Finally, in Subsection~\ref{sec:proof_main}, we put everything together to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.
\subsection{Almost complete bipartite graphs}\label{sec:almostcomplete}
Recall that $H$ is $\beta$-bipartite if at least a $(1-\beta)$-fraction of its edges lie between $A$ and $B$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:small:bip}
Let $k, \Delta\in \mathbb N$ such that $k\ge 8\Delta^2$. Let $G=(A,B)$ be a $\frac 1{50\Delta^2}$-bipartite graph, with $|A|,|B|\le (1+\frac 1{25\Delta^2})k$, $d(G)>k-1$ and $\delta(G)\ge \frac k{2}$. Then $G$ contains each tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Set $\eps:= \frac 1{25\Delta^2}$ and write $n=|V(G)|$. Then, $n\le (1+\eps)2k$. Since $G$ is $\frac \eps 2$-bipartite,
we know that $e(A,B)\ge (1-\eps)\frac{kn}{2}.$
Suppose that $|B|\ge \frac n2\ge |A|$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{avg:A}\frac{1}{|A|}\sum_{a\in A}\deg(a,B)>\frac{(1-\eps)kn}{2|A|}\ge (1-\eps)k,\end{equation}
and thus $|B|\ge(1-\eps)k$. Furthermore, since $n=|A|+|B|$, we have
$$|A||B|\ge e(A,B)\ge (1-\eps)\frac{kn}{2}\ge (1-\eps)k\sqrt{|A||B|},$$
and thus, the fact that $|B|\le (1+\eps)k$ implies that
$|A|\ge\frac{(1-\eps)^2}{1+\eps}k\ge (1-3\eps)k.$
Now we can give a lower bound for the average degree from $B$ to $A$ by using the first inequality from~\eqref{avg:A} and the fact that $n=|A|+|B|$ to calculate
\begin{equation}\label{avg:B}\frac{1}{|B|}\sum_{b\in B}\deg(b,A)> (1-\eps)\frac{k}{2}\Big(1+\frac{|A|}{|B|}\Big)\ge
\frac{1-\eps}{2}\Big(1+\frac{1-3\eps}{1+\eps}\Big)k
\ge(1-4\eps)k.
\end{equation}
Using Lemma~\ref{lem:con2} with $f_A(a)=\deg(a,B)$ for $a\in A$, $t_A=(1-\eps)k$ and $\eps_A=4\eps$, and with $f_B(b)=\deg(b,A)$ for $b\in B$, $t_B=(1-3\eps)k$ and $\eps_B=9\eps$, we see that
all but at most $2\sqrt\eps|A|$ vertices from $A$ have degree at least $(1-2\sqrt\eps)k$ to $B$, and all but at most $3\sqrt\eps|B|$ vertices from $B$ have degree at least $(1-3\sqrt\eps)k$ to $A$.
Let $A_0$ and $B_0$ be the set of vertices of low degree in $A$ and $B$ respectively, and let $H$ be the bipartite graph induced by $A'=A\setminus A_0$ and $B'=B\setminus B_0$. Then the minimum degree of $H$ is at least $(1-5\sqrt{\eps})k$. Now, given a tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$, if $V(T)=C\cup D$ is its natural bipartition, Fact~\ref{thisisafact} implies that
\[\max\{|C|,|D|\}\le \Big(1-\frac 1\Delta\Big)k\le (1-5\sqrt{\eps})k,\]
and therefore, by Lemma~\ref{lem:greedy3}, we can embed $T$ in $H$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Almost complete graphs}\label{sec:almostcompletebip}
Now we turn to the non-bipartite case. In this case we can embed trees with maximum degree in $o(\sqrt k)$. As a first step we will embed a small but linear size subtree $T^*\subseteq T$ trying to fill up as many low degree vertices of $G$ as possible. We can then use the following result to embed the leftover vertices from $T-T^*$.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{2k3:2016}, Lemma 4.4]\label{lem:mindeg1}Let $0<\nu<\tfrac{1}{200}$, let $k\in\mathbb{N}$ and let $H$ be a $k+1$-vertex graph with $\delta (H)\ge (1-2\nu)k$, and let $v\in V(H)$ be a vertex of degree $k$. If $(T,r)$ is a tree with at most $k$ edges such that every vertex is adjacent to at most $\nu k/2$ leaves, then $T$ can be embedded in $H$ and any vertex in $H-v$ can be chosen as the image of~$r$. \end{lemma}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:small}
Let $k\ge 10^{6}$ and let $G$ be a graph on $n\le (1+10^{-11})k$ vertices such that $d(G)>k-1$ and $\delta(G)\ge \frac k2$. Then $G$ contains every tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\frac{\sqrt k}{1000})$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Given $G$ and $k$, set $\varepsilon:=10^{-11}$ and note that necessarily, $n>k$. Moreover, for the complement $\bar G$ of~$G$, we have that $d(\bar G)<n-k$. Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{G:size}2e(\bar{G})<n(n-k)\le (1+\varepsilon )k\cdot \varepsilon k\le 2\varepsilon k^2.
\end{equation}
Let $X$ be the set of all vertices of $G$ having degree at most $\lfloor(1-\sqrt\eps)k\rfloor$ in~$G$, and let $Y$ be the set of all vertices of $G$ having degree at least $k$ in $G$.
Since $\deg(v)\le k-1$ for all $v\not\in Y$, we have that
$$\sum_{v\in V(G)\setminus (X\cup Y)}\deg(v)\le (k-1)|V(G)\setminus (X\cup Y)|$$ and thus, since $d(G)>k-1$ and hence $\sum_{v\in V(G)}\deg(v)> (k-1)|V(G)|$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}\label{avg:X0Y02}(k-1)|X\cup Y|\ <\ \sum_{v\in X\cup Y}\deg(v)
\ \le \ |X|(1-\sqrt{\eps})k+|Y|(1+\eps)k. \end{equation*}
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{size:Y}|X| < 2\sqrt\eps|Y| < 3\sqrt\eps k.\end{equation}
For each $v\in Y$ set $X_v:=N(v)\cap X$. Let $v^{\star}\in Y$ be a vertex that minimises $|X_v|$ among all $v\in Y$. So,
\begin{equation}\label{X_v}\text{for each }v\in Y, \hspace{.3cm}\deg(v,X)\ge |X_{v^\star}|.\end{equation}
Let $T\in\mathcal T(k,\frac{\sqrt k}{1000})$. Now if $X_{v^\star}=\emptyset$, then the graph induced by $v^\star$ and a $k$-subset of $N(v^\star)$ satisfies the conditions of Lemma~\ref{lem:mindeg1}, with $\nu:=\sqrt\eps$, and thus we can embed $T$. So, we will from now on assume that $X_{v^\star}\not=\emptyset$.
We use~Lemma~\ref{cut_off}, with $\gamma:=168\sqrt\eps $, to obtain a subtree $(T^*,t^*)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{mca}
84\sqrt\eps k\le|T^*|\le 168\sqrt\eps k
\end{equation}
and such that every component of $T-T^*$ is adjacent to $t^*$. We will now embed $T^*$ in a way that at least $|X_{v^\star}|$ vertices from $X$ will be used. Then, we embed the rest of $T$ into $G-X$ with the help of Lemma~\ref{bare}.
Before we start, we quickly prove two claims that will be helpful for the embedding of $T^*$.
First, using~\eqref{size:Y} and the fact that $\delta(G)\ge \frac k2$, the following claim is easy to see.
\begin{claim}\label{paths} For every $x,x'\in V(G)$, there are more than $2^{-4}k$ internally disjoint paths of length at most $3$ connecting $x$ and $x'$.\end{claim}
Second, we will see now that a useful subset of $Y$ can be `reserved' for later use.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:leaves}There is a subset $Y'\subseteq Y\setminus\{v^\star\}$ of size at most $\lfloor5\sqrt{\eps}k\rfloor$ such that all but at most $\lfloor2\eps k\rfloor$ vertices in $G-X$ have at least $|X|$ neighbours in $Y'$.\end{claim}
To see this, suppose first that $|Y|\ge \lfloor 5\sqrt\eps k\rfloor+1$ and take any subset $Y'\subseteq Y\setminus\{v^\star \}$ of size $\lfloor 5\sqrt\eps k\rfloor$. Since every vertex $v$ in $G-X$ has degree at least $\lceil(1-\sqrt{\eps})k\rceil$ and since $n\le (1+\eps)k$, we know that $v$ has at least $\lceil3\sqrt\eps k\rceil\ge |X|$ neighbours in $Y'$, and we are done.
Assume now that $|Y|\le \lfloor 5\sqrt\eps k\rfloor$ and let us write $Z$ for the set of vertices in $G-X$ having less than $|X|$ neighbours in $Y\setminus\{v^\star \}$. Then one has the estimates
$$e(Y\setminus\{v^\star \},G)=\sum_{y\in Y\setminus\{v^\star \}}\deg(y)\ge (|Y|-1)k, $$
and
$$e(Y\setminus\{v^\star \},G)=\sum_{z\in Z}\deg(z,Y\setminus\{v^\star \})+\sum_{z\not\in Z}\deg(z,Y\setminus\{v^\star \})\le |Z||X|+(n-|Z|)(|Y|-1).$$
Therefore, as $|X|< 2\sqrt{\eps}|Y|$ by \eqref{size:Y}, and since by assumption $n\le(1+\eps)k$, we have $|Z|< 2\eps k$ and we can take $Y'=Y\setminus\{v^\star \}$. This finishes the proof of Claim~\ref{claim:leaves}.\\
By applying Lemma~\ref{bare}, with $\ell =3$, we deduce that $T^*$ has either $|T^*|/12$ bare paths, each of length $3$, or it has at least $|T^*|/12$ leaves. The embedding of $T^*$ splits into two cases depending on the structure of $T^*$.
\begin{flushleft}\textbf{Case 1:} $T^*$ has a set $\mathcal B$ of $|T^*|/12$ vertex disjoint bare paths, each of length $3$.\end{flushleft}
We embed $T^*$ vertex by vertex in a pseudo-greedy fashion always avoiding $v^\star$. We start by embedding $t^*$ arbitrarily into any vertex of degree at least $(1-\sqrt\eps)k$ of $G-v^\star$. Now suppose we are about to embed a vertex $u'$ whose parent $u$ has already been embedded into a vertex $\phi(u)$.
If $u'$ is not the starting point of a path from $\mathcal B$ or if all of $X_{v^\star}$ is already used, we embed $u'$ greedily. Now assume that~$u'$ is the starting point of some $B\in\mathcal B$ and there is at least one unused vertex $x\in X_{v^\star}$. By Claim~\ref{paths} and since $|T^*|<2^{-4}k$, vertices $x$ and $\phi(u)$ are connected by a path~$P$ of length at most $3$ that uses only unoccupied vertices. Embed $B$ (including $u$) into~$P$, and if $|B|>|P|$, choose its last vertices greedily. Since by~\eqref{size:Y} and~\eqref{mca},
$$|X|\le 3\sqrt{\eps} k< \frac{|T^*|}{12}=|\mathcal B|,$$
we know that after embedding $T^*$ every vertex in $X_{v^\star}$ is used.
\begin{flushleft}\textbf{Case 2:} $T^*$ has at least $|T^*|/12$ leaves.\end{flushleft}
In this case, we cannot ensure that every vertex in $X_{v^\star}$ is used for the embedding of $T^*$, however, we can still guarantee that at least $|X_{v^\star}|$ vertices from $X$ are used.
Because of our bound on the maximum degree of $T$, we can find a set $U^*\subseteq V(T^*)\setminus \{t^*\}$ of parents of leaves such that the number of leaves pending from $U^*$ is at least $6\sqrt\eps k$, which by~\eqref{size:Y} is greater than $2|X|$. We then take an independent set $U\subseteq U^*$ such that for the set~$L$ of leaves pending from $U$ we have $|L|\ge |X|$, and such that $|U|\le |X|$.
Starting from $t^*$ we embed $T^*$, following its natural order but leaving out the vertices from $L$. All vertices are embedded greedily into $G-Y'$, except vertices from $U$ and their parents which are embedded in a different way. Assume $v\in V(T^*)$ is a parent of some vertex in $U$. Since $T^*$ is small, because of~\eqref{size:Y}, because of our assumption on the minimum degree of~$G$, and because of Claim~\ref{claim:leaves}, we may embed $v$ into a vertex having at least $|X|$ neighbours in~$Y'$. After this, we embed the children of $v$ in $U$ into unoccupied vertices of~$Y'$. Other children of $v$ are embedded greedily. At the end of this process we have embedded all of $T^*-L$. If we have used at least $|X_{v^\star}|$ vertices from $X$, we complete the embedding of $T^*$ greedily, so let us assume we have used less than $|X_{v^\star}|$ vertices from $X$. We embed the leaves pending from $U$ one by one into vertices from $X$ until we use $|X_{v^\star}|$ vertices, which is possible since $U$ was embedded into $Y'$ and because of~\eqref{X_v}. After this point, we simply embed the leftover leaves of $T^*$ greedily but always avoiding $v^\star$.\smallskip
This finishes the case distinction.
Set $T':=T-(T^*-t^*)$. Denoting by $\phi$ the embedding we note that
\[|N(v^\star)\setminus (\phi(T^*)\cup X_{v^\star})|\ge k-|\phi(T^*)|-|X_{v^\star}|+|\phi(T^*)\cap X_{v^\star}|+|\phi(T^*)\setminus N(v^\star)|\ge |T'|-2.\]
Therefore, the graph $H$ induced by $v^\star$, $\phi(t^*)$ and any $(|T'|-2)-$subset of $|N(v^\star)\setminus (\phi(T^*)\cup X_{v^\star})|$ has order $|T'|$ and we may complete the embedding of $(T',t^*)$ by using Lemma~\ref{lem:mindeg1} for~$H$, with $\nu:=86\sqrt\eps$, fixing the image of $t^*$ as $\phi(t^*)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Using the regularity method}\label{sec:robust}
In this section we embed a given tree $T\in \mathcal T(k,\Delta)$ into $G$ using tools developed in~\cite{BPS1}.
The first auxiliary result that we need is stated as Proposition 5.1 and Remark~5.2 in~\cite{BPS1}.
\begin{lemma}$\!\!${\rm\bf\cite{BPS1}}\label{emb:forest}
For all $\varepsilon\in (0,10^{-8})$ and $M_0,\Delta\in\NN$ there is $k_0$ such that for all $n,k_1, k_2\geq k_0$
the following holds.
Let $G$ be an $n$-vertex graph having an $(\varepsilon,5\sqrt\eps)$-reduced graph $\mathscr R$ such that $|\mathscr R|\le M_0$ and $\mathscr R=(\mathscr A,\mathscr B)$ is connected and bipartite. If there is a subset $\mathscr V\subseteq \mathscr A$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\deg(C)\ge (1+100\sqrt\eps)k_2 \cdot \frac{|\mathscr R|}n$ for all $C\in\mathscr V$; and
\item $|\mathscr V|\ge (1+100\sqrt\eps)k_1 \cdot \frac{|\mathscr R|}n$,\end{enumerate}
then every tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$, with colour classes $A$ and $B$ obeying $|A|\le k_1$ and $|B|\le k_2$, can be embedded into $G$, with $A$ going to clusters in $\mathscr V$ and $B$ going to clusters in $\mathscr B$.
\end{lemma}
Now we show that Lemma~\ref{emb:forest} is enough for embedding large trees in large graphs having a reduced graph which is connected and bipartite.
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:robust_bip}
For all $\Delta\ge 2$, $M_0\in\mathbb N$, $\delta, \eps, \eta\in (0,1)$ with $\varepsilon\ll\eta\le\frac{\delta^2}{10^4}$ there is $k_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for all $k\ge k_0$, $n\in\mathbb N$ with $\delta^{-1}k\ge n\ge k$ the following holds.\\
Let $G$ be an $n$-vertex graph with an $(\varepsilon,\eta)$-regular partition and corresponding reduced graph~$\mathscr R$, with $|\mathscr R|\le M_0$, which is connected and bipartite with parts $\mathscr A$ and $\mathscr B$ such that $|\mathscr A|\ge |\mathscr B|$. If
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $d(G)\ge(1-3\sqrt\eta)k$; \label{lagos1}
\item $\delta(G)\ge(1-3\sqrt\eta)\tfrac{k}{2}$; and\label{lagos2}
\item $|\bigcup\mathscr A|\ge (1+\delta)k$,\label{sucodetangerina}
\end{enumerate}
then $G$ contains every tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Given $\Delta,M_0$, $\eps$ and $\eta$, we choose $k_0$ as the output of Lemma~\ref{emb:forest}. Given $G$ as in Lemma~\ref{prop:robust_bip}, we suppose for contradiction that some $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$ cannot be embedded into~$G$. Set $$t=\frac{|\mathscr R|}{n}$$ and let $|\bigcup \mathscr A|=a$ and $|\bigcup\mathscr B|=b$.
We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{bbb}
b\ge \Big(1+\frac{\delta}4\Big)\frac{k}{2}.
\end{equation}
Indeed, otherwise can use~\eqref{lagos1} to calculate that
\begin{align*}
(1-3\sqrt\eta)kn\le 2e(G)\le 2ab
\le\Big(1+\frac{\delta}4\Big)ka\le\Big(1+\frac{\delta}4\Big)k\cdot \Big(1-\frac\delta{4}\Big)n\le \Big(1-\frac{\delta^2}{16}\Big)kn
\end{align*}
where the second to last inequality follows from the fact that because of~\eqref{lagos2} we have $a=n-b\le n- (1-3\sqrt\eta)\frac k2\le (1-\frac\delta{4})n$. But this is a contradiction to our assumptions on $\eta$ and~$\delta$. This proves~\eqref{bbb},
and so, we also know that
\begin{equation}\label{offthegrid}
|\mathscr A|\ge|\mathscr B|\ge \Big(1+\frac\delta4\Big)\frac k2t.
\end{equation}
Now we turn to the tree $T$. Let $A$ and $B$ denote its colour classes, and assume $|A|\ge |B|$. Moreover, we may assume that
\begin{equation}\label{bip:sizes}(1-4\sqrt\eta)\frac k2<|B|\le \frac{k+1}2\hspace{.5cm}\text{and}\hspace{.5cm}\frac{k+1}2\le |A|\le (1+4\sqrt\eta)\frac k2.\end{equation}
as otherwise, since $\eps\ll\eta$ we have $\delta(G)\ge (1+100\sqrt\eps)|B|$ and so, by~\eqref{sucodetangerina}, we can use Lemma~\ref{emb:forest} to embed $T$.
Let $\mathscr V_A\subseteq \mathscr A$ and $\mathscr V_B\subseteq \mathscr B$ be the sets of all clusters of degree at least $(1+\sqrt\eta)\frac k2t$. We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{VAVB}
|\mathscr V_A|+|\mathscr V_B|\ge (1+\sqrt\eta)kt.
\end{equation}
Suppose this is not the case. Then Fact~\ref{fact:3}~\eqref{fact:3,1}, condition~\eqref{lagos1}, and~\eqref{offthegrid} imply that
\begin{eqnarray*}(1-3\sqrt\eta)kt|\mathscr R| &\le& 2e(\mathscr R)\\ &\le& |\mathscr V_A||\mathscr B|+|\mathscr V_B||\mathscr A|+(1+\sqrt\eta)\frac k2t\Big(|\mathscr R|-|\mathscr V_A|-|\mathscr V_B|\Big)\\
&=&(1+\sqrt\eta)\frac k2t|\mathscr R|+|\mathscr V_A|\Big(|\mathscr B|-(1+\sqrt\eta)\frac k2t\Big)+|\mathscr V_B|\Big(|\mathscr A|-(1+\sqrt\eta)\frac k2t\Big)\\
&<&(1+\sqrt\eta)\frac k2t|\mathscr R|+ (1+\sqrt\eta)kt\cdot \Big(\frac\delta8-\sqrt\eta\Big)\frac k2t.\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, and since $n\ge k$, we have
$$\frac 12t\cdot k\le (1-7\sqrt\eta)tn =(1-7\sqrt\eta)|\mathscr R| < (1+\sqrt\eta)\Big(\frac\delta4-\sqrt\eta\Big)kt\le \frac 32\cdot \frac\delta4 kt,$$
a contradiction. So, assuming that $|\mathscr V_A|\ge (1+\sqrt\eta)\frac k2 t$, by Lemma~\ref{emb:forest} we can embed $T$ into~$G$, with $A$ going to clusters in $\mathscr V_A$ and $B$ going to clusters in $\mathscr B$.
\end{proof}
Now we turn to the case when the reduced graph is connected, non-bipartite and large.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{BPS1}, Proposition 5.8]\label{lem:nonbipcon}
For all $\Delta\ge 2$ and $\eps\in(0,10^{-8})$, there is $k_0\in\mathbb N$ such that for all $n,k\ge k_0$ and for every $n$-vertex graph $G$ the following holds. If $G$ has an $(\eps,5\sqrt\eps)$-regular partition, and the corresponding reduced graph $\mathscr R$ has a non-bipartite connected component~$\mathscr C$ which contains a matching with at least $(1+100\sqrt\eps)\frac k2 \frac{|\mathscr R|}{n}$ edges, then~$G$ contains every tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$.
\end{lemma}
With the help of Lemma~\ref{lem:nonbipcon} we can derive some useful information on the structure of the reduced graph of~$G$ if it is connected and non-bipartite, and $G$ fails to contain a copy of some tree $T\in \mathcal T(k,\Delta)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:str_nonbip}
For all $\Delta\ge 2$, $M_0\in \mathbb N$, $\delta, \eps, \eta\in(0,1)$ with $\eps\ll \eta\le\frac{\delta^4}{10^{8}}$, there is $k_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for all $k,n\ge k_0$ with $\delta^{-1}k\ge n\ge (1+\delta)k$ the following holds. Let $G$ be an $n$-vertex graph that admits an $(\varepsilon,\eta)$-regular partition into $M_0$ parts, and assume the corresponding $(\varepsilon,\eta)$-reduced graph is connected and non-bipartite. If furthermore,
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $d(G)\ge(1-3\sqrt\eta)k$; and
\item $\delta(G)\ge(1-3\sqrt\eta)\tfrac{k}{2}$,
\end{enumerate}
and there is a $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$ that cannot be embedded into $G$, then $G$ has a subgraph $G'\subseteq G$ of size $|G'|\ge |G|-M_0$ such that there is a partition $V(G')=I\cup V_1\cup V_2$ with
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{str:Vismall} $|V_i|=(1\pm3\sqrt\eta)\frac{k}{2}$ for $i=1,2$;
\item\label{str:I}\label{str:edges} $I$ is an independent set in $G'$ and there are no edges between $I$ and $V_2$ in $G'$;
\item\label{str:deg1} $\deg_{G'}(x)\ge (1-5\sqrt[4]\eta)n$ for at least $(1-4\sqrt[4]\eta)|V_1|$ vertices $x\in V_1$;
\item\label{str:deg2} $\deg_{G'}(y)\ge (1-3\sqrt[8]\eta)k$ for at least $(1-2\sqrt[8]\eta)|V_2|$ vertices $y\in V_2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $k_0\ge \frac{M_0}{\eps}$ be at least as large as the output of Lemma~\ref{lem:nonbipcon} for $\frac\eps5$ and $\Delta$. Applying Lemma~\ref{lem:matching2} to $G$, with $\ell=M_0$ and $t=(1-3\sqrt\eta)\frac k2$, we find a subgraph $G'$ of size $|G'|\ge n-M_0$ that admits an $(5\eps,\frac \eta 2)$-regular partition. Moreover, the corresponding reduced graph $\mathscr R$ contains a matching $\mathscr M$ and a disjoint independent set $\mathscr I$ such that $V(\mathscr R)=\mathscr I\cup V(\mathscr M)=\mathscr I\cup\mathscr V_1\cup \mathscr V_2$ and $N_{\mathscr R}(\mathscr I)\subseteq \mathscr V_1$.
Letting $I=\bigcup \mathscr I$ and $V_i=\bigcup\mathscr V_i$ for $i=1,2$ we have~\eqref{str:I}. Furthermore, because of Lemma~\ref{lem:nonbipcon} we know that $|\mathscr V_i|\le(1+\eta)\frac k2\tfrac{|\mathscr R|}{n}$ and thus $| V_i|\le (1+\eta)\tfrac k2$ for $i=1,2$. Therefore, and because of condition~(ii) we have~\eqref{str:Vismall}.
In order to see~\eqref{str:deg1} and~\eqref{str:deg2}, we do the following. For any subset $A\subseteq V(G')$ let $d_{A}$ denote the average degree in $G'$ of the vertices in $A$. By~\eqref{str:edges}, we have $d_{I}\le|V_1|\le (1+\eta)\frac k2$. By condition~(i) and since $\deg_{G'}(x)\ge \deg_G(x)-M_0$ for every $x\in V(G')$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}(1-4\sqrt\eta)kn\ \le \ 2e(G')&=&
|I|d_I+|V_1|d_{V_1}+|V_2|d_{V_2}\\
&\le&\textstyle(1+\eta)\frac k2 ( |I|+d_{V_1}+d_{V_2})\\
&\le&\textstyle(1+\eta)\frac k2(n-(|V_1|+|V_2|) +d_{V_1}+d_{V_2})\\
&\le&\textstyle(1+\eta)\frac k2(n-(1-3\sqrt\eta)k +d_{V_1}+d_{V_2}),
\end{eqnarray*}
and therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:degV1V2}
d_{V_1}+d_{V_2}\ge (1-8\sqrt\eta)n +(1-3\sqrt\eta)k.
\end{equation}
Because of~\eqref{str:edges}, we have $d_{V_2}\le |V_1|+|V_2|\le (1+\eta)k$. Thus~\eqref{eq:degV1V2} implies that $d_{V_1}\ge (1-12\sqrt\eta)n$. Since $d_{V_1}\le n$ and since $n\le \delta^{-1}k$, inequality~\eqref{eq:degV1V2} also implies that $d_{V_2}\ge (1-\sqrt[4]\eta)k$. Apply Lemma~\ref{lem:con2} to $f_1(v)=\deg_{G'}(v)$ for $v\in V_1$, with parameters $t_1=(1-12\sqrt\eta)n$, and $\eps_1=16\sqrt\eta$, and to $f_2(v)=\deg_{G'}(v)$ for $v\in V_2$, with $t_2=(1-\sqrt[4]\eta)k$ and $\eps_2=4\sqrt[4]\eta$, to obtain~\eqref{str:deg1} and~\eqref{str:deg2}. \end{proof}
The next lemma finishes the analysis of the non-bipartite case.
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:robust2}
For all $\Delta\ge 2, M_0\in\mathbb N$, $\delta, \eps, \eta\in (0,1)$ with $\eps\ll \eta\le\frac{\delta^{8}}{10^{80}}$, there is $k_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for all $k,n \ge k_0$ with $\delta^{-1}k\ge n\ge (1+\delta)k$ the following holds. Let $G$ be an $n$-vertex graph that admits an $(\varepsilon,\eta)$-regular partition into at most $M_0$ parts and assume the corresponding reduced graph is connected and non-bipartite.
If
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $d(G)\ge(1-3\sqrt\eta)k$; and
\item $\delta(G)\ge(1-3\sqrt\eta)\tfrac{k}{2}$,
\end{enumerate}
then $G$ contains every tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $k_0$ be the output of Lemma~\ref{lem:str_nonbip} and let $G$ and $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$ be given. If we cannot embed $T$ into $G$, then by Lemma~\ref{lem:str_nonbip} we find a subgraph $G'\subseteq G$ and a partition $V(G')=I\cup V_1\cup V_2$ fulfilling the properties of Lemma~\ref{lem:str_nonbip}.
Let $U_1\subseteq V_1$ be the set of all vertices $x\in V_1$ with $\deg_{G'}(x)\ge (1-5\sqrt[4]\eta)n$, and let $U_2\subseteq V_2$ be the set of all vertices $x\in V_2$ with $\deg_{G'}(x)\ge (1-3\sqrt[8]\eta)k$. In particular, because of Lemma~\ref{lem:str_nonbip}~\eqref{str:Vismall}, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{deg:I}\textstyle\text{each vertex $x\in U_1$ has at least $(1-\sqrt\eta)|I|$ neighbours in $I$}.\end{equation}
Also, note that $|U_1|\ge (1-4\sqrt[4]\eta)|V_1|\ge |V_1|-\sqrt[8]\eta k$ and $|U_2|\ge (1-2\sqrt[8]\eta)|V_2|$,
by Lemma~\ref{lem:str_nonbip}~\eqref{str:Vismall}, ~\eqref{str:deg1} and~\eqref{str:deg2}.
Let $H$ be the graph induced by $U_1$ and $U_2$. Note that because of Lemma~\ref{lem:str_nonbip}~\eqref{str:edges} and~\eqref{str:deg2},
we know that the vertices from $U_2$ have minimum degree at least $(1-6\sqrt[8]\eta)k$ in $H$, and
because of Lemma~\ref{lem:str_nonbip}~\eqref{str:Vismall} and~\eqref{str:deg2},
the vertices from $U_1$ have minimum degree at least $(1-9\sqrt[4]{\eta})n-2\sqrt[8]{\eta}k-|I|\ge (1-3\sqrt[8]\eta)k$ in $H$.
Hence,
\begin{equation}\label{mindegH__}
\delta(H)\ge (1-6\sqrt[8]\eta)k.
\end{equation}
So, by Lemma~\ref{lem:greedy} every tree with at most $(1-6\sqrt[8]\eta)k$ edges can be embedded greedily into~$H$. Let $(T^*,t^*)$ be the subtree given by Lemma~\ref{cut_off} for $\gamma=\frac 12$, so that $\frac k4\le|T^\star|\le\frac k2$ and every component of $T-T^*$ is adjacent to $t^*$. We apply Lemma~\ref{bare} to $T^*$, with $\ell=3$, which splits the proofs into two cases.
\begin{flushleft}\textbf{Case 1:} $T^\star$ has a set $\mathcal B$ of $|T^\star|/12$ vertex disjoint bare paths, each of length $3$.\end{flushleft}
Note that each vertex from $H$ has at least $\Delta$ neighbours in $U_1$, because of Lemma~\ref{lem:str_nonbip}~\eqref{str:Vismall} and our bound from~\eqref{mindegH__}, which will be tacitly used in what follows.
We embed $t^\star$ into any vertex from $H$. The rest of $T^\star$ will be embedded in DFS order into~$H$. We will use the following strategy until we have occupied $\lceil\frac\delta{100}k\rceil$ vertices from~$I$.
For each path $P\in \mathcal B$, we proceed as follows. We embed the first vertex $v_1$ of the path $P$ into a vertex $u_1\in U_1$, and then find another vertex $u_3\in U_1$ which has a common neighbour $u_2$ with $u_1$ in $I$. Note that the vertex $u_3$ exists because of~\eqref{deg:I}. We then embed the middle vertex $v_2$ of $P$ into $u_2\in I$, and the end point $v_3$ into $u_3\in U_1$. The remaining vertices of $T^\star$ are embedded greedily into $H$.
\begin{flushleft}\textbf{Case 2:} $T^\star$ has $|T^\star|/12$ leaves.\end{flushleft}
In this case, the embedding of $T^\star$ follows a similar strategy. We embed $t^\star$ into any vertex from $H$ and the rest will be embedded in DFS order.
We take care to embed all parents of leaves into $U_1$ and all leaves into $I$, until we have used $\lceil\tfrac\delta{100}k\rceil$ vertices from~$I$. The remaining vertices of $T^\star$ are embedded greedily into $H$.\\
Now, let $m$ be the number of vertices we have embedded so far into $H$, and let $H'\subseteq H$ contain all unused vertices of $H$. By our embedding strategy, we have that $m \le |T^\star|-\tfrac\delta{100}k$.
Therefore, and by~\eqref{mindegH__}, \[\delta(H')\ge (1-6\sqrt[8]\eta)k-m\ge (1-6\sqrt[8]\eta)k+\tfrac\delta{100}k-|T^\star|\ge(1+\tfrac\delta{200})k-|T^\star|, \] and so we can finish the embedding of $T$ by embedding $T-T^*$ greedily into $H'$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}}\label{sec:proof_main}
In this subsection we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main} with the help of the results from the previous subsections.
In order to do this, we need a result that follows from Theorem~1.9 in~\cite{BPS1} (the original Theorem~1.9 allows for a weaker bound on the maximum degree of $T$).
\begin{lemma}$\!\!${\rm\bf\cite{BPS1}}\label{ES:app}
For all $\Delta\ge2$ and $\delta,\theta\in(0,1)$ there is $n_0\in\mathbb N$ such that for all $n\ge n_0$ and $k\in\mathbb N$ with $n>k\ge \delta n$ the following holds. Let $G$ be an $n$-vertex graph with $d(G)\ge (1+\theta)k$, then $G$ contains every tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$.
\end{lemma}
Now we are ready for the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}]
Given $\Delta$ and $\delta$, we set $\nu=\min\{\frac{\delta^2}{2^{10}},\frac{1} {10^{11}},\frac{1}{25\Delta^2}\}$ and we fix parameters $\eps$, $\eta$, $\theta$ such that
\[0<\varepsilon\ll\eta\ll\theta\le\frac{\nu^{8}}{10^{80}}.\]
Let $k_0$ be the maximum of $\frac{3}{\eps}$ and the outputs of Lemma~\ref{reg:deg}, Lemma~\ref{prop:robust_bip}, Lemma~\ref{prop:robust2} and Lemma~\ref{ES:app} (with $\nu$ playing the role of $\delta$, and $m_0=\lceil\frac 1\eps\rceil$). Set $n_0=\lceil\delta^{-1}k_0\rceil$.
By Proposition~\ref{prop:small} we may assume that $|G|\ge (1+\nu)k$ and if $G$ is $\nu$-bipartite, Proposition~\ref{prop:small:bip} allows us to assume that the larger bipartition class of $G$ has at least $(1+\nu)k$ vertices. Now the regularity lemma (Lemma~\ref{reg:deg}) provides us with a subgraph $G'$ with $|G'|\ge (1-\eps)n$ that has an $(\eps,\eta)$-regular partition. Let $\mathscr R$ be the corresponding reduced graph and let $\mathscr{U}_1, \ldots , \mathscr U_\ell$ be the connected components of $\mathscr R$. Then, since we may assume that $\delta(G)\ge\frac k2$ (see the footnote in the Introduction), we have
\[
\text{$\deg_{G'}(x)\ge (1-2\sqrt\eta)\deg_{G}(x)\ge (1-2\sqrt\eta)\frac k2$ \ for all $x\in V(G')$,}
\]
and therefore
\[ \frac{\ell k}4\le(1-2\sqrt\eta)\tfrac{k}{2}\ell\le \sum_{i\in[\ell]} \textstyle{|\bigcup\mathscr U_i|}\le n\le \delta^{-1}k,\]
implying that
\begin{equation}\label{ellanddelta}
\ell\le 4\delta^{-1}.
\end{equation}
We set $U'_i=\bigcup \mathscr U_i$ for each $i\in[\ell]$.
\begin{claim}\label{prop:stability}Suppose that exists $T\in\mathcal T(k,\Delta)$ which cannot be embedded into $G'$, then
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $d(G'[U'_i])= (1\pm\frac\nu2)k$ and $\delta(G'[U'_i])\ge (1-\frac\nu2)\frac k2$ for all $i\in [\ell]$; and\label{iiiiiii}
\item\label{stb:sizes} for each $i\in[\ell]$ either
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $G'[U'_i]$ is non-bipartite and $|U_i|=(1\pm\frac\nu2)k$, or
\item $G'[U'_i]$ is bipartite with $V(U_i)=A_i\cup B_i$ such that $|A_i|,|B_i|=(1\pm\frac\nu2)k$.\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{claim}
In order to see this claim, observe that since $T$ cannot be embedded into $G'$, Lemma~\ref{ES:app} implies that $d(G'[U'_i])<(1+\theta)k$ for each $i\in[\ell]$. Note that
\[\sum_{i=1}^\ell\frac{|U'_i|}{n}d(G'[U'_i])=d(G')\ge (1-3\sqrt\eta)k.\]
Set $t=(1-3\sqrt\eta)k$. Applying Lemma~\ref{lem:con} with $N=\ell$, $\mu(i)=|U'_i|/n$ and $f(i)=d(G'[U'_i])$, and with $\sqrt\theta$ in the role of $\eps$, we see that the set $I=\{i\in[\ell]:d(G'[U'_i])<(1-2\sqrt\theta)t\}$ satisfies \[\frac{t|I|}{2n}\le\mu(I)\le 2\sqrt\theta\]
(where for the first inequality we use that $|U_i|>\frac t2$ for each $i$). Thus, $|I|\le 8\delta^{-1}\sqrt\theta<1$. In other words, $I=\emptyset$, and therefore, for each $i\in[\ell]$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{stb:avg}
d(G'[U'_i])\ge (1-2\sqrt\theta)(1-3\sqrt\eta)k\ge (1-3\sqrt\theta)k.
\end{equation}
This, together with the minimum degree in $G'$, proves~\eqref{iiiiiii}. In order to see~\eqref{stb:sizes}, we use~\eqref{stb:avg} and Lemmas~\ref{prop:robust_bip} and~\ref{prop:robust2}. This proves Claim~\ref{prop:stability}.\\
Now we distribute the vertices from $G-G'$ into the sets~$U'_i$. We successively assign each leftover vertex to the set $U'_i$ it sends most edges to (or to any one of these sets, if there is more than one). Then for each $i\in[\ell]$ and all $x\in U_i$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\deg(x,U'_i)\ge \frac{k}{2\ell}\ge \frac\delta8k,
\end{equation*}
where we used~\eqref{ellanddelta} for the second inequality. Since we add at most $\eps n\ll\nu k$ vertices to each set, we end up with a partition $V(G)=U_1\cup\ldots \cup U_\ell$ satisfying, for each $i\in[\ell]$,
\begin{enumerate}[(I)]
\item $d(G[U_i])= (1\pm\nu)k$ and $\delta(G[U_i])\ge \frac\delta 8k$; \label{avg:degree}
\item $\deg(x,U_i)< (1-\nu)\frac k2$ for less than $\nu k$ vertices $x\in U_i$; and
\item either $G[U_i]$ is non-bipartite and $|U_i|= (1\pm\nu)k$, or
$G[U_i]$ is $\nu$-bipartite with $U_i=A_i\cup B_i$ such that $|A_i|,|B_i|=(1\pm\nu)k$.\label{uuuuuiiiiii}
\end{enumerate}
For each $i\in[\ell]$, we use Lemma~\ref{lem:con2} for $f(x)=\deg(x,U_i)$, with $2\nu$ playing the role of $\eps$, to deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{ES:degree}\deg(x,U_i)\ge (1-\sqrt{2\nu})k\text{ for at least $(1-\sqrt{ 2\nu})|U_i|$ vertices from $U_i$.}
\end{equation}
Now we embed $T$ using this structural information of $G$. We apply Lemma~\ref{cut_off} to $T$, with $\gamma=\frac 12$, to obtain a subtree $(T,t^*)$ with $\frac k4\le |T^*|\le\frac k2$ such that every component of $T-T^*$ is adjacent to $t^*$. Moreover, since $\Delta(T)\le \Delta$ there is a component $T'$ of $T-T^*$ with $\frac{k}{2\Delta}\le |T'|\le \frac{3k}4$.
Note that if there are no edges between different sets $U_i$, then an averaging argument shows that there is $i^\star\in[\ell]$ such that $d(G[U_{i^\star}])\ge d(G)>k-1$. But then, because of~(III) and because of Theorem~\ref{smalltheorem}, we are done. Thus, we may assume that there is an edge $u_iu_j$ with $u_i\in U_i$ and $u_j\in U_j$.
We map $t^*$ into $u_i$ and map the root of $T'$ into $u_j$. Note that by~\eqref{avg:degree}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ES:mindegree}\delta(G[U_i])\ge \frac\delta8k\ge 4\sqrt\nu k\ge \sqrt{2\nu}|U_i|+\Delta\end{equation}
and that~\eqref{uuuuuiiiiii}, together with our choice of $\nu$ ensures that $\sqrt{2\nu}|U_i|\le \frac{k}{2\Delta}$. So,
we may finish the proof by using Lemma~\ref{lem:greedy} and Lemma~\ref{lem:greedy3} to embed $T-T'$ into $U_i$ and $T'$ into $U_j$, which we can do because of~\eqref{ES:degree} and~\eqref{ES:mindegree}.
\end{proof}
\section{Trees with up to linearly bounded maximum degree}\label{sec:linear}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:es_app}}
We will need the
following lemma, which will be proved in Section~\ref{sec:pow}.
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:connected_linear}
For all $\delta\in (0,\frac 12)$ there are $k_0\in\NN$ and $\rho\in(0,1)$ such that for all $k\ge k_0$ and every $n$-vertex graph $G$ with $n\ge k\ge \delta n$ the following holds. If $\delta(G)\ge(1+\delta)\frac{k}{2}$ and
at least $\lceil\delta n\rceil$ vertices of $G$ have degree at least $(1+\delta)k$,
then $G$ contains every tree $T\in\mathcal T(k,\rho k)$.
\end{lemma}
Now, Theorem~\ref{thm:es_app} follows from the Lemma~\ref{prop:connected_linear} together with
Lemma~\ref{lem:con} from the appendix.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:es_app}]
Given $\delta$ from Theorem~\ref{thm:es_app} (note that we may assume~$\delta<\frac 12$), let $k_0$ and $\rho$ be the output of Lemma~\ref{prop:connected_linear} for input $\delta^{12}$. Set $n_0:=\delta^{-1}k_0$ and set $\gamma:=\rho$.
Given $k$, $n$ and $G$, a standard argument\footnote{This is the same argument as the one given in the footnote in the Introduction, replacing $k$ with $(1+\delta )k$.} gives a subgraph $G'$ with $d(G')\ge (1+{\delta})k$ and $\delta(G')\ge (1+\delta)\frac k2$.
If there are $\lceil\delta^{12} |G'|\rceil$ vertices in $G'$ of degree at least $(1+\delta^{12})k$, we are done by Lemma~\ref{prop:connected_linear}.
So assume otherwise. Then by Lemma~\ref{lem:con}, with $f(v)=d_{G'}(v)$, $\eps=\delta^{12}$ and $t=(1+\delta)k$, we know $G'$ has at most $\delta^3|G'|\le \delta^3 n\le \delta^2 k$ vertices of degree less than $(1-\delta^3)(1+\delta)k$. Since $(1-\delta^3)(1+\delta)k\ge (1+\frac \delta 2)k$, we can simply delete these vertices, obtaining a subgraph $G''$ of $G$ with $\delta(G')\ge k$. We greedily embed $T$ into $G''$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Preparing for the proof of Lemma~\ref{prop:connected_linear}}
We start by stating a standard tool (see~\cite{AKS, BPS1, LKS4, RS19a} for other versions and a proof).
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:cut2} Let $\beta\in(0,1)$. If $(T, r)$ is a rooted tree with $k\ge \beta^{-1}$ edges, then there is a set $S\subseteq V(T)$ with $r\in S$ and $|S|\le \beta^{-1} +2$ such that $|P|\le\beta k$ for each component $P$ of $T-S$.
\end{lemma}
We now show a variant of Lemma~\ref{prop:cut2}.
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:cut_linear}
For all $\beta\in(0,\frac 12)$ and for every tree $(T,r)$ with $k\ge \beta^{-1}$ edges and $\Delta (T)\le \frac{\beta^2}{2} k$ there is a set $S\subseteq V(T)$ with $r\in S$ and $|S| < \beta k$ such that each $s\in S$ is at even distance from $r$ and each component of $T-S$ has at most $\beta k$ vertices.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Given $(T,r)$, Lemma~\ref{prop:cut2} yields a set $S'$ with
$ |S'|\le\frac 1\beta +2< \frac{2}{\beta}.$
Let $S_{odd}$ be the set of all vertices in $S'$ that lie at odd distance from $r$, and set $S:=(S'-S_{odd})\cup N_T(S_{odd}).$
Note that each component of $T-S$ either is a component of $T-S'$, or consists of a single vertex from~$S_{odd}$. To see that $|S| < \beta k$, note that
$\textstyle |S|\le |S'|+|S_{odd}|\cdot\Delta(T)< \frac{2}{\beta}\cdot \frac{\beta^2}{2} k= \beta k.$
\end{proof}
The next lemma will help us with grouping the components fo $T-S$ into convenient sets.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:num_balance}
Let $I$ be a finite set, let $M, \lambda>0$, and let $a_i, b_i\in \mathbb R$, with $a_i+b_i\leq \lambda$, for each $i\in I$. Then there is a set $J\subseteq I$ such that
$$\textstyle\min\{M-\lambda,\sum_{i\in I}(a_i+b_i)\}\leq\sum_{i\in J}(a_i+b_i)\leq M \ \ \ \text{and} \ \ \ \frac{\sum_{i\in J}a_i}{\sum_{i\in J}b_i}\geq \frac{\sum_{i\in I}a_i}{\sum_{i\in I}b_i}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Define a total order $\preceq$ on $I$ by setting $i\preceq j$ if $\frac{b_i}{a_i}<\frac{b_j}{a_j}$, and ordering arbitrarily those $i,j$ with $\frac{b_i}{a_i}=\frac{b_j}{a_j}$. Let $j^{*}$ be maximal with $\textstyle\sum_{i\preceq j^{*}}(a_i+b_i)\leq M$ and set $J:=\{j\in I\,:\,j\preceq j^{*}\}$. It is is easy to see that this choice is as desired.
\end{proof}
We will now find a specific structure in the regularised host graph $G$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:structure}
For all $\varepsilon, \eta, \delta>0$ with $\varepsilon<\eta<\delta<1$ and $M_0\ge \frac 1{\eps}$ there is $k_0\in\mathbb N$ such that for all $n,k\ge k_0$ and for every $n$-vertex graph $G$ with $\delta(G)\ge(1+{\delta})\frac{k}{2}$ and
at least $\lceil\delta n\rceil$ vertices of degree at least $(1+\delta)k$
the following holds. \\
If $G$ has an $(\varepsilon,\eta)$-regular partition into $M_0$ parts,
then $G$ has a subgraph $G'$ on $n'\ge n-M_0$ vertices that has a $(5\varepsilon,\eta-\varepsilon)$-regular partition with $2M_0$ parts. Moreover, the corresponding reduced graph $\mathscr R'$ contains two matchings $\mathscr M_W$ and $\mathscr M_V$, a bipartite subgraph $\mathscr {H=(A,B)}\subseteq \mathscr R'\setminus V(\mathscr M_W)$, and a cluster $X\in V(\mathscr R')$ satisfying
\begin{enumerate}[(I)]
\item\label{lem:str:I} $V(\mathscr M_W)\cap V(\mathscr M_V)=\emptyset=\mathscr{A}\cap V(\mathscr M_V)$;
\item\label{lem:str:II}\label{lem:str:III}\label{lem:str:IV} $V(\mathscr M_W)\cup \mathscr A\subseteq N(X)$,
and every edge in $\mathscr M_V$ has exactly one endpoint in $N(X)$;
\item\label{lem:str:VI} $|V(\mathscr M_W)|+\frac{|V(\mathscr M_V)|}{2}+|\mathscr{A}| \ge (1+\tfrac\delta2)k\tfrac{|\mathscr R'|}{n'}$; and
\item\label{lem:str:V} $\deg_{\mathscr R'}(A,\mathscr{B})\ge (1+\tfrac{\delta}2)\tfrac k2\tfrac{|\mathscr R'|}{n'} - \tfrac{|V(\mathscr M_W)|}{2}\text{ for every $A\in \mathscr A$.}$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{matching.eps}
\caption{Structure given by Lemma~\ref{lem:structure}}
\label{lab:structure}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
Set $k_0=\frac{M_0}\eps$. Apply Lemma \ref{lem:matching2} to $G$, with $t=(1+\delta)\frac k2$ and $\ell=|\mathscr R|$, to obtain a subgraph~$G'$, with a $(5\varepsilon,\eta-\varepsilon)$-regular partition into $2M_0$ parts whose corresponding reduced graph $\mathscr R'$ contains a matching $\mathscr M$ and an independent set $\mathscr I$ with the properties stated in the lemma.
By the choice of $k_0$ and $\eps$, and by our assumption on $G$,
at least $\lceil\tfrac{\delta}2|G'|\rceil$ vertices of $G'$ have degree at least $(1+\tfrac\delta 2)k$.
So, there is a cluster $X\in V(\mathscr R')$ with
\begin{equation}\label{deg_C_S}
\deg_{\mathscr R'}(X)\ge (1+\tfrac\delta2){k}\tfrac{|\mathscr R'|}{|G'|}.
\end{equation}
Let $\mathscr M_W$ be a maximal matching contained in $N(X)$, so that for every $CD\in \mathscr M_W$ either $CD\in \mathscr M$ or $C\in\mathscr I$ and $D\in V(\mathscr{M})$. This choice ensures that there are no edges between
$\mathscr{A}:=\big(N_{\mathscr R'}(X)\cap\mathscr{I}\big)\setminus V(\mathscr M_W)$
and $\big(N_{\mathscr R'}(X)\cap V(\mathscr{M})\big)\setminus V(\mathscr M_W)$.
Set
$\mathscr{B}:=N_{\mathscr R'}(\mathscr{A})\setminus V(\mathscr M_W).$
Let $\mathscr M_V$ consist of all edges in $\mathscr M-\mathscr M_W$ having one endpoint in $N(X)$.
By construction, properties $(I)-(II)$ hold, and $(III)$ holds because of~\eqref{deg_C_S}. Finally,~$(IV)$ holds because of our assumption on the minimum degree of $G$, and since any $A\in\mathscr A \subseteq \mathscr I$ sees at most one endpoint of each edge from $\mathscr M_W$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{prop:connected_linear}}\label{sec:pow}
\begin{proof}
Given $\delta$, we choose $\eps$ and $\eta$ such that
$0<\eps\ll\eta\ll\delta.$ Apply
Lemma~\ref{reg:deg} with parameters $\frac\eps 5$ and $m_0=\frac 1\eps$ to obtain numbers $N_0$ and $M_0$. Set $k_0:=\max\{N_0, \frac{2M_0}{\eps}, k'_0\}$ where $k'_0$ comes from Lemma \ref{lem:structure}, with input $\frac{\eps}5,2\eta$ and $\tfrac\delta2$. Set $\rho:=\frac{\eps^2}{16M_0^2}$.
Given $n$, $k$ and $G$, Lemma~\ref{reg:deg} yields a subgraph $G''$ of $G$ with
$\delta(G'')\ge (1+\tfrac{\delta}2)\frac k2$ having at least $\lceil\tfrac\delta2|G''|\rceil$ vertices of degree at least $(1+\tfrac\delta 2)k$, which has an $(\frac\eps5,2\eta)$-re\-gu\-lar partition.
Apply Lemma \ref{lem:structure} to $G''$ to obtain a subgraph $G'\subseteq G''$ having an $(\varepsilon,\eta)$-regular partition with reduced graph $\mathscr R'$, which contains a cluster~$X$, matchings $\mathscr M_V$ and $\mathscr M_W$, and a bipartite subgraph $\mathscr H=(\mathscr A,\mathscr B)$ satisfying properties $(I)-(IV)$.
Let $T\in \mathcal T(k,\rho k)$ be given, with colour classes $A,B$. Our aim is to embed $T$ into $G'$. We may assume $|A|\geq |B|$ and choose any $r\in B$. Apply Lemma \ref{prop:cut_linear} to $(T,r)$, with $\beta=\frac{\eps}{|\mathscr R'|}$, to obtain a set $S\subseteq B$ with $|S|< \beta k$ and a set $\mathcal{P}$ containing all components of $T-S$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:num_balance} with $\mathcal P$, $|A\cap V(P)|, |B\cap V(P)|$, $M:=k-(1-11\sqrt[4]\eps)|\bigcup V(\mathscr M_W)|$ and $\lambda:=\beta k$, yields a set $\mathcal P_1\subseteq \mathcal P$ fulfilling
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{eq:lin:3} $\sum_{P\in \mathcal P_1}a_P\geq \dfrac{|A\setminus S|}{|B\setminus S|} \cdot \sum_{P\in \mathcal P_1}b_P> \dfrac{|B|-\beta k}{|B|} \cdot \sum_{P\in \mathcal P_1}b_P \geq \sum_{P\in \mathcal P_1}b_P - \beta k$;
\item\label{eq:lin:1}$ M-\beta k \le \sum_{P\in \mathcal P_1}|P|\le M$;
\end{enumerate}
Setting $\mathcal P_2:=\mathcal P\setminus \mathcal P_1$, from the first inequality in~\eqref{eq:lin:1} we infer that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:size2}
\textstyle\sum_{P\in \mathcal P_2}|P|
\le (1-10\sqrt[4]{\varepsilon})|\bigcup V(\mathscr M_W)|.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, by the second inequality in~\eqref{eq:lin:1} and by Lemma \ref{lem:structure}~\eqref{lem:str:VI},
\begin{align}
\textstyle \sum_{P'\in \mathcal P_1}|P'|
\le (1-10\sqrt[4]\eps)\textstyle\Big(\frac{|\bigcup V(\mathscr M_V)|}2+|\bigcup \mathscr A|\Big).\label{eq:J}\end{align}
We will construct an embedding $\phi$ of $T$ into $G'$ iteratively in $|S|$ steps. In each step~$j$, we embed some $s_j\in S$ together with all subtrees `below' $s_j$. We go through $S$ in an order that ensures our embedding remains connected throughout the process, that is, we choose $s_1:=r$, and for $j\ge 2$ we choose any yet unembedded $s_j\in S$ whose parent is already embedded.
Write $U_j(C)$ for the set of all unused vertices in a cluster $C$ at the beginning of step $j$.
Four conditions will hold throughout the embedding process:
\begin{enumerate}[(E1)]
\item If $j\ge 2$, the parent of $s_j$ is embedded into a vertex that is typical to~$X$.\label{p:parent}
\item\label{E:significant} $|U_j(C)|> 5\sqrt[4]{\varepsilon}|C|$ for every cluster $C$.\label{p:good}
\item $\bigcup \mathcal P_2$ is embedded into $ \bigcup V(\mathscr M_W)$,
\smallskip $\bigcup \mathcal P_1\cap A$ is embedded into $\bigcup V(\mathscr{A}\cup (\mathscr M_V \cap N(X)))$ and
$\bigcup \mathcal P_1\cap B$ is embedded into $\bigcup V(\mathscr B\cup (V(\mathscr M_V)\setminus N(X)))$.\label{p:embJ}
\item $\Big||U_j(C)|-|U_j( D)|\Big|\le\eps |C|$ for every edge $CD\in \mathscr M_W$.\label{p:balance}
\end{enumerate}
Now suppose we are at step $j\le |S|$. Choose $s_j\in S$ as detailed above. Set
$$\mathscr{Y}:=\{U_j(C)\,:\,C\in N_{\mathscr R'}(X)\cap \big(V(\mathscr M_V)\cup V(\mathscr M_W) \cup\mathscr{A}\big).$$
Note that~(E2) ensures that every set in $\mathscr{Y}$ is significant. Since $S$ is small, we can use Fact~\ref{fact:3}~\eqref{fact:3,2} to obtain a set $X'\subset X\setminus\phi(S)$ with $|X'|\geq(1-4\sqrt{\varepsilon})|X|$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:deg_seed}
\text{every $v\in X'$ is typical to at least $(1-\sqrt{\eps})|\mathscr Y|$ clusters in $\mathscr Y$.}
\end{equation}
If $j\ge 2$, let $w$ be the image of the parent of $s_j$. By (E1), $\deg(w,X)\geq \frac{\eta }{2}|X|,$
and hence
$\deg(w,X')\geq\frac{\eta}{4}|X|>\beta k>|S|.$
In particular, we can choose some vertex $v_j\in X'\cap U_j(X)$ (adjacent to $w$, if $j\ge 2$) as $\phi(s_j)$. Now reserve some space for the children of $s_j$. For each cluster $C$ such that $v_j$ is typical towards $U_j(C)$, let $C_r$ be any set of $2\varepsilon |C|+\rho k$ vertices in $N(v_j)\cap U_j(C)$. For convenience, say
$C\in V(\mathscr R')$ is \emph{good} if $|U_j(C)|\geq 7\sqrt[4]{\varepsilon}|C|$, and say $CD\in E(\mathscr R')$ is \emph{good} if both $C$ and $D$ are good.
It remains to embed all components of $T-S$ adjacent to $s_j$ that have not been embedded yet. Let $P$ be such a component.
We distinguish three cases.\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Case 1: } $P\in \mathcal P_1$ and there are more than $\big(1-10\sqrt[4]{\varepsilon}\big)\frac{|\bigcup V(\mathscr M_V)|}2$ unused vertices in $\bigcup V(\mathscr M_V)$.\smallskip
In this case there are more than $\sqrt{\varepsilon}|\mathscr M_V|$ good edges in $\mathscr M_V$. Indeed, otherwise,
\begin{align*}
\textstyle\big(1+10\sqrt[4]{\varepsilon}\big)\frac{|\bigcup V(\mathscr M_V)|}2&\leq \sum_{CD\in \mathscr M_V, CD\text{ good}}(|U_j(C)\cup U_j(D)|) + \sum_{CD\in \mathscr M_V, CD\text{ bad}}(|U_j(C)\cup U_j(D)|)\\ \textstyle
& \leq \sqrt{\varepsilon}|\mathscr M_V|\cdot 2\textstyle\frac{|G'|}{|\mathscr R'|} + |\mathscr M_V|\cdot (1+7\sqrt[4]{\varepsilon})\frac{|G'|}{|\mathscr R'|},
\end{align*}
a contradiction. So by~\eqref{eqn:deg_seed} there is a good edge $CD\in \mathscr M_V$, with $C\in N(X)$, and $v_j$ typical to $U_j(D)$. Embed the root of $P$ into $C_r$ and use Lemma~\ref{lem:T1} to embed the remaining vertices into $(U_j(C)\cup U_j(D))\setminus (C_r\cup D_r)$. In particular, all of $A\cap V(P)$ is mapped to $C$. We take care to embed parents of vertices in $S$ into vertices that are typical to $X$. So, properties (E1)-(E4) continue to hold after this step (for (E2), recall that $CD$ is good and $|P|\le\beta k\le \sqrt[4]\eps|C|$).\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Case 2: } $P\in \mathcal P_1$ and at least $\big(1-10\sqrt[4]{\varepsilon}\big)\frac{|\bigcup V(\mathscr M_V)|}2$ vertices of $\bigcup V(\mathscr M_V)$ have been used already.
In this case, \eqref{eq:J} ensures there are at least $10\sqrt[4]{\varepsilon}|\bigcup \mathscr A|$ unused vertices in $\bigcup \mathscr A$. So,
there are more than $\sqrt{\varepsilon}|\mathscr A|$ good clusters in $\mathscr A$, as otherwise we reach a contradiction by calculating
$$\textstyle{10\sqrt[4]{\varepsilon}|\bigcup \mathscr{A}|} \le \textstyle{\sum_{C\in \mathscr{A}}|U_j(C)|}
\leq \textstyle\sqrt{\varepsilon}|\bigcup\mathscr A|+ |\bigcup\mathscr A|7\sqrt[4]{\varepsilon}.$$
By~\eqref{eqn:deg_seed}, $v_j$ is typical towards $U_j(C)$ for some good $C\in \mathscr A$. Moreover, there is a good cluster $D\in N_{\mathscr R'}(C)\cap \mathscr B$, as otherwise we must have already used more than
\begin{align*}
\textstyle(1-7\sqrt[4]{\varepsilon})\deg_{\mathscr R'}(C,\mathscr{B})\cdot \frac{|G'|}{|\mathscr R'|} & \geq \textstyle (1-7\sqrt[4]{\varepsilon})\cdot\tfrac{1}{2}\big((1+\tfrac{\delta}{4})k - |\bigcup V(\mathscr{M_W})|\big) \\
& \ge \textstyle \tfrac{1}{2}\big(k - (1-11\sqrt[4]{\varepsilon})|\bigcup V(\mathscr{M_W})|\big) \\
& \textstyle > \frac 12\cdot \sum_{P'\in \mathcal P_1}|P'|
\end{align*}
vertices of $\bigcup\mathscr B$ (where the first inequality comes from Lemma~\ref{lem:structure}~\eqref{lem:str:V}, and the last one from the second inequality in~\eqref{eq:lin:1}). But this is impossible since by (E3) and by~\eqref{eq:lin:3}, we know that $\bigcup \mathscr A$ hosts at least as many vertices from $V(\bigcup\mathcal P_1)$ as $\bigcup \mathscr B$ does, up to an error term of~$\beta k$.
Embed the root of $P$ into $C_r$ and use Lemma~\ref{lem:T1} to embed the rest of $P$ into $(U_j(C)\cup U_j(D))\setminus (C_r\cup D_r)$. Parents of vertices in $S$ are embedded into vertices that are typical to~$X$. \smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Case 3: } $P\in \mathcal P_2$.
Using~\eqref{eqn:size2} and (E4) we see as above there is a good edge $CD\in \mathscr M_W$, with~$v_j$ typical to both $U_j(C)$ and $U_j(D)$. Embed $P$ into $U_j(C)\cup U_j(D)$ avoiding $C_r\cup D_r$, except for the root $r_P$ of $P$. Note that we can choose into which of $C_r$ or $D_r$ we embed $r_P$, and we choose wisely so that after the embedding of $P$, (E4) still holds. As always, we embed parents of vertices in~$S$ into vertices that are typical to $X$. This finishes the embedding for Case 3, and thus the proof of Lemma~\ref{prop:connected_linear}.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{acm}
|
\section{Introduction }
The extreme-scale high performance computing (HPC) systems face a grand challenge on system reliability. Transient hardware faults
are one of the major concerns of current HPC systems~\cite{Snir:2014:AFE:2747699.2747701}.
Those faults often result in application
failures (application crashes).
Application crashes lose the application's work and decrease HPC system efficiency.
A typical HPC system nowadays has a mean-time between failure (MTBF) of tens of hours \cite{1559953,Egwutuoha2013,4629264,inproceedings},
even with hardware- and software-based protection mechanisms. It is expected that the failure rate could further increase in the future, as
the complexity of the HPC systems increases. This indicates that a larger portion of computation cycles will have to be used to handle application failures~\cite{whitepaper,Gupta:2017:FLS:3126908.3126937}.
Byte-addressable non-volatile memory (NVM) technologies, such as
Intel Optane DC persistent memory DIMM~\cite{Intel3D}, are emerging.
NVM can provide better density and energy efficiency than DRAM while providing DRAM-like performance.
Recent efforts have demonstrated the possibility of using NVM as main memory~\cite{Mnemosyne:ASPLOS11,nvtree:fast15,Kolli:ASPLOS2016,loopbased:pact17, Pelley:isca14} with \texttt{load/store} instructions and for future HPC~\cite{unimem:sc17,shuo:cluster17, nvm_ipdps2012,Fernando:2018:NAH:3208040.3208061,6569798, sc18:wu}.
In this paper, we leverage non-volatility of NVM as main memory, and explore a novel solution to handle HPC applications under failures, aiming to improve system efficiency.
One way to leverage the non-volatility of NVM for HPC under failures is to use NVM as a fast persistent media to implement the traditional checkpoint/restart (C/R). C/R is the most common fault tolerance mechanism in HPC. C/R periodically saves application data (a checkpoint) into persistent media. Once a failure
happens, C/R restarts the application~\cite{1592865,5695644} by loading a previously
saved intermediate state of the application (i.e., a checkpoint). Given high bandwidth of NVM (comparing with traditional hard drive), we can save application data into local NVM of each node, which reduces checkpoint overhead and improves system efficiency.
\begin{comment}
One way to leverage the non-volatility of NVM for HPC under failures is to use NVM as a fast persistent media to implement the traditional checkpoint/restart (C/R). C/R is the most common fault tolerance mechanism in HPC data centers. C/R periodically saves application data (a checkpoint) into persistent media. Once a failure happens, C/R restarts the application~\cite{1592865,5695644} by loading a previously saved intermediate state of the application (i.e., a checkpoint). Given high bandwidth of NVM (comparing with traditional hard drive), we can save application data into local NVM of each node, which reduces checkpoint overhead and improves system efficiency.
\end{comment}
However, using NVM to build C/R
has limitations.
First, creating checkpoints in NVM (used as main memory) can double or even triple memory footprint of the application, and hence reduces the effective capacity of NVM. This is especially problematic for those scientific simulations with large data sets. For those applications, reducing the effective capacity of NVM constrains the simulation scale that the scientists can study. Second, it worsens the endurance problem faced by NVM. NVM has limited endurance and can tolerate a limited number of writes.
For example, the write endurance of phase change memory (a promising NVM technology) is seven orders of magnitude lower than DRAM~\cite{5375309}.
As a result, the endurance problem of NVM (used as main memory) have been actively studied recently~\cite{8573121, 8552412, pldi13:gao, Lee:2009:APC:1555754.1555758, lazypersistency:isca18,5430747}. Since checkpointing must be written to persistent NVM, checkpointing can cause a number of additional writes in NVM.
\begin{comment}
\textcolor{red}{One way to leverage the non-volatility of NVM for HPC under failures is to use NVM as a fast persistent media to implement the C/R since it helps to reduce overhead on checkpointing.
However, using NVM to build C/R is problematic.
First, it worsens the endurance problem faced by NVM.
NVM suffers limited write endurance over DRAM~\cite{5375309,Lee:2009:APC:1555754.1555758}. If applications or system software can write directly to NVM without limit, the NVM could wear out quickly~\cite{Akram:2018:WGC:3192366.3192392}.
New materials may narrow the gap, but NVM endurance still worsen than DRAM~\cite{7453199}.
Prior works explore solutions to improve NVM lifetime as main memory in architecture, operating system, and software~\cite{Ferreira:2010:IPM:1870926.1871147,pldi13:gao,Lee:2009:APC:1555754.1555758,lazypersistency:isca18,5430747,Qureshi+:ISCA09}.
Second, creating checkpoints in NVM can doubles memory footprint of the application, and hence reduces the effective capacity of NVM. This is especially problematic for those scientific simulations with large data sets. For those applications, reducing the effective capacity of NVM constrains the simulation scale that the scientists can study.
}
\end{comment}
In this paper, we introduce an application-level solution (named \textit{EasyCrash\xspace}) that explores the non-volatility of NVM to handle application failures. EasyCrash\xspace does not create data copy as C/R does. Instead, it flushes cache blocks of some data objects of the application to persist them at certain execution phases of the application.
When the application crashes, data objects in NVM are not lost (although some updates in caches are lost), and the application restarts using remaining data objects in NVM. Using EasyCrash\xspace, we aim to improve HPC system efficiency by reducing the frequency of checkpoint and reduce writes to NVM.
\begin{comment}
\textcolor{red}{
EasyCrash\xspace flushes cache blocks of critical data objects of the application to persist them at certain execution phases of the application, which can enable better persistency and consistency for these data objects in NVM.
Checkpointing critical data objects can also achieve the same propose. \textcolor{blue}{(might confusing, need go back)}
However, EasyCrash\xspace has benefits for improving performance and lifetime of NVM. }
First, EasyCrash\xspace flushes cache blocks using special instructions (e.g., \texttt{CLFLUSHOPT} or \texttt{CLWB}). Those instructions do not write back cache lines~\footnote{We distinguish cache line and cache block in the paper. The cache line is a location in the cache, and the cache block refers to the data that goes into a cache line.} to main memory, if the corresponding cache blocks are clean or not resident in caches, hence we reduce unnecessary writes to NVM and improve NVM lifetime.
Second, writing to NVM is known to be expensive (comparing with writing to the traditional DRAM). Saving writes to NVM is beneficial for performance of persisting data objects.
Third, EasyCrash\xspace does not create data copy, hence saving memory capacity and enabling scientific simulation with larger memory footprint.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
Flushing cache blocks of critical data objects can enable better persistency and consistency for these data objects in NVM.
When the application crashes, data objects in NVM are not lost (although some updates in caches are lost), and the application restarts using remaining data objects in NVM.
First, EasyCrash\xspace flushes cache blocks using special instructions (e.g., \texttt{CLFLUSHOPT} or \texttt{CLWB}). Those instructions do not write back cache lines~\footnote{We distinguish cache line and cache block in the paper. The cache line is a location in the cache, and the cache block refers to the data that goes into a cache line.} to main memory, if the corresponding cache blocks are clean or not resident in caches, hence we reduce unnecessary writes to NVM and improve NVM lifetime.
Second, writing to NVM is known to be expensive (comparing with writing to the traditional DRAM). Saving writes to NVM is beneficial for performance of persisting data objects.
Third, EasyCrash\xspace does not create data copy, hence saving memory capacity and enabling scientific simulation with larger memory footprint.
\end{comment}
The design of EasyCrash\xspace is based on three observations.
First, many HPC applications are characterized with large data sets and most of them may not be in caches during application execution, because of limited cache capacity. This indicates that using cache flushing (instead of making data copy) to persist data objects can potentially save a large number of writes.
Second, EasyCrash\xspace brings a challenge on data consistency when a crash happens, which can impact application recomputability. However, some HPC applications have intrinsic tolerance to data inaccuracy, which can be leveraged to tolerate data inconsistency. In particular, EasyCrash\xspace only ensures data consistency (between caches and main memory) right after cache flushing. When a random crash happens, a data object in NVM and caches may not be consistent, because of out-of-order stores in NVM and writing-back caching.
Applications may not recompute successfully after recovering from a crash.
However, some HPC applications, such as iterative solvers (e.g., the preconditioned conjugate gradient method, Newton method, and multigrid method), Monte Carlo-based simulations~\cite{xsbench2:john} and some machine learning workloads (e.g., Kmeans and CNN training), have natural error resilience to localized numerical perturbations, because they require computation results to converge over time. As a result, they can intrinsically tolerate some data inconsistency. Furthermore, flushing cache blocks at appropriate execution phases can reduce data inconsistency and improves application recomputability.
\begin{comment}
\end{comment}
Third, many HPC applications have application-specific acceptance verification (e.g., based on physical laws and math invariant).
Leveraging the verification, the application can detect whether computation results are acceptable before delivering them to end users. For example, large-scale computational fluid dynamics simulations examine the correctness of the result by making the comparison to exact analytical results~\cite{Roache:580994}.
Those applications with acceptance verification can reduce the probability of producing incorrect results that might be generated by applications.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/E_design2.pdf}
\caption{ An illustration of how an HPC application behaves with EasyCrash\xspace. Figure annotation: ``chk'' - checkpoint; ``v'' - application acceptance verification; ``E'' - EasyCrash\xspace persistence operations. }
\label{fig:EasyCrash}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:EasyCrash} illustrates how EasyCrash\xspace works with NVM as main memory (such as Intel Optane DC persistent memory DIMM) for an HPC application. EasyCrash\xspace persists some data objects at certain execution phases of the application. Once a crash happens, the application immediately restarts using remaining consistent and inconsistent data objects in NVM. Application-specific acceptance verification
checks if the recomputation result is correct. If the application cannot recompute successfully, then the application goes back to the last checkpoint.
EasyCrash\xspace still needs C/R to guarantee 100\% of successful recomputation, but checkpointing can happen less frequently because EasyCrash\xspace makes some crashes successfully recompute without rolling back to the last checkpoint. Reducing the checkpoint frequency is very
useful to improve system efficiency.
It was reported that up to 50\% time in HPC data centers is spent in checkpointing~\cite{6258034,Ian:2005}.
Comparing with the traditional C/R, EasyCrash\xspace has the following benefits.
First, EasyCrash\xspace does not create data copy, hence saving memory capacity and enabling scientific simulation with larger memory footprint. Second, EasyCrash\xspace flushes cache blocks using special instructions (e.g., \texttt{CLFLUSHOPT} or \texttt{CLWB}). Those instructions do not write back cache lines~\footnote{We distinguish cache line and cache block in the paper. The cache line is a location in the cache, and the cache block refers to the data that goes into a cache line.} to main memory, if the corresponding cache blocks are clean or not resident in caches; hence we reduce unnecessary writes to NVM and improve NVM lifetime. Third, writing to NVM is known to be expensive (comparing with writing to DRAM). Saving writes to NVM is beneficial for the performance of persisting data objects.
The most challenging design of EasyCrash\xspace is to decide how to persist data objects to ensure high recomputability without large runtime overhead. We employ analytical models and statistical analysis to address this challenge.
In particular, we characterize application recomputability using a number of crash tests.
We use analytical models to decide where to persist data objects to ensure high recomputability and higher system efficiency than C/R without EasyCrash\xspace. Furthermore, to minimize runtime overhead of cache flushing, we use correlation analysis to decide which data objects are the most critical to application recomputability. EasyCrash\xspace only flushes cache blocks of those data objects. Such selective cache flushing reduces runtime overhead (also reducing the number of writes) while ensuring high recomputability.
To study application failures, we must have a tool that allows us to retain data objects in main memory for restart after a crash happens. The tool should faithfully reflect data inconsistency (between caches and main memory).
The tool should also allow us to \textit{repeatedly} trigger crashes for study. The traditional systems (including hardware and software) cannot meet our needs: the volatile DRAM-based system loses data in main memory after a crash; the physical machines cannot tolerate repeated crash tests (tens of thousands of tests). The traditional random fault injection method~\cite{mg_ics12,bifit:SC12,Kai:icpp18}
cannot work for us either, because there is no guarantee that each fault injection results in an application crash.
To address the above challenge, we introduce an emulation tool, named \textit{NVCT\xspace} (standing for \textit{N}on-\textit{V}olatile memory \textit{C}rash \textit{T}ester).
In essence, the tool is a PIN~\cite{Pin:PLDI05}-based cache simulator plus rich functionality for crash tests.
The tool allows the user to trigger application crash randomly, and then perform postmortem analysis on data values in caches and memory.
To best of our knowledge, EasyCrash\xspace is the first comprehensive study that explores the non-volatility of NVM for HPC under failures. Existing work that focuses on crash consistency in NVM~\cite{ Dulloor:eurosys14, nvheap:asplos11, Kolli:ASPLOS2016, Mnemosyne:ASPLOS11,cdds:fast11} enforces data persistency for enterprise workloads with strong requirements on transaction semantics, which brings large runtime overhead and infeasible for HPC~\cite{shuo:cluster17}. EasyCrash\xspace is a solution customized for HPC.
In summary, this paper makes the following contributions:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item A novel method to leverage the non-volatility of NVM to restart HPC applications under failures;
\item An open-sourced tool~\footnote
The tool is available online. https://github.com/PASAUCMerced/NVC
to enable crash study on NVM; Based on our knowledge, this tool is the first one for such study.
\item Characterization of application recomputability with different data objects persisted in NVM at different execution phases;
\item An evaluation of EasyCrash\xspace with a spectrum of HPC applications. EasyCrash\xspace is able to transform 54\% of crashes that cannot correctly recompute into the correct computation, while incurring a negligible performance overhead (1.5\% on average). Using EasyCrash\xspace and application intrinsic fault tolerance, 82\% of crashes can successfully recompute. As a result, when EasyCrash\xspace is used with C/R, it enables up to 24\% improvement (15\% on average) in system efficiency.
Comparing with C/R without EasyCrash\xspace, EasyCrash\xspace reduces the number of writes by 44\% on average.
\end{itemize}
\begin{comment}
\textcolor{blue}{the following intro needs to be re-written.}
Byte-addressable non-volatile memory (NVM) technologies, such as memristors~\cite{6198375}, spin-transfer torque MRAM (STT-MRAM)~\cite{isca10:guo}, and 3D XPoint persistent memory recently announced by Intel~\cite{}, are emerging.
NVM can provide better density and energy efficiency than DRAM, while providing DRAM-like performance.
Recent efforts have demonstrated the possibility of using NVM as main memory~\cite{Mnemosyne:ASPLOS11,Lu:blurred,atlas:oopsla14,nvtree:fast15},
\textcolor{blue}{(Add more references here. Maybe ~10 references)}
with traditional \texttt{load/store} instructions. Using persistent NVM as main memory, we actually blur the traditional divide between byte-addressable, volatile main memory and block-addressable, persistent storage.
Leveraging the non-volatility of NVM as main memory, it is possible that the application can restart and resume computation using the data objects remaining in NVM after the application crashes.
However, with writing-back caching, store may reach NVM out of order; the pervasive cache hierarchy can cause inconsistency between data objects cached in the cache hierarchy and stored in NVM. This inconsistence persists after the application restarts. Many existing efforts~\cite{nvheap:asplos11,rewind:vldb15,atlas:oopsla14,Kolli:ASPLOS2016,Mnemosyne:ASPLOS11,Lu:blurred}
\textcolor{blue}{(Add more references here. Maybe ~10 references)}
study how to maintain data consistency using a runtime mechanism (e.g., logging and checkpoint),
such that data objects stored in NVM can be recovered to a consistent version during system recovery, a property referred to as \textit{crash consistency}.
Those efforts are based on a fundamental assumption: we must ensure crash consistency, in order to ensure the correctness of the application's outcome.
While the above assumption is valid and strongly required by some applications with an explicit requirement on data consistency, such as key-value store, \textcolor{blue}{xxxx} and \textcolor{blue}{xxxx}, we challenge this assumption and examine the necessity of crash consistency for those applications without the explicit requirement.
Examples of those applications include \textcolor{blue}{xxxxxx}.
In other words, we study application recomputability with no guarantee on data consistency when the application crashes. We define the \textit{recomputability} of an application in terms of the correctness of the application's outcome.
We claim that an application \textit{recomputes after a crash}, if the application can resume computation, run to completion, and the outcome is correct. The application recomputability is the possibility that the application recomputes after a random crash.
Studying application recomputability is beneficial for improving performance of the application in NVM.
To enable crash consistency, the programmer usually employs log-based mechanisms and the checkpoint mechanisms~\cite{mnemosyne_asplos11, usenix13:rudoff,nv-heaps_asplos11,rewind:vldb15}
\textcolor{blue}{(Add more references here. Maybe ~10 references)}
to build a consistent version of data objects throughout the application execution.
These mechanisms involve data copy and ISA-specific cache flushing mechanisms via inline assembly or library calls (e.g., \texttt{CLFLUSH}) to ensure data-persistency order.
However, frequent data logging, cache flushing, and checkpointing can cause program stalls and large runtime overhead (e.g., \textcolor{blue}{xxxxx}\%~\cite{}).
If an application is recomputable without the necessity of enforcing crash consistency of data objects, then we do not need to employ any of the above mechanisms, which significantly improves performance.
Understanding application recomputability without crash consistency is especially attractive to the field of high-performance computing (HPC),
where application execution is excepted to take long time and the system failure is expected to happen often~\cite{}.
In this paper, we study a spectrum of applications (\textcolor{blue}{20?} applications) from various scientific and engineering fields, and characterize their recomputability. Based on the study results, we build models, aiming to guide the deployment of applications on NVM-based data centers (NVM is used as main memory).
Without the execution of an application, the models can statistically predict recomptuability of the application given each application input. Furthermore, the models can give guidance on which data objects do not have to be crash-consistent and which ones have to be, in order to enable high application recomputability and high application performance.
Evaluating application recomputability without crash consistency is not trivial, because of the following reasons.
\textit{First}, we must be able to frequently trigger application crashes. The traditional fault injection method~\cite{} randomly triggers a bit flip in hardware components to evaluate hardware reliability and application resilience. However, this method cannot work for us, because there is no guarantee that each fault injection test results in an application crash.
In fact, the application crash rate among a large number of fault injection tests is usually in the range of \textcolor{blue}{xxxx-xxxx}.
Furthermore, the fault injection that causes application crashes can be limited to specific application execution phases or data structures~\cite{bifit:SC12}.
Hence, it cannot faithfully and comprehensively emulate the scenarios in data centers where the application crash randomly happens at any time.
\textit{Second}, we must be able to detect data consistency and collect data object values in NVM for recomputation, after the crash happens. Without the availability of NVM hardware~\footnote{At the time of writing this paper, there is no commercial NVDIMM hardware avaialble in the market. But even with such hardware, the reliability of machines repeatedly used for crash tests is questionable.}, the traditional DRAM-based main memory, although often used to emulate NVM~\cite{middleware15:volos} \textcolor{blue}{(add more references here)},
can lose data when the crash happens.
NVDIMM-N~\cite{NVDIMM} could provide a possible solution to address the problem.
In particular, when a power failure happens, NVDIMM-N copies the data from volatile traditional DRAM to a flash storage using a small backup power source when the crash happens, and copies it back when power is restored.
However, NVDIMM-N is not suitable for our evaluation, because our evaluation involves a large amount of application crash tests. For those tests, a machine with NVDIMM-N has to repeatedly stop and restart, which is time-consuming and impacts the machine reliability.
Furthermore, determining data consistency requires that we compare data in caches and its counterpart in memory. To quantify how much inconsistency there is between the two data copies, we must also record data values of dirty cache lines. The real hardware does not allow us to track data values and dirtiness of cache lines. The existing simulators usually do not store data values in caches and main memory for simulation.
To evaluate application recomputability without crash consistency, we introduce a PIN~\cite{Pin:PLDI05}-based simulation tool, named \textit{NVCT\xspace} (standing for \textit{N}on-\textit{V}olatile memory \textit{C}rash tester). In essence, the tool is a PIN-based cache simulator plus rich functionality for crash tests.
The tool allows the user to randomly trigger application crash and then perform postmortem analysis on data values in caches and memory to examine data consistency.
The tool associates rich data semantics with data values, such that the user can determine which data objects are critical to application recomputatbility.
The tool is highly customizable, allowing the user to configure cache hierarchy, cache coherence, and the association between data values and data semantics.
We use NVCT\xspace to study recomputability of applications from two benchmark suites, i.e., NAS Parallel Benchmark Suite~\cite{} and SPEC CPU~\cite{}.
Using \textcolor{blue}{thousands} of crash tests, we statistically reveal that some applications do not need crash consistency on critical data objects and have high recomputability after crashes.
We study the reasons that account for application's inherent tolerance to crash consistency, including memory access pattern, data size, and
application algorithm.
\textcolor{blue}{say something on why our models are useful.}
The major contributions of the paper are summarized as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item We introduce a tool, NVCT\xspace, to study application recomputability in NVM without crash consistency, which is unprecedented.
\item We use NVCT\xspace to study a set of applications. Different from the existing work that relies on enforcing crash consistency for application recomputation, we reveal that some applications are inherently tolerant to crash consistency. We perform a detailed analysis of the reasons.
\end{itemize}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
"Ensuring the recoverability of data structures requires programmers
to have the ability to control the order stores reach PM [5, 14,
18, 41, 59]. With write-back caching, stores may reach PM out of
order, compromising data structure recoverability. Existing systems
do not provide efficient mechanisms to enforce the order in which
stores are written back [5, 29]. Recent work has proposed persistency
models to provide programmers an interface to control the
order persistent stores write to PM [3, 14, 21, 25, 41]. Like prior
work, we refer to the act of writing a store durably in PM as a persist".
The programmer must invoke ISA-specific mechanisms (via library calls
or inline assembly) to ensure persist order, and often must reason
carefully about compiler optimizations that may affect the relevant
code.
In this paper, we use a different view to examine application recomputation in NVM. Without taking care of consistency of data objects, we aim to understand if the application can be recomputable, given possible inconsistent data objects in NVM. We define application recomputability in terms of \textit{application outcome correctness}. In particular, we claim an application is recomputable after a crash if the application final outcome is correct. If an application is recomputable without crash consistency of data objects, then we do not need to employ any cache flushing or logging mechanisms, which improves performance.
Having the performance improvement is especially attractive to applications in the field of high-performance computing (HPC).
Evaluating application recomputability without crash consistency is not trivial, because of the following reasons.
\textit{First}, to evaluate application recomputation, we must collect data object values in NVM for recomputation, when the crash happens. Without available NVM hardware, the traditional DRAM-based main memory, although often used to emulate NVM~\cite{middleware15:volos}, can lose data when the crash happens. NVDIMM-N provide a possible solution to address the problem. In particular, when a power failure happens, NVDIMM-N copies the data from the volatile traditional DRAM to a flash storage and copies it back when power is restored.
In the solution of NVDIMM-N~\cite{NVDIMM},
the traditional DRAM is used to emulate NVM and a small backup power source (e.g., a large battery) is used to make the data copy during the power failure.
However, NVDIMM-N is not suitable for our evaluation, because our evaluation involves a large amount of application crash tests. For those tests, a machine with NVDIMM-N has to repeatedly stop and restart, which is time-consuming and impacts the machine reliability.
\textit{Second}, we must determine data consistency when the crash happens. This requires that we compare data in caches and its counterpart in memory.
This indicates that we must track data dirtiness of each cache line in caches. To quantify how much inconsistency there is between two data copies, we must also record data values of dirty cache lines. The real hardware does not allow us to track data values and dirtiness of cache lines. The existing simulators usually do not store data values in caches and main memory for simulation.
To evaluate application recomputability without crash consistency, we introduce a PIN~\cite{Pin:PLDI05}-based simulation tool, named \textit{NVCT\xspace} (standing for \textit{N}on-\textit{V}olatile memory \textit{C}rash tester). In essence, the tool is a PIN-based cache simulator plus rich functionality for crash tests.
The tool allows the user to randomly trigger application crash and then perform postmortem analysis on data values in caches and memory to examine data consistency.
The tool associates rich data semantics with data values, such that the user can determine which data objects are critical to application recomputatbility.
The tool is highly customizable, allowing the user to configure cache hierarchy, cache coherence, and the association between data values and data semantics.
The tool also allows the user to test the impact of different cache flushing mechanisms (e.g., \texttt{CLFLUSH}, \texttt{CLWB} and \texttt{CFLUSHOPT}) on data consistency.
The tool also integrates the functionality of restarting the application with postmortem data in memory to determine application recomputability.
NVCT\xspace is useful for several scenarios. Beyond being used to study application recomputability,
NVCT\xspace can be used as a debugger tool.
As a debugger tool, NVCT\xspace can be used to examine if the persist order enforced by the programmer is correct. It can also be used to detect if the data value of a specific variable is consistent as expected by the programmer when the application crashes.
\setstcolor{green}
\st{Furthermore, we study how to improve simulation performance of NVCT\xspace.
As a tool based on binary instrumentation (i.e., PIN), NVCT\xspace can run slowly for those applications with large data sets. We introduce a technique that scales down data sets and cache size for faster simulation without losing the result correctness for understanding application recomputability.
Using the technique, we improve the simulation performance by over
}
\end{comment}
\section{Background }
\subsection{Cache Flushing for Data Persistence}
\label{sec:cflash_data_persist}
\begin{comment}
\end{comment}
Because of the prevalence of volatile caches, data objects in applications may not be persistent in NVM when a crash happens. To ensure persistency and consistency of data objects in NVM, the programmer typically employs ISA-specific cache flushing instructions (e.g., \texttt{CLFLUSH}, \texttt{CLFLUSHOPT}, and \texttt{CLWB}).
\begin{comment}
\end{comment}
To persist a large data object, the current common practice is to flush all cache blocks of the data object~\cite{pmdk}, even when some of them are not in the cache. This is because we do not have a mechanism to track dirty cache lines and whether a specific cache block is resident in the cache. However, flushing a clean cache block or a non-resident cache block is much less expensive than flushing a dirty one resident in the cache, because there is no writeback.
\begin{comment}
\definecolor{codegreen}{rgb}{0,0.6,0}
\definecolor{codegray}{rgb}{0.5,0.5,0.5}
\definecolor{codepurple}{rgb}{0.58,0,0.82}
\definecolor{backcolour}{rgb}{0.95,0.95,0.92}
\lstdefinestyle{style1}{
commentstyle=\color{codegreen},
keywordstyle=\color{magenta},
numberstyle=\tiny\color{codegray},
stringstyle=\color{codepurple},
basicstyle=\footnotesize,
frame=bottomline,
numbers=left,
numbersep=5pt,
keywordstyle=\color{red},
emph={write_back_invalidate_cache,cache_line_write_back},
emphstyle=\color{blue},
escapeinside={(*@}{@*)},
}
\lstset{style=style1}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{lstlisting}[language=c, xleftmargin=.02\textwidth, xrightmargin=0.01\textwidth]
/*Loop through cache-line-size aligned chunks
covering the given range of the target data object*/
cache_block_flush(const void *addr, size_t len)
{
unsigned __int64 ptr;
for (ptr = (unsigned __int64)addr & ~(FLUSH_ALIGN - 1);
ptr < (unsigned __int64)addr + len;
ptr += FLUSH_ALIGN)
flush((char *)ptr); /*clflush/clflush_opt/clwb*/
}
\end{lstlisting}
\caption{Using cache flushing instructions to flush cache blocks of a data object.}
\label{fig:cache_flushing}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Terminology and Problem Definition}
\textbf{Data objects.}
We focus on heap and global data objects in this paper, and do not consider stack data objects.
Making such a selection on data objects is based on our comprehensive survey on 51 HPC applications: in our survey, we find that major memory footprint and most important data objects (important to execution correctness) in HPC applications are heap and global ones. Our observation is aligned with the recent work~\cite{Ji:2017:UOM:3126908.3126917, bifit:SC12}.
We study data objects (but not the whole system state) for recomputation study, because of two reasons: (1) the current main-stream NVM programming models for NVM~\cite{pmdk, nvheap:asplos11,Mnemosyne:ASPLOS11} focus on persisting data objects for the convenience of application restart; (2) persisting the whole system state can cause large performance overhead.
\begin{comment}
\end{comment}
\textbf{Application recomputability.}
We define application recomputability in terms of application outcome correctness. In particular, we claim an application recomputes successfully after a crash, if the final application outcome remains correct. The application outcome is deemed correct, as long as it is acceptable according to application semantics. Depending on application semantics, the outcome correctness can refer to precise numerical integrity (e.g., the outcome of a multiplication operation must be numerically precise), or refer to satisfying a minimum fidelity threshold (e.g., the outcome of an iterative solver must meet certain convergence thresholds). Leveraging application-level acceptance verification, we can determine the correctness of the application outcome.
Furthermore, we define application recomputability with a high requirement on performance to make our solution practical for HPC. In particular, for an HPC application with iterative structures, we claim that it recomputes successfully when its outcome is correct \textit{and} it does not take extra iterations to finish.
Application recomputability quantifies the possibility that once a crash happens, the application recomputes successfully. To calculate application recomputability, one has to perform a number of crash tests to ensure statistical significance. Each test triggers a random crash and restarts the application. We use the ratio of the number of tests that successfully recompute to total number of tests as the \textit{application recomputability}. We call all of the crash tests as a \textit{crash test campaign}.
We distinguish ``restart'' and ``recompute''. After the application crashes, the application may resume execution, which we call \textit{restart}. If the application outcome is correct and there is no need of extra iterations to finish, we claim the application \textit{recomputes.}
\textbf{System efficiency.} It is defined as the ratio of the accumulated useful computation time to total time spent on the HPC system. The total time includes useful computation time, checkpoint time, lost computation time because of crashes, and recovery time.
\begin{comment}
\end{comment}
\textbf{Application target.} We focus on HPC applications. The effectiveness of EasyCrash\xspace is affected by the acceptance verification and resilience characteristics of those applications.
The acceptance verification can happen at the end of the application~\cite{hpl} or during the application execution~\cite{nicholaeff2012cell}. The acceptance verification detects whether the application state is corrupted before delivering results to end users. Typically it is the programmer's responsibility to write the acceptance verification to ensure that computation results do not violate application-specific properties (e.g., convergence conditions or numeric tolerance for result approximation). The application-level acceptance verification is very common in HPC applications, and increasingly common, because of the strong needs of increasing the confidence in the results offered by HPC applications. These needs are driven by increasing awareness of hardware faults and application complexity.
A large class of HPC applications with iterative structures are naturally resilient to computation inaccuracy~\cite{mg_ics12, Chippa:2013:ACI:2463209.2488873} and often characterized with a main computation loop dominating computation time.
Those iterative applications are promising to be recomputable after crashes because they work by improving the accuracy of the solution step by step, and the process can help to eliminate errors.
For example, a convergent iterative method can tolerate inconsistent data during the convergence process. Because of the prevalence and importance of those applications, the recent work on approximate computing also focuses on those applications~\cite{ics06:rinard, 19-mengte2010exploiting, oopsla13:carbin, oopsla14:misailovic, onward10:rinard, fse11:douskos}.
\textbf{Failure model.}
We focus on application failures which could be caused by power loss or processor failures. We do not consider application failures caused by software bugs, because those bugs can prevent application recomputation
\subsection{Optane DC Persistent Memory Module}
The very recent release of Intel Optane DC persistent memory module (PMM) is arguably the most mature NVM product as \textit{main memory} and promising for future HPC~\cite{aurora_anl}. We put our discussion in the context of this hardware to make our work more useful
Optane DC PMM can be configured as either memory mode or app-direct mode. With the memory mode, Optane DC PMM does not provide data persistency, hence not relevant to our work. We assume that Optane DC PMM uses \textit{app-direct} mode in our work. With this mode, Optane DC PMM is provisioned as persistent memory with byte addressability. The application can directly access it using load/store instructions without going through the DRAM cache,
and flushing CPU caches makes data persistent in Optane DC PMM. To locate data objects in Optane DC PMM after a failure, the user can leverage a memory-mapped file-based mechanism. This mechanism uses address offset, which is independent of memory addresses, to keep track of the location of data objects. This mechanism is commonly used in the exiting NVM-aware programming models~\cite{intel_nvm_lib, mnemosyne_asplos11, usenix13:rudoff}.
\begin{comment}
We do not consider memory address-related crash consistency.
The inconsistency in memory addresses can easily cause memory segmentation fault when the application restarts. Many existing efforts (e.g.,~\cite{Chen:2017:ESP:3123939.3124543,Chakrabarti:2014:ALL:2660193.2660224}) aim to address those problems and are complementary to our work.
\end{comment}
\section{Recomputability Modeling (3 Pages)}
\section{Design}
\label{sec:design}
Motivated by the above observations, we introduce EasyCrash\xspace, a framework that increases application recomputability with an ignorable runtime performance overhead and offers higher system efficiency than C/R without EasyCrash\xspace. EasyCrash\xspace \textit{automatically decides} which data objects should be persisted and where to persist them to maximize application recomputability and reduce writes in NVM.
Based on the decision by EasyCrash\xspace, the user inserts APIs into the application to flush data objects exemplified in Lines 20-22 in Figure~\ref{fig:flushing}, which involves minor changes to the application. We describe how EasyCrash\xspace makes the decision in this section.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/E_design1.pdf}
\subcaption[a]{If a crash occurs, the traditional C/R without EasyCrash\xspace loads data from the last checkpoint.}
\label{fig:checkpoint}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/E_design2.pdf}
\subcaption[b]{EasyCrash continues the execution of the application with consistent and inconsistent data objects in NVM, after a crash happens.}
\label{fig:EasyCrash}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Illustration of how an HPC application behaves without and with EasyCrash\xspace. Figure annotation: ``chk'' - checkpoint; ``v'' - application acceptance verification; ``E'' - EasyCrash persistence operations.}
\label{fig:design}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
Figure~\ref{fig:design} compares EasyCrash\xspace and the traditional C/R. With the traditional C/R, checkpoint happens periodically. Once a crash happens, the application restarts from the last checkpoint. With EasyCrash\xspace, the application periodically persists some data objects at specific code regions. This can be much more lightweight than checkpoint, because EasyCrash\xspace does not make data copy and flushing some cache blocks do not cause writeback.
Once a crash happens, the application immediately restarts using remaining data objects in NVM. If the application cannot restart successfully, then the application has to go back to the last checkpoint. Note that EasyCrash\xspace still needs checkpoint, but checkpoint can happen less frequently because EasyCrash\xspace makes some crashes recomputable (see Section~\ref{sec:checkpoint_emulation} for checkpoint details)
\end{comment}
\subsection{Selection of Data Objects}
\label{sec:selection_data_obj}
We name data objects selected to be persisted, ``critical data objects'' in the rest of the paper.
To select data objects, we choose those data objects with the following properties as \textit{candidates}: (1) Their lifetime is the main computation loop; and (2) They are not read-only. Except for the candidates, the other data objects are either temporal or read-only, and not treated as the candidates of critical data objects.
When the application restarts, the other data objects are not read from NVM. Instead, they are restored by either the initialization phase of the application or being re-computed based on the candidates of critical data objects.
When the application restarts, the candidates are directly read from NVM.
\begin{comment}
\end{comment}
There is a large search space to select data objects out of the candidates. Assuming that there are $N$ candidates, then there are $2^N$ possible selections. We use statistical correlation analysis to select data objects efficiently.
Our selection method is based on the following observation. When a crash happens, data objects remaining in NVM can have different degrees of inconsistency. For example, a data object of 128MB could have 16MB of inconsistent data, giving an inconsistent rate of $16/128= 12.5\%$, while some data object could have an inconsistent rate of 50\%. We observe that the application recomputability correlates with inconsistent rates of some data objects, meaning that if these data objects have high inconsistent rate, the application recomputability is low. These data objects should be selected as critical data objects. We also observe that the application recomputability is not sensitive to the inconsistent rate of some data objects. Persisting these data objects does not matter to application recomputability. Hence, the sensitivity of application recomputability to the inconsistent rate of data objects can work as a metric to select data objects.
We use Spearman's rank correlation analysis~\cite{doi:10.1080/01621459.1972.10481251} to statistically quantify the correlation between the inconsistent rate of data objects and application recomputability. The result of the Spearman's rank correlation is the coefficient ($R_s$), which quantifies how well the relationship between two input vectors (data inconsistent rates and application recomputability) can be described using a monotonic function. Furthermore, we use the p-value of $R_s$ to ensure statistical significance of our analysis. The p-value is the probability of observing data that would show the same correlation coefficient in the absence of any real relationship between the input variables.
To use the Spearman's rank correlation analysis, we build two vectors for each candidate data object, using the results collected from a crash test campaign: One vector is composed of data inconsistent rates; The other vector is composed of application recomputation results (i.e., whether the application recomputes successfully or not). Each component of the two vectors is collected in one crash test. The vectors are used as input to the correlation analysis.
Based on the Spearman's rank correlation analysis, we use two criteria to select data objects. (1) A critical data object should have a negative value of the correlation coefficient which indicates decreasing data inconsistent rate improves application recomputability. (2) The p-value of $R_s$ should be smaller than a threshold. We use 0.01 as the threshold, because it is a common threshold~\cite{doi:10.1080/01621459.1972.10481251}, and less than it statistically shows a very strong correlation in our study.
\textbf{Verification of the selection of data objects.} To verify that our selection is effective, we evaluate application recomputability with three strategies: (1) Do not persist any data object; (2) Persist selected data objects; (3) Persist all candidate data objects.
Figure~\ref{fig:persistent_critical_data_object} shows the results. The figure shows that the difference in application recomputability between (2) and (3) is less than 3\% in all cases. This verifies the effectiveness of our selection of data objects.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{figures/persistent_critical_obj.pdf}
\caption{Application recomputability under three strategies to persist data objects. Figure annotation: ``DO'' stands for data objects.}
\label{fig:persistent_critical_data_object}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}[ht]\centering
\caption{Benchmark information.
} \label{tab:bench}
\begin{tabular}{|p{1.6cm}|p{1.6cm}|p{4.4cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Benchmark} & \textbf{Description} & \textbf{Memory footprint size of two input problems}\\
\hline
{CG} & {Iterative solver} & {Class A: 55MB, Class B: 398MB}\\
\hline
{FT} &{Spectral method} & {Class A: 321MB, Class B: 1283MB} \\
\hline
{MG} & {Iterative solver} &{Class A: 431MB, Class B: 431MB} \\
\hline
{Kmeans}& {Clustering analysis} & {kdd\_cup: 133MB, 819200: 222MB} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table*}[ht]
\scriptsize
\centering
\caption{The candidates of critical data objects and selected critical data objects.}
\label{tab:critical_data_object}
\begin{tabular}{|>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{1.8cm}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{9.6cm}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{5.0cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Benchmarks} & \textbf{Candidates of critical data objects} & \textbf{Selected critical data objects} \\ \hline
\textbf{CG} & x, r, p, q, z & p, q \\ \hline
\textbf{MG} & u, r & u \\ \hline
\textbf{FT} & ty1, ty2, u0, u1 & ty1, ty2, u0, u1 \\ \hline
\textbf{IS} & key\_array, key\_buff1, key\_buff2, bucket\_ptrs & bucket\_ptrs \\ \hline
\textbf{BT} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}us, vs, ws, qs, rho\_i, square, u, rhs, ue, fjac, njac, lhs \end{tabular} & us, vs, ws, qs, rho\_i, square, u\\ \hline
\textbf{SP} & u, us, vs, ws, qs, rho\_i, speed,square, rhs, cv, rhon, rhos, rhoq, lhs, lhsp, lhsm & u, us, vs, ws, qs, rho\_i, speed, square\\ \hline
\textbf{LU} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}u, rsd, frct, gs, rho\_i, rsdnm, a, b, c, d, au, bu, cu, du \end{tabular} & u \\ \hline
\textbf{botsspar} & tmp & tmp \\ \hline
\textbf{LULESH} & \scriptsize m\_x,m\_y,m\_z,m\_xd,m\_yd,m\_zd,m\_xdd,m\_ydd,m\_zdd,m\_symmX, m\_symmY, m\_symmZ & m\_symmX, m\_symmY, m\_symmZ \\ \hline
\textbf{kmeans} & cluster\_centres & cluster\_centres \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Selection of Code Regions}
\label{sec:selection_code_region}
In this section, we first define what are code regions in a typical HPC application. Then we formalize our problem of selecting code regions, and introduce an algorithm to solve it. Table~\ref{tab:annotation} summarizes the annotation for our formulation.
\textbf{Application code regions.}
We characterize HPC applications as a set of iterative structures or loops. In particular, there is usually a main computation loop in an HPC application. Within the main loop, there are a number of inner loops that are typically used to update data objects iteratively. Figure~\ref{fig:flushing} shows an example of such a program abstraction for MG.
We model an application as a chain of code regions delineated by loop structures. A code region is either a first-level inner loop or a block of code between two adjacent, first-level inner loops. We use the above definition of code regions, because such code regions easily represent computation phases of the application. Persisting data objects in each code region ensures that the most recent computation results in a phase are persistent in NVM, and can effectively improve application recomputability. The similar definition of code regions can be found in~\cite{sc18:guo} to study application resilience to errors.
\begin{table}[!tb]
\small
\centering
\caption{Model annotation}
\label{tab:annotation}
\begin{tabular}{|p{1.3cm}|p{6.4 cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{Description} \\ \hline
\textbf{$R_s$} & Spearman's rank correlation coefficient \\ \hline
\textbf{$a_k$} & The ratio of the accumulated execution time of the code region $k$ to the total execution time of the application \\ \hline
\textbf{$c_k$} & Recomputability of the code region $k$ \\ \hline
\textbf{$Y$} & Application recomputability \\ \hline
\textbf{$l_k$} & The performance loss due to persistence operations in the code region $k$ \\ \hline
\textbf{$t_s$} & Runtime overhead because of persistence operations in the application \\ \hline
\textbf{$\tau$} & The system efficiency goal for long-running applications with EasyCrash\xspace \\ \hline
\textbf{$N$ and $M$} & \# checkpoint and \# crashes in the whole system time
\\ \hline
\textbf{$W$} & \# code regions in the application
\\ \hline
\textbf{$M'$} & \# crashes that go to the last checkpoint for recovery after using EasyCrash\xspace
\\ \hline
\textbf{$M''$} & \# crashes that use EasyCrash to recompute successfully
\\ \hline
\textbf{Any para. with ``prime''} & The corresponding parameters after applying EasyCrash\xspace
\\ \hline
\textbf{$c_k^{max}$} & Maximum recomputability of the code region $k$ after persisting data objects
\\ \hline
\textbf{$x$} & The frequency to persist data objects in a loop-based code region
\\ \hline
\textbf{$c_k^{x}$} & Recomputability when using $x$ as the frequency for cache flushing in the code region $k$
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\textbf{Problem formulation.}
Among all code regions, we want to select code regions to satisfy two performance goals. (1) \textit{The runtime performance goal}: the application with critical data objects persisted at the selected code regions should have runtime overhead smaller than a threshold $t_s$. $t_s$ is set by the user ($t_s = 3\%$ of the application execution time without any crash in our study). (2) \textit{The system efficiency goal} for long-running applications: the system efficiency with EasyCrash\xspace (including successful and unsuccessful recomputation) should be better than that with C/R without EasyCrash\xspace.
Achieving this goal requires that the recomputability of the application with the selected code regions should be higher enough (higher than a threshold $\tau$). Section~\ref{sec:checkpoint_emulation} discusses how to decide $\tau$.
We name the selected code regions as ``critical code regions'' in the rest of the paper. In the following discussion, we assume that there is only one critical code region, in order to make our formalization easy to understand. But our formalization can be easily extended to multiple critical code regions.
Assume that there are $W$ code regions in an application and $Y$ is the application recomputability without persisting any data objects. The recomputability of a code region $i$ is $c_i$. \textit{The recomputability of a code region} is the possibility that when a crash happens during the execution of the code region, the application can be successfully recomputed. We formulate $Y$ as follows, based on the definition of recomputability.
\begin{equation}
Y = \sum_{i=1}^{W} (a_i \times c_i)
\end{equation}
\noindent where $a_i$ is the ratio of the accumulated execution time of the code region $i$ to the total execution time of the application.
Assume that the code region $k$ ($1 \le k \le W$) is selected as a critical code region. After persisting critical data objects at the code region $k$, the recomputability of the application and code region becomes $Y^{\prime}$ and $c_k^{\prime}$ respectively.
We have performance loss $l_k$ for persisting critical data objects in the code region $k$, which is the ratio of the absolute performance loss to the total execution time.
$Y^{\prime}$ can be calculated based on $c_k^{\prime}$, shown in Equation~\ref{eq:new_Y}.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:new_Y}
Y^{\prime} = \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} (a_i^{\prime} \times c_i) + a_k^{\prime} \times c_k^{\prime} + \sum_{i=k+1}^{W} (a_i^{\prime} \times c_i)
\end{equation}
\noindent where $a_i^{\prime}$ and $a_k^{\prime}$ are the new performance ratios with the consideration of the persistence overhead.
Our two performance goals are formulated as follows. We want to select a code region to meet the two goals.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:goal2}
l_k < t_s \qquad
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:goal1}
Y^{\prime} > \tau
\end{equation}
\textbf{Our algorithm to solve the problem.}
To determine if the selection of a code region can meet Equation~\ref{eq:goal2}, we need to estimate the performance loss ($l_k$) caused by persisting critical data objects. $l_k$ can be estimated based on measuring the overhead of flushing one cache block and the total number of cache blocks to flush.
To determine if the selection of a code region can meet Equation~\ref{eq:goal1}, we use the following method to estimate $c_k^{\prime}$ (without doing extensive crash tests) and then calculate $Y^{\prime}$ based on Equation~\ref{eq:new_Y} and $c_k^{\prime}$.
$c_k^{\prime}$ depends on how frequently we persist data objects in the code region. (1) If the code region $k$ is a loop structure, we can persist data objects at every iteration of the loop to maximize recomputability ($c_k^{max}$), or persist them every $x$ iterations
with the recomputability $c_k^{x}$. If we do not persist them at all, then the recomputability of the code region is not changed (still $c_k$), and the code region is literally not selected. (2) If the code region is not a loop structure, we flush cache blocks at the end of the code region to reach $c_k^{max}$, or do not flush at all with no change of recomputability (still $c_k$).
To approximate $c_k^{max}$, we measure the recomputability of the code region $k$, when persisting data objects at every code region and every iteration of the loop in each code region. We use the measured recomputability
at the code region $k$
as $c_k^{max}$. To approximate $c_k^{x}$ for a code region with a loop structure, we use Equation~\ref{eq:approx_c_k_x}.
\startcompact{small}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:approx_c_k_x}
c_k^{x} = (c_k^{max} - c_k)\times \frac{1}{x} + c_k
\end{equation}
\stopcompact{small}
In essence, Equation~\ref{eq:approx_c_k_x} estimates $c_k^{x}$ based on a linear interpolation between $c_k^{max}$ and $c_k$.
Using the above formulation and method, we can know the performance loss ($l_k$) and the application recomputability
$c_k^{\prime}$
) for any code region, where $1 \le k \le W$.
Based on the above discussion,
we can generalize our method to select multiple code regions as follows. To meet the two performance goals, we try to select those code regions with total performance loss less than $t_s$, and the recomputability after persisting data objects in the selected code regions should be larger than $\tau$. We also want to maximize recomputability. This is a variant of the 0-1 knapsack problem~\cite{knapsackbook} with the performance loss as the item weight and recomputability as the item value. This problem can be solved by the dynamic programming in pseudo-polynomial time.
\textbf{How to use the algorithm.}
To use the algorithm, we need to know the performance loss $l_k$ for each code region. The performance loss can be different
with different data persisting frequencies.
We estimate the performance loss based on the overhead measurement of flushing one cache block. Note that certain cache flushing instructions (\texttt{CLFLUSH} and \texttt{CLFLUSHOPT}) invalidate cache lines after cache flushing. This means that cache blocks need to be reloaded into the cache when they are re-accessed, which causes extra performance loss. To account for such performance loss, we double our estimation on the overhead of flushing cache blocks.
To use the algorithm, we also need to know the recomputability of each code region without persisting any data object ($c_k$) and the recomputability of each code region after we persist critical data objects at the code region ($c_k^{\prime}$).
The two recomputability results can be measured by two campaigns of crash tests. In the first campaign, we do not persist any data object; In the second campaign, we persist critical data objects at every code region. For both campaigns, we measure the recomputability of each code region.
\textbf{Discussions.}
When we estimate $l_k$, we assume every cache block of data objects is in the cache, which overestimates the performance overhead. Some cache blocks may not be in the cache and flushing them is not expensive. However, overestimation ensures that the real runtime overhead is smaller than $t_s$, which is good.
To calculate $Y^{\prime}$, we use one campaign of crash tests to measure the recomputability of each code region, by persisting critical data objects at each code region. This method, although avoids massive numbers of crash tests, introduces the measurement inaccuracy, because persisting data objects in one code region can impact the recomputability of another code region. In essence, we ignore the possible propagation of computation inaccuracy from one code region to another. Such a method can make the measured recomputability smaller than the real recomputability. This means EasyCrash\xspace should result in larger recomputability and larger performance benefit in reality, which is good.
\subsection{Workflow of EasyCrash\xspace}
We present the whole workflow of EasyCrash\xspace in this section. The workflow includes four steps.
Step 1: Running a crash test campaign. We collect the data inconsistent rate of candidates of critical data objects and calculate corresponding recomputability
Step 2: Selection of data objects. We calculate the correlation between the inconsistent rate of data objects and application recomputability to decide critical data objects
Step 3: Selection of code regions. We run another crash test campaign that persists critical data objects. The output of this step is the decision on where EasyCrash\xspace should flush critical data objects and how frequently that should happen
Step 4: Production run. Just run the application, and EasyCrash\xspace automatically manages cache flushes
The above steps are based on minor changes to the application, discussed as follows
\textbf{Application preparation.} The application changes include two parts: (1) Allocating data objects that are referenced in the main computation loop and not read-only, with an EasyCrash\xspace API. Those data objects are candidates of critical data objects, and their addresses are passed into EasyCrash\xspace for potential cache flushing during production runs. (2) Identifying the end of first-level inner loops with an EasyCrash\xspace API. Those places delineate code regions. For (1) and (2), the compiler can annotate the application with the APIs, freeing the programmer from changing the application. For (1) with the pointer alias problem, the programmer has to manually allocate data objects, but the change is straightforward
Among all benchmarks we evaluate, the change is less than 10 lines in each benchmark. Those benchmarks with changes can be found in our released code
\section{Benchmark Information}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\scriptsize
\caption{Benchmark information for crash experiments. ``R/W'' = ``Read/Write ratio'', ``DO'' = ``data object'', ``iter'' = ``iterations''. }
\vspace{-10pt}
\label{tab:bench}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Benchmarks} & \textbf{Description} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\# of code\\regions\end{tabular}} & \textbf{R/W} & \textbf{Memory footprint} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Candi. of critical \\ DO size\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Critical DO size\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Ave. \# of extra iter. to \\ restart (restart overhead)\end{tabular}}
& \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Total \# of iter. in the \\original app execution\end{tabular}}
\\ \hline
\textbf{CG} & Sparse linear algebra & 6 & 21:1 & 947MB & 5.7MB & 2.3MB &9.1&75 \\ \hline
\textbf{MG} & Structured grids & 4 & 7:1 & 3.4GB & 2.3GB & 1.2GB &0&20 \\ \hline
\textbf{FT} & Spectral method & 4 & 1:1 & 5.1GB & 4.0GB & 4.0GB &0&20 \\ \hline
\textbf{IS} & Graph traversal (sorting) & 8 & 2:1 & 1.0GB & 264MB & 4KB &N/A(segfault) &10 \\ \hline
\textbf{BT} & Dense linear algebra & 15 & 2:1 & 644MB & 525.6MB & 361.2MB &0&200 \\ \hline
\textbf{SP} & Dense linear algebra & 16 & 2:1 & 772MB & 561MB & 184MB &0&400 \\ \hline
\textbf{LU} & Dense linear algebra & 4 & 5:2 & 644MB & 599MB & 164MB &N/A (the verification fails)&250 \\ \hline
\textbf{botsspar} & Sparse linear algebra & 4 & 2:1 & 3.74GB & 3.36GB & 3.36GB &0&200 \\\hline
\textbf{LELUSH} & Hydrodynamics modeling & 4 & 5:1 & 567MB & 251MB & 120MB &0&3517 \\ \hline
\textbf{kmean} & Data mining & 1 & 9:2 & 222MB & 20B & 20B &18.2&36 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\end{comment}
\section{Evaluation}
\label{sec:evaluation}
In this section, we study whether EasyCrash\xspace can effectively improve application recomputability and
the runtime overhead of EasyCrash\xspace.
In the next section, we evaluate system efficiency of EasyCrash\xspace in large scale systems in the context of C/R mechanisms. We use the benchmarks shown in Table~\ref{tab:bench}.
Table~\ref{tab:hardware} shows the hardware we use for evaluation (including crash emulation and performance study)
To calculate application recomputability, we use the method in Section~\ref{sec:motivation_examples_setup} for crash tests.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Hardware used in evaluation.}
\label{tab:hardware}
\begin{tabular}{l}
\hline
CPU: \phantom{LAL} Two Xeon Gold 6126 processors (Skylake) @ 2.6 GHz \\
DRAM: \phantom{LA} DDR4 129GB BW: 106 GB/s \phantom{L} Latency: 87 ns \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We set $t_s$ as 3\% in this section.
We also use $t_s = 2\%$ and $5\%$ for the \textit{sensitivity study}. In all tests, the runtime overhead is effectively bounded by $t_s$. But a smaller $t_s$ leads to less frequent persistence operations. As a result, a few benchmarks (e.g., FT) cannot meet the recomputation requirement imposed by $\tau$. We show the results of $t_s = 3\%$ in this section. We do not present the results for EP, because its inherent recomputability is 0. Even with EasyCrash\xspace, its recomputability is less than 3\%, and EasyCrash\xspace cannot bring benefit in system efficiency
according to our model (Equation~\ref{eq:goal1}).
\textbf{Effectiveness of EasyCrash\xspace.} Figure~\ref{fig:recompute_success_rate_breakdown} shows the application recomputability before and after we apply EasyCrash\xspace. To reveal the contributions of our two techniques (i.e., selecting data objects and selecting code regions) to improve the application recomputability, we first measure recomputability without using the two techniques (shown as ``without EasyCrash\xspace'' in the figure). Then we select data objects and persist them at the end of each iteration of the main computation loop.
The recomputability improvement is shown as ``selecting data objects''. We then select code regions to persist the selected data objects, and the recomputability improvement is shown as ``selecting code regions''
To show the effectiveness of EasyCrash\xspace, we also show the \textit{best recomputability results}, and compare them with those after applying EasyCrash\xspace. We obtain the best recomputability by persisting critical data objects at each code region
(if the code region has a loop structure, then we persist critical data objects at the end of each iteration of the loop).
Note that the method to get the best recomputability is very costly (shown in the last column of Table~\ref{tab:exe_time}), which is not a practical solution for HPC. In Section~\ref{sec:design}, we have shown that persisting critical data objects can achieve very similar recomputability as persisting all data objects; hence, we do not show results for persisting all data objects.
We have the following observations from Figure~\ref{fig:recompute_success_rate_breakdown}.
(1) EasyCrash\xspace achieves very high recomputability. Except for CG, the recomputability of applying EasyCrash\xspace is pretty close to the best one,
with a difference of only 5\% on average.
For CG, there is a big difference (49\%), because many successful recomputation tests in CG require extra iterations, which is not acceptable in EasyCrash\xspace due to the concerns on runtime overhead. Note that even with the big difference, EasyCrash\xspace still brings 4\% improvement in system efficiency for CG (shown in Section~\ref{sec:checkpoint_emulation}).
(2) EasyCrash\xspace significantly improves application recomputability. This fact is especially pronounced in the benchmarks MG, botsspar and kmeans. We see 56\%, 77\%, and 93\% improvement for the three benchmarks respectively. The average recomputability of all benchmarks after using EasyCrash\xspace is 82\%, while it is 28\% before using EasyCrash\xspace. Also, EasyCrash\xspace is able to transform 54\% of crashes that cannot correctly recompute into the correct computation.
\textbf{Result verification.} The above recomputation results are collecting using NVCT\xspace. To verify the result correctness, we perform crash tests on a physical machine (see Table~\ref{tab:hardware}) without NVCT\xspace. We randomly stop the application to emulate a crash and then make a copy of all candidates of critical data objects for restart. When the application restarts, we use the same method as in Section~\ref{sec:NVCT} (but no NVCT\xspace). We measure application recomputability by crash test campaigns. Note that this method is different from a real crash, because when making the data copy, the system forces \textit{all} data objects to be consistent between caches and NVM. In a real crash and NVCT\xspace, non-critical data objects are not consistent. Hence, this crash test should show stronger recomputability. Figure~\ref{fig:recompute_success_rate_breakdown} shows the results (see ``Verified''). As expected, the new result (recomputability) is higher than that of using NVCT\xspace, but the two results are pretty close (less than 5\% difference), verifying the effectiveness of EasyCrash\xspace
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}[]
\scriptsize
\caption{Crash test detail(number of crash test until recompute success rate converged).} \label{tab:crash_test_number}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\textbf{CG} & \textbf{MG} & \textbf{FT} & \textbf{EP} & \textbf{IS} & \textbf{BT} & \textbf{SP} & \textbf{LU} & \textbf{botsspar} & \textbf{LELUSH} & \textbf{kmeans} \\ \hline
1000 & 1500 & 1500 & 1000 & 1250 & 1200 & 1200 & 1350 & 1300 & &1050 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}[b]
\caption{Crash test detail(number of crash test until recompute success rate converged).}
\vspace{-20pt}
\label{tab:crash_test_number}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{l}{\textbf{\# of crash test until recompute success rate converged.}} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{CG} & 1000 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{MG} & 1500 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{FT} & 1500 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{EP} & 1000 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{IS} & 1250 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{BT} & 1200 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{SP} & 1200 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{LU} & 1350 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{botsspar} & 1300 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{LELUSH} & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{figures/all_new.pdf}
\caption
Application recomputability with different methods. Figure annotation: ``EC'', ``best'', and ``VFY'' stand for EasyCrash\xspace, best recomputability, and verified recomputability, respectively.
\label{fig:recompute_success_rate_breakdown}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\scriptsize
\caption{Normalized execution time. ``Norm'' = ``normalized''. ``EC'' = ``EasyCrash\xspace''. ``best'' = ``the best recomputability''} \label{tab:exe_time}
\begin{tabular}{|P{0.8cm}|P{1.6cm}|P{1.2cm}|P{0.7cm}|P{0.8 cm}|P{1.1cm}|}
\hline
& \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Time for persisting \\ critical data for once \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\# of persistence \\ operations \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Norm.\\exe. time \\ with EC \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Norm. \\exe. time \\ without EC \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Norm. exe. \\time achieving\\the best. \end{tabular}\\ \hline
\textbf{CG} & \textless{}0.001 s & 75 & 1.004 & 1.20 & 1.24\\ \hline
\textbf{MG} & 0.035 s & 40 & 1.012 & 1.26 & 1.24\\ \hline
\textbf{FT} & 0.032 s & 80 & 1.016 & 1.22 & 1.12\\ \hline
\textbf{IS} & 0.030 s & 10 & 1.011 & 1.15 & 1.43\\ \hline
\textbf{BT} & 0.034 s & 200 & 1.025 & 1.10 & 1.34\\ \hline
\textbf{SP} & 0.034 s & 200 & 1.022 & 1.23 & 1.55\\ \hline
\textbf{LU} & 0.033 s & 250 & 1.025 & 1.23 & 1.58\\ \hline
\textbf{botsspar} & 0.030 s & 200 & 1.015 &1.28 & 1.62\\ \hline
\textbf{LULESH} & 0.030 s & 293 & 1.016 & 1.25 & 1.43\\ \hline
\textbf{kmeans} & \textless{}0.001 s & 36 & 1.000 &1.00 & 1.00\\ \hline
\textbf{Average} & about 0.026 s & 138 & 1.015 &1.19 & 1.35\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figures/sensitivity.pdf}
\caption
The performance (normalized execution time) with and without EasyCrash\xspace. Figure annotation: ``EC'' stands for EasyCrash\xspace; ``Lat'' stands for latency; ``BW'' stands for bandwidth.}
\label{fig:sensitivity}
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Performance overhead.}
We measure the runtime overhead of persisting critical data objects at critical code regions with EasyCrash\xspace, with no crash triggered. We emulate NVM with DRAM, and leverage \textit{CLFLUSHOPT}~\cite{inteloptimize} for best performance of cache flushing.
Table~\ref{tab:exe_time} shows the results.
The table reports the execution time of persisting critical data objects for once (i.e., \textit{one persistence operation}), the number of persistence operations with EasyCrash\xspace, and total execution time with persistence operations.
\textit{In the rest of this section, the total execution time is normalized by the execution time without any persistence operation.}
In general, the runtime overhead is no larger than 2.5\% (bounded by $t_s=3\%$).
For comparison purpose, we show the overhead of persisting all candidate data objects at the end of each iteration of the main computation loop (shown in the fifth column of the table), which is a case without the selection of data objects and code regions. This case causes a high overhead (19\% on average), much larger than EasyCrash\xspace. We also evaluate the overhead of achieving the best recomputability by persisting critical data objects at the end of each
code region.
The runtime overhead is 35\% on average, which is much larger than EasyCrash\xspace.
\textbf{Performance study with various NVM bandwidth/latency.}
We study the performance of EasyCrash\xspace using a DRAM-based emulator, Quartz~\cite{middleware15:volos}. With Quartz, we emulate NVM configured with 4x and 8x DRAM latency, or 1/6 and 1/8 DRAM bandwidth. Such NVM configurations correspond to the performance of Optane PMM and PCM~\cite{pcm_book}.
Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity} shows the result. EasyCrash\xspace brings less than 9\% (2.3\% on average) runtime overhead in all case
We further compare the performance of EasyCrash\xspace and no EasyCrash\xspace (without EasyCrash\xspace, we persist all candidate data objects at the end of each iteration of the main computation loop). Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity} shows the result. Without EasyCrash\xspace, the performance overhead is 48\%, 62\%, 21\% and 22\% on average for the configurations of 4x and 8x DRAM latency, and 1/6 and 1/8 DRAM bandwidth respectively. We conclude that using EasyCrash\xspace performs better than no use of EasyCrash\xspace on NVM with various performance
\textbf{Performance study with Optane DC PMM.
We further evaluate the performance of EasyCrash\xspace on the very recent Intel Optane DC PMM, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:optane}. EasyCrash\xspace incurs only 6\% performance overhead on average, while without using EasyCrash\xspace the performance overhead is 50\% on average
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{figures/Optane.pdf}
\caption
The performance(normalized execution time) with and without EasyCrash on Intel Optane PC DMM.
\label{fig:optane}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}[]
\scriptsize
\caption{Application normalized execution time with EasyCrash\xspace. } \label{tab:exe_time}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
CG & MG & FT & EP & IS & BT & SP & LU & botsspar & LULESH & kmeans \\ \hline
1.014 & 1.012 & 1.016 & 1.024 & 1.011 & 1.025 & 1.022 & 1.025 & 1.015 & & 1.001 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{figures/exec_time.pdf}
\caption{Execution time (normalized by base).}
\label{fig:exec_time}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\textbf{Reduction on the number of writes.}
NVM has limited write endurance. It is critical for NVM to avoid additional writes. We compare EasyCrash\xspace and the traditional C/R mechanism in terms of the number of extra writes in NVM. For EasyCrash\xspace, the extra writes come from persisting critical data objects at critical code regions by using cache flushing instructions. As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:cflash_data_persist}, when cache blocks of critical data objects are clean or not resident in the cache, flushing them does not cause any write in NVM. For the traditional C/R mechanism, the extra writes come from making a copy of data objects; the extra writes also come from cache line eviction because of loading checkpoint data into the cache when making data copy~\cite{lazypersistency:isca18}. We use NVCT\xspace to measure the number of writes in NVM. Whenever a dirty cache block is written back from the last level cache to NVM, we count the number of writes by one.
To enable a fair comparison with EasyCrash\xspace, we perform the C/R in two ways: in one way, we checkpoint critical data objects, and in the other way we checkpoint all data objects (not including read-only ones)
Also, we assume that checkpoint happens only once. This is a rather conservative assumption. The checkpoint could happen more often (depending on the system failure rate and application execution time), which causes the more extra number of writes. We consider the system failure rate and application execution time to evaluate the effects of checkpoint in Section~\ref{sec:checkpoint_emulation}.
Figure~\ref{fig:extra_nvm_write} shows the number of NVM write normalized by the total numbers of writes in NVM without EasyCrash\xspace and C/R.
On average, EasyCrash\xspace adds 16\% additional writes, while C/R adds 38\% and 50\% for the two methods of checkpointing respectively. Also, for those benchmarks with large data objects (e.g., FT, SP, and LU), EasyCrash\xspace is especially beneficial for reducing the number of writes. This is because the number of extra writes for persisting data objects in a persistence operation is bounded by the number of cache lines in the last level cache. A larger data object indicates that EasyCrash\xspace flushes more clean cache lines or non-resident cache blocks without causing actual writes in NVM. For benchmarks with small data objects (e.g., CG), EasyCrash\xspace is not beneficial to reduce the number of writes, but writing those small data objects in NVM do not usually cause the serious endurance problem.
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}[!tp]
\scriptsize
\caption{Number of NVM writes for EasyCrash\xspace and traditional C/R. }
\label{tab:number_of_write}
\begin{tabular}{|P{1.2cm}|P{1.8cm}|P{1.8cm}|P{1.8cm}|}
\hline
& EasyCrash\xspace & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}C/R for critical\\ data objects\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}C/R for candidates of \\ critical data objects\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\textbf{CG} & 1.08 & 1.01 & 1.08 \\ \hline
\textbf{MG} & 1.11 & 1.36 & 1.68 \\ \hline
\textbf{FT} & 1.15 & 1.85 & 1.85 \\ \hline
\textbf{IS} & 1.01 & 1.02 & 1.03 \\ \hline
\textbf{BT} & 1.11 & 1.12 & 1.22 \\ \hline
\textbf{SP} & 1.36 & 1.58 & 1.88 \\ \hline
\textbf{LU} & 1.16 & 1.68 & 1.78 \\ \hline
\textbf{botsspar} & 1.32 & 1.56 & 1.56 \\ \hline
\textbf{LULESH} & 1.23 & 1.56 & 1.86 \\ \hline
\textbf{kmeans} & 1.04 & 1.02 & 1.02 \\ \hline
\textbf{Average} & 1.16 & 1.38 & 1.50 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{figures/extra_write.pdf}
\caption
Normalized number of NVM write.
\label{fig:extra_nvm_write}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table*}[ht]
\caption{Recompute success rate.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{benchmark}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{critical data object}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{recompute success rate for small input}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{recompute success rate for large input}} \\ \cline{3-8}
& & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}persistent \\data object\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}before \\ persistent\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}after \\ persistent\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}persistent\\data object\end{tabular}}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}before \\ persistent\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}after \\ persistent\end{tabular}} \\ \hline
\textbf{CG} & r,p,q,z & p,q & 100\% & 100\% & p,q & 100\% & 100\% \\ \hline
\textbf{MG} & u,r & u & 60\% & 67\% & u & 63\% & 73\% \\ \hline
\textbf{FT} & ty1,ty2,u0,u1 & ty1,ty2,u0,u1 & 0\% & 27\% & ty1,ty2,u0,u1 & 0\% & 29\% \\ \hline
\textbf{EP} & x,qq,q & qq,x & 0\% & 100\% & qq,x & 0\% & 100\% \\ \hline
\textbf{IS} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}key\_array,key\_buff1,\\ key\_buff2,bucket\_ptrs\end{tabular} & bucket\_ptrs& 47\% & 65\% & bucket\_ptrs & 50\% & 50\% \\ \hline
\textbf{BT} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}us,vs,ws,qs,rho\_i,square\\ ,u,rhs,ue,fjac,njac,lhs\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}us,vs,ws,qs,\\ rho\_i,square,u\end{tabular} & 67\% & 100\% & - & 100\% & - \\ \hline
\textbf{SP} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}u,us,vs,ws,qs,rho\_i,speed,\\square rhs,cv,rhon,rhos,\\rhoq,lhs,lhsp,lhsm\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}u,us,vs,ws,qs,\\rho\_i ,speed,\\square\end{tabular} & 98\%& 98\% & - & 100\%& - \\ \hline
\textbf{LU} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}u,rsd,frct,gs,rho\_i, rsdnm,\\a,b,c,d,au,bu,cu,du\end{tabular} & u & 0\% & 58\% & u & 0\% & 65\% \\ \hline
\textbf{nab} &m\_xyz, f\_xyz, v\_xyz & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} m\_xyz, f\_xyz,\\ v\_xyz\end{tabular} & 10\% & 100\% & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} m\_xyz, f\_xyz,\\ v\_xyz\end{tabular} & 9\% & 100\% \\ \hline
\textbf{botsalgn} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} bench\_output,def\_aa\_xref\end{tabular}& bench\_output & 0\% &100\% & bench\_output & 0\% & 100\% \\ \hline
\textbf{botsspar} & tmp & - & 100\% & - & -& 100\% & - \\ \hline
\textbf{smithwa} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} goodStarts, goodEnds, \\ bestStarts,bestEnds,\\ goodScores,bestScores\\tempStarts,tempEnds\\tempScores,\end{tabular}& \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} goodStarts,\\goodEnds,\\bestStarts,\\ bestEnds,\\goodScores,\\bestScores\end{tabular} & 17\% & 100\% & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} goodStarts,\\goodEnds,\\bestStarts,\\ bestEnds,\\goodScores,\\bestScores\end{tabular} & 18\% & 100\% \\ \hline
\textbf{kmeans} & cluster\_centres & cluster\_centres & 100\% & 100\% & cluster\_centres & 100\% & 100\% \\ \hline
\textbf{bfs} &\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} h\_graph\_mask,h\_cost,\\h\_updating\_graph\_mask\\h\_graph\_visited \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} h\_graph\_mask,\\h\_cost,\\h\_graph\_visited \end{tabular} &100\% & 100\% & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} h\_graph\_mask,\\h\_cost,\\h\_graph\_visited \end{tabular} & 100\% & 100\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\end{comment}
\section{Characterization of Application Recomputability}
We characterize application recomputability to motivate our design.
\subsection{Experiment Setup}
\label{sec:motivation_examples_setup}
\textbf{Benchmarks for evaluation.}
We use all benchmarks from NPB. To enrich our benchmark collection, we also choose botsspar from SPEC OMP 2012~\cite{10.1007/978-3-642-30961-8_17}, kmeans from Rodinia~\cite{5306797} and LULESH~\cite{LULESH:spec}. In total, we have 11 benchmarks, covering dense linear algebra, sparse linear algebra, spectral methods, structured-grid, graph traversal, and data mining.
Those benchmarks are chosen, because of their representativeness and explicit code structures to verify application outcomes. For NPB benchmarks, we use Class C as input problems; For LULESH, botsspar and kmeans, we use 100, ref, and kdd.txt as the input problems respectively. We use these input problems, because the application memory footprints with them are larger than the last level cache size.
Table~\ref{tab:bench} summarizes these benchmarks and shows their characteristics related to our study.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\scriptsize
\caption{Benchmark information for crash experiments. ``R/W'' = ``Read/Write ratio'', ``DO'' = ``data object'', ``iter'' = ``iterations''. }
\label{tab:bench}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Benchmarks} & \textbf{Description} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\# of code\\regions\end{tabular}} & \textbf{R/W} & \textbf{Memory footprint} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Candi. of critical \\ DO size\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Critical DO size\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Ave. \# of extra iter. to \\ restart (restart overhead)\end{tabular}}
& \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Total \# of iter. in the \\original app execution\end{tabular}}
\\ \hline
\textbf{CG} & Sparse linear algebra & 6 & 21:1 & 947MB & 5.7MB & 2.3MB &9.1&75 \\ \hline
\textbf{MG} & Structured grids & 4 & 7:1 & 3.4GB & 2.3GB & 1.2GB &0&20 \\ \hline
\textbf{FT} & Spectral method & 4 & 1:1 & 5.1GB & 4.0GB & 4.0GB &0&20 \\ \hline
\textbf{IS} & Graph traversal (sorting) & 8 & 2:1 & 1.0GB & 264MB & 4KB &N/A(segfault) &10 \\ \hline
\textbf{BT} & Dense linear algebra & 15 & 2:1 & 644MB & 525.6MB & 361.2MB &0&200 \\ \hline
\textbf{LU} & Dense linear algebra & 4 & 5:2 & 644MB & 599MB & 164MB &N/A (the verification fails)&250 \\ \hline
\textbf{SP} & Dense linear algebra & 16 & 2:1 & 772MB & 561MB & 184MB &0&400 \\ \hline
\textbf{EP} & Monte Carlo & 2 & 2:1 & 1MB & 1MB & 80B &N/A (the verification fails)&65535 \\ \hline
\textbf{botsspar} & Sparse linear algebra & 4 & 2:1 & 3.74GB & 3.36GB & 3.36GB &0&200 \\\hline
\textbf{LELUSH} & Hydrodynamics modeling & 4 & 5:1 & 567MB & 251MB & 120MB &0&3517 \\ \hline
\textbf{kmean} & Data mining & 1 & 9:2 & 222MB & 20B & 20B &18.2&36 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\textbf{System configuration.}
We simulate a three-level cache hierarchy (L1 cache: 32KB and 8-way set associativity; L2 cache: 1MB and 12-way set associativity; L3 cache: 19.25MB, 11-way set associative), with the 64B cache line, write-back, write-allocation, and LRU policies. This cache hierarchy is similar to that in Xeon Gold 6126. We use both single thread and multiple threads to run each benchmark. We show the results of single thread because of page limitation, but the conclusions we draw from the results of multiple threads are the same as those of single thread.
\textbf{Crash tests.}
To ensure statistical significance, for each benchmark, we run a sufficient number of crash and recomputation tests (usually 1000-2000 tests), such that further increasing the number of tests does not cause big variation (less than 5\%) in the evaluation results. This method ensures that our evaluation is sufficient and our results are statistically correct. During application execution, we randomly stop it for crash tests. The times when the execution is stopped follow
a discrete uniform distribution. This method of interrupting applications is common in the research on system fault tolerance~\cite{Kai:icpp18, bifit:SC12, sc18:guo,guan2014f,mg_ics12}.
\subsection{Experiment Results}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{figures/app_recomputability.pdf}
\caption{Application responses after crash and restart. Figure annotation: S1 - successful recomputation without using extra iterations, S2 - successful recomputation with extra iterations, S3 - Interruption, and S4 - verification fails. }
\label{fig:recompur_success_rate}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}[!tb]
\centering
\scriptsize
\caption{Performance overhead after restart. ``iter'' = ``iterations'' }
\label{tab:recompute_overhead}
\begin{tabular}{|p{1.3cm}|p{2.9 cm}|p{2.8 cm}|}
\hline
Benchmark & Average num. of extra iter. & Total num. of iter. in the original app execution\\ \hline
\textbf{CG} & 9.1 & 75 \\ \hline
\textbf{MG} & 0 & 20 \\ \hline
\textbf{FT} & 0 & 20 \\ \hline
\textbf{IS} & N/A (segfault) & 10 \\ \hline
\textbf{BT} & 0 & 200 \\ \hline
\textbf{SP} & 0 & 400 \\ \hline
\textbf{LU} & N/A (the verification fails) & 250 \\ \hline
\textbf{EP} & N/A (the verification fails) & 65535 \\ \hline
\textbf{botsspar} & 0 & 200 \\ \hline
\textbf{LULESH} & 0 & 3517 \\ \hline
\textbf{kmeans} & 18.2 & 36 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
We observe four possible application responses after a crash and restart. (1) Successful recomputation without performance overhead: after a crash in the middle of an iteration and restart, the application successfully passes the acceptance verification, and uses no extra iteration to finish;
(2) Successful recomputation with performance overhead: the application successfully passes the acceptance verification, but takes at least one more iterations than the original execution; (3) Interruption: the application cannot run to completion (e.g., due to segfault); (4) Verification fails: the application cannot pass the acceptance verification, even after taking two times as many iterations as in the original execution.
Figure~\ref{fig:recompur_success_rate} and Table~\ref{tab:bench} (the last two columns) show the results based on the above classification. We notice that some applications show strong recomputability (e.g., 88\% for SP).
Some applications (e.g., LU, IS, and EP) are the opposite: They cannot restart, or have segmentation faults.
We need to flush caches to improve their recomputability.
\textbf{Observation 1:} Different applications can have quite different recomputability.
To study how to improve application recomputability (i.e., the application passes the acceptance verification without using extra iterations), we selectively persist data objects and examine its impact on application recomputability. We do not persist all data objects, because that can cause large performance overhead (e.g., persisting all data objects in MG for just once causes 68\% performance overhead).
Figure~\ref{fig:critical_data_obj} shows the results for MG. We choose three data objects ($index$, $u$ and $r$) for study. The three data objects are updated frequently and take a large portion of total memory footprint. We persist them at the end of each iteration of the main computation loop. Without persisting any data object, the recomputability of MG is 27\%. By persisting the data object $u$, the recomputability is improved to 63\%; However, persisting the other two data objects, the recomputability is barely improved.
\textbf{Observation 2:} Persisting different data objects have different implications on application recomputability.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth,height=0.14\textheight]{figures/critical_data_object.pdf}
\caption{The recomputability of MG after persisting three different data objects in MG. }
\label{fig:critical_data_obj}
\end{minipage}%
\hfill%
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth,height=0.14\textheight]{figures/critical_code_region.pdf}
\caption{The recomputability of MG after persisting the data object $u$ in different code regions of MG.}
\label{fig:critical_code_region}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/critical_data_object.pdf}
\vspace{-20pt}
\subcaption[a]{}
\label{fig:critical_data_obj}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/critical_code_region.pdf}
\vspace{-20pt}
\subcaption[b]{}
\label{fig:critical_code_region}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The recomputability of MG after (a) persisting three different data objects in MG; and (b) persisting $u$ in different code regions.}
\label{fig:critical}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
We further study the impact of where to persist data objects on application recomputability. MG has four time-consuming functions, $rprj3$, $interp$, $resid$, and $psinv$, representing four major execution phases of the main computation loop. The four functions update $u$. We persist $u$ at the end of a function. Figure~\ref{fig:critical_code_region} shows the result. Persisting $u$ at $resid$, we have the largest improvement in recomputability. Persisting $u$ at $rpj3$ and $interp$, we have the same improvement.
\end{comment}
We further study the impact of where to persist data objects on application recomputability. MG has four first-level inner loops shown as R1-R4 in Figure~\ref{fig:flushing}. They represent four major execution phases. They all update $u$.
We persist $u$ at the end of each execution phase.
Figure~\ref{fig:critical_code_region} shows the result.
Persisting $u$ at R3, we have 21\% improvement in recomputability,
while persisting it at other code regions, we have smaller and similar (less than 7\%) improvement.
\textbf{Observation 3:} The application has different recomputability, when persisting data objects at different code regions.
The intuition explaining the observations 2 and 3 is that different data objects are associated with different memory access patterns and execution phases, and different code regions have different memory access patterns. As a result, data objects can show various inconsistent rates when a crash happens, and the success of application recomputation is sensitive to the data inconsistent rate.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figures/recompute_success_rate.pdf}
\caption{Recompute success rate for all applications.}
\label{fig:recompur_success_rate}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figures/icr1.pdf}
\caption{Critical data objects inconsistent rate from CG MG, FT, EP, IS, BT, SP.}
\label{fig:icr1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figures/icr1.pdf}
\caption{Critical data objects inconsistent rate from CG MG, FT, EP, IS, BT, SP.}
\label{fig:icr2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{figures/BT.pdf}
\caption{Data inconsistent rate for BT in different input size.}
\label{fig:BT}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{The recompute success rate and persistent overhead when persistent different \# of nested loop for MG CLASS A.}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\# of nested loop \\ be persistent\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}recompute \\ success rate\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\# of cache flushing} \\ \hline
0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
1 & 15\% & 4 \\ \hline
2 & 60\% & 18 \\ \hline
3 & 65\% & \\ \hline
4 & 68\% & \\ \hline
5 & 73\% & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table*}[ht]\centering
\caption{Benchmark information.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Benchmark}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Description}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Max \# of \\nested loop\end{tabular}}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Read/Write}} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{\textbf{Memory footprint}} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Critical data \\object size\end{tabular}}} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Persistent data\\ object size\end{tabular}}} \\ \cline{5-10} & & & & \textbf{small} & \textbf{large} & \textbf{small} & \textbf{large} & \textbf{small} & \textbf{large} \\ \hline
\textbf{CG} & Sparse linear algebra & 4 & 21:1 & 55M & 398M & 0.5M & 3M & 0.2M& 1M\\ \hline
\textbf{MG} & Structured grids & 5 &7:1 & 431 M & 431M & 37M & 37M & 287M & 143M \\ \hline
\textbf{FT} & Spectral methods & 5 & 1:1 & 321M & 1283M & & & & \\ \hline
\textbf{EP} & Monte Carlo & & 2:1 & 1M & 1M & & & & \\ \hline
\textbf{IS} & Sorting & & 2:1 & 64M & 264M & & & & \\ \hline
\textbf{BT} & Dense linear algebra & & 2:1 & 42M & 172M & & & & \\ \hline
\textbf{SP} & Structured grids & & 2:1 & 45M & 181M & & & & \\ \hline
\textbf{LU} & Dense linear algebra & & 5:2 & 40M & 154M & & & & \\ \hline
\textbf{botsspar} & Sparse linear algebra & & 2:1 & & & & & & \\ \hline
\textbf{LULESH} & Hydrodynamics modeling & & 3:2 & & & & & & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\end{comment}
\section{End-to-End Evaluation}
\label{sec:checkpoint_emulation}
We evaluate EasyCrash\xspace in the context of large-scale parallel systems running time-consuming HPC applications with a C/R mechanism. To enable convincing evaluation, we need different system scales with various configurations, which is expensive to achieve. We develop an emulator based on performance models and performance analysis in Section~\ref{sec:evaluation}.
Table~\ref{tab:annotation} summarizes the model annotation.
\textbf{Basic assumptions. }
We assume that
the checkpointing process does not have any corruption. This is a common assumption~\cite{Bosilca:2014:UMA:2768028.2768033, hpdc17:fang}. We model synchronous coordinated checkpointing, which is the most common C/R in HPC. With this mechanism, all nodes take checkpoints at the same time with synchronization.
The checkpoints are saved in local storage and then \textit{asynchronously} moved to remote storage nodes. This checkpoint mechanism is the most common practice in HPC and commonly used in the recent existing work~\cite{hpdc17:fang,DBLP:journals/tpds/MohrorMBS14, 16-moody2010design}
When a crash happens in one node and the application cannot successfully run to the completion or pass the acceptance verification after restarting using EasyCrash\xspace, all nodes will go back to the last checkpoint. Note that with EasyCrash\xspace, the application has a high probability to successfully recompute after the restart.
Hence, the checkpoint interval with EasyCrash\xspace is longer.
\textbf{Performance emulation. }
Our emulator includes system and application related parameters. We summarize the \textit{system related parameters} as follows.
\begin{comment}
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*]
\item \textit{MTBF}: Mean time between failures of the system without EasyCrash. $MTBF_{EasyCrash}$ is the mean time between failures of the system with EasyCrash\xspace. Since the average application recomputability with EasyCrash\xspace is 82\% (Section~\ref{sec:evaluation}).
$MTBF_{EasyCrash} = {MTBF}/(1-82\%)$.
\item \textit{T\_chk}: The time for writing a system checkpoint. The checkpoint on each node is written into local SSD (not in NVM as main memory) and then gradually migrated to remote storage nodes (the data migration overhead is not included in \textit{T\_chk}). Such a multi-level checkpoint mechanism is based on~\cite{DBLP:journals/tpds/MohrorMBS14} and highly optimized to remove the expensive overhead of data movement between compute nodes and storage nodes. Note that the checkpoint data should not be written into NVM-based main memory in each node, because it significantly reduces memory space useful for applications.
\item \textit{T\_r}: The time for recovering from the previous checkpoint. Similar to the existing work~\cite{Bosilca:2014:UMA:2768028.2768033}, we assume \textit{T\_r} = \textit{T\_chk}. This is a rather conservative assumption, because \textit{T\_r} can include additional coordination overhead.
\item \textit{T\_sync}: The time for synchronization across nodes. We use the same assumption as previous work~\cite{Fang:2017:LLC:3078597.3078609}: The synchronization overhead is a constant value, and we use 50\% of the checkpoint overhead as \textit{T\_sync}.
\item \textit{T}: The checkpoint interval, calculated based on the Young's formula~\cite{Young:1974:FOA:361147.361115}, $T = \sqrt{2 \times \textit{T\_chk} \times MTBF}$. This formula has been shown to achieve almost identical performance as in many realistic scenarios~\cite{6968777}.
\item \textit{T\_vain}: The time for wasted computation. When the application rolls back to the last checkpoint because of a crash, the computation already performed in the checkpoint interval is lost.
On average, the half of a checkpoint interval for computation is wasted (i.e., $T\_vain = 50\% \times T$).
\end{enumerate}
\end{comment}
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*]
\item \textbf{\textit{MTBF}}: Mean time between failures of the system without EasyCrash. $MTBF_{EasyCrash}$ is \textit{MTBF} with EasyCrash\xspace. Since the average application recomputability with EasyCrash\xspace is 82\% (Section~\ref{sec:evaluation}),we have
$MTBF_{EasyCrash} = {MTBF}/(1-82\%)$.
\item \textbf{\textit{T\_chk}}: The time for writing a system checkpoint. The checkpoint on each node is written into local SSD (not in NVM main memory) and then gradually migrated to remote storage nodes (the data migration overhead is not included in \textit{T\_chk}). Such a multi-level checkpoint mechanism is based on~\cite{DBLP:journals/tpds/MohrorMBS14}.
The checkpoint data should not be written into NVM-based main memory,
because it significantly reduces memory space useful for applications.
\item \textbf{\textit{T\_r}}: The time for recovering from the previous checkpoint. Similar to the existing work~\cite{Bosilca:2014:UMA:2768028.2768033}, we assume \textit{T\_r} = \textit{T\_chk}.
\item \textbf{\textit{T\_sync}}: The time for synchronization across nodes. We use the assumption in~\cite{Fang:2017:LLC:3078597.3078609}: The synchronization overhead is a constant value, and we use 50\% of the checkpoint overhead as \textit{T\_sync}.
\item \textbf{\textit{T}}: The checkpoint interval, based on Young's formula~\cite{Young:1974:FOA:361147.361115}, $T = \sqrt{2 \times \textit{T\_chk} \times MTBF}$. This formula has been shown to achieve almost identical performance as in realistic scenarios~\cite{6968777}.
\item \textbf{\textit{T\_vain}}: The wasted computation time. When the application rolls back to the last checkpoint, the computation already performed in the checkpoint interval is lost.
On average, half of a checkpoint interval for computation is wasted (i.e., $T\_vain = 50\% \times T$).
\end{enumerate}
We summarize the \textit{application related parameters} as follows.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*]
\item $R_{EasyCrash}$: The application recomputatbility achieved by using EasyCrash\xspace.
\item $t_s$: The runtime overhead introduced by EasyCrash\xspace because of persisting critical data objects (e.g., 3\% in our evaluation).
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-3pt}
Based on the above notations, we use performance models to evaluate system efficiency.
The system efficiency is the ratio of the accumulated useful computation time ($u$) to total time spent on the system ($Total\_Time$), which is ($u/Total\_Time$).
We assume that the accumulated useful computation takes checkpoints $N$ times; and during the whole computation, the crash happens $M$ times.
Equation~\ref{eq:cost} models the total time spent on the HPC system without using EasyCrash\xspace. The equation includes useful computation and checkpoint time ($N \times (T+T\_chk)$), and the cost of recovery using the last checkpoint ($M \times (T\_vain+ T\_r + T\_sync)$). The number of crashes ($M$) is estimated using Equation~\ref{eq:crash}.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cost}
Total\_Time = N \times(T + T\_chk) + M \times (T\_vain+ T\_r + T\_sync)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:crash}
M = \frac{Total\_Time}{MTBF}
\end{equation}
EasyCrash\xspace improves HPC system efficiency by avoiding large recovery cost from the last checkpoint and increasing the checkpoint interval. EasyCrash\xspace also brings ignorable runtime overhead.
Equation~\ref{eq:easycrash_cost} models the total execution time with EasyCrash\xspace ($Total\_Time^\prime$), where $N'$ and $T'$ are the number of checkpoints and their interval when using EasyCrash\xspace, and $M'$ is the number of crashes that have to go to the last checkpoint for recovery, and $M''$ is the number of crashes that use EasyCrash\xspace to recompute successfully.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:easycrash_cost}
\begin{split}
Total\_Time^\prime = & \, N^\prime \times (T^\prime + T\_chk) \, + \\
& M^\prime \times (T\_vain'+ T\_r + T\_sync) \, + \\
& M'' \times (T\_r^\prime + T\_sync)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:new_M}
M' = M \times (1 -R_{EasyCrash}), \qquad M'' = M \times R_{EasyCrash}
\end{equation}
With EasyCrash\xspace, the checkpoint interval ($T^\prime$) becomes longer ($T^\prime > T$), and also should include a small runtime overhead ($t_s$).
As a result, the number of checkpoints ($N^\prime$) becomes smaller ($N^\prime < N$), and the checkpoint overhead ($N^\prime \times T_{chk}$) becomes smaller.
With and without EasyCrash\xspace, the useful computation remains similar because of small runtime overhead of EasyCrash\xspace (i.e., $N^\prime \times T^\prime \approx N \times T$).
To calculate $T^\prime$,
we use Young's formula,
$T^\prime = \sqrt{2 \times \textit{T\_chk} \times MTBF_{EasyCrash}}$.
With EasyCrash\xspace, once a crash happens, the system either goes to the last checkpoint with recovery overhead modeled as ($M^\prime \times (T\_vain+ T\_r + T\_sync)$), or uses EasyCrash\xspace to restart and successfully recompute with recovery overhead modeled as ($M'' \times (T\_r^\prime + T\_sync)$). With NVM and EasyCrash\xspace, the recovery cost $T\_r$ becomes $T_r^\prime$, which becomes smaller, because we load data objects from NVM-based main memory, not from local SSD or storage node. $T_r^\prime$ is estimated using the total data size of non-readonly data objects divided by NVM bandwidth (DRAM bandwidth in our evaluation).
\textbf{Choice of parameters.}
The time spent on writing a checkpoint to persistent storage depends on hardware characteristics. A modern HPC node normally has 64 to 128 GB memory. For nodes using SSD and NVMe, the average I/O bandwidth is 2GB/s; For nodes using HDD, the average I/O bandwidth is around 20 MB/s to 200 MB/s~\cite{Bhimji2016AcceleratingSW,wu2017early}. As a result, we choose the checkpointing overhead ($T\_chk$) as 32s, 320s, 3200s to represent different hardware scenarios. A similar set of values is used in previous efforts~\cite{Fang:2017:LLC:3078597.3078609, Bosilca:2014:UMA:2768028.2768033,6968777}.
We emulate the system with 100,000 nodes for a long simulation time (10 years, i.e., $Total\_Time$ and $Total\_Time'$ are 10 years). Previous work~\cite{6903615} shows that systems in such a scale usually experience around 2 failures per day ($MTBF$ = 12 hours). Based on this data, we scale $MTBF$ as in~\cite{Fang:2017:LLC:3078597.3078609} for 200,000 and 400,000 nodes. As a result, $MTBF$ for them are 6 and 3 hours respectively.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{figures/efficiency.pdf}
\caption{System efficiency without and with EasyCrash\xspace when the system MTBF is 12 hours. The x-axis shows different checkpointing overhead. ``Avg'' stands for ``average''.}
\label{fig:efficiency}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/scale_e1.pdf}
\subcaption[a]{$T\_chk=32s$.}
\label{fig:se_32}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/scale_e2.pdf}
\subcaption[b]{$T\_chk=3200s$.}
\label{fig:se_3200}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{System efficiency for CG without and with EasyCrash\xspace when the system scales from 100,000 to 200,000 and 400,000 nodes}
\label{fig:efficiency_scale}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\textbf{Results for system efficiency.}
Figure~\ref{fig:efficiency} shows the system efficiency with and without EasyCrash\xspace under different checkpoint overhead. Because of the space limitation, we show the benchmarks with the lowest (FT) and highest recomputability (SP). \textit{We also show the average values of \textbf{all benchmarks}}.
EasyCrash\xspace improves system efficiency by 2\%-24\%. On average, the system efficiency with EasyCrash\xspace is improved by 2\%, 3\% and 15\% when the checkpoint overhead is 32s, 320s, and 3200s respectively.
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/scale_e1.pdf}
\subcaption[a]{$T\_chk=32s$.}
\label{fig:se_32}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/scale_e2.pdf}
\subcaption[b]{$T\_chk=3200s$.}
\label{fig:se_3200}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{System efficiency for CG without and with EasyCrash\xspace when the system scales from 100,000 to 200,000 and 400,000 nodes}
\label{fig:efficiency_scale}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.485\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/E1.pdf}
\subcaption[a]{Efficiency of FT.}
\label{fig:e_ft}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.485\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/E2.pdf}
\subcaption[b]{Efficiency of SP.}
\label{fig:e_sp}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Efficiency without and with EasyCrash\xspace when the system has 100,000 nodes. The x-axis shows different checkpointing overhead.}
\label{fig:efficiency}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
Furthermore, we evaluate the system scalability with EasyCrash\xspace. We evaluate all benchmarks but only present CG because of space limitation. Figure~\ref{fig:efficiency_scale} shows the efficiency with and without EasyCrash\xspace in different system scales.
With EasyCrash\xspace the system efficiency always outperform that without EasyCrash\xspace.
\textit{This trend is consistent with \textbf{all benchmarks}}. The system with EasyCrash\xspace achieve better efficiency as the system scale increases.
\textbf{Results for the number of writes.}
With EasyCrash\xspace, the number of \textit{additional writes} is reduced by 32\% to 57\% (44\% on average), comparing with the traditional C/R without EasyCrash\xspace.
\textbf{Determination of recomputability threshold $\tau$}. To ensure the system with EasyCrash\xspace has higher efficiency than with C/R (i.e., $u/Total\_Time' > u/Total\_Time$), the application recomputability must be higher than a threshold $\tau$ (see Section~\ref{sec:selection_code_region}). This means $Total\_Time' < Total\_Time$. Given $Total\_Time$ and Equations~\ref{eq:easycrash_cost} and~\ref{eq:new_M}, we can calculate a lower bound for $R_{EasyCrash}$, which is $\tau$.
\section{NVCT\xspace: A Tool for Studying Application Recomputability}
\label{sec:NVCT}
\begin{comment}
We develop a PIN based crash simulator NVCT\xspace, Non-volatile memory crash tester, which contains simulated multi-level cache, simulated main memory and random crash generator.
In essence, NVCT\xspace intercepts every memory read and write instructions from the application, and simulates cache hierarchy and main memory. But different from the traditional PIN-based cache simulator, NVCT\xspace not only shows cache miss ratio but also records the most recent value of data objects in caches and main memory. With such value information, we can learn the relation between data inconsistent rate and application recomputability after crash.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
We introduce NVCT\xspace, a PIN-based crash simulator. NVCT\xspace simulates a multi-level cache hierarchy and main memory. NVCT\xspace contains a random crash generator, a set of APIs to support the configuration of crash tests and application restart, and a component to examine data inconsistency for post-crash analysis.
For the simulation of cache and main memory, different from the traditional PIN-based cache simulator, NVCT\xspace not only captures microarchitecture level, cache-related hardware events (e.g., cache misses and cache invalidation), but also records the most recent value of data objects in the simulated caches and main memory.
We highlight some functionality of NVCT\xspace to study application recomputability on NVM as follows. More details on NVCT\xspace can be found in~\cite{Ren:2018:UAR:3286475.3286476}.
\end{comment}
To enable our study on application recomputability in NVM, we introduce a PIN-based crash emulator, NVCT\xspace. NVCT\xspace includes a simulated multi-level, coherent cache hierarchy and main memory, a random crash generator, a set of APIs to support the configuration of crash tests and application restart, and a tool to examine data inconsistency for post-crash analysis. Different from the traditional PIN-based cache simulator, NVCT\xspace not only captures microarchitecture level, cache-related hardware events such as cache misses and invalidation, but also records the most recent values of data objects in the simulated caches and main memory.
\begin{comment}
The workflow of NVCT\xspace shows in Figure~\ref{fig:NVCT\xspace_workflow}. Before runtime simulation, user need to configure NVCT\xspace and lightly change application. NVCT\xspace is highly configurable, which is designed to help simulate different scenarios. The cache configurations contain as follow.
\begin{itemize}
\item The number of cache layer.
\item The role of each cache layer (private cache or shared cache) and the number of private cache.
\item The cache size, cache line size and associativity, cache replacement policy and write policy for each cache layer.
\end{itemize}
The crash configuration require user to identify the position of crash. The details will be discussed in random crash generator. Besides, user need to provide critical data object and consistent data object information for post-crash analysis. Table~\ref{tab:api} lists the key APIs that NVCT\xspace exposes to user.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table*}[ht]\centering
\caption{APIs for using NVCT\xspace.} \label{tab:api}
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.44\linewidth}|p{0.53\linewidth}|}
\hline
\textbf{Function Signature} & \textbf{Description}\\
\hline
void start\_crash(); void end\_crash(); &Define where a crash could happen. A crash could happen within the code region encapsulated by the two APIs.\\
\hline
void critical\_data(void const *p, char type[], int const size); & Collect the address, type and size information of a critical data object. \\
\hline
void cache\_line\_write\_back(void const *p);&Writes back a dirty cache line containing the address p, and marks the cache line as clean in the cache hierarchy. This API is used to emulate \texttt{CLWB}. \\
\hline
void flush\_cache\_line(void const *p); & Flush a cache line containing address p, invalidate this cache line from every level of the cache hierarchy in the cache coherence domain. This API is used to emulate \texttt{CLFLUSH} and \texttt{CLFLUSHOPT}. \\
\hline
void flush\_whole\_cache();& writes back all modified cache lines in the processor\textquotesingle s internal cache to main memory and does not invalidate
(flush) the internal caches. This API is used to emulate \texttt{WBNOINVD}.\\
\hline
void write\_back\_invalidate\_cache();& Writes back all dirty cache lines in the processor\textquotesingle s cache to main memory and invalidates (flushes) the cache hierarchy. This API is used to emulate \texttt{WBINVD}.\\
\hline
bool read\_cache(void *dst, void const *src,
size\_t size);& Read specified number of bytes in simulated cache from a source address to a destination address. The function returns whether the data in source address is in simulated cache.\\
\hline
bool read\_memory(void *dst, void const *src,
size\_t size);& Read specified number of bytes in simulated memory from a source address to a destination address. The function returns whether the data in source address is in simulated memory.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\textbf{Cache simulation.} NVCT\xspace simulate multilayer cache hierarchy. The first layer cache is private cache, it is designed to simulate multiple local caches in multiprocessing system. The next layer cache can be shared cache. \\
In a cache hierarchy with private cache and shared cache, it is possible to have multiple copies for shared data: one copy in shared cache while one or more copies in private cache. Therefore we need to imply cache coherence protocol so that two threads must never see different values for the same shared data. Every cache line need two extra bit two maintain cache coherence, valid bit and dirty bit. When a cache line tagged as invalid, that means other private caches or shared cache has newer value than this cache line. Only valid cache line can be seen in any cache operation.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\textbf{Cache simulation.} Besides supporting the simulation of multi-level, private/shared caches with different capacities and associativity, our cache simulation supports the simulation of cache coherence, which allows us to study the impact of cache coherence on data consistency.
With the deployment of a cache coherence protocol, it is possible that a private cache has a stale copy of a cache block, while NVM has the most updated one, causing data inconsistency. NVCT\xspace can capture such data inconsistency and ignore it if configured to do so.
In our evaluation, we use data in NVM to restart and does not count such data inconsistency, because NVM has the most updated data values.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
Our cache simulation supports different cache flushing mechanisms. In particular, we provide three APIs: flush\_cache\_line(), cache\_line\_write\_back() and write\_back\_invalidate\_cache()
that emulate {\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont clflush}, {\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont CLWB}, and {\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont WBINVD} respectively, if those APIs are called by the application. flush\_cache\_line()
flushes a specific cacheline out of the cache and the cache line is also invalidated;
cache\_line\_write\_back()
flushes a specific cacheline out of the cache, but the cache line is not invalidated;
write\_back\_invalidate\_cahce() flushes all modified cache lines in the whole cache hierarchy and all data are invalidated.
\end{comment}
\definecolor{codegreen}{rgb}{0,0.6,0}
\definecolor{codegray}{rgb}{0.5,0.5,0.5}
\definecolor{codepurple}{rgb}{0.58,0,0.82}
\definecolor{backcolour}{rgb}{0.95,0.95,0.92}
\lstdefinestyle{style1}{
commentstyle=\color{codegreen},
keywordstyle=\color{magenta},
numberstyle=\tiny\color{codegray},
stringstyle=\color{codepurple},
basicstyle=\footnotesize,
frame=bottomline,
numbers=left,
numbersep=5pt,
keywordstyle=\color{red},
emph={write_back_invalidate_cache,cache_line_write_back},
emphstyle=\color{blue},
escapeinside={(*@}{@*)},
}
\lstset{style=style1}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{lstlisting}[language=c,
xleftmargin=.02\textwidth, xrightmargin=0.01\textwidth]
static double u[NR];
static double r[NR];
void main(int argc, char **argv) {
int it;
initialize();
...
for (it = 1; it <= nit; it++) {
...
flush_cache_range(u, NR);
flush_cache_range(r, NR);
flush_cache_line(&it);
}
...
}
\end{lstlisting}
\caption{Applying EasyCrash\xspace in a multi-grid numerical kernel (MG). APIs from EasyCrash\xspace are highlighted with blue.}
\label{fig:cache_flush_example}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=c,
xleftmargin=.02\textwidth, xrightmargin=0.01\textwidth]
static double u[NR];
static double r[NR];
void main(int argc, char **argv) {
int it;
initialize();
for (it = 1; it <= nit; it++) {//main computation loop
for () { // a first-level inner loop; R1
...
for() {...}// a second-level inner loop
}
for () { // a first-level inner loop; R2
...
}
for () { // a first-level inner loop; R3
...
}
for () { // a first-level inner loop; R4
...
}
cache_block_flush(u, NR*sizeof(double));
cache_block_flush(r, NR*sizeof(double));
cache_block_flush(&it, sizeof(int));
}
//result verification
...
}
\end{lstlisting}
\subcaption[a]{Persisting data objects during the application execution. }
\label{fig:flushing}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=c,
xleftmargin=.02\textwidth, xrightmargin=0.01\textwidth]
static double u[NR];
static double r[NR];
void main(int argc, char **argv) {
int it,it_old;
initialize();
load_value(u,NR*sizeof(double));
load_value(r,NR*sizeof(double));
load_value(&it_old,sizeof(int));
for (it = it_old; it <= nit; it++) {//main comp loop
...
//flush cache blocks
}
//result verification
...
}
\end{lstlisting}
\subcaption[b]{Restart MG. }
\label{fig:restart}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Study recomputability of MG with NVCT\xspace.}
\label{fig:example_app_restart}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Main memory simulation. }
Different from the microarchitectural simulation of main memory, the main memory simulation in NVCT\xspace records data values and their corresponding memory addresses. Whenever the cache simulation writes back any cache line, the corresponding data values in the simulated main memory are updated. Using this method, we can easily determine data inconsistency between the caches and main memory. During a crash test, the data values of user-specified data objects in the simulated main memory can be dumped into a file for post-crash analysis.
\begin{comment}
\textbf{Random crash generator.}
The crash emulator can randomly trigger crash within the scope of the user specified. This is achieved by inserting API \textit{start\_crash()} and \textit{end\_crash()} in application. The crash emulator randomly choose instruction between those APIs and trigger the crash. NVCT\xspace need crash configuration phase to trigger crash randomly. To implement instruction based crash trigger mechanism, the NVCT\xspace first profiles the application to collect the number of instructions, and then use the profiling result as the upper-bound to generate a random number to trigger crash.
Leveraging CCTLib~\cite{Chabbi:2014:CPP:2581122.2544164}, NVCT\xspace can collect the call paths information and help to get fine-grained information about the position where crash happened. Call path information are useful for user to understand crash better since even the crash happened in the same line of application, it is possible that the call path of that line are different. And different call path can lead to different recompubility behavior after crash.\\
NVCT\xspace provide APIs \textit{critical\_data()} and \textit{consistent\_data()} to allow user to specify the data object they want to trace. When crash happens, NVCT\xspace will dump values of those data object in simulated cache and simulated main memory and allow user to load the values and restart the application.
\end{comment}
\textbf{Random crash generation.}
NVCT\xspace emulates the occurrence of a crash by stopping application execution after a randomly selected instruction.
Furthermore, NVCT\xspace can report call path information when a crash happens. This is implemented by integrating CCTLib~\cite{Chabbi:2014:CPP:2581122.2544164} into NVCT\xspace.
The call path information introduces program context information for analyzing crash results. The context information can help to distinguish those crash tests that happen in the same program statement, but with different call stacks.
\begin{comment}
\textbf{Inconsistent rate calculation.}
NVCT\xspace can provide data inconsistent rate after crash happened which can help analysis consistence status. NVCT\xspace can provide two types of inconsistent rate: all data inconsistent rate and critical data inconsistent rate. When a cache line in private cache tagged as invalidate, that cache line will never be considered to calculate inconsistence rate. NVCT\xspace compares the value in cache line which tagged as dirty and valid with the value in simulated main memory which has the same address to calculate all data inconsistent rate. NVCT\xspace uses hash map to record the valid dirty cache line's address to guarantee that dirty cache line in different layer of cache can be counted only once. Assume that $N_a$ is the number of different byte getting from the same address we record in hash map in simulated cache and simulated main memory, and $N_m$ is memory foot print getting from simulated main memory. Equation~\ref{eq:all_data_inconsistent_rate} shows the model based on the above rationale. To calculate the critical data inconsistence rate, NVCT\xspace read critical data's address provided by user in simulated cache and simulated main memory respectively. If the critical data object is in simulated cache, NVCT\xspace compares the value of that data object in simulated cache and simulated main memory byte by byte. Assume that $N_dc$ is the number of different bytes of critical data in simulated cache and simulated main memory, $N_c$ is the number of critical data and $S_c$ is critical data's size. Equation~\ref{eq:critical_data_inconsistent_rate} shows the calculation of critical data inconsistent rate. In NVCT\xspace we take an array as a critical data object and calculate critical data inconsistent rate for each critical data object.
\begin{equation}
\scriptsize
\label{eq:all_data_inconsistent_rate}
all\_data\_inconsistent\_rate = \frac{N_a}{N_m}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\scriptsize+
\label{eq:critical_data_inconsistent_rate}
critical\_data\_inconsistent\_rate = \frac{N_{dc}}{N_c \times S_c}
\end{equation}
\end{comment}
\textbf{Calculation of data inconsistent rate.}
NVCT\xspace reports data inconsistent rate after a crash happens.
When a crash happens, NVCT\xspace examines dirty cache lines in the simulated cache hierarchy.
NVCT\xspace compares each dirty cache line with the corresponding cache block in main memory to determine the number of dirty data bytes in the cache line.
To calculate the data inconsistent rate for a data object, NVCT\xspace examines the file dumped by the main memory simulation to determine the total number of dirty bytes in the data object, and then divide the number by the data object size.
\textbf{Application restart}.
When restarting, NVCT\xspace loads data values from the file dumped by the main memory simulation to initialize user-specified data objects. Some data objects are initialized by the application itself.
Then, NVCT\xspace resumes the main loop, starting from the beginning of the iteration where the crash happens.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/NVCT\xspace_workflow.pdf}
\caption{The general workflow of using NVCT\xspace.}
\label{fig:NVCT\xspace_workflow}
\end{figure*}
\end{comment}
\textbf{Putting all together.}
To use NVCT\xspace, the user needs to insert APIs to specify (1) data objects that need to be persisted during application execution,
(2) the initialization phase of the application for a restart, and (3) code regions where crashes can happen. The user also needs to configure cache simulation and crash tests (e.g., how many crash tests and what probability distribution the crash tests follow). During the application execution, NVCT\xspace leverages the infrastructure of PIN to instrument the application and analyze instructions for cache and memory simulations. NVCT\xspace triggers a crash as configured, and then performs post-crash analysis to report data inconsistent rate and restart the application.
\textbf{An example}. Figure~\ref{fig:example_app_restart} gives an example of how we study application recomputability.
This is a multi-grid (MG) numerical kernel from the NAS parallel benchmark suite~\cite{nas} (NPB). Like many HPC applications, MG has a main computation loop, within which we persist two global data objects and a loop iterator~\footnote{In the rest of the paper, we always persist a loop iterator to bookmark where the crash happens. This makes restart easier. Persisting just one iterator has almost zero impact on application performance.} (Lines 20-22 in Figure~\ref{fig:flushing}) in each iteration. After a crash happens, we restart MG using Figure~\ref{fig:restart}. To restart, the application re-initializes computation (Line 5 in Figure~\ref{fig:restart}), loads the values of the two data objects and old loop iterator (Lines 6-8) from NVM, and restarts the main computation loop from the iteration where the crash happens (Line 9). We run MG to completion and verify the application outcome.
\begin{comment}
\textbf{Application recomputation.}
We now present the whole process of using NVCT\xspace to study application recompubility behavior. Taking benchmark MG as an example. Figure~\ref{fig:api_example} shows the way to add instrumentation APIs in application, and basically it contains three steps. First, user need to specify critical data object and consistent data object via APIs provided by NVCT\xspace. Generally, in an iterative computation application, the iteration number can be considered as consistent data. It is not expensive to make countable number of data object consistent. NVCT\xspace encapsulates API \textit{cache\_line\_write\_back()} into \textit{consistent\_data()} to make sure the data object defined as consistent data can keep consistent during simulation. Then, user need to call \textit{write\_back\_invalidate\_cache()} to ensure all data object in simulated main memory before the iteration start. It is necessary in case that critical data objects are not in simulated main memory yet when crush happened. The overhead of flush the whole cache only once is acceptable in real situation. Third, user need to special the scope crash could happened by calling \textit{start\_crash()} and \textit{end\_crash()}. After cache configuration and crash configuration, user can start crash simulation and get post-crash analysis after crash happened.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\definecolor{codegreen}{rgb}{0,0.6,0}
\definecolor{codegray}{rgb}{0.5,0.5,0.5}
\definecolor{codepurple}{rgb}{0.58,0,0.82}
\definecolor{backcolour}{rgb}{0.95,0.95,0.92}
\lstdefinestyle{style1}{
commentstyle=\color{codegreen},
keywordstyle=\color{magenta},
numberstyle=\tiny\color{codegray},
stringstyle=\color{codepurple},
basicstyle=\footnotesize,
frame=single,
numbers=left,
numbersep=5pt,
escapeinside={(*@}{@*)},
}
\lstset{style=style1}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{lstlisting}[language=c,
xleftmargin=.02\textwidth, xrightmargin=0.01\textwidth]
static void mg3P() { //call from the main loop
...
for () { // a first - level inner loop
...
for() { // a second - level inner loop
...
for() {...} // a third - level inner loop
...
}
}
...
for (){ // a first-level inner loop
...
for() {...} // a second - level inner loop
for() {...} // a second - level inner loop
for() {...} // a second - level inner loop
for() {...} // a second - level inner loop
}
...
}
\end{lstlisting}
\caption{Apply NVCT\xspace APIs into MG}
\label{fig:api_example}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{lstlisting}[language=c,
xleftmargin=.02\textwidth, xrightmargin=0.01\textwidth]
...
static double u[NR];
static double v[NR];
static double r[NR];
static int ir[MAXLEVEL+1];
int it, k;
...
static void mg3P(double u[], double v[], \
double r[] ...) {
...
for (k = lt; k >= lb+1; k--) {
rprj3(&r[ir[k]], ...);
}
...
for (k = lb+1; k <= lt-1; k++){
...
interp(&u[ir[j]], ...);
resid(&u[ir[k]], ...);
psinv(&r[ir[k]], &u[ir[k]], ...);
}
...
}
int main() {
...
(*@ \textbf{critical\_data(u, "double", NR);} @*)
(*@ \textbf{critical\_data(r, "double", NR);} @*)
(*@ \textbf{critical\_data(\&it, "int", 1);} @*)
...
(*@ \textbf{flush\_whole\_cache();} @*)
(*@ \textbf{start\_crash();} @*)
for (it = 1; it <= nit; it++) {
...
mg3p(u, v, r, ...);
resid(u, v, r, ...);
...
(*@ \textbf{cache\_line\_write\_back(\&it);} @*)
}
(*@ \textbf{end\_crash();} @*)
...
}
\end{lstlisting}
\caption{Apply NVCT\xspace APIs into MG}
\label{fig:api_example}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/NVCT\xspace_workflow.pdf}
\caption{The general workflow of using NVCT\xspace.}
\label{fig:NVCT\xspace_workflow}
\end{figure*}
\end{comment}
\section{Related Work}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/scale_e1.pdf}
\vspace{-15pt}
\subcaption[a]{$T\_chk=32s$.}
\label{fig:se_32}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/scale_e2.pdf}
\vspace{-15pt}
\subcaption[b]{$T\_chk=3200s$.}
\label{fig:se_3200}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-12pt}
\caption{System efficiency for CG without and with EasyCrash\xspace when the system scales from 100,000 to 200,000 and 400,000 nodes}
\vspace{-15pt}
\label{fig:efficiency_scale}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
Some research efforts focus on establishing crash consistency in NVM~\cite{Dulloor:eurosys14, nvheap:asplos11, Kolli:ASPLOS2016, Mnemosyne:ASPLOS11, cdds:fast11} by software- and hardware-based techniques. Building an atomic and durable transaction by undo logging and redo logging mechanisms in NVM is the most common method to enforce crash consistency. Intel Persistent Memory Development Kit (PMDK)~\cite{pmdk} adopts an undo logging mechanism that keeps an unmodified log copy before any in-place update in NVM happens. Volos et al.~\cite{Mnemosyne:ASPLOS11} use a redo mechanism for programming in persistent memory.
Some work on NVM-aware data structures~\cite{nvtree:fast15,cdds:fast11} re-design specific data structures to explicitly trigger cache flushing for crash consistency. However, the existing work can impose big performance overhead and extensive changes to the applications, which may not be acceptable by HPC. Different from the above work that relies on strong guarantees on crash consistency and heavily involves programmers to enforce crash consistency, EasyCrash\xspace enables automatic exploration of application recomputability without extensive changes to applications.
A few recent efforts focus on using NVM for HPC fault tolerance~\cite{loopbased:pact17, shuo:cluster17, lazypersistency:isca18}. They avoid flushing caches for high performance, and rely on algorithm knowledge~\cite{shuo:cluster17} or high requirements on loop structures~\cite{loopbased:pact17, lazypersistency:isca18} to recover computation upon application failures. EasyCrash\xspace is significantly different from them: EasyCrash\xspace aims to explore application's intrinsic fault tolerance and leverage consistent \textit{and} inconsistent data objects for recomputation;
EasyCrash\xspace is general, because it does not have high requirement on code structure or application algorithms.
Many existing works focus on approximate computing, and trade computation accuracy for better performance by leveraging application intrinsic fault tolerance~\cite{pldi11:sampson, oopsla14:misailovic, asplos14:samadi}. EasyCrash\xspace, in essence, belongs to approximate computing, but applies the idea to NVM and HPC, which is unprecedented. LetGo~\cite{Fang:2017:LLC:3078597.3078609} is another example of approximate computing. Once a failure happens, LetGo attempts to continue application execution. EasyCrash\xspace is significantly different from LetGo. EasyCrash\xspace loses dirty data in caches when a crash happens, and hence selectively flushes data objects in some code regions to ensure the improvement of system efficiency. Letgo does not lose data in caches and provides no guarantee on the improvement. LetGo does not consider differences of code regions and data objects in their impacts on application recomputability. EasyCrash\xspace is highly NVM oriented, while LetGo is not.
\begin{comment}
\textbf{Software-level crash consistency support.}
Building an atomic and durable transaction in NVM is the most common software-based approach to enforce the crash consistency. Undo logging and redo logging are two representative transaction techniques. With the transaction schemes, an unmodified version either data or data copy (log) are kept. Once transaction aborted, the application rolls back to such unmodified version.
Intel Persistent Memory Development Kit (PMDK)~\cite{pmdk}, Atlas~\cite{atlas:oopsla14}, REWIND~\cite{rewind:vldb15} and NV-Heaps~\cite{nvheap:asplos11} adopt the NVM-based undo logging
to support the transaction system in NVM. Kolli et al.~\cite{Kolli:ASPLOS2016} introduce a variant version of the undo logging that delaying the data modification on commit to reduce the performance impact caused by the write ordering constraint.
Volos et al. implement Mnemosyne~\cite{Mnemosyne:ASPLOS11} providing redo logging support for programming in persistent memory. Lu et al.~\cite{Lu:blurred} go further with optimizing Mnemosyne by removing the cache-line flushing off the transaction critical path. In their design, they do not flush the cache-lines for modified at the time of write. Instead, they maintain the correct overwrite order of data and trigger a whole processor cache flushing once the system accumulates enough uncommitted data. Giles et al.~\cite{SoftWrAP:MSST15} propose a redo logging based transaction with lightweight atomicity and durability support. To achieve that, they add a fast path to data in processor caches, DRAM, and persistent memory tiers.
Beside the transaction-based methods, some previous work re-design the specific data structures to fulfil crash consistency requirements in NVM.
For example, NV-Tree~\cite{nvtree:fast15}, FPTree~\cite{fptree:sigmod16},
NVC-Hashmap~\cite{nvchashmap:imdm15}, CDDS~\cite{cdds:fast11} and wBTree~\cite{wbtree:vldb}. To ensure the crash consistency, those data structures support atomic and durable updates by specifying the explicit cache flushing.
Our work can be very helpful for the above work. In particular, NVC can be used to check if crash consistency based on undo log and redo log enables data consistence as expected.
Some existing work considers crash consistency with the context of file system~\cite{Condit:sosp09,Dulloor:eurosys14,scmfs:sc11}.
NOVA~\cite{nova:fast16} is such a file system optimized
for heterogeneous memory (DRAM and NVM) systems. It provides strong consistency guarantees and maintains independent logs for each inode to improve scalability. Octopus~\cite{Octopus:act17} is another example. Octopus is a RDMA-enabled distributed persistent memory file system.
Octopus can have high performance when enforcing metadata consistency, by a ``collect-dispatch'' transaction. With the collect-dispatch transaction, Octopus collects data from remote servers for local logging and then dispatching them to remote sides by RDMA primitives.
Among the above software-based work, some of them~\cite{Lu:blurred, Kolli:ASPLOS2016} in fact relaxes requirements on crash consistency and does not require crash consistency to be timely enforced, in order to have better performance. Since our work does not require crash consistency, our work also relaxes requirements on crash consistency.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
Enabling crash consistency in NVM with software-based approaches is widely explored. In general, the software-based approaches work at different levels: programming model, persistent data structure, and file system.
Programming model based approaches are mostly proposed to optimize the logging mechanism in the transactional system. Undo logging~\cite{} and redo logging~\cite{} are two most famous examples. To deploy them in NVM-based system, leveraging persistent extensions from ISA (e.g., {\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont CLFLUSH}) is needed. Some work are done to optimize the logging method. Intel proposes Persistent Memory Development Kit~\cite{pmdk} to support transaction system on NVM by undo logging. Once transaction fails or system crash, any modifications are ignored and are rolled back to the latest version data in the log. Similarly, NV-Heaps~\cite{nvheap:asplos11}, REWIND~\cite{rewind:vldb15} and Atlas~\cite{atlas:oopsla14} adopt write-ahead undo logging that deployed on transaction system. Kolli et al.~\cite{Kolli:ASPLOS2016} propose an undo logging based transaction runtime that introduces just four persist barriers per transaction, assuming that transactions know the data they need to modify in advance. Volos et al. introduce introduce Mnemosyne~\cite{Mnemosyne:ASPLOS11} using redo logging. Within a redo logging based transaction, a log will be created and all updated data is appended to such log. Lu et al.~\cite{Lu:blurred} optimize the Mnemosyne to reduce the transaction support overhead by blurring the volatility-persistence boundary. Giles et al.~\cite{SoftWrAP:MSST15} go further to provide a redo logging based lightweight atomicity and durability transaction by ensuring fast paths to data in processor caches, DRAM, and persistent memory tiers.In contrast to these works that focus on improving the efficiency of crash consistency on transaction runtime, we build a tool to analyze the recompute potential of the application without enforce crash consistency.
As for the persistent data structure, several projects focus on. For example, NV-Tree~\cite{nvtree:fast15}, FPTree~\cite{fptree:sigmod16}, CDDS~\cite{cdds:fast11}, NVC-Hashmap~\cite{nvchashmap:imdm15} and wBTree~\cite{wbtree:vldb}. Those NVM-based data structures support atomic and durable updates. They need to specify the explicit cache flushing.
Another scenario that considering crash consistency is file system~\cite{Condit:sosp09,Dulloor:eurosys14,scmfs:sc11,Ou:eurosys16,nova:fast16}. For those work, accessing the NVM would need to go through file system and its system API.
NOVA~\cite{nova:fast16} is such a file system optimized
for hybrid memory (DRAM and NVM) systems. It provides strong consistency guarantees and it also maintains independent logs for each inode to improve scalability. Octopus~\cite{Octopus:act17} that a RDMA-enabled distributed persistent memory file system is another example. Metadata consistency of Octopus is guaranteed by the collect-dispatch transaction, which uses clflush to flush data from the CPU cache to the memory to force persistence of the log. Overall, crash consistency problem is widely studied. But all of them are only consider strong cache consistency.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\textbf{Hardware-level crash consistency support.}
Lu et al.~\cite{loss-ordering:iccd14} use hardware-based logging mechanisms to relax the write ordering requirements both
within a transaction and across multiple transactions. To achieve such goal, they largely modify the cache hierarchy and propose a non-volatile last level CPU cache.
Ogleari et al.~\cite{steal:hpca18}
combine undo and redo hardware logging scheme to relax ordering constraints on both caches and memory controllers for NVM-based systems. Meanwhile, to minimize the frequency of using write-back instructions, they add a hardware-controlled cache to implement a writeback cache.
Our work is different from the above hardware-based work, because we do not require hardware modification for crash consistency.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
~\cite{loss-ordering:iccd14} design custom hardware logging mechanisms. To reduce intra- and inter-transaction dependencies, a multi-versioning caches is added as well. Kolli et al.~\cite{kolli:micro16} introduces a delegated persist ordering that ask for hardware support to relaxes persistence ordering constraints. Similarly, DudeTM~\cite{dudetm:asplos17} and ATOM~\cite{atom:hpca17} also have hardware modification to optimize their logging methods. Ogleari et al.~\cite{steal:hpca18} propose a hardware logging scheme that allows the caches to perform cache line updates and write-backs without non-volatile buffers or caches in the processor. A key limitation of the above hardware-based approaches is that they heavily rely on modified hardware, and our work avoids any hardware modification.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\textbf{Application level random fault injection.}
Fault injection is a common method to evaluate application resilience.
Casa et al.~\cite{mg_ics12}
study the resilience of an algebraic multi-grid solver
by injecting faults into instructions' output based on LLVM.
Similar work can be found in~\cite{europar14:calhoun,Kai:icpp18,prdc13:sharma}.
Cher et al.~\cite{sc14:cher} employ a GDB-like debugging tool to corrupt register states.
Li et al.~\cite{bifit:sc12} build a binary instrumentation-based fault injection tool for random fault injection.
Shantharam et al.~\cite{2-shantharam2011characterizing} manually change the values of data objects
to study the resilience of iterative methods.
GOOFI~\cite{goofi} proposed by Aidemark et al is a pre-runtime software implemented fault injector, which injects faults into program and data area of the application.
Ashraf et al.~\cite{sc15:ashraf} and Wei et al.~\cite{dsn14:wei} use LLVM-based tools to inject faults, but
they further introduce the functionality of tracking fault propagation.
GemFI~\cite{GEMFI} proposed by Parasyris et al, is built on the full system simulators Gem5~\cite{Gem5}. GemFI can emulate the faults in registers within a processor.
Levy et al. ~\cite{Levy2013} and Wanner et al ~\cite{Wanner2013} leverage virtualization technology to emulate soft errors using QEMU, which are similar to our FSEFI fault injector used for the fault injection experiments. The existing work may face challenges to study application resilience in large-scale parallel execution.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
Many existing works focus on enabling crashing consistency in NVM, using software- and hardware-based approaches.
Different from the existing work, we study application recomputability without crash consistency. We review the existing work related to crash consistency as follows.
\textbf{Software support for crash consistency.}
Enabling crash consistency in NVM with software-based approaches is widely explored.
Undo logging and redo logging are two of the most common methods to enable crash consistency, often based on atomic and durable transactions.
Using undo~\cite{nvheap:asplos11,rewind:vldb15,atlas:oopsla14,Kolli:ASPLOS2016} and redo~\cite{Lu:blurred,Mnemosyne:ASPLOS11} logging, once a transaction fails or the application crashes, any uncommitted modifications are ignored, and the application rolls back to the latest version of data in the log.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
Persistent Memory Development Kit (PMDK)~\cite{pmdk} from Intel supports the transaction system in NVM by undo logging.
Similarly, NV-Heaps~\cite{nvheap:asplos11}, REWIND~\cite{rewind:vldb15} and Atlas~\cite{atlas:oopsla14} adopt write-ahead undo logging in NVM.
Kolli et al.~\cite{Kolli:ASPLOS2016} propose an undo logging
that minimizes the write ordering constraint by delaying to commit the data modification
Mnemosyne~\cite{Mnemosyne:ASPLOS11}, a set of programming APIs and libraries for
programming with persistent memory, uses redo logging.
Lu et al.~\cite{Lu:blurred} optimize Mnemosyne to reduce the overhead of supporting transaction by delaying and minimizing the cache flushing. To achieve that, they maintain the correct overwrite order of data but do not write them back into memory immediately. A full processor cache flushing will be scheduled when they accumulate enough uncommitted data.
Giles et al.~\cite{SoftWrAP:MSST15}
provide a redo logging based lightweight atomicity and durability transaction by ensuring fast paths to data in processor caches, DRAM, and persistent memory tiers.
Some existing work~\cite
fptree:sigmod16,cdds:fast11} focuses on enabling crash consistency for specific data structures.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
including NV-Tree~\cite{nvtree:fast15}, FPTree~\cite{fptree:sigmod16}, CDDS~\cite{cdds:fast11},
NVC-Hashmap~\cite{nvchashmap:imdm15} and wBTree~\cite{wbtree:vldb}.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
Those data structures support atomic and durable updates and hence support crash consistency.
Our work can be very helpful for the above work. In particular, NVCT\xspace can be used to check if crash consistency based on undo log and redo log enables data consistence as expected.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
Some existing work considers crash consistency with the context of file system~\cite{Condit:sosp09,Dulloor:eurosys14,scmfs:sc11,Ou:eurosys16}.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
NOVA~\cite{nova:fast16} is such a file system optimized
for heterogeneous memory (DRAM and NVM) systems. It provides strong consistency guarantees and maintains independent logs for each inode to improve scalability. Octopus~\cite{Octopus:act17} is another example. Octopus is a RDMA-enabled distributed persistent memory file system.
Octopus can have high performance when enforcing metadata consistency, by a ``collect-dispatch'' transaction. With the collect-dispatch transaction, Octopus collects data from remote servers for local logging and then dispatching them to remote sides by RDMA primitives.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
Among the above software-based work, some of them~\cite{Lu:blurred, Kolli:ASPLOS2016}, in fact, relaxes requirements on crash consistency and does not require crash consistency to be timely enforced, in order to have better performance. Since our work does not require crash consistency, our work also relaxes requirements on crash consistency.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
Enabling crash consistency in NVM with software-based approaches is widely explored. In general, the software-based approaches work at different levels: programming model, persistent data structure, and file system.
Programming model based approaches are mostly proposed to optimize the logging mechanism in the transactional system. Undo logging~\cite{} and redo logging~\cite{} are two most famous examples. To deploy them in NVM-based system, leveraging persistent extensions from ISA (e.g., {\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont CLFLUSH}) is needed. Some work are done to optimize the logging method. Intel proposes Persistent Memory Development Kit~\cite{pmdk} to support transaction system on NVM by undo logging. Once transaction fails or system crash, any modifications are ignored and are rolled back to the latest version data in the log. Similarly, NV-Heaps~\cite{nvheap:asplos11}, REWIND~\cite{rewind:vldb15} and Atlas~\cite{atlas:oopsla14} adopt write-ahead undo logging that deployed on transaction system. Kolli et al.~\cite{Kolli:ASPLOS2016} propose an undo logging based transaction runtime that introduces just four persist barriers per transaction, assuming that transactions know the data they need to modify in advance. Volos et al. introduce introduce Mnemosyne~\cite{Mnemosyne:ASPLOS11} using redo logging. Within a redo logging based transaction, a log will be created and all updated data is appended to such log. Lu et al.~\cite{Lu:blurred} optimize the Mnemosyne to reduce the transaction support overhead by blurring the volatility-persistence boundary. Giles et al.~\cite{SoftWrAP:MSST15} go further to provide a redo logging based lightweight atomicity and durability transaction by ensuring fast paths to data in processor caches, DRAM, and persistent memory tiers.In contrast to these works that focus on improving the efficiency of crash consistency on transaction runtime, we build a tool to analyze the recompute potential of the application without enforce crash consistency.
As for the persistent data structure, several projects focus on. For example, NV-Tree~\cite{nvtree:fast15}, FPTree~\cite{fptree:sigmod16}, CDDS~\cite{cdds:fast11}, NVC-Hashmap~\cite{nvchashmap:imdm15} and wBTree~\cite{wbtree:vldb}. Those NVM-based data structures support atomic and durable updates. They need to specify the explicit cache flushing.
Another scenario that considering crash consistency is file system~\cite{Condit:sosp09,Dulloor:eurosys14,scmfs:sc11,Ou:eurosys16}. For those work, accessing the NVM would need to go through file system and its system API.
NOVA~\cite{nova:fast16} is such a file system optimized
for hybrid memory (DRAM and NVM) systems. It provides strong consistency guarantees and it also maintains independent logs for each inode to improve scalability. Octopus~\cite{Octopus:act17} that a RDMA-enabled distributed persistent memory file system is another example. Metadata consistency of Octopus is guaranteed by the collect-dispatch transaction, which uses clflush to flush data from the CPU cache to the memory to force persistence of the log. Overall, crash consistency problem is widely studied. But all of them are only consider strong cache consistency.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\textbf{Hardware support for crash consistency.}
Lu et al.~\cite{loss-ordering:iccd14} use hardware-based logging mechanisms to relax the write ordering requirements both
within a transaction and across multiple transactions. To achieve such a goal, they largely modify the cache hierarchy and propose a non-volatile last level CPU cache.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
DudeTM~\cite{dudetm:asplos17} decouples a transaction into three asynchronous steps to minimize the usage of fences and instrumentation of read.
DudeTM relies on a customized shadow memory to achieve the decoupling functionality. ATOM~\cite{atom:hpca17} modifies the cache controller to
perform undo logging out of the critical path.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
Ogleari et al.~\cite{steal:hpca18}
combine undo and redo hardware logging scheme to relax ordering constraints on both caches and memory controllers for NVM-based systems. Meanwhile, to minimize the frequency of using write-back instructions, they add a hardware-controlled cache to implement a write-back cache.
Our work is different from the above hardware-based work because we do not require hardware modification for crash consistency.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
~\cite{loss-ordering:iccd14} design custom hardware logging mechanisms. To reduce intra- and inter-transaction dependencies, a multi-versioning caches is added as well. Kolli et al.~\cite{kolli:micro16} introduces a delegated persist ordering that ask for hardware support to relaxes persistence ordering constraints. Similarly, DudeTM~\cite{dudetm:asplos17} and ATOM~\cite{atom:hpca17} also have hardware modification to optimize their logging methods. Ogleari et al.~\cite{steal:hpca18} propose a hardware logging scheme that allows the caches to perform cache line updates and write-backs without non-volatile buffers or caches in the processor. A key limitation of the above hardware-based approaches is that they heavily rely on modified hardware, and our work avoids any hardware modification.
\end{comment}
\section{Conclusions}
Large-scale HPC systems face a grand challenge on system reliability. The emerging NVM provides a new solution to address this challenge: Leveraging the non-volatility of NVM as main memory, we can retain data in NVM instead of losing them as in DRAM when a crash happens, and restart the HPC application using the retained data. This paper is the first one that studies the feasibility of the above solution and provides a comprehensive analysis on application recomputability. We provide a set of techniques to improve application recomputability and make the solution feasible and beneficial. We demonstrate large improvement in system efficiency with ignorable runtime overhead, and greatly reduce the number of writes for better NVM endurance.
\section{Discussions}
\label{sec:discussion}
\textbf{Determining how/when to use EasyCrash\xspace. }
To decide whether to use EasyCrash\xspace, we need to have multiple information, including (1) system MTBF, (2) the checkpoint overhead, (3) the application recomputability with EasyCrash\xspace to select data objects and code regions and estimate efficiency benefit, and (4) the acceptable minimum performance loss $t_s$. For (1), (2) and (4), it is reasonable to assume that the system operator has such information. With (1), (2) and (4), the recomputability threshold $\tau$ can be calculated.
For (3), we use crash tests, but we can avoid them by an application characterization study. In particular, we can detect computation patterns that tolerate computation inaccuracy as in~\cite{sc18:guo}. Then we set up a model to correlate those patterns and application recomputability. Given an application, we simply count those patterns and use the model to predict recomputability without any crash test.
\begin{comment}
\textbf{Applying EasyCrash\xspace to large-scale applications.}
As the first study that explores the non-volatility of NVM for HPC applications under failures, we focus on \textcolor{blue}{a single node.
However, there is no obstacle to extend the idea, design and implementation of EasyCrash\xspace to \textcolor{blue}{multiple nodes}.
As a proof of concept of using NVM to handle HPC application crashes, our work demonstrates the benefits of restarting HPC applications from NVM after crashes with less frequent checkpoint.
\end{comment}
\textbf{What kind of application is not suitable?}
We found that there are two categories of applications not suitable for EasyCrash\xspace. (1) Applications with small data objects and small memory footprint. When a crash happens to the application, most of the application data are resident in the cache and lost. To ensure high recomputability, we have to persist data objects frequently, which causes high runtime overhead. (2) Applications with no tolerance for computation errors. These applications regard any application outcome different from that of the golden run as incorrect. Many of our crash-and-restart tests generate outcomes different from those of the golden run, but these tests pass the acceptance verification.
For (1), the system can disable EasyCrash\xspace and only employ the traditional checkpoint mechanism to handle failures. Because of the small memory footprint of the application, the checkpoint is small and can be stored in NVM with small overhead
For (2), when the application outcome is different from that of the golden run, the users can claim a silent data corruption (SDC) happens~\cite{Kai:icpp18,sc18:guo}. With the acceptance verification, many applications treat this kind of SDC as benign and ignorable. Examples of these applications include many iterative solvers and machine learning training workloads, which have been leveraged in the recent approximate computing research~\cite{ics06:rinard, 19-mengte2010exploiting, oopsla13:carbin, oopsla14:misailovic, onward10:rinard, fse11:douskos}. The applications that cannot tolerate SDC cannot use EasyCrash\xspace.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
The tension between \mathit{deduction} and \mathit{induction} is perhaps the most fundamental issue in areas such as philosophy, cognition and artificial intelligence. The deduction camp concerns itself with questions about the expressiveness of formal languages for capturing knowledge about the world, together with proof systems for reasoning from such {\it knowledge bases.} The learning camp attempts to generalize from examples about partial descriptions about the world. In an influential paper, \cite{valiant2000robust} recognized that the challenge of learning should be integrated with deduction. In particular, he proposed a semantics to capture the quality possessed by the output of (probably approximately correct) PAC-learning algorithms when formulated in a logic. Although weaker than classical entailment, it allows for a powerful model theoretic framework for answering queries.
From the standpoint of
learning an expressive logical knowledge base and reasoning with it, most PAC results are somewhat discouraging. For example, in agnostic learning \cite{kearns1994toward} where one does not require examples (drawn from an arbitrary distribution) to be fully consistent with learned sentences, efficient algorithms for learning conjunctions would yield
an efficient algorithm for PAC-learning DNF (also over arbitrary distributions), which current evidence suggests to be intractable \cite{daniely2016complexity}. Thus, it is not surprising that when it comes to first-order logic (FOL), very little work tackles the problem in a general manner. This is despite the fact that FOL is widely argued to be most appropriate for representing human knowledge (e.g., \cite{some-philosophical-problems-from,the-role-of-logic-in-knowledge-representation,the-logic-of-knowledge-bases}). For example, \cite{cohen1994learnability} consider the problem of the learnability of description logics with equality constraints. While description logics are already restricted fragments of FOL in only allowing unary and some binary predicates, it is shown that such a fragment cannot be tractably learned, leading to the identification of syntactic restrictions for learning from positive examples alone. Analogously, when it comes to the learning of logic programs \cite{cohen1995polynomial}, which in principle may admit infinitely many terms, syntactic restrictions are also typical \cite{first-order-jk-clausal-theories-are-pac-learnable}.
In this work, we present new results on learning to reason in FOL knowledge bases. In particular, we consider the problem of answering queries about FOL formulas based on background knowledge partially represented explicitly as other formulas, and partially represented as examples independently drawn from a fixed probability distribution. Our results are based on a surprising observation made in \cite{juba2013implicit} about the advantages of eschewing the explicit construction of a hypothesis, leading to a paradigm of \mathit{implicit learnability.} Not only does it enable a form of agnostic learning while circumventing known barriers, it also avoids the design of an often restrictive and artificial choice for representing hypotheses. (See, for example, \cite{khardon1999learning}, which is similar in spirit in allowing declarative background knowledge but only permits constant-width clauses.) In particular, implicit learning allows such learning from partially observed examples, which is commonplace when knowledge bases and/or queries address entities and relations not observed in the data used for learning.
That work was limited to the propositional setting, however. Here, we develop a first-order logical generalization. Since reasoning in full FOL is undecidable we need to consider a fragment, but the fragment we identify and are able to learn and reason with is expressive and powerful. Consider that standard databases correspond to a maximally consistent and finite set of literals: every relevant atom is known to be true and stored in the database, or known to be false, inferred by (say) negation as failure. Our fragment corresponds to a consistent but infinite set of ground clauses, not necessarily maximal.
To achieve the generalization, we revisit the PAC semantics and exploit symmetries exhibited by constants in the language. Moreover, the underlying language is general in the sense that no restrictions are posed on clause length, predicate arity, and other similar technical devices seen in PAC results. We hope the simplicity of the framework is appealing to the readers and hope our results will renew interest in learnability for expressive languages with quantificational power.
We remark that our sole focus is in PAC-semantics approaches, but there are also other families of methods for unifying statistical and logical representations, that fall under the banner of \mathit{statistical relational learning} (SRL) (e.g., \cite{statistical-relational-ai:-logic-probability}). SRL includes widely used formalisms such as Markov Logic Networks \cite{markov-logic-networks} and frameworks such as Inductive Logic Programming \cite{inductive-logic-programming:-theory}. Generally speaking, there are significant differences to PAC-semantics approaches, such as in terms of the learning regime, the notion of correctness and the underlying algorithmic machinery. For example, Markov Logic Networks use approximate maximum-likelihood learning strategies to capture the distribution of the data, whereas in PAC formulations,
one considers an arbitrary unknown distribution over the data and studies the question of what formulas are learnable whilst costing for the number of examples needed to be sampled from that distribution. Of course, there is much to be gained by attempting to integrate these communities; see, for example, \cite{cohen1995polynomial}. These differences notwithstanding, the learning of logical theories is usually restricted to finite-domain first-order logic, and so it is essentially propositional, and in that regard, our setting is significantly more challenging.
\section{Logical Framework}
\label{sec:preliminaries}
\textbf{Language:} We let \( \L \) be a first-order language with equality and relational symbols \( \set{P(x), \ldots, Q (x_ 1, \ldots, x_ k), \ldots} \), variables \( \set{x,y, z, \ldots} \), and a countably infinite set of \emph{rigid designators} or \emph{names}, say, the set of natural numbers \( \mathbb{N}}%{{\cal U} \),
serving as the domain of discourse for quantification. Well-defined formulas are constructed using logical connectives \( \set{\neg, \lor, \forall, \land, \exists, \supset} \), as usual.
Together with equality, names essentially realize an infinitary version of the unique-name assumption.\footnote{Our language \( \L \) is essentially equivalent to standard FOL together
a unique-name assumption for infinitely many constants~\cite[Definition 3]{a-completeness-result-for-reasoning-with}.
In general, the unique-name assumption does not rule out capturing uncertainty about the identity of objects; see \cite{efficient-reasoning-in-proper-knowledge,first-order-open-universe-pomdps}, for example.
}
The set of (ground) atoms is obtained as:\footnote{Because equality is treated separately, atoms and clauses do not include equalities.} \(
{\atom} = \set{P(a_ 1, \ldots, a_ k) \mid \textrm{$P$ is a predicate, $a_ i \in \mathbb{N}}%{{\cal U}$}}.
\)
We sometimes refer to elements of ${\atom}$ as propositions, and ground formulas as propositional formulas. We will use \( p, q, e \) to denote atoms, and \( \alpha, \beta, \phi, \psi \) to denote ground formulas. \smallskip
\textbf{Semantics:} A \( \lang ^ - \)-model \( M \) is a \( \set{0,1} \) assignment to the elements of \( {\atom}. \) Using \( \models \) to denote satisfaction, the semantics for \( \phi\in\lang ^ - \) is defined as usual inductively, but with equality as identity: \( M \models (a=b) \) iff \( a \) and \( b \) are the same names, and quantification understood substitutionally over all names in \( \mathbb{N}}%{{\cal U} \): \( M \models \forall x \phi(x) \) iff \( M\models \phi(a) \) for all \( a\in \mathbb{N}}%{{\cal U}. \)
We say that \( \phi \) is \emph{valid} iff for every \( \lang ^ - \)-model \( M \), \( M\models \phi \). Let the set of all models be \( {\cal M}. \)
\smallskip
\textbf{Representation:} Like in standard FOL, reasoning over the full fragment of $\L$ is undecidable. Interestingly, owing to a fixed, albeit countably infinite, domain of discourse, the \emph{compactness} property that holds for classical first-order logic \emph{does not hold} in general \cite{a-completeness-result-for-reasoning-with}. For example, \(
\set{\exists x P(x), \neg P(1), \neg P(2), \ldots}
\)
is an unsatisfiable theory for which every finite subset is indeed satisfiable. However, as identified in \cite{open-universe-weighted-model-counting}, and earlier in \cite{evaluation-based-reasoning-with-disjunctive}, the case of disjunctive knowledge is more manageable.
In particular, we will be interested in learning and reasoning with incomplete knowledge bases with disjunctive information \cite{open-universe-weighted-model-counting}:
\begin{definition} An \emph{acceptable} equality is of the form \( x = a \), where \( x \) is any variable and \( a \) any name.
Let $e$ range over formulas built from acceptable equalities and connectives \( \set{\neg, \lor,\land} \). Let \( c \) range over quantifier-free disjunctions of (possibly non-ground) atoms. Let \( \forall \phi \) mean the universal closure of \( \phi. \) A formula of the form $\forall(e \supset c)$ is called a $\forall$-clause. A knowledge base (KB) $\Delta$ is \( \textrm{proper}^+ \) if it is a finite non-empty set of $\forall$-clauses. The \emph{rank} of \( \Delta \) is
the maximum number of variables mentioned in any \( \forall \)-clause in \( \Delta \).
\end{definition}
This fragment is very expressive. Consider that standard databases correspond to a maximally consistent and finite set of literals: every relevant atom is known to be true and stored in the database, or known to be false, inferred by (say) negation as failure. In contrast, such KBs correspond to a consistent but infinite set of ground clauses, not necessarily maximal. \smallskip
\newcommand{\textsc{GND}}{\textsc{GND}}
\newcommand{\Delta}{\Delta}
\newcommand{\gnd^ 0}{\textsc{GND}^ 0}
\newcommand{\gnd ^ - }{\textsc{GND} ^ - }
\textbf{Grounding:} A ground theory is obtained from \( \Delta \) by substituting variables with names. Suppose \( \theta \) denotes a substitution. For any set of names \( C \subseteq \mathbb{N}}%{{\cal U}, \) we write \( \theta\in C \) to mean substitutions are only allowed wrt the names in \( C. \) Formally, we define:
\begin{itemize}
\item \( \textsc{GND}(\Delta) = \set{c\theta\mid \forall(e\supset c) \in \Delta, \theta \in \mathbb{N}}%{{\cal U} \textrm{ and } \models e\theta} \);
\item For \( z\geq 0, \) \( \textsc{GND}(\Delta, z) = \set{c\theta\mid \forall (e\supset c)\in \Delta, \models e\theta, \theta \in Z} \), where \( Z \) is the set of names mentioned in \( \Delta \) plus \( z \) (arbitrary) new ones;
\item For $C \subseteq \mathbb{N}}%{{\cal U}$, $\textsc{GND}(\Delta,C) = \{c\theta\mid \forall (e\supset c)\in \Delta, \models e\theta, \theta \in Z\}$ where $Z$ is the set of names mentioned in \(\Delta\) plus the names in $C$;
\item \( \gnd ^ - (\Delta) = \textsc{GND}(\Delta, z) \) where \( z \) is the rank of \( \Delta. \)
\end{itemize}
{\bf Reasoning:} Unfortunately, arbitrary reasoning with such KBs is also undecidable \cite[Theorem 7]{evaluation-based-reasoning-with-disjunctive}. Various proposals have appeared to consider that problem: in \cite{evaluation-based-reasoning-with-disjunctive}, for example, a sound but incomplete evaluation-based semantics is studied. In \cite{open-universe-weighted-model-counting}, it is instead shown that when the query is limited to ground formulas, we can reduce first-order entailment to propositional satisfiability:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm grounding trick} \cite{open-universe-weighted-model-counting} Suppose \( \Delta \) is a \( \textrm{proper}^+ \) KB, and \(
\alpha \) is a ground formula. Then, \(
\Delta \models\alpha \) iff \( \gnd ^ - (\Delta \land \neg\alpha) \) is unsatisfiable.
\end{theorem}
Here, the RHS of the iff is a propositional formula, obtained by a finite grounding, as defined above.
\begin{example} Suppose \( \Delta = \{ \forall x(\mathit{Grad}(x) \lor \mathit{Prof}(x)), \forall x (x\neq \mathit{charles} \supset \mathit{Grad}(x)) \} \) and the query is \( \mathit{Grad}(\mathit{logan}) \). Given that the KB's rank is 1, consider the grounding of the KB and the negated query wrt \( \{ \mathit{charles}, \mathit{logan}, \mathit{jean} \} \) (here \mathit{jean} is chosen arbitrarily). It is indeed unsatisfiable.
\end{example}
It is worth noting that the proof here (and in other proposals with \( \L \)-like languages \cite{the-logic-of-knowledge-bases,evaluation-based-reasoning-with-disjunctive,tractable-reasoning-in-first-order-knowledge})
is established by setting up a bijection between names to show that all names other than those that appear in the finite grounding in the RHS behave ``identically,'' and so for entailment purposes, it suffices to consider a finite set consisting of the constants already mentioned and a few extra ones. That idea can be traced back to \cite{a-completeness-result-for-reasoning-with} (reformulated here for our purposes):
\begin{theorem} \cite{a-completeness-result-for-reasoning-with} Suppose \( \alpha = \forall x \phi(x) \) is a \( \forall \)-clause. (Its rank is 1.) Let \( C \) be the names mentioned in \( \textsc{GND}(\alpha,1) \). Then for every \( a \in \mathbb{N}}%{{\cal U} \), there is a \( b \in C \) such that \( \models \phi(a) \) iff \( \models \phi(b) \).
\end{theorem}
The essence of Theorem \ref{thm grounding trick} is to exploit this idea to show (reformulated here for our purposes):
\begin{lemma}\label{lem extending grounding} \cite{open-universe-weighted-model-counting} Suppose \( \alpha \) is as above. If \( \textsc{GND}(\alpha,1) \) is satisfiable, then so is \( \textsc{GND}(\alpha,z) \) for \( z\geq 1. \)
\end{lemma}
Thus, we can extend a model that satisfies \( \textsc{GND}(\alpha,1) \) to one that satisfies \( \textsc{GND}(\alpha) \), and so \( \alpha \) itself. These observations will now lead to an appealing account for \mathit{implicit learnability} with \( \textrm{proper}^+ \) KBs.
\section{Generalizing PAC-Semantics}
\label{sub:pac_semantics}
Inductive generalization (as opposed to deduction)
inherently has to cope with mistakes. Thus, the kind of knowledge produced by learning
algorithms cannot hope to be valid in the traditional (Tarskian) sense, except in extreme cases, such as assuming we see every data point in a noise-free manner. The PAC semantics was introduced by Valiant~\shortcite{valiant2000robust} to
capture the quality possessed by the output of PAC-learning algorithms when
formulated in a logic. In the classical propositional formulation, we suppose a propositional language with (say) \( n \) propositions, yielding a model theoretic space $\{0,1\}^n$. We suppose that we observe examples independently
drawn from a distribution \( D \) over $\{0,1\}^n$. Then, suppose further that these examples enable a learning algorithm to find a formula \(
\phi \). We cannot expect this formula to be valid in
the traditional sense, as PAC-learning does not guarantee that the rule
holds for every possible binding, only that \(
\phi \) so
produced agrees with probability $1-\epsilon$ wrt future
examples drawn from the same distribution. This motivates a weaker notion of validity:
\begin{definition}[$(1-\epsilon)$-valid]
Given a distribution $D$ over $\{0,1\}^n$, we say that a Boolean function
$F$ is {\em $(1-\epsilon)$-valid} if $\Pr_{x\in D}[F(x)=1]\geq 1-\epsilon$.
If $\epsilon=0$, we say $F$ is {\em perfectly valid}.
\end{definition}
Thus far, the PAC semantics and its application to the formalization of robust logic-based learning has been limited to the propositional setting \cite{valiant2000robust,michael2009reading,juba2013implicit}, that is, where the learning vocabulary is finitely many atoms, and the background knowledge is essentially restricted to a propositional formula.\footnote{%
Valiant~\shortcite{valiant2000robust} uses a fragment of FOL for which propositionalization is guaranteed to yield a small propositional formula, and only considers such a reduction to the propositional case.} Generalizing that to the FOL case has to address, among other things, what $(1-\epsilon)$-validity would like, how FOL formulas could be found by algorithms, and finally, how entailments can be computed. That is precisely our goal for this paper.
We start by proposing an extension of the PAC semantics for the infinitary structures constructed for \(
\L \), namely \( {\cal M}. \) For this, we will need to consider distributions on \( {\cal M} \), which are defined as usual \cite{probability-and-measure}: we take \( {\cal M} \) to be the sample space (of elementary events), define a \( \sigma \)-algebra \( {\bf M} \) to be a set of subsets of \( {\cal M} \), which represent a collection of (not necessarily elementary) events, and a function \( \Pr\colon {\bf M} \rightarrow [0,1] \), which is the probability measure.
We are now ready to define \( (1-\epsilon) \)-validity as needed in the PAC semantics.
\begin{definition} Given a distribution \( \Pr \) over \( {\cal M}, \) we say a formula \( \phi \in \L \) is \( (1-\epsilon) \)-valid iff \( \Pr(\abs \phi) \geq 1 - \epsilon. \) If \( \epsilon = 0, \) then we say that \( \phi \) is perfectly valid. Here, \( \abs \phi \) for any closed formula \( \phi\in \L \) denotes the set \( \set{M\in {\cal M} \mid M \models \phi}. \)
\end{definition}
In practice, the most important use of the notion of validity is to check the entailment of a formula from a knowledge base, and by extension, the reader may wonder how that carries over from classical validity. As also observed in \cite{juba2013implicit} (for the propositional case), the union bound allows classical reasoning to have a natural analogue in the PAC semantics, shown below. {Note that, as already mentioned, our assumption henceforth is that knowledge bases are \( \textrm{proper}^+ \), and queries are ground formulas, both in the context of reasoning as well as learning.}
\begin{proposition}
\label{classical-inf-bound}
Let $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_k$ be $\forall$-clauses such that each $\psi_i$ is
$(1-\epsilon_i)$-valid under a common distribution $D$ for some $\epsilon_i\in
[0,1]$. Suppose $\{\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_k\}\models\varphi$, for some ground formula $\varphi$. Then $\varphi$ is $(1-\epsilon')$-valid under $D$ for
$\epsilon'=\sum_i\epsilon_i$.
\end{proposition}
\section{Partial Observability}
\label{sub:partial_observability}
The learning problem of interest here is to obtain knowledge about the distribution \( D \), which, of course, is not revealed directly, but in the form of a set of examples. The examples in question are models independently drawn from \( D \), and we are then interested in knowing whether a query \(
\alpha \) is \( (1-\epsilon) \)-valid. Intuitively, background knowledge \( \Delta \) may be provided additionally and so the examples correspond to additional knowledge that the agent learns. This additional knowledge is never materialized in the form of \( \L \)-formulas, but is left implicit, as postulated first in \cite{juba2013implicit}.
When it comes to the examples themselves, however, we certainly cannot expect the examples to reveal the full nature of the world, and indeed, partial descriptions are commonplace in almost all applications \cite{michael2010partial}. In the case of \(
\L \), moreover, providing a full description may even be impossible in finite time. All of this motivates the following:
\begin{definition} A partial model \( N \) maps \( {\atom} \) to \( \set{1,0,*}. \) We say \( N \) is consistent with a \( \L \)-model \( M \) iff for all \( p\in {\atom}, \) if \( N[p] \neq * \) then \( N[p] = M[p] \). Let \( {\cal N} \) be the set of all partial models.
\end{definition}
Essentially, our knowledge of \( D \) will be obtained from a set of partial models that are the examples.
\begin{definition} A mask is a function \( \theta \) that maps \( \L \)-models to partial models, with the property that for any \( M\in {\cal M}, \) \( \theta(M) \) is consistent with \( M. \) A {\em masking
process} $\Theta$ is a mask-valued random variable (i.e., a random function).
We denote the distribution over partial models obtained by applying a
masking process $\Theta$ to a distribution $D$ over \( \L \)-models by $\Theta(D)$.
\end{definition}
The definition of masking processes allows the hiding of entries to
depend on the underlying example from $D$. Moreover, {as discussed in \cite{juba2013implicit} (for the propositional case), reasoning in PAC-Semantics from complete examples is trivial, whereas the hiding of all entries by a masking process means that the problem reduces to classical entailment.} So, we expect examples to be of a sort that is in between these extremes. In particular, for the sake of tractable learning, we must consider formulas that
can be evaluated efficiently from the partial models with
high probability. This leads to a notion of {\it witnessing}.
\begin{definition} We define a propositional formula \( \phi\in \L \) to be witnessed to evaluate to true or false in a partial assignment \( N \) by induction as follows: \begin{itemize}
\item an atom \( Q(\vec c) \) is witnessed to be true/false iff it is true/false respectively in \( N \);
\item \( \neg\phi \) is witnessed true/false iff \( \phi \) is witnessed false/true respectively;
\item \( \phi \vee \psi \) is witnessed true iff either \( \phi \) or \( \psi \) is, and it is witnessed false iff both \( \phi \) and \( \psi \) are witnessed false;
\item \( \phi \wedge \psi \) is witnessed true iff both \( \phi \) and \( \psi \) are witnessed true, and it is witnessed false iff either \(\phi \) or \( \psi \) is witnessed false;
\item \( \phi \supset \psi \) is witnessed true iff either \( \phi \) is witnessed false or \(\psi\) is witnessed true, and it is witnessed false iff both \(\phi\) is witnessed true and \(\psi\) is witnessed false.
\end{itemize} We define a \( \forall \)-clause \( \forall\vec{x}\phi(\vec{x}) \) to be witnessed true in a partial model \( N\) for the set of names \( C \) if
for every binding of $\vec{x}$ to names $\vec{c}\in C$, the resulting ground clause $\phi(\vec{c})$ is witnessed true in $N$.
\end{definition}
It is the witnessing of \( \forall \)-clauses that, in essence, enables the implicit learning of quantified generalizations. Let us see how that works. Intuitively, from examples \( \phi(\vec c _ 1), \ldots, \) one would like to generalize to \( \forall \vec x \phi(\vec x) \), the latter being a statement about infinitely many objects. But what criteria would justify this generalization, outside of (say) witnessing infinitely many instances? Our result shows that, surprisingly, it suffices to get finitely many examples, so as to witness \( \phi(\vec c _ 1), \ldots, \phi(\vec c _ k) \) and yield universally quantified sentences with high probability.
This is possible
because, via Theorem \ref{thm grounding trick}, all the names not mentioned in the KB and the query behave ``identically.'' Thus, provided we witness the grounding of \( \phi \) for a sufficient but finite set of constants, we can treat the implicit KB as including \( \forall \)-clauses, as it yields the same judgments on our queries.
Putting it all together, formally, in any given learning epoch, let \( S \) be the class of queries we are interested in asking: that is, \( S \) is any finite set of ground formulas. Let \( C \) then be all the names mentioned in \( S \), the KB, and \( z \) extra new ones chosen arbitrarily, where \( z \) is at least the rank of the KB. If \( z = \) KB's rank, then the rank of the implicit KB matches that of the explicit KB; otherwise, it would be higher. So the definition says that the witnessing of \( \forall \vec x \phi(\vec x) \) happens when \( \phi(\vec c) \) is witnessed for all \( \vec c \in C \). We think this notion is particularly powerful, as it neither makes references to bindings from the full set of names \( \mathbb{N}}%{{\cal U} \) (which is infinite), nor to not observing negative instances. Note also that witnessing does not require observing all atoms: a clause is witnessed to evaluate to true if some literal appearing in it is true in the partial model. Thus, the \( \forall \)-clause witnessed may involve predicates not explicitly appearing in the partial model.
Witnessed formulas correspond to the \mathit{implicit} KB. In order to capture the inferences that the implicit KB permits, we will use partial models to simplify complex formulas in the KB or query. To that end, we define:
\begin{definition}
Given a partial model $N$ and a propositional formula $\phi$, the {\em restriction of
$\phi$ under $N$,} denoted $\phi|_N$, is recursively defined: if $\phi$ is an atom witnessed in $N$, then $\phi|_N$ is the value that $\phi$ is witnessed to evaluate to under $N$; if $\phi$ is an atom not set by $N$, then $\phi|_N=\phi$; if $\phi=\neg\psi$, then $\phi|_N
=\neg(\psi|_N)$; and if \( \phi = \alpha \land \beta \), then \( \phi|_N = (\alpha|_N) ~\land~ (\beta|_N) \). (And analogously for Boolean connectives \( \lor \) and \( \supset. \))
For a partial model $N$ and set of propositional formulas $F$, we let $F|_N$ denote the
set $\{\phi|_N:\phi\in F\}$.
\end{definition}
Notice that here we do not define restrictions for quantified formulas, such as those appearning in the KB: while that is possible it is not needed, as we will be leveraging Theorem \ref{thm grounding trick} for reasoning.
\section{Implicit Learnability}
\label{sec:implicit_learnability}
The central motivation here is learning to reason in FOL, and as argued earlier, implicit learning circumvents the need for an explicit hypothesis, especially since hypothesis fitting is intractable, unless one severly restricts the hypothesis space. So, learning is integrated tightly into the application using the knowledge extracted
from data. Our definitions in the previous sections establish the grounds for which a first-order implict KB can be learned from finitely many finite-size examples, but also the grounds for deciding propositional entailments of \( \forall \)-clauses specified explicitly -- i.e., the background knowledge. (Of course, reasoning is not yet tractable, but simply decidable; we return to this point later). Overall, the learning regime is presented in Algorithm \ref{fo-l2r-alg}, and its correctness is justified in Theorem \ref{mainthm}.
\begin{algorithm}[!ht]
\caption{Reasoning with implicit learning}\label{fo-l2r-alg}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bf Input:} Partial models $N^{(1)},N^{(2)},\ldots,N^{(m)}$, explicit KB $\Delta$, query $\alpha$ (a ground formula),
number of names $k$ at least equal to $\Delta$'s rank
\STATE {\bf Output:} $\hat{p}\in [0,1]$ estimating $\alpha$ is $\hat{p}$-valid (See Theorem~\ref{mainthm})
\STATE Initialize $v\gets 0$
\FOR{$i=1,\ldots,m$}
\FOR{ all $k$-tuples of names $(c_1,\ldots,c_k)$ from $N^{(i)}$ {\em not} appearing in $\Delta \land \neg \alpha$}
\IF{\(\textsc{GND}(\Delta \land \neg\alpha,\{c_1,\ldots,c_k\})|_{N^{(i)}} \) is unsatisfiable}
\STATE Increment $v$ and skip to the next $i$.
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\STATE Return $v/m$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{theorem}\label{mainthm}
Let $\delta,\gamma\in (0,1)$ and $k\in\mathbb{N}$ be given.
Suppose we have $m$ partial models drawn i.i.d.\ from a common
distribution $D$ masked
by a masking process $\Theta$, where $m\geq \frac{1}{2\gamma^2}\ln\frac{2}{\delta}$. (Here, $\ln$ denotes the natural logarithm.)
With probability at least $1-\delta$, Algorithm~\ref{fo-l2r-alg} returns a value $\hat{p}$ s.t.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\bf I}] if $\Delta\supset\alpha$ is at most $p$-valid, $\hat{p}\leq p+\gamma$
\item[{\bf II}] if there is a KB ${\cal I}$
such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Delta\wedge{\cal I}\models\alpha$,
\item the rank of $\Delta\land {\cal I}$ is at most $k$, and
\item with probability at least $p$ over partial models $N\in\Theta(D)$, there exists names $c_1,\ldots,c_k$ not appearing in $\Delta$ or $\alpha$, such that every formula in ${\cal I}$ is witnessed true in $N$ for $c_1,\ldots,c_k$ together with the names appearing in $\Delta$ and $\alpha$
\end{enumerate}
then $\hat{p}\geq p-\gamma$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
{\bf Part I: $\hat{p}\leq p+\gamma$ if $\Delta\supset\alpha$ is at most $p$-valid.}
We first note that when $\textsc{GND}(\Delta\land\neg\alpha,C)|_{N^{(i)}}\models\bot$ for any set of names $C$, since
$N^{(i)}$ is consistent with the actual model $M^{(i)}$ that produced it,
$\textsc{GND}(\Delta\land\neg\alpha,C)|_{M^{(i)}}\models\bot$ as well. Thus, in this case,
$\textsc{GND}(\Delta\land\neg\alpha,C)$ is falsified by $M^{(i)}$. Since $|C|$ is at least the rank of $\Delta$, it is easy to see that $\textsc{GND}(\Delta \land \neg \alpha)$, which is logically equivalent to $\Delta \land \neg \alpha$, is falsifiable at $M^{(i)}$. So, it must be that the negation of that theory (i.e., $\Delta\supset\alpha$) is satisfied at $M^{(i)}$.
Now, $\Delta\supset\alpha$ is by definition $p$-valid with respect to this distribution on $M^{(i)}$ if the probability that $\Delta\supset\alpha$ is satisfied by each $M^{(i)}$ is $p$. Moreover, it follows immediately from Hoeffding's inequality that for $m\geq\frac{1}{2\gamma^2}\ln\frac{2}{\delta}$, the probability that the fraction of times $\Delta\supset\alpha$ is satisfied by $M^{(i)}$ (out of $m$) exceeds $p$ by more than $\gamma$ is at most $\delta/2$. Thus, $\hat{p}$, which is at most the fraction of times $\Delta\supset\alpha$ is actually satisfied by $M^{(i)}$, likewise is at most $p+\gamma$ with probability at least $1-\delta/2$.
\noindent
{\bf Part II: rate of witnessing an implicit KB lower bounds $\hat{p}$.}
Note that by the grounding trick (Theorem~\ref{thm grounding trick}), $\Delta\land{\cal I}\models\alpha$ implies that for any set of names $c_1,\ldots,c_k$ not appearing in $\Delta$ or $\alpha$, $\textsc{GND}(\Delta\land{\cal I}\land\alpha,\{c_1,\ldots,c_k\})\models\bot$.
Suppose that ${\cal I}$ is witnessed true for $c_1,\ldots,c_k$ together with the names in $\Delta$ and $\alpha$ in $N^{(i)}$. We note that in the restricted formula $\textsc{GND}(\Delta\land{\cal I}\land\neg\alpha,\{c_1,\ldots,c_k\})|_{N^{(i)}}$, the groundings of formulas in ${\cal I}$ all simplify to $1$ (true), and so $\textsc{GND}(\Delta\land{\cal I}\land\neg\alpha,\{c_1,\ldots,c_k\})|_{N^{(i)}} = \textsc{GND}(\Delta\land\neg\alpha,\{c_1,\ldots,c_k\})|_{N^{(i)}}$. Thus, $\textsc{GND}(\Delta\land\neg\alpha,\{c_1,\ldots,c_k\})|_{N^{(i)}}\models\bot$, so $v$ is incremented on this iteration. Thus, indeed, $\hat{p}=v/m$ is at least the fraction of times out of $m$ that ${\cal I}$ is witnessed true for some set of $k$ names. It again follows from Hoeffding's inequality that for $m\geq\frac{1}{2\gamma^2}\ln\frac{2}{\delta}$, this is at least $p-\gamma$ with probability $1-\delta/2$.
By a union bound, the two parts hold simultaneously with probability at least
$1-\delta$, as needed. \bbox\vspace{0.1in}
\end{proof}
In essence, the no-overestimation condition is a {\it soundness} guarantee and the no-underestimation condition is a limited {\it completeness} guarantee: in other words, if the query logically follows from the explicit KB and examples then the algorithm returns success with an appropriate $\hat{p}$, and vice versa.
\section{Tractable Reasoning}
\label{sec:reasoning}
Algorithm~\ref{fo-l2r-alg} reduces reasoning with implicit learning to deciding entailment. In order to obtain a tractable algorithm, we generally need to restrict the reasoning task somehow. One approach, taken in the previous work on propositional implicit learning \cite{juba2013implicit}, is to ``promise'' that the query is provable in some low-complexity fragment; for example, it is provable by a small treelike resolution proof (where ``small'' refers to the number of lines of the proof). Equivalently, we give up on completeness, and only seek completeness with respect to conclusions provable in low complexity in a given fragment. In general, then, one obtains a running time guarantee that is parameterized by the size of the proof of the query. We can take a similar approach here, by using an algorithm for deciding entailment that is efficient when parameterized in such terms. In general, what is needed is a fragment for which we can decide the existence of proofs efficiently, and that is ``restriction-closed,'' meaning that for any partial model $N$, if we consider the restriction of each line of the proof, we obtain a proof in the same fragment. Most fragments we might consider, including specifically treelike or bounded-width resolution, are restriction-closed. (See \cite{juba2012learning} for details.)
\newcommand{\mathitbf{B}}{\mathitbf{B}}
We will motivate an entirely new strategy here,
which offers a semantic perspective to the proof-theoretic view in \cite{juba2013implicit}. One classically sound model-theoretic approach to constraining propositional reasoning is to limit the power of the reasoner, as represented, for example, by the work on tautological entailment \cite{a-logic-of-implicit-and-explicit-belief}. More recently, \cite{a-logic-of-limited-belief-for-reasoning} suggest a simple evaluation scheme for $\textrm{proper}^+$ KBs that gradually increases the power of the reasoner: level $0$ is standard database lookup together with unit propagation, level $1$ allows for one case split in a clause, level $2$ allows two case splits, and so on. The formal intuition is as follows: suppose \( s \) is a set of ground clauses and \( \phi \) is a ground query, and let us say its a clause for simplicity.
Let \( {\cal U}(s) \) denote the the closure of $s$ under unit propagation, defined as the least set \( s' \) satisfying: (a) \( s\subseteq s' \) and (b) if literal \( l\in s' \) and \( (\neg l \lor c) \in s' \) then \( c\in s'. \) Then let \( {\cal V}(s) \) define all possible weakenings: \( \set{ c \mid c \textrm{ is a ground clause and there is a } c'\in {\cal U}(s) \textrm{ s.t. } c'\subseteq c }. \)
Then we define \( s \models _ z \phi \) (read: ``entails at levels \( z \)") iff one of the following holds: \begin{itemize}
\item {\it subsume:} \( z=0, \) and \( \phi \in {\cal V}(s) \);
\item {\it split:} \( z> 0 \) and there is some clause \( c\in s \) such that for all literals \( l\in c, \) \( s\cup \set{l} \models _ {(z-1)} \phi. \)
\end{itemize}
This scheme is sound as well as tractable:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm liu}\cite{a-logic-of-limited-belief-for-reasoning} Suppose \( \Delta, \phi \) are propositional formulas and \( z\in {\mathbb{N}} \). Then, determining if \( \Delta \models_ z \phi \) can be done in time \( O({(|\phi|\times |\Delta|)}^{z+1}) \). Moreover, if \( \Delta \models _ z \phi \) then \( \Delta \models \phi. \)
\end{theorem}
We will now see how to leverage these results. First, however, we need the equivalent to restriction-closed, as discussed above.
\begin{proposition} Suppose \( \phi,\Delta, z \) are as above. Then if \( \Delta \models _ z \phi \), and \( N \) is any partial model then \( (\Delta |_ N) \models _ z (\phi |_ N). \)
\end{proposition}
Basically, if \( \phi \) is entailed at level \( z \) from \( \Delta \), then any restriction of \( \phi \) under \( N \) must also be entailed by \( \Delta \) restricted to \( N \), at least at level \( z \) if not lower. Notice that restricting a ground formula is equivalent to simply conjoining the literals true at \( N \) with both \( \phi \) and \( \Delta \), from which the proof follows. Now, recall from Theorem \ref{thm grounding trick}, given a \( \textrm{proper}^+ \) KB \(
\Delta \) and ground query \(
\phi \), we have \( \Delta \models \phi \) iff \( \gnd ^ - (\Delta\land \neg\alpha) \) is unsatisfiable. Here, since \(
\alpha \) is already ground,
we really only need to make sure that \( \Delta \) is ground wrt all the names in \( \Delta \land \neg \alpha \) and \( k \) new ones, \( k \) being the rank of \( \Delta. \) So let \( \textsc{GND}^ \alpha(\Delta) \) denote precisely such a grounding of \( \Delta \). It then follows that \( \textsc{GND} ^ \alpha(\Delta) \models \alpha \) iff \( \gnd ^ - (\Delta\land \neg\alpha) \) is unsatisfiable iff \( \Delta\models \alpha. \) So let Algorithm $1'$ be exactly like Algorithm 1 except that it accepts a parameter \( z \) (for limited reasoning) and replaces the following check: \begin{itemize}
\item[] \(\textsc{GND}(\Delta \land \neg\alpha,\{c_1,\ldots,c_k\})|_{N^{(i)}} \) is unsatisfiable\quad\quad\quad {\it {\bf with}}
\end{itemize} \begin{itemize}
\item[] \( \textsc{GND}(\Delta,\{c_1,\ldots,c_k, d_1, \ldots, d_m\})|_{N^{(i)}}\models _ z (\alpha|_{N^{(i)}}) \), where \( \set{d_1, \ldots, d_m} \) is the set of names appearing in \(
\alpha \) but not in \( \Delta \).
\end{itemize}
\begin{theorem} Let \( \delta,\gamma,k, m \) be as in Theorem \ref{mainthm}, and let \( z\in {\mathbb{N}}. \) Then with a probability at least \( 1-\delta, \) Algorithm $1'$ returns a value \( \hat p \) such that: {\bf (I)} and {\bf (II)} is as in Theorem \ref{mainthm} except for {\bf (II.1)} which states that \( \Delta\land {\cal I} \models _ z \alpha. \)
The algorithm runs in time \( O( 1 / \gamma^2 \times (|\phi|\times|\Delta|) ^{z+1} \times log (1/\delta) ) \).
\end{theorem}
{\bf Discussion.}~~ {Interestingly, in \cite{tractable-reasoning-in-first-order-knowledge}, it is shown that reasoning is also tractable in the first-order case if the knowledge base and the query both use a bounded number of variables. This would then mean that we would no longer be limited to ground queries and can handle queries with quantifiers. This direction is left for future research.} Nonetheless, we note that deciding quantified (as opposed to ground) queries appears to demand more from learning. In general, in an infinite domain, we cannot hope to observe in a finite partial model that universally quantified formulas are ever true. Thus, we anticipate that extensions that handle queries with quantifiers will need a substantially different framework, presumably with stronger assumptions.
One possible framework takes a more \textit{credulous} approach to the learning problem (in contrast to our \textit{skeptical} approach based on witnessing truth): we suppose that when a formula is frequently false on the distribution of examples, we also frequently obtain a partial model that witnesses the formula false---e.g., a partial model in which a binding of a candidate $\forall$-clause falsifies it.
This is undoubtedly an assumption about the benevolent nature of the environment, captured as the notion of \textit{concealment} in \cite{michael2010partial}, but it does make learning conceptually simpler. In this framework, one permits all conclusions that are not explicitly falsified. Whether such an idea can be used for inductive generalization of FOL formulas over arbitrary distributions remains to be seen.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:tractable_reasoning}
In this work, we presented new results on the problem of answering queries about formulas of first-order logic (FOL) based on background knowledge partially represented explicitly as other formulas, and partially represented as examples independently drawn from a fixed probability distribution. By appealing to the paradigm of implicit learnability, we sidestepped many major negative results, leading to a learning regime that works with a general and expressive FOL fragment. No restrictions were posed on clause length, predicate arity, and other similar technical devices seen in PAC results.
Overall, we hope the simplicity of the framework is appealing to the readers and hope our results will renew interest in learnability for expressive languages with quantificational power.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
B.\ Juba was supported by NSF Award CCF-1718380. This work was partially performed while B.\ Juba was visiting the Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing.
\bibliographystyle{named}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:bjrintro}
Field theory is a framework to study systems where the particle number is not conserved and Quantum field theory provides a formalism to study quantum dynamics of such systems. For any system, quantum corrections often alter the nature of classical dynamics. For example, quantum corrections can make a classical vacuum unstable \cite{Coleman:1973jx}. Moreover, studies of anomalies and renormalization group provide us guiding principle to identify the space of Quantum field theories that can describe a physical system. That is why it is very important to study the quantum corrections of any field theory. In Quantum field theory, Feynman diagrams provide a diagrammatic way to organize the perturbative computations. In the language of Feynman diagrams, tree level diagrams capture the classical dynamics and the quantum effects are encoded in the loop amplitudes. The leading quantum correction is encoded in one loop amplitudes and often the study of one loop amplitudes is enough to understand the nature of quantum correction(s). For example, anomalies are captured entirely by one loop amplitudes. The nature of renormalization group flow \footnote{Sign of the beta function.} near the fixed points is almost determined by one loop corrections. So clearly one loop corrections are extremely important in any Quantum field theory.
The loop amplitudes are constructed out of propagators (of various fields) and the various interaction terms in the Lagrangian. However, the field content and the interactions differ in various quantum field theories. A priori, it seems that the study of loop amplitudes is a task that has to be executed separately in a case by case fashion for various theories. In 1979, Passarino and Veltman \cite{Passarino:1978jh} came up with a framework to study one loop amplitudes up to four internal legs for any quantum field theory \footnote{They were primarily interested in four-dimensional quantum field theory. Their work also holds for higher dimension. }. They showed that any loop amplitude (with up to four internal legs) can be written in term of four basic loop integrals constructed out of one, two, three and four scalar propagators \footnote{t' Hooft and Veltman evaluated these scalar integrals explicitly \cite{tHooft:1978jhc}. }. They provided an algorithm (which is referred to as Passarino-Veltman tensor reduction) to reduce any loop integrals in terms of the scalar integrals. Later this approach was extended to one loop amplitudes with more than four integral legs \cite{Denner:2002ii, Denner:2005nn}. This method is extremely useful to study one-loop corrections in four-dimensional quantum field theories. We still do not know the extension of this method of tensor reduction for two and higher loop diagrams. In this paper, we explore the extension of this method in a different direction. We apply the method of tensor reduction to Schwinger-Keldysh (henceforth SK) field theories and then we apply it to Yukawa theory on SK contour. SK theory is a framework to compute correlation functiozn for a system with no-prior information of its final state \cite{Keldysh:1964ud, Schwinger:1960qe} (See \cite{Haehl:2016pec, Haehl:2016uah} for a recent review of SK formalism).
In high-energy physics, we mostly study ``in-out'' correlators. These ``in-out" correlators are related to the $S$ matrices which are the primary observables in a high energy experiment. We assume that the initial and the final vacuum state of the interacting theory is same up to a phase and we compute the correlator between in vacuum and out vacuum. However, in many cases (for example, systems not in equilibrium, ...) the initial state and the final state are not the same up to a phase. In fact, sometimes we do not have any prior knowledge of the final state. The SK formalism provides a framework to study quantum dynamics without assuming anything about the final state. This formalism is based on a closed time contour and it is extremely useful to study the time evolution of mixed states, which arise in open quantum systems, out-of-time-ordered correlators, non-equilibrium dynamics etc. \cite{Kamenev, Chou:1984es}.
Though the SK formalism is old, not much is known about the loop corrections in this formalism. In particular, the most general (local) field theory that one can write down in SK contour is not unitary. They describe open quantum systems. Amongst these non-unitary theories, there is a sub-class of theories in which the time evolution preserves the trace of the density matrix. We call such theories as {\it Lindblad theories} \cite{Gorini:1975nb, Lindblad:1975ef}. In unitary theory, the trace of any moment of the density matrix (i.e. $\rho^n $ for $n\geq 1$) is preserved under time evolution. This is not necessarily true for Lindblad theories.
Lindblad theories were originally developed to describe non-relativistic Markovian open quantum mechanical systems. They have been useful to describe stochastic, non-equilibrium quantum systems. One can easily extend these quantum mechanical theories to field theories by demanding the theory to be local in both space and time \cite{Avinash:2017asn}. The connection of these theories with an underlying unitary theory is not yet clear. One expects that the theory obtained by tracing out some light degrees of freedom from a unitary QFT to be Lindblad theory and the unitarity of the microscopic theory implies the Lindblad condition for the open EFT.
The simplest of such case which consists of only a real self-interacting scalar in the SK contour was studied in \cite{Avinash:2017asn} where it was shown that the Lindblad conditions are preserved under renormalization group flow. The next obvious step is to study more general Lindblad theories with fermions, vector bosons etc. The results in this paper is a step towards that direction. In order to study one loop beta function in more general field theory, we extend PV tools to more general theories on the SK contour. Then we apply those results to compute mass renormalization in open Yukawa theory.
The organization of the paper is as follows. First, we discuss the program of renormalisation in open-field theories in section \S\ref{sec:bjrrenormsk}. In section \S\ref{sec:pvebasics}, we perform the PV reduction for open QFTs. We start by reviewing the basics of PV reduction in unitary theories. This also serves the purpose to introduce various (standard) notations. We, then, generalise the idea of PV reduction to SK theory and analyse various $A$-type and $B$-type integrals (explained later) in SK theory. In section \S\ref{sec:bjropenyukawa}, we implement the PV reductions in open-Yukawa theory and compute the self-energy correction to the fields. The appendices complement the computations in the main body. In appendix \ref{sec:feynmandiagram} and in appendix \ref{sec:fermionicpv} we draw the diagrams used in the self-energy correction to the fields and write the PV reduction for diagrams used in fermionic self-energy correction respectively. In appendix \ref{app:twoscalar} we discuss non-local divergences that appear in one loop correction to the quartic couplings of two scalars.
\section{Renormalization of open quantum field theories}
\label{sec:bjrrenormsk}
Unitary field theories describe closed systems. Renormalization in unitary theories provides us a guiding principle to write down models to describe various systems.
As we have described in the introduction, the SK formalism can provide a description for the open systems. If one writes down the most general field theory on the SK contour then those theories are not unitary. Only a subclass of these non-unitary theories preserve the trace of the density matrix.
The space of relativistic open quantum field theories is mostly unexplored. In \cite{Avinash:2017asn}, the authors started a program to understand the space of open relativistic EFTs. We summarize the key points of that programme here.
\begin{enumerate}
\item One key assumption is that there exists open quantum systems that are described by {\it local} quantum field theories. The hope was to derive at least one such local theory from an underlying unitary field theory using the Feynman-Vernon method \cite{Feynman:1963fq}. But this idea has not materialized yet \cite{ Chatterjee:2019xxx}.
Among these local field theories only in the Lindblad theories the time-evolution preserves the trace of the density matrix.
\item Even if the derivation of local open quantum field theories is still missing, the hope is to explore the space of such open quantum field theories in the Wilsonian approach. In particular, the goal is to explore whether 1) the criteria of the locality of the theory, 2) the criteria of renormalizability and 3) the Lindblad conditions \footnote{This is the closest analogue of unitarity in open QFT.} are mutually consistent with each other. And if they are consistent then what is the space of such theories? For example, One could ask the following questions.
\begin{itemize}
\item whether the Lindblad theories (and/or more general theories in the SK contour) are renormalizable.
\item what are the criteria for renormalizability ?
\item how are the beta functions affected by non-unitarity dynamics ?
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
In the following subsection, we discuss the progresses that has been made to address these questions with the above-mentioned assumptions.
\subsection{Various examples and failure}
\label{subsec:bjrrenormskexample}
The first step in this direction was taken in \cite{Avinash:2017asn} where
the authors considered open $\phi^3+\phi^4$ theory. At first, the most general theory of a single real scalar field, in the SK contour, was written down. It was found that the Lindblad conditions are protected at one loop. Moreover, it was found that these subclass of theories are renormalizable and the trace-preserving conditions \& the renormalizability condition are mutually consistent.
The next simplest example is an open field theory of two scalars ($\phi,\,\chi$) with a $\phi^2\, \chi^2$ interaction term. The details of this model can be found in appendix \ref{app:twoscalar}. The masses of the scalars are chosen to be different ($m_1,\,m_2$). It has been shown in \cite{Avinash:2017asn} that few bubble loop diagrams with two internal propagators of different fields have non-local divergence structure\footnote{The authors of \cite{Burgess:2018sou} considered QFT for Rindler observers and they found UV-IR mixing in loop corrections to the correlators \& the breakdown of perturbative expansion.}. One such integral \footnote{This divergence come from an integral, named $B_{RP}(m_1,m_2;k)$. The rule behind this naming is explained in section \S\ref{sec:pvebasics}.} has the following divergence structure.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{divstructure}
\frac{i}{(4\pi)^2} \frac{k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2}{2k^2}\, \frac{2}{d-4}\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
This integral appear, for example, in one loop renormalization to $\phi_R^2\, \chi_R^2$ vertex (see section \ref{subsec:phichivertexcorrection}) and the non-local divergences don't cancel even if the tree level theory satisfies the trace-preserving/Lindblad conditions. The non-local divergence disappears in the equal mass limit. The existence of the non-local divergences was a hint that these divergences would show up in more general field theories. However, there was a hope that in open theories, these divergences may be proportional to the Lindblad violating coupling. So, in Lindblad theories, they may vanish. Any local Lindblad theory would be renormalizable; these non-local divergences will not pose any threat to the Lindblad theories. In this particular case, we perform the explicit computations and we found that these divergences survive even in Lindblad EFT. We do not present the computations of the two scalar theory in details here. Rather we present open Yukawa theory in length. The conclusion remains the same. Open Yukawa theory is also plagued by non-local divergences (even if the tree level dynamics preserves the trace of the density matrix).
The structure of the non-local divergence in \eqref{divstructure} naively indicates that if all the particles have same mass then these divergences vanish. This expectation is only true in theories with scalars only (and even in that case, only upto diagrams with one and two internal propagators; For three or more internal propagators, there are non-local divergences \cite{ Chatterjee:2019xxx}). For theories with fermions and/or with vector bosons, the non-local divergences persist even in the equal mass limit. We illustrate this point explicitly by performing the PV reduction (see eqn \eqref{zero_gamma5_FS no cut equal mass} and eqn \eqref{zero_gamma5_FS one cut equal mass}).
We also have considered supersymmetric open Wess-Zumino theory and found that the non-local divergences remain \cite{Baidya:2019ab} .
\section{PV reduction in open QFTs }
\label{sec:pvebasics}
In this section, first we briefly review the method of PV tensor reduction. Simultaneously, we also introduce various notations which will be useful to extend the method of tensor reduction to SK theory. In the standard literature, one loop amplitude with one, two, three and four internal propagators are referred as PV $A$-type, $B$-type, $C$-type and $D$-type integrals. We use the same terminology extensively. Passarino and Veltman considered integrals up to four internal propagators \cite{Passarino:1978jh, tHooft:1978jhc}. Later the case of one loop integral with more internal propagator was considered in \cite{Denner:2002ii, Denner:2005nn}. In our work, we considered integrals with less than four internal propagators and as a consequence, we also limit our discussion of the original work up to two propagators. Consider the expression for tadpole, bubble and triangle diagram in $\phi^3$ theory \cite{tHooft:1978jhc}
\begin{eqnarray}
A&=&
\mommea
\Bigg[
\frac{-i }{[p^2+m_0^2-i\varepsilon]}
\Bigg]
\quad,
\\
B&=&
\mommea
\Bigg[
\frac{(-i)^2 }{[p^2+m_0^2-i\varepsilon][(k_1+p)^2+m_1^2-i\varepsilon]}
\Bigg]
\quad,
\\
C&=&
\mommea
\Bigg[
\frac{(-i)^3 }{[p^2+m_0^2-i\varepsilon][(k_1+p)^2+m_1^2-i\varepsilon][(k_1+k_2+p)^2+m_2^2-i\varepsilon]}
\Bigg]
\quad.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\mommeasure$ is the measure for the loop integral
\begin{eqnarray}
\mommea = \mu^{4-d}
\int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}\,
\quad.
\end{eqnarray}
Passarino and Veltman showed that these integrals serve as the basis for any one loop integral with less than three internal legs. In $\phi^3$ scalar field theory, the numerator is very simple. But in a generic theory the numerator is a polynomial of internal and external momenta. Any polynomial which is a function of only the external momenta do not participate in the loop integration and hence they can taken out of the integral. Keeping this in mind, consider the following integral
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
T^{\mu_1\dots\mu_q}_{r}(m_1,\dots ,m_{r}|k_1,\dots ,k_{r-1})
\label{pbvebasic1}
\\
&=& \mommea
\Bigg[
\frac{(-i)^r (p^{\mu_1}\dots p^{\mu_q})}{[p^2+m_1^2-i\varepsilon]
\dots
[(k_1+\dots +k_{r-1}+p)^2+m_{r}^2-i\varepsilon]}
\Bigg]
\quad.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here we explain various notations that are used in the above expression.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mu_i$ are Lorentz indices - so they can take values from $0$ to $3$,
\item $k_i^\mu $ s are external momenta,
\item $p^\mu $ is the loop momentum ,
\item $m_i$ is the mass of the $i$-th (internal-)propagator in the loop,
\item $r$ is the number of the external legs,
\item $q$ is the number of Lorentz indices of the integral. It is not necessarily related to the number of the external legs. However, for a renormalizable unitary quantum field theory in $D$ dimensions $q\leq 2r- D$.
\end{itemize}
Consider the collection of such integrals
\begin{eqnarray}
\{T^{\mu_1\dots \mu_q}_{r}\}\qquad,\qquad 1 \leq r \leq 4\qquad,\qquad 1 \leq q \leq r
\quad.
\label{pbvebasic2}
\end{eqnarray}
Any one loop amplitude with at most 4 internal legs \footnote{In the present work, we restrict our attention to loop integrals with upto 3 internal legs.} in a generic quantum field theory can be written in terms of a linear combination of $\{T^{\mu_1\cdots \mu_q}_{r}\}$s. We elaborate this statement with one example. It is straightforward to show that \citep{Bardin:1999ak}
\begin{eqnarray}
B^{\mu}(m_1,m_2,k) = \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\Big[- i A(m_2)+i A(m_1)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B(m_1,m_2,k)\Big]\,\,.
\end{eqnarray}
For future convenience, we introduce a few more notations here. We introduce $\pgator (p,m)$ which just denotes the propagator for a scalar field with mass $m$ and momentum $p$ along with the Feynman $i \varepsilon$ prescription.
\begin{eqnarray}
\pgator (p,m) &=& \frac{-i}{p^2+m^2-i\varepsilon}
\quad.
\label{pbvebasic3}
\end{eqnarray}
Using this notation, we rewrite \eqref{pbvebasic1}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mommea
\,
(p^{\mu_1}\dots p^{\mu_q})
\pgator_{a_1} (p,m_1)
\dots
\pgator_{a_{r}} ((k_1+\dots +k_{r-1}+p),m_{r})
\quad.
\label{pbvebasic4}
\end{eqnarray}
The integral has $r$ Lorentz indices. The only available Lorentz tensors are $\eta^{\mu \nu}$ and $\{k_i^\mu\}$. So the integral can only be degree $r$ polynomial of these quantities times some Lorentz scalar. For example, consider the integral $B^{\mu \nu}$. From Lorentz invariance it follows that it must be of the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
B^{\mu \nu }(k| m_1,m_2)&=&k^\mu k^\nu B_{11} (k| m_1,m_2)+\eta^{\mu \nu} B_{00} (k| m_1,m_2)
\quad.
\label{pbvebasic5}
\end{eqnarray}
$B_{11} (k| m_0,m_1)$ and $B_{00} (k| m_0,m_1)$ are Lorentz scalars and they can be written in terms of PV $A$ and $B$ type integrals. We can write any tensor integral \footnote{In $D=4$, at most four vectors can be linearly independent of each other \cite{Denner:2002ii, Denner:2005nn}. } in a similar way
\begin{eqnarray}
T^{\mu_1\dots \mu_q}_{r} = k_{i_1}^{\mu_1} \dots k_{i_q}^{\mu_q}\, T_{1}+ \dots
\qquad.
\end{eqnarray}
As long as $k_i^{\mu}$s are linearly independent, this relation is invertible. The number of independent external momenta is $q-1$ due to momentum conservation.
The method to find explicit expressions for the scalar coefficient of these tensor structures is known as the method of tensor reduction. This method simplifies the numerator to get back the integrals of scalar $\phi^3$ theory. For example, multiplying $T^{\mu_1\cdots \mu_q}_{r}$ by $k_1^\mu $ and using simple algebra, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
2\, k_1\cdot p= (k_1+p)^2-p^2= [(k_1+p)^2-m_1^2]-[p^2-m_0^2]+[m_1^2-m_0^2]
\quad.
\label{pbvebasic6}
\end{eqnarray}
Both the first and the second factor cancel one of the propagators.
Using this we notice that the polynomial in the numerator has one less factor of $p^\mu$
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mommea
\,
(p^{\mu_2}\dots\, p^{\mu_q})
\pgator_{a_1} (p,m_1)
\dots
\pgator_{a_{r}} ((k_1+\dots +k_{r-1}+p),m_{r})
\times
\Big[(k_1+p)^2+m^2
\Big]
\quad.\qquad
\label{pbvebasic7}
\end{eqnarray}
This concludes our brief review of PV tensor reduction for unitary theory. Now we move onto SK theory.
\subsubsection{$SK$ theory - Notation and convention}
\label{sec:pveskbasics}
In $SK$ theory there are four type of propagators
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\pgator_R (p,m) &=& \frac{-i}{p^2+m^2-i\varepsilon}
\quad,
\label{pveskbasic1a}
\\
\pgator_P (p,m) &=& 2\pi \Theta(p_0)\, \delta(p^2+m^2)\equiv 2\pi \delta_{+}(p^2+m^2)
\quad,
\label{pveskbasic1b}
\\
\pgator_M (p,m) &=& 2\pi \Theta(-p_0)\, \delta(p^2+m^2)\equiv 2\pi\delta_{-}(p^2+m^2)
\quad,
\label{pveskbasic1c}
\\
\pgator_L (p,m) &=& \frac{i}{p^2+m^2+i\varepsilon}
\quad.
\label{pveskbasic1d}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
The $R$ and $L$ propagators are the time ordered and the anti-time ordered propagators respectively. The other two propagators are essentially on-shell propagators. These two propagators also constrain the flow of energy; $P$ propagator allows the positive frequencies to flow, whereas $M$ propagator allows negative frequencies. In fig. \ref{dia:propagators} we introduce the diagrammatic representation of the above propagators which we use later for $SK$ Feynman diagrams.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[blue,ultra thick] (5,0) -- (9,0);
\node at (7,0.3) {$p\, \rightarrow$};
\node at (0,0) {$\pgator_R (p,m)$};
\node at (2,0) {$\textbf{:}$};
\draw[blue,ultra thick,dashed] (5,-1) -- (9,-1);
\node at (7,-0.7) {$p\, \rightarrow$};
\node at (0,-1) {$\pgator_L (p,m)$};
\node at (2,-1) {$\textbf{:}$};
\draw[blue,ultra thick] (5,-2) -- (7,-2);
\draw[blue,ultra thick,dashed] (7,-2) -- (9,-2);
\node at (7,-1.7) {$p\, \rightarrow$};
\node at (0,-2) {$\pgator_M (p,m)$};
\node at (2,-2) {$\textbf{:}$};
\draw[blue,ultra thick,dashed] (5,-3) -- (7,-3);
\draw[blue,ultra thick] (7,-3) -- (9,-3);
\node at (7,-2.7) {$p\, \rightarrow$};
\node at (0,-3) {$\pgator_L (p,m)$};
\node at (2,-3) {$\textbf{:}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{SK propagators}
\label{dia:propagators}
\end{figure}
The propagators are not all independent, but related by the \emph{largest time equation} \cite{Cutkosky:1960sp, Veltman:1963th} which is also known to as \emph{cutting equation};
\begin{eqnarray}
\textrm{Cutting equation}: \qquad\qquad \pgator_R (p,m) +\pgator_L (p,m) = \pgator_P (p,m)+\pgator_M (p,m)
\quad.
\label{pveskbasic3}
\end{eqnarray}
Various SK propagators are also related by CPT.
\begin{eqnarray}
\textrm{CPT}: \qquad\qquad \begin{matrix}
\pgator_R (p,m) \longleftrightarrow \pgator_L (p,m)\quad, \\
\label{pveskbasic2}
\\
\pgator_M (p,m) \longleftrightarrow \pgator_P (p,m) \quad.
\end{matrix}
\end{eqnarray}
In any SK field theory there are four propagators. It is useful to generalise the form of the loop integrals given in \eqref{pbvebasic1}, to SK theory in the following way
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
T^{\mu_1 \dots \mu_q}_{a_1 \dots a_r}(m_1,\dots ,m_{r}|k_1,\dots , k_{r-1})
\label{general_SK_diagram}
\\
&=&\mommea \,
(p^{\mu_1}\dots p^{\mu_q})
\pgator_{a_1} (p,m_1)\,
\pgator_{a_2} (k_1+p,m_2)
\dots
\pgator_{a_{r}} ((k_1+\dots+k_{r-1}+p),m_{r})
\quad.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Compared to equation \eqref{pbvebasic4} here the only new additions are the subscripts $a_i$s - they denote the type of propagators. They take values among - $R,P,M,L$. The naive counting implies that, at any order, the number of integrals in SK theory is $4^r$ times the number of integrals in unitary theory (Here $r$ is the number of internal legs). However, just by using CPT (given in equation \eqref{pveskbasic2}) and cutting identity(given in equation \eqref{pveskbasic3}) we can reduce the number of independent integrals. However, it's worth mentioning that by using \eqref{pveskbasic2} and \eqref{pveskbasic3}, all SK loop integrals cannot be written entirely in terms of the loop integrals of unitary theory; there are genuine SK integrals which are not present in an unitary theory.
\paragraph{Convention for the direction of loop momenta:}
The propagators of a unitary theory depend only on the magnitude of the momentum, not on their direction. But, the $P$ and $M$ propagators in fig \ref{dia:propagators} depend on the direction of the momenta. If the direction of momentum is flipped then the $P$ and $M$ propagator interchange. The subscript of an SK integral (as denoted in equation \eqref{general_SK_diagram}) can change depending on the flow of momenta. We adopt a convention such that there is a one-one correspondence between a subscript and a one loop SK diagrams. The convention is the following. In the definition of most general SK integral in \eqref{general_SK_diagram} we assumed that the leftmost subscript ($a_1$) in $T^{\mu_1 \dots \mu_q}_{a_1 \dots a_r}$ corresponds to the propagator which has no dependence on external momenta. Staring from this propagator the rest of the propagators are drawn in a counter-clockwise (C.C.W.) direction which is in one to one correspondence with the subscript labels in $T^{\mu_1 \dots \mu_q}_{a_1 \dots a_r}$. To explain this, let us consider the following examples.
Let us choose $B^\mu_{LM}(m_1,m_2;k)$ from $B$ type integrals and $C^{\mu\nu}_{PRL}(m_1,m_2,m_3;k_1,k_2)$ from $C$ type integrals. The diagrammatic expressions are shown in fig. \ref{dia:BMLandCPRL}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[shift={(0,0)}]
\draw[blue,ultra thick,dashed] (-1,0) arc (180:360:1);
\draw[blue,ultra thick,dashed] (1,0) arc (0:90:1);
\draw[blue,ultra thick] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw[thick,->] (0,-1.2) arc (270:290:1.2);
\draw[thick] (0,-1.2) arc (270:250:1.2);
\node at (0,-1.4) {$p$};
\draw[thick,->] (0,1.2) arc (90:110:1.2);
\draw[thick] (0,1.2) arc (90:70:1.2);
\node at (0,1.4) {$p+k$};
\node at (-1,0) {$\times$};
\node at (1,0) {$\times$};
\node at (0,-2) {$(a)$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(5,-1.2)}]
\coordinate(A) at (0,0);
\coordinate(D) at (1.5,0);
\coordinate(B) at (3,0);
\coordinate(C) at ($(A)!1!60:(B)$);
\draw[blue,ultra thick] (A) -- (D);
\draw[blue,ultra thick,dashed] (D) -- (B);
\draw[blue,ultra thick] (B) -- (C);
\draw[blue,ultra thick,dashed] (C) -- (A);
\node at (A) {$\times$};
\node at (B) {$\times$};
\node at (C) {$\times$};
\node at (1.5,-.3) {$p\, \rightarrow$};
\node[rotate=-60] at (2.6,1.4) {\small{$\leftarrow\, p+k_1$}};
\node[rotate=60] at (0.4,1.4) {\small{$\leftarrow\, p+k_1+k_2$}};
\node at (1.5,-.8) {$(b)$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{These diagrams are schematic representations of the corresponding SK integrals. $(a)$ correspond to $B^\mu_{LM}$ and $(b)$ correspond to $C^{\mu\nu}_{PRL}$}.
\label{dia:BMLandCPRL}
\end{figure}
For $B^\mu_{LM}$, following our convention, we start from the $L$ propagator which has no external momentum dependence. The next propagator can either be $P$ or $M$ depending on the direction of momentum. But our rule for the direction of momenta is to follow C. C. W., which eliminates the ambiguity. The same logic also applies to $C^{\mu\nu}_{PRL}$. It is straightforward to check that the diagram $(b)$ in fig. \ref{dia:BMLandCPRL} for $C^{\mu\nu}_{PRL}$ is consistent with our convention.
\subsection{$A$ type integrals}
\label{sec:pveskatype}
In this section, we consider the $A$ type integrals in the SK theories. In a renormalizable theory, these integrals can come in one loop correction to the one point function in any theory with three-point contact interaction(s) (for example $\phi^3$ theory, Yukawa theory) and/or to the one loop correction of the self-energy in any theory with four-point contact interaction(s) (for example $\phi^4$ theory). The $A$ type integrals in open $\phi^3+\phi^4$ theory was computed in \cite{Avinash:2017asn}. There are four scalar $A$ type SK integrals. Those are given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
A_R\quad,\quad A_L \quad,\quad A_P\quad,\quad A_M
\quad.
\label{scalaratype1}
\end{eqnarray}
In this case, the integrals are simple and one can explicitly evaluate all of them.
\begin{eqnarray}
A_R&=&\mu^{4-d}\int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{-i}{p^2+m^2-i\varepsilon}
\quad,
\label{scalaratype2a}
\\
A_L&=&\mu^{4-d}\int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{i}{p^2+m^2+i\varepsilon}
\quad,
\label{scalaratype2b}
\\
A_P&=&\mu^{4-d}\int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}\, 2\pi\, \delta_+\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)
\quad,
\label{scalaratype2c}
\\
A_M&=&\mu^{4-d}\int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}\, 2\pi\, \delta_-\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)
\quad.
\label{scalaratype2d}
\end{eqnarray}
But we have mentioned that one can use eqn \eqref{pveskbasic2} and eqn \eqref{pveskbasic3} to reduce the number of independent integrals. We demonstrate it explicitly in this simple case of $A$ type integrals \cite{Avinash:2017asn}. The action of CPT implies that
\begin{eqnarray}
A_R=A_L \qquad, \qquad A_P=A_M
\quad.
\label{scalaratype3}
\end{eqnarray}
In this case, we do not get any new relation using the cutting identity (given in equation \eqref{pveskbasic3}). So naively the number of independent integral is $2$. We can explicitly evaluate them and we find that all of the integrals are same.
\begin{eqnarray}
A_R=\frac{m^2}{(4\pi)^2}\left[\frac{2}{d-4}+\ln \frac{m^2}{4\pi \mu^2 e^{-\gamma_E}}-1 \right]=A_P
\quad.
\label{scalaratype4}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsubsection{Vector integrals $A^{\mu}_{a}(m)$}
The discussion of $A$ type vector integrals involve four integrals. First we discuss the following integral (which can appear in a unitary theory).
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
A^{\mu}_{R}(m) = \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{-i\, p^\mu}{p^2+m^2-i\varepsilon}
\end{split}
\quad.
\label{vectoratype1}
\end{equation}
This equation is odd in the integration variable and hence is zero. This holds true for $A^{\mu}_{L}(m)$ but does not hold for $A^{\mu}_{P}(m)$ and $A^{\mu}_{M}(m)$. This is because of the fact that both these integrals have a step function in the time-like component of the momentum. But the sum of these two is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
A^{\mu}_{P}(m)+A^{\mu}_M(m) =\int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \ p^\mu\ \delta(p^2+m^2) = 0
\end{split}
\quad.
\label{vectoratype2}
\end{equation}
The interesting fact is that CPT implies that these two integrals always appear simultaneously with the same coupling constant. So we can always add these two loop integrals and total contribution $0$.
\subsection{$B$ type integrals}
\label{sec:pveskbtype}
We consider $B$ type diagrams - integrals with two propagators. There are sixteen SK $B$-type integrals. In this section, we discuss vector and tensor $B$-type one loop integrals (up to 2-vector indices) that can appear in open QFTs. We start by reviewing the $B$ type scalar integrals (For elaborate discussion check appendix $B$ of \cite{Avinash:2017asn}).
\subsubsection{Scalar integrals $B_{ab}\, (m_1,m_2)$}
\label{subsec:pveskbtypescalar}
The sixteen $B$-type scalar integrals are listed below
\begin{equation}
\label{bscalar1}
\begin{split}
B_{RR}, \ \ \ B_{LL}, \ \ \ {B_{RL}}, \ \ \ B_{LR},\\
B_{PP}, \ \ \ B_{MM}, \ \ \ {B_{PM}}, \ \ \ B_{MP},\\
B_{RP}, \ \ \ B_{RM}, \ \ \ {B_{PR}}, \ \ \ B_{MR},\\
B_{LP}, \ \ \ B_{LM}, \ \ \ {B_{PL}}, \ \ \ B_{ML}.\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
As already described, here $R,\,L$ correspond to propagators in the SK contour. One can write the integral expressions of these loops using the rules explained in section (\S\ref{sec:pveskbasics}).
These loop integrals were computed in \cite{Avinash:2017asn} and we only review the main results here.
\begin{itemize}
\item One can show that all these integrals are not independent using the CPT symmetry (eqn \eqref{pveskbasic2}) and the cutting relation (eqn \eqref{pveskbasic3}). In fact all of these loop integrals can be expressed in terms of one master loop integral, $B_{RP}$. Let us write few relations, e.g.,
\begin{equation}
B_{RM}(k,m_1,m_2) = B_{RP}(-k,m_1,m_2) \qquad,\qquad B_{LP}(k,m_1,m_2) = [B_{RP}(k,m_1,m_2)]^\ast \qquad .
\label{bscalar2}
\end{equation}
The rest of the relations of $B$ type scalar loop integrals with $B_{RP}$ can be found in \cite{Avinash:2017asn}.
\item The loops in the second row of \eqref{bscalar1} are convergent when computed in dimensional regularisation. $B_{RL}$ and $B_{LR}$ are convergent if the internal propagators carry equal mass ($m_1=m_2$). The rest of the integrals are divergent in the equal mass limit\footnote{We studied only the case where $m_1= m_2$ in \citep{Avinash:2017asn}. The $m_1 \neq m_2$ case is not well understood as yet. But to keep our discussion on PV reduction general, we keep the masses to be unequal in all loop diagrams.}.
\item The divergence of diagrams in the third row of (\ref{bscalar1}) is half of the divergences of $B_{RR}$ and the divergences of the diagrams in the fourth row are half of the divergences of $B_{LL}$ in the equal mass limit.
\end{itemize}
One can read off the divergence structure of all $B$ type scalar integrals from table (\ref{Tab:divergences}).
\begin{center}\label{Tab:divergences}
\begin{tabular}{|c|| c | c | c | c |}
\hline
& R & L & P & M \\
\hline
R & $\Upsilon_{RR}$ & $\Upsilon_{RL}$ & $\frac{1}{2}(\Upsilon_{RR}+\Upsilon_{RL})$ & $\frac{1}{2}(\Upsilon_{RR}+\Upsilon_{RL})$\\
\hline
L & $-\Upsilon_{RL}$ & $-\Upsilon_{RR}$ & $-\frac{1}{2}(\Upsilon_{RR}+\Upsilon_{RL})$ & $-\frac{1}{2}(\Upsilon_{RR}+\Upsilon_{RL})$\\
\hline
P & $\frac{1}{2}(\Upsilon_{RR}-\Upsilon_{RL})$ & $-\frac{1}{2}(\Upsilon_{RR}-\Upsilon_{RL})$ & 0 & 0\\
\hline
M & $\frac{1}{2}(\Upsilon_{RR}-\Upsilon_{RL})$ & $-\frac{1}{2}(\Upsilon_{RR}-\Upsilon_{RL})$ & 0 & 0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
where $\Upsilon_{RR}$ and $\Upsilon_{RL}$ in $ {\overline {\textrm{MS}}} $ are given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Upsilon_{RR} &=&\frac{2i}{(4\pi)^2}\left[\frac{1}{d-4} + \frac{1}{2}(\gamma_E-1-\ln\, 4\pi)\right]
\quad,
\label{bscalar3a}
\\
\Upsilon_{RL} &=&\frac{2i}{(4\pi)^2}\frac{m_1^2-m_2^2}{k^2}\left[\frac{1}{d-4} + \frac{1}{2}(\gamma_E-1-\ln \, 4\pi)\right]
\quad.
\label{bscalar3b}
\end{eqnarray}
With this information of the scalar $B$ type loop integrals, we start discussing the PV reduction of the $B$ type tensor loop integrals.
\subsubsection{$B^{\mu}_{ab}(m_1,m_2)$ vector integrals}
\label{subsec:pveskbtypevector}
We show that $B^{\mu}_{ab}(m_1,m_2)$ can be expressed in terms of $A$ and $B$ type scalar loop integrals, as adversied in section \S\ref{sec:pvebasics}. These kind of loop integrals appear in the self energy correction to fermion. The vector integral is of the following form.
\begin{eqnarray}
B^{\mu}_{ab}(m_1,m_2;k) =
\mommea
\,
(p^{\mu})
\pgator_{a} (p,m_1)
\pgator_{b} ((k+p),m_{2})
\label{vectorbtype0}
\end{eqnarray}
Again there are total sixteen $B^\mu$ integrals. The strategy that we follow in this section, is the following. Each $B^{\mu}$ type diagram is a Lorentz vector. So final answer must be a Lorentz vector. But the only vector present in $B^\mu$ type integrals is the external momentum $k^\mu$ \cite{Passarino:1978jh}. So we can write
\begin{equation}
B^{\mu}_{ab}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv k^\mu B^{(1)}_{ab} \qquad ,\qquad \forall \quad a,b \in \{R,L,P,M\}
\label{vectorbtype1}
\end{equation}
here $B^{(1)}_{ab}$ is a Lorentz scalar which is the proportionality constant. We determine it in terms of $B_{ab}$ and $A_{a}$. In order to do so, we multiply both sides of \eqref{vectorbtype1} by $k_\mu$. This give us the expression for $B^{(1)}_{ab}$
\begin{eqnarray}
k^2\, B^{(1)}_{ab}= k_\mu\, B^{\mu}_{ab}(m_1,m_2,k)
\quad.
\label{vectorbtype2}
\end{eqnarray}
Now we implement this strategy for all the sixteen integrals. We organize our discussion based on the number of cut propagators. All sixteen integrals can be arranged into three different classes based on the number of cut propagators present in the integrals. First we discuss the integrals with no cut propagator.
\subsubsection*{Integrals with no cut propagators}
\label{subsubsec:pveskbtypenocutvector}
If we have no cut propagator (i.e. no $P$ and $M$ propagator) then the diagrams are made out of only $R$ and $L$ propagators. There are four such possibilities. They are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{vectorbtype3}
\begin{split}
&B^{\mu}_{RR}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{-ip^\mu}{p^2+m_1^2-i\varepsilon}\frac{-i}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2-i\varepsilon}
\quad,
\\
&B^{\mu}_{LL}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{i\ p^\mu}{p^2+m_1^2+i\varepsilon}\frac{i}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2+i\varepsilon}
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu}_{RL}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{-i\ p^\mu}{p^2+m_1^2-i\varepsilon}\frac{i}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2+i\varepsilon}
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu}_{LR}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{i\ p^\mu}{p^2+m_1^2+i\varepsilon}\frac{-i}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2-i\varepsilon}
\quad.\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Now, we explicitly demonstrate the PV reduction for one integral from of \eqref{vectorbtype3} and we write the answer for the rest. Consider $B_{RL}$ from \eqref{vectorbtype3}. We multiply the integral expression of $B^{\mu}_{RL}(m_1,m_2,k)$ by $k^\mu$
\begin{equation}
\label{vectorbtype4}
k_\mu\, B^\mu_{RL}(m_1,m_2,k) =(-i)(i)\int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{\frac{1}{2}\left[(p^2+m^2)-((p-k)^2+m_2^2)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\right]}{\left(p^2+m_1^2-i\varepsilon\right)\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2+ i\varepsilon\right)}
\quad.
\end{equation}
Using equation \eqref{scalaratype2a} and equation \eqref{scalaratype2b} we can write this as
\begin{equation}
\label{vectorbtype5}
k_\mu B^\mu_{RL}(m_1,m_2,k) =\frac{i}{2}A_{L}(m_1)+\frac{i}{2} A_{R}(m_2)+\frac{k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2}{2}\ B_{RL}(m_1,m_2,k)
\quad.
\end{equation}
Then we compare \eqref{vectorbtype1} and \eqref{vectorbtype5} to get
\begin{equation}
\label{vectorbtype6}
B^{(1)}_{RL} = \frac{1}{2k^2}\Big[i A_{L}(m_1)+ i A_{R}(m_2)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{RL}(m_1,m_2,k)\Big]
\quad.
\end{equation}
The PV formulae for the other three integrals in \eqref{vectorbtype3} are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{vectorbtype8}
\begin{split}
B^{\mu}_{RR} &= \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\Big[- i A_{R}(m_2)+i A_{R}(m_1)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{RR}(m_1,m_2,k)\Big]
\quad, \\
B^{\mu}_{LL} &= \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\Big[i A_{L}(m_2)-i A_{L}(m_1)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{LL}(m_1,m_2,k)\Big]
\quad, \\
B^{\mu}_{LR} &= \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\Big[-i A_{L}(m_2)-i A_{R}(m_1)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{LR}(m_1,m_2,k)\Big]
\quad.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Now we consider integrals with one cut propagator. If we have only one cut propagator then one propagator is either $R$ or $L$ and the other is either $P$ or $M$. The two propagators can also be exchanged between them. So, there are eight one loop integrals with only one cut propagator
\begin{equation}
\label{vectorbtype21}
\begin{split}
&B^{\mu}_{RP}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{-i\ p^\mu}{p^2+m_1^2-i\varepsilon}2\pi\ \delta_+\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu}_{RM}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{-i\ p^\mu}{p^2+m_1^2-i\varepsilon}2\pi\ \delta_-\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu}_{PR}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_+\left(p^2+m_1^2\right) \frac{-i\ p^\mu}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2-i\varepsilon}
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu}_{MR}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_-\left(p^2+m_1^2\right) \frac{-i\ p^\mu}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2-i\varepsilon}
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu}_{LP}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{i\ p^\mu}{p^2+m_1^2+i\varepsilon}2\pi\ \delta_+\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu}_{LM}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{i\ p^\mu}{p^2+m_1^2+i\varepsilon}2\pi\ \delta_-\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu}_{PL}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_+\left(p^2+m_1^2\right) \frac{i\ p^\mu}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2+i\varepsilon}
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu}_{ML}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_-\left(p^2+m_1^2\right) \frac{i\ p^\mu}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2+i\varepsilon}
\quad. \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
As in previous section, we present the explicit computation for only one of them and we only write the final answer for rest of them. Consider $B^\mu_{RP}$ from \eqref{vectorbtype21}
and multiply it by $k^\mu$ to get
\begin{equation}
\label{vectorbtype23}
\begin{split}
& k_\mu B^\mu_{RP}(m_1,m_2,k)\\
=& \frac{-i}{2}\int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{\left[(p^2+m^2)-((p-k)^2+m_2^2)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\right]}{\left(p^2+m_1^2-i\varepsilon\right)}2\pi\delta_+\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)
\\
=&\frac{1}{2}\Big[-i A_{P}(m_2)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\, B_{RP}(m_1,m_2,k)\Big]
\quad.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We compare this to the equation \eqref{vectorbtype2}.
The above expression would be equal to $ k^2\, B^{(1)}_{RP}$. So the PV reduction formula for $B^\mu_{RP}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{vectorbtype24}
B^{\mu}_{RP} = \frac{1}{2k^2} B^{(1)}_{RP} = \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\Big[-i A_{P}(m_2)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{RP}(m_1,m_2,k)\Big]
\quad.
\end{equation}
Following the same method, we can compute the PV formula for the rest of the integrals in \eqref{vectorbtype21}. The PV reduction formulae are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{vectorbtype25}
\begin{split}
B^{\mu}_{RM}(m_1,m_2,k) &= \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\left[-i A_{M}(m_2)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{RM}(m_1,m_2,k)\right]
\quad, \\
B^{\mu}_{PR}(m_1,m_2,k) &= \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\left[-i A_{P}(m_1)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{PR}(m_1,m_2,k)\right]
\quad, \\
B^{\mu}_{MR}(m_1,m_2,k) &= \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\left[-i A_{M}(m_1)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{MR}(m_1,m_2,k)\right]
\quad, \\
B^{\mu}_{LP}(m_1,m_2,k) &= \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\left[i A_{P}(m_2)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{LP}(m_1,m_2,k)\right]
\quad, \\
B^{\mu}_{LM}(m_1,m_2,k) &= \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\left[i A_{P}(m_2)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{LM}(m_1,m_2,k)\right]
\quad, \\
B^{\mu}_{PL}(m_1,m_2,k) &= \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\left[i A_{P}(m_1)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{PL}(m_1,m_2,k)\right]
\quad, \\
B^{\mu}_{ML}(m_1,m_2,k) &= \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\left[i A_{M}(m_1)+(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{ML}(m_1,m_2,k)\right]
\quad. \end{split}
\end{equation}
Compare these expressions with \eqref{vectorbtype8}. We can see that the RHS of \eqref{vectorbtype25} has \textit{one} $A$ type integral compared to \textit{two} $A$ type integrals in \eqref{vectorbtype8}. This is because the Dirac-delta function prohibits the presence of $A$ type integrals. This fact can be explicitly seen in \eqref{vectorbtype23}.
\subsubsection*{Integrals with two cut propagators}
\label{subsubsec:pveskbtypetwocutvector}
Now we are left with integrals with all cut propagators. Then we have only two possibilities, either $P$ or $M$ for each of the two propagators. So there can be total four loop integrals, which are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{vectorbtype41}
\begin{split}
&B^{\mu}_{PP}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_+\left(p^2+m_1^2\right)2\pi\ \delta_+\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)p^\mu
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu}_{MM}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_-\left(p^2+m_1^2\right)2\pi\ \delta_-\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)p^\mu
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu}_{PM}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_+\left(p^2+m_1^2\right)2\pi\ \delta_-\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)p^\mu
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu}_{MP}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_-\left(p^2+m_1^2\right)2\pi\ \delta_+\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)p^\mu
\quad. \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In equation \eqref{vectorbtype23}, we have seen that the Dirac-delta function prohibits the presence of $A$ type integrals. Now the rest of the $B^\mu$ type integrals in \eqref{vectorbtype42} have two delta functions. So following the same strategy we can show that there should not be $A$ type loop integrals in the PV formula for the rest of the $B^\mu$ type integrals. The PV formula are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{vectorbtype42}
\begin{split}
B^\mu_{PP}(m_1,m_2,k) &= \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\Big[(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{PP}(m_1,m_2,k)\Big]
\quad, \\
B^\mu_{MM}(m_1,m_2,k) &= \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\Big[(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{MM}(m_1,m_2,k)\Big]
\quad,
\\
B^\mu_{PM}(m_1,m_2,k) &= \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\Big[(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{PM}(m_1,m_2,k)\Big]
\quad, \\
B^\mu_{MP}(m_1,m_2,k) &= \frac{k^\mu}{2k^2}\Big[(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)\ B_{MP}(m_1,m_2,k)\Big]
\quad.
\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
This completes our analysis for $B$-type vector integrals.
\subsubsection{$B^{\mu\nu}_{ab}(m_1,m_2)$ tensor integrals}
\label{subsec:pveskbtypetensor}
$B^{\mu\nu}_{ab}(m_1,m_2)$ integrals appear in loops with fermionic propagators. These tensor loop integrals can be represented as linear combination of $A$ and $B$ type scalar loop integrals. The general form of these integrals are given by the following expression
\begin{eqnarray}
B^{\mu \nu }_{ab}(m_1,m_2;k)
=
\mommea
\,
(p^{\mu}p^{\nu})
\pgator_{a} (p,m_1)
\pgator_{b} ((k+p),m_{2})
\quad.
\end{eqnarray}
The $B^{\mu\nu}$ type integrals have two Lorentz indices. Then, the final answer must be a Lorentz two tensor. But there are only two available 2-tensors - $k^\mu k^\nu$ and $\eta^{\mu\nu}$. So the $B^{\mu\nu}$ should be of the form
\begin{equation}
B^{\mu\nu}_{ab}(m_1,m_2,k) =k^\mu k^\nu B^{(21)}_{ab} +\eta^{\mu\nu} B^{(22)}_{ab}
\quad.
\label{tensorbtype1}
\end{equation}
$B^{(21)}_{ab}$ and $B^{(22)}_{ab}$ are constants of proportionality. We can multiply eqn \eqref{tensorbtype1} by $k^\mu k^\nu$ and $\eta^{\mu\nu}$. This gives us two equations. Solving those two equations we find expressions for $B^{(21)}_{ab}$ and $B^{(22)}_{ab}$. We again arrange sixteen $B^{\mu\nu}_{ab}$ loop integrals by the number of cut propagators in the loops.
\subsubsection*{Integrals with no-cut propagator \cite{Passarino:1978jh}}
\label{subsubsec:pveskbtypenocuttensor}
First consider the tensor integrals with no cut propagator. The expression for these loop integrals are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{tensorbtype11}
\begin{split}
&B^{\mu\nu}_{RR}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{-ip^\mu p^\nu}{p^2+m_1^2-i\varepsilon}\frac{-i}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2-i\varepsilon}
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu\nu}_{LL}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{i\ p^\mu p^\nu}{p^2+m_1^2+i\varepsilon}\frac{i}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2+i\varepsilon}
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu\nu}_{RL}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{-i\ p^\mu p^\nu}{p^2+m_1^2-i\varepsilon}\frac{i}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2+i\varepsilon}
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu\nu}_{LR}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{i\ p^\mu p^\nu}{p^2+m_1^2+i\varepsilon}\frac{-i}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2-i\varepsilon}
\quad. \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We discussed the strategy below equation \eqref{tensorbtype1}. Now we show explicit implementation for one of the above integrals. Consider thhe loop integral, $B^{\mu\nu}_{RL}$ from \eqref{tensorbtype11}.
\begin{equation}
\label{tensorbtype12}
B^{\mu\nu}_{RL}(m_1,m_2,k) = \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{-ip^\mu p^\nu}{p^2+m_1^2-i\varepsilon}\frac{i}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2+i\varepsilon}
\quad. \\
\end{equation}
The above integral can only be a linear combination of $k^\mu k^\nu$ and $\eta^{\mu\nu}$. So we multiply equation \eqref{tensorbtype12} by $\eta^{\mu\nu}$ and $k^\mu$ we get the following two equations.
\begin{equation}
\label{tensorbtype13}
\begin{split}
k^2 B^{(21)}_{RL} + d\ B^{(22)}_{RL} = (-i)A_L(m_2) -m_1^2 B_{RL}(m_1,m_2,k)
\quad.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{tensorbtype14}
\begin{split}
k^2 B^{(21)}_{RL} + B^{(22)}_{RL} &= \frac{1}{2}\left[-i A_L(m_2) + (k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)B^{(1)}_{RL}(m_1,m_2,k)\right]
\quad.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $B^{(1)}_{RL}$ is defined in \eqref{vectorbtype6}. We solve eqn \eqref{tensorbtype13} and eqn \eqref{tensorbtype14} to get the explicit expression for $B^{(21)}_{RL}$ and $B^{(22)}_{RL}$
\begin{equation}
\label{tensorbtype15}
\begin{split}
B^{(21)}_{RL}(m_1,m_2,k) &=\frac{1}{(d-1)k^2}\Bigg[-i(d/2-1)A_L(m_2)+m_1^2B_{RL}(m_1,m_2,k)\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)d/2\ B^{(1)}_{RL}(m_1,m_2,k)\Bigg]\qquad,\\
B^{(22)}_{RL}(m_1,m_2,k) &=\frac{1}{d-1}\Bigg[ \frac{-i}{2}A_L(m_2) -m_1^2 B_{RL}(m_1,m_2,k) -\frac{k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2}{2}B^{(1)}_{RL}\Bigg]\qquad.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Inserting \eqref{tensorbtype15} in \eqref{tensorbtype1} we get the PV reduction for $B^{\mu\nu}_{RL}$. Following similar steps one can obtain the expressions for $B^{(21)}_{a_1 a_2}$ and $B^{(22)}_{a_1 a_2}$. They are given as follows
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
B^{(21)}_{RR} &=& \frac{1}{(d-1)k^2}\Big[-i(d/2-1)A_R(m_2)+m_1^2B_{RR} +(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)d/2\ B^{(1)}_{RR}\Big]
\quad, \label{tensorbtype18a}
\\
B^{(22)}_{RR} &=&\frac{1}{d-1}\Big[ \frac{-i}{2}A_R(m_2) -m_1^2 B_{RR} -\frac{k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2}{2}B^{(1)}_{RR}\Big]
\quad. \label{tensorbtype18b}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
B^{(21)}_{LR} &=& \frac{1}{(d-1)k^2}\Big[i(d/2-1)A_R(m_2)+m_1^2B_{LR} +(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)d/2\ B^{(1)}_{LR}\Big]
\quad, \label{tensorbtype18c}
\\
B^{(22)}_{LR} &=&\frac{1}{d-1}\Big[ \frac{i}{2}A_R(m_2)-m_1^2 B_{LR} -\frac{k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2}{2}B^{(1)}_{LR}\Big]
\quad.
\label{tensorbtype18d}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
B^{(21)}_{LL} &=& \frac{1}{(d-1)k^2}\Big[i(d/2-1)A_L(m_2)+m_1^2B_{LL} +(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)d/2\, B^{(1)}_{LL}\Big]
\quad, \label{tensorbtype18e}
\\
B^{(22)}_{LL} &=&\frac{1}{d-1}\Big[ \frac{i}{2}A_L(m_2)-m_1^2 B_{LL} -\frac{k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2}{2}B^{(1)}_{LL}\Big]
\quad. \label{tensorbtype18f}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
One can see that the form of $B^{(21)}_{RR}$ \& $B^{(21)}_{RL}$ and $B^{(21)}_{LR}$ \& $B^{(21)}_{LL}$ are very similar. However, the first term in \eqref{tensorbtype18a} (and in \eqref{tensorbtype18b}) differs from the first term in \eqref{tensorbtype18c} (and in \eqref{tensorbtype18d}) by a sign.
$B^{(21)}_{RR}$ and $B^{(22)}_{RR}$ appear unitary quantum field theory and the reduction was done in original paper \cite{Passarino:1978jh}.
\subsubsection*{Integrals with one cut propagators}
\label{subsubsec:pveskbtypeonecuttensor}
Now we want to consider tensor integrals with one cut propagator. The explicit expression for the loop integrals with one cut propagator are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{tensorbtype31}
\begin{split}
&B^{\mu\nu}_{RP}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{-i\ p^\mu p^\nu}{p^2+m_1^2-i\varepsilon}2\pi\ \delta_+\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu\nu}_{RM}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{-i\ p^\mu p^\nu}{p^2+m_1^2-i\varepsilon}2\pi\ \delta_-\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu\nu}_{PR}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_+\left(p^2+m_1^2\right) \frac{-i\ p^\mu p^\nu}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2-i\varepsilon}
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu\nu}_{MR}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_-\left(p^2+m_1^2\right) \frac{-i\ p^\mu p^\nu}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2-i\varepsilon}
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu\nu}_{LP}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{i\ p^\mu p^\nu}{p^2+m_1^2+i\varepsilon}2\pi\ \delta_+\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu\nu}_{LM}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{i\ p^\mu p^\nu}{p^2+m_1^2+i\varepsilon}2\pi\ \delta_-\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu\nu}_{PL}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_+\left(p^2+m_1^2\right) \frac{i\ p^\mu p^\nu}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2+i\varepsilon}
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu\nu}_{ML}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_-\left(p^2+m_1^2\right) \frac{i\ p^\mu p^\nu}{(p-k)^2+m_2^2+i\varepsilon}
\quad. \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Following the steps shown in last section, It is straightforward to do the PV reduction for all loop integrals in \eqref{tensorbtype31}. In fact these can be written in a single equation as the following:
\begin{equation}
\label{tensorbtype37}
\begin{split}
B^{(21)}_{a_1a_2}(m_1,m_2,k) &=\frac{1}{(d-1)k^2}\left[m_1^2 B_{a_1a_2} +(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)d/2\ B^{(1)}_{a_1a_2} \right],\\
B^{(22)}_{a_1a_2}(m_1,m_2,k) &=\frac{1}{(d-1)}\left[-m_1^2 B_{a_1a_2} -(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)/2\ B^{(1)}_{a_1a_2} \right]\quad.\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $a_1$ can be $P$ or $M$ and $a_2$ can be $R$ or $L$.
\subsubsection*{Integrals with two cut propagators}
\label{subsubsec:pveskbtypetwocuttensor}
There are four loop integrals with two cuts. They are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{tensorbtype51}
\begin{split}
&B^{\mu\nu}_{PP}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_+\left(p^2+m_1^2\right)2\pi\ \delta_+\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right) p^\mu p^\nu
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu\nu}_{MM}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_-\left(p^2+m_1^2\right)2\pi\ \delta_-\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)p^\mu p^\nu
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu\nu}_{PM}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_+\left(p^2+m_1^2\right)2\pi\ \delta_-\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)p^\mu p^\nu
\quad, \\
&B^{\mu\nu}_{MP}(m_1,m_2,k) \equiv \int \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}2\pi\ \delta_-\left(p^2+m_1^2\right)2\pi\ \delta_+\left((p-k)^2+m_2^2\right)p^\mu p^\nu
\quad. \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The PV reduction of these integrals give the following expressions for $B^{(21)}_{a_3a_4}$ and $B^{(22)}_{a_3a_4}$
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
B^{(21)}_{a_3a_4}(m_1,m_2,k) &=\frac{1}{(d-1)k^2}\left[m_1^2\, B_{a_3a_4} +(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)d/2\ B^{(1)}_{a_3a_4} \right]
\quad, \\
B^{(22)}_{a_3a_4}(m_1,m_2,k) &=\frac{1}{(d-1)}\left[-m_1^2\, B_{a_3a_4} -(k^2-m_1^2+m_2^2)/2\ B^{(1)}_{a_3a_4} \right]
\quad. \\
\end{split}
\label{tensorbtype53}
\end{equation}
here $a_3$ and $a_4$ are either $P$ or $M$.
\section{Open Yukawa theory}
\label{sec:bjropenyukawa}
In this section, we study the open-Yukawa theory; we write down the most general action of a open QFT with one fermion and one real scalar. Then we compute the scalar tadpole and the self-energy correction to the fermion and the scalar field. The loop diagrams in this theory are evaluated using the PV reduction described in the previous section. The explicit expression for the $B$ type loop integrals that are used in this section can be found in the appendix \ref{sec:fermionicpv} .
First, we discuss that the scalar tadpole which can be removed by introducing a local counterterm. Then we show that the divergence in the correction to the scalar propagator can also be removed by a local counterterm \footnote{However, there are other theories where the correction to the scalar propagator is non-local}. But the correction to the fermion propagator has a \emph{non-local divergence}, thus cannot be removed by local counter-terms. These divergence structures are evident from the PV reduction formula, which is absent in the unitary Yukawa theory (see the discussion in the appendix \ref{sec:fermionicpv}).
\subsection{Action for the open Yukawa theory}
\label{subsec:bjropenyukawaaction}
The action for unitary Yukawa theory \footnote{This is not the most general renormalizable unitary Yukawa theory in $D=4-\epsilon$. One can also consider Yukawa term involving $\gamma_5$. However the extension of this theory is enough to convey our point. We also considered open yukawa theory with $\gamma_5$ vertices. The essential feature of non-local divergence remains. We do not present the computation of that theory to reduce volume of the paper without compromising with the essential point.},
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
S[\phi, \psi] =&\int d^4x\Bigg[-\frac{1}{2}Z_{\phi}(\partial \phi)^2 - \frac{1}{2}m_{\phi}^2 \phi^2 + iZ_{\psi}\, \bar{\psi} \slashed{\partial} \psi -m_{\psi} \bar{\psi}\psi
\\
&- \left(\frac{\lambda_3}{3!}\phi^3+\frac{\lambda_4}{4!} \phi^4 + y \phi \bar{\psi}\psi \right) \Bigg]\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The SK action for the open Yukawa theory can be constructed from the above unitary action through the following steps. First we double the degrees of freedom,
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigl(\phi,\psi\bigr) \longrightarrow \bigl(\phi_R,\psi_R\bigr),\, \bigl(\phi_L,\,\psi_L\bigr)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
$R$ ($L$) fields evolve along the forward (backward) time respectively in the SK contour. The backward time evolution results in an opposite sign in the action. The SK action is given by
\begin{align*}
S_{SK}^{\text{unitary}} = S[\phi_R, \psi_R] - S[\phi_L, \psi_L]\,.
\end{align*}
The above action has no mixed $R$, $L$ term and the couplings are real; thus it is unitary. To make the action open, one needs to complexify the existing couplings and add all possible Feynman-Vernon influence phases \cite{Feynman:1963fq}. The Feynman-Vernon influence phases are $R$, $L$ interaction terms with complex couplings. Finally, the action for open Yukawa theory is given by,
\begin{equation}\label{general open action of Yukawa}
S_{SK}= \int d^4x \Big( \mathcal{L}_{\phi} +\mathcal{L}_{\psi} +\mathcal{L}_{\text{Yuk}}\Big)\,,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{L}_\phi$ is the action for the open scalar field theory \citep{Avinash:2017asn}.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}_\phi &
=-\Bigl[ \frac{1}{2} z_\phi\ (\partial \phir)^2 + \frac{1}{2} m_\phi^2 \phir^2+ \frac{\lambda_3}{3!}\phir^3+\frac{\lambda_4}{4!} \phir^4+\frac{\sigma_3}{2!}\phir^2\phil + \frac{\sigma_4}{3!} \phir^3 \phil \Bigr]\\
&\qquad+\Bigl[ \frac{1}{2} z_\phi^\ast (\partial \phil)^2 + \frac{1}{2} {m_\phi^2}^\ast \phil^2 +\frac{\lambda_3^\ast }{3!}\phil^3+ \frac{\lambda_4^\ast}{4!} \phil^4+ \frac{\sigma_3^\ast }{2!}\phil^2\phir+\frac{\sigma_4^\ast}{3!} \phil^3 \phir\Bigr] \\
&\qquad + i \Bigl[ z_\Delta\ (\partial \phir)\cdot (\partial \phil) + m^2_{\phi\Delta} \phir \phil+\frac{{\lambda_\Delta}}{2!2!} \phir^2 \phil^2 \Bigr]\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_3,\,\sigma_4,\,\lambda_{\Delta}$ are the couplings corresponding to the $R\,,L$ mixing terms in the action.\\
$\mathcal{L}_{\psi}$ in \eqref{general open action of Yukawa} is the open Dirac action with a mass term.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}_\psi &=
- \Bigl[ z_{\psi} \psibr (-i \slashed{\partial}) \psir + m_{\psi} \psibr \psir \Bigr]
+ \Bigl[ z_{\psi}^\ast \psibl (-i \slashed{\partial}) \psil + m_{\psi}^\ast\psibl \psil \Bigr]\\
& + i \Bigl[ z_{\psi\Delta}\ \psibr (-i \slashed{\partial}) \psil + m_{\psi\Delta} \psibr\psil \ \Bigr]
+ i \Bigl[ \hat{z}_{\psi\Delta}\ \psibl (-i \slashed{\partial}) \psir + \hat{m}_{\psi\Delta} \psibl \psir \ \Bigr]\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
$\mathcal{L}_{\text{Yuk}}$ include all possible open Yukawa interaction terms.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Yuk}} =&
- \Bigl[y\phir \psibr \psir +y_{\sigma} \phil \psibr \psir \Bigr]
- \Bigl[ y_{\kappa}\phi_R \bar{\psi}_R \psi_L + y_\rho \phi_R \bar{\psi}_L \psi_R \Bigr]\\
&+ \Bigl[ y^\ast \phil \psibl \psil + y_{\sigma}^\ast \phir \psibl \psil \Bigr]
+ \Bigl[ y_{\kappa}^\ast \phi_L \bar{\psi}_R \psi_L + y_\rho^* \phi_L \bar{\psi}_L \psi_R \Bigr] \,,\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $y_\sigma,\,y_\kappa,\,y_\rho$ are $R$, $L$ mixing terms in the above Yukawa interaction terms.
A point to notice that we have chosen the coupling constants in the $L$ branch are complex conjugate to that of the $R$ branch. The couplings corresponding to $L,\,R$ mixing terms are chosen to be such that the action respects the SK CPT symmetry \cite{Sieberer:2015svu}. In order to determine the Lindblad conditions (the trace-preserving conditions) one can write the action in the Lindblad form \cite{Sieberer:2015svu} and one finds that the all of the couplings are not independent; they follow certain constraints. We call these \emph{Lindblad conditions}. In open Yukawa theory, the Lindblad conditions are the following.
\begin{subequations}\label{Lindblad_conditions}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\im\, m_\phi^2= m^2_{\phi \Delta}\,,
\qquad\qquad\qquad
2\im\, m_\psi= m_{\psi \Delta} + \hat{m}_{\psi \Delta}\,,
\\
&&
\im\, z_\phi =z_{\phi \Delta}\,,
\qquad\qquad\qquad
2\im\, z_\psi =z_{\psi \Delta} + \hat{z}_{\psi \Delta}\,,\\
&&\im \lambda_{3}+3\, \im \lambda_{3\sigma}=0\,,
\qquad\qquad
\im \lambda_{4}+4\im \lambda_{4\sigma}=3\lambda_{\phi\Delta}\,,
\\
&&
\im\, y+ \im\, y_\sigma+\im\, y_\kappa+\im\, y_\rho = 0 \,.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
One can check that these conditions ensure that the SK action vanishes if we set $\phir=\phil$ and $\psir=\psil$.
\subsection{Propagators}
\label{subsec:bjropenpropagator}
There are four SK propagators in the $R$-$L$ basis for both scalar and the fermionic fields. The explicit derivation of the propagator using $i\varepsilon$ prescription for scalar field theory can be found in \cite{Avinash:2017asn}. The fermionic propagators are straightforward to write from the scalar propagators. The propagators and their diagrammatic representations are shown in fig. \ref{fig:scalarpropagator} and fig. \ref{fig:diracpropagator}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\phipropagatorr{0}{0}{2}{0}{p\rightarrow}
\node at (-2,0) {R :};
\node at (-1,0) {$\phir$ };
\node at (3,0) {$\phir$};
\node at (7,0) {$\frac{-i}{p^2+m_\phi^2-i\varepsilon}$};
\phipropagatorp{0}{-1}{2}{-1}{p\rightarrow}
\node at (-2,-1) {P :};
\node at (-1,-1) {$\phir$ };
\node at (3,-1) {$\phil$};
\node at (7,-1) {$2\pi \delta_{+}(p^2+m_\phi^2)
$};
\phipropagatorm{0}{-2}{2}{-2}{p\rightarrow}
\node at (-2,-2) {M :};
\node at (-1,-2) {$\phil$ };
\node at (3,-2) {$\phir$};
\node at (7,-2) {$2\pi \delta_{-}(p^2+m_\phi^2)
$};
\phipropagatorl{0}{-3}{2}{-3}{p\rightarrow}
\node at (-2,-3) {L :};
\node at (-1,-3) {$\phil$ };
\node at (3,-3) {$\phil$};
\node at (7,-3) {$\frac{i}{p^2+m_\phi^2+i\varepsilon}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{SK propagators for the scalar field}
\label{fig:scalarpropagator}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\psipropagatorr{0}{0}{2}{0}{ $p\rightarrow$}
\node at (-2,0) {$R^f$ :};
\node at (-1,0) {$\psibr$ };
\node at (3,0) {$\psir$};
\node at (7,0) { $\frac{-i(-\slashed{p}+m_\psi)}{p^2+m_\psi^2-i\varepsilon}$};
\psipropagatorp{0}{-1}{2}{-1}{ $p\rightarrow$}
\node at (-2,-1) {$P^f $:};
\node at (-1,-1) {$\psibr$ };
\node at (3,-1) {$\psil$ };
\node at (7,-1) { $ (-\slashed{p}+m_\psi)\ 2\pi \delta_+( p^2+m_\psi^2)$};
\psipropagatorm{0}{-2}{2}{-2}{ $p\rightarrow$}
\node at (-2,-2) {$M^f$ :};
\node at (-1,-2) {$\psibl$ };
\node at (3,-2) {$\psir$ };
\node at (7,-2) { $ (-\slashed{p}+m_\psi)\ 2\pi \delta_-( p^2+m_\psi^2)$};
\psipropagatorl{0}{-3}{2}{-3}{ $p\rightarrow$}
\node at (-2,-3) {$L^f$ :};
\node at (-1,-3) {$\psibl$ };
\node at (3,-3) {$\psil$ };
\node at (7,-3) { $\frac{i(-\slashed{p}+m_\psi)}{p^2+m_\psi^2+i\varepsilon}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{SK propagators for the Dirac field}
\label{fig:diracpropagator}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Feynman rules}
The Feynman rules for the cubic and quartic vertices are shown in fig. \ref{fig:macrotree1} and in fig. \ref{fig3pt}.
\begin{figure}[ht] \label{Spin propagator}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line width=1 pt, scale=0.6]
\begin{scope}[shift={(0,4)}]
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (1,0);
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,1);
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,-1);
\node at (0,-2) {\Large $-i\lambda_3$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(5,4)}]
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (1,0);
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,1);
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,-1);
\node at (0,-2) {\Large $i\lambda_3^\ast $};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(10,4)}]
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (1,0);
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,1);
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,-1);
\node at (0,-2) {\Large $-i\sigma_3$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(0,0)}]
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (1,0);
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,1);
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,-1);
\node at (0,-2) {\Large $i\sigma_3^\ast$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(5,0)}]
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (1,1);
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (1,-1);
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,1);
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,-1);
\node at (0,-2) {\Large $-i\lambda_4$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(10,0)}]
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (1,1);
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (1,-1);
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,1);
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,-1);
\node at (0,-2) {\Large $i\lambda_4^\ast $};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(0,-4)}]
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (1,1);
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (1,-1);
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,1);
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,-1);
\node at (0,-2) {\Large $-i\sigma_4$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(5,-4)}]
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (1,1);
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (1,-1);
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,1);
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,-1);
\node at (0,-2) {\Large $i\sigma_4^\ast $};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(10,-4)}]
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (1,1);
\draw [phir, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (1,-1);
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,1);
\draw [phil, ultra thick] (0,0) -- (-1,-1);
\node at (0,-2) {\Large $-\lambda_\Delta$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Feynman rules for scalar couplings}
\label{fig:macrotree1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line width=1 pt, scale=0.5]
\begin{scope}[shift={(0,0)}]
\phipropagatorr{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\begin{scope}[rotate=120]
\psipropagatorr{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[rotate=240]
\psibarpropagatorr{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\node at (0,-2) { $-iy $};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(5,0)}]
\phipropagatorl{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\begin{scope}[rotate=120]
\psipropagatorr{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[rotate=240]
\psibarpropagatorr{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\node at (0,-2) {$-iy_\sigma $};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(10,0)}]
\phipropagatorr{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\begin{scope}[rotate=120]
\psipropagatorl{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[rotate=240]
\psibarpropagatorr{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\node at (0,-2) { $-iy_\rho$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(15,0)}]
\phipropagatorr{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\begin{scope}[rotate=120]
\psipropagatorr{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[rotate=240]
\psibarpropagatorl{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\node at (0,-2) { $-iy_\kappa$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(0,-5)}]
\phipropagatorl{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\begin{scope}[rotate=120]
\psipropagatorl{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[rotate=240]
\psibarpropagatorl{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\node at (0,-2) { $iy^\ast$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(5,-5)}]
\phipropagatorr{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\begin{scope}[rotate=120]
\psipropagatorl{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[rotate=240]
\psibarpropagatorl{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\node at (0,-2) {$iy_\sigma^\ast$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(10,-5)}]
\phipropagatorl{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\begin{scope}[rotate=120]
\psipropagatorr{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[rotate=240]
\psibarpropagatorl{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\node at (0,-2) { $iy_\kappa^\ast$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(15,-5)}]
\phipropagatorl{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\begin{scope}[rotate=120]
\psipropagatorl{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[rotate=240]
\psibarpropagatorr{0}{0}{0}{2}{}
\end{scope}
\node at (0,-2) { $iy_\rho^\ast$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Feynman rules for scalar fermion couplings}
\label{fig3pt}
\end{figure}
Given the Feynman rules for vertices and the propagators, one can compute the correction to the self energies for the scalar and the fermion. Since we have already fixed a nomenclature for the scalar loop integrals, we do the same for the fermionic loop integrals. The fermionic nature of an integral are mentioned in the superscript. For example, let us consider a Feynman diagram with one scalar and one fermionic internal propagator as shown in fig. \ref{fig:BfRP}. We call this diagram $B^f_{RP}$. We can always choose the first propagator (here the $R$ propagator) either to be fermionic or to be bosonic. But, to avoid any ambiguity, we choose the first propagator (from the left) to be fermionic in $B$-type loop integrals.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line width=1 pt, scale=0.7]
\begin{scope}[shift={(0,0)}]
\draw[ultra thick,violet] (-1,0) arc (180:360:1);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (1,0) arc (0:90:1);
\draw[ultra thick,blue,dashed] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\node at (-1.5,0) {$1$};
\node at (1.5,0) {$2$};
\node at (1,0) {$\times$};
\node at (-1,0) {$\times$};
\node at (0,-2) {$B^{f}_{RP}$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{One example of fermionic loop diagram in SK theory }
\label{fig:BfRP}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Scalar tadpoles}
\label{subsec:bjropenyukawascalartadpole}
It is well known from the unitary Yukawa theory that there are tadpole diagrams which contribute to the one point function of the scalar field. The tadpole of a fermionic field vanishes due to underlying Lorentz invariance of the QFT. The contribution from these diagrams can be removed from the theory by introducing counter terms in the action. In open Yukawa theory there are two types of tadpole diagrams: contribution from scalar and the contribution from fermion. The Feynman diagrams can be found in appendix \ref{subsec:scalartadpolediagram} (fig \ref{fig:philtadpole1}). The contribution from all of these diagrams are the following.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\frac{-i\lambda_3}{2}A_{R}
+ \frac{i\lambda_{3\sigma}^\star}{2}A_{L}
+(-i\lambda_{3\sigma}) A_{P}\\
& + (-iy) A^f_{R} + (iy_{\sigma}^\ast) A^f_{L}
+ (-iy_\kappa) A^f_{P} + (-iy_\rho)A^f_{M}\\
=&\frac{-i}{(4\pi)^2}\frac{1}{d-4}\ \Big[(m_\phi^2)(\lambda_3-\sigma_3^\star +2\sigma_3)-(8 m_\psi^3) (y - y_{\sigma}^\ast + y_\kappa + y_\rho )\Big] + ... \,\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The above divergent piece is local. The scalar tadpole can be removed by a counter-term of the form $\kappa\phir$ to the action where $\kappa$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{i}{(4\pi)^2}\frac{1}{d-4}\ \Big[(m_\phi^2)(\lambda_3-\sigma_3^\star +2\sigma_3)-(8 m_\psi^3) (y - y_{\sigma}^\ast + y_\kappa + y_\rho )\Big] \,\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Mass renormalization of the scalar field}
\label{subsec:bjropenyukawascalarmass}
In the action, there are three scalar quadratic terms. Here we compute the one-loop correction to $m^2$. It receives a contribution from scalar tadpole diagrams due to scalar quadratic interactions and from thhe scalar \& fermionic bubble diagrams due to the scalar cubic couplings and Yukawa couplings. The relevant Feynman diagrams can be found in the appendix \ref{subsec:scalarmassdiagram}.
The self energy of the scalar field in dimensional regularization is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&-iz_\phi \ k^2 -i {m_\phi}^2 \\
&-\frac{i}{(4\pi)^2}\Big[\frac{1}{d-4}+\frac{1}{2}(\gamma_E-1-\ln(4\pi))\Big] \left[\lambda_4 -i \lambda_\Delta +2\sigma_4 \right]\left(\re\,m^2\right)\\
&-\frac{i}{(4\pi)^2}\Big[\frac{1}{d-4}+\frac{1}{2}(\gamma_E-1-\ln(4\pi))\Big] \Bigl[ (\lambda_3)^2 -(\sigma_3^\ast)^2+
2\left\{\lambda_3\sigma_3+|\sigma_3|^2 \right\}\ \Bigr] \\
&+ \frac{4i}{(4\pi)^2} \Big[\frac{1}{d-4}+\frac{1}{2}(\gamma_E-1-\ln(4\pi))\Big] \Bigl[(k^2+6m^2_\psi) (y+y_\sigma^\ast)(y-y_\sigma^\ast+y_{\kappa}+y_\rho)\Bigr]\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The second, third, fourth line in the above expression comes from the scalar $A$-type, scalar $B$-type and fermionic $B$-type integrals respectively. We can see that the divergence is local and thus can be removed by introducing a local counter-term to the action. One can compute the scale dependence of the mass of the scalar field. The anomalous dimension of the scalar field is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\gamma_\phi \equiv \frac{1}{2}\frac{d\ \ln\, z_\phi}{d\ \ln\, \mu} = -\frac{2}{(4\pi)^2}\,(y+y_{\sigma}^\star)(y-y_{\sigma}^\star + y_{\kappa} + y_{\rho})\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
If we set $y_{\sigma}=y_{\kappa}=y_{\rho}=0$, we get back the result of unitary theory. The beta function for the mass of the scalar field is given by,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{d}{d\ \ln\, \mu} \left(m_\phi^2\right) =& \frac{4\, m_\phi^2-24\, m_\psi^2}{(4\pi)^2}(y+y_\sigma^\star)(y-y_\sigma^\star + y_\rho +y_\kappa)\\
&+\frac{1}{(4\pi)^2}\Bigl[ (\lambda_3)^2 -(\sigma_3^\star)^2+
2\left\{\lambda_3\sigma_3+|\sigma_3|^2 \right\}\ \Bigr] \\
&+\frac{1}{(4\pi)^2} \left[\lambda_4 -i \lambda_\Delta +2\sigma_4 \right]\left(\re\,m^2_\phi\right) \,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Mass renormalization of fermionic field}
\label{subsec:bjropenyukawafermionmass}
In this section, we compute the correction to the fermionic propagator and show that it has a very different structure from that of the scalar propagator. There is a non-local divergence in the correction to the fermionic propagator.
The Feynman diagrams which represents that one loop correction to the self energy correction to the fermionic propagators can be found in the appendix \ref{subsec:fermionicmassdiagram}. $B$-type diagrams with one fermionic and one scalar propagator contribute to the fermionic self energy correction. The one loop correction to the fermionic propagator consists of the following contributions
\begin{equation}
\label{fermion prop correction}
\begin{split}
& (-iy)^2 B^f_{RR}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi) + (iy_\rho^\star)(iy_\kappa^\star) B^f_{LL}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi)\\
& + (-iy_\sigma)^2 B^f_{RL}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi) + (-iy_\rho)(-iy_\kappa)B^f_{LR}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi)\\
& + (-iy)(iy_\kappa^\star)B^f_{PM}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi) + (iy_\rho^\star)(-iy)B^f_{MP}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi) \\
& + (-iy_\rho)(-iy_\kappa)B^f_{PP}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi) + (-iy_\rho)(-iy_\sigma)B^f_{MM}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi)\\
& + (-iy_\sigma)(-iy) B^f_{RP}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi) + (-iy)(-iy_\kappa)B^f_{PR}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi)\\
& + (-iy)(-iy_\sigma)B^f_{RM}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi) + (-iy_\rho)(-iy)B^f_{MR}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi)\\
& + (iy_\rho^\ast)(-iy_\kappa)B^f_{LP}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi) + (-iy_\sigma)(iy_\kappa^\ast)B^f_{PL}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi)\\
& + (-iy_\rho)(iy_\kappa^\ast) B^f_{LM}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi) + (iy_\rho^\ast)(-iy_\sigma)B^f_{ML}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi)\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
To compute the loop integrals in \eqref{fermion prop correction}, we use the PV reduction formula which is done in the appendix \ref{sec:fermionicpv}. If we substitute the PV reduction for the fermionic integrals, we find that the divergence piece of the one loop contribution is non-local in the external momentum. To see that explicitly, let us choose an integral from the above set of integrals, say $B^f_{PR}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi)$. This integral was chosen in particular, because the combination of coupling constant that appears with this integral does not appear with any other integral (and hence there is no scope of cancellation). The PV reduction of this integral is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:pvBPR}
B^{f}_{PR}(k,m_{\psi},m_{\phi}) &=& m_{\psi} B_{PR}\left(k,m_{\psi},m_{\phi}\right) -\slashed{k}\ \frac{\ i \ A_P\left(m_{\psi}\right)-(-k^2+m_\psi^2-m_\phi^2) B_{PR}\left(k,m_{\psi},m_{\phi}\right)}{2 k^2} \,.
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
$A_P$ and $B_{PR}$ are discussed in the section \S\ref{sec:pveskatype} and in the section \ref{subsec:pveskbtypescalar} respectively. The divergence structure of $A_P$ and $B_{PR}$ are the following.
\begin{eqnarray}
&& A_P(m_\psi) \sim \frac{m_\psi^2}{(4\pi)^2}\frac{2}{d-4}\,, \nonumber\\
&& B_{PR}(k,m_\psi,m_\phi) \sim \frac{i}{(4\pi)^2}\frac{k^2-m_\psi^2+m_\phi^2}{2k^2} \frac{2}{d-4} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting these two back in \eqref{eq:pvBPR} we get,
\begin{align*}
B^{f}_{PR}(k,m_{\psi},m_{\phi}) \sim \frac{i}{(4\pi)^2}\left[ m_\psi(k^2-m_\psi^2+m_\phi^2) -\slashed{k}\Big(m_\psi^2 + \frac{(k^2-m_\psi^2+m_\phi^2)^2}{2k^2}\Big) \right] \nonumber\\
\times \frac{1}{2k^2}\frac{2}{d-4}\,.
\end{align*}
This is clearly non-local since it has $k^2$ in the denominator
. This divergence can not be removed with a local counter-term. One can notice that the divergence does not go away in the limit, $m_\phi^2 = m_\psi^2$ \footnote{A detailed discussion is done in the appendix \ref{sec:fermionicpv}.} unlike the $B$ type scalar integrals. This is a distinct feature of the fermionic $B$ type integrals. We do not have any clear understanding of any of this divergences.
Let us now evaluate the self energy correction to the fermion and show that the non-local divergences does not disappear in the self energy correction. Adding the contribution from all diagrams given in the fig. \ref{fig:fermionselfenergy}, we get the correction to be non-local and UV divergent. This feature persists in the equal mass limit of the scalar and the fermion. For sake of brevity we write the answer only in the equal mass limit. The divergent piece of the self energy correction, in the equal mass limit, is given by
\begin{equation}\label{self_energy_corr_equal_mass}
\begin{split}
&-(m-\slashed{k}/2)\Big[(y+y_\rho^\ast)(y+y_\sigma+2i\text{Im}[y_\kappa])+(y+y_\kappa^\ast)(y+y_\sigma+2i\text{Im}[y_\rho])\Big]\frac{1}{d-4}\frac{i}{(4\pi)^2}\\
&-\frac{\slashed{k}}{k^2}\Big[(y_\sigma-y_\rho)(y+y_\sigma+2i\text{Im}[y_\kappa])+(y_\sigma-y_\kappa)(y+y_\sigma+2i\text{Im}[y_\rho])\Big]\frac{1}{d-4}\frac{i(m^2)}{(4\pi)^2} + ...\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The first line of the above result is local in external momentum. This term comes from the scalar $B$-type contribution that is present inside PV reduction (given in eqn \eqref{zero_gamma5_FS no cut}, eqn \eqref{zero_gamma5_FS two cut} and in eqn \eqref{zero_gamma5_FS one cut}). The second line of eqn \eqref{self_energy_corr_equal_mass} is the non-local divergent piece in the self energy correction. The $A$- type integrals that are present in the PV reduction (given in eqn \eqref{zero_gamma5_FS no cut}, in eqn \eqref{zero_gamma5_FS two cut} and in eqn \eqref{zero_gamma5_FS one cut}), contribute to this non-local divergence.
If we impose the tree level Lindblad conditions given in eqn \eqref{Lindblad_conditions} in the above one-loop correction, even then the non-local divergences do not cancel in eqn \eqref{self_energy_corr_equal_mass}. So, we find that the non-local divergences persist in one-loop correction to the fermion self-energy in open-Yukawa theory.
It is shown in eqn \cite{Avinash:2017asn} that non-local divergences disappear in the self energy correction to the scalar if the masses are chosen to be equal. So, we find that the divergence structure of the self energy correction to the fermion in the equal mass limit is a distinguishing feature of open Yukawa theory from that of the scalar field theory.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:bjrconclusion}
It was shown in \cite{Avinash:2017asn} that the $B$-type integrals do not have non-local divergences in open-$\phi^3+\phi^4$ theory. In this paper, we have considered PV tensor reduction of one loop integrals for local quantum field theories on the SK contour. The key philosophy of PV reduction is that, in a general open-QFT, the loop diagrams can be written as a linear combination of scalar loop integrals; the coefficients are non-local functions of external momenta. These non-local contributions seem to prevail in the divergent scalar loop integrals, unlike in unitary QFTs. So, we expect non-local divergences in open-QFTs in general, just by examining the PV reduction formula. However, there is a possibility that the non-local divergences cancel when we sum over all the Feynman diagrams contributing a process. So to infer that a physical observable retains the non-local divergences, we need to do a more careful analysis. For this reason, we consider open Yukawa theory (and also two scalars theory in appendix \ref{app:twoscalar}). We have shown that the open-Yukawa theory possesses non-local divergence in the correction to the self-energy correction to fermion.
The physical origin and removal of these non-local divergences remain an open question.
\paragraph{Acknowledgement}
We are thankful to R Loganayagam for collaborating at the early stage of the project. A.R. would like to thank ICTS-TIFR, Bengaluru for hospitality during this work. C.J. would like to thank ICTP, Trieste for hospitality during this project. We are grateful to Diksha Jain, R Loganayagam, Akhil Sivakumar especially Joydeep Chakravarty for various suggestions to improve the draft.
|
\section{Introduction}
The Jacobi's tremendous mathematical legacy has many contributions to the field of mathematics, among which are the Jacobi symbol, the Jacobi triple
product, the Jacobian in the change of Variables theorem and the Jacobi elliptic functions. Among his multiple discoveries, Jacobi sums appear as one of
the most important findings. In any given finite field $\mathbb{F}_q$, Jacobi sums of order $e$ mainly depend on two parameters. Therefore, these values
could be naturally assembled into a matrix of order $e$. Jacobi initially proposed these sums as mathematical objects, and for more certainty, he mailed
them to Gauss in 1827 (see \cite{Berndt1,Jacobi1}). After ten years, Jacobi \cite{Jacobi2} published his findings including all the extensions provided
by other scholars such as Cauchy, Gauss and Eisenstein. It is worth mentioning that while Gauss sums suffice for a proof of quadratic reciprocity, a
demonstration of cubic reciprocity law along similar lines requires a foray into the realm of Jacobi sums. In order to prove biquadratic reciprocity,
Eisenstein \cite{Eisenstein1} formulated a generalization of Jacobi sums. As illustrated in \cite{Ireland1}, Jacobi sums could be used for estimating
the number of integral solutions to congruences such as $x^{3}+y^{3}\equiv 1 \pmod p$. These estimates played a key role in the development of
Weil conjectures \cite{Weil1}. Jacobi sums could be used for the determination of a number of solutions of diagonal equations over finite fields.
Jacobi sums were also utilized in primality test by Adleman, Pomerance and Rumely \cite{Adleman1}. The Problem of congruences of Jacobi sums of order $e$
concerns to establish certain congruence conditions modulo an appropriate power of
$(1-\zeta_e)$ which is useful to determine an element (which is co-prime to $e$) in $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_e]$ as a Jacobi sum of order $e$.
It is worth mentioning that congruence conditions for Jacobi sums play major role for determination of algebraic characterization/ diophantine systems
of Jacobi sums, hence of all Jacobi sums together with the absolute value and prime ideal decomposition of Jacobi sums.
Cyclotomic numbers are one of the most important objects in number theory and in other branches of mathematics. These number have been extensively used in
coding theory, cryptography and in other branches of information theory. One of the central problems in the study of these numbers is the determination of
all cyclotomic numbers of a specific order for a given field in terms of solutions of certain Diophantine system.
This problem has been treated by many mathematicians including C. F. Gauss who had determined all the cyclotomic numbers of order $3$ in the field
$\mathbb{F}_q$ with prime $q\equiv 1\pmod 3$. Complete solutions to this cyclotomic number problem have been computed for some specific orders.
For instance, the cyclotomic numbers of prime order $e$
in the finite field $\mathbb{F}_q$ with $q=p^r$ and $p\equiv 1 \pmod e$ have been investigated by many authors (see, \cite{Katre3} and the references
therein). Cyclotomic numbers of order $e$ over the field $\mathbb{F}_q$ with characteristic $p$, in general, cannot
be determined only in terms of $p$ and $e$, but that one requires a quadratic partition of $q$ too.
In this survey article, we discuss some interesting results concerning the Jacobi sums and its congruences, and cyclotomic numbers as well as the
current status of the problem. Starting from Gauss, this topic has been studied extensively by many authors and thus there exist a large number of
research articles. Due to the versatility, this survey may miss out some interesting references and thus some interesting results too and thus this
article is never claimed to be a complete one.
\section{Definitions and notations}
Let $e\geq2$ be an integer, $p$ a rational prime, $q=p^{r}, r \in\mathbb{Z}^{+}$ and $q\equiv 1 \pmod{e}$. Let $\mathbb{F}_{q}$
be a finite field of $q$ elements. We can write $q=p^{r}=ek+1$ for some $k\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}$. Let $\gamma$ be a generator of
the cyclic group $\mathbb{F}^{*}_{q}$ and $\zeta_e=exp(2\pi i/e)$. Also for $a\in\mathbb{F}_q^*$, ${\rm ind}_{\gamma}(a)$ is defined to be a positive integer
$m\leq q-1$ such that $a=\gamma^m$.
Define a multiplicative character $\chi_e : \ \mathbb{F}^{*}_{q} \longrightarrow \mathbb{Q}(\zeta_e)$ by $\chi_e(\gamma)=\zeta_e$ and extend it on
$\mathbb{F}_q$
by putting $\chi_e(0)=0$.
For integers $\displaystyle 0\leq i,j\leq e-1$, the Jacobi sum $J_{e}(i,j)$ is define by
$$J_{e}(i,j)= \sum_{v\in \mathbb{F}_{q}} \chi_e^{i}(v) \chi_e^{j}(v+1).$$
However in the literature a variation of Jacobi sums are also considered and is defined by
$$J_e(\chi_e^i,\chi_e^j)=\sum_{v\in\mathbb{F}_q}\chi_e^i(v)\chi_e^j(1-v).$$\\ Observe that $J_e(i,j)=\chi_e^i(-1)J_e(\chi_e^i,\chi_e^j)$. When $q=2^{r}$, $\chi_e^i(-1)=\chi_e^i(1)=1$ and both the Jacobi sums coincide. Otherwise $\chi_e^i(-1)=(-1)^{ik}$ and hence the two Jacobi sums differ at most in sign.
For $0\leq a, b \leq e-1$, the cyclotomic number $(a,b)_{e}$ of order $e$ is defined as the number of solutions $(s,t)$ of the following:
\begin{equation} \label{1}
\gamma^{es+a}+\gamma^{et+b}+1\equiv 0 \pmod q; \ \ \ \ \ \ 0\leq s,t \leq k-1.
\end{equation}
\begin{center}
or
\end{center}
One can define, for $0\leq a, b\leq e-1$, the cyclotomic numbers $(a, b)_e$ of order $e$ is as follows:
\begin{align*}
(a,b)_e:& =\#\{v\in\mathbb{F}_q|\chi_e(v)=\zeta_e^a,\,\,\chi_e(v+1)=\zeta_e^b\} \\ & =
\#\{v\in\mathbb{F}_q\setminus \{0,-1\}\mid {\rm ind}_{\gamma}v\equiv a \pmod e , {\ \rm ind}_{\gamma}(v+1)\equiv b \pmod e\}.
\end{align*}
The cyclotomic numbers $(a,b)_e$ and the Jacobi sums $J_e(i,j)$ are well connected by the following relations \cite{Berndt1,Shirolkar1}:
\begin{equation} \label{01}
\sum_a\sum_b(a,b)_e\zeta_e^{ai+bj}=J_e(i,j),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{00}
\sum_i\sum_j\zeta_e^{-(ai+bj)}J_e(i,j)=e^{2}(a,b)_e.
\end{equation}
\eqref{01} and \eqref{00} show that if we want to calculate all the cyclotomic numbers $(a,b)_e$ of order $e$, it is sufficient to calculate all the
Jacobi sums $J_e(i,j)$ of the same order, and vice-versa.
\section{Properties of Jacobi sums and cyclotomic number}
In the following theorem we state some standard results about Jacobi sums.
\begin{theorem} \cite{Acharya1,Helal1,Berndt1} (Elementary properties of Jacobi sums)
\\
\textbf{i}.
If $m+n+s\equiv 0 \ ($mod$\ e)$ then
\\
$J_{e}(m,n)=J_{e}(s,n)=\chi_e^{s}(-1)J_{e}(s,m)=\chi_e^{s}(-1)J_{e}(n,m)=\chi_e^{m}(-1)J_{e}(m,s)$ $=\chi_e^{m}(-1)J_{e}(n,s).$
\\
In particular,
\begin{equation*}
J_{e}(1,m)=\chi_e(-1)J_{e}(1,s)=\chi_e(-1)J_{e}(1,e-m-1).
\end{equation*}
\textbf{ii}.
\ \ \ \ $J_{e}(0,j)= \begin{cases}
-1 \ \ \ \ \ if \ j\not\equiv 0 \ ($mod$\ e) ,\\
q-2 \ \ if \ j\equiv 0 \ ($mod$\ e).
\end{cases}$
\ \ \ \ $J_{e}(i,0)=-\chi_e^{i}(-1) \ if \ i\not\equiv 0 \ ($mod$\ e).$
\\ \\
\textbf{iii}. \ \ \ \ Let $m+n\equiv 0 \ ($mod$\ e)$ \ but not both $m$ and $n$ zero $\pmod{e}$. Then $J_{e}(m,n)=-1.$
\\ \\ \textbf{iv}. \ \ For $(k,e)=1$ and $\sigma_k$ a $\mathbb{Q}$ automorphism of $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_e)$ with $\sigma_k(\zeta_e)=\zeta_e^k$,
we have $\sigma_{k}J_{e}(m,n)=J_{e}(mk,nk)$. In particular, if $(m,e)=1,\ m^{-1}$ \ denotes the inverse of $m\pmod{e}$ then
$\sigma_{m^{-1}}J_{e}(m,n)=J_{e}(1,nm^{-1})$.
\\ \\ \textbf{v}. \ \ \ \
$J_{2e}(2m,2s)=J_{e}(m,n)$.
\\ \textbf{vi}. \ \ \ \ $J_{e}(1,n) \overline{J_{e}(1,n)}= \begin{cases}
q \ \ \ \ \ if \ n\not\equiv 0, -1 \ ($mod$\ e),\\
1 \ \ \ \ \ if \ n\equiv 0, -1 \ ($mod$\ e).
\end{cases}$
\\ \\
\textbf{vii}. \ \ \ Let $m$, $n$, $s$ be integers and $l$ be an odd prime, such that $m+n \not\equiv 0 \ ($mod$\ 2l)$ and $m+s \not\equiv 0 \ ($mod$\ 2l)$. Then
\begin{equation*}
J_{2l}(m,n) J_{2l}(m+n ,s) = \chi^{m}(-1)J_{2l}(m,s)J_{2l}(n,s+m).
\end{equation*}
\textbf{viii}. \ \ \ Let $m$, $n$, $s$ be integers and $l$ be an odd prime, such that $m+n \not\equiv 0 \ ($mod$\ 2l^{2})$ and $m+s \not\equiv 0 \ ($mod$\ 2l^{2})$. Then
\begin{equation*}
J_{2l^{2}}(m,n) J_{2l^{2}}(m+n ,s) = \chi^{m}(-1)J_{2l^{2}}(m,s)J_{2l^{2}}(n,s+m).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
In the next theorem, we state some basic properties of the cyclotomic numbers of order $e$.
\begin{theorem} \cite{Berndt1}
The cyclotomic numbers of order $e$ have the have the following properties:\\
\textbf{i}. \ \ \ $(a,b)_{e}=(a' ,b')_{e}$ if $a\equiv a'\pmod{e}$ and $b\equiv b'\pmod{e}$. \\
\textbf{ii}. \ \ \ $(a,b)_{e}= (e-a,b-a)_{e}$ along with the following:
\begin{equation*}\label{2.1}
(a,b)_{e}=\begin{cases}
(b,a)_{e}\hspace*{1.751cm} \text{ if } k \text{ is even or } q=2^r,\\
(b+\frac{e}{2},a+\frac{e}{2})_{e}\hspace*{3 mm} \text{ otherwise }.
\end{cases}.
\end{equation*}
\\
\textbf{iii}. \ \ \ \begin{equation*} \label{2.2}
\sum_{a=0}^{e-1}\sum_{b=0}^{e-1}(a,b)_{e}=q-2,
\end{equation*}
\\
\textbf{iv}. \ \ \ \begin{equation*} \label{2.3}
\sum_{b=0}^{e-1}(a,b)_{e}=k-n_{a},
\end{equation*}
where $n_{a}$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
n_{a}=\begin{cases}
1 \quad \text{ if } a=0, 2\mid k \text{ or if } a=\frac{e}{2}, 2\nmid k;\\
0 \quad \text{ otherwise }.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\\
\textbf{v}. \ \ \ \begin{equation} \label{2.4}
\sum_{a=0}^{e-1}(a,b)_{e}=\begin{cases}
k-1 \hspace*{3mm}\text{ if } b =0; \\
k \hspace*{1cm}\text{ if } 1\leq b \leq e-1.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\\
\textbf{vi}. \ \ \ $(a,b)_{e}^{\prime}=$ $(r^{_{0}}a,r^{_{0}}b)_{e}$, \\
where the prime $(\prime)$ indicates that the cyclotomic number is taken with respect to the generator $\gamma^{r_{0}}$ in place of $\gamma$ in $\mathbb{F}_{q}^{*}$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Jacobi sums and it congruences}
Gauss theories represented the cornerstone of Jacobi sum findings. Many research work have been conducted by a number of mathematicians in an attempt
to find out the Diophantine systems that characterize the coefficients of Jacobi sums, i.e. giving a Diophantine system whose unique solution provides
the coefficients of a particular Jacobi sum. Jacobi sums are particularly used for obtaining the cyclotomic numbers of the same order and vice-versa
(i.e. the cyclotomic numbers of order $e$ are known if one knows all the Jacobi sums of order $e$ and vice-versa). Evaluating all the Jacobi sums of
order $e$ is relatively intricate. A number of authors devoted for the evaluation of Jacobi sums with certain order. Obtaining the concerned relations
helps in reducing the complexity of evaluating all Jacobi sums as well as the cyclotomic numbers. The evaluations and relationships of Jacobi sums of
order $3, \ 4$ and $7$ were introduced by Jacobi himself in a letter \cite{Jacobi1} to Gauss in 1827. Relationships between the sum of order $e$ for
$e\leq 6$, $e=8,\ 10$ and $12$ were established by Dickson \cite{Dickson1}. In later stages, Muskat \cite{Muskat1} established the relation of order
$12$ in terms of the fourth root of unity to resolve the sign of ambiguity. Dickson \cite{Dickson3} found specific relationships for sums of order
$15,\ 16, \ 20$ and $24$. Muskat \cite{Muskat1} developed Dickson’s work for $e = 15$ and $24$ and extended it to sums of order $30$. Complete methods of
$e = 16$ and $20$ exist in Whiteman \cite{Whiteman5} and Muskat \cite{Muskat3} respectively. In fact, before Dickson's work
\cite{Dickson1,Dickson2,Dickson3}, Western \cite{Western1} determined Jacobi sums of order $8,\ 9,$ and $16$. An important issue that should be borne
in mind is that all theories showed that Jacobi sums of higher orders can be expressed in terms of Jacobi sums of lower orders. Dickson \cite{Dickson2}
gave some particular relationships for sums of order $14$ and $22$. Muskat \cite{Muskat2} provided complete results for order $14$. Dickson
\cite{Dickson3} also investigated sums of order $9$ and $18$, while Baumert and Fredrickson \cite{Baumert1} gave corrections to some of his results and
removed the sign of ambiguity. Zee also found relationships for sums of order $13$ and $60$ in \cite{Zee1}, and investigated the sums of order $22$
in \cite{Zee2}. Relationships for order $21,\ 28,\ 39,\ 55$ and $56$ are provided in one of Muskat and Zee research works \cite{Muskat4}.
Berndt and Evans \cite{Berndt2} obtained sums of orders $3,\ 4, \ 6,\ 8,\ 12,\ 20$ and $24$, and they also determined sums of order $5,\ 10$ and
$16$ in \cite{Berndt3}.
Parnami,Agrawal and Rajwade \cite{Parnami2} showed that for an odd prime $l$, it is sufficient to calculate $J_{l}(1,(l-3)/2)$ number of Jacobi sums
for $l>3$ and $J_{l}(1,1)$ for $l=3$ to obtain all the Jacobi sums of order $l$. Thus, it reduced the complexity to $l^{2}-(l-3)/2$ for $l>3$ and
$l^{2}-1$ for $l=3$. Acharya and Katre \cite{Acharya1} indicated that calculating all the Jacobi sums of order $2l$ is not essential, and it is
enough to calculate $J_{2l}(1,n)$ for $1\leq n\leq 2l-3$, $n$ odd or $1\leq n\leq 2l-2$, $n$ even number of Jacobi sums. Ahmed and Tanti \cite{Helal3}
showed that Jacobi sums of order $2l^{2}$ can be determined from the Jacobi sums of order $l^{2}$. The Jacobi sums of order $2l^2$
can also be obtained from $J_{2l^{2}}(1,n)$, $1\leq n\leq 2l^{2}-3$ for $n$ odd (or equivalently, $2\leq n\leq 2l^{2}-2$ for $n$ even). Further the
Jacobi sums of order $l^{2}$ can be evaluated if one knows the Jacobi sums $J_{l^{2}}(1,i)$, $1\leq i\leq \frac{l^{2}-3}{2}$.
For some small values of $e$ the study of congruences of Jacobi sums is available in the literature. For $l$ an odd prime
Dickson \cite{Dickson2} obtained the congruences $J_{l}(1,n)\equiv -1 \pmod{(1-\zeta_{l})^{2}}$ for $1\leq n \leq l-1$. Parnami, Agrawal and Rajwade
\cite{Parnami2} also calculated this separately. Iwasawa \cite{Iwasawa1} in $1975$, and in $1981$ Parnami, Agrawal and Rajwade \cite{Parnami1}
showed that the above congruences also hold $\pmod{(1-\zeta_{l})^{3}}$. Further in $1995$, Acharya and Katre \cite{Acharya1} extended the work on finding
the congruences for
Jacobi sums and showed that
\begin{center}
$J_{2l}(1,n)\equiv -\zeta_l^{m(n+1)}($mod$\ (1-\zeta_{l})^{2})$,
\end{center}
where $n$ is an odd integer such that $1\leq n \leq 2l-3$ and $m=$ind$_{\gamma}2$.
Also in $1983$, Katre and Rajwade \cite{Katre2} obtained the congruence of Jacobi sum of order $9$, i.e.,
\begin{center}
$J_{9}(1,1)\equiv -1-($ind$\ 3)(1-\omega)($mod$\ (1-\zeta_{9})^{4})$,
\end{center}
where $\omega = \zeta_{9}^{3}$.
In $1986$, Ihara \cite{Ihara1} showed that if $k>3$ is an odd prime power, then
\begin{center}
$J_{k}(i,j)\equiv -1 \pmod{(1-\zeta_{k})^{3}}$.
\end{center}
Evans (\cite{Evans1}, $1998$) used simple methods to generalize this result for all $k>2$, getting sharper congruences in some cases, especially
when $k>8$ is a power of $2$. Congruences for the Jacobi sums of order $l^{2}$ ($l>3$ prime) were obtained by Shirolkar and Katre \cite{Shirolkar1}.
They showed that\\
$J_{l^{2}}(1,n)\equiv
\begin{cases}
-1 + \sum_{i=3}^{l}c_{i,n} (\zeta_{l^2} -1)^{i} ($mod$\ (1-\zeta_{l^2})^{l+1}) \ \ \ \ \ if\ $gcd$ (l,n)=1, \\
-1 \ ($mod$\ (1-\zeta_{l^2})^{l+1}) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if\ $gcd$ (l,n)=l.
\end{cases}$ \\ \\
Recently, Ahmed and Tanti \cite{Helal3}(paper is posted in Arxiv and is under the process of publication) determined the congruences $\pmod{(1-\zeta_{l^2})^{l+1}}$ for Jacobi sums of order $2l^{2}$. They split the
problem into two cases:\\
\textbf{Case 1}. $n$ is odd. \\
\textbf{Case 2}. $n$ is even.\\
Further, \textbf{Case 1} splits into three sub-cases:\\
\textbf {Subcase i}. $n=l^{2}$.\\
\textbf {Subcase ii}. $n=dl, \ $where$\ 1\leq d\leq 2l-1, d$ is an odd and $d\neq l$.\\
\textbf {Subcase iii}. gcd$(n,2l^{2})=1$.\\ \\
In the same, they established the relationship of $n$ of Jacobi sums $J_{2l^{2}}(1,n)$, considering $n$ odd as well as even. They showed that, once we
determined the congruences for $n$ odd, by using the following relation
\begin{center}
$J_{2l^{2}}(1,n)=\chi_{2l^2}(-1)J_{2l^{2}}(1,2l^{2}-n-1)$,
\end{center}
one can determined the congruences for $n$ even also and conversely. They \cite{Helal3} precisely proved:
\begin{theorem}
Let $l\geq 3$ be a prime and $q=p^{r}\equiv 1 \pmod {2l^{2}}$. If $1\leq n \leq 2l^{2}-3$ and $1\leq d \leq 2l-1$ are odd integer, then a congruence for $J_{2l^{2}}(1,n)$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
J_{2l^{2}}(1,n)\equiv \begin{cases}
\zeta_{l^{2}}^{-w}(-1+\sum_{i=3}^{l} c_{i,n}(\zeta_{l^{2}}-1)^{i}) \pmod {(1-\zeta_{l^{2}})^{l+1}},\ \mbox{if $n=l^{2}$}, \\ \\
-\zeta_{l^{2}}^{-w(dl+1)}(-1+\sum_{i=3}^{l} c_{i,n}(\zeta_{l^{2}}-1)^{i})(-1+\sum_{i=3}^{l} c_{i,n}(\zeta_{l^{2}}^{(-1-dl)/2}\\-1)^{i})
\pmod {(1-\zeta_{l^{2}})^{l+1}} \ \mbox{if $d\neq l$ odd integer and $n=dl$},\\ \\
\zeta_{l^{2}}^{-w(n+1)}(-1+\sum_{i=3}^{l} c_{i,n}(\zeta_{l^{2}}-1)^{i})(-1+\sum_{i=3}^{l} c_{i,n}(\zeta_{l^{2}}^{n}-1)^{i})\\ (-1+\sum_{i=3}^{l} c_{i,n}
(\zeta_{l^{2}}^{(1-l^{2})/2}-1)^{i})\pmod {(1-\zeta_{l^{2}})^{l+1}},\,\\ \mbox{if \, $gcd(n,2l^{2})=1$},
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where $c_{i,n}$ are as described in the Theorem \ref{T1}.
\end{theorem}
The congruences of Jacobi sums $J_{9}(1,n)$ of order $9$ which was not fully covered in \cite{Shirolkar1}, and in \cite{Helal3} included the congruences of Jacobi sums $J_{9}(1,n)$ of order $9$ and revised the result of congruences
of Jacobi sums of order $l^2$ for $l\geq3$ a prime. Hence Theorem 5.4 \cite{Shirolkar1} was precisely revised as the following
theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{T1}
Let $l\geq 3$ be a prime and $p^{r}=q\equiv 1 \pmod {l^{2}}$. If $1\leq n \leq l^{2}-1$, then a congruence for $J_{l^{2}}(1,n)$ for a
finite field $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ is given by \\ $J_{l^{2}}(1,n)\equiv
\begin{cases}
-1 + \sum_{i=3}^{l}c_{i,n} (\zeta_{l^{2}} -1)^{i} \pmod {(1-\zeta_{l^{2}})^{l+1}} \ \ \ \ \ if\ \emph{gcd} (l,n)=1, \\
-1 \pmod{(1-\zeta_{l^{2}})^{l+1}} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if\ \emph{gcd} (l,n)=l,
\end{cases}$ \\
where for $3\leq i \leq l-1$, $c_{i,n}$ are described by equation (5.3) and $c_{l,n}=S(n)$ is given by Lemma 5.3 in \cite{Shirolkar1}.
\end{theorem}
\section{Cyclotomic number}
Since the time of Gauss, many authors have approached the problem of determining cyclotomic numbers in terms of the solutions of certain Diophantine
systems. Such a problem arises when Gauss solving his period equation in the case in terms of the uniquely determined $L$ of the Diophantine system
$4p=L^{2}+27M^{2}$, $L\equiv 1 \pmod 3$. In 1935, a series of three papers were published by Dickson, in which he reviewed and extended the theory of
cyclotomy. In the first one \cite{Dickson1}, he considered the cases for cyclotomic numbers of order $e\leq 6$, $e=8,\ 10,$ and $12$. In the second paper
\cite{Dickson2}, he explained the general theory for cyclotomic numbers of prime order and twice of a prime order and he clearly studied the cases
$e=14$ and $22$. In the third paper \cite{Dickson3}, he discussed cyclotomic numbers of order $e=9$ and $18$, and in the last part of this paper, he
singled out a part entitles \begin{center}
Theory for $\phi(e)=8,\ e=15,16,20,24,30.$
\end{center}
However, the case $e = 30$ was completely ignored and one relation associated with $e = 16$ was also omitted. The case $e = 15$ was left with the
sign of ambiguity and only introductory discussions were given to $e = 20$ and $24$. The sign of ambiguity for $e = 15$ was resolved by Muskat
\cite{Muskat1}. He also provided a complete analysis for $e=24$ and $30$.
The cyclotomic number may be defined for $e=1$; in that case we have $(0,0)_{1}=q-2$. The determination of cyclotomic numbers of order $e=2$ in
$\mathbb{F}_{p}$ was considered by Dickson in \cite{Dickson1} in terms of the period equation [\cite{Dickson1}, \S 9]. He shown that $(a,b)_{2}$'s
are uniquely determined by $p=ek+1$ and period equation become $\eta^{2}+\eta+c=0$, where $c=kn_{1}-(1,1)_{2}$, if $k$ even $c=-1/4(p-1)$; if $k$
odd $c=1/4(p+1)$. Again the case $e=2$ was considered by Whiteman \cite{Whiteman2} in terms of the Jacobsthal sums and his Diophantine system
become $p=a^{2}+b^{2}$; $a=(\psi_{4}(1)+2)/2$ and $b=\psi_{4}(\gamma)/2$. The delightful book by Davenport \cite{Davenport1}, for $e=2$, the cyclotomic
numbers do not depend upon the generator $\gamma$, they are given by:
\begin{equation*}
(0,0)_{2}=(q-5)/4,\ \ (0,1)_{2}=(1,0)_{2}=(1,1)_{2}=(q-1)/4, \ \ if \ q\equiv 1 \pmod 4;
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
(0,0)_{2}=(1,0)_{2}=(1,1)_{2}=(q-3)/4,\ \ (0,1)_{2}=(q+1)/4, \ \ if \ q\equiv 3 \pmod 4.
\end{equation*}
The determination of the cyclotomic numbers of order $l=3$ in $\mathbb{F}_{p}$ was considered by Gauss in \cite{Gauss2} in terms of the solutions of
the diophantine system $4p=L^{2}+27M^{2}$, $L\equiv 1\pmod 3$, when he obtained his period equation in this case in terms of the uniquely determined $L$.
The three cyclotomic periods of order $3$ satisfy $x^{3}+x^{2}-\dfrac{p-1}{3}x-\frac{1}{27}(3p-1+pl)=0$. These equations determine $L$ uniquely,
but $M$ is determined only upto sign. Gauss gives formulae for cyclotomic numbers of order $3$ in terms of $L$ and $M$.
\begin{theorem} \cite{Gauss2}
For a prime $p\equiv 1 \pmod 3$, write
\begin{equation*}
4p=L^{2}+27M^{2}, \ L\equiv 1 \pmod 3.
\end{equation*}
Then the $9$ cyclotomic numbers of order $3$ are given by
\begin{equation*}
(0,0)_{3}=(p-8+L)/9,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
(0,1)_{3}=(1,0)_{3}=(2,2)_{3}=(2p-4-L+9M)/18,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
(1,1)_{3}=(0,2)_{3}=(2,0)_{3}=(2p-4-L-9M)/18,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
(1,2)_{3}=(2,1)_{3}=(p+1+L)/9.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
He says that these formulae give the cyclotomic numbers of order $3$ for some generator $\gamma$ of $\mathbb{F}_{p^{*}}$. If $M$ is replaced by $-M$ in
all the formulae then one gets cyclotomic numbers corresponding to some other generator $\gamma^{\prime}$ of $\mathbb{F}_{p^{*}}$. One says that the
cyclotomic problem in $\mathbb{F}_{p}$ for $l=3$ was solved by Gauss. However, the solution does not make it clear which sign of $M$ goes with which
$\gamma$, without an alternative evaluation of some cyclotomic numbers of order $3$, say $(1,0)_{3}$ or $(1,1)_{3}$. In a footnote to the section $358$
of \cite{Gauss2} (p. $444$, English edition or p. $432$, German edition) Gauss remarks: \textquotedblleft As far as the ambiguity of the sign of $M$ in
$4p=L^{2}+27M^{2}$, $L\equiv 1\pmod 3$, for the determination of cyclotomic numbers of order $3$, is concerned, it is unnecessary to consider this
question here, and by the nature of the case it cannot be determined because it depends on the selection of the primitive root $g$ mod $p$. For some
primitive roots, $M$ will be positive, for others negative$\textquotedblright$. Later, this case $l=3$ was again taken up by Dickson \cite{Dickson1}
and considered the same diophantine equation. But his calculation was again a Gauss type of ambiguity. In $1952$, Whiteman \cite{Whiteman2} considered
the same case and resolved the sign of ambiguity using Jacobsthal sums. He gave the diophantine equation $4p=c^{2}+3d^{2}$;
$c\equiv 1\pmod 3$ and $d\equiv 0\pmod 3$. Further, M. Hall \cite{Hall1} and Storer \cite{Storer3} generalized the results of Gauss and Dickson for
$l=3$ to finite fields of $q=p^{r}$ elements. However, when $p\equiv 1\pmod 3$, there results for $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ again have a Gauss and Dickson type
of ambiguity.
For a prime $p$, the theory for cyclotomy \cite{Dickson1} is well known. The corresponding theory has been developed for $pq$ in \cite{Whiteman1}.
Further these theories were extended in \cite{Storer2} in connection with the construction of finite difference sets. The above mention cases for $p$ or
$pq$, the cyclotomic constants depend upon one or more representation as binary quadratic forms of the type $s^{2}+Dt^{2}$. In \cite{Storer3}, T. Storer
established the uniqueness for $p^{r}$ of cases $e=3,\ 4,\ 6,\ 8$, by same generalizing procedure in \cite{Storer2}. For the cases $e=3$ and $e=4$,
the unique proper representation are
\begin{equation*}
4p^{r}=s^{2}+27t^{2}; \ \ s\equiv 1\pmod 3
\end{equation*}
\begin{center}
and
\end{center}
\begin{equation*}
p^{r}=s^{2}+4t^{2}; \ \ s\equiv 1\pmod 4
\end{equation*}
respectively. Cyclotomic numbers of order $e$ over finite $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ with characteristic $p$, in general, can not be determined only in terms of $p$
and $e$, but that one requires a quadratic partition of $q$ too. The cases for $e=6$ and $e=8$, the unique proper representation were established in
terms of the binary quadratic form $s^{2}+Dt^{2}$ and two such forms respectively.
The formulae for cyclotomic numbers of order $4$ ($p\equiv 1\pmod 4, p$ prime) in terms of the quadratic partition
$p=s_{0}^{2}+t_{0}^{2},\ s_{0}\equiv 1 \pmod 4$ was obtained by Gauss \cite{Gauss1}, which fixes $t_{0}$ upto sign and $s_{0}$ uniquely. Further,
Dickson \cite{Dickson1} also worked in this account and his diophantine equation was $p=x^{2}+4y^{2}$, $x\equiv 1\pmod 4$. However, Gauss and Dickson
did not resolve the sign of ambiguity in $t_{0}$ and $y$ respectively, viz. given a generator $\gamma$ of $\mathbb{F}_{p^{*}}$, it is not clear that
which sign of $t_{0}$ and $y$ gives correct formulae for the cyclotomic numbers corresponding to $\gamma$. Again the case $e=4$ was considered by
Whiteman \cite{Whiteman2} and resolve the sign of ambiguity using Jacobsthal sums. The corresponding result of M. Hall \cite{Hall1} for $\mathbb{F}_{q}$
by setup $q=p^{r}\equiv 1 \pmod 4$ also has a similar sign of ambiguity in the case when $q=p\equiv 1 \pmod 4$. Later Katre and Rajwade \cite{Katre1}
resolve the sign of ambiguity and they gave the formulae to determined the cyclotomic numbers of order $4$ as:\\
for $k$ even,
\begin{align*}
(0,0)_{4}&=1/16(q-11-6s),\\
(0,1)_{4}&=1/16(q-3+2s+4t),\\
(0,2)_{4}&=1/16(q-3+2s),\\
(0,3)_{4}&=1/16(q-3+2s-4t),\\
(1,2)_{4}&=1/16(q+1-2s),\\
\end{align*}
and for $k$ odd,
\begin{align*}
(0,0)_{4}&=1/16(q-7+2s),\\
(0,1)_{4}&=1/16(q+1+2s-4t),\\
(0,2)_{4}&=1/16(q+1-6s),\\
(0,3)_{4}&=1/16(q+1+2s+4t),\\
(1,1)_{4}&=1/16(q-3-2s).\\
\end{align*}
The next case $l=5$ was treated by Dickson \cite{Dickson1} for prime $p$, using the properties of Jacobi sums. Dickson considers the Diophantine equation
$16p=x^{2}+50u^{2}+50v^{2}+125w^{2}$, $v^{2}-4uv-u^{2}=xw$, and $x\equiv 1 \pmod 5$. These system has exactly eight integral simultaneous solutions.
If $(x,u,v,w)$ is one solution, also $(x,-u,-v,w)$ and $(x,\pm u,\mp v,-w)$ are solutions. The remaining four are derived from these four by changing all
signs. In terms of these solutions Dickson gives formulae for cyclotomic numbers of order $5$. Again, Dickson does not tell which solution goes with
which $\gamma$. Later, Whiteman \cite{Whiteman2} considered the same diophantine system for cyclotomic numbers of order $5$ and resolve the sign of
ambiguity using Jacobsthal sums. Katre and Rajwade \cite{Katre4} for the determination of a unique solution, they considered a fifth root of unity in
terms of a solution of Dickson's diophantine system.
Determination of cyclotomic numbers of order $e=6$, Dickson \cite{Dickson1} showed that $36$ cyclotomic constants $(a,b)_{6}$ depend solely upon the
decomposition $A^{2}+3B^{2}$ of the prime $p=6k+1$. Due to the signs of ambiguity, he took $2$ be a cubic residue of $p$, $\gamma^{m}\equiv 2 \pmod p$
and $m\equiv 1\ or \ 4\pmod 6$.
The case $e=7$ \cite{Leonard1}, the cyclotomic numbers can be given in terms of Dickson-Hurwitz sums using the work of Muskat \cite{Muskat2} or a theorem
of Whiteman \cite{Whiteman3}. In \cite{Leonard1}, Leonard and Williams obtained the cyclotomic numbers of order $e=7$ in terms of the solutions of a
certain triple of Diophantine equations, analogous to the expressions for the cyclotomic numbers of order $5$ in terms of the solutions of a pair of
Diophantine equations \cite{Whiteman3}. They used the result of Muskat \cite{Muskat2} to evaluate the cyclotomic numbers of order $7$. If
$p\equiv 1\pmod 7$ then there are exactly six integral simultaneous solutions of the triple of Diophantine equations
\begin{equation*}
2x_{1}^{2}+42(x_{2}^{2}+x_{3}^{2}+x_{4}^{2})+343(x_{5}^{2}+3x_{6}^{2})=72p,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
12x_{2}^{2}-12x_{4}^{2}+147x_{5}^{2}-441x_{6}^{2}+56x_{1}x_{6}+24x_{2}x_{3}-24x_{2}x_{4}+48x_{3}x_{4}+98x_{5}x_{6}=0,
\end{equation*}
\begin{align*}
& 12x_{3}^{2}-12x_{4}^{2}+49x_{5}^{2}-147x_{6}^{2}+28x_{1}x_{5}+28x_{1}x_{6}+48x_{2}x_{3}+24x_{2}x_{4}+24x_{3}x_{4}\\ &+490x_{5}x_{6}=0,
\end{align*}
satisfying $x_{1}\equiv 1\pmod 7$, distinct from the two trivial solutions $(-6t,$ $\pm 2u,$ $\pm 2u,$ $\mp 2u,$ $0,$ $0)$, where $t$ is given uniquely
and $u$ is given ambiguously by
\begin{equation*}
p=t^{2}+7u^{2}, \ \ \ \ \ \ t\equiv 1 \pmod 7.
\end{equation*}
If $(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4},x_{5},x_{6})$ is a nontrivial solution with $x_{1}\equiv 1\pmod 7$ then two others solutions are given by
$(x_{1},-x_{3},x_{4},x_{2},(-x_{5}-3x_{6})/2,(x_{5}-x_{6})/2)$ and $(x_{1},-x_{4},x_{2},-x_{3},(-x_{5}+3x_{6})/2,(-x_{5}-x_{6})/2)$. Each of the other
three can be obtained from one given above by changing the signs of $x_{2},x_{3},x_{4}$. The result obtained in \cite{Leonard1} is almost similar for
$p\equiv 1\pmod 5$, result obtained in \cite{Dickson1}, and which is implicit in the work of Dickson \cite{Dickson1},\cite{Dickson2}, does not appear
in the literature.
Dickson \cite{Dickson1} showed in the case $e=8$ that $64$ cyclotomic constants $(a,b)_{8}$ depend solely upon the decompositions
$p=x^{2}+4y^{2}$ and $p=a^{2}+2b^{2}$; $x\equiv a \ \equiv 1\pmod 4$, where the signs of $y$ and $b$ depend on the choice of the generator $\gamma$.
There are four sets of formulaes depending on whether $k$ is even or odd and whether $2$ is a biquadratic residue or not. Further, Lehmer \cite{Lehmer1}
improve the results of Dickson and gave the complete table of cyclotomic numbers $(a,b)_{8}$ of order $8$.
The cyclotomic problem for $e=9$ was studied by Dickson \cite{Dickson3} and he gave a simple complete theory for $e=9$. Each cyclotomic numbers are
expressed as a constant plus a linear combination of $p,\ L,\ M,\ c_{0},\ c_{1},\ c_{2},\ c_{3},\ c_{4},\ c_{5}$ where
\begin{equation*}
4p=L^{2}+27M^{2}, \ \ \ \ \ L\equiv 7\pmod 9
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{center}
$p=(\sum_{i=0}^{5}c_{i}\beta^{i})(\sum_{i=0}^{5}c_{i}\beta^{-i})$\ \ \ \ ($\beta$ \ be \ a\ primitive\ ninth\ root\ of \ unity)
\end{center}
is a factorization of $p$ in the field of ninth roots of unity. Further, he gave theorem to choose $M$. In $1967$, again the case $e=9$ were considered
by Baumert and Fredricksen \cite{Baumert1}. They carried out the result of Dickson \cite{Dickson3}. But they worked little bit further
Dickson \cite{Dickson3} did. They gave simple relation to choose $M$ as Dickson gave.
The case $e=11$ were considered by Leonard and Williams \cite{Leonard2}. They considered the Diophantine equations
\begin{equation*}
1200p=12w_{1}^{2}+33w_{2}^{2}+55w_{3}^{2}+110w_{4}^{2}+330w_{5}^{2}+660(w_{6}^{2}+w_{7}^{2}+w_{8}^{2}+w_{9}^{2}+w_{10}^{2}),
\end{equation*}
\begin{align*}
0&=45w_{2}^{2}+5w_{3}^{2}+20w_{4}^{2}-540w_{5}^{2}+720w_{6}^{2}-720w_{10}^{2}-288w_{1}w_{5}+30w_{2}w_{3}\\ &\ \ \ \-120w_{2}w_{4}-72w_{2}w_{5} +200w_{3}w_{4}-360w_{3}w_{5}+360w_{4}w_{5}+1440w_{6}w_{7}\\ &\ \ \ \-1440w_{6}w_{8}+1440w_{7}w_{8}-1440w_{7}w_{9} +1440w_{8}w_{9}-1440w_{8}w_{10}+2880w_{9}w_{10},
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
0&=45w_{2}^{2}-35w_{3}^{2}-80w_{4}^{2}+720w_{9}^{2}-720w_{10}^{2}-144w_{1}w_{4}-144w_{1}w_{5} \\ &\ \ \ \ +150w_{2}w_{3}-96w_{2}w_{4} -216w_{2}w_{5}+160w_{3}w_{4}+120w_{3}w_{5}+240w_{4}w_{5}\\ &\ \ \ \ +2880w_{6}w_{7}-1440w_{6}w_{9}+1440w_{7}w_{8} -1440w_{7}w_{10}+1440w_{8}w_{9}\\ &\ \ \ \ +1440w_{8}w_{10}+1440w_{9}w_{10},
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
0&=45w_{2}^{2}+5w_{3}^{2}+20w_{4}^{2}-540w_{5}^{2}+720w_{7}^{2}-720w_{10}^{2}-96w_{1}w_{3}-48w_{1}w_{4}\\ &\ \ \ \-144w_{1}w_{5}+126w_{2}w_{3} +108w_{2}w_{4}-360w_{2}w_{5}+20w_{3}w_{4}-60w_{3}w_{5}\\ &\ \ \ \ +600w_{4}w_{5}+1440w_{6}w_{7}+1440w_{6}w_{8} -1440w_{6}w_{10} +1440w_{7}w_{8}\\ &\ \ \ \ +1440w_{7}w_{10}+1440w_{9}w_{10}+2880w_{8}w_{9},
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
0&=27w_{2}^{2}+35w_{3}^{2}-40w_{4}^{2}-360w_{5}^{2}+720w_{8}^{2}-720w_{10}^{2}-72w_{1}w_{2}-24w_{1}w_{3}\\ &\ \ \ \ -48w_{1}w_{4}-144w_{1}w_{5} +114w_{2}w_{3}+48w_{2}w_{4}+144w_{2}w_{5}+320w_{3}w_{4} \\ &\ \ \ \ +1440w_{6}w_{7}+1440w_{6}w_{9}+1440w_{6}w_{10} +2880w_{7}w_{8}+1440w_{7}w_{9}\\ &\ \ \ \ +1440w_{8}w_{9}+1440w_{9}w_{10},
\end{align*}
\begin{equation*}
w_{3}+2w_{4}+2w_{5}\equiv 0\pmod {11},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
w_{2}-w_{4}+3w_{5}\equiv 0\pmod {11}.
\end{equation*}
In terms of the solutions of above Diophantine euations, they gave the complete formulae for cyclotomic numbers of order $11$. Further, determination of
cyclotomic problem is somewhat incomplete, when they finding the solutions of above mentioned Diophantine systems using Jacibsthal-Whiteman sums.
The cycloyomic problems for $e=12$ was considered by Dickson \cite{Dickson1} and he showed that cyclotomic constants $(a,b)_{12}$ depend solely upon the
decomposition $p=x^{2}+4y^{2}$ and $p=A^{2}+3B^{2}$ of the prime $p=12k+1$, where $x\equiv 1 \pmod 4$ and $A\equiv 1 \pmod 6$. But his analysis depends
upon elaborate computations and is not entirely definitive. For settlement of signs of ambiguity for case $e=12$, he considered lots of small cases, viz.
$2$ be a cubic residue of $p$, $3$ be a biquadratic residue and non-residue of $p$. For odd case, again he considered $2m\equiv 2 \pmod {12}$ and
$2m\equiv 10 \pmod {12}$. For even case $2m\equiv 8 \pmod {12}$ and $2m\equiv 4 \pmod {12}$. Later, the same case was considered by Whiteman
\cite{Whiteman4} in a different direction. To evaluate the complete solution of cyclotomic constants, he divided the prime into $12$ different classes
and obtained formulae holding for different classes.
The study of cyclotomic numbers of order $14$ started by Dickson \cite{Dickson2} in $1935$. Dickson proved that it is possible to represent the cyclotomic
numbers $(a,b)_{14}$ as a linear combination of the $B_{e}(i,v)$, if $e$ is an odd prime or twice of an odd prime. Dickson's result that, given the septic
character of $2$, the $B_{14}(i,v)$ can be given as a linear combination of the $B_{7}(i,v)$ is then employed to express the $(a,b)_{14}$ in terms of the
$B_{7}(i,v)$. Muskat \cite{Muskat2} determined the cyclotomic numbers $(a,b)_{14}$ explicitly in terms of the $B_{e}(i,v)$ where $e$ is twice of an odd
prime and the transformation is due to the Whiteman \cite{Whiteman3}.
The study of cyclotomic numbers of order $15$ was began by Dickson \cite{Dickson3} in $1935$ and completed by Muskat \cite{Muskat1} in $1968$. But Dickson
calculation have a sign of ambiguity. Muskat \cite{Muskat1} resolve the sign of ambiguity. In $1986$, Frisen, Muskat, Spearman and Williams \cite{Friesen1}
considered the same case by setup $q=p^{2}\equiv 1\pmod {15}$. They showed that as $p\equiv 4\pmod {15}$, $28$ different cyclotomic numbers were evaluated
by
\begin{align*}
p&=A^{2}-AB+B^{2},\ \ A\equiv-1 \pmod 3,\ \ B\equiv 0 \pmod 3,\\
p& = T^{2}+15U^{2},\ \ T\equiv-1 \pmod 3,
\end{align*}
and $p\equiv 11\pmod {15}$, $29$ different cyclotomic numbers were evaluated by
\begin{align*}
p&=X^{2}+5U^{2}+5V^{2}+5W^{2},\ \ X\equiv-1 \pmod 5,\\
XW&= V^{2}-UV-U^{2}.
\end{align*}
In \cite{Buck1}, Buck, Smith, Spearman and Williams used Dickson and Muskat evaluations of the Jacobi sums of order $15$ to obtain the values of the
Dickson-Hurwitz $B_{15}(i,v)$ of order $15$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
B_{15}(i,v)=\sum_{h=0}^{14}(h,i-vh)_{15}.
\end{equation*}
Further they use a special case of a theorem of Friesen, Muskat, Spearman and Williams \cite{Friesen1} is used to express each cyclotomic number in
terms of the Dickson-Hurwitz sums and then using the values for the Dickson-Hurwitz sum, they derived an explicit formulae for the cyclotomic numbers of
order $15$. Each cyclotomic numbers of order $15$ can be expressed as an integral linear combination of the integers
$p,$ $1,$ $a,$ $b,$ $c,$ $d,$ $x,$ $u,$ $v,$ $w,$ $b_{0}$ $b_{1}$ $b_{2}$ $b_{3}$ $b_{4}$ $b_{5}$ $b_{6}$ $b_{7}$. The integers
$a,$ $b,$ $ c,$ $d,$ $x,$ $u,$ $v,$ $w$ have the following properties:
\begin{align*}
p=a^{2}+3b^{2}, \ \ \ \ a\equiv -1\pmod 3,\\
p=c^{2}+15d^{2}, \ \ \ \ c\equiv -1\pmod 3,\\
p=x^{2}+5u^{2}+5v^{2}+5w^{2},\\
xw=v^{2}-uv-u^{2}, \ \ \ \ x\equiv -1\pmod 5.
\end{align*}
E. Lehmar \cite{Lehmer2} raised the question whether or not constants $\alpha,\ \beta, \ \gamma,\ \delta, \ \epsilon$ can be found such that
\begin{equation}\label{lehmer1.1}
265(a,b)_{16}=p+\alpha x+\beta y+\gamma a+\delta b+\epsilon,
\end{equation}
at least for some $(a,b)_{16}$ after written the article \cite{Lehmer1}. To answer this question, she undertook
the following experiment on the SWAC (National Bureau of Standards Western Automatic Computer). The cyclotomic constants of order sixteen were computed
for eight primes $p$ of the form $32n+1$ for which $2$ is not a biquadratic residue. She found that (\ref{lehmer1.1}) is not satisfied for any
$(a,b)_{16}$ when the signs of $y$ and $b$ are taken in accordance with the results on cyclotomic constants of order eight. The calculations exhibited
eight solutions, while the formula gave only six. A similar computation for primes $p$ of the form $32n+17$ also led to a negative result. She
regretfully conclude that the cyclotomic constants of order sixteen are not expressible in terms of these \cite{Dickson3} quadratic partitions alone.
The SWAC experiment leaves open the question of determining if the equation (\ref{lehmer1.1}) can be satisfied for any prime $p$ for which $2$ is a
biquadratic residue. In \cite{Whiteman5}, Whitwman gave formulae for cyclotomic constants of order sixteen in affirmative for six of the cyclotomic
constants in terms of parameters of quartic, octic and bioctic Jacobi sums. He further gave a table of formulas for $(a,0)_{16}$. The following formulas
involving only $p,\ a$ and $x$ are derived. Let $p=16k+1$ be a prime. If the integer $m$ is defined by the congruence $\gamma^{m}\equiv 2\pmod p$, then
\begin{align*}
256(0,0)_{16}&=p-47-18x\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (k \ even, m\equiv 4\pmod 8),\\
256(8,0)_{16}&=p-15-18x-32a\ \ \ (k \ even, m\equiv 4\pmod 8),\\
256(4,8)_{16}&=p+1-2x\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (k \ even, m\equiv 0\pmod 8),\\
256(0,0)_{16}&=p-31-18x-16a\ \ \ (k \ odd, m\equiv 0\ \ \pmod 8),\\
256(0,8)_{16}&=p+1-18x-48a\ \ \ \ \ (k \ odd, m\equiv 0\ \ \pmod 8),\\
256(4,0)_{16}&=p-15-2x+16a\ \ \ \ \ (k \ odd, m\equiv 4\ \ \pmod 8),
\end{align*}
where the signs of $a$ and $x$ are selected so that $a\equiv x\equiv 1\pmod 4$. In other cases it is shown that the cyclotomic constants $(a,b)_{16}$
are such that $256(a,b)_{16}$ is expressible as a linear combination with integer coefficients of $p,$ $a,$ $b,$ $x,$ $y$ and certain other integers
$c_{0},$ $c_{1},$ $c_{2},$ $c_{3},$ $d_{0},$ $d_{1},$ $d_{2},$ $d_{3},$ $d_{4},$ $d_{5},$ $d_{6},$ $d_{7}$. Evans and Hill \cite{Evans3} gave complete
table for cyclotomic numbers of order sixteen. The computations were performed on the Burroughs $6700$ at UCSD, with use of algorithms described
in \cite{Whiteman5}. It is not possible to accomplish sign resolutions with the use of formulas from Whiteman's, so it has been utilized \cite{Evans2}
to gave elementary resolutions of sign ambiguities in quartic and octic Jacobi and Jacobsthal sums, in certain cases. This is what motivated the worked
of Evans and Hill \cite{Evans3}.
Dickson \cite{Dickson3} gave relation to determine the cyclotomic numbers of order $18$. But he did not provide a complete table for cyclotomic numbers
of order $18$. Baumert and Fredricksen \cite{Baumert1} considered the case of cyclotomic numbers of order $18$ again. They splitting the solution into
cases and introducing the parameters $B=Ind\ 2$ and $T=Ind\ 3$. Introduced parameters reduced actual parameters to
$p,\ L,\ M,\ c_{0},\ c_{1},\ c_{2},\ c_{3},\ c_{4},\ c_{5}$ as appeared in the determination of the cyclotomic numbers of order $9$.
They gave complete listing of all cyclotomic numbers of order $18$ ($k$ odd and $k$ even) in an unpublished mathematical tables file of Mathematics
of Computation. Further, by the use of cyclotomic formulas given in Table $5$ and $6$, they proved theorem \ref{thm5.2} as an application to difference
sets.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm5.2}
The only residue difference set or modified residue difference set which exists for $e=18$ is the trivial $19-1-0$ difference set.
\end{theorem}
In \cite{Dickson3}, Dickson gave a sketchy discussions for cyclotomic numbers of order $e=20$. He did not gave the exact formulae for cyclotomic numbers
of order twenty. In $1970$, Muskat and Whiteman \cite{Muskat3} gave the complete formulae for cyclotomic numbers of order $e=20$. They obtained the
cyclotomic numbers of order $20$ by the values of the appropriate cyclotomic numbers of order two and four and Jacobi sums of order $5,\ 10$ and $20$.
In \cite{Dickson2}, Dickson completely analyzed the Jacobi sums of order double of a prime. By using those relation, he gave complete determination of
cyclotomic numbers of order double of an odd prime. Further, in the same paper he gave the general theory for diophantine equations when $e$ be an odd
prime.
In $1982$, PAR \cite{Parnami2} considered the general $e$ cases; $e$ be an odd prime, $q=p^{r}$, $p\equiv 1\pmod e$. They indicate a general method for
solving the cyclotomic problem over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$. They calculated the cyclotomic numbers upto $e\leq 19$, onwards the class number of
$\mathbb{Q}(2 \pi i/e)>1$. They considered the Diophantine systems (slightly different formulation)
\begin{equation*}
q=\sum_{i=0}^{e-1}a_{i}^{2}\sum_{i=0}^{e-1}a_{i}a_{i+1},\ (i.e.,\ 2q=(a_{0}-a_{1})^{2}+(a_{1}-a_{2})^{2}+...+(a_{e-1}-a_{0})^{2}),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=0}^{e-1}a_{i}a_{i+1}=\sum_{i=0}^{e-1}a_{i}a_{i+2}=...=\sum_{i=0}^{e-1}a_{i}a_{i+(e-1)/2},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
1+a_{0}+a_{1}+...+a_{e-1}\equiv 0\pmod e,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
a_{1}+2a_{2}+3a_{3}+...+(e-1)a_{e-1}\equiv 0\pmod e,
\end{equation*}
which generalizes the diophantine systems of Gauss-Dickson and Leonard-Williams. Moreover they gave a rejection condition
\begin{equation*}
p\nmid \prod_{\lambda ((n+1)a)>a} H^{\sigma_{a}},
\end{equation*}
which fixes certain Jacobi sums upto conjugate. They gave full details of the transformation (for $r=1$) connecting above mentioned diophantine equation
with the classical ones for $l=3,\ 5$, but they did not connect the cases for $e>5$ because the rejection condition was too complicated. They again did
not resolve the signs of ambiguity of Gauss and Dickson type.
Further in $1985$, Katre and Rajwade \cite{Katre3} solved the cyclotomic problem for any prime $e$ in $\mathbb{F}_{q}$, $q=p^{r}$, $p\equiv 1\pmod e$.
For solving the cyclotomic problem, they added a new condition to Parnami, Agrawal and Rajwade \cite{Parnami2} diophantine systems, i.e.
$p|\overline{H}\prod_{\lambda((n+1)a)>a}(b-\zeta_{l}^{\sigma_{a^{-1}}})$, where $a^{-1}$ was taken mod $l$, $l$ be an odd prime and $(a,l)=1$.
For cyclotomic numbers of order $2$ in $\mathbb{F}_{q}$, they told that one can determined the cyclotomic numbers by
$(0,0)_{2}=(q-5)/4$, $(0,1)_{2}=(1,0)_{2}=(1,1)_{2}=(q-1)/4$ if $q\equiv 1\pmod 4$, $(0,0)_{2}=(1,0)_{2}=(1,1)_{2}=(q-3)/4$, $(0,1)_{2}=(q+1)/4$ if
$q\equiv 3\pmod 4$. The problem arises in Parnami, Agrawal and Rajwade \cite{Parnami2} to connect the Jacobi sums and $e^{th}$ root of unity,
they considered $\gamma^{(q-1)/e}\equiv 1\pmod e$ gave the proper connection between the Jacobi sums and the $e^{th}$ root of unity mod $p$.
Additional condition in Katre and Rajwade \cite{Katre3} also resolve the sign of ambiguity arise in Parnami, Agrawal and Rajwade \cite{Parnami2}.
For $l$ an odd prime, Acharya and Katre \cite{Acharya1} determined the cyclotomic numbers of order $2l$ over the field $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ for $q=p^{r}$
with the prime $p\equiv 1 \pmod {2l}$ in terms of the solutions of the diophantine systems considered for the $l$ case except that the proper choice of
the solutions for the $2l$ case was made by additional conditions $(iv^{\prime})$, $(v^{\prime})$, $(vi^{\prime})$ which replace the conditions $(iv)$,
$(v)$, $(vi)$ used in the $l$ case. These additional conditions determine required unique solutions thereby also giving arithmetic characterization of
the relevant Jacobi sums and then the cyclotomic numbers of order $2l$ are determined unambiguously by the following theorem. In the same, they also
showed how the cyclotomic numbers of order $l$ and $2l$ can be treated simultaneously.
\begin{theorem}\cite{Acharya1}
Let $p$ and $l$ be odd rational primes, $p\equiv 1 \pmod l$ (thus $p\equiv 1 \pmod {2l}$ also), $q=p^{r}$, $r\geq 1$. Let $q=2lk+1$. Let $\zeta_{l}$
and $\zeta_{2l}$ be fixed primitive $l-th$ and $2l-th$ roots of unity respectively. Let $\zeta_{l}$ and $\zeta_{2l}$ be related by
$\zeta_{l}=\zeta_{2l}^{2}$, i.e. $\zeta_{2l}=-\zeta_{l}^{(l+1)/2}$. Let $\gamma$ be a generator of $\mathbb{F}_{q}^{*}$. Let $b$ be a rational integer
such that $b=\gamma^{(q-1)/l}$ in $\mathbb{F}_{p}$. Let $m=ind_{\gamma}2$. Let $J_{l}(i,j)$ and $J_{2l}(i,j)$ denote the Jacobi sums in
$\mathbb{F}_{q}$ of order $l$ and $2l$ (respectively)related to $\zeta_{l}$ and $\zeta_{2l}$ (respectively). For $(m,l)=1$, let $\sigma_{m}$ denote
the automorphism $\zeta_{l}\mapsto \zeta_{l}^{m}$ of $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_{l})$. For $(m,2l)=1$, let $\tau_{m}$ denote the automorphism
$\zeta_{2l}\mapsto \zeta_{2l}^{m}$ of $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_{l})$. Thus if $m$ is odd then $\sigma_{m}=\tau_{m}$ and if $m$ is even then
$\sigma_{m}=\tau_{m+l}$. Let $\lambda(r)$ and $\varLambda(r)$ denote the least non-negative residues of $r$ modulo $l$ and $2l$ (resp.).
Let $a_{0}$, $a_{1}$, $\dots$, $a_{l-1}\in \mathbb{Z}$ and let $H=\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}a_{i}\zeta_{l}^{i}$. Consider the arithmetic conditions
(or diophantine system)\\
$(i)\ \ q=\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}a_{i}^{2}\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}a_{i}a_{i+1},$\\
$(ii)\ \ \sum_{i=0}^{l-1}a_{i}a_{i+1}=\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}a_{i}a_{i+2}=...=\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}a_{i}a_{i+(e-1)/2},
$\\ $
(iii)\ \ 1+a_{0}+a_{1}+...+a_{e-1}\equiv 0\pmod l.$ \\
Let $1\leq n \leq l-2$. If $a_{0}$, $a_{1}$, $\dots$, $a_{l-1}$ satisfy $(i)-(iii)$ together with the additional conditions\\
$(iv)\ \ a_{1}+2a_{2}+3a_{3}+...+(l-1)a_{l-1}\equiv 0\pmod l,$
\\
$(v)\ \ p\nmid \prod_{\lambda ((n+1)m)>m} H^{\sigma_{m}},$
\\
$(vi)\ \ p|\overline{H}\prod_{\lambda((n+1)m)>m}(b-\zeta_{l}^{\sigma_{m^{-1}}})$, where $m^{-1}$ was taken $\pmod l$, \\
then $H=J_{l}(1,n)$ for this $\gamma$ and conversely.
\\
Let $1\leq n \leq 2l-3$ be an odd integer. If $a_{0}$, $a_{1}$, $\dots$, $a_{l-1}$ satisfy $(i)-(iii)$ together with the additional conditions\\
$(iv)^{\prime}\ \ a_{1}+2a_{2}+3a_{3}+...+(l-1)a_{l-1}\equiv u(n+1)\pmod l,$
\\
$(v)^{\prime}\ \ p\nmid \prod_{\varLambda ((n+1)m)>m} H^{\tau_{m}},$
\\
$(vi)^{\prime}\ \ p|\overline{H}\prod_{\varLambda((n+1)m)>m}(b-\zeta_{l}^{\tau_{m^{-1}}})$, where $m^{-1}$ was taken $\pmod {2l}$, \\
then $H=J_{2l}(1,n)$ for this $\gamma$ and conversely.\\
(In $(v)^{\prime}$ and $(vi)^{\prime}$, $m$ varies over only those values which satisfy $1\leq m \leq 2l-1$ and $(m,2l)=1$.)
Moreover, for $1\leq n \leq l-2$ if $a_{0}$, $a_{1}$, $\dots$, $a_{l-1}$ satisfy the conditions $(i)-(vi)$ and if we fix $a_{0}=0$ at the outset and
write the $a_{i}$ corresponding to a given $n$ as $a_{i}(n)$ then we have $J_{l}(1,n)=\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}a_{i}(n)\zeta_{l}^{i}$ and the cyclotomic numbers
of order $l$ are given by:\\
$l^{2}(i,j)_{l}=q-3l+1+\varepsilon(i)+\varepsilon(j)+\varepsilon(i-j)+l\sum_{n=1}^{l-2}a_{in+j}(n)-\sum_{n=1}^{l-2}\sum_{k=1}^{l-1}a_{k}(n)$ \\
where
\begin{center}
$\varepsilon(i)= \begin{cases}
0 \hspace*{8mm} \text{if } l|i,\\
l \hspace*{8mm} otherwise,
\end{cases}$
\end{center}
and the subscripts in $a_{in+j}(n)$ are considered modulo $l$.
Similarly, for $n$ odd, $1\leq n \leq 2l-3$, if $a_{0}$, $a_{1}$, $\dots$, $a_{l-1}$ satisfy the conditions $(i)-(iii)$ and $(iv)^{\prime}-(vi)^{\prime}$
and if we fix $a_{0}=0$ at the outset and write the $a_{i}$ corresponding to a given $n$ as $b_{i}(n)$ then we have
$J_{2l}(1,n)=\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}b_{i}(n)\zeta_{l}^{i}$ and the $4l^{2}$ cyclotomic numbers $(i,j)_{2l}$ are given by:\\
\begin{align*}
&4l^{2}(i,j)_{2l} = q-3l+1+\varepsilon(i)+\varepsilon(j)+\varepsilon(i-j)+l\sum_{n=1}^{l-2}a_{in+j}(n)-\sum_{n=1}^{l-2}\sum_{k=1}^{l-1}a_{k}(n) \\ & -\{(-1)^{j}+(-1)^{i+k}+(-1)^{i+j}\} \{l+\sum_{k=0}^{l-1}b_{k}(l) +\sum_{u=0}^{l-2}\sum_{k=0}^{l-1}b_{k}(2u+1)\}\\
&+(-1)^{j}l\{b_{\nu(-i)}(l) +\sum_{u=0}^{l-1}b_{\nu(j-2iu-2i)}(2u+1)\}+(-1)^{i+j}l\{b_{\nu(j)}(l) \\
& +\sum_{u=0}^{l-1}b_{\nu(i+2ju+j)}(2u+1)\}+(-1)^{i+k}l\{b_{\nu(-j)}(l) +\sum_{u=0}^{l-1}b_{\nu(i-2ju-2j)}(2u+1)\},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{center}
$\nu(j)= \begin{cases}
\varLambda(j)/2 \hspace*{8mm} \text{if } j \text{ is even},\\
\varLambda(j+l)/2 \hspace*{2mm} \text{if } j \text{ is odd},
\end{cases}$
\end{center}
and $\varLambda(r)$ is defined as the least non-negative residue of $r$ modulo $2l$.
\end{theorem}
For $q \equiv 1 \pmod l$, but $p$ does not necessary $\equiv 1 \pmod l$. Let $r$ be the least positive integer such that $q=p^{r}\equiv 1 \pmod l$. In
the case when $r$ is even, Anuradha and Katre \cite{Anuradha1} obtained the Jacobi sums and cyclotomic numbers of order $l$ and $2l$ just in terms of $q$.
For $e=l,\ 2l$ and when $r$ is odd, the cyclotomic problem was treated by Anuradha \cite{Anuradha2} in her Ph.D. thesis, and thus the problem for the order
$e$ is settled for all $q \equiv 1 \pmod e$, for $e=l,\ 2l$. Again, for such primes, Shirolkar and Katre \cite{Shirolkar1} obtained formulae for cyclotomic
numbers of order $l^{2}$ in terms of the coefficients of Jacobi sums of orders $l$ and $l^{2}$.
In the same line, recently, Ahmed, Tanti and Hoque \cite{Helal1} (the paper is posted in Arxiv and is under the process of publication) determine an
expression for determination of cyclotomic numbers of order $2l^{2}$ in
terms of the coefficient of Jacobi sums of order $l$, $2l$, $l^{2}$ and $2l^{2}$.
\section{Concluding remarks}
Recently, Ahmed, Tanti, Chakraborty and Pusph \cite{Helal2} (The paper is under the process of publication) gave fast computational algorithm to obtain
all the cyclotomic numbers of order $2l^{2}$.
They also introduce a new idea to construct matrix of cyclotomic numbers i.e. cyclotomic matrix. Initially, in \cite{Helal2} we have showed that for
$l=3$, it is enough to calculate $64$ distinct cyclotomic numbers of order $2l^2$ and for $l\neq 3$, it is sufficient to calculate $2l^2+{(2l^2-1)(2l^2-2)}/6$
distinct cyclotomic numbers of order $2l^2$. For showing this, they developed an algorithm for equality of cyclotomic numbers. Further, they employ
those matrices of order $2l^{2}$ and developed a public key cryptosystem. Earlier, K. H. Leung, S. L. Ma and B. Schmidt \cite{Leung1} constructed
Hadamard matrices of order $4p^{2}$ obtained from Jacobi sums of order $16$ and they proved the following result.
\begin{theorem} \cite{Leung1}
Let $p \equiv 7 \pmod {16}$ be a prime. Then there are integers $a$, $b$, $c$, $d$ with
\begin{equation*}
a \equiv 15 \pmod {16},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
b \equiv 0 \pmod 4,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
q^{2}= a^{2}+2(b^{2}+c^{2}+d^{2}),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
2ab = c^{2}-2cd-d^{2}.
\end{equation*}
If
\begin{equation*}
q= a \pm 2b \ \ or
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
q= a+\delta_{1}b+4\delta_{2}c+4\delta_{1}\delta_{2}4d \ \ with \ \ \delta_{i}=\pm 1,
\end{equation*}
then there is a regular Hadamard matrix of order $4q^{2}$.
\end{theorem}
Betsumiya, Hirasaka, Komatsu and Munemasa \cite{Betsumiya1} gave upper bounds for cyclotomic numbers of order $e$ over a finite field with $q$ elements, where $e$ is a positive divisor of $q-1$. In particular, they showed that under certain assumptions, cyclotomic numbers are at most $\Big \lceil \frac{k}{2}\Big \rceil$, and the cyclotomic number $(0,0)_{e}$ is at most $\Big \lceil \frac{k}{2}\Big \rceil-1$, where $k=(q-1)/e$. They proved the following:
\begin{theorem}\cite{Betsumiya1}
Let $q$ be a power of an odd prime $p$ and $k$ a positive divisor of $q-1$. Then we have the following:\\
(i) $(a,b)_{e}\leq \Big \lceil \frac{k}{2}\Big \rceil$ for all $a,b$ with $0\leq a,b < e$ if $p>\frac{3k}{2}-1$;\\
(ii) $(a,b)_{e}\leq \Big \lceil \frac{k}{2}\Big \rceil-1$ for each $a$ with $0\leq a < e$ if $k$ is odd and $p>\frac{3k}{2}$;\\
(iii) $(0,0)_{e}\leq \Big \lceil \frac{k}{2}\Big \rceil-1$ if $p>\frac{3k}{2}$;\\
(iv) $(0,0)_{e}=2$ if $p$ is sufficiently large compared to $k$ and $6|k$;\\
(v) $(0,0)_{e}=0$ if $p$ is sufficiently large compared to $k$ and $6\nmid k$.
\end{theorem}
P. van Wamelen \cite{Wamelen1} has characterized the Jacobi sums of order $e$ corresponding to any given generator $\gamma$ of $\mathbb{F}_{q}^{*}$. So far this is the most satisfactory solution of the problem, as it takes up the case when $e$ is any integer $\geq 3$ and $q$ is any prime power for which $q \equiv 1 \pmod e$ and he proved:
\begin{theorem} \cite{Wamelen1}
Let $e\geq 3$, $p$ a prime, $q=p^{r}\equiv 1 \pmod e$. Let $q=ef+1$. Let $g_{m}=gcd(e,m)$, $g_{n}=gcd(e,n)$, $g=gcd(e,m+n)$, $g_{0}= gcd(g_{m},g_{n})$. Let $\epsilon_{g}(k)=1$ if $g|k$, and $0$ if $g\nmid k$. There is a unique polynomial $H\in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ such that $H(x)=a_{0}+a_{1}x+a_{2}x^{2}+\dots+a_{e-1}x^{e-1}$ and the coefficients satisfy the following three conditions:
\\
1. (a)
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=0}^{e-1}a_{j}^{2}=q+g_{0}ef^{2}-f(g_{m}+g_{n}+g).
\end{equation*}
(b) For $k=1,2,\dots,e-1$
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=0}^{e-1}a_{j}a_{j-k}=\epsilon_{g_{0}}(k)g_{0}ef^{2}-\epsilon_{g_{m}}(k)fg_{m}-\epsilon_{g_{n}}(k)fg_{n}-\epsilon_{g}(k)fg
\end{equation*}
where we consider the subscripts of the $a$'s modulo $e$. \\
2.
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{k=0}^{e-1}ka_{k}\equiv \begin{cases}
0 \pmod e \hspace*{31mm} \text{if } e \text{ is odd},\\
(q-1)/2(g_{m}+g_{n}) \pmod e \hspace*{2mm} \text{if } e \text{ is even}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
3. For every $d$ dividing $e$ let $B_{d}\in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ be such that its reduction modulo $p$ is the minimal polynomial of $\gamma^{(q-1)/d}$ over $\mathbb{F}_{p}$ and $\prod_{k\in D_{d}}B_{d}(\zeta_{d}^{k})$ is not divisible by $p^{2}$ in $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_{d}]$. Then $H(\zeta_{d})$ must satisfy the following conditions:\\
(a) if none of $m$, $n$ and $m+n$ are divisible by $d$,
\begin{equation*}
q|H(\zeta_{d})\prod_{k\in D_{d}}B_{d}(\zeta_{d}^{k^{-1}})^{(s_{d,q}(mk)+s_{d,q}(nk)-s_{d,q}(mk+nk))/(p-1)},
\end{equation*}
where $k^{-1}$ is taken modulo $d$.\\
(b) if $m \equiv -n \not \equiv 0 \pmod d$
\begin{equation*}
H(\zeta_{d})=-\chi_{d}^{m}(-1),
\end{equation*}
(c) if exactly one of $m$ and $n$ are divisible by $d$
\begin{equation*}
H(\zeta_{d})=-1,
\end{equation*}
(d) if both $m$ and $n$ are divisible by $d$
\begin{equation*}
H(\zeta_{d})=q-2.
\end{equation*}
If $H$ is the unique polynomial satisfying these three conditions, then
\begin{equation*}
H(\zeta_{d})=J(\chi^{m},\chi^{n}).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\noindent
The authors acknowledge Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Jharkhand for providing necessary and excellent facilities to carry out this research.
M H Ahmed would like to thank K. Chakraborty and A. Hoque for their kind invitation and hospitality at Harish-Chandra Research Institute, where this paper
was finalized.
|
\section{Introduction}
Computer simulated environments, and particularly games, have played a central role in advancing artificial intelligence (AI). From the early days of machines playing checkers to Deep Blue, and to the most recent accomplishments of Atari bots, AlphaGo, OpenAI Dota 2 bots, and AlphaStar, artificial game agents have achieved superhuman level performance even in the most complex games. This progress is mainly due to a combination of advancements in deep learning, tree search, and reinforcement learning (RL) techniques in the past decade.
\cite{samuel-checkers} used a form of heuristic search combined with RL ideas to solve checkers.
IBM Deep Blue followed the tree search path and was the first artificial game agent who beat the chess world champion, Gary Kasparov~\cite{deep-blue}.
A decade later, Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)~\cite{MCTS,UCT} was a big leap in AI to train game agents.
MCTS agents for playing Settlers of Catan were reported in~\cite{settlersszita2009monte,settlerschaslot2008monte} and shown to beat previous heuristics. \cite{Carcassonneheyden2009implementing} compares multiple approaches of agents to one another in the game Carcassonne on the two-player variant of the game and discusses variations of MCTS and Minimax search for playing the game. MCTS has also been applied to the game of 7 Wonders~\cite{7wonders} and Ticket to Ride~\cite{MCTSTicketToRide}.
\cite{TDGammon}, on the other hand, used TD-Lambda which is a temporal difference RL algorithm to train Backgammon agents at a superhuman level. More recently, deep Q networks (DQNs) have emerged as a general representation learning framework from the pixels in a frame buffer combined with Q-Learning with function approximation without need for task-specific feature engineering~\cite{DQN}.\footnote{While the original DQNs worked with pixels as state space, the same idea could be applied to other cases by changing the network structure appropriately.}
The impressive recent progress on RL to solve video games partly owes to the recent abundance of processing power and AI computing technology.\footnote{The amount of AI compute has been doubling every 3-4 months in the past few years~\cite{openai-compute}.}
DeepMind researchers remarried the two approaches by demonstrating that neural networks and their generalization properties could significantly speed up and scale MCTS. This led to AI agents that play Go at a superhuman level~\cite{alpha-go}, and solely via self-play~\cite{alpha-go-zero,alpha-zero}.
Subsequently, OpenAI researchers showed that a policy optimization approach with function approximation, called Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO)~\cite{PPO}, would lead to training agents at a superhuman level in Dota 2~\cite{openai-dota2}. The most recent progress was reported by DeepMind on StarCraft II, where AlphaStar was unveiled to play the game at a superhuman level by combining a variety of techniques including the use of attention networks~\cite{AlphaStar}.
Despite the tremendous success stories of deep RL at solving games, we believe that winning isn't everything.
We consider the alternative problem of training human-like and believable agents that would make the video game engaging and fun for the human players.
As video games have evolved, so have the game graphics and the gameplaying AI, also referred to as game AI.
Considering games with a limited state-action space, such as Atari games, the human-likeness and believability of AI agents would be non-issues.
Today, we have reached a point where game worlds look very realistic calling for more intelligent and realistic gameplaying agents.
While the traditional game AI solutions are already providing excellent experiences for players, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to scale those handcrafted solutions up as the game worlds are becoming larger, the content is becoming more dynamic, and the number of interacting agents is increasing. This calls for alternative approaches to train human-like and believable game AI.
We build on a variety of planning methods and machine learning techniques (including the state-of-the-art deep RL) and move away from the recent trends at training superhuman agents in solving the game AI problem~\cite{winning-isnt-everything}.
In this paper, we describe a work-in-progress hierarchical solution to a team sports video game. At a low level, the agents need to take actions that are believable and human-like whereas at a high level the agents should appear to be following a ``game plan''. While imitation learning seems apt for solving the low level problem, we propose to rely on reinforcement learning and planning to solve the high-level game strategic plan.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:setup}, we provide the basic problem setup. In Section~\ref{sec:techniques}, we describe the solution techniques used to solve the problem. In Section~\ref{sec:MARL}, we provide a more in-depth presentation of the reinforcement learning techniques used for achieving multi-agent strategic gameplay. Finally, concluding remarks are presented in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Problem Setup \& Related Work}
\label{sec:setup}
In this paper, we study a team sports video game, where the designer's goal is to train agents that exhibit strategic teamplay with a high skill level while the agents play like human players.
Hence, the solution would entail a variety of techniques, which will be discussed in more detail in this section.
\subsection{Multi-agent learning}
Our problem naturally lends itself to the multi-agent learning (MAL) framework.
In such a framework, iteratively optimizing for a policy could suffer from non-convergence due to the breakdown of the stationarity of the decision process and partial observability of the state space~\cite{littman94,MAL-hard}. This is because the environment for each of the agents would change whenever any other agent updates their policy, and hence independent reinforcement learning agents do not work well in practice \cite{independent-RL}.
More recently, \cite{mordatch17} proposed an actor-critic algorithm with a centralized critic during training and a decentralized actor at training and inference.
\cite{cooperative-MAL} compare policy gradient, temporal-difference
error, and actor-critic methods on cooperative deep multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL).
See~\cite{MAL-survey,DRL-survey} for recent surveys on MAL and deep MARL advancements.
We emphasize that our problem is fundamentally simpler than the MAL framework. In contrast to the robotics problems where each agent would need to execute their own decentralized policy, in a video game all agents could be trained centrally and executed centrally as well on a single CPU. However, in the centralized treatment of the problem, in addition to the action space growing exponentially with the number of agents in the field, the chance of randomly executing a strategic play is very low, which requires collecting a huge number of state-action pairs for the agent to be able to learn such strategies if they start from random gameplay.
We will discuss some of these challenges in Section~\ref{sec:MARL}.
\subsection{Learning from demonstrations}
To ensure human-like behavior, we use human demonstrations in the training loop.
There are three general ways of using the demonstrations to train agents. Inverse reinforcement learning (IRL)
\cite{IRL, apprecnticeship-learning} would infer reward functions that promote the observed behavior in demonstrations, which can then be used in model-free RL. However, IRL is by nature an ill-posed inverse problem and tricky to solve, especially in a multi-agent framework. \cite{GAIL} proposed a direct approach to distilling a policy from the demonstrations using adversarial training, which has recently been extended to the multi-agent case~\cite{ma-airl}.
It is also possible to use demonstrations to guide RL.
\cite{offpolicy-RL} train off-policy RL using demonstrations.
\cite{DQN} use behavioral cloning to initialize value and policy networks that would solve Go, and \cite{AlphaStar} is built on the same thought process. \cite{demonstrations-replay, magnus} use demonstrations in the replay buffer to guide the policy to a better local optimum. \cite{RL-demonstration, deepmimic} shape the reward function to promote actions that mimic the demonstrator.
\cite{bilal-safe-RL} use demonstrations to teach the policy to avoid catastrophic events in the game of Pommerman where model-free RL fails.
\subsection{Hierarchical learning}
To manage the complexity of the posed problem (see Section~\ref{sec:techniques}), our solution involves a hierarchical approach. \cite{yisong-hierarchical} consider a hierarchical approach where the underlying low level actions are learned via RL whereas the high-level goals are picked up via IL from human demonstrations. This is in contrast to the hierarchical approach that we consider in this paper where we use IL at the low-level to achieve human-like behavior.
\cite{starcraft-hierarchy} break down the complexity of the StarCraft learning environment \cite{starcraft2} by breaking down the problem to a hierarchy of simpler learning tasks.
\cite{option-critic} apply a planning layer on top of RL where they infer the abstractions from the data as well.
Finally, \cite{feudal-RL} consider a bi-level neural network architecture where at the top level the Manager sets goals at a low
temporal resolution, and at the low level the Worker produces primitive actions conditioned on the high-level goals at a high temporal resolution.
More recently,~\cite{yisong-weak-supervision} provide a hierarchical generative model for achieving human gameplay using weak supervision.
\subsection{Human-Robot Interaction}
The human-robot interaction problem shares many similarities with the problem at hand~\cite{HRI-challenges}. However, training agents in video games is simpler in many ways. First, the agents can execute their policies centrally and there is no need for decentralized execution. Second, extracting semantic information from sensory signals such as processing images/videos and text-to-speech conversion is not needed as all of the semantic information is available from the game engine. On the other hand, many of the sample efficient learning techniques designed for training robots are applicable to training agents in team sports video games as well~\cite{HRI-imitation}.
\section{Solution Techniques}
\label{sec:techniques}
End-to-end model-free RL requires millions of state-action pairs equivalent of many years of experience for the agent to reach human-level performance.\footnote{AlphaStar is trained using the equivalent of 60,000 years of human experience.} Applying these same techniques to modern complex games for playtesting and game AI requires obtaining and processing hundreds of years of experience, which is only feasible using significant cloud infrastructure costing millions of dollars~\cite{AlphaStar,starcraft2}.
Hence, we move away from the end-to-end solutions in favor of hierarchical solutions by breaking the complex problem into a hierarchy of simpler learning tasks.
We assume multiple levels of the problem abstraction in a team sports game. At the lowest level, the agent's actions and movements should resemble that of actual human players. At the highest level, the agents should learn how to follow a (learned) high-level game plan. In the mid-level, the agents should learn to exhibit skill and to coordinate their movements with each other, e.g., to complete successful passes or to shoot toward the opponent's goal when they have a good chance of scoring.
While making RL more sample efficient is an active area of research (e.g., by curiosity-driven exploration~\cite{pathak-curiosity}),
to apply RL to modern team sport video games or any part of the problem, we would have to shape rewards that promote a certain style or human-like behavior given human demonstrations. Reward shaping in this setup is an extremely challenging problem.
Additionally, we also need to capture human-like cooperation/conflict in multi-agent strategic gameplay. These make reward shaping extremely challenging with mathematically vague objectives. Hence, we rely on imitation learning and behavior cloning (such as DAGGER~\cite{dagger}, learning from play (LFP)~\cite{LFP}, or GAIL~\cite{GAIL}) to achieve human-like low-level actions while we rely on RL to achieve high skill at the top level.
In this paper, we leave out the details of the imitation learning that has been used to train the low-level tactics and only focus on the mid-level strategic gameplay.
To achieve faster convergence, we rely on curriculum learning~\cite{curriculum-learning} in our training. We start training the agent to deal with easy situations more often and then make the environment more difficult. For example, the agent can learn to shoot when the opponent's net is undefended fairly quickly while it is harder to learn when to shoot when the opponent is actively defending the net. We also train the agent against simpler existing game AI agents first and then make the AI level harder once the agent has already learned the basics. Similar approaches are reported in~\cite{jiachen-curriculum} to achieve cooperation in simulating self-driving cars, and in~\cite{bilal-competition} to solve the game of Pommerman.
To deal with the MAL aspect of the problem, as the first step we train agents one at a time within the team, and let them blend into the overall strategic gameplay. Of course, there is little control gained from this process and shaping rewards is highly dependent on the status of the other agents in the environment
While we have not yet implemented the centralized training of multiple agents, this is the immediate problem we are tackling now. We will also have to solve the credit assignment in MARL for each individual agent's behavior~\cite{credit-assignment}. We remind the reader that the goal is to provide a viable approach to solving the problem with reasonable amount of computational resources.
Last but not least, we also move away from using the raw state space through the screen pixels.
On the contrary, we provide the agent with any additional form of information that could ease training and might otherwise be hard to infer from the screen pixels.
Our ultimate goal is to train human-like agents with believable behavior. Thus, so long as the agents would pass the Turing test we are not alarmed by the unfair extra information at their disposal while training.
Furthermore, in the game development stage,
the game itself is dynamic in the design and multiple parameters and attributes (particularly related to graphics) may change between different builds, hence it is desirable to train agents on more stable features rather than screen pixels.
\section{Strategic Gameplay via RL}
\label{sec:MARL}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.52\linewidth]{STS2-2}
\caption{A screen shot of the simple team sports simulator (STS2). The red agents are home agents attempting to score at the upper end and the white agents are away agents attempting to score the lower end. The highlighted player has the possession of the ball.}\label{fig:STS2}
\end{figure}
Our training takes place on a mid-level simulator, which we call simple team sports simulator (STS2).\footnote{We intend to release the STS2 gameplay environment as an open-source package.} A screenshot of STS2 gameplay is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:STS2}. The simulator embeds the rules of the game and the physics at a high level abstracting away the low-level tactics. The simulator supports $k$v$k$ matches for any positive integer $k$. The two teams are shown as {\em red} (home) and {\em white} (away). Each of the players can be controlled by a human, traditional game AI, or any other learned policy.
The traditional game AI consists of a handful of rules and constraints that govern the gameplay strategy of the agents.
The STS2 state space consists of the the coordinates of the players and their velocities as well as an indicator for the possession of the ball. The action space is discrete and is considered to be left, right, forward, backward, pass, and shoot. Although the player can hit two or more of the actions together we do not consider that possibility to keep the action space small for better scalability.
We currently use this mid-level simulator to inform passing and shooting decisions in the low-level imitation learning.
In the rest of this section, we report our progress toward applying deep RL in the STS2 environment to achieve multi-agent gameplay. Future work will entail a better integration between these levels of abstraction.
\subsection{Single agent in a 1v1 game}
As the simplest first experiment, we consider training an agent that learns to play against the traditional game AI in a 1v1 match.
We start with a sparse reward function of `+1` for scoring and `-1' for being scored against. We used DQN~\cite{DQN}, Rainbow~\cite{rainbow}, and PPO~\cite{PPO} to train agents that would replace the home team (player). DQN shows the best sign of learning useful policies after an equivalent of $\sim$5 years of human gameplay experience. The gameplay statistics of the DQN agent are reported in Table~\ref{tab:1v1-bad}. As can be seen the DQN agent was losing 1:4 to the traditional AI. Note that we randomize the orientation of the agents at the beginning of each episode, and hence, the agent encounters several easy situations with an open net for scoring. On the other hand, the agent does not learn how to play defensively when the opponent is in possession of the ball. In fact, we believe that a successful strategy for defense is more difficult to learn than that of offensive gameplay.
{
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{DQN agent in a 1v1 match against a traditional game AI agent with a sparse `+/-1' reward for scoring.
}
\label{tab:1v1-bad}
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
Statistics & DQN Agent & Trad. Game AI \\
\hline
Score rate & 22\% & 78\% \\
\hline
Possession & 36\% & 64\% \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
}
Next, we shape the rewarding mechanism with the goal of training agents that also learn how to play defensively. In addition to the `+/-1' scoring reward, we reward the agent with `+0.8' for gaining the possession of the ball and `-0.8` for losing it.
The statistics of the DQN agent are reported in Table~\ref{tab:1v1-good}.
In this case, we observe that the DQN agent learns to play the game with an offensive style of chasing the opponent down, gaining the ball, and attempting to shoot. Its score rate as compared to the traditional game AI is 4:1, and it dominates the game.
{
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{DQN agent in a 1v1 match against a traditional game AI agent with a sparse `+/-1' reward for scoring and a `+/0.8' reward for gaining/losing the possession of the ball.
}
\label{tab:1v1-good}
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
Statistics & DQN Agent & Trad. Game AI \\
\hline
Score rate & 80\% & 20\% \\
\hline
Possession & 65\% & 35\% \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
}
We repeated this experiment using PPO and Rainbow as well. We observe that the PPO agent's policy converges quickly to a simple one. When it is in possession of the ball, it wanders around in its own half without attempting to cross the half-line or to shoot until the game times out. This happens because the traditional game AI is programmed not to chase the opponent in their half when the opponent is in possession of the ball, and hence, the game goes on as described until timeout with no scoring on either side. PPO has clearly reached a local minimum in the space of policies, which is not unexpected as it is optimizing the policy directly.
Finally, the Rainbow agent does not learn a useful policy for either offense or defense.
As the last 1v1 experiment, we train a PPO agent against the abovementioned DQN agent with exactly the same reward function.
The gameplay statistics is reported in Table~\ref{tab:1v1_DQN_PPO}. We observe that the PPO agent is no longer stuck in a local optimum policy, and it is dominating the DQN agent with a score rate of 6:1. Notice that this is not a fair comparison as the DQN agent was only trained against traditional game AI agent and had not played against the PPO agent, whereas the PPO agent is directly trained against the DQN agent. While dominating the score rate, we also observe that the game is much more even in terms of the possession of the ball.
{
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{PPO agent in a 1v1 match against a DQN agent, both with a sparse `+/-1' reward for scoring and a `+/0.8' reward for gaining/losing the possession of the ball.
}
\label{tab:1v1_DQN_PPO}
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
Statistics & PPO Agent & DQN Agent\\
\hline
Score rate & 86\% & 14\% \\
\hline
Possession & 55\% & 45\% \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
}
Note that in this experiment the DQN agent is fixed, i.e., not learning, and PPO can overfit to exploit it because DQN is deterministic, easier to overfit against as an opponent.
\subsection{Single agent in a 2v2 game}
Having gained some confidence with single agent training, as the simplest multi-agent experiment, we consider training a single agent in a 2v2 game. We let the traditional game AI be in control of the opponent players as well as the teammate player. The first experiment entails a `+/-0.8` {\em team} reward for any player in the team gaining/losing the ball in addition to the `+/-1' reward for scoring. The agent does not learn a useful defensive or offensive policy and the team loses overall.
In the second experiment, we change the rewarding mechanism to `+/-0.8' {\em individual} reward for the agent gaining/losing the ball.
This seems to turn the agent into an offensive player that chases the opponent down, gains the ball, and attempts to shoot.
The team statistics for this agent are shown in Table~\ref{tab:1w1v2_offensive}. We observe that the agent has learned an offensive gameplay style where it scores most of the time.
{
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Offensive DQN agent in a 2v2 match against two traditional game AI agents and playing with a traditional game AI agent as teammate, with a sparse `+/-1' reward for scoring and a `+/0.8' individual reward for gaining/losing the possession of the ball.
}
\label{tab:1w1v2_offensive}
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c}
Statistics & DQN Agent & Teammate & Opponent 1 & Opponent 2\\
\hline
Score rate & 54\% & 20\% & 13\% & 13\%\\
\hline
Possession & 30\% & 18\% & 26\% & 26\% \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
}
While the team is winning in the previous case, we observe that the teammate is not participating much in the game with even less possession of the ball than the opponent players. Next, we explore training an agent that can assist the teammate score and possess the ball. We add another `-0.8' {\em teammate} reward, which occurs whenever the teammate loses the ball. The difference with a team reward (which resulted in an agent that did not learn defense/offense policies) here is that the agent is not getting a reward if the teammate gains puck from the opponents.
The gameplay statistics of this team are reported in Table~\ref{tab:1w1v2_defensive}. In terms of gameplay, we observe that the agent spends more time defending their own goal and passes the ball to the teammate to score when gains the possession of the ball.
{
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Defensive DQN agent in a 2v2 match against two traditional game AI agents and playing with a traditional game AI agent as teammate, with a sparse `+/-1' reward for scoring and a `+/0.8' individual reward for gaining/losing the possession of the ball and a `-0.8' teammate reward when the teammate loses the possession of the ball to the opponent team.
}
\label{tab:1w1v2_defensive}
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c}
Statistics & DQN Agent & Teammate & Opponent 1 & Opponent 2\\
\hline
Score rate & 20\% & 46\% & 17\% & 17\%\\
\hline
Possession & 36\% & 22\% & 21\% & 21\% \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
}
\subsection{Two agents trained separately in a 2v2 game}
After successful training of a single agent in a 2v2 game, we train a second agent in the home team while reusing one of the previously trained agents as the teammate.
For this experiment, we choose the DQN agent with an offensive gameplay style from the previous set of experiments as the teammate. This agent was described in the previous experiment.
We train another agent as the teammate using exactly the same reward function as the offensive DQN agent.
The statistics of the gameplay for the two agents playing together against the traditional game AI agents are shown in Table~\ref{tab:2v2_offensive}. While the second agent is trained with the same reward function as the first one, it is trained in a different environment as the teammate is now the offensive DQN agent trained in the previous experiment rather than the traditional game AI agent. As can be seen, the second agent now becomes defensive and is more interested in protecting the net, gaining the possession of the ball back, and passing it to the offensive teammate.
{
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Two DQN agents in a 2v2 match against two traditional game AI agents, with a sparse `+/-1' reward for scoring and a `+/0.8' individual reward for gaining/losing the possession of the ball.
}
\label{tab:2v2_offensive}
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c}
Statistics & DQN 1& DQN 2 & Opponent 1 & Opponent 2\\
\hline
Score rate & 50\% & 26\% & 12\% & 12\%\\
\hline
Possession & 28\% & 22\% & 25\% & 25\% \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
}
As the second 2v2 experiment, we train two PPO agents in the exact same manner as we trained the DQN agents in the previous experiment.
We observe a similar trait in the role of the agents as offensive and defensive.
Then we let the PPO team play against the DQN team. We observe that the PPO team defeats the DQN team by a slight edge, 55:45.
While this experiment is a fair comparison between PPO and DQN, we emphasize that these teams are both trained against the traditional game AI agents and are now both playing in a new environment.
In a sense, this is measuring how generalizable the learned policy is to environments that it has not experienced before.
The training would converge using equivalent of $\sim$5 years of human experience using DQN~\cite{DQN}. On the other hand, PPO~\cite{PPO} was an order of magnitude faster on all of the experiments reaching convergence in $\sim$6 months of human experience.
We repeated all of these experiments using Rainbow~\cite{rainbow} agents as well, and they failed all of the experiments. We suspect that the default hyperparameters in distributional RL~\cite{distributional-RL} or prioritized experience replay~\cite{prioritized-experience-replay} is not suited to this problem, however, we are still investigating which addition in Rainbow is resulting in the failure of the algorithm in the described team sports environment.
\subsection{Two agents trained simultaneously in a 2v2 game}
\label{sec:4-4}
Finally, we consider centralized training of the two home agents where a single policy controls them at the same time. We tried multiple reward functions including rewarding the team by `+1` for scoring, `-1' for being scored against, `+0.8` for gaining the possession of the ball, and `-0.8` for losing the possession of the ball.
We observed that neither algorithm learned a useful policy in this case.
We believe with a higher level planner on top of the reinforcement learning, we should be able to train the agents to exhibit teamplay but that remains for future investigation.
We are currently looking into centralized training of actor-critic methods on this environment.
\section{Concluding Remarks \& Future Work}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we consider a team sports game. The goal is to train agents that play like humans, both in terms of tactics and strategies. We presented a hierarchical approach to solving the problem, where the low-level problem is solved via imitation learning and the high-level problem is addressed via reinforcement learning. We focus on strategy using a mid-level simulator, called simple team sports simulator (STS2) which we intend to release as an open-source repository. Our main takeaways are summarized below:
\begin{itemize}
\item End-to-end model-free RL is unlikely to provide human-like and believable agent behavior, and we resort to a hierarchical approach using demonstrations to solve the problem.
\item Sparse rewards for scoring do not provide sufficient signal for training agents, even a high level, which required us to apply more refined reward shaping.
\item Using proper reward shaping, we trained agents with a variety of offensive and defensive styles. In particular, we trained an agent that can assist the teammate player to achieve better scoring and ball possession.
\item PPO~\cite{PPO} trained about one order of magnitude faster than DQN~\cite{DQN}, while in one occasion it got stuck in a bad local minimum.
\item Rainbow~\cite{rainbow} failed at training agents in this environment, and we are investigating the reason this happens.
\end{itemize}
In future work, we will be working on better integrating the mid-level simulation results with the low-level imitation learned model.
We also plan to better understand and explore multi-agent credit assignment in this environment~\cite{credit-assignment}. We also plan to investigate transfer learning for translating the policies from this environment to the actual HD game~\cite{openai-transfer}. We plan to explore further on centralized training of the multi-agent policy using QMIX~\cite{Qmix} and centralized actor-critic methods~\cite{centralized-critic}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank Bilal Kartal (Borealis AI) and Jiachen Yang (Georgia Tech) for useful discussions and feedback. The authors are also thankful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback.
\bibliographystyle{icml2019}
|
\section{Introduction}
Axions are present in
several well-motivated extensions of the Standard Model.
These include the QCD axion to solve the strong $CP$-problem \cite{Peccei:1977hh, Wilczek:1977pj,Weinberg:1977ma}, axion inflation \cite{Freese:1990rb, ArkaniHamed:2003wu}, the relaxation mechanism to solve the hierarchy problem \cite{Graham:2015cka}, ultra-light dark matter and dark energy \cite{Hlozek:2014lca, Kim:2015yna, Hui:2016ltb, Kobayashi:2018nzh}, and models of tachyonic particle production \cite{Anber:2009ua} (see also \cite{Hook:2016mqo, Agrawal:2017eqm, Machado:2018nqk}). Moreover, axion-like particles are abundant in string compactifications \cite{Marchesano:2014mla, Blumenhagen:2014gta,Hebecker:2014eua}. For these reasons, among others, axion searches using a variety
of techniques are a very active field, see e.g. \cite{Irastorza:2018dyq}.
The axion has a sinusoidal potential generated by non-perturbative gauge configurations, which are responsible for the breaking of the continuous shift symmetry to a remnant discrete one. The leading potential for an axion $a'$ respecting the residual symmetry $a' \rightarrow a' + 2\pi f'$ can be written as
\begin{align}
V(a') \sim &\, \Lambda^4 \left[ 1- \cos\left(\frac{a'}{f'}\right)\right]\,,
\label{AxionPotential}
\end{align}
where $f'$ is the axion decay constant and $\Lambda$ is the scale associated with the non-perturbative physics. Since the shift symmetry protects their potential against large corrections, axion-like particles are especially suitable for models requiring large field excursions.
Although several applications require large decay constants, there are many obstacles in finding consistent UV completions that generate $f'> M_{\rm Pl}$, where $M_{\rm Pl}$ is the (reduced) Planck mass. In particular, it has proven difficult to obtain axions with super-Planckian decay constants directly from String Theory \cite{Banks:2003sx,Baumann:2014nda,Bachlechner:2014gfa}. Furthermore, the Weak Gravity Conjecture (WGC) \cite{ArkaniHamed:2006dz} applied to $0$-forms would mean that higher-order corrections to the potential become important for such axions.
One way to circumvent some of these issues are models having two or more sub-Planckian axions at high energies which combine at low energies in a way that furnishes a super-Planckian axion. A well-known construction along these lines is the Kim-Nilles-Peloso (KNP) mechanism \cite{Kim:2004rp} (see also \cite{Berg:2009tg, Ben-Dayan:2014zsa, Kappl:2014lra}), where this is achieved by a suitable alignment of the axion potentials. Although this is an attractive solution, it requires tuning of charges \cite{Choi:2014rja,Ben-Dayan:2014zsa}. A generalization of this mechanism is possible in a system with $N$ axions \cite{Choi:2014rja,Higaki:2014pja, Kaplan:2015fuy,Choi:2015fiu, Fonseca:2016eoo}. However, this in general requires a considerable number of fields in order to achieve large field excursions.
Another possibility to obtain mild trans-Planckian field values has been pointed out in \cite{Shiu:2015xda, Shiu:2015uva}, where two axions acting as St\"uckelberg fields are mixed through a gauge field.~\\
In this letter, we point out that an exponential hierarchy of decay constants can be naturally obtained if the axions arise as composite states from some (nearly) conformal sectors. Our minimal model requires only two such sectors, charged under a weakly gauged abelian symmetry, which is broken when they undergo confinement at low energies.
Since the decay constants of the resulting St\"uckelberg fields are set by the respective confinement scales, in contrast to other constructions, they can easily be separated by a large hierarchy, with no tuning. This setup can be given a dual description by using the AdS/CFT correspondence in terms of slices of AdS$_5$ space glued together at a common brane \cite{Cacciapaglia:2006tg} (see also \cite{Cacciapaglia:2005pa, Flacke:2006ad, Chen:2004gc, Chen:2005ad, Chialva:2005zy}), making it calculable. Our main result in this description then acquires a pleasing interpretation, where an exponential hierarchy of scales can be obtained uniquely from geometry. Furthermore, in order to explore the rich model building possibilities of this framework, we also study models with more than two conformal sectors, which are dual to multiple throats. We then discuss how axions with hierarchically different decay constants can be obtained using this setup.
\newpage
\section{Super-Planckian Decay Constants from CFTs/Throats} \label{sec:super2throats}
We consider two conformal sectors, each of them having a global $U(1)$ and $SU(N)$ symmetry. The diagonal subgroups of the $U(1)$s and $SU(N)$s are gauged by two vector fields $A_\mu$ and $G_\mu$, respectively. The Lagrangian reads\footnote{We follow the usual conventions $\mathrm{Tr} [T^a T^b] = \delta_{ab}/2$ and $\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}=\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}G_{\alpha \beta}/2$.}
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{L} = \sum_{i=1}^2 \left( \mathcal{L}_{\rm CFT, i} + A_\mu J^\mu_{i} + \mathrm{Tr}\big[ G_\mu \mathcal{J}^{\mu}_i \big] \right) \nonumber \\
& - \frac{1}{4 g^2} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2 g^{\prime 2}} \mathrm{Tr}\big[G_{\mu\nu}G^{\mu\nu}\big],
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{L}_{\rm CFT, i}$ are the Lagrangians of the two CFTs and $J^\mu_{i}$ and $\mathcal{J}^\mu_{i}$ are the $U(1)$ and $SU(N)$ currents, respectively. The traces are over the $SU(N)$ color indices. Next we assume that the CFTs have mixed $U(1)-SU(N)^2$ anomalies and that they undergo confinement at low energies. From anomaly matching (and since the $SU(N)$ symmetries are gauged), we know that the theory at energies below the confinement scales must contain composite scalars $a_i$ which encode these anomalies. Since also the $U(1)$ symmetries are gauged, we have under a gauge transformation
\begin{align}
&a_i(x) \,\rightarrow a_i(x) + \Lambda(x) \,, \nonumber \\
&A_\mu(x) \,\rightarrow A_\mu(x) - \partial_\mu \Lambda(x)\,.
\end{align}
The $a_i$ have the right quantum numbers to act as St\" uckelberg fields for $A_\mu$ and we expect the effective Lagrangian below the confinement scales to be
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{L}_{\rm eff} = \sum_{i=1}^2 \left\{ \frac{f_i^2}{2} \left(A_{\mu} +\partial_\mu a_i \right)^{2} +\frac{c_i a_i}{8 \pi^2} \mathrm{Tr}\big[G_{\mu\nu} \tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}\big] \right\} \nonumber \\
& - \frac{1}{4 g^2} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2 g^{\prime 2}} \mathrm{Tr}\big[G_{\mu\nu}G^{\mu\nu} \big] + \dots \, ,
\label{EffectiveLagrangian}
\end{align}
where $f_i$ are the decay constants of the $a_i$ which are of the order of the respective confinement scales, the coefficients $c_i$ encode the mixed $U(1)-SU(N)^2$ anomalies, and the ellipsis stands for contributions from other composite states which we will take into account later.
One combination of scalars, which we will call $\tilde{a}$, is eaten, and the other combination $a'$ will be identified as the physical axion. These are given by
\begin{align}\label{e:basis}
\tilde{a} = \frac{f_1^2 a_1 +f_2^2 a_2}{\sqrt{f_1^2+f_2^2}}\,, \quad a' = \frac{f_1 f_2 (a_1-a_2)}{\sqrt{f_1^2+f_2^2}}\,,
\end{align}
where the new basis is defined such that $\tilde{a},~a'$ are canonically normalized. In terms of these fields, the Lagrangian can be written as
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{L}_{\rm eff} = \frac{f_1^2+f_2^2}{2} \left( A_{\mu} +\frac{ \partial_\mu \tilde{a}}{\sqrt{f_1^2+f_2^2}} \right)^{\!\!2} +\frac{1}{2} \left(\partial_\mu a' \right)^2 \nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{8 \pi^2} \left(\frac{\tilde{a}}{\,\tilde{f}}+ \frac{a'}{f'}\,\right) \mathrm{Tr}\big[G_{\mu\nu} \tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}\big] \nonumber \\
& - \frac{1}{4 g^2} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2 g^{\prime 2}} \mathrm{Tr}\big[G_{\mu\nu}G^{\mu\nu}\big] + \dots
\end{align}
The physical mass of the $U(1)$ gauge field is given by $M_A = g \sqrt{f_1^2+f_2^2}$. The effective decay constants of $\tilde {a}$ and $a'$ are
\begin{align}
\label{DecayConstants}
\tilde{f} = \frac{\sqrt{f_1^2+f_2^2}}{|c_1+c_2|}\,, \quad f' = \frac{f_1 f_2 \sqrt{f_1^2+f_2^2}}{|c_1 f_2^2-c_2 f_1^2|}\,.
\end{align}
Under gauge shifts we now have
\begin{align}
&\tilde{a}(x) \,\rightarrow \tilde{a}(x) + \Lambda(x) \sqrt{f_1^2+f_2^2}\,, \nonumber \\
&A_\mu(x) \,\rightarrow A_\mu(x) - \partial_\mu \Lambda(x)\,,
\end{align}
while $a'$ is neutral. For $c_1 + c_2 \neq 0$, this gauge transformation is anomalous due to the coupling to $\mathrm{Tr}[G_{\mu\nu} \tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}]$.
As in \cite{Shiu:2015xda}, we cancel this anomaly by adding a multiplet of chiral fermions which are external to the CFT and are charged under the gauge symmetries (see Appendix \ref{app:anomaly} for more details). We may now safely integrate out the massive gauge field $B_\mu \equiv A_{\mu} +\, \partial_\mu \tilde{a}/\sqrt{f_1^2+f_2^2}$, leaving only the physical axion $a'$ with decay constant $f'$.
Let us consider the case where only CFT$_1$ has a $U(1)-SU(N)^2$ anomaly, corresponding to $c_2=0$. Since the decay constants $f_1$ and $f_2$ are of the order of the confinement scales of the CFTs, a wide range of hierarchies among them is easily obtained. We in particular get:
\begin{equation}
\label{HierarchicalDecayConstants}
f' \simeq \begin{dcases*} \frac{f_1^2}{|c_1| f_2}\,, & $f_1 \gg f_2 $ \\
\frac{f_1}{|c_1|}\,, & $f_1 \ll f_2 $\,.\end{dcases*}
\end{equation}
For example, if CFT$_1$ confines already near the Planck scale, $f_1\sim M_{\rm Pl}$, we easily obtain a super-Planckian decay constant for $f_2 \ll M_{\rm Pl}$.
The possibility to enhance the decay constant to trans-Planckian values through a mixing induced by gauge fields was already pointed out in Refs.~\cite{Shiu:2015xda,Shiu:2015uva}.
However, only a modest enhancement $\mathcal{O}(10 M_{\rm Pl})$ was considered there. In our construction, the decay constants are generated through dimensional transmutation such that an exponentially enhanced ratio $f_1/f_2$ can be generated without tuning charges as in alignment models \cite{Kim:2004rp, Ben-Dayan:2014zsa} or using a large number of axion fields \cite{Choi:2014rja,Higaki:2014pja} such as in clockwork models \cite{Kaplan:2015fuy,Choi:2015fiu} or the $N$-relaxion \cite{Fonseca:2016eoo}. This exponential enhancement will be immediately obvious to see in the dual picture presented below.
In order to confirm the above reasoning and to take into account the composite states that we have neglected, we next consider the dual perspective and assume that each CFT can be described by a slice of AdS$_5$ space \cite{Maldacena:1997re,ArkaniHamed:2000ds}, which are glued together at a common UV brane \cite{Cacciapaglia:2005pa,Cacciapaglia:2006tg} (cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:2throats}). Each throat has proper length $L_i$ and, for simplicity, the same curvature scale $k$. In conformal coordinates the metric in each throat is
\begin{align}
\label{e:metric}
ds^2 \, = \, (k z_i)^{-2}\,(\eta_{\mu\nu} dx^\mu dx^\nu \, - \, dz_i^2) \,.
\end{align}
The warp factor is given by $(kz_i)^{-1}$, with the UV brane at $z_\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{UV}}= 1/k$ and the IR branes at $z_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{IR}}_i}= e^{kL_i}/k$.
The stabilization of the two throats can be ensured by the Goldberger-Wise mechanism, analogously to the implementation in the Randall-Sundrum scenario, see e.g.~Ref.~\cite{Law:2010pv}.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{2throats}
\caption{Schematic drawing of the two-throat construction. The coordinates $z_1$ and $z_2$ grow from the UV brane to the IR$_1$ and IR$_2$ branes, respectively. The wave-functions of the fields $A_{5,1}$ and $A_{5,2}$ are represented by dashed lines.}
\label{fig:2throats}
\end{figure}
The gauged $U(1)$ and $SU(N)$ symmetries of the CFTs are dual to corresponding gauge fields which propagate in the bulk of both throats. For later convenience, we consider separate $U(1)$ gauge fields $A_{M,i}$ in the two throats and then break the gauge symmetries to the diagonal subgroup on the UV brane. The $SU(N)$ gauge field $G_M$, on the other hand, is taken to propagate in both throats from the outset. Furthermore, the $U(1)-SU(N)^2$ anomalies are encoded by mixed Chern-Simons terms in the bulk. The Lagrangian then reads
\begin{align}\label{e:Sb}
&\sqrt{g}\,\mathcal{L}_{\rm B} = \!\sum_{i=1}^{2}\!\Bigg\{
\frac{c_i}{16 \pi^2} \epsilon^{MNPQR}A_{M,i} \mathrm{Tr}\big[G_{NP} G_{QR}\big] \nonumber\\
&\!-\!\frac{(k z_i)^{-5}\!\!\!\!\!\!}{4 g_{5,i}^2} F_{MN,i} F^{MN}_i\!\!-\!\frac{(k z_i)^{-5}\!\!\!\!\!\!}{2 g_{5}^{\prime 2}}~\mathrm{Tr}\!\left[G_{MN} G^{MN}\right]\!\! \Bigg\}.
\end{align}
For simplicity, we will take the gauge couplings $g_{5,i}$ to be equal. The coefficients $c_i$ are the anomaly coefficients, taken to be integers.
At the UV brane, we consider
\begin{equation}\label{e:piuv}
\mathcal{L}_{\textrm{UV}} = \frac{v^2}{2} \left(\partial_\mu \pi_1 - A_{\mu,1} +A_{\mu,2} \right)^2 \,,
\end{equation}
where $\pi_1$ is the Goldstone mode of a bifundamental scalar and $v$ is its vacuum expectation value. We introduce $R_\xi$ gauge-fixing terms in the bulk and on the IR branes to decouple the vector and scalar modes and take the limit $\xi\rightarrow \infty$ \cite{Flacke:2006ad,Contino:2003ve}.
The boundary conditions at the IR branes are then given by $A_{\mu,i}\vert_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{IR}}_i} = \partial_{z_i}(A_{5,i}/(k z_i))\vert_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{IR}}_i} =0$ and $\partial_{z_i} G_{\mu}\vert_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{IR}}_i} = G_{5} \vert_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{IR}}_i}=0$. Each abelian sector furnishes a scalar zero mode, a linear combination of which will be our axion, and the non-abelian sector has an unbroken gauge symmetry which will be responsible for the axion potential. Note that we do not introduce gauge-fixing terms for the abelian gauge bosons on the UV brane. Their vector and scalar modes thus still mix on the UV brane and we are not yet in unitary gauge.
Let us consider the holographic effective action at the UV brane. This is obtained by integrating out the bulk using profiles that satisfy the bulk equations of motion as well as the IR boundary conditions \cite{Panico:2007qd}. We will work at low energies, at lowest order in $p^2$ (see Appendix \ref{app:holo}), or equivalently, neglecting all but the lowest mode in the Kaluza-Klein (KK) expansion (see Appendix \ref{app:kk}). In addition, for the non-abelian gauge boson, only the zero-mode contributes to the axion potential \cite{Grzadkowski:2007xm}. The $p=0$ profiles for the abelian gauge fields are given by
\begin{align}
\label{e:wavefunction}
& A_{5,i} = k z_i \, a_i(x)\,,~~~A_{\mu,i} = \frac{z_i^2-z_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{IR}}_i}^2}{z_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{UV}}}^2-z_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{IR}}_i}^2}\!A_{\mu,i}(x)\,,
\end{align}
and simply $G_5(x,z_i)=0$ and $G_{\mu}(x,z_i) = G_\mu(x)$ for the non-abelian gauge field. For future convenience, we have normalized the vector wave functions to unity on the UV brane. If there is no risk of confusion, the bulk fields and their respective $z_i$-independent zero modes are denoted by the same symbol. Plugging in these profiles and integrating over $z_i$, we obtain the effective Lagrangian
\begin{align}\label{e:Luv}
&\mathcal{L}_{\rm eff} = \frac{v^2}{2}\! \left(\partial_\mu \pi_1 - A_{\mu,1} +A_{\mu,2} \right)^2 \!-\!\frac{1}{2g^{\prime 2}} \mathrm{Tr}\big[G_{\mu\nu}G^{\mu\nu}\big] \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{i=1}^2\bigg\{ \frac{1}{k g_5^2 \Delta z_i^2} \left(A_{\mu,i} + \frac{k \, \Delta z_i^2}{2} \partial_\mu a_i \right)^{\!2} \nonumber \\
& + \frac{c_i k \, \Delta z_i^2}{16 \pi^2}\, a_i \mathrm{Tr}\big[G_{\mu\nu} \tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}\big] -\frac{\mathcal{B}_i}{4g_5^2} F_{\mu\nu, i}F^{\mu\nu}_i \bigg\}\,,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{eq:Deltazi2}
\Delta z_i^2 \equiv z_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{IR}}_i}^2-z_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{UV}}}^2, \, \, \mathcal{B}_i = L_i \left[1 -\frac{3}{4 k L_i} + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{z^2_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{UV}}}}{z^2_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{IR}}_i}}\right)\right]
\end{align}
and $g^{\prime -2} \equiv g_5^{\prime -2}( L_1+L_2)$. Taking the limit $v \rightarrow \infty$, we integrate out the bifundamental scalar and set $A_{\mu,1}=A_{\mu,2} \equiv A_{\mu}$. We now read off the effective coupling constant of $A_\mu$ to be $g^{-2} \equiv g_5^{-2}( \mathcal{B}_1+\mathcal{B}_2)$. We then rescale $a_i \rightarrow 2 a_i /(k \Delta z_i^2) $ which upon defining $f_i^2 \equiv 2 /(k g_5^2 \Delta z_i^2)$ reproduces Eq.~\eqref{EffectiveLagrangian} as expected due to the AdS/CFT duality.
Replacing the values of the physical parameters, at lowest order in $kL_i$ and $z_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{UV}}}^2/z_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{IR}}_i}^2$ we get the decay constant
\begin{equation}\label{eq:feff}
f'= \sqrt{\frac{2 k \,g^{-2}}{L_1+L_2}} \frac{\sqrt{e^{2 k L_1}+e^{2 k L_2}}}{|c_1 e^{2 k L_1}-c_2 e^{2 k L_2}|}\,.
\end{equation}
Taking the anomaly coefficient $c_2 =0$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{e:feffwarped}
f' \simeq \begin{dcases*}
\sqrt{\frac{2k\, g^{-2}}{L_1+L_2}}\,\frac{e^{k (L_2-2 L_1)}}{|c_1|}\,, & $L_2 > L_1$ \\
\sqrt{\frac{2k \,g^{-2}}{L_1+L_2}}\, \frac{e^{- k L_1}}{|c_1|}\,, & $ L_1 > L_2$\,.
\end{dcases*}
\end{equation}
These results for the decay constant correspond to Eqs.~\eqref{DecayConstants} and \eqref{HierarchicalDecayConstants} in the dual description. As discussed in Appendix~\ref{app:kk}, they can also be derived using a KK expansion in the two-throat system.
The exponential enhancement for $L_2> L_1$ may be intuitively understood by noting that, for $c_2=0$, we have limited the anomalous coupling to only throat$_1$ while the axion $a'$ can propagate in the full space. This mismatch leads to a difference in the normalization between the axion kinetic term, which contributes to the numerator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:feff}) and the anomalous couplings, which contribute to the denominator, leading directly to the factor $\exp[k (L_2-2 L_1)]$ above (cf.~also Fig.~\ref{fig:2throats}). As an illustration of the enhancement, for $k=10^{18}\, \mathrm{GeV}, \smash{c_1 \sim g\sim\mathcal{O}(1)}, L_2=20 \, k^{-1}, L_1=L_2/4$, we get $f'\sim 10^{22}\, \mathrm{GeV}$.
A common concern when faced with trans-Planckian axions is the WGC. In particular, important constraints arise from the coupling of the axion with gravitational instantons, see e.g.~\cite{Montero:2015ofa, Hebecker:2015zss, Brown:2015iha, Brown:2015lia}. The effective decay constant for this coupling arises from an integral over both throats.
Since the graviton and the axion propagate in all throats, in contrast to the case leading to Eq.~\eqref{e:feffwarped} there is no mismatch between the normalization of the axion kinetic term and its coupling to gravity which could lead to a super-Planckian decay constant. This implies that the axion couples to gravity with some decay constant $f_g \lesssim M_{\rm Pl}$ so that gravitational instantons satisfying the action bound $S_{\rm inst} \lesssim M_{\rm Pl}/f_g$ will not lead to large corrections to the axion potential \cite{Shiu:2018wzf}.
In order to generate a potential as in Eq.~\eqref{AxionPotential},
we assume that the $SU(N)$ gauge symmetry confines at a scale smaller than $f_{1,2}$. In Refs.~\cite{Shiu:2018unx,Shiu:2018wzf} (also considered in \cite{Shiu:2015xda, Shiu:2015uva}), it is argued that a non-vanishing potential for the axion field can be generated even though the fermions which cancel the anomalies are massless in the UV. The resulting potential in Refs.~\cite{Shiu:2018unx,Shiu:2018wzf} relies on the combination of the `t Hooft determinant term and four-fermion couplings which arise from integrating out the gauge field. Although this particular construction seems to differ from the literature \cite{Georgi:1981be, PhysRevLett.61.794, Banks:1994yg},\footnote{On the other hand, one may argue that the limit $m_{u}\rightarrow 0$ cannot be unambiguously defined \cite{Creutz:2003xc} (see, however, also \cite{Srednicki:2005wc,slides}).} which agrees that the QCD $\theta$ parameter is unphysical in the presence of massless quarks in the SM, the authors remark that the crucial difference in their mechanism is that there is only one generation of chiral fermions \cite{private}.
Independently of their construction, it is conceivable that a non-vanishing axion potential can be obtained if one considers some additional model building which gives masses to the fermions from an external source. For example, one can promote the fermions on the UV brane to bulk fermions and set the boundary conditions such that each one has a zero-mode. The latter contribute to the anomalies on the UV brane and allow to cancel them along the lines of Appendix~\ref{app:anomaly}. The fermions are in particular charged under the abelian gauge symmetry, forbidding mass terms in the bulk and on the UV brane. This symmetry is broken on the IR branes, on the other hand, and we can thus add mass terms for the fermions on these branes. If the zero-modes are localized towards the
UV brane, their resulting masses can be suppressed compared to the IR scales, allowing for a controllable size of the axion potential.\footnote{The bulk fermions also contribute to the Chern-Simons terms, see e.g.~\cite{Gripaios:2007tk}. If their bulk masses are somewhat larger than the AdS scale, as required for localized zero-modes, any perturbative corrections to the axion potential are highly suppressed, see e.g.~\cite{Pilo:2003gu,Contino:2003ve}.}
In addition to obtaining a single trans-Planckian decay constant, using this framework one can construct models that have multiple axion fields with hierarchically different decay constants. For illustration, let us double the spectrum such that we have two abelian fields $A_{M,i}$ and $B_{M,i}$ which can propagate in both throats with $i$ being the throat label. We also add two non-abelian gauge fields $G^\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{A}}_M$ and $G^\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{B}}_M$ which have anomalous couplings to the $A_{M,i}$ and $B_{M,i}$, respectively. Let us limit the anomalous coupling to $G^\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{A}}_M$ only to throat $i=1$ and the one to $G^\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{B}}_M$ only to throat $i=2$. Assuming $L_2>L_1$, we then have from Eq.~(\ref{eq:feff}) that the decay constants are exponentially separated
\begin{align}
& \frac{f'_\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{A}}}{ f'_\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{B}}} \, \approx \, e^{2k(L_2- L_1)} \, \gg \,1\,,
\end{align}
where, for simplicity, we have taken the anomaly coefficients to be order one. The potential at low energies can then be written as
\begin{align}
\! V \!= \!\Lambda_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{A}}}^4\left[1 - \cos \!\left(\frac{ a'}{f_{ \textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{A}}}^{\prime} }\right) \right] \!+ \Lambda_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{B}}}^4 \left[1 -\cos \!\left(\frac{ b' }{f_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{B}}}^{\prime}}\right)\right],
\end{align}
where $a'$ and $b'$ refer to the uneaten 4d scalar fields. This setup can, for example, be applied to a two-component axion model with an ultra-light axion, which can constitute most of the dark matter, and the QCD axion as the other component \cite{Kim:2015yna}. Such models have clear phenomenological consequences as one can explicitly compute all the couplings of the axion-like fields to the Standard Model particles. The details of this construction will be presented in a future work.
Another possibility is to consider only the field $A_{M,i}$ coupled to both $G^{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{A}},\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{B}}}_M$, to generate a single field potential with two cosines with hierarchically different decay constants, as required in relaxion models \cite{Graham:2015cka}. Such a construction was explored in \cite{Fonseca:2017crh}.
\section{Several CFTs/throats: a playground for generating hierarchies}\label{sec:multi}
Let us generalise the setup of the previous section to several CFTs with a common cutoff, which are then dual to several throats with a common UV brane. Such a multi-throat setup combined with kinetic mixing and alignment allows us to construct scenarios with multiple hierarchical decay constants. In particular, we can reproduce the alignment mechanism with two cosines in the potential, as in the original KNP model, and also obtain the alignment with $N$ axions, as in clockwork models. Moreover, the multi-throat construction, with warped (or also flat) geometry, provides many possibilities for model building.
We add one $U(1)$ gauge field $A_{M,i}$ with gauge coupling $g_{5,i}$ for each throat, where $i=1,...\,,N$ and $N$ is the number of throats. In order to break the $U(1)$ gauge symmetries on the IR branes, we then impose the boundary conditions $A_{\mu,i}\vert_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{IR}}_i}=\partial_{z_i}\left(A_{5,i}/(k z_i) \right)\vert_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{IR}}_i} = 0$.
As in Sec.~\ref{sec:super2throats}, the UV brane contains bifundamental scalars $\pi_i$ linking $A_{\mu, i}$ and $A_{\mu,i+1}$. For simplicity, we will work directly in the limit where $v_i\rightarrow \infty$, such that only the diagonal gauge symmetry survives, which amounts to identifying the vector fields at the UV brane, i.e.~$A_{\mu,i}\vert_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{UV}}} \equiv A_\mu$. Furthermore, of the $N$ scalars coming from the scalar zero modes, one linear combination will be eaten by the diagonal vector field, leaving only $N-1$ propagating scalars in unitary gauge \cite{Cacciapaglia:2005pa,Cacciapaglia:2006tg}.
Next, we can add anomalous couplings such that each $A_{M,i}$ couples with different non-abelian gauge groups, each one characterized by a capital letter superscript ${\rm I}={1,\ldots, n_\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{G}}}$. Using the axion profiles $A_{5,i} = k z_i a_i(x)$, we then get $\mathcal{L}_{\rm eff} \, \supset \, \sum_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{I}}=1}^{n_\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{G}}} \frac{k \,\Delta z_i^2}{2}\, \mathcal{C}_{i}^{~\!\!\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{I}}}$, where
\begin{align}
\label{eq:cseffective}
&\mathcal{C}_{i}^{~\!\!\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{I}}} \, \equiv \, \frac{c_i^{~\!\!\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{I}}}}{8 \pi^2} a_i \mathrm{Tr} \left[ G^{~\!\!\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{I}}}_{\mu \nu} \tilde{G}^{~\!\!\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{I}}, \mu \nu} \right]\, ,
\end{align}
$\Delta z_i^2$ is given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Deltazi2}), and $c_i^{~\!\!\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{I}}}$ are the anomaly coefficients. These couplings generically lead to an anomaly of the diagonal gauge symmetry at the UV brane, which may be cancelled by adding suitable fermion multiplets \cite{Shiu:2015xda} or by imposing that the relation $\sum_{i,~\!\!\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{I}}} c_i^{~\!\!\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{I}}}=0$ is fulfilled (for details, see Appendix \ref{app:anomaly}).
Repeating the same steps as in Sec.~\ref{sec:super2throats}, the effective Lagrangian becomes
\begin{align} \label{eq:generalLagrangian}
&\mathcal{L}_{\rm eff} \, = \, \sum_{i=1}^N\left\{ \frac{f_i^2}{2} \left(A_{\mu} +\partial_\mu a_i \right)^2 +\sum_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{I}}=1}^{n_\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{G}}} \mathcal{C}_{i}^{~\!\!\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{I}}}\right\} \nonumber \\&- \frac{1}{4 g^2} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}- \sum_{\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{I}}=1}^{n_\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{G}}} \frac{1}{2 g^{\prime 2}_{~\!\!\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{I}}}} \mathrm{Tr}\left[G_{\mu\nu}^{~\!\!\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{I}}} G^{~\!\!\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{I}},\mu\nu}\right]\,,
\end{align}
where $f_i^2 \equiv 2 /(k g_5^2 \Delta z_i^2)$ as before. The coupling to $A_\mu$ induces a mixing among the axion fields. At this point, one should perform an $SO(N)$ rotation to bring the fields from the $a_i$ basis to a new basis where one linear combination $\tilde{a} \propto \sum_{i=1}^N f_i^2 \, a_i $ is eaten and $N-1$ modes remain.
Using this setup for three throats, $N=3$, and a single non-abelian field, $n_\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{G}}=1$, we can obtain an enhanced effective decay constant with a one-cosine potential by imposing a discrete $\mathbb{Z}_3$ symmetry under exchange of the throats.
Moreover, for the case $N=3$ and $n_\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{G}}=2$, we reproduce a KNP-like alignment. Another possibility is to consider $N$ throats with $n_\textnormal{\notsotiny \textsc{G}}=N$ which leads to an alignment system with $N$ axions. We illustrate these examples in Appendix \ref{app:examples}.
\section{Conclusions}
In order to achieve super-Planckian and more generally hierarchical decay constants for a system with multiple axions, we have considered a 4d theory with multiple CFTs with a common cutoff. The CFTs have global $U(1)$ symmetries, whose diagonal subgroup is weakly gauged. The symmetries are broken when the CFTs confine, leading to corresponding Goldstone bosons which mix through their coupling to the gauge boson. Each CFT has a distinct strong-coupling scale.
An exponential hierarchy among the decay constants is then achieved naturally through dimensional transmutation.
The dual picture corresponds
to a warped multi-throat geometry. An exponential enhancement of the decay constants is given by the warped factor without requiring a large number of axions or large charges. Specifically, the enhancement is controlled by the difference of the throat lengths and has a simple geometric interpretation as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:2throats} and Eq.~(\ref{e:feffwarped}).
A possible direction for future investigation is whether a string embedding for our construction is attainable. In addition, the multi-throat scenario is an interesting playground for several applications. Using this setup, one can naturally obtain models where the dark matter is composed of multiple axions, constructions with interacting dark matter and dark energy, and realizations that require multiple hierarchies of decay constants, to mention a few examples. We hope that this framework can provide new model building avenues.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Sebastian Ellis, Arthur Hebecker, Rachel Houtz, Oriol Pujolas, Fabrizio Rompineve, Alexander Westphal, and Fang Ye for useful discussions. We also thank Gary Shiu and Wieland Staessens for correspondence
regarding their work. The work of NF was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under Germany's Excellence Strategy - EXC 2121 ``Quantum Universe" – 390833306. The work of CSM was supported
by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, in the framework of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Award 2016, endowed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and also supported by the Cluster of Excellence ``Precision Physics, Fundamental
Interactions, and Structure of Matter" (PRISMA$^+$ EXC 2118/1) funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the German Excellence Strategy (Project ID 39083149).
\begin{center}
\scalebox{.04}{\underline{We also thank Gia Dvali for his simple and general arguments.}}
\end{center}
|
\section{Introduction}
The Standard Model of particle physics has many peculiar features, responsible for the rich phenomenology that ultimately shape our macroscopic universe.
One of these features is the texture of Yukawa couplings between different matter generations, which leads to the observed hierarchy of fermion masses.
To be a viable UV completion of our physical world, it is therefore paramount for string theory to be able to reproduce these textures in compactification scenarios.
A promising regime where we can construct and study globally consistent, four-dimensional (4d) string compactifications is F-theory \cite{Vafa:1996xn}, an extension of weakly coupled type IIB string theory that incorporates non-perturbative back-reactions of 7-branes.
There has been a lot of compact model building efforts in this framework, ranging from supersymmetric GUTs\footnote{For a comprehensive list of the vast number of literature in this direction, we refer to section 10.1 of \cite{Weigand:2018rez} and references therein.} to Pati--Salam models or Standard-Model-like examples \cite{Lin:2014qga,Cvetic:2015txa,Lin:2016vus,Cvetic:2018ryq,Cvetic:2019gnh}.
Along with advancements in our understanding of abelian symmetries in F-theory (see \cite{Cvetic:2018bni} and references therein for a review), these works also developed conceptual and practical tools that give us relatively good control over the chiral spectrum.
More recently, we have also learned about methods that, at least in principle, allow us to determine and engineer light vector-like states for compact models \cite{Bies:2014sra,Bies:2017fam}.
In contrast, explicit computations of Yukawa couplings have only been performed in ultra-local models \cite{Heckman:2008qa,Heckman:2009mn,Hayashi:2009ge,Randall:2009dw,Font:2009gq,Cecotti:2009zf,Conlon:2009qq,Hayashi:2009bt}.
That is, the geometry is restricted to the vicinity of a single point on the 7-brane's internal world-volume, where three matter curves meet.
The coupling is then computed as an overlap of the internal wave functions for the various participating 4d chiral multiplets at such an Yukawa point.
In particular, the calculation always results in a rank one Yukawa matrix despite having multiplet chiral generations in each participating representation.
To enhance the rank for the coupling matrix obtained at one point, one typically has to invoke more subtle structures such as T-branes or Euclidean D3-instantons \cite{Marchesano:2009rz,Cecotti:2010bp,Chiou:2011js,Aparicio:2011jx,Font:2012wq,Font:2013ida,Marchesano:2015dfa,Carta:2015eoh}.
An open question is then how such structures can be consistently realized in global models.
In this work, we argue that an elaborate analysis of these subtle issues become obsolete in global models: contributions to the same coupling from \textit{different} Yukawa points will in general add up to a higher-rank coupling matrix.
In simple terms, this is because the eigenbases of wave functions which diagonalize the Yukawa matrices at different points are in general different.
Said differently, an eigenfunction with eigenvalue 0 of the Yukawa matrix at the first point need not be such a function at the second point.
We stress that this effect is purely a consequence of the global geometry, which may be interpreted as ``non-perturbative'' corrections to the ultra-local results.
Certainly, it further highlights the power of F-theory of geometrizing certain instanton effects \cite{Collinucci:2016hgh}, the latter of which are also vital to enhance the Yukawa rank in perturbative type II compactifications \cite{Cremades:2003qj,Cvetic:2003ch,Cremades:2004wa,Blumenhagen:2006xt, Blumenhagen:2007zk}.
The appearance of multiple Yukawa points and their collected contributions is in general expected for global models \cite{Hayashi:2009bt} (see also \cite{Blumenhagen:2006xt, Blumenhagen:2007zk} for similar effects in type II).
In this work, a similar analysis of the wave function behavior has been presented, showing how their profiles change along matter curves, and can lead to independent Yukawa contributions at different points.
The nevertheless ``local'' analysis showed that the eigenvalues are of same order of magnitude.
However, it does not provide an explicit embedding of these effects, localized on the matter curve, into a global setting.
It is in this embedding where our analysis suggests that, in fact, the couplings \emph{can} generically exhibit hierarchical structures.
For an explicit demonstration of these phenomena, we construct a global toy model with $SU(5) \times U(1)$ gauge symmetry with a $G_4$-flux that induces chiral excesses for ${\bf 10}_{-2}$, $\bar{\bf 5}_6$, and $\bar{\bf 5}_{-4}$ states.
These states are localized on $\mathbb{P}^1$s inside the world-volume of the 7-branes supporting the $SU(5)$.
For these $\mathbb{P}^1$s, we can write down explicitly a basis for the holomorphic wave functions, and compute their overlap at the two distinct points where all three curves meet.
These two contributions facilitate a rank two Yukawa matrix for the ${\bf 10}_{-2} \, \bar{\bf 5}_6 \, \bar{\bf 5}_{-4}$ coupling.
Moreover, we can explicitly track the complex structure dependence of the two independent couplings.
Numeric analysis reveals that there are large hierarchies in generic parts (that is, \textit{not} on a lower-dimensional subspace) of the complex structure moduli space.
For simplicity, we only consider the holomorphic part of the Yukawa coupling which enters the superpotential.
To obtain the physical couplings, one would need to properly take into account the K\"ahler-moduli dependent prefactors which canonically normalizes the wave functions' kinetic terms.
However, these prefactors cannot change the rank of the coupling matrix set by the holomorphic piece.
Also, it would be highly unexpected if these normalizations can erase all ``holomorphic'' hierarchies which are independent of K\"ahler moduli.
The paper is organized as follows.
In section \ref{sec:background}, we review the necessary background material for global 4d F-theory compactifications, focusing on the description of chiral matter.
In particular, we explain in section \ref{sec:gauge_theory_basics} the method to compute the holomorphic couplings via a local, Higgs bundle description of the 7-brane's gauge theory.
We use these two complementary perspectives to construct a toy model with a rank two Yukawa coupling in section \ref{sec:toy_model}.
Specifically, we discuss the complex structure dependence of the hierarchy between the two independent couplings in section \ref{subsec:numerical_analysis}.
We close with some remarks on future directions after a summary in section \ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Yukawa Couplings in F-theory}\label{sec:background}
Before we explain the details of the computation of Yukawa couplings in F-theory, we briefly summarize the necessary background material.
For more explanation, we refer to recent reviews \cite{Weigand:2018rez,Cvetic:2018bni}.
The physics of F-theory compactification is encoded in an elliptically fibered Calabi--Yau fourfold $\pi: Y_4 \rightarrow B_3$, where $B_3$ can be viewed as the compactification space of the dual strongly coupled type IIB description.
Over the codimension one locus $\{\Delta = 0\} \equiv \{\Delta\} \subset B_3$ wrapped by 7-branes, the elliptic fiber degenerates, and form (after blowing up the singularities) the affine Dynkin diagram of the corresponding non-abelian gauge group.
For simplicity, we assume that there is one irreducible component $S_\text{GUT} \subset \{\Delta\}$ that carries a non-abelian gauge factor.
Disregarding more subtle geometries which would give rise to discrete abelian symmetries, we consider fibrations with at least one so-called zero-section.
That is, there is a rational map $s_0 : B_3 \rightarrow Y_4$ satisfying $\pi \circ s_0 = \text{id}_{B_3}$, which marks a special point on each fiber.
Abelian gauge factors in F-theory arise from additional such rational section, independent of $s_0$.
We shall return to such an example later on.
\subsection{Counting charged matter in F-theory}
\label{subsec:counting_matter_geo}
Charged matter states arise over complex curves $C_{\bf R} \subset B_3$, where the residual component of $\{\Delta\}$ intersects the surface $S_\text{GUT}$.
In the F-theory geometry, such intersections are indicated by enhanced singularities of the elliptic fibration along these curves.
While the singularity structure determines the representation ${\bf R}$ of the matter states, the chiral spectrum is induced by a background gauge flux.
Via duality to M-theory, the flux is a four-form $G_4$ on a resolution of the elliptic fourfold, and the chiral spectrum can be computed via intersection theory on the resolved space (see \cite{Weigand:2018rez} and references therein).
However, a refinement of the data is necessary to keep track of the wave functions associated to the massless chiral and anti-chiral multiplets living on the matter curves.
Following a recent proposal \cite{Bies:2014sra,Bies:2017fam} based on type IIB intuition, these massless modes are counted by the cohomologies
\begin{align}\label{eq:cohomologies_counting_vector_spectrum}
\begin{split}
\text{chiral:} \quad & H^{0} (C_{\bf R}, {\cal L}_{\bf R} \otimes S_{C_{\bf R}}) \, ,\\
\text{anti-chiral:} \quad & H^1 (C_{\bf R}, {\cal L}_{\bf R} \otimes S_{C_{\bf R}}) \, ,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where ${\cal L}_{\bf R}$ is a line bundle (more generally, a coherent sheaf) on $C_{\bf R}$ extracted from the $G_4$-flux data, and $S_{C_{\bf R}}$ the spin bundle on $C_{\bf R}$.
In general, these cohomologies vary with complex structure moduli, and only the difference $\chi({\bf R}) = h^0({\cal L}_{\bf R} \otimes S_{C_{\bf R}}) - h^1({\cal L}_{\bf R} \otimes S_{C_{\bf R}}) = \int_{C_{\bf R}} c_1({\cal L}_{\bf R})$ counting the chiral excess remains a topological invariant.
The explicit computation of these cohomologies is in general a very difficult task, and requires extensive computing power \cite{Bies:2017fam}.
In particular, these technical difficulties pose a real challenge in constructing F-theory models with realistic vector-like spectra.
Since this is not our main motivation, however, we will focus on constructions where the relevant matter curves have genus 0, i.e., are ${\mathbb{P}}^1$s.
This restriction leads to a significant simplification, as a ${\mathbb{P}}^1$ has no complex structure deformations.
In practice, we recall that any line bundle on ${\mathbb{P}}^1$ is characterized by a single integer $n$, i.e., ${\cal L} \otimes S = {\mathcal{O}}(n)$, and
\begin{align}\label{eq:cohomologies_on_P1}
\begin{split}
& h^0 ({\mathbb{P}}^1, {\mathcal{O}}(n)) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
n+1 , & \text{ if } \, n \geq 0\\
0 , & \text{ otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.\\
\text{and } \quad & h^1 ({\mathbb{P}}^1, {\mathcal{O}}(n)) = h^0( {\mathbb{P}}^1, {\mathcal{O}}(- n - 2)) \, .
\end{split}
\end{align}
From this formula, it is evident that the chiral index $\chi = h^0 - h^1$ determines $n$ uniquely.
In turn, $\chi$ can be easily determined via well-known integral formula that can be evaluated on the (resolved) elliptic fourfold $Y_4$.
Note that in particular, we can never have both $h^0$ and $h^1$ be non-zero, and hence there is never any light vector-like pairs on a ${\mathbb{P}}^1$ matter curve.
\subsubsection{Wave functions and holomorphic Yukawa couplings}
To each (anti-)chiral multiplet in representation ${\bf R}$, we can associate a wave function
\begin{align}\label{eq:full_wave_function}
\Psi = \psi_\text{loc} \times \eta_\text{hol} \, .
\end{align}
Here, the factor $\psi_\text{loc}$ describes the localization of the wave function over the matter curve.
Locally, one usually has $\psi_\text{loc} \sim \exp(- z \bar{z} \, N)$, where $z$ is the local coordinate on $S_\text{GUT}$ transverse to $C_{\bf R}$, and $N$ the flux units on $C_{\bf R}$.
This leads to a Gaussian localization of the wave function around the matter curve.
The second factor $\eta_\text{hol} \equiv \eta$ is a holomorphic section of the corresponding line bundle.
For chiral multiplets this is the bundle ${\cal L}$, whereas for anti-chiral it is (via Serre-duality) the bundle ${\cal L}^\vee \otimes K_{C}$, where $(\cdot )^\vee$ denotes the dual bundle, and $K_C$ the canonical bundle of $C_{\bf R}$.
Intuitively, one can understand the Yukawa coupling as a result of the overlap of wave functions at the point where three matter curves meet, receiving two contributions from the holomorphic and non-holomorphic factors.
In order to have a higher rank Yukawa matrix, the holomorphic piece must provide this structure in the first place.
To compute the holomorphic Yukawa coupling in a flux background, we have to pick a basis $\eta_i$ of the holomorphic sections of the appropriate bundle.
The holomorphic coupling $W_{ijk}$ is then given by essentially a residue formula of the sections.
The novelty of this work is that we provide an explicit construction where we can evaluate this formula globally, showing that contributions from different Yukawa points in the base generically lead to a higher rank coupling matrix.
The techniques to evaluate each contribution explicitly are based on the local description of the 7-brane gauge dynamics in terms of a Higgs bundle.
In the following, we review this approach and derive the main formula.
\subsection{8d gauge theory and Yukawa couplings}\label{sec:gauge_theory_basics}
The dynamics on the worldvolume of 7-branes wrapping a divisor $S$ is controlled by a supersymmetric 8d Yang--Mills theory.
The bosonic fields are a gauge field $A$ of a gauge bundle $E$, and a $(2,0)$-form $\Phi$ in the adjoint representation of the gauge algebra.
The vacuum expectation value of $\Phi$ captures details of the local F-theory geometry close to the divisor $S$ and, in particular, it encodes the locations of localized matter and the couplings among the various matter fields.\footnote{The fact that a $(2,0)$-form describes the normal deformations of the branes is due to the topological twist \cite{Beasley:2008dc}. In the case of branes embedded in a Calabi--Yau threefold $X$, the $(2,0)$-form corresponding to a given normal holomorphic deformation $v \in H^0(S,N_{S/X})$ can be obtained by contracting the Calabi--Yau $(3,0)$-form $\Omega$ with $v$, that is $\Phi_v = \iota_v \Omega.$}
Specifically, when the rank of $\Phi$ reduces over a complex codimension one sub-variety $\Sigma \subset S$, we find localized fields that are trapped on $\Sigma$.\footnote{In the weak coupling limit (if applicable) this situation corresponds to the intersection of branes and the matter fields come from open strings stretching between the two intersecting stacks of branes.}
The reduction of the rank of $\Phi$ implies that a larger gauge algebra is preserved over $\Sigma$, a phenomenon that exactly mirrors what happens in the geometry, and the localized matter and its representation under the gauge group can be read off from the enhancement pattern following \cite{Katz:1996xe}.
Further enhancement of the gauge algebra can occur at points $p \in S$ where triples of curves $\Sigma_i$ intersect.
This has the effect of producing a triple coupling among the fields hosted on the three matter curves that will produce a Yukawa couplings in the 4d action.
The pattern of couplings produced will be dictated by the enhanced gauge group $G_{\text{Yuk}}$ at the Yukawa point \cite{Beasley:2008dc}.
In the following we will provide a quick review of how to perform the computation of said Yukawa couplings.
\subsubsection{Gauge theory close to Yukawa points}
We start by describing the configuration of the gauge theory in the proximity of a Yukawa point $\mathfrak p_{\text{Yuk}}$. Since we need an enhancement to at least $G_{\text{Yuk}}$ we take a gauge bundle $E$ with gauge algebra $\mathfrak{g}_{\text{Yuk}}$. The vacuum expectation value of $\Phi$ will leave intact only a sub-algebra $\mathfrak{g}$---the physical gauge algebra---at generic points on $S$, with some further enhancements in codimension one where the matter curves are located. The profile of $\Phi$ and the gauge bundle need to satisfy the following BPS equations,
\begin{align}
\bar{\partial}_A \Phi = 0\,,\\
F^{(0,2)} = 0\,,\\
\label{eq:Dt}\omega \wedge F +\frac{1}{2} [\Phi,\Phi^\dag]=0\,,
\end{align}
to ensure that the resulting 4d theory preserves $\mathcal N=1$ supersymmetry. Here $\omega$ is the K\"ahler form on $S$. The first two conditions can be derived from a superpotential
\begin{align}
\label{eq:superP}
W = \int_S \text{Tr} \left(F \wedge \Phi\right)\,,
\end{align}
by taking variations with respect to $\Phi$ and $A$.
They imply the following conditions: on $S$ the gauge bundle $E$ has to be holomorphic and moreover $\Phi$ is a holomorphic section of $K_S \otimes \text{ad} (E)$ where $K_S$ is the canonical bundle of $S$. The condition \eqref{eq:Dt} ensures the vanishing of the 4d Fayet--Iliopoulos term.
While solving this condition is in general extremely complicated we will not need it in the following because we will look only at holomorphic couplings, that is the ones appearing in the superpotential.
We will discuss the necessary steps to obtain the real couplings at the end of this section.
In the following we will therefore focus solely on holomorphic data and consider equivalence modulo complexified gauge transformations.
Another important observation is that the holomorphic couplings will not depend on fluxes \cite{Cecotti:2009zf,Cecotti:2010bp}, implying that knowledge of $\Phi$ is actually sufficient to obtain the couplings.
This is made more explicit in a gauge where $A^{(0,1)} = 0$, usually called holomorphic gauge.\footnote{The disappearance of fluxes in the superpotential can also be understood as follows: local flux densities depend on volume of two cycles due to quantization conditions, that is they depend on K\"ahler moduli. However the superpotential depends only on complex structure moduli, meaning that fluxes cannot appear. Indeed, we will confirm that holomorphic couplings will be sensitive only to the complex structure moduli.}
This greatly simplifies the background equations because now $\Phi$ simply has to be a holomorphic $(2,0)$-form in the adjoint representation, that is its components when expanded in elements of $\mathfrak g_{\text{Yuk}}$ have to be holomorphic functions.\footnote{This may fail at loci where $\Phi$ develops some poles, however we shall not be interested in this case in the following. Note however that sometimes poles might be unavoidable in compact setups \cite{Marchesano:2019azf}.}
In this scenario modes will correspond to linear fluctuations around a given background, that is we consider perturbations of the form
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
A_{\bar \imath } & \rightarrow A_{\bar \imath} + a_{\bar \imath}\,,\\
\Phi & \rightarrow \Phi + \varphi\,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Here we have considered only fluctuations $a_{\bar \imath}$ because they are the ones that enter in the superpotential.
Holomorphic fluctuations that descend to massless 4d fields will correspond to solutions of the linearized BPS equations in holomorphic gauge,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:F01}\bar{\partial} a & = 0\,,\\
\label{eq:F02}\bar{\partial} \varphi & = i [a ,\Phi]\,.
\end{align}
The general solution of the first equation, at least locally, is $a= \bar \partial \xi$, where $\xi$ is a zero-form.
Then we can solve the second one by setting
\begin{align}\label{eq:sol_linear_BPS}
\varphi = i[\xi, \Phi] + h\,,
\end{align}
where $h$ is a holomorphic $(2,0)$-form. This characterization is however insufficient because it obscures which modes are localized on matter curves. We will now discuss how to determine which modes are localized and use this information to compute their couplings at the Yukawa point.
\subsubsection{Localized modes and Yukawa couplings}
The missing piece in the description of zero modes involves gauge transformations. Namely, it is necessary to consider an equivalence relation on the space of zero modes of the form
\begin{align}\label{eq:gauge_transf_chi}
\begin{split}
a & \sim a + \bar \partial \chi\,,\\
\varphi & \sim \varphi -i [\Phi,\chi]\,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Here $\chi$ is the parameter of an infinitesimal gauge transformation.
We can use this to eliminate the holomorphic $(2,0)$-form appearing in the solution \eqref{eq:sol_linear_BPS} for $\varphi$, however this might not be possible at specific loci where the rank of $\Phi$ drops. Said differently, we can write the so-called torsion condition
\begin{align}\label{eq:tors}
\varphi = -i \left[\Phi, \frac{\eta}{f}\right]\,,
\end{align}
where $\eta$ is regular and $f$ is a holomorphic function vanishing on a curve $\Sigma$. This signals that a mode is trapped on $\Sigma$ as its profile cannot be gauged away via a regular gauge transformation. This gives an explicit algorithm to check whether localized modes exist.
Moreover this information is sufficient to compute the Yukawa couplings between the zero modes.
Indeed, plugging the linearized modes in the superpotential \eqref{eq:superP} we find the triple coupling
\begin{align}
\label{eq:tripl}W_\text{Yuk} = -i \int_S \text{Tr}\left(\varphi \wedge a \wedge a \right)\, .
\end{align}
When evaluated on the solutions of \eqref{eq:F01} and \eqref{eq:F02}, the integral quite remarkably localizes at the Yukawa points \cite{Cecotti:2009zf,Cecotti:2010bp}.
Specifically, let us parametrize the zero modes of ${\bf R}_l$-states localized on a curve $\Sigma_{{\bf R}_l}$ by $h_{{\bf R}_l}^{i_l}$ (which determines $(\varphi_{{\bf R}_l}^{i_l}, \eta_{{\bf R}_l}^{i_l})$ by \eqref{eq:sol_linear_BPS} and \eqref{eq:tors}), where the index $i_l$ labels different chiral ``generations''.
Then the contribution to the coupling between three modes coming from a point $p\in \Sigma_1 \cap \Sigma_2 \cap \Sigma_3$ is given by a residue formula,
\begin{align}\label{eq:residue_formula_general}
W_{i_1 \, i_2 \, i_3}(p) = -i \, \text{Res}_{p} \left[ \frac{\text{Tr} \left( [\eta_{{\bf R}_2}^{i_2},\eta_{{\bf R}_3}^{i_3}] h_{{\bf R}_1}^{i_1} \right) }{f_2 \, f_3}\right]\,.
\end{align}
Note that the value of this formula is invariant under permuting the role of the three modes, i.e., of which of the representations ${\bf R}_l$ we insert the mode $h_{{\bf R}_l}$ (and $\eta_{{\bf R}_l'}$ for the others), whose corresponding $f_l$ does not appear in the denominator.
For definiteness, we have chosen $l=1$ here.
\subsection{Higher rank coupling from multiple Yukawa points}
In the case of a single Yukawa point $p_1$, previous works \cite{Cecotti:2009zf,Heckman:2008qa,Font:2009gq,Conlon:2009qq} have shown that \eqref{eq:residue_formula_general} leads to a rank one coupling.
More precisely, one can pick a basis $h^{i_l}_{{\bf R}_l}$ for the zero modes on all three curves such that
\begin{align}
W_{i_1\, i_2 \, i_3}(p_1) = 0 \quad \text{unless } \, i_1 = i_2 = i_3 = 1 \, ,
\end{align}
where we have w.l.o.g.~assumed that it is the first basis element $h^{(l)}_1$ on each curve which couples to the others.
In terms of the residue formula \eqref{eq:residue_formula_general}, this means that for all but the one combination, the functions $\text{Tr} ( [\eta_{{\bf R}_2}^{i_2},\eta_{{\bf R}_3}^{i_3}] h_{{\bf R}_1}^{i_1} ) / (f_2 \, f_3)$ are all regular at $p_1$.
If there is a second point $p_2$ where all curves meet, there is no a priori reason why these functions \textit{all} remain regular at $p_2$.
Instead, the generic expectation is that, even though the contribution $W_{i_1\, i_2 \, i_3}(p_2)$ also has rank one, the corresponding zero modes $\tilde{h}^{i_l}_{{\bf R}_l}$ are linear combinations of $h^{i_l}_{{\bf R}_l}$.
Then, one would in general have two linearly independent zero modes, $h^{1}_{{\bf R}_l}$ and $\tilde{h}^{1}_{{\bf R}_l}$, with a non-zero coupling.
To explicitly verify this expectation, we have to track the zero mode basis elements $h^{i_l}_{{\bf R}_l}$, which are holomorphic sections of a line bundle ${\cal L}_l$ on $\Sigma_{{\bf R}_l}$, from one Yukawa point to the other.
In general, this requires us to identify these sections (given in local coordinates on $\Sigma_{{\bf R}_l}$) as elements of the quotient ring
\begin{align}\label{eq:quotient_ring_general}
\frac{\mathbb{C}[S]}{\langle f \rangle} \, ,
\end{align}
where $\mathbb{C}[S]$ denotes the regular functions on the K\"ahler surface $S$.
This can be most easily done when $\Sigma_{{\bf R}_l} \cong {\mathbb{P}}^1$, and both Yukawa points $p_1,p_2 \in \Sigma_{{\bf R}_l}$ are within a single $\mathbb{C}^2$ patch with coordinates $(x,y)$ on $S$.
In this case, one can use well-known algebra techniques to find a rational parametrization $t \mapsto (x(t), y(t))$ of the curve satisfying $f(x(t),y(t)) = 0$.
Because this is a birational map, we can invert this relation to obtain representations of polynomials in $t$ as elements of \eqref{eq:quotient_ring_general}, which in the local patch can be modeled as
\begin{align}
\frac{\mathbb{C}[x,y]}{\langle f(x,y) \rangle} \, .
\end{align}
Let us close this part by connecting the localized modes described thus far back to the geometric perspective on the chiral spectrum in section \ref{subsec:counting_matter_geo}.
First, it is obvious to identify the curves $\Sigma_{{\bf R}_l}$ with the matter curves $C_{{\bf R}_l}$.
Secondly, the first Chern-class of the line bundles ${\cal L}_l$ correspond to magnetic fluxes on the 7-brane's world-volume theory which thread the matter curves.
In the global F-theory picture, this flux is induced by a $G_4$-flux, which restricts on the matter curves to precisely the line bundles appearing in \eqref{eq:cohomologies_counting_vector_spectrum}.
For $C_{{\bf R}} \cong {\mathbb{P}}^1$, a basis for the $N+1 = \int_{C_{\bf R}} c_1({\cal L}_{\bf R})$ independent holomorphic sections can be taken to be the polynomials in the local coordinate $t$ up to degree $N$.
\subsection{Beyond holomorphic couplings}
To really compute the values of the physical couplings it is necessary to go beyond the analysis performed so far.
It is first necessary to obtain the profile of the background values of $A$ and $\Phi$ in a unitary gauge ensuring that the equation \eqref{eq:Dt} is satisfied as well.
In addition to this the zero modes in this background will need to satisfy the following equations
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\bar{\partial}_A a & = 0\,,\\
\bar{\partial}_A \varphi & = i [a ,\Phi]\,,\\
\omega \wedge \partial_A a & = \frac{1}{2} [\Phi^\dag ,\varphi]\,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
The triple coupling can again be computed using \eqref{eq:tripl} and this will yield the same result. What remains to be fixed is the overall normalization of the wave functions.
Namely, the norm of the wave functions determines their K\"ahler potential, and to recover the physical couplings it is necessary to normalize the 4d fields so that their kinetic terms are canonical.
Given the difficulty of determining these terms in a fully fledged, compact model, we shall henceforth focus only on the holomorphic couplings, leaving the computation of physical couplings for future work.
\section{Compact Toy Model with \texorpdfstring{\boldmath{$SU(5) \times U(1)$}}{SU(5)xU(1)} Symmetry}
\label{sec:toy_model}
In this section, we present a toy model that exhibits a higher rank Yukawa matrix.
We follow the procedure outlined in the previous section to explicitly compute the holomorphic coupling in the global model with all relevant complex structure moduli.
In particular, we demonstrate numerically the dependence of the two independent eigenvalues on the moduli, and show they generically differ by orders of magnitude, that is, have a non-trivial hierarchy.
The underlying geometry is based on a so-called factorized Tate model having an $SU(5) \times U(1)$ symmetry.
While the presence of the abelian factor allows for a simple realization of a chiral spectrum, the known local spectral cover description provides the means to exploit the Higgs bundle approach, and interpret the results in the global geometry.
\subsection[Factorized \texorpdfstring{$SU(5)$}{SU(5)} Tate model with genus-0 matter curves]{Factorized \boldmath{$SU(5)$} Tate model with genus-0 matter curves}
\label{subsec:geometricApproach}
First we would like to give the geometric details of our construction.
We start form the generic $SU(5)$ Tate model and then impose the so-called 3+2 factorization with an additional tuning.
This specialization has the advantage that, when we place the $SU(5)$ symmetry over a divisor $S_\text{GUT} \cong \text{dP}_2$ of the base, we find three genus-0 matter curves intersecting at two different points on $S_\text{GUT}$.
In addition, the 3+2 factorization leads to the presence of a $U(1)$-symmetry, which we can exploit in this context to give us a concrete $G_4$-flux realizing a spectrum compatible with non-trivial Yukawa couplings.
\subsubsection{Factorized \boldmath{$SU(5)$} Tate Model}
Recall that via Tate's algorithm \cite{Bershadsky:1996nh}, the generic fiber of an elliptic fibration $\pi: Y_4 \rightarrow B_3$ with an $I_5$ singularity over $\{w=0\} = \{w\} \subset B_3$ can be embedded in the weighted projective space ${\mathbb{P}}^{231} \ni [x,y,z]$ as a hypersurface,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Tate_with_SU5}
P_T := -y^2 + x^{3}+a_{1} x y z+a_{2,1} w \, x^{2} z^{2}+a_{3,2} w^2\, y z^{3}+a_{4,3} w^3\, x z^{4}+a_{6,5} w^5 \, z^{6} = 0\, ,
\end{equation}
where $a_{i,k}$ are sections of ${\mathcal{O}}_B({\overline{K}_B} - k\,[w])$, with $[w]$ the divisor class of $\{w\}$ and ${\overline{K}_B}$ the anti-canonical class of $B_3$.
In order to have a $U(1)$ symmetry, the fibration needs to have an independent rational section.
The idea of so-called factorized Tate models \cite{Mayrhofer:2012zy} to achieve this is to tune the coefficients $a_{i,k}$ such that the intersection of the hypersurface \eqref{eq:Tate_with_SU5} with $y^2 = x^3$ has more than just the zero-section $Z = \{z=0\}$.
That is, the divisor $\{P_T \} \cap \{y^2 - x^3\} \subset Y_4$ factorizes.
More specifically, by introducing $t \equiv \frac{y}{x}$, we demand that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:factorized_Tate_general}
\left.P_{T}\right|_{t^2 = x} = t^{5} z a_{1}+t^{4} z^{2} a_{2,1} w+t^{3} z^{3} a_{3,2} w^{2}+t^{2} z^{4} a_{4,3} w^{3}+z^{6} a_{6,5} w^{5} \stackrel{!}{=} -z \prod_{i=1}^{n} Y_{i} \, ,
\end{equation}
where, in addition to the universal zero-section factor $z$, we also find other rational solutions $Y_i =0$.
The careful reader will recognize the resemblance of this condition with split spectral covers \cite{Donagi:2009ra, Marsano:2009gv, Marsano:2009wr, Dolan:2011iu}.
Indeed, the original motivation stems from the spectral cover intuition, and we will later make use of the direct connection when we connect the geometric and the gauge theoretic approaches.
For one independent section, we have $n=2$, and there are two inequivalent factorizations:
The polynomials $Y_{1,2}$ either have degrees $(4,1)$ or $(3,2)$ in $t$.
We will focus on the second case, dubbed the 3+2 factorization, where $Y_i$ take the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3+2_factors}
Y_{1}= d_{3} t^{3}+d_{2} t^{2} z+d_{1} t z^{2}+d_{0} z^{3} \, , \quad Y_{2}=c_{2} t^{2}+c_{1} t z+c_{0} z^{2} \, .
\end{equation}
Assuming that we are working over a smooth base $B_3$, all coefficients $a_{i,k}$, $c_j$, $d_l$ that appear can be regarded as elements of a unique factorization domain (UFD).
Then, the factorization condition \eqref{eq:factorized_Tate_general} can be solved for the 3+2 factorization generically as \cite{Marsano:2009wr,Mayrhofer:2012zy}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:generic_solution_3+2_factorization}
\begin{aligned}
c_{0} & =\alpha \beta, \quad c_{1}=\alpha \delta, \quad d_{0}=\gamma \beta, \quad d_{1}=-\gamma \delta \, , \\
\text{and} \qquad a_{6, 5} &= \alpha \beta^2 \gamma,\ \ a_{4, 3} = \alpha\beta d_2 + \beta c_2 \gamma - \alpha\delta^2\gamma,\\
a_{3, 2} & = \alpha\beta d_3 + \alpha d_2 \delta - c_2\delta\gamma,\ \ a_{2, 1} = c_2 d_2 + \alpha \delta d_3, \ \ a_1 = c_2 d_3 \, .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
One can then straightforwardly determine the codimension two fibers hosting matter states (reading off the $U(1)$ charges $q$ is slightly more involved, see \cite{Mayrhofer:2012zy}).
In the 3+2 factorization, we have two $\mathbf{10}_q$ matter curves on $S_\text{GUT} \equiv \{w\}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:10_curves_general}
C_{{\bf 10}_{-2}} : \quad d_{3}=0, \quad C_{{\bf 10}_3} : \quad c_{2}=0 \, ,
\end{equation}
and three $\bar{\bf 5}_q$ matter curves on $\{P_i=0\} \cap S_\text{GUT}$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:5_curves_general}
\begin{aligned}
& C_{\bar{\bf 5}_{6}} : \, \delta = 0, \quad C_{\bar{\bf 5}'_{-4}} : \, \beta d_{3}+d_{2} \delta =0\, , \\
& C_{\bar{\bf 5}_{1}} : \, \alpha^{2} c_{2} d_{2}^{2}+\alpha^{3} \beta d_{3}^{2}+\alpha^{3} d_{2} d_{3} \delta-2 \alpha c_{2}^{2} d_{2} \gamma-\alpha^{2} c_{2} d_{3} \delta \gamma+c_{2}^{3} \gamma^{2} = 0\, .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We will focus on the coupling ${\bf 10}_{-2} \, \bar{\bf 5}_6 \, \bar{\bf 5}'_{-4}$ realized at the intersection $\delta = 0 = d_3$ on $S_\text{GUT}$.
For an explicit computation of the Yukawa matrix, we would like to find a concrete model where the involved matter curves have genus 0, and have at least two intersection points.
\subsubsection{Explicit construction with \boldmath{$S_\text{GUT} = \text{dP}_2$}}
To keep the construction simple, we sequester the geometric data and study the problem locally on the surface $S_\text{GUT}$.
For this, we first parametrize the sections that appear in the solution \eqref{eq:generic_solution_3+2_factorization} of the 3+2 factorization in terms of their line bundle (or equivalently, divisor) class, when restricted to $S_\text{GUT}$.
That is, in the following, all sections, line bundles and their dual divisor classes that appear are implicitly understood as the pull-backs/restrictions of the global objects, evaluated in the Picard/homology group of $S_\text{GUT}$.
We will use the notation $[s] = c_1({\cal L})$ to denote the divisor class of a holomorphic section $s \in H^0({\cal L})$, and $\overline{\cal K}$ to label the anti-canonical class of $S_\text{GUT}$.
A priori, the split spectral cover has two free parameters.
One is the first Chern class $c_1(N_{S_\text{GUT}})$ of the normal bundle to the GUT surface inside $B_3$, and the other the difference between the classes of the two factors $Y_1$ and $Y_2$, captured by the class of the coefficient $d_3$.
The other coefficients have to satisfy the ``ladder property":
\begin{align}\label{eq:ladder_property}
\begin{split}
[d_{j}] &= [d_3] + (3-j) \, \overline{\cal K}\quad (j = 0, 1, 2) \, ,\\
[c_{i}] &= [c_2] + (2-i) \, \overline{\cal K}\quad (i = 0, 1) \, .
\end{split}
\end{align}
The global realization in terms of the factorized Tate model \eqref{eq:generic_solution_3+2_factorization} further introduces one additional free parameter, $[\delta]$.
The classes of the other coefficients $\{\alpha,\beta,\gamma\}$ are then fully determined by \eqref{eq:generic_solution_3+2_factorization}.
For a consistent model, all these classes must be effective or trivial.
To facilitate a concrete global model, we consider an almost Fano threefold base $B_3$ constructed by blowing up along a nodal curve in ${\mathbb{P}}^3$.
After resolving the singularities and performing a flop transition, one obtains a smooth threefold $B_3 = \tilde{X}$.
While we refer to \cite{Marsano:2009ym} for the explicit construction of $\tilde{X}$, we point out that $\tilde{X}$ contains a rigid dP$_2$ surface, which we identify with $S_\text{GUT}$.
On $S_\text{GUT} = \text{dP}_2$, we will denote by $E_i$, $i=1,2$ the classes of the two exceptional curves, and by $H$ the generic hyperplane class of the underlying ${\mathbb{P}}^2$.
These three classes spans the homology lattice with intersection pairing given by
\begin{align}
H^2 = 1 \, , \quad E_i \cdot E_j = -\delta_{ij} \, , \quad H \cdot E_i = 0 \, .
\end{align}
The anti-canonical class is $\overline{\cal K} = 3H - E_1 - E_2$.
For an irreducible curve to be a smooth ${\mathbb{P}}^1$, the arithmetic genus,
\begin{equation}
g = 1 + \frac{1}{2}[C] \cdot ([C] - \overline{\cal K}) \, ,
\end{equation}
must vanish.
On a dP$_2$, the following homology classes have smooth irreducible representatives that have genus 0:
\begin{align}
[C] \in \{H \, , \, 2H-E_1-E_2 \} \, .
\end{align}
While these by far do not exhaust all possibilities, their corresponding polynomials have small number of free parameters, and thus make the subsequent Yukawa computation easier.
Specifically, we recall that the two curves $C_{{\bf 10}_{-2}}$ and $C_{\bar{\bf 5}_{6}}$ involved in the coupling are given by $d_3 =0$ and $\delta = 0$, and the Yukawa points are localized at $d_3 = 0 = \delta$.
Therefore, the assignment
\begin{align}
[d_3] = 2H-E_1-E_2 \quad \text{and} \quad [\delta] = H \, , \qquad \text{with } \quad [d_3]\cdot [\delta]=2,
\end{align}
guarantees that, in addition for the classes $[\delta]$ and $[d_3]$ to have genus 0, they also have to intersect twice, giving two independent contributions to the Yukawa matrix.
By the ladder property \eqref{eq:ladder_property}, $[d_2] = [d_3] + \overline{\cal K} = 5H-2E_1-2E_2$, the third matter curve $C_{\bar{\bf 5}'_{-4}} = \{ \beta d_3 + d_2\delta \}$ would have genus $g = 8 >0$.
Therefore, we further specialize the model such that $C_{\bar{\bf 5}'_{-4}}$ factors into two curve, one of which has genus 0 and passes through the two intersection points at $d_3 = 0 = \delta$.
One straightforward possibility that is compatible with the effectiveness of classes is by tuning $d_2 = \beta \, d_2'$,\footnote{Using $[\beta] + [d_3] = [d_2] + [\delta]$, as evident from the equation of $C_{\bar{\bf 5}'_{-4}}$, the class of $d_2'$ is $[d_2] - [\beta] = [d_3]-[\delta] = H - E_1-E_2$, which is indeed effective.} in which case the curve splits into
\begin{align}
C_{\bar{\bf 5}'_{-4}} \rightarrow \{ \beta \} \cup \{d_3 + \delta d_2' \} \, .
\end{align}
The factor $C_{\bar{\bf 5}_{-4}} := \{d_3 + \delta d_2'\}$ clearly passes through the point $\delta = 0 =d_3$, and further has class $[d_3] = 2H-E_1-E_2$ and thus genus 0.
Note that the $\bar{\bf 5}$ states over $C_{\bar{\bf 5}_{-4}}$ will again have $U(1)$ charge $-4$, because the fiber structure which determines this charge is inherited from the original $C_{\bar{\bf 5}'_{-4}}$ curve.
One can check that this tuning does not induce any other codimension two enhancements.
The specific embedding of $S_\text{GUT} \cong \text{dP}_2$ into the base threefold $B_3 = \tilde{X}$ has another pleasant feature here, namely, it avoids non-minimal singularities in codimension three of $B_3$ with the above assignment.
To see this, we recall from \cite{Dolan:2011iu,Mayrhofer:2012zy} that these singularities are at the intersections
\begin{equation}\label{eq:non-minimal_singularities}
\{c_2\} \cap \{\alpha\}, \quad \{c_2\} \cap \{\beta\} \cap \{\gamma\}, \quad \{d_2\} \cap \{d_3\} \cap \{\gamma\} \,
,
\end{equation}
on $S_\text{GUT}$.
For generic choices of complex structure, the last two cases are codimension three \textit{on the surface} $S_\text{GUT}$, and hence absent.
As for the first locus, $\{c_2\} \cap \{\alpha\}$, we note that in the $S_\text{GUT} \hookrightarrow \tilde{X}$ embedding, the normal bundle satisfies $c_1(N_{S_\text{GUT}})|_{S_\text{GUT}} = -H$ \cite{Marsano:2009ym}.
By adjunction, we then have
\begin{align}
[a_1] = \overline{K}_B|_{S_\text{GUT}} = \overline{\cal K} + c_1(N_{S_\text{GUT}})|_{S_\text{GUT}} = 2H - E_1 - E_2 = [d_3] \, .
\end{align}
Since $a_1 = c_2 d_3$ in the 3+2 factorization, this means that in our particular model, $c_2$ is just a constant and cannot vanish.
Note that this also eliminates the ${\bf 10}_3$ states on $\{c_2\}$, which however is of no consequence to us here.
To summarize our construction, we consider the 3+2 factorized Tate model (i.e., an $SU(5)$ Tate model \eqref{eq:Tate_with_SU5} with specialization \eqref{eq:generic_solution_3+2_factorization}) on the smooth compact base $B_3 = \tilde{X}$ that was constructed explicitly in \cite{Marsano:2009ym}.
We identify the $SU(5)$ divisor $S_\text{GUT}$ with the rigid dP$_2$ surface inside $\tilde{X}$.
We have shown that a further tuning, $d_2 = \beta\,d_2'$, is compatible with the following divisor class assignments of coefficients of the factorized Tate polynomial when restricted to $S_\text{GUT}$:
\begin{align}\label{eq:divisor_classes_tuned_3+2_model}
\begin{split}
& [\alpha] = 2H-E_1-E_2 \, , \quad [\beta] = 4H - E_1-E_2 \, , \quad [\gamma] = 7H - 3E_1-3E_2 \, , \quad [\delta] = H \, , \\
& [c_2] = 0 \, , \quad [d_2] = 5H - 2E_1-2E_2 \, , \quad [d_3] = 2H-E_1-E_2 \quad (\Rightarrow [d_2'] = H -E_1-E_2) \, .
\end{split}
\end{align}
This defines a global F-theory model with an $SU(5) \times U(1)$ gauge sector and the following representations on the corresponding matter curves:
\begin{align}\label{eq:matter_curves_tuned_3+2_model}
\begin{split}
& {\bf 10}_{-2} : \, d_3 =0 \, , \quad \bar{\bf 5}_6 : \, \delta = 0 \, , \quad \bar{\bf 5}_{-4} : \, d_3 + \delta\,d_2' = 0 \, , \\
& \bar{\bf 5}''_{-4} : \, \beta =0 \, , \quad \bar{\bf 5}_{1} : \, \alpha^{2} \beta^2 {d'_{2}}^{2}+\alpha^{3} \beta d_{3}^{2}+\alpha^{3} \beta d'_{2} d_{3} \delta-2 \alpha \beta d'_{2} \gamma-\alpha^{2} d_{3} \delta \gamma + \gamma^{2} = 0 \, .
\end{split}
\end{align}
There are generically no non-minimal singularity enhancements.
Amongst various types of codimension three singularities, we will focus on the locus $\delta = 0 = d_3$ with $I_2^* \cong SO(12)$ enhancement.
There are $[\delta] \cdot [d_3] = 2$ such points realizing the ${\bf 10}_{-2} \, \bar{\bf 5}_6 \, \bar{\bf 5}_{-4}$ coupling, where all the participating curves have genus 0.
\subsubsection{\boldmath{$U(1)$}-flux and massless spectrum}
\label{subsubsec:flux}
To fully specify the matter content of the 4d F-theory compactification, we need to also incorporate a $G_4$-flux $G_4 \in H^{2,2}(Y_4)$.
In general, the construction of such fluxes is straightforward given an explicit resolution of the fourfold.
Knowing the full space of (vertical) $G_4$-fluxes is oftentimes required for phenomenological purposes, i.e., finding solutions with realistic chiral spectra (see, e.g., \cite{Braun:2011zm, Marsano:2011hv, Krause:2011xj,Grimm:2011fx,Krause:2012yh,Braun:2013yti,Cvetic:2013uta,Cvetic:2015txa,Lin:2016vus,Cvetic:2018ryq,Cvetic:2019gnh}).
Since this is not the primary focus on the present work, our requirements are less constraining.
In particular, it suffices for our purpose to find a flux such that the chiral index for the three representations in question, ${\bf 10}_{-2}$, $\bar{\bf 5}_6$ and $\bar{\bf 5}_{-4}$, are all positive or negative.
This is required as, by gauge invariance and holomorphy of the superpotential, all participating matter fields must be either chiral or anti-chiral.
Since the matter curves are ${\mathbb{P}}^1$s, the number of chiral superfields is the same as the chiral index, as there cannot be any light vector-like pairs.
This condition can be satisfied by just turning on the so-called $U(1)$-flux \cite{Grimm:2010ez,Krause:2011xj},
\begin{align}\label{eq:U1_flux}
G_4 = \sigma \wedge \omega_B \, .
\end{align}
Here, $\omega_B$ is a $(1,1)$-form that is Poincar\'{e}-dual to a vertical divisor $\pi^{-1}(D_B)$ with $D_B \in H_4(B_3)$.
On the other hand, $\sigma$ is the $(1,1)$-form dual to the so-called Shioda divisor \cite{Park:2011ji, Morrison:2012ei} associated to the rational section generating the $U(1)$.
While we omit the specifics of the construction of this divisor (we instead refer to the reviews \cite{Weigand:2018rez, Cvetic:2018bni} for more details), we note that the $U(1)$-flux \eqref{eq:U1_flux} induces a chirality of a representation ${\bf R}_q$ over a curve $C_{{\bf R}_q}$ given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:chirality_U1_flux}
\chi({\bf R}_q) = q \, D_B \cdot [C_{{\bf R}_q}] \, ,
\end{align}
where $\cdot$ denotes the intersection product on the base $B_3$.
For the matter states localized on the surface $S_\text{GUT}$, it suffices to parametrize $D_B$ in terms of its restriction to the surface, i.e., $D_B|_{S} = a_1\,E_1 +a_2\, E_2 + b\,H$ with integers $a_1,a_2,b$.
Given the matter curves \eqref{eq:matter_curves_tuned_3+2_model} and their classes, we obtain the following chiralities:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\chi({\bf 10}_{-2}) & = -2 \, D_B \cdot [d_3] = -4b-2a_1-2a_2,\quad \chi ({\bar{\bf 5}_6}) = 6\,D_B \cdot [\delta] = 6b,\\
\chi({\bar{\bf 5}_{-4}}) & = -4 \, D_B \cdot [d_3] = -8b-4a_1-4a_2 .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Thus, if $\{b>0, (a_1+a_2)<-2b\}$, then all chiralities are positive
For concreteness, we take $(a_1,a_2, b) = (-2,-1, 1)$ to get:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chiralities}
\chi({\bf 10}_{-2}) = 2 \, ,\quad \chi ({\bar{\bf 5}_6}) = 6 \, ,\quad \chi({\bar{\bf 5}_{-4}}) = 4 \, .
\end{equation}
\subsection{Higgs bundle description}
\label{subsec:gaugeTheory}
Having laid out the underlying geometric construction, we will now focus on the explicit computation of the Yukawa couplings from the local gauge theory perspective.
As described in section \ref{sec:gauge_theory_basics}, this amounts to viewing the 7-brane's world volume theory on $S_\text{GUT}$ as a Higgs bundle with Lie group $G$.
The $SU(5)$ gauge symmetry in 4d is a result of a breaking by a $G$-adjoint valued Higgs field $\Phi$.
In our toy model, a natural choice for $G$ is provided by the split spectral cover description of the factorized Tate models \cite{Donagi:2009ra,Marsano:2009gv,Marsano:2009wr}.
Motivated by heterotic/F-theory duality, the spectral cover provides a dictionary between the singularity structure over $S_\text{GUT}$ and the localized 8d gauge theory with $G = E_8$.
For the 3+2 factorization, the vacuum expectation value (vev) of $\Phi$ is only non-trivial in $\left(SU(3) \times SU(2) \right)_\perp \times U(1) \subset SU(5)_\perp$, such that the 4d gauge symmetry is the commutant $SU(5)_\text{GUT} \times U(1)$.
We start by decomposing the adjoint $\mathbf{248}$ of $E_8$ to $SU(5)_\text{GUT}\times U(1) \times (SU(3)\times SU(2))_\perp$ and identify the $(SU(3)\times SU(2))_\perp$ representations for the localized fields on each matter curve.
Then we determine how the $(SU(3) \times SU(2))_\perp$-valued $\Phi$ acts on these modes, and solve for the torsion equations \eqref{eq:tors} to obtain the localized wave function $\eta$.
\subsubsection{Localized matter fields from \boldmath{$E_8$} breaking}
The Higgs vev that we impose takes value in $SU(5)_\perp \subset E_8$ and is a field configuration without a T-brane component,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Higgs_vev}
\Phi = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc|cc}
0 & 0 & -D_3 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & -D_2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & -D_1 & 0 & 0 \\\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -C_2\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -C_1
\end{array}
\right) \, .
\end{equation}
This Higgs background can be derived from a spectral cover associated with \cite{Marsano:2009gv,Marsano:2009wr}
\begin{equation}
P = (s^3 + D_1 s^2 + D_2 s + D_3)(s^2 + C_1 s + C_2) \, .
\end{equation}
The obvious connection to the 3+2 factorization \eqref{eq:3+2_factors} of the Tate model is to identify
\begin{equation}\label{eq:identification_local_global}
D_i = \frac{d_i}{d_0}, \ \ C_i = \frac{c_i}{c_0} \, .
\end{equation}
The locus where this identification breaks down, at $b_0\,c_0 = a_{6,5} = 0$, appear as poles of $\Phi$ in the local description, but are associated to the ``infinity locus" on the spectral cover \cite{Donagi:2009ra}, where one has to move to another patch of the global model.
Since our Yukawa points are not in the vicinity of this locus (see below), we do not have to concern ourselves with this issue.
The 3+2 factorization of the spectral cover implies a further decomposition $SU(5)_\perp \rightarrow (SU(3) \times SU(2))_\perp \times U(1)$, where the $U(1)$ with the generator
\begin{equation}
\text{diag} \left[ \frac{1}{3}, \frac{1}{3}, \frac{1}{3}, -\frac{1}{2}, -\frac{1}{2} \right] \in SU(5)_\perp
\end{equation}
is unbroken in 4d.
Thus, the Higgs vev \eqref{eq:Higgs_vev} takes value in $(SU(3) \times SU(2))_\perp \times U(1)$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:decomposed_higgs}
\Phi = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{D_1}{3} & 0 & -D_3 \\
1 & \frac{D_1}{3} & D_3 \\
0 & 1 & -\frac{2D_1}{3}
\end{array}
\right)\oplus \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{C_1}{2} & -C_2 \\
1 & -\frac{C_1}{2}
\end{array}
\right)\oplus\left(\frac{D_1}{2}\right) \, .
\end{equation}
In the presence of this vev, the ${\bf 248}$ representation of $E_8$ decomposes into representations $SU(5) \times (SU(3) \times SU(2))_\perp \times U(1) $ as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{248} \rightarrow \, & ({\bf 24,1,1})_0 +({\bf 1, 8, 1})_0 + ({\bf 1,1,3})_0 \\
+ & \left( (\mathbf{\bar{5}}, \mathbf{1}, \mathbf{1})_6 + (\mathbf{\bar{5}}, \mathbf{\bar{3}}, \mathbf{1})_{-4} + (\mathbf{\bar{5}}, \mathbf{3}, \mathbf{2})_{1} + \text{c.c.} \right) + \left( (\mathbf{10}, \mathbf{3}, \mathbf{1})_{-2} + (\mathbf{10}, \mathbf{1}, \mathbf{2})_{3} + \text{c.c.} \right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In this decomposition, the matter states we are interested in (${\bf 10}_{-2}$, $\bar{\bf 5}_6$ and $\bar{\bf 5}_{-4}$) carry no $SU(2)_\perp$ charges. Still, it is convenient to work with a basis $e_i$ of the fundamental representation of $SU(5)_\perp$ chosen such that the $SU(3)_\perp \subset SU(5)_\perp$ acts only on the elements $e_i$ with $i=1,2,3$. Fields in the anti-symmetric representation of $SU(5)_\perp$, that is the $\mathbf {10}$, can be represented as $e_i \wedge e_j$. With these conventions the matter fields that will be involved in the Yukawa coupling of interested may be represented as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{10}_{-2} : \left(\begin{array}{c}e_1 \\ e_2\\ e_3\end{array}\right), \quad
\mathbf{\bar{5}}_6 : \left(e_4 \wedge e_5\right), \quad
\mathbf{\bar{5}}_{-4} : \left(\begin{array}{c}e_2\wedge e_3\\e_3\wedge e_1\\ e_1\wedge e_2\end{array}\right) \, .
\end{equation}
The relevance of this basis is that it allows us to readily reconstruct the action of the background Higgs field $\Phi$ once we know its action on the fundamental representation. As an example that will be of interest in the following, the action on the anti-symmetric representation can be obtained as $\Phi(e_i \wedge e_j) = (\Phi e_i) \wedge e_j + e_i \wedge (\Phi e_j)$.
Now we solve for matter curves and torsion equation for the three matter curves respectively, following section \ref{sec:gauge_theory_basics} (see also \cite{Cecotti:2010bp,Chiou:2011js}).
We also identify the local spectral cover coefficients $C_i = c_i/c_0$ and $D_j = d_j/d_0$ with the global parameters of the factorized Tate model \eqref{eq:generic_solution_3+2_factorization} including the tuning $d_2 = d_2' \beta$.
\begin{itemize}
\item We begin with $\mathbf{\bar{5}}_6 \equiv (\mathbf{\bar{5}}, \mathbf{1}, \mathbf{1})_6$, where we have indicated explicitly the representations under $(SU(3) \times SU(2))_\perp \times U(1) \subset SU(5)_\perp$.
The action of $\Phi$ \eqref{eq:decomposed_higgs} on this field only corresponds to a multiplication by $D_1$.
Therefore, the rank of $\Phi$ drops along the matter curve
\begin{align}
\mathbf{\bar{5}}_6: \quad f_{\bar{\bf 5}_6} = D_1 = \frac{d_1}{d_0} = - \frac{\delta}{\beta} = 0\,.
\end{align}
By using gauge transformation we can fix
\begin{align}
\varphi_{\mathbf{\bar 5}_6} = h_{\mathbf{\bar 5}_6}\,, \qquad h_{\mathbf{\bar 5}_6} \in \frac{\mathbb C[S_\text{GUT}]}{\langle D_1\rangle} \cong \frac{C[S_\text{GUT}]}{\langle \delta \rangle} \, ,
\end{align}
where for the last equality we have used that $\beta$ is a regular function on $S_\text{GUT}$.
Finally we can determine the solution to the torsion equation
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\mathbf{\bar{5}}_6} = h_{\mathbf{\bar{5}}_6}\,.
\label{eqn:eta1}
\end{equation}
\item We proceed to $\mathbf{10}_{-2} \equiv (\mathbf{10}, \mathbf{3}, \mathbf{1})_{-2}$, which carries the fundamental representation under $SU(3)$ and two units of $U(1)$ charge.
To understand how many localized modes we find from this sector, we first perform a general gauge transformation \eqref{eq:gauge_transf_chi} with gauge parameter $\chi$:
\begin{equation}
\delta \varphi_{\mathbf{10}_{-2}} = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & -D_3 \\
1 & 0 & -D_2 \\
0 & 1 & -D_1
\end{array}
\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\chi_1\\
\chi_2\\
\chi_3
\end{array}
\right)\,.
\end{equation}
The matter curve will be located at the locus where said gauge transformations fail to be invertible as the information contained there cannot be erased via a gauge transformation.
This happens where the determinant of the matrix vanishes, which in our case is
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{10}_{-2}: \quad f_{{\bf 10}_{-2}} = D_3 = \frac{d_3}{\gamma \beta} = 0\,.
\end{equation}
By using gauge transformations we can gauge away all components of $\varphi_{\mathbf{10}_{-2}}$ but the first one.
That is, we can choose the gauge to be
\begin{align}
\varphi_{\mathbf{10}_{-2}} = \left(\begin{array}{c} h_{\mathbf{10}_{-2}} \\ 0 \\0 \end{array}\right)\,, \qquad h_{\mathbf{10}_{-2}} \in \frac{\mathbb C[S_\text{GUT}]}{\langle D_3\rangle} \cong \frac{\mathbb{C}[S_\text{GUT}]}{\langle d_3 \rangle} \,.
\end{align}
The solution of the torsion equation is then
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\mathbf{10}_{-2}} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
D_2 & -D_3 & 0 \\
D_1 & 0 & -D_3 \\
1 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
h_{\mathbf{10}_{-2}}\\
0\\
0
\end{array}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
D_2 \,h_{\mathbf{10}_{-2}}\\
D_1 \,h_{\mathbf{10}_{-2}}\\
h_{\mathbf{10}_{-2}}
\end{array}
\right)\,.
\label{eqn:eta2}
\end{equation}
\item Much of the analysis that we just presented carries out mutatis mutandis for the last matter field, that is the $\mathbf{\bar 5}_{-4}$. We can reconstruct the action of gauge transformation on this field by simply exploiting the fact that it is in the $\mathbf{10}$ representation of $SU(5)_\perp$, obtaining the gauge variation
\begin{equation}
\delta \varphi_{\mathbf{\bar{5}}_{-4}} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
-D_1 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & -D_1 & -1 \\
D_3 & D_2 & 0
\end{array}
\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\chi_1\\
\chi_2\\
\chi_3
\end{array}
\right)\,.
\end{equation}
The matter curve is again given by the vanishing locus of the determinant of this matrix action:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\bar{5}}_{-4}: \quad f_{\bar{\bf 5}_{-4}} = D_3 - D_1 D_2 = \frac{d_3 + d_2' \delta}{\gamma\beta} = 0 \, .
\end{equation}
Note how the spectral cover description misses the $\bar{\bf 5}''_{-4}$ curve on $\{\beta\}$ which was a result of our additional tuning.
The fact that we do not see it in the local patch is related to the fact that $\{\beta\}$ is actually part of the ``infinity locus'' of the spectral surface mentioned above.
Again, since this matter curve plays no role in our discussion, we will ignore this issue for the rest of this work. It is possible now to gauge fix $\varphi_{\mathbf{\bar {5}}_{-4}}$ as follows
\begin{align}
\varphi_{\mathbf{\bar 5}_{-4}} = \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\0\\ h_{\mathbf{\bar 5}_{-4}}\end{array}\right)\,,\qquad h_{\mathbf{\bar 5}_{-4}} \in \frac{\mathbb C[S_\text{GUT}]}{\langle D_3-D_1 D_2\rangle} = \frac{\mathbb{C}[S_\text{GUT}]}{\langle d_3 + d_2' \delta \rangle} \,.
\end{align}
Then we have
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\mathbf{\bar{5}}_{-4}} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
D_2 & 0 & 1 \\
-D_3 & 0 & -D_1 \\
D_1 D_3 & D_1 D_2 - D_3 & D_1^2
\end{array}
\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0\\
h_{\mathbf{\bar{5}}_{-4}}
\end{array}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
h_{\mathbf{\bar{5}}_{-4}}\\
-D_1 \,h_{\mathbf{\bar{5}}_{-4}}\\
D_1^2 \,h_{\mathbf{\bar{5}}_{-4}}
\end{array}
\right)\,.
\label{eqn:eta3}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Explicit computation of Yukawa couplings}
We now turn to the explicit computation of the Yukawa couplings.
With the above results, we can simply plug in the expressions for $\varphi_{{\bf R}_l}$ and $\eta_{{\bf R}_l}$ into the general formula \eqref{eq:residue_formula_general}.
Assuming we have the different chiral generations represented by $h^i_{{\bf R}_l}$, the triple couplings become
\begin{align}\label{eq:yukawa_final_formula}
W_{\bar{\bf 5}^i_{-4} \times \bar{\bf 5}^j_{6} \times {\bf 10}^k_{-2}} = \sum_{P \in \{P_1, P_2\}} \text{Res}_{P} \left[ \frac{\text{Tr}\left( \varphi^i_{\bar{\bf 5}_{-4}} \, \left[ \eta^j_{\bar{\bf 5}_6} , \eta^k_{{\bf 10}_{-2}} \right] \right)}{f_{\mathbf{10}_{-2}}f_{\mathbf{\bar 5}_{6}}} \right] = \sum_{P \in \{P_1, P_2\}} \text{Res}_{P} \left[ \frac{ h^i_{\bar{\bf 5}_{-4}} \, h^j_{\bar{\bf 5}_6} \, h^k_{{\bf 10}_{-2}} }{ D_1 \, D_3} \right] \, ,
\end{align}
where we have summed up the contributions from the two different points $P_{1,2}$ where this coupling occurs.
In the global model \eqref{eq:generic_solution_3+2_factorization}, the denominator becomes $D_1 \, D_3 = \frac{d_1 \, d_3}{d_0^2} = -\frac{d_3\,\delta}{\gamma \, \beta^2}$.
As we will see, the value of $\gamma \, \beta^2$ can vary by orders of magnitude between $P_1$ and $P_2$, and will be ultimately responsible for large hierarchies between the physical couplings.
The explicit numerical values depend on the complex structure moduli.
For the couplings \eqref{eq:yukawa_final_formula} these are the coefficients of the polynomials of $d_3$, $\delta$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$.
Let us first look at the polynomials $d_3$ and $\delta$, since their mutual vanishing define the points $P_{1,2}$.
In terms of the toric coordinates $(u,v,w,e_1,e_2)$ on $S_\text{GUT} = \text{dP}_2$ (see appendix \ref{app:toric_dP2} for the conventions), the generic polynomials with coefficients $k_i$ satisfying $[d_3] = 2H - E_1 - E_2$ and $[\delta]= H$ are:
\begin{align}\label{eq:explicit_param_d3delta}
\begin{split}
\delta & = k_0 \, (u e_1 e_2) + k_1 \, (v e_2) + k_2 \, (w e_1) \, ,\\
d_3 & = k_3 \, (u^2 e_1 e_2) + k_4\, (v w) + k_5 \, (u v e_2) + k_6 \, (u w e_1) \, .
\end{split}
\end{align}
Note that an overall scaling of either polynomials neither change the curve their vanishing defines, nor do they affect ratios of the Yukawa couplings.
That is, there are 5 independent complex structure parameters in $d_3$ and $\delta$.
One can easily show that both solutions of $\delta =0 = d_3$ lie in the local patch $\{u \neq 0, v\neq 0, w\neq 0\}$ (see appendix \ref{app:toric_dP2}).
Using the three independent scaling relations on dP$_2$, we can then set these coordinates to 1 in the patch.
Then $\delta$ and $d_3$ are just polynomials in $e_{1,2}$.
Solving for $\delta=0=d_3$, we indeed find two distinct solutions whose explicit expressions we defer to the appendix, see \eqref{eq:solutions_yukawa_points}.
The last remaining piece of information concerns the choice of the sections $h^i_{\mathbf R}$ appearing in the residue formula.
The choice of representatives will be specified by the line bundle ${\mathcal L}_{\mathbf R} \otimes S_{C_{\bf R}}$ on each matter curve, and given that all matter curves are genus zero curves this bundle is entirely specified by its first Chern class.
More concretely, if ${\mathcal L}_{\bf R} \otimes S_{C_{\bf R}} = \mathcal O_{\mathbb P^1}(N+1)$ then its holomorphic sections can be chosen to be homogeneous polynomials of degree $N$ in the two projective coordinates of the $\mathbb P^1$, or in a local patch, they will be represented by polynomials of degree up to $N$ in the inhomogeneous coordinate $t$ of the patch.
The ${\mathbb{P}}^1$-coordinate $t$ is related to the (local) surface coordinates $e_{1,2}$ by a birational map.
Given the explicit equations \eqref{eq:explicit_param_d3delta}, determining such a rational map is a basic algebra exercise.
For example, the curve $\{d_3\}$ hosting the fields in the $\mathbf{10}_{-2}$ representation can be parametrized as
\begin{align}
t \mapsto (e_1(t) , e_2(t)) = \left(\frac{k_5 k_6 - k_5 t - k_3 k_4}{k_3 t }\,, \, \frac{t-k_6}{k_3} \right) \,.
\end{align}
From this, we can represent the sections $h_{\mathbf{10}_{-2}}$ which ought to be polynomials in $t$ as functions in $e_i$.
One canonical choice here would be
\begin{align}
h_{\mathbf{10}_{-2}} &\in \mathbb C \left[e_2 k_3 + k_6\right] \cong \mathbb{C} [e_2]\,.
\end{align}
A similar computation for the $\bar{\bf 5}_6$ curve $\{\delta\}$ leads to the representation
\begin{align}
h_{\bar{\mathbf 5}_6} &\in \mathbb C\left[e_2 k_0+k_2\right] \cong \mathbb{C} [e_2]\,.
\end{align}
Note that we could have also written them in terms of $e_1$ by inverting the relation between $e_1$ and $t$.
This would not have affected our result because the two choices are identical when restricted to the matter curve, i.e., as elements in $\mathbb{C}[e_1,e_2]/\langle f \rangle$ for $f = d_3, \delta$.
One can equally obtain a parametrization for the $\bar{\bf 5}_{-4}$ curve, which however is slightly more cumbersome because of the more complicated expression.
For the purpose of exhibiting the higher rank Yukawa structure, we will fix one chiral ``generation'' of this matter, and compute the coupling matrix $W_{ij}$ for different generations $h^i_{{\bf 10}_{-2}}$ and $h^j_{\bar{\bf 5}_6}$.
For the residue formula, we then simply insert for $h^i_{\bar{\bf 5}_{-4}}$ a constant, which is always a valid basis element for holomorphic sections (unless there are none).\footnote{We are basically treating the ${\bar{\bf 5}_{-4}}$ fields as the Higgs representation, for which there is only one chiral superfield in the ``real'' world.
The triple couplings then form an honest matrix $W_{ij}$, where $(i,j)$ run over the ``quarks/leptons''.
While our chiral spectrum is not realistic as we have multiple Higgs fields ${\bar{\bf 5}_{-4}}$ (which might be remedied in future work with a different $G_4$-flux), we note that, at the level of representations, ${\bar{\bf 5}_{-4}}$ can be actually identified with a Higgs field in an $SU(5)$-GUT theory, where the $U(1)$ is of Peccei--Quinn type \cite{Marsano:2009wr}.
}
Then, \eqref{eq:yukawa_final_formula} reduces to
\begin{align}\label{eq:yukawa_final_final}
W_{ij} = \sum_{P \in \{P_1, P_2\}} - \text{Res}_P \left[ \frac{\gamma \, \beta^2 \, h^i_{{\bf 10}_{-2}} \, h^j_{\bar{\bf 5}_{6}} }{d_3\,\delta} \right] \, .
\end{align}
For the chiral spectrum \eqref{eq:chiralities} we can pick the basis $h^i_{{\bf 10}_{-2}} \in \{ 1, e_2\}$, and $h^j_{\bar{\bf 5}_{6}} \in \{1,e_2,e_2^2,..., e_2^5\}$.
What remains is to parametrize the functions $\beta$ and $\gamma$.
Since their divisor classes (see \eqref{eq:divisor_classes_tuned_3+2_model}) are quite large, their explicit polynomial expression is lengthy.
Specifically, $\beta$ has 12 independent parameters, and $\gamma$ has 23.
The concrete value of \eqref{eq:yukawa_final_final} depend on all $5+12+23 = 40$ complex structure parameters that appear in $(d_3, \delta, \beta, \gamma)$.
For generic values, we confirm numerically that $W_{ij}$ is indeed a rank two matrix.
\subsection{Complex structure dependence and Yukawa hierarchies}
\label{subsec:numerical_analysis}
Given the explicit parametrization of the complex structure dependence of this Yukawa matrix, we can give a qualitative analysis of how the holomorphic couplings vary over the moduli space.
To do so, we first pick two of the six generators $h^j_{\bar{\bf 5}_{6}}$, say $1$ and $e_2$.
For generic complex structure, the resulting $2 \times 2$ matrix is still rank two, confirming our expectation that the contributions from two Yukawa points are indeed linearly independent.
The two eigenvalues $\lambda_{1,2}$ of this $2 \times 2$ matrix are the two independent holomorphic Yukawa couplings.
To visualize the moduli dependence, we analyze the ratio $r = | \lambda_1 / \lambda_2 |$ for two varying complex structure parameters, while we hold all others fixed at random order 1 values.
It turns out that for order 1 variations, the ratio can develop large hierarchies of ten orders of magnitude, see figure \ref{fig:yukawaRatio}.
In particular, it appears that variations for parameters in the polynomials $d_3$ and $\delta$ affect the ratio more severely than for most parameters in $\beta$ or $\gamma$.
For these parameters, changes by orders of magnitude in $r$ occurs only when we vary the coefficients of the highest degree monomials in $\beta$ or $\gamma$, see figure \ref{subfig:ratio1}.
This observation confirms that the large variations of the relative coupling indeed comes from the prefactor $\gamma\beta^2$ in \eqref{eq:yukawa_final_final}.
Importantly, we find that hierarchies of order $10^3$ and larger are not constrained to lower dimensional subspaces of the complex structure moduli space, but rather generic.
That is, for every pair of parameters we vary, there is finite \textit{area} (rather than just along a line), where we observe such hierarchies.
\begin{figure}[!p]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\label{subfig:ratio1}\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{YukawaRatio01.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\label{subfig:ratio2}\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{YukawaRatio02.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\label{subfig:ratio3}\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{YukawaRatio03.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\label{subfig:ratio4}\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{YukawaRatio04.pdf}}
\caption{Dependence of Yukawa eigenvalues' ratio $\text{log} |r|$ on the complex structure moduli.
While we use the labels $k_i$ for the parameters of $\delta$ and $d_3$ introduced in \eqref{eq:explicit_param_d3delta}, we indicate the others by the corresponding monomial in the polynomials ($\beta$ or $\gamma$).
In, (a) and (b), we vary one modulus in $d_3$ / $\delta$ and one in $\beta$ / $\gamma$.
In (c), we vary parameters in $d_3$ / $\delta$ only, effectively just moving around the two Yukawa points.
For (d), we only vary parameters in $\beta$ and $\gamma$.
The results suggest that varying the parameters controlling the Yukawa points affect the ratio more drastically than those in $\beta$ and $\gamma$, unless we modify the coefficients of the high-degree terms in the latter.
These plots were generated in \texttt{Mathematica} and suffer from some numerical instabilities, which do not qualitatively change our results.
}
\label{fig:yukawaRatio}
\end{figure}
We emphasize here again that this is only the holomorphic coupling, and the physical values will depend on the flux data and, importantly, the K\"ahler moduli.
However, expectation from earlier works, and also the fact that the observed hierarchies are generic in complex structure moduli, suggest that these additional effects will not affect the holomorphic coupling's hierarchy too much.
We believe that these observations are not a special feature of our model, but rather general for compact F-theory models.
For instance, the rank enhancement can be traced in our step-by-step derivation to the fact that for different basis functions $h^i_{{\bf R}}$ of the wave function zero modes, the rational functions
\begin{align}
\frac{h^{i_1}_{{\bf R}_1} \, h^{i_2}_{{\bf R}_2}}{f_{{\bf R}_1} \, f_{{\bf R}_2}}
\end{align}
appearing in the residue formula \eqref{eq:yukawa_final_final} have different pole structures at different points with $f_{{\bf R}_1} = f_{{\bf R}_2} =0$.
Such a behavior is expected for general rational functions of this type and therefore clearly not special to our toy model.
The large hierarchies are due to the factor $\gamma\beta^2$ in \eqref{eq:yukawa_final_final}:
These polynomials have no zeroes at the Yukawa points and thus contribute to the couplings basically as a prefactor given by their values at the points.
However, because they are of rather high degrees ($\beta,\gamma$ have monomials up to degrees $6 / 8$ in $e_i$), these values change by a few orders of magnitudes at the different points.
While the high degree of these polynomials are a direct result of the model, it is not inconceivable that such factors appear also in other examples.
Making this claim on solid footing will require future work.
\section{Conclusions and Outlook}\label{sec:conclusions}
In this work we have demonstrated that global F-theory models can in general exhibit higher rank Yukawa coupling matrices.
At the level of the holomorphic couplings, our analysis has further shown that there are large hierarchies for generic complex structure moduli.
Compared to previous work \cite{Heckman:2008qa,Heckman:2009mn,Hayashi:2009ge,Randall:2009dw,Font:2009gq,Cecotti:2009zf,Conlon:2009qq,Hayashi:2009bt,Marchesano:2009rz,Cecotti:2010bp,Chiou:2011js,Aparicio:2011jx,Font:2012wq,Font:2013ida,Marchesano:2015dfa,Carta:2015eoh}, the key ingredient to our approach is that contributions to the same couplings from \textit{different} Yukawa points in the geometry are in general linearly independent.
In particular, this comes from purely geometric considerations, and does not invoke any instanton or T-brane effects.
For concreteness, we have considered the ${\bf 10}_{-2} \, \bar{\bf 5}_6 \, \bar{\bf 5}_{-4}$ coupling in a compact toy $SU(5) \times U(1)$-model with a $G_4$-flux that induced enough chiral matter to facilitate a higher rank coupling matrix.
On the $SU(5)$-divisor $S_\text{GUT} \cong \text{dP}_2$, we could explicitly parametrize a basis for the wave function zero modes in terms of $\text{dP}_2$ coordinates, because all participating matter curves were rational curves that intersected twice inside a $\mathbb{C}^2$ patch of $S_\text{GUT}$.
Evaluating the corresponding residue formula then became an easy algebra exercise, which indeed confirmed that the two contributions added up to a rank two coupling matrix.
Interestingly, a numerical analysis of the complex structure dependence of the couplings revealed that there is generically a large hierarchy of ${\cal O}(10^{10})$ and more between the two independent holomorphic couplings.
Here, ``generic'' means that we observed these hierarchies in a full-dimensional subspace of the complex structure moduli space.
In our toy model, the origin of these hierarchies can be traced to the factor $\gamma \beta^2$ in the residue formula \eqref{eq:yukawa_final_final} which, since it generically does not share zeroes with the denominator, simply multiplies the value of the residues at the Yukawa points.
However, as a polynomial of degree 20, its value at the different Yukawa points can easily change over several orders of magnitude even if the points are separated by order one changes of the coordinates.
From \eqref{eq:generic_solution_3+2_factorization}, we expect that the degree of $\gamma \beta^2$ is generally very high, since it appears as factor of $a_{6,5}$ which itself (as section of ${\cal O}_B(6\overline{K}_B - 5 S_\text{GUT})$) is typically a high degree polynomial.
This does not rule out models, particularly of other fibration type with different spectral cover descriptions, where the relevant polynomials are of low degree and thus might have a less prominent hierarchy at generic values of complex structure.
Whether such models are easily constructed or, perhaps more importantly, can exhibit other phenomenologically appealing aspects, will hopefully be answered in future works.
Note that so far, we have only discussed the holomorphic Yukawa matrices.
While we would need to also compute the K\"ahler-moduli dependent normalization factors of the wave functions to obtain the physical couplings, the expectation---also based on intuition from type II compactifications \cite{Cvetic:2003ch,Cremades:2003qj,Cremades:2004wa,Blumenhagen:2006xt,Blumenhagen:2007zk}---is that these factors do not affect the hierarchies strongly.
In particular, given that these are generic in complex structure moduli, it would be highly unlikely if these non-holomorphic factors always conspire to cancel the K\"ahler-moduli independent hierarchy of the holomorphic couplings.
It would clearly be interesting to adapt our computation to models with more phenomenological appeal than our toy model.
In particular, demonstrating in the recently found class of three-family MSSM models \cite{Cvetic:2019gnh} that the up-type quark mass matrix generically has rank three with large hierarchies---even just at the level of holomorphic couplings---could provide a strong argument for ``string universality'' in the particle physics sector of F-theory.
To achieve this, there is clearly more technical and conceptual details to be understood.
For one, finding an explicit parametrization on the gauge divisor of holomorphic sections on higher genus curves will require more elaborate techniques than for ${\mathbb{P}}^1$s.
More importantly, it will be challenging to find an appropriate map between the Higgs bundle description and the global geometry in cases without a known spectral cover description.
And finally, it will be imperative to also understand the non-holomorphic prefactors encoding the K\"ahler moduli dependence in a global setup, in order to determine the physical couplings.
We look forward to address these issues in future works.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Jonathan Heckman and Craig Lawrie for useful discussions.
The work of MC and LL is supported by DOE Award DE-SC0013528Y.
MC further acknowledges support from the Slovenian Research Agency No.~P1-0306, and the Fay R.~and Eugene L.~Langberg Chair funds.
The work of GZ is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-1756996.
|
\section{Introduction}
Future wave-based computers will need to carry out certain functions to control propagating waves. One important function is to steer a wave beam or a wave packet in a controlled manner. For spin waves in ferromagnets \cite{stancil_spin_2009-1, kruglyak_magnonics_2010, lenk_building_2011, chumak_magnon_2015}, a possible contender for wave-based computing, this has mostly been investigated in terms of confining waves along curved waveguides \cite{vogt_spin_2012, xing_how_2013, xing_excitation_2015, garcia-sanchez_narrow_2015, lan_spin-wave_2015, sadovnikov_spin_2017}. However, these waveguides may suffer from losses/scattering in bends, and usually have a large spatial footprint. An alternative solution is to steer spin waves via a graded refractive index \cite{davies_graded-index_2015, dzyapko_reconfigurable_2016, gruszecki_spin-wave_2018, vogel_control_2018}, which smoothly alters the wave trajectory with minimal reflections \cite{whitehead_luneburg_2018}. To achieve a graded index for spin waves, one must gradually change a magnonic parameter on a length scale much smaller than the wavelength.
In optics, wave steering via a graded index is a well-established technique. One spatially-efficient method of steering is via rotationally-symmetric profiles (lenses), which are specifically designed to steer light by a certain angle between 0$^\circ$ and 360$^\circ$, and can do so from any direction of incidence \cite{eaton_spherically_1952, cornbleet_generalised_1981, minano_perfect_2006, schmiele_designing_2010, chang_enhanced_2012, sarbort_spherical_2012}. Although these lenses are designed to work with light, the same analysis applies to any other wave, supposing that the dispersion relation is known.
A practical problem with these lenses is that they require a singular refractive index in the center, while even a moderately large refractive index is difficult to achieve in most areas of wave physics, One technique to avoid this problem is via transformation optics \cite{tyc_transmutation_2008, hooper_transmutation_2013,horsley_removing_2014-1}. The profile can also be truncated, but this often results in an incorrect trajectory \cite{zentgraf_plasmonic_2011}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:index} Images (a) and (c) show the ray paths, and images (b) and (d) give the refractive index profile for the 90$^\circ$ and Eaton lenses (lens radius $R$), respectively.}
\end{figure}
Here, we show that an extremely high refractive index can quite easily be achieved for magnetostatic (dipolar) spin waves in the forward-volume geometry. Although a singular index is obviously still impossible, the refractive index can become high enough to closely match the required refractive index profile of these steering lenses. We use micromagnetic modelling to demonstrate how two of these lenses can be realized for spin waves in the dipolar regime, and analyse the lenses' robustness to profile deviations.
\section{Theory of Spin Wave Steering Lenses}
We first explain the properties of the steering lenses, and then show how they may be implemented for spin waves. We will be using the 90$^\circ$ lens \cite{cornbleet_generalised_1981, schmiele_designing_2010} and Eaton (180$^\circ$) lens \cite{eaton_spherically_1952}. Fig. \ref{fig:index} compares their respective refractive index profiles, defined as \cite{sarbort_spherical_2012}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:90}
\text{90$^\circ$ lens:} \quad (r/R) n^4 - 2n + (r/R) = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Eaton}
\text{180$^\circ$ (Eaton) lens:} \quad n(r) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{(r/R)} - 1},
\end{equation}
where $r$ is the radial coordinate and $R$ is the radius of the lens in each case. Note that the profile for the 90$^\circ$ lens \eqref{eq:90} is defined implicitly here.
Defining a refractive index profile for spin waves is non-trivial, since the dispersion relation is strongly dependent on the geometry, and is always nonlinear. In some geometries it is also highly anisotropic. The simplest way to implement the rotationally-symmetric profiles is via a geometry with an isotropic dispersion relation, and design each lens for a fixed incident wave frequency, although it should work also for a wave packet with a small frequency spread. The refractive index is defined as the ratio of the wave number inside the lens, $k(r)$, to that outside the lens, $k_\text{ref}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:luneburg_sw}
n(r) = \frac{k(r)}{k_\text{ref}}.
\end{equation}
To change the wave number and thus the index for the given wave frequency, we need to change the dispersion relation by varying one of the bulk material parameters, or film thickness \cite{davies_graded-index_2015, dzyapko_reconfigurable_2016, gruszecki_spin-wave_2018, vogel_control_2018, whitehead_luneburg_2018}.
We then need to choose an isotropic dispersion relation that enables a large change in $k$, and thus $n$. This requirement is satisfied in the dipolar-dominated regime, in the forward-volume geometry, where the magnetization is directed normal to the film plane. The dipole-dipole interaction dominates the dispersion for spin wave wavelengths $\lambda$ of millimeters to micrometers. At the other end of the spectrum, the short-range exchange interaction dominates, for wavelengths from tens to hundreds of nanometers. In the crossover regime, the dispersion curve flattens out before the exchange interaction begins to have a stronger influence. It is this shallow gradient in the crossover regime that enables a large index to be obtained. The forward-volume dipole-exchange dispersion relation can be written for the angular frequency $\omega(k)$ as \cite{kalinikos_theory_1986}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:disp}
\omega(k) = \sqrt{\left(\omega_H + l_\text{ex}^2\omega_M k^2 \right) \left(\omega_H + l_\text{ex}^2\omega_M k^2 +\omega_M f(k) \right)},
\end{align}
where $\omega_H= \mu_0 \gamma (H - M)$, $\omega_M = \mu_0\gamma M$, and $f(k) = 1- \frac{1-\exp(-k s)}{k s} $. Here, $\mu_0$ is the permeability of free space, $\gamma$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, $H$ is the applied external magnetic field, $M$ is the saturation magnetization, $s$ is the film thickness and $l_\text{ex}=\sqrt{\frac{2A_\text{ex}}{\mu_0 M_0^2}}$ is the exchange length, where $A_\text{ex} = 0.4\times10^{-11}$ J/m is the exchange constant. In this paper, we will use the following values outside of the lens for the magnetization, magnetic field and film thickness, respectively: $M_0=140$kA/m, $\mu_0 H_0=200$mT, and $s_0=10\mu$m. The resulting value of exchange length is $l_\text{ex} \approx 18$ nm. These values determine $k_\text{ref}$, and thus the index will be 1 when $M=M_0$, $H=H_0$ and $s=s_0$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:disp} Dispersion relation $f(k)$ for dipole-exchange spin waves, with a zoom of the dipolar-dominated region shown in the inset. The curves use $M=M_0=140$ kA/m (black) or $M=1.1 M_0=154$ kA/m (blue). The green dashed line in the inset indicates how much the wave number changes for a fixed frequency of 1 GHz.}
\end{figure}
Using the material parameters listed above, the dipole-exchange dispersion relation is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:disp}, where we also show the effect of increasing $M$ by 10\%. This small change in $M$ leads to a large change in $k$, and thus $n$, due to the shallow gradient in the crossover region between the dipolar-dominated and exchange-dominated regimes. The corresponding change in the index is from 1 to 54 for a fixed frequency of 1 GHz. The use of a thick film of 10$\mu$m enables a particularly large index to be achieved, because the shallow gradient extends to larger $k$ values. In comparison, a thinner film of 2 $\mu$m leads to an index change from 1 to 28 for the same 10\% increase in $M$. Note that the value of $f$ at $k=0$ marks the lower threshold of the spin wave `manifold', which corresponds to the ferromagnetic resonance frequency. In Eq. \eqref{eq:disp}, this occurs when $H=M$ and thus $\omega_H=0$.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:indexpara} The dependence of the magnonic refractive index on (a, d) magnetization, (b, e) magnetic field and (c, f) film thickness. In (d)-(f), this dependence is shown for waves with frequencies of 1 GHz (green), 2 GHz (orange) and 3 GHz (blue). In (a)-(c), the color scale is logarithmic, along with the $n$ axis in (d)-(f) for clarity.}
\end{figure*}
In Fig. \ref{fig:indexpara}, we show how the index $n$ depends on the three parameters that can be varied in Eq. \eqref{eq:disp} ($M$, $H$ and $s$), for different incident wave frequencies $f$. In Fig. \ref{fig:indexpara} (a)-(c), we can see the distinct dipole-dominated and exchange-dominated regimes, for $f\lesssim 1.9$ GHz and $f\gtrsim 1.9$ GHz, respectively. The transition region between these two regimes is where the dispersion curve flattens at around 1.9 GHz, as we saw in Fig. \ref{fig:disp}. The white regions in panels (a) and (b) correspond to values of $M$ or $H$ for which there are no spin wave solutions for the given value of frequency, i.e. when the bottom of the spin wave manifold is above the chosen value of frequency. We have limited $M/M_0$ in (a) and (d) and $H/H_0$ in (b) and (e) to ensure that $M\leq H$, i.e. to keep the internal magnetic field positive and thus avoid any instability. In addition, we have chosen the smallest value of $f$ to correspond to a maximum wavelength of 1mm when the index is equal to 1.
Notice from Fig. \ref{fig:indexpara} that an increase in the magnetization or a decrease in the magnetic field / thickness is required to increase the index. For the former case, this may be achieved via cooling (as heating naturally reduces the magnetization \cite{vogel_optically_2015}) or doping \cite{fassbender_control_2006}. Although we show the variation of the index with thickness according to \eqref{eq:disp}, a graded index profile created in this way may induce complicated static or dynamic demagnetizing fields \cite{dove_demagnetizing_1967, schlomann_surfaceroughnessinduced_1970, langer_role_2017}, not accounted for here. However, these effects may be reduced by slowly changing the thickness over a large distance.
Strikingly, Fig. \ref{fig:indexpara} shows that just a relatively small change in $M$ or $H$ is required to produce a dramatic change in the index in the dipolar regime. This regime is therefore ideal to create the extreme refractive index profiles required for the steering lenses. In addition, refractive index profiles that require only a small change in the index, such as the Luneburg lens, may be created in this geometry by a tiny change in the same parameters \cite{whitehead_luneburg_2018}. Exchange-dominated spin waves require a large change in one of the parameters for a comparatively modest change in $n$, as we show for the 3 GHz wave frequencies in Fig. \ref{fig:indexpara}.
Changing the saturation magnetization is more straightforward in micromagnetic modelling, so we will vary $M$ in this work to vary the index. Using the steering lens profiles \eqref{eq:90}-\eqref{eq:Eaton}, along with the dipole-exchange dispersion relation \eqref{eq:disp}, we can establish numerically the magnetization profile to create each lens. For the choice of material / incident wave parameters listed below, we show the required magnetization profiles in Fig. \ref{fig:profiles} (a), and the corresponding wavelength profiles in (b). For clarity, we show the profiles up to $M=1.1M_0$, which corresponds to a value of $r/R$ of $1\times10^{-5}$ and $7\times10^{-4}$ for the 90$^\circ$ and Eaton lenses, respectively. So, the majority of the profile is shown except for the singular index region in the very center.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig4.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:profiles} (a) Magnetization profiles and (b) value of the wavelength along the radius of each lens, for the 90$^\circ$ (black) and Eaton (red) lenses. This is valid for an incident wave frequency of 1 GHz, and other parameters listed in the text.}
\end{figure}
\section{Micromagnetic Modelling}
In order to verify the above analysis, we have performed micromagnetic simulations using MuMax3 software \cite{vansteenkiste_design_2014-1}. We model an yittrium iron garnet (YIG) film with thickness $s_0=10\mu$m in the $z$ direction, and extent of around 6mm$\times$6mm in the $x-y$ plane. The $x-y$ axes are defined in Fig. \ref{fig:beams}. As before, the saturation magnetization outside each lens is set to $M_0=140$kA/m and the bias magnetic field is $\mu_0 H_0=200$mT in the $z$ direction. We set the Gilbert damping parameter to $\alpha = 1\times10^{-4}$.
We use a cell size of $1.5\times1.5\times10\mu$m with $4096\times4096\times1$ cells in the $(x,y,z)$ directions. This choice of cell size is a compromise between resolving the smallest possible wavelength, and being able to represent a large enough lens. From Fig. \ref{fig:profiles} (b), we can see that if we direct the incident waves to avoid the region $r/R<0.1$, then the smallest wavelength should easily be greater than 15$\mu$m, which is 10 times larger than the cell size in the film plane. This approach is a necessity for the modelling, but should not be a limitation for any future experiments. If the profile in Fig. \ref{fig:profiles} can be created, this should represent the refractive index profile almost exactly.
We now describe the form of the incident wave. The lenses are primarily designed to steer a collimated beam, and we create this with a magnetic field of the form $[1 - \exp(-0.1\omega_0t)]\sin(\omega_0 t)$ in time, where $\omega_0 = 2\pi f_0$ and $f_0$ is the excitation frequency. Spatially, this magnetic field is Gaussian in $y$ and has a step profile in $x$, 8 cells wide, similar to the approach in Ref. \onlinecite{gruszecki_goos-hanchen_2014}. The magnetic field is directed along $x$, with an amplitude of 0.2 mT, and a frequency of $f_0= 1$ GHz. We also find that the lenses work well with a wave packet, which we position to be partly steered by the lens and partly unaffected by it, similar to the approach in Ref. \onlinecite{ma_omnidirectional_2009}. We create the wave packet by amending the beam's magnetic field profile to be of the form $G[x]G[y]G[t]\sin(\omega_0 t - k_0 x)$, where $G[x,y,t]$ is a Gaussian in $x$, $y$ or $t$, $k_0=2\pi/\lambda_0$, and $\lambda_0\approx170\mu$m is the spin wave wavelength outside of the lens for excitation frequency $f_0$. We also employ absorbing boundary layers along the edges in the $x$ and $y$ directions \cite{venkat_absorbing_2018}.
A perfectly graded index is not possible in finite difference simulations, but a stepped profile can work effectively if the steps are much smaller than the wavelength. This also holds true in experiments, as per the metamaterial approach \cite{vasic_controlling_2010}. In the model, we allocate 233 concentric circular regions to the lens, where the radius of each region is sized to ensure that $M$ steps up by equal amounts each time, until reaching $1.1M_0$ as per Fig. \ref{fig:profiles}. However, this profile will not be matched exactly due to the cell size, especially where $M$ is required to change substantially on a length scale which is smaller than the cell size. This is only an issue towards the center of the lens and may lead to some scattering, which should be mitigated somewhat by avoiding the central region of $r/R<0.1$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig5.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:beams} Steady-state snapshot of beams travelling through the (a) 90$^\circ$ and (b) Eaton lens, sized at $r=14\lambda$. The inner dashed circle indicates $r/R=0.1$, and blue dotted guide lines are shown to indicate the $90^\circ / 180^\circ$ angles. The black line on the lower left in each image indicates the source region for the beam. }
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:beams}, we show the beam's trajectory through each lens, after a long enough time has elapsed. Both lenses are sized at $R=14\lambda_0$, to ensure the beam is mostly contained within the lens. We can see that the 90$^\circ$ lens works particularly well to bend the beam by the required angle, although there is some expected spreading of the beam within and on exiting the lens, making it difficult to see if the trajectory follows the required angle exactly. The Eaton lens is quite sensitive to the placement of the beam, as the beam tends to spread into the central region, where the cell size limits how well we can represent the refractive index profile. We have found that positioning the beam towards the edge of the lens means the central region is mostly avoided, and the trajectory is around 175$^\circ$. Note for both images that the absorbing boundaries have absorbed the edge of the outgoing beam, so the actual outgoing beam is a little wider than shown.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig6.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:90_180} Consecutive snapshots of the wave packet moving through the (a) 90$^\circ$ and (b) Eaton lenses with $R=6\lambda$, shown from (i)-(iv). The $m_x$ component is shown, saturated for clarity. The inner circle indicates $r/R=0.1$. The black arrow in panels (i) indicates the initial propagation direction of the wave packet.}
\end{figure}
We show the results for the wave packet incident on the 90$^\circ$ and Eaton lenses in Fig. \ref{fig:90_180}, and the corresponding videos are provided in the Supplemental Material \footnote{See Supplemental Material for videos of the results shown in Fig. \ref{fig:90_180}}. We can see that in each case, the portion of the wave packet that enters the lens is steered approximately by the required angle, and remains `connected' to the other portion of the packet that does not enter the lens and hence continues on the original trajectory. Interestingly, this implies that the part of the wave joining these two portions of the wave packet experiences an effective graded index, despite being in a homogeneous medium; its wavefronts must be curved, to bridge the two diverging parts of the wave packet \cite{philbin_making_2014}. The use of the lenses in this way is similar to a beam divider, and may be a way to send different portions of the same wave (beam or packet) to more than one output, albeit with some loss en route.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig7.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:beamdivider} (a) Steady state snapshot of the beam and (b) snapshots in time of the wave packet moving through the 90$^\circ$ lens ($R=6\lambda$) to demonstrate its use as a beam divider. The $m_x$ component is shown, saturated for clarity. The inner circle indicates $r/R=0.1$.}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:beamdivider}, we show another use for the 90$^\circ$ lens when the beam is instead positioned to enter the lens symmetrically about the center. In this case, the lens acts as a $\pm90^\circ$ half-power beam divider, proposed by Ref. \onlinecite{cornbleet_generalised_1981}. This works well for both a beam (Fig. \ref{fig:beamdivider} (a)) and wave packet (Fig. \ref{fig:beamdivider} (b)), albeit with some scattering from the central region. Note that we have broadened the excitation width across the $y$ direction, to ensure that the beam is exposed to as much of the lens as possible, without having to reduce the lens size. In addition, we have reduced the excitation amplitude to 1 mT in both cases, to avoid a nonlinear response when the wave encounters the high-index central region. The corresponding videos are provided in the Supplemental Material \footnote{See Supplemental Material for videos of the results shown in Fig. \ref{fig:beamdivider}}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig8.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:diff_freq} Demonstration of the effectiveness of the (a) 90$^\circ$ and (b) Eaton lenses from Fig. \ref{fig:beams}, for different incident wave frequencies (ii) $f=0.9f_0$ and (iii) $f=1.1f_0$, with $f_0=1$ GHz. For comparison, the magnetization profiles which would be required to make the lenses for each frequency is shown in (i). The inner circle indicates $r/R=0.1$.}
\end{figure}
So far, we have seen the results for each lens when the refractive index profile is designed correctly for the incident wave. However, we would now like to demonstrate that the lenses still work reasonably well when the incident wave frequency is slightly different from the optimal value. As we will see, this is equivalent to designing a slightly incorrect magnetization profile for a certain choice of frequency. In Fig. \ref{fig:diff_freq}, we change the frequency of the incident wave by $\pm 10\%$ from $f_0 = $1 GHz, and these waves travel along the profile designed to work for an incident wave frequency of $f_0$, for the 90$^\circ$ lens in Fig. \ref{fig:diff_freq} (a) and Eaton lens in Fig. \ref{fig:diff_freq} (b). In panel (i), we show the magnetization profiles that would be required to make the lenses for each frequency. We then show the results for the 0.9 GHz and the 1.1 GHz beams in panels (ii) and (iii), respectively. Recall that these 0.9 GHz and 1.1 GHz beams should rotate by 90$^\circ$/180$^\circ$ only when they encounter their respective magnetization profiles in panel (i), but they are instead traversing the profile designed for the 1 GHz wave. As a result, we see that the 0.9 GHz beam rotates too much, and the 1.1 GHz beam does not rotate enough in each case. The angles are again difficult to quantify exactly due to the beam spreading, but are around 10$^\circ$-20$^\circ$ away from the target angle in each case. This suggests that if the wave trajectory is not quite right, then the correct trajectory may be recovered by adjusting the wave frequency accordingly.
\section{Conclusions}
In summary, we have demonstrated how steering lenses with singular graded index profiles can be almost exactly realized for spin waves with a 10\% change in either the external magnetic field or magnetization, in the dipole-dominated regime. We have shown the operation of two such lenses in micromagnetic modelling by changing the magnetization, but the theory is applicable for rotation by any angle, from any angle of incidence. As long as the index is smoothly graded, the lenses should be robust to small deviations in the profile, and small deviations in rotation angle may be corrected by changing the incident wave frequency. Our results demonstrate the potential of magnonics for realising extreme ranges of the refractive index, something that is far more difficult to achieve in other areas of wave physics.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This research has received funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) of the United Kingdom, via the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Metamaterials (Grant No. EP/L015331/1). SARH would like to thank the Royal Society and TATA for financial support (Grant No. RPG-2016-186).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Deep Learning has become an absolute revolution in art generation. Since the development of recent Deep Learning techniques, many advances have been published in this knowledge area. Most of them are focused on image generation
\cite{2016arXiv160905473Y}, but other areas such as text generation have experienced much research \cite{2019arXiv190202192W}.
In music analysis, some works have begun to arise in recent years using Deep Learning techniques that allow the generation of audio. However, the most used methods (Generative Adversarial Networks, GANs, and Linear Shot-Term Memories, LSTMs), are very complex methods that require a very high training dataset with a long training time \cite{dong2018}\cite{Ycart2018}. Moreover, these models do not give any control to the user about the piece of music generated by the system. A system that allows the user to change the piece being generated at any time would be desirable.
Other models used for this task are Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) \cite{Higgins2017betaVAELB}. This model combines an encoder and a decoder in order to make a transformation from a usually high dimensional space into a lower dimensional space. This new space is called latent space, and its main feature is that any point from that latent space can be decoded returning an output with sense. Therefore, any latent vector between two (or more) musical pieces will return a musical piece with the properties of those mixed. This allows the user to change the values of the latent vector in order to get a similar musical piece. This feature can make VAEs a powerful technique for music composition, in which the user has more control and can change at any moment the melody being composed by the system.
VAEs have already been explored as systems for musical analysis \cite{esling2018}; however, its use for composition and prediction still has to be explored. This paper shows how VAEs can be used for music prediction and therefore for music composition from a small dataset. In this work, classical music was used for training the system and, as a result, the system is able to compose melodies with the same style as the dataset used for training. Moreover, and oppositely with other systems, VAEs allow the training with a relatively small dataset. We will show that a small number of musical pieces is enough for the system to learn a particular style of a composer. Results show that the system is able to perform in unseen data with the same accuracy as with data used in the training process. Therefore, no large datasets are needed to develop this system and to learn the style of an author.
The application of VAEs is done in a different way: usually, inputs and targets have the same value. In this case, different values have been used to allow the system to properly train to accomplish the objective of this work.
Also, even VAEs have already been used in the field of music analysis, the main approaches do not use pure VAEs with dense layers; instead of it, they are usually mixed with other techniques such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) \cite{yin_jyun_luo_2018_1492501}. This work presents an approach in which pure VAEs are used to perform classical music composition.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows: Section \ref{sec:seccionStateOfTheArt} contains a description of the most relevant works in this area. Section \ref{sec:seccionVAE} provides a description of VAEs. Section \ref{sec:seccionModel} describes the method used in this work, with the descripction of the representation of the music in \ref{sec:seccionRepresentation}, the implementation of the VAE in \ref{sec:AutoencoderImplementation}, and the different metrics used for measuring the results in \ref{sec:PerformanceMeasures}. Section
\ref{sec:Experiments} describes the experiments carried out in this work. Finally, sections \ref{sec:seccionConclusions} and \ref{sec:seccionFutureWorks} describe the main conclusions of this work and the future works that can be carried out from it.
\section{State of the Art}
\label{sec:seccionStateOfTheArt}
Even music generation is an exciting task, up to date few works have focused on this task. These works use mainly Deep Learning techniques that allow new ways of signal processing. As new Deep Learning models have been developed, these models have been applied to music generation.
One of the most used techniques in art generation is Generative Adversarial Networks, which consist of two different neural networks: generator and discriminator. The generator is used to generate new plausible examples from the problem domain, while the discriminator is used to classify examples as real or fake. This model has been successfully applied to image generation \cite{goodfellow2014gan}. In the field of music generation, there are some works in which it has been applied, with some modifications to model the temporal structure and the multi-track interdependency of a song \cite{dong2017} \cite{yang2017} \cite{dong2018}.
Other works are focused on Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, which are networks with recurrent connections broadly used for temporal processing \cite{LSTM2001}. Simple LSTMs were used for musical transduction \cite{Ycart2018} to implement a pitch detection system. In another work, LSTMs were combined with VAEs for music generation \cite{roberts2018}. In this work, 2-layer LSTMs with 1024 neurons per layer were used for the decoder.
Autoencoders (AEs) have also been used as models in the field of music analysis. For instance, they were used to synthesize musical notes, having as input raw audio instead of pitches\cite{2017arXiv170401279E}. Thus, the focus of this work was not to generate music compositions but independent raw musical notes.
VAEs have also been used for music-based tasks. For instance, in \cite{esling2018} and
\cite{2018arXiv180508501E}, VAEs were used for timbre studies. In this work, the Short-Term Fourier Transform (STFT) in combination with a Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) and the Non-Stationary Gabor Transform (NSGT) to preprocess the audio before the application of the VAE. In another work, Convolutional Neural Networks have been used to extract features. However, its main goal was not to compose music, but to perform audio-to-MIDI alignment, audio-to-audio alignment, and singing voice separation \cite{yin_jyun_luo_2018_1492501}.
In another work, VAEs are combined with LSTMs used as encoders, and recurrent neural networks (RNNs) as decoders \cite{roberts2018}. In a recent publication, VAES were used for sound modeling \cite{2018arXiv180604096R}. This work makes a comparison of different models, including VAEs, However, this work works with raw audio instead of MIDI files since its objective is to model sound and not music generation. VAEs have been used also for processing of speech signals with the objective of making modifications in some attributes of the speakers \cite{Blaauw2016} \cite{2017arXiv170404222H}
\section{Variational Autoencoders}
\label{sec:seccionVAE}
Variational Autoencoders arose from the evolution of autoencoders \cite{2013arXiv1312.6114K} \cite{Higgins2017betaVAELB} \cite{Kaae2016}. Both techniques aim to codify a set of data into a smaller vector, and then reconstructing the original data from this vector. In AEs, the set of data points in the input space is mapped to an smaller vector, which is a point in a new space with fewer dimensions called latent space. Usually, Multilayer Perceptrons (MLPs) are used for the codification and decodification tasks. This approach allows for interesting tasks such as information compression. However, in this latent space other points different than those obtained from an input do not usually correspond to an output with significance in the original space.
That is the reason why VAEs try to build a latent space, in which all of the latent vectors corresponding to inputs are close to each other, and the points in the space between them correspond to outputs that have a significance in the original space. VAEs allow powerful representations while being a simple and fast learning framework.
The objective of Variational Autoencoders is to find the underlying probability distribution of the data $p(x)$, where $x$ is a vector in a high dimensional space. In a lower-dimensional space $z$, a set of latent variables are considered. The model is defined by the probability distribution
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eq1}
p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z}) = p(\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{z})p(\mathbf{z})
\end{equation}
The function $p(\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{z})$ represents a probabilistic decoder that models how the generation of observed data $\mathbf{x}$ is conditioned on the latent data $\mathbf{z}$. The function $p(\mathbf{z})$ represents the probability distribution of the latent space and is usually modeled by a standard Gaussian distribution.
The function $p(\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{z})$ can be approximated with a model $q(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x})$. This model works as an encoder, and, for a specific $\mathbf{x}$, emits two latent vectors, $\boldmath{\mu}$ and $\boldmath{\sigma}$, that represent the mean and standard deviation of the Gaussian probability for that data.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eq2}
q(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x}) = \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{z};\tilde{\mathbf{\mu}}(\mathbf{x}), \tilde{\mathbf{\sigma}}^2(\mathbf{x}))
\end{equation}
The optimization problem consists on minimizing the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between the approximation and the original density. Using the Bayes' rule, the expression to minimize is the following:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eq3}
{{D}_{KL}( q(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x}) || p(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x}))} = {\mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{z})} [log\,q(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x}) - log\,p(\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{z}) - log\,p(\mathbf{z}) + log\,p(\mathbf{x})]}
\end{equation}
As it can be seen, the system is based on two parts: $q(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x})$ encodes the data into the latent representation, and $\mathbf{z}$ $p(\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{z})$ is a decoder, generates data $\mathbf{x}$ from a latent vector $\mathbf{z}$. Since $p(z)$ does not depend on $q(z)$, this equation can be rewritten as the following
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eq4}
log\,p(\mathbf{x}) - {{D}_{KL}( q(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x}) || p(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x}))} = {\mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{z})} [log\,p(\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{z})]} - {{D}_{KL}( q(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x}) || p(\mathbf{z}))}
\end{equation}
According to Eq.\ref{eq:eq4}, the objective can be changed into maximizing the marginal log-likelihood $log\,p_\theta(\mathbf{x})$ over a training dataset of vectors $\mathbf{x}$. This value to maximize is called the evidence lower bound (ELBO) and can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eq5}
log \ p(\mathbf{x}) = D_{KL}(q_(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x}) || p_\theta(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x})) + \mathcal{L}(\phi, \theta, \mathbf{x})
\end{equation}
In Eq.\ref{eq:eq5}, $\phi$ denotes the parameters of the encoder and $\theta$ the parameters of the decoder (weights and biases); $D_{KL}$ is the Kullback-Leibler divergence, non-negative, and $\mathcal{L}(\phi, \theta, \mathbf{x})$ is the variational lower bound. This value is calculated by the following equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eq6}
\mathcal{L}(\phi, \theta, \mathbf{x}) = \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x})} [log\,p(\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{z})] - D_{KL}( q(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x}) || p(\mathbf{z}))
\end{equation}
First term of Eq.\ref{eq:eq6} represents the average accuracy obtained by the system when using an approximate q instead of p. The second term represents the error made by using $q(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x})$ instead of $p(\mathbf{z})$ and allows to regularize the approximation q to be close to the true distribution.
Many times a $\beta$ value is introduced in the second term, leading to the $\beta$-VAE formulation. This modification can lead to having better results \cite{Higgins2017betaVAELB}; however, some works suggest a modification of this parameter through the training process \cite{Kaae2016}. This term allows the control of the trade-off between output signal quality and compactness/orthogonality of the latent coefficients $\mathbf{z}$.
The first term of the previous equation is approximated with the average value of the calculation of $log\,p(\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{z_l})$, where for each data $\mathbf{x}$ in the training set $\mathbf{z_l}$ are samples from the distribution $q(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x})$. Thus, the calculation of this term becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vlb}
\frac{1}{L}\sum_{l=1}^L{log\,p(\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{z_l})}
\end{equation}
The values $\mathbf{z_l}$ are taken from the distribution $\mathcal{N}(\mu(\mathbf{x}), \sigma(\mathbf{x}))$, where $\mu(\mathbf{x})$ and $\sigma(\mathbf{x})$ are the ouputs from the decoder with $\mathbf{x}$ as input.
\section{Model}
\label{sec:seccionModel}
\subsection{Representation}
\label{sec:seccionRepresentation}
The model proposed in this paper uses a representation of the music with the shape of a binary matrix $M$ with dimensions $n$x$t$, where $n$ is the number of pitches and $t$ is time. In this work, a time step of 100 milliseconds was used. Therefore, $M_{ij} = 1$ for those moments $j$ in which a pitch $i$ is being played, and 0 when that pitch is not being played. In this codification, the velocity (i.e., the volume) of the note events has not been taken into consideration.
This matrix is built from a MIDI file that contains the notes and the duration of each one. From these files, the notes are read and the matrix $M$ is built. A note with a pitch i that begins in the instant t and has a duration of $100*d$ milliseconds will be situated in row i, and in the columns from $t$ to $t+d$. In the case of having two consecutive overlapping notes with the same pitch, the matrix $M$ will have, on that note, a series of 1s from the beginning of the first note to the end of the second, with no distinction of being one long note or two different overlapping notes. To make this distinction, the value of $M$ at the moment previous to the second note is set to 0.
To make the dataset, 14 different compositions of Handel were used. Although it may seem a very low number, one of the objectives of this work is to show that this system can learn the representation into the latent space with a small dataset, and the resulting model can learn correctly the style of an author. These compositions were codified into binary matrices as described before.
\subsection{Autoencoder implementation}
\label{sec:AutoencoderImplementation}
Once the matrices were obtained, the inputs and targets of the VAE were elaborated. In a traditional approximation, the inputs and targets of the VAE are the same vectors. However, in this particularly case, a different approach was used. The inputs were a time window of $T$ seconds of the matrix $M$, i.e., a set of consecutive columns reshaped as a vector. An overlapping of $T-1$ seconds was used for building different inputs from the same matrix. In this case, the targets for these inputs were not the same vector. Instead of it, the target for each input was the following input. Since an input and the following one had a difference of 1 second, $T-1$ seconds of the targets correspond to values in the inputs, and 1 second of the targets are new musical notes.
With this approach, we want the VAE not only to learn the dependencies between notes that allow making a representation in the latent space, but also the dependencies with the next second of music. Therefore, VAE is aimed to solve two different problems: music recomposition and music prediction. Once $T$ seconds of music are codified into a latent vector, the decodification of this vector returns the following $T$ notes with overlapping of $T-1$ seconds. Therefore, with this VAE trained, the generation of new musical compositions is very simple. First, $T$ initial seconds of music are taken. These seconds may be some already existing seconds from any composition or the decodification of any random vector in the latent space. Then, these seconds are used as inputs to the VAE to generate $T$ seconds in which the first $T-1$ are overlapping. Thus, 1 second of new music is generated. These $T$ seconds can be used again as inputs to generate a new second, and therefore a loop is built in which it can have as many iterations as seconds are needed.
It is important to bear in mind that this system does not compose songs with a structure. Instead of it, it is able to complete a composition in those parts in which the music may be missing. If the system is used for this purpose, then the $T$ initial seconds will be an existing part of the composition, and the system will try to continue this composition in the same way as Handel would have done.
Moreover, the part given by the system is not unique. Different parts can be returned if the vector is modified in the latent space. In this sense, this system allows the composition of different melodies.
Since a VAE is used, a loss function has to be given. This loss function was defined in section \ref{sec:seccionVAE}. In this implementation, sigmoid functions are used in the output layer, and therefore the system returns values between 0 and 1. In order to build music representation as a boolean matrix as described in section \ref{sec:seccionRepresentation}, a threshold must be used. Experimentation with different thresholds has to be done in order to find one the returns the best results.
\subsection{Performance measures}
\label{sec:PerformanceMeasures}
In order to measure the behaviour of this system, the outputs generated by this system, after the application of the threshold, must be compared with the targets. Since both outputs and targets are boolean values, this comparison can be done by means of Accuracy ($ACC$), Sensitivity ($SEN$) and Predictive Positive Value ($VPP$).
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{images/F1ACCTodos.pdf}}
\caption{F1 score and accuracy for each configuration}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
These values can be calculated from a confusion matrix. This matrix is built from 4 values:
\begin{itemize}
\item True Positives ($TP$) is the number of pitches and time steps correctly played.
\item False Positives ($FP$) is the number of pitches played in a time step in which there should be silence.
\item True Negatives (TN) is the number of pitches and time steps in which no notes are played and there should be silence.
\item False Negatives ($FN$) is the number of pitches and time steps in which no notes are played but there should be played.
\end{itemize}
From these values, $ACC$, $SEN$ and $VPP$ can be calculated with the following equations \cite{FAWCETT2006861}:
\begin{equation}
\ ACC = {\frac {TP+FP}{TP+FP+TN+FN}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\ SEN = {\frac {TP}{TP+FN}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\ VPP = {\frac {TP}{TP+FP}}
\end{equation}
Accuracy ($ACC$) represents the ability of the model to play values adequately. Sensitivity ($SEN$) represents the ability to play the true notes, even some additional notes might be played. Predictive Positive Value ($PPV$) is the probability of the system that the notes played correspond to true notes, even if some true notes are left to be played.
Since $SEN$ and $PPV$ are important measures, a good trade-off between $SEN$ and $PPV$ is needed. These values, as well as $ACC$, highly depend on the threshold chosen. A low value on the threshold leads to having a high number of notes played, even if many of them do not correspond to the original piece. A high value of the threshold corresponds to having a low number of notes, but with a high probability that they belong to the original piece.
Many times, these two measures ($SEN$,$PPV$) are summarized in a single metric called $F1-score$. This metric is with the harmonic mean of $SEN$ and $PPV$ metrics and it is usually better than accuracy on imbalanced binary data, as is the case of this dataset \cite{hastie_09_elements-of.statistical-learning}.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:Experiments}
In order to develop the system described in section \ref{sec:AutoencoderImplementation}, different experiments were carried out to set the values of the different parameters.
As it was already said, the system tries to predict 1 second of music from $T-1$ seconds of music. Therefore, this value of $T$ is an important parameter. Low values doe not give enough information to predict the music. On the other hand, too large values may give too much information and make the training process too slow, and overfit to the training set. The experimentation was performed with values of $T=2$ to $T=10$ seconds. Additionally, a value of $T=1$ was also chosen, in order to make predictions of 0.5 seconds instead of 1 second.
With respect to the architecture of the network, in all of the cases, the decoder was a MLP with one hidden layer and the decoder had the same architecture. An important parameter is the number of neurons in the hidden layers. Experiments with 500 and 750 neurons were performed.
Another important parameter was the dimension of the latent space. In this sense, values of 100 and 200 were chosen for this parameter. Finally, a value of $\beta = 0.5$ was used in these experiments.
The dataset was divided leaving the 20\% of the data for the test. This 20\% for the test was chosen to be in compositions different from the training set.
The system was trained with all of the parameter configurations described. For each configuration, different thresholds were used in order to select the best threshold and configurations. Figure \ref{fig:1} shows the results obtained for each configuration. The figures on the left show the $F1$-scores and accuracies obtained with the best threshold for each configuration on the training set. The figures on the right show the $F1$-scores and accuracies obtained on the test set with the thresholds given by the left figures. As it can be seen, accuracies and $F1$-scores are very high on both training and test sets. From this figure, a configuration with a window size of 9 seg, 750 hidden neurons and a latent dimension of 200 was chosen since it returned the best results on the training dataset.
Figure \ref{fig:2} shows the results obtained with a different threshold for this configuration. This figure shows Sensitivity, $PPV$ and $F1$-score on training and test sets. As can be seen, low threshold values lead to having high sensitivity and low $PPV$. On the other side, a high threshold leads to having low sensitivity and high $PPV$. Therefore, a trade-off between these two values is needed. For this reason, $F1$-score was used. As a result, the value with the highest $F1-score$ in the training set was used as a threshold, being this value 0.41. The right plot shows the sensitivity, $PPV$ and $F1$-score for the test set.
As these figures show, the test results are very close to the training results, even when having a small dataset, and very low overfitting is observed in these graphs. This leads to the conclusion that the system has learned the features from a small set of compositions from this author, and the representation of this pieces is robust and can be applied to new compositions from the same author.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm, height=6cm]{images/F1SensAccEscogido.pdf}}
\caption{Sensitivity, $VPP$ and $F1$-score for the different threshold in the selected configuration}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
However, in this work, the application of VAEs is performed not only to codify and reconstruct a part of a composition, but also to predict the next second of the composition. Therefore, it can be seen that two different problems are studied here: reconstruction and prediction. Figure \ref{fig:3} shows the $F1$ scores and accuracies obtained for the selected configuration and threshold value, measured separately for the 8 seconds reconstruction and the 1-second prediction. As was expected, the $F1$ score and accuracy of the prediction are lower than those of the reconstruction. However, it is slightly lower, with a small difference. This figure shows training results on the left and test results on the right. Therefore, the system shows a better behaviour when making a prediction of a musical part from this author.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{images/AccuracyReconstruccionPrediccion.pdf}}
\caption{Comparison of the results in the reconstruction and prediction problems}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}
According to the results shown in Figure \ref{fig:3}, the prediction of music is very accurate to the real music. In this sense, it is interesting to see if this prediction is better or worse as the prediction time is further from the last known moment. Figure \ref{fig:4} shows the $F1$ score and accuracies obtained for the different moments in the one-second prediction. As a timestep of 100 milliseconds was used, this figure only has 10 values n the x-axis. As it can be seen in this figure, $F1$ score and accuracy seem not to be influenced by the moment of the prediction until it reaches the one second limit. At this moment, the prediction drops.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:seccionConclusions}
This work shows the possibility of using VAEs for music analysis to solve two different problems: music codification and reconstruction, and music prediction. Two different metrics have been used, and, as the results show, both problems have been successfully solved since the results are very high in both metrics. As could be imagined, the prediction problem shows worse results than the reconstruction problem. However, these results are only slightly worse. This means that the learned features can make accurate predictions.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the features learned from the VAE correctly represent the style of the author. Moreover, this system was developed so that the decodification of the features corresponding to a specific piece leads to having the following piece of music. As this next piece of music can be codified and decodified into the following and so on, a composition can be represented in the latent space as a trajectory between different vectors in this space. Further analysis of these trajectories can give new insights about the composition and style of different authors.
The development with a small dataset is one of the most prominent features of this work. Although this could be considered as a big drawback for the training of the VAE, test results are comparable to training results. Therefore, the systems behave correctly with unseen pieces of music, returning their features in the latent space, and giving a prediction of the following second.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{images/F1ACCAdelantoPrediccion.pdf}}
\caption{Results in prediction on different moments}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure}
\section{Future Works}
\label{sec:seccionFutureWorks}
From the work presented in this paper, different directions can be taken. First, in the modeling of the audio, the velocity (volume) has not been taken into account. A new model could be developed in which the output of each neuron, a real value between 0 and 1, can be interpreted as the volume of that pith in that specific moment.
As was already explained in section \ref{sec:seccionConclusions}, a musical composition can be represented as a trajectory in the latent space. This system could be trained with compositions from different authors. When high enough accuracies were obtained in both training and test sets, these trajectories could be analyzed in order to discover the differences between authors. This could be mixed with a clustering technique to discover interesting patterns in music composition.
Finally, as shown in section \ref{sec:Experiments}, the prediction seems to drop when it is getting to 1 second. Further studies should be carried out in order to find out if this prediction can be improved with bigger network architecture.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.245\textwidth}
\centering
\captionsetup{width=0.99\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.25in]{100_776_small}
\caption{\footnotesize After 100 gradient steps}
\label{fig:exp4_traces_100}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.245\textwidth}
\centering
\captionsetup{width=0.99\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.25in]{1000_795_small}
\caption{\footnotesize After 1k gradient steps}
\label{fig:exp4_traces_1k}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.245\textwidth}
\centering
\captionsetup{width=0.99\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.25in]{40000_428_small}
\caption{\footnotesize After 40k gradient steps}
\label{fig:exp4_traces_40k}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.245\textwidth}
\centering
\captionsetup{width=0.99\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.25in]{human_120_small}
\caption{\footnotesize With human principal}
\label{fig:exp4_traces_human}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\footnotesize Episode traces after 100, 1k, and 40k pre-training steps for the cooperative fruit collection domain of Experiment 4. The principal agent ``P'' (pink) is told the fruit to be collected, lemons or plums, in its observations. Within an episode, the assistant agent ``A'' (blue) must infer the fruit to be collected from observations of the principal. Each agent observes an overhead image of itself and its nearby surroundings.
By the end of training (\subref{fig:exp4_traces_40k}) the assistant is inferring the correct fruit and the agents are coordinating. This inference and coordination transfers to human principals~(\subref{fig:exp4_traces_human}). An interactive game and videos for all experiments are available at: \url{https://interactive-learning.github.io}}
\label{fig:exp4_traces}
\end{figure*}
Many tasks that we would like our agents to perform, such as unloading a dishwasher, straightening a room, or restocking shelves are inherently user-specific, requiring information from the user in order to fully learn all the intricacies of the task.
The traditional paradigm for agents to learn such tasks is through rewards and demonstrations.
However, iterative reward engineering with untrained human users is impractical in real-world settings, while demonstrations are often burdensome to provide.
In contrast, humans learn from a variety of interactive communicative behaviors, including nonverbal gestures and partial demonstrations, each with their own information capacity and effort.
Can we enable agents to learn tasks from humans through such unstructured interaction, requiring minimal effort from the human user?
The effort required by the human user is affected by many aspects of the learning problem, including restrictions on when the agent is allowed to act and restrictions on the behavior space of either human or agent, such as limiting the user feedback to rewards or demonstrations.
We consider a setting where both the user and the agent are allowed to act throughout learning, which we refer to as \emph{interactive learning}.
Unlike collecting a set of demonstrations before training, interactive learning allows the user to selectively act only when it deems the information is necessary and useful, reducing the user's effort.
Examples of such interactions include allowing user interventions or agent requests, for demonstrations~\cite{kelly2018hgd}, rewards~\cite{warnell2018dti,arumugam2019drl}, or preferences~\cite{christiano2017drl}.
While these methods allow the user to provide feedback throughout learning, the communication interface is restricted to structured forms of supervision, which may be inefficient for a given situation.
For example, in a dishwasher unloading task, given the history of learning, it may be sufficient to point at the correct drawer rather than provide a full demonstration.
To this end, we propose to allow the agent and the user to exchange information through an unstructured interface.
To do so, the agent and the user need a common prior understanding of the meaning of different unstructured interactions, along with the context of the space of tasks that the user cares about.
Indeed, when humans communicate tasks to each other, they come in with rich prior knowledge and common sense about what the other person may want and how they may communicate that, enabling them to communicate concepts effectively and efficiently~\cite{peloquin2019irp}.
In this paper, we propose to allow the agent to acquire this prior knowledge through joint pre-training with another agent who knows the task and serves as a human surrogate.
The agents are jointly trained on a variety of tasks, where actions and observations are restricted to the physical environment.
Since the first agent is available to assist, but only the second agent is aware of the task, interactive learning behaviors should emerge to accomplish the task efficiently.
We hypothesize that, by restricting the action and observation spaces to the physical environment, the emerged behaviors can transfer to learning from a human user.
An added benefit of our framework is that, by training on a variety of tasks from the target task domain, much of the non-user specific task prior knowledge is pre-trained into the agent, further reducing the effort required by the user.
We evaluate various aspects of agents trained with our framework on several simulated object gathering task domains, including a domain with pixel observations, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:exp4_traces}.
We show that our trained agents exhibit emergent information-gathering behaviors in general and explicit question-asking behavior where appropriate.
Further, we conduct a user study with trained agents, where the users score significantly higher with the agent than without the agent, which demonstrates that our approach can produce agents that can learn from and assist human users.
The key contribution of our work is a training framework that allows agents to quickly learn new tasks from humans through unstructured interactions, without an explicitly-provided reward function or demonstrations.
Critically, our experiments demonstrate that agents trained with our framework generalize to learning test tasks from human users, demonstrating interactive learning with a human in the loop.
In addition, we introduce a novel multi-agent model architecture for cooperative multi-agent training that exhibits improved training characteristics.
Finally, our experiments on a series of object-gathering task domains illustrate a variety of emergent interactive learning behaviors and demonstrate that our method can scale to raw pixel observations.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related-work}
The traditional means of passing task information to an agent include specifying a reward function~\cite{barto1998rli}
that can be hand-crafted for the task~\cite{singh2009rewards,levine2016end,chebotar-hausman-zhang17icml} and providing demonstrations~\cite{schaal1999ilr,abbeel2004apprenticeship} before the agent starts training.
More recent works explore the concept of the human supervision being provided throughout training by either providing rewards during training~\cite{isbell2001cas,thomaz2005rti,warnell2018dti,dattari2018ilc} or demonstrations during training; either continuously~\cite{ross2011ari,kelly2018hgd} or at the agent's discretion~\cite{ross2011reduction,borsa2017olr,xu2018lpi,hester2018dqd,james2018tec,yu2018osi,krening2018naa,brown2018raa}.
In all of these cases, however, the reward and demonstrations are the sole means of interaction.
Another recent line of research involves the human expressing their preference between agent generated trajectories~\cite{christiano2017drl,mindermann2018air,ibarz2018rlh}.
Here again, the interaction is restricted to a single modality.
Our work builds upon the idea of meta-learning, or learning-to-learn~\cite{schmidhuber1987eps,bengio1991lsl,thrun2012learningtolearn}. Meta-learning for control has been considered in the context of reinforcement learning~\cite{duan2016rl2,wang2016learning,finn2017mam} and imitation learning~\cite{duan2017one,yu2018one}.
Our problem setting differs from these, as the agent is learning by observing and interacting with another agent, as opposed to using reinforcement or imitation learning.
In particular, our method builds upon recurrence-based meta-learning approaches~\cite{santoro2016osl,duan2016rl2,wang2016learning} in the context of the multi-agent task setting.
When a broader range of interactive behaviors is desired, prior works have introduced a multi-agent learning component~\cite{potter1994cca,palmer2018lma}.
The following methods are closely related to ours in that, during training, they also maximize a joint reward function between the agents and emerge cooperative behavior~\cite{gupta2017cmc,foerster2018cma,foerster2016lcd,lazaridou2016mce,andreas2017tn}.
Multiple works~\cite{gupta2017cmc,foerster2018cma} emerge cooperative behavior but in task domains that do not require knowledge transfer between the agents, while others~\cite{foerster2016lcd,lazaridou2016mce,lowe2017maa,andreas2017tn,mordatch2018egc} all emerge communication over a communication channel.
Such communication is known to be difficult to interpret~\cite{lazaridou2016mce}, without post-inspection~\cite{mordatch2018egc} or a method for translation~\cite{andreas2017tn}. Critically, none of these prior works conduct user experiments to evaluate transfer to humans.
\citet{mordatch2018egc} experiment with tasks similar to ours, in which information must be communicated between the agents, and communication is restricted to the physical environment. This work demonstrates the emergence of pointing, demonstrations, and pushing behavior. Unlike this prior approach, however, our algorithm does not require a differentiable environment. We also demonstrate our method with pixel observations and conduct a user experiment to evaluate transfer to humans.
~\citet{Laird2017itl} describe desiderata for interactive learning systems. Our method primarily addresses the desiderata of efficient interaction and accessible interaction.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:preliminaries}
In this section, we review the cooperative partially observable Markov game~\cite{littman1994mgf}, which serves as the foundation for tasks in Section~\ref{sec:methods}.
A cooperative partially observable Markov game is defined by the tuple $\langle$ $\mathcal{S}$, \{$\mathcal{A}^i$\}, $T$, $\mathcal{R}$, \{$\Omega^i$\}, \{$O^i$\}, $\gamma$, $H$ $\rangle$, where $i\in\{1..N\}$ indexes the agent among $N$ agents,
$\mathcal{S}$, $\mathcal{A}^i$, and $\Omega^i$ are state, action, and observation spaces,
$T:\mathcal{S} \times \{\mathcal{A}^i\} \times \mathcal{S}' \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is the transition function,
$\mathcal{R}:\mathcal{S} \times \{\mathcal{A}^i\} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is the reward function,
$O^i: \mathcal{S} \times \Omega^i \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ are the observation functions,
$\gamma$ is the discount factor,
and $H$ is the horizon.
The functions $T$, $\mathcal{R}$, and $O^i$ are not accessible to the agents. At time $t$, the environment accepts actions $\{a_t^i\} \in \{\mathcal{A}^i\}$, samples $s_{t+1} \sim T(s_t, \{a^i_t\})$, and returns reward $r_t \sim \mathcal{R}(s_t, \{a^i_t\})$ and observations $\{o^i_{t+1}\} \sim \{O^i(s_{t+1})\}$.
The objective of the game is to choose actions to maximize the expected discounted sum of future rewards:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:pomdp_objective}
\mathop{{\arg\!\max}}_{\{a^i_{t_0}|o^i_{t_0}\}} \mathop{{}\mathbb{E}}_{s,o^i,r} \big[ \sum_{t=t_0}^H \gamma^{t-t_0} r_t \big].
\end{equation}
Note that, while the action and observation spaces vary for the agents, they share a common reward which leads to a cooperative task.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{maidrqn_model}
\caption{\footnotesize MAIDRQN}
\label{fig:maidrqn}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{maddrqn_model}
\caption{\footnotesize MADDRQN}
\label{fig:maddrqn}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\footnotesize Information flow for the two models used in our experiments; red paths are only needed during training. The MADDRQN model (\subref{fig:maddrqn}) uses a centralized value-function with per-agent advantage functions. The centralized value function is only used during training. Superscripts $A$ and $P$ refer to the assistant and principal agents respectively. The MAIDRQN model (\subref{fig:maidrqn}) is used in experiments 1-3 and the MADDRQN model (\subref{fig:maddrqn}) is used in experiment 4 where it exhibits superior training characteristics for learning from pixels.}
\label{fig:models}
\end{figure}
\section{The LILA Training Framework}
\label{sec:methods}
We now describe our training framework for producing an assisting agent that can learn a task interactively from a human user.
We define a task to be an instance of a cooperative partially observable Markov game as described in Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries}, with $N = 2$.
To enable the agent to solve such tasks, we train the agent, whom we call the ``assistant'' (superscript $A$), jointly with another agent, whom we call the ``principal'' (superscript $P$) on a variety of tasks. Critically, the principal's observation function informs it of the task.\footnote{Our tasks are similar to tasks in \citet{hadfield2016cir}, but with partially observable state and without access to the other agent's actions, which should better generalize to learning from humans in natural environment.}
The principal agent acts as a human surrogate which allows us to replace it with a human once the training is finished.
By informing the principal of the current task and withholding rewards and gradient updates until the end of each task, the agents are encouraged to emerge interactive learning behaviors in order to inform the assistant of the task and allow them to contribute to the joint reward.
We limit actions and observations to the physical environment, with the hope of emerging human-compatible behaviors.
In order to train the agents, we consider two different models. We first introduce a simple model that we find works well in tabular environments. Then, in order to scale our approach to pixel observations, we introduce a modification to the first model that we found was important in increasing the stability of learning.
\textbf{Multi-Agent Independent DRQN (MAIDRQN)}:
The first model uses two deep recurrent $Q$-networks (DRQN)~\cite{hausknecht2015drq} that are each trained with Q-learning~\cite{watkins1989ldr}.
Let $Q_{\theta^i}(o^i_t, a^i_t, h^i_t)$ be the action-value function for agent $i$, which maps from the current action, observation, and history, $h^i_t$, to the expected discounted sum of future rewards.
The MAIDRQN method optimizes the following loss:\footnote{In our experiments we do not use a lagged ``target'' $Q$-network~\cite{mnih2013pad}, but we do stop gradients through the $Q$-network in $y_t$.}
\begin{align} \label{eqn:maidrqn_loss}
\mathcal{L}^{\text{MAIDRQN}} &:= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i,t}[y_t - Q_{\theta^i}(o^i_t,a^i_t,h^i_t)]^2 \\
y_t &:= r_t + \gamma \max_{a^i_{t+1}}Q_{\theta^i}(o^i_{t+1}, a^i_{t+1}, h^i_{t+1}) \nonumber
\end{align}
The networks are trained simultaneously.
The model architecture is a recurrent neural network, depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:maidrqn}; see Section~\ref{sec:appendix_maidrqn} for details.
We use this model for experiments 1-3.
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{\footnotesize Experimental configurations for our 4 experiments. Experiment 1 has two sub experiments, 1A and 1B. In 1B, the agents incur a penalty whenever the principals moves. The Observation Window column lists the radius of cells visible to each agent.}
\label{tbl:experimental_setups}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\toprule
\makecell{Exp.} & \makecell{Model} & \makecell{Principal\\Motion\\Penalty} & \makecell{Grid\\Shape} & \makecell{Num.\\Objects} & \makecell{Observations} & \makecell{Observation\\Window}\\
\midrule
1a & MAIDRQN & 0.0 & 5x5 & 10 & Binary Vectors & Full\\
1b & MAIDRQN & -0.4 & 5x5 & 10 & Binary Vectors & Full\\
2 & MAIDRQN & 0.0 & 5x5 & 10 & Binary Vectors & 1-Cell\\
3 & MAIDRQN & -0.1 & 3x1 ``L'' & 1 & Binary Vectors & 1-Cell\\
4 & MADDRQN & 0.0 & 5x5 & 10 & $64\times64\times3$ Pixels & $\sim$2-Cells\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\textbf{Multi-Agent Dueling DRQN (MADDRQN)}: With independent Q-Learning, as in MAIDRQN, the other agent's changing behavior and unknown actions make it difficult to estimate the Bellman target $y_t$ in Equation~\ref{eqn:maidrqn_loss}, which leads to instability in training. This model addresses part of the instability that is caused by unknown actions.
If $Q^*(o,a,h)$ is the optimal action-value function, then the optimal value function is $V^*(o,h) = \mathop{{\arg\!\max}}_aQ^*(o,a,h)$, and the optimal advantage function is defined as $A^*(o,a,h) = Q^*(o,a,h) - V^*(o,h)$~\cite{wang2015dna}. The advantage function captures how inferior an action is to the optimal action in terms of the expected sum of discounted future rewards. This allows us to express $Q$ in a new form, $Q^*(o,a,h) = V^*(o,h) + A^*(o,a,h)$. We note that the value function is not needed when selecting actions: $\mathop{{\arg\!\max}}_aQ^*(o,a,h) = \mathop{{\arg\!\max}}_a(V^*(o,h) + A^*(o,a,h)) = \mathop{{\arg\!\max}}_aA^*(o,a,h)$. We leverage this idea by making the following approximation to an optimal, centralized action-value function for multiple agents:
\begin{align}\label{eqn:maddrqn_approx}
Q^*(\{o^i,a^i,h^i\}) &= V^*(\{o^i,h^i\}) + A^*(\{o^i,a^i,h^i\})\\
&\approx V^*(\{o^i,h^i\}) + \sum_iA^{i*}(o^i, a^i, h^i), \nonumber
\end{align}
where $A^{i*}(o^i, a^i, h^i)$ is an advantage function for agent $i$ and $V^*(\{o^i,h^i\})$ is a joint value function.\footnote{
The approximation is due to the substitution of $\sum_iA^{i*}(o^i,a^i,h^i)$ for $A^*(\{o^i,a^i,h^i\})$ in Equation~\ref{eqn:maddrqn_approx}, which implies that the agents' current actions have independent effects on expected future rewards, and is not true in general. Nevertheless, it is a useful approximation.
}
The training loss for this model is:
\begin{align}\label{eqn:maddrqn_loss}
\mathcal{L}^{\text{MADDRQN}} &:= \sum_{t}[y_t - Q_{\{\theta^i\},\phi}(\{o^i_t,a^i_t,h^i_t\})]^2\\
y_t &:= r_t + \gamma\max_{\{a^i_{t+1}\}}Q_{\{\theta^i\},\phi}(\{o^i_{t+1},a^i_{t+1},h^i_{t+1}\}) \nonumber
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:maddrqn}
Q_{\{\theta^i\},\phi}(\{o^i_t,a^i_t,h^i_t\}) := V_\phi(\{o^i_t,h^i_t\}) + \sum_iA_{\theta^i}(o^i_t,a^i_t,h^i_t).
\end{equation}
Once trained, each agent selects their actions according to their advantage function $A_{\theta^i}$,
\begin{equation}
a^i_t = \mathop{{\arg\!\max}}_aA_{\theta^i}(o^i_t, a, h^i_t),
\end{equation}
as opposed to the Q-functions $Q_{\theta^i}$ in the case of MAIDDRQN.
In the loss for the MAIDRQN model, Equation~\ref{eqn:maidrqn_loss}, there is a squared error term for each $Q_{\theta^i}$ which depends on the joint reward $r$. This means that, in addition to estimating the immediate reward due their own actions, each $Q_{\theta^i}$ must estimate the immediate reward due to the actions of the other agent, without access to their actions or observations. By using a joint action value function and decomposing it into advantage functions and a value function, each $A^i$ can ignore the immediate reward due to the other agent, simplifying the optimization.
We refer to this model as a multi-agent dueling deep recurrent $Q$-network (MADDRQN), in reference to the single agent dueling network of~\citet{wang2015dna}. The MADDRQN model, which adds a fully connected network for the shared value function, is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:maddrqn}; See Section~\ref{sec:appendix_maddrqn} for details. The MADDRQN model is used in experiment 4.
\textbf{Training Procedure}:
We use a standard episodic training procedure, with the task changing on each episode.
The training procedure for the MADDRQN and MAIDRQN models differ only in the loss function.
Here, we describe the training procedure with reference to the MADDRQN model.
We assume access to a subset of tasks, $\mathcal{D}^{Train}$, from a task domain, $\mathcal{D} = \{..., \mathcal{T}_j, ...\}$.
First, we initialize the parameters $\theta^P$, $\theta^A$, and $\phi$. Then, the following procedure is repeated until convergence. A batch of tasks are uniformly sampled from $\mathcal{D}^{Train}$. For each task $\mathcal{T}_b$ in the batch, a trajectory, $\tau_b=(o^P_0,o^A_0,a^P_0,a^A_0,r_0...,o^P_H,o^A_H,a^P_H,a^A_H,r_H)$, is collected by playing out an episode in an environment configured to $\mathcal{T}_b$, with actions chosen $\epsilon$-greedy according to $A_{\theta^P}$ and $A_{\theta^A}$. The hidden states for the recurrent LSTM cells are reset to $\mathbf{0}$ at the start of each episode. The loss for each trajectory is calculated using Equations~\ref{eqn:maddrqn_loss} and \ref{eqn:maddrqn}. Finally, a gradient step is taken with respect to $\theta^P$, $\theta^A$, and $\phi$ on the sum of the episode losses.
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{\footnotesize Results for Experiments 1A and 1B. Experiment 1B includes a motion penalty for the principal's motion. In both experiments, MAIDRQN outperforms the principal acting alone, demonstrating that the assistant learns from and assists the principal. All performance increases are significant ($\text{confidence}>99\%$), except for FeedFwd-A and Solo-P in Experiment 1A, which are statistically equivalent.}
\label{tbl:exp1}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{lcc|cccc|cc}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Experiment 1A} & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Experiment 1B}\\
\midrule
\makecell{Method\\Name} & \hspace{0.08in} & \makecell{Joint\\Reward} & \makecell{Reward\\due to P} & \makecell{Reward\\due to A} & \hspace{0.08in} & \makecell{Joint\\Reward} & \makecell{Reward\\due to P} & \makecell{Reward\\due to A}\\
\midrule
Oracle-A & & 4.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 2.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 2.4 $\pm$ 0.1 & & 4.0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 4.0 $\pm$ 0.1\\
\midrule
MAIDRQN & & \textbf{4.6 $\pm$ 0.2} & 3.3 $\pm$ 0.2 & 1.3 $\pm$ 0.3 & & \textbf{3.6 $\pm$ 0.1} & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.1 & 3.2 $\pm$ 0.1\\
FeedFwd-A & & 4.1 $\pm$ 0.1 & 4.1 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0\footnotemark & & 2.0 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0.7 $\pm$ 0.3 & 1.3 $\pm$ 0.6\\
Solo-P & & 4.0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 4.0 $\pm$ 0.1 & N/A & & 1.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & N/A\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{minipage}[t!]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{episode_rewards.pdf}
\caption{\footnotesize
Training curve for Experiment 1B.
Error bars are 1 standard deviation.
At the end of training, nearly all of the joint reward in an episode is due to the assistant's actions, indicating that the trained assistant can learn the task and then complete it independently.
}
\label{fig:episode_rewards}
\end{minipage}
~
\begin{minipage}[t!]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{motivated_principal_1}
\caption{\footnotesize The assistant learns from a single principal movement.}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{motivated_principal_2}
\caption{\footnotesize The assistant learns from a lack of principal movement.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\footnotesize
Episode traces of trained agents on test tasks from Experiment 1B. Both agents begin in the center square and cooperatively collect as many instances of the target shape as possible. The target shape is shown in green. The principal agent $P$ observes the target shape, but the assistant agent $A$ does not and must learn from the principal's movement or lack of movement.
The assistant rapidly learns the target shape from the principal and collects all instances.
}
\label{fig:exp1_n04rm_traces}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
\section{Experimental Results}
\label{sec:results}
We designed a series of experiments in order to study how different interactive learning behaviors may emerge, to test whether our method can scale to pixel observations, and to evaluate the ability for the agents to transfer to a setting with a human user.
We conducted four experiments on grid-world environments, where the goal was to cooperatively collect all objects from one of two object classes.
Two agents, the principal and the assistant, act simultaneously and may move in one of the four cardinal directions or may choose not to move, giving five possible actions per agent.
Within an experiment, tasks vary by the placement of objects, and by the class of objects to be collected, which we call the ``target class''.
The target class is supplied to the principal as a two dimensional, one-hot vector.
If either agent enters a cell containing an object, the object disappears and both agents receive a reward: $+1$ for objects of the target class and $-1$ otherwise.
Each episode consisted of a single task and lasted for 10 time-steps.
Table~\ref{tbl:experimental_setups} gives the setup for each experiment.
We collected 10 training runs per experiment, and we report the aggregated performance of the 10 trained agent pairs on 100 test tasks not seen during training. The training batch size was 100 episodes and the models were trained for 150,000 gradient steps (Experiments 1-3) or 40,000 gradient steps (Experiment 4).
\footnotetext{The FeedForward assistant moves 80\% of the time, but it never collects an object.} Videos for all experiments, as well as an interactive game, are available on the paper website.\footnote{\url{https://interactive-learning.github.io}}
\textbf{Experiment 1 A\&B -- Learning and Assisting:}
In this experiment we explore if the assistant can be trained to learn and assist the principal.
Table~\ref{tbl:exp1} shows the experimental results without and with a penalty for motion of the principal (Experiments 1A and 1B respectively).
Figures~\ref{fig:episode_rewards}~and~\ref{fig:exp1_n04rm_traces} show the learning curve and trajectory traces for trained agents in Experiment 1B.
The joint reward of our approach (MAIDRQN) exceeds that of a principal trained to act alone (Solo-P), and approaches the optimal setting where the assistant also observes the target class (Oracle-A). Further, we see that the reward due to the assistant is positive, and even exceeds the reward due to the principal when the motion penalty is present (Experiment 1B). This demonstrates that the assistant learns the task from the principal and assists the principal. Our approach also outperforms an ablation in which the assistant's LSTM is replaced with a feed forward network (FeedFwd-A), highlighting the importance of memory.
\textbf{Experiment 2 -- Active Information Gathering:}
In this experiment we explore if, in the presence of additional partial observability, the assistant will take actions to actively seek out information.
This experiment restricts the view of each agent to a 1-cell window and only places objects around the exterior of the grid, requiring the assistant to move with the principal and observe its behavior, see Figure~\ref{fig:limited_view}.
Figure~\ref{fig:seek_info} shows trajectory traces for two test tasks.
The average joint reward, reward due to the principal, and reward due to the assistant are $4.7 \pm 0.2$, $2.8 \pm 0.2$, and $1.9 \pm 0.1$ respectively.
This shows that our training framework can produce information seeking behaviors.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{limited_view_principal}
\caption{\footnotesize Principal View}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{limited_view_assistant}
\caption{\footnotesize Assistant View}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\footnotesize
Visualization of the 1-cell observation window used in experiments 2 and 3. Cell contents outside of an agent's window are hidden from that agent.
}
\label{fig:limited_view}
\end{minipage}
~
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{seek_info}
\caption{\footnotesize 2 step info. seek}
\label{fig:seek_info_seek_info}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{multistep_seek_info}
\caption{\footnotesize 3 step info. seek}
\label{fig:seek_info_multistep_seek_info}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\footnotesize
Episode traces of trained agents on test tasks from Experiment 2. Both agents begin in the center square and cooperatively collect as many instances of the target shape as possible. The target shape is shown in green. The principal agent $P$ observes the target shape, but the assistant agent $A$ does not and must learn from the principal's movement
With restricted observations, the assistant moves with the principal until it observes a disambiguating action, and then proceeds to collect the target shape on its own.
}
\label{fig:seek_info}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.98\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{question_ugs}
\caption{\footnotesize The square should be collected (green), but the assistant does not observe this (grey under green).}
\label{fig:question_ug}
\end{subfigure}
\par\medskip
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.98\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{question_ubc}
\caption{\footnotesize The circle should not be collected (red), but the assistant does not observe this (grey under red)}
\label{fig:question_ub}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\footnotesize
Episode roll-outs for trained agents from Experiment 3. When the assistant is uncertain of an object, it requests information from the principal by moving into its visual field and observing the response.
}
\label{fig:question}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\textbf{Experiment 3 -- Interactive Questioning and Answering:}
In this experiment we explore if there is a setting where explicit questioning and answering can emerge.
On 50\% of the tasks, the assistant is allowed to observe the target class.
This adds uncertainty for the principal, and discourages it from proactively informing the assistant.
Figure~\ref{fig:question} shows the first several states of tasks in which the assistant does not observe the target class.\footnote{The test and training sets are the same in Experiment 3, since there are only 8 possible tasks}
The emerged behavior is for the assistant to move into the visual field of the principal, effectively asking the question, then the principal moves until it sees the object, and finally answers the question by moving one step closer only if the object should be collected.
The average joint reward, reward due to the principal, and reward due to the assistant are $0.4 \pm 0.1$, $-0.1 \pm 0.1$, and $0.5 \pm 0.1$ respectively.
This demonstrates that our framework can emerge question-answering, interactive behaviors.
\textbf{Experiment 4 -- Learning from and Assisting a Human Principal with Pixel Observations:}
In this final experiment we explore if our training framework can extend to pixel observations and whether the trained assistant can learn from a human principal.
Figure~\ref{fig:exp4_observations} shows examples of the pixel observations.
Ten participants, who were not familiar with this research, were paired with the 10 trained assistants, and each played 20 games with the assistant and 20 games without the assistant. Participants were randomly assigned which setting to play first.
Figure~\ref{fig:exp4_traces} shows trajectory traces on test tasks at several points during training and with a human principal after training.
Unlike the previous experiments, stability was a challenge in this problem setting; most training runs of MAIDRQN became unstable and dropped below 0.1 joint reward before the end of training.
Hence, we chose to use the MADDRQN model because we found it to be more stable than MAIDRQN.
The failure rate was 64\% vs 75\% for each method respectively, and the mean failure time was 5.6 hours vs 9.7 hours ($\text{confidence}>99\%$), which saved training time and was a practical benefit.
Table~\ref{tbl:exp4} shows the experimental results.
The participants scored significantly higher with the assistant than without ($\text{confidence}>99\%$). This demonstrates that our framework can produce agents that can learn from humans.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\footnotesize Results for Experiment 4. Trained assistants learned from human principals and significantly increased their scores (Human\&Agent) over the humans acting alone (Human), demonstrating the potential for our training framework to produce agents that can learn from and assist humans.\protect\footnotemark}
\label{tbl:exp4}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{lc|cc}
\toprule
\makecell{Players} & \makecell{Joint\\Reward} & \makecell{Reward\\due to P} & \makecell{Reward\\due to A}\\
\midrule
Agent\&Agent & 4.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 2.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 2.0 $\pm$ 0.2\\
Human\&Agent & 4.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 2.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 1.3 $\pm$ 0.5\\
Agent & 3.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 3.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & N/A\\
Human & 3.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 3.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & N/A\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\footnotetext{Significance is based on a t-test of the participants' change in score, which is more significant than the table's standard deviations would suggest ($\text{confidence} > 99\%$).}
While inclusion of the assistant increases the human's score, it is still less than the score when the assistant acts with the principal agent with which it was trained. What is the cause of this gap? To answer this question, we identified that 12\% of the time the assistant incorrectly infers which object to collect (episodes where the assistant always collects the wrong object). If we exclude these episodes, we obtain the performance when the assistant has correctly inferred the task, but must still coordinate with the human principal. Humans with ``correct'' assistants achieve rewards ($4.7\pm-0.3$, $2.8\pm0.3$, $1.9\pm0.2$) that are statistically equivalent to Agent\&Agent and statistically superior to Human\&Agent in Table~\ref{tbl:exp4}. This means that the assistants coordinate equivalently with human principals and artificial principals, but can experience problems inferring the task from human principals, resulting in the observed drop in score. This is an example of co-adaptation to communicating with the principal agent during training. The next section suggests an approach to address such co-adaptation.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.25in]{joint_10_389_f7_p}
\caption{\footnotesize Principal}
\label{fig:exp4_observation_principal}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.25in]{joint_10_389_f7_a}
\caption{\footnotesize Assistant}
\label{fig:exp4_observation_assistant}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\footnotesize
Example observations for experiment 4.
The principal's observation also includes a 2 dimensional one-hot vector indicating the fruit to collect, plums in this case.
These are the 7th observations from the human-agent trajectory in Figure~\ref{fig:exp4_traces_human}.}
\label{fig:exp4_observations}
\end{figure}
\iffalse
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\footnotesize Results for Experiment 4. Trained assistants learned from human principals and significantly increased their scores (Human\&Agent) over the humans acting alone (Human), demonstrating the potential for our training framework to produce agents that can learn from and assist humans.\protect\footnotemark}
\label{tbl:exp4}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{lc|cc}
\toprule
\makecell{Players} & \makecell{Joint\\Reward} & \makecell{Reward\\due to P} & \makecell{Reward\\due to A}\\
\midrule
Agent\&Agent & 4.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 2.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 2.0 $\pm$ 0.2\\
Human\&Agent & 4.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 2.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 1.3 $\pm$ 0.5\\
Agent & 3.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 3.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & N/A\\
Human & 3.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 3.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & N/A\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\footnotetext{Significance is based on a t-test of the participants' change in score, which is more significant than the table's standard deviations would suggest ($\text{confidence} > 99\%$).}
\fi
\section{Summary and Future Work}
\label{sec:summary_and_future_work}
We introduced the LILA training framework, which trains an assistant to learn interactively from a knowledgeable principal through only physical actions and observations in the environment.
LILA produces the assistant by jointly training it with a principal, who is made aware of the task through its observations, on a variety of tasks, and restricting the observation and action spaces to the physical environment.
We further introduced the MADDRQN algorithm, in which the agents have individual advantage functions but share a value function during training.
MADDRQN showed improved stability over MAIDRQN, which was a practical benefit in the experiments.
The experiments demonstrate that, depending on the environment, LILA emerges behaviors such as demonstrations, partial demonstrations, information seeking, and question answering.
Experiment 4 demonstrated that LILA scales to environments with pixel observations, and, crucially, that LILA is able to produce agents that can learn from and assist humans.
A possible future extension involves training with populations of agents.
In our experiments, the agents sometimes emerged overly co-adapted behaviors. For example, in Experiment 2, the agents tend to always move in the same direction in the first time step, but the direction varies by the training run.
This makes agents paired across runs less compatible, and less likely to generalize to human principals.
We believe that training an assistant across populations of agents will reduce such co-adapted behaviors.
Finally, LILA's emergence of behaviors means that the trained assistant can only learn from behaviors that emerged during training. Further research should seek to minimize these limitations, perhaps through advances in online meta-learning~\cite{online_meta_learning}.
\subsubsection{Acknowledgments}
The authors are especially grateful to Alonso Martinez for designing and iterating on the Unity environment used in Experiment 4.
{
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is the most common sleep-related breathing disorder, afflicting approximately 25\% of men and 10\% of women \cite{peppard2013increased}. This condition is characterized by repeated episodes of apnea and hypopnea during sleep. Health consequences of OSA range from increased cardiovascular morbidity, motor vehicle accidents due to resulting fatigue, and psychiatric illness to reduced productivity. Despite these consequences, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine estimates that 80\% of people with sleep apnea remain undiagnosed \cite{AASM}. Polysomnography (PSG) is the gold standard method for OSA diagnosis. PSG uses several physiological electrodes to record brain, muscle, and respiratory signals on a patient, usually over a single night in a sleep laboratory. Then, trained sleep experts are able to detect and count breathing events occurring during sleep such as obstructive apneas, central apneas, hypopneas, or mixed apneas. The number of breathing events per hour of sleep is called the apnea-hypopnoea index (AHI). The AHI allows for the evaluation of the severity of OSA, ranging from mild ($5 < AHI < 15$) to severe ($AHI > 30$). However, the process of scoring individual breathing events is tedious, costly, and subject to variability between trained experts \cite{Rosenberg2014}.
Automatic approaches have been developed to help diagnose sleep apnea. These methods typically extract features from short ($\sim$ 1-second) windows of preprocessed PSG signals. Then, they apply a binary machine learning classifier on each window to detect whether or not a breathing event occured. For example, in \cite{6153377} the authors preprocess their data with a high-pass filter and a fast Fourier transformation, to extract several window statistics and train an AdaBoost classifier. Alternative models that have been used include Support Vector Machines \cite{khandoker2009support}, K-Nearest Neighbor models \cite{6153377} and shallow Artificial Neural Networks \cite{huang2017novel}.
Other methods advocate for the use of models that can capture the temporal information between successive windows for classification. That is both the case of \cite{song2016obstructive} and \cite{cheng2017recurrent} where discriminative Hidden Markov Model and Long Short Term Memory networks are used, respectively.
All the aforementioned methods rely heavily on handcrafted features and preprocessing, which makes generalization to new patients difficult. Moreover, each PSG signal must be processed in a different way which again increases the difficulty to generalize to new data, devices, and patients.
A last category of methods addresses these limitations by relying on deep learning to extract data-driven relevant features from the windows. In \cite{honore2017large}, a systematic approach for artificial network architecture design called Progressive Learning Network is applied. \cite{choi2018real} proposes a model based on convolutional Neural Networks to leverage their capacity to capture the spatial distribution of the data and \cite{biswal2018expert} goes one step further by combining recurrence with a deep convolutional neural model.
Most methods measure performance on the overall AHI but not on detection of individual breathing events. Moreover, those methods providing individual event detection use fixed-size windows and therefore often cannot capture the correct start and end of individual events. This allows algorithms to provide a diagnosis, but not a detailed analysis of breathing events during the night. Another important drawback of all the aforementioned methods is that they use only one scorer for both training and evaluation. Because of the relatively low inter-scorer agreement, this introduces a positive bias when measuring performance and only gives a partial view of the generalizability of the method.
In this paper, we propose a solution to overcome these limitations. We adapted our state-of-the-art model for sleep microevent detection, DOSED \cite{chambon2018mlsp}, for the detection of breathing events. By doing so, we escape from the fixed window size paradigm and analyze PSG data as sleep experts would. Indeed, the method outputs start and end for every breathing event inside long windows of e.g. $\sim$ 3 minutes. Working on long windows, the approach makes use of the local temporal context to predict events. The model is fully convolutional and highly parallelizable, so it can efficiently process windows of any size. Moreover, by design, the network can be fed with any signal from the PSG relevant for breathing event detection without any special preprocessing.
We evaluated our model in a realistic setup. The model is trained end-to-end using a consensus of apnea-hypopnea events annotations obtained from multiple sleep experts, at different sleep centers. We contextualize the results obtained by comparing them with the inter-scorer agreement. We evaluate performance at the night scale by computing mean AHI error and the Diagnostic Accuracy for the OSA severity. We also compute performance at the microscale by evaluating F1 score on the detection of individual apnea-hypopnea events.
\section{METHODS}
\paragraph*{Notations}
Let an annotation be a list of centers and durations corresponding to the detected apnea-hypopnea events on a PSG record. An annotation can be made by a sleep expert or by an automatic approach. Let $\mathcal{X} = \mathbb{R}^{C \times T}$ be the set of input windows of signal where $C$ stands for the number of PSG channels considered and $T$ for the number of time steps in a window. For instance, $T = fs \times 180$ where $fs$ is the sampling frequency of the PSG signals for a window of $3$ minutes. We denote $1$ the label associated with apnea-hypopnea events and $0$ the label associated with no events. An event $e \in \mathcal{E} = \mathbb{R}^2 \times \{0, 1\}$ is defined by a center location time $t^c$, a duration $t^d$ and an event label $l \in \{0, 1\}$.
\paragraph*{Build a consensus annotation from multiple annotations}
We consider annotations made by $n$ sleep experts on a PSG record. To build a consensus from these $n$ annotations, we follow the suggested approach used in \cite{chambon2018dosed}. We generate a binary vector of size $fs \times d$ per scorer from the center and the duration of the events, where $fs$ refers to the sampling frequency of the PSG recording and $d$ to its duration. We then compute the mean vector taking values in $\{0, 1 / n, 2 / n, ..., 1\}$. To retrieve a binary representation, we apply a soft thresholding $\kappa$ on the mean vector. Doing so, we obtain a single consensus that we can encode again with the center and the duration of its events. With $\kappa=1 / n$, the consensus is the union of the events from all the annotations; and with $\kappa=1$, it is the intersection.
\paragraph*{Compute detection performance metrics of an annotation against a consensus annotation}
Given a reference consensus annotation on a PSG record, we want to count the number of true positive (TP), false positive (FP) and false negative (FN) events in a given tested annotation. To do so, the test annotation events are matched with the consensus annotation events based on an overlap criteria: the intersection over union (IoU) \cite{YOLO}. Therefore, we can compute Precision (Pr), Recall (Re), and F1 scores for different minimum IoU thresholds and estimate the exactness of the given tested annotation:
\vspace{-1.5em}
\begin{center}
\begin{equation*}
Pr = \frac{TP}{TP + FP} \ \ \ \ Re = \frac{TP}{TP + FN}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
F1 = 2*\frac{Pr * Re}{Pr + Re}
\end{equation*}
\end{center}
\paragraph*{Automatic Approach}
The DOSED approach introduced in \cite{chambon2018mlsp} is used as a guideline for our implementation. We use a convolutional network to predict apnea-hypopnea events on windows of signal from $\mathcal{X}$. The inference procedure works as follows. First, we define $N_d$ default events which are parameterized with a default center time and a default duration. Default events tile each window of signal from $\mathcal{X}$. The convolutional network outputs the probability of an apnea-hypopnea event in each default event location. It also provides localization adjustment to apply to the default event location to fit any apnea-hypopnea event more closely. Then, default events with a probability superior to a cross-validated threshold $\theta$ to contain an apnea-hypopnea event are kept. Eventually, non-maximum suppression (NMS) is applied to remove eventual overlapping predictions of the same event. The figure \ref{fig:scheme} summarizes this inference procedure.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/scheme.png}
\caption{\label{fig:scheme}DOSED during prediction. We consider an airflow signal from a PSG on a 3-minute window. A: 7 default event location of duration 45 seconds with 50\% overlap tiles the 3-minute window. B: the network predicts adjusted location and label for each default event. Dashed events have $l = 0$ (no event) and plain events have $l = 1$ (apnea-hypopnea event) C: $l = 0$ events are removed. Eventually, non-maximum suppression is applied to breathing events to remove overlapping predictions and keep those with high probability.}
\vspace{-0.2em}
\end{figure}
The training procedure follows the one described in \cite{chambon2018mlsp}. For each sample window from $\mathcal{X}$, bipartite matching is used: ground truth events are matched with the default event that overlaps the most with them. Then, remaining default events are matched with the ground truth events if their IoU is above a certain threshold $\gamma$ and are also assigned label $l=1$. Eventually, any remaining default event that does not match any ground truth event is assigned with the label $l=0$.
The model is trained end-to-end by back-propagation by minimizing the multi-objective loss function defined in \cite{chambon2018mlsp}. This loss function combines localization and classification terms for default events with $l=1$. The localization term is ignored for the default events with $l=0$. Moreover, for those events, negative-sampling is used. Only the worst classified among them are considered when computing the classification loss. This intends to alleviate the class imbalance between default events with $l=0$ and those with $l=1$.
The convolutional network architecture has been adapted from \cite{chambon2018dosed} but contains the same building blocks. It is described in detail in Table~\ref{tab:network_architecture}.
First $k$ temporal feature extraction modules are successively applied to raw data from $\mathcal{X} = \mathbb{R}^{C \times T}$ to extract a low dimensional temporal representation $\hat{\mathcal{X}} = \mathbb{R}^{4 * 2^{k} \times T / 2^{k}}$. These feature extraction modules first apply a convolutional layer with zero padding to maintain the temporal dimension. Then batch normalization is applied followed by ReLU activation function. At this step, dropout is applied during training. Eventually, Max pooling is applied to reduce the temporal dimension by a factor 2.
Then, a localization module and a classification module are applied to data from $\hat{\mathcal{X}}$. The localization module outputs a center adjustment and a duration adjustment for each of the $N_d$ default events. This prediction is done with a convolutional layer using $2 \times N_d$ kernels of size $T / 2^{k}$. The classification module outputs a probability of containing a breathing event ($l=1$) or not ($l=0$) for each of the default event. This is obtained by recombining another convolutional layer using $2 \times N_d$ kernels of size $T / 2^{k}$ with a softmax activation.
\input{architecture}
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Experimental setup}
\paragraph*{Dataset}
The dataset used in this work was collected at the Stanford Sleep Medicine Center and consists of polysomnography (PSG) recordings from 52 patients (Clinical trial number NCT03657329). Demographics are given in Table \ref{tab:demograpics}.
\input{demographics.tex}
Patients were included in the study based on clinical suspicion for sleep-related breathing disorder. Individuals with a diagnosed sleep disorder different from obstructive sleep apnea were excluded from this study. Individuals suffering from morbid obesity, taking sleep medications, or with complex cardiopulmonary or neurological comorbidities were also excluded. All trial participants gave their informed written consent prior to participation. They received monetary compensation for their time. In total, participants provided 320 hours of sleep data. Recorded PSG signals included the following respiratory signals: chest belt, abdominal belt, SpO2 (oximetry), pressure airflow, nasal airflow, and snoring. The recordings also included EEG channels, and leg muscle and ocular activity. All signals were sampled at 256 Hz.
\paragraph*{Expert annotations}
Sleep breathing events were annotated by 5 different sleep technicians. All scorers were Registered Technologists with at least 5 years of clinical scoring experience across 3 different sleep clinics. Current recommended AASM guidelines were followed. During the process, scorers had access to all recorded signals and scored start time and stop time for each hypopnea, obstructive apnea, central apnea, and mixed apnea event detected. To train the model, annotated events were merged into a single class of apnea-hypopnea event, regardless of their type. Statistics are given in Table \ref{tab:demograpics} and show that patient are essentially suffering from obstructive apnea and hypopnea.
\paragraph*{Automatic approach}
The convolutional network was fed with the $C = 6$ respiratory signal available in the PSG recordings. The sample window considered was 3 minutes long so that $T = 3 * 60 * 256$. This is a typical window size used by sleep experts to annotate breathing events.
To normalize the signal, each channel was first clipped using specific nominal minimum and maximum values. Next, each channel was normalized using min-max normalization to ensure input data were in the specified range $[-0.5, 0.5]$. Finally, the signal was downsampled by a factor of $64$.
There was a high level of variability in the duration of sleep breathing events (10 to 150 seconds, approximately). Therefore, we chose default events sizes of 10, 20, 30, 40, 60, 80, 100, 130 and 150 seconds to tile the 3-minute sample windows. Overlap of 50\% was used for each default event size making the total amount of events $N_d = 92$ default events. $k=6$ feature extraction blocks were used.
This approach was implemented using PyTorch \cite{paszke2017automatic}. Adam optimizer was used with a learning rate of \num{5e-4} and weight decay of \num{e-8}. We trained with minibatch size equal to 128. Maximum IoU overlap for NMS was 0.5. During training, the matching parameter $\gamma$ was set to 0.5. Finally, we used data augmentation techniques, including random noise addition, random signal inversion, and random rescaling of our input data. Dropout was set at 0.1 during training. Windows of signal from $\mathcal{X}$ were drawn at random in training records so that the network could not see the exact same window twice. Each minibatch of data from $\mathcal{X}$ was composed of 50\% windows containing at least one apnea-hypopnea event to alleviate the highly unbalanced number of windows containing events relative to those not containing any events during a night.
To compute the prediction of the automatic approach on the entire dataset, leave-one-out cross-validation was used. The convolutional network was trained 52 times with 31 records for training 20 for validation and 1 for testing for 100 epochs. The training/validation records were selected at random. We used early stopping: at the end of each epoch, the F1 score at $IoU = 0.3$ was computed on the validation set for multiple $\theta$ to select both the best model and best $\theta$ value to use on the final test record. With these settings, convergence was typically achieved after $\sim40-50$ epochs with a F1 score at $IoU = 0.3$ of around $\sim0.6$ on the validation set.
With this setup, inference time was $\sim4$ seconds on an NVIDIA Titan X GPU when predicting breathing events on a full PSG record ($\sim8$ hours). Related code is available at: \url{https://github.com/Dreem-Organization/dosed}.
\subsection{Results}
\paragraph*{Performance at the microscale}
Each scorer annotation was compared against the consensus obtained from the four other scorers. This ensured performance was evaluated in an unbiased manner. The consensus was built with $\kappa = 0.5$. This choice of $\kappa$ retains events tagged by at least 2 of the 4 experts. Metrics were computed per-record and then averaged. To evaluate the performance of the automatic approach, the consensus of the four best scorers was used. The best scorers were selected based on their F1 scores at $IoU = 0.3$. The results are presented for IoU varying between ${0.1, 0.2, ..., 0.9}$ and Precision and Recall are given at $IoU = 0.3$ in Fig. \ref{fig:results_event}. Results show that the automatic approach performs as well as most experts. Expert scoring shows similar level of performance across each sleep expert. However, the expert agreement was relatively low when scoring individual apnea-hypopnea events, consistent with previous results \cite{Rosenberg2014}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{figures/fig1_reversed.png}
\caption{\label{fig:results_event}Top: Precision and Recall for each scorer and the automatic approach (DOSED). $IoU = 0.3$. Bottom: Corresponding F1 score as a function of the IoU. Each scorer was compared against the 4 other scorers. DOSED was compared to the 4 best scorers. All the values presented are averaged across the 52 recordings.}
\end{figure}
\paragraph*{Performance at the Diagnosis scale}
To evaluate performance at the record scale, two metrics were used: Mean AHI Error and Diagnostic Accuracy of OSA severity. The AHI was computed as the number of breathing events per hour of sleep. The Diagnosis Accuracy was deduced from the AHI based on 3 classes: mild ($AHI \leq 15$), moderate ($AHI \leq 30$) and severe ($AHI > 30$).
Mean AHI Error was computed for each scorer as the absolute distance between the scorer's AHI and the mean AHI of the four other scorers. Diagnostic Accuracy was computed for each scorer by comparison with the consensus AHI, deduced from the mean AHI of the four other scorers. The automatic approach was evaluated in the same way, with a consensus build from the four best scorers. Mean AHI Error and Diagnostic Accuracy were computed for all recordings and then averaged.
Results are summarized in Table \ref{fig:results_event} and show that the automatic approach performs at a human expert level regarding both the diagnosis of OSA severity and AHI estimation. Diagnostic Accuracy presents a high level of variability for sleep experts because of the edge effects for AHI close to $15$ and $30$.
\input{figures/ahi_results.tex}
\section{DISCUSSION}
This study suggests that a state-of-the-art deep learning approach for sleep event detection, DOSED, can reach expert human performance when applied to the diagnosis of sleep apnea and detection of breathing events. The novelty in the approach is to mimic the scoring method of a sleep expert by accurately predicting breathing events at the microscale on large time windows, using all the respiratory signals from PSG. This provides not only a reliable diagnostic tool for the evaluation of OSA severity, but also a detailed analysis of breathing events across the entire night.
We analysed our results in comparison to the inter-scorer agreement. The relatively low inter-scorer agreement that was obtained on this study emphasizes the need to rely on multiple expert scorers when developing automatic methods. Using a consensus of multiple scorers provides a better ground truth as a basis for training. Moreover, having multiple scorers enabled the performance of the model to be evaluated in a naturalistic setting.
Our method could be adapted to predict breathing events by category: hypopnea, obstructive apnea, central apnea, or mixed apnea. This would raise new challenges due to the highly unbalanced nature of each category of events and might require more records to train correctly. This method could also be combined with a sleep stage classifiers to provide detailed information of when breathing events occur to better characterize and diagnose sleep apnea.
\section{CONCLUSIONS}
This paper presents an automatic approach that reaches expert accuracy when diagnosing OSA severity by accurately detecting individual breathing events. The method was designed and evaluated in a realistic setup by comparison with five sleep experts’ annotations and diagnoses. This work shows promising progress towards an automated process for the diagnosis of sleep apnea.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENT}
We thank Dr. Michael E. Ballard, Hugo Jourde, Polina Davidenko, Sarah deLanda and Stephanie Lettieri for their help in realizing the clinical trial at the Stanford Sleep Medicine Center.
\printbibliography[heading=bibintoc]
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $M$ be a compact complex manifold of complex dimension $n$. When $M$ admits a K\"ahler metric $g=(g_{i\ov{j}})$, Yau \cite{Ya} proved the now classic result that the complex Monge-Amp\`ere equation
\begin{equation} \label{kma}
\det (g_{i\ov{j}} + u_{i\ov{j}}) = e^{F}\det (g_{i\ov{j}}) , \quad (g_{i\ov{j}} + u_{i\ov{j}})>0,
\end{equation}
admits a unique solution $u$ with $\sup_M u=0$, as long as $F$ is normalized so that $(e^F-1)$ has zero integral. Equivalently, one can prescribe the volume form of a K\"ahler metric within a given K\"ahler class.
Yau's result has been extended and built on in various ways. Modulo adding a constant to $F$, the equation (\ref{kma}) can be solved for $g$ Hermitian (by work of Cherrier \cite{Ch} and the authors \cite{TW2}, see also \cite{GL, TW1}) and for $g$ almost Hermitian (Chu-Tosatti-Weinkove \cite{CTW}).
Fu-Wang-Wu \cite{FWW1, FWW2} considered the Monge-Amp\`ere equation obtained by taking the determinant of the $(n-1, n-1)$ form
$$\omega^{n-1} + \sqrt{-1} \partial \ov{\partial} u \wedge \omega^{n-2}.$$
This is the natural equation on compact manifolds associated to Harvey-Lawson's notion of $(n-1)$-plurisubharmonicity \cite{HL}, and was solved for $\omega$ Hermitian by the authors \cite{TW3, TW5}.
Building on this work, Sz\'ekelyhidi-Tosatti-Weinkove \cite{STW} proved existence of solutions for Monge-Amp\`ere equation associated to
$$\omega^{n-1} + \sqrt{-1} \partial \ov{\partial} u \wedge \omega^{n-2} + L(x, \nabla u),$$
for the specific first order term
\begin{equation} \label{fot}
L(x, \nabla u) = \textrm{Re}(\sqrt{-1} \partial u \wedge \ov{\partial} \omega^{n-2})
\end{equation} introduced by Popovici \cite{Po} and independently in \cite{TW5}. This yielded a solution of the Gauduchon conjecture \cite{Ga} on the existence of Gauduchon metrics with prescribed volume form. The proof in \cite{STW} makes careful use of the specific form of this first order term term $L(x, \nabla u)$. See also \cite{GN,FGZ,Sz,Zh} for related follow-up work.
Other nonlinear equations involving gradient terms arise naturally by motivations from mathematical physics, including the Fu-Yau equation \cite{FY} and its extensions by Phong-Picard-Zhang \cite{PPZ1, PPZ2, PPZ3}. In particular, the paper \cite{PPZ1} considers the complex Hessian equations $$(\chi(z,u) + \sqrt{-1} \partial \ov{\partial} u)^k \wedge \omega^{n-k} = \psi(z, u,\nabla u) \omega^n$$ where gradient terms appear on the right hand side.
In light of these results, it is natural to consider
fully nonlinear equations in terms of the metric $$\ti{\omega}=\omega + \sqrt{-1} \partial \ov{\partial} u + L(x,\nabla u),$$
for $L$ a linear term involving the gradient of $u$.
Indeed, this study was initiated recently by R. Yuan \cite{Yuan}. However the family of equations he deals with includes the Monge-Amp\`ere equation
$\ti{\omega}^n = e^{F} \omega^n$ only in the case of complex dimension $n=2$ \cite[Corollary 1.5]{Yuan}. The current paper settles the case $n>2$ left open by Yuan.
More precisely, let $(M, g)$ be a compact Hermitian manifold of complex dimension $n$. By analogy to (\ref{fot}), we consider the term
$$L(x,\nabla u) = \sqrt{-1} a\wedge\overline{\partial} u-\sqrt{-1}\ov{a}\wedge\partial u$$
where $a$ is a smooth $(1,0)$-form. Indeed, this is the most general term of the form $\alpha \wedge \partial u+ \beta\wedge \ov{\partial}u$ for $1$-forms $\alpha$ and $\beta$, which is also real and of type $(1,1)$. In local coordinates, we may write $L(x,\nabla u) = \sqrt{-1} (a_i u_{\ov{j}} + a_{\ov{j}} u_i) dz^i \wedge d\ov{z}^j$, where $a=a_i dz^i$ and $a_{\ov{i}}=\ov{a_i}$.
We prove the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{main} Given $F \in C^{\infty}(M)$ and a smooth $(1,0)$ form $a$ on $M$, there exists a unique pair $(u, b)$ with $u\in C^{\infty}(M)$ and $b \in \mathbb{R}$ satisfying the equation
\begin{equation} \label{maf}
\begin{split}
& \det (g_{i\ov{j}} + a_i u_{\ov{j}} + a_{\ov{j}} u_i + u_{i\ov{j}}) = e^{F+b}\det (g_{i\ov{j}}) , \\
& \mathrm{with\ \ } (\tilde{g}_{i\ov{j}}) := (g_{i\ov{j}} + a_i u_{\ov{j}} + a_{\ov{j}} u_i + u_{i\ov{j}})>0, \quad \mathrm{ and } \ \sup_Mu=0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
The case $n=2$ is due to Yuan \cite{Yuan}. We also remark that Zhang \cite{Zha} proved a uniform gradient estimate for a class of equations which includes (\ref{maf}).
We can rewrite \eqref{maf} in coordinate-free notation by letting $$\ti{\omega}:=\omega+\sqrt{-1} a\wedge\overline{\partial} u-\sqrt{-1}\ov{a}\wedge\partial u+\sqrt{-1} \partial \overline{\partial} u>0,$$
be the new Hermitian metric whose volume form equals
$$\ti{\omega}^n=e^{F+b}\omega^n.$$
\begin{remark}
As an aside, note that if we choose $a$ to be a holomorphic $1$-form, then we can write
\begin{equation}\label{aep}
\ti{\omega}=\omega+\partial\ov{\gamma}+\overline{\partial}\gamma,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the $(1,0)$ form given by
$$\gamma=-\sqrt{-1}\left(ua+\frac{\partial u}{2}\right).$$
In this case, if we also have that $\partial\overline{\partial}\omega=0$ (which when $n=2$ is the Gauduchon condition \cite{Ga0}), then $\omega$ defines a cohomology class in Aeppli cohomology, and \eqref{aep} shows that the metric $\ti{\omega}$ also satisfies $\partial\overline{\partial}\ti{\omega}=0$ and lies in the same Aeppli cohomology class.
\end{remark}
The outline of our proof is as follows. We begin by proving \emph{a priori} estimates for solutions of (\ref{maf}).
In Section \ref{sectionzero}, we establish a uniform $L^{\infty}$ bound for $u$, with an approach that uses the Aleksandrov-Bakelman-Pucci estimate. In Section \ref{sectionsecond} we give an estimate on the second derivatives $\sqrt{-1}\partial\ov{\partial}u$ of $u$ in terms of the first derivatives, using a maximum principle argument involving the largest eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ of the metric $\tilde{g}$. The particular quantity we use for the maximum principle is
$$Q=\log \lambda_1 + \frac{ | \partial u|^2_g}{\sup_M | \partial u|^2_g +1} + e^{-A u},$$
for a large constant $A$. This differs (and in many cases is simpler) than the quantities used in the literature mentioned above.
To overcome the fact that the eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ is not differentiable in general, we choose to use a viscosity argument (adapted from \cite{BCD}, and hinted to in \cite{Sz}), which to our knowledge is new in this Hermitian setting. Finally, in Section \ref{sectionproof}, we complete the proof of Theorem \ref{main}: we apply a standard blow-up argument to obtain the first order estimate and then standard theory gives the higher order estimates. Given the $C^{\infty}$ \emph{a priori }estimates, the existence follows from a fairly standard continuity argument and uniqueness is a consequence of the maximum principle.
Instead of using a blow-up argument, the gradient estimate can be obtained directly by a maximum principle argument, as shown in an earlier work of Zhang \cite[Remark 2]{Zha} (see also the related works \cite{B3,FGZ,Yuan}). We thank the referee for pointing out the reference \cite{Zha}, of which we were not aware when we completed the first version of this article.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgments. } Both authors owe many thanks to Professor Phong, to whom this article is dedicated. His mathematical wisdom and insights are an inspiration to us. Happy birthday Phong!
\section{Zero order estimate} \label{sectionzero}
Let $u,F\in C^\infty(M)$ and $a\in \Lambda^{1,0}M$ satisfy
\begin{equation} \label{pde}
\begin{split}
& \det (g_{i\ov{j}} + a_i u_{\ov{j}} + a_{\ov{j}} u_i + u_{i\ov{j}}) = e^{F}\det (g_{i\ov{j}}) \\
& \quad (\tilde{g}_{i\ov{j}}):= (g_{i\ov{j}} + a_i u_{\ov{j}} + a_{\ov{j}} u_i + u_{i\ov{j}})>0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with $\sup_M u=0$. We will write $\tilde{\omega}$ for the $(1,1)$ form associated to the metric $\tilde{g}_{i\ov{j}}$.
We prove a uniform estimate for $u$.
\begin{theorem}\label{0th}
There is a constant $C$ that depends only on $\sup_M|F|$, $\sup_M |a|_g$, and on the geometry of $(M,g)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{li}
\sup_M|u|\leq C.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We employ the Aleksandrov-Bakelman-Pucci estimate, whose usage for the complex Monge-Amp\`ere equation originated in work of Cheng-Yau (see \cite{Be}), and was more recently revisited by B\l ocki \cite{B,B2} and Sz\'ekelyhidi \cite{Sz}. We follow \cite{CTW,Sz, TW4}.
First, we observe that
\begin{equation}\label{l1}
\int_M(-u)\omega^n\leq C,
\end{equation}
for a uniform constant $C$. Indeed, let
$$H(u)=\Delta_g u +\tr{\omega}{(\sqrt{-1} a\wedge\overline{\partial} u -\sqrt{-1}\ov{a}\wedge\partial u)}=\tr{g}{\ti{g}}-n\geq -n,$$
where $\Delta_gu=\tr{\omega}{\sqrt{-1} \partial \overline{\partial} u}=\frac{n\sqrt{-1} \partial \overline{\partial} u\wedge\omega^{n-1}}{\omega^n}$ is the complex Laplacian of $g$.
Since the kernel of $H$ consists of just constants, a classical argument of Gauduchon \cite{Ga0} (cf. \cite[Theorem 2.2]{CTW}) shows that there is a smooth function $v$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{hha}
\int_M H(\psi) e^v\omega^n=0,
\end{equation}
for all smooth functions $\psi$. We then define a new Hermitian metric $\hat{\omega}=e^{v/(n-1)}\omega$. Its operator $\hat{H}$, defined in the same way
\begin{equation}\label{hhat}
\hat{H}(\psi)=\Delta_{\hat{g}} \psi +\tr{\hat{\omega}}{(\sqrt{-1} a\wedge\overline{\partial} \psi -\sqrt{-1}\ov{a}\wedge\partial \psi)},
\end{equation}
satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{ddd}
\hat{H}(u)=e^{-v/(n-1)}H(u)\geq -C,
\end{equation}
and now we have
\begin{equation}\label{dd}
\int_M \hat{H}(\psi) \hat{\omega}^n=0,
\end{equation}
for all $\psi$. We may then use the Green's function for $\hat{H}$ (with respect to the metric $\hat{\omega}$), to deduce the uniform $L^1$ bound for $u$ in \eqref{l1} by the exact same argument as in \cite[Proof of Theorem 2.1]{TW5}. Briefly, standard theory gives us a Green's function $G(x,y)$, normalized to have zero integral, which has a uniform lower bound and such that
$$\psi(x)=\frac{1}{\int_M\hat{\omega}^n}\int_M \psi\hat{\omega}^n-\int_M \hat{H}(\psi)(y)G(x,y)\hat{\omega}^n(y),$$
holds for all $\psi$ and all $x\in M$. Thanks to \eqref{dd} we can add a uniform constant to $G$ to make it nonnegative, while preserving the same Green's formula, and we then apply this to $u$ with $x$ a point where $u(x)=0$, so that from \eqref{ddd} and the lower bound for $G$ we easily deduce \eqref{l1}.
Next, we promote the $L^1$ bound \eqref{l1} to the $L^\infty$ bound \eqref{li} using ABP, as in \cite[Proposition 3.1]{CTW} and \cite{Sz, TW4}. Let $x_0\in M$ be a point where $u$ achieves its infimum $I=\inf_M u$, and fix a coordinate unit ball $B$ centered at $x_0$. In this ball, let $v=u+\varepsilon |x|^2$, where $\varepsilon>0$ will be a uniform constant to be chosen later. We have $\inf_{\partial B}v\geq v(0)+\varepsilon$, so \cite[Proposition 10]{Sz} gives us that
\begin{equation}\label{dddd}
\varepsilon^{2n}\leq C\int_P\det(D^2v),
\end{equation}
for a universal constant $C$, where
$$P = \{ x \in B \ | \ |Dv(x)|<\varepsilon/2, \textrm{ and } v(y) \ge v(x) + Dv(x)\cdot(y-x) \ \forall y \in B \}.$$
Given now any $x\in P$, we have $D^2v(x)\geq 0$ and $|Du(x)|\leq 5\varepsilon/2$ so at $x$
$$\sqrt{-1} a\wedge \overline{\partial} u-\sqrt{-1}\ov{a}\wedge \partial u +\sqrt{-1} \partial \overline{\partial} u\geq -C\varepsilon\omega,$$
for a uniform constant $C$, therefore if we choose $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small (but uniformly bounded away from zero), we get
$$\ti{\omega}(x)\geq\frac{1}{2}\omega(x),$$
and from the Monge-Amp\`ere equation \eqref{pde} we deduce
$$\ti{\omega}(x)\leq C\omega(x),$$
from which
$$\sqrt{-1} \partial \overline{\partial} u(x)\leq C\omega(x),$$
and so $0\leq \sqrt{-1} \partial \overline{\partial} v(x)\leq C\omega(x)$. But a simple linear algebra inequality (using that $(D^2v(x))\geq 0$) gives
$$\det(D^2v(x))\leq C \det(v_{i\ov{j}})^2(x)\leq C,$$
which together with \eqref{dddd} gives
$$|P|\geq C^{-1},$$
where $|P|$ denotes the Lebesgue measure. For all $x\in P$ we have
$$v(x)\leq v(0)+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}=I+\frac{\varepsilon}{2},$$
and we may assume that $I+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}<0$, so
$$C^{-1}\leq|P|\leq\frac{\int_P(-v)}{|I+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}|}\leq\frac{C}{|I+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}|},$$
using the $L^1$ bound \eqref{l1}, which proves \eqref{li}.
\end{proof}
\section{Second order estimate} \label{sectionsecond}
In this section we prove a bound on $\sqrt{-1}\partial \ov{\partial}u$ in terms of a bound on the square of the first derivative of $u$. This estimate takes the same form as the Hou-Ma-Wu estimate \cite{HMW} for the complex Hessian equations (see also the later works \cite{CTW, Sz, STW, TW3, TW5}) although here the quantity to which we apply the maximum principle is slightly simpler.
\begin{theorem}\label{2nd}
Let $u,F\in C^\infty(M)$ and $a\in \Lambda^{1,0}M$ satisfy \eqref{pde}, with $\sup_M u=0$. Then there is a constant $C$ that depends only on $\sup_M|u|$, $\|a\|_{C^2(M)}$, $\|F\|_{C^2(M)}$ and on the geometry of $(M,g)$ such that
$$\sup_M | \sqrt{-1}\partial \ov{\partial} u|_g \le C(1+\sup_M|\partial u|^2_g).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Define the linearized operator $L$ by
\begin{equation} \label{defnL}
Lv = \tilde{g}^{i\ov{j}} (v_{i\ov{j}} + a_i v_{\ov{j}} + a_{\ov{j}} v_i) = \tilde{g}^{i\ov{j}}v_{i\ov{j}} + 2\textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{j}} a_{\ov{j}} v_i \right).
\end{equation}
Observe that
\begin{equation} \label{Lu}
Lu = \tilde{g}^{i\ov{j}} (\tilde{g}_{i\ov{j}} - g_{i\ov{j}}) = n - \tr{\tilde{g}}{g}.
\end{equation}
Let $\lambda_1 \ge \lambda_2 \ge \cdots \ge \lambda_n>0$ be the eigenvalues of $\tilde{g}_{i\ov{j}}$ with respect to $g$. We consider the quantity
$$Q= \log \lambda_1 + \varphi( | \partial u|^2_g) + \psi(u),$$
where we define
$$\varphi(s) = \frac{s}{K}, \ s\ge 0, \quad \textrm{and} \quad \psi(t) = e^{-At}, \ t \le 0,$$
with
$$K = \sup_M | \partial u|^2_g+1,$$
and $A>0$ to be determined.
Note that we have
$$ - \psi' \ge A>0, \quad \psi'' = -A\psi'.$$
We assume that $Q$ achieves its maximum at $x_0\in M$. It suffices to show that at $x_0$, we have $\lambda_1 \le CK$ for a uniform $C$. Hence in what follows we may assume without loss of generality that $\lambda_1$ is large compared to $K$. We will calculate at the point $x_0$ using coordinates for which $g$ is the identity and $\tilde{g}$ is diagonal with entries $\tilde{g}_{i\ov{i}}=\lambda_i$ for $i=1, \ldots, n$.
Since $\lambda_1$ may not be smooth at $x_0$, we
define a smooth function $f$ on $M$ by (cf. \cite[Proof of Theorem 6]{BCD})
\begin{equation} \label{defnf}
Q(x_0) = \log f + \varphi(| \partial u|^2_g) + \psi(u),
\end{equation}
where the right hand side of (\ref{defnf}) is evaluated at a general point of $M$.
Observe that $f$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{fcondition}
f \ge \lambda_1 \quad \textrm{on } M, \quad f = \lambda_1 \quad \textrm{at } x_0.
\end{equation}
We have the following lemma, which is a complex version of \cite[Lemma 5]{BCD}. Here and in the sequel, we use $\nabla_i$ or simply lower indices (after commas, when needed to avoid confusion) to denote covariant derivatives with respect to the Chern connection of $g$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaviscosity}
Let $\mu$ denote the multiplicity of the largest eigenvalue of $\tilde{g}$ at $x_0$, so that $\lambda_1=\cdots = \lambda_{\mu} > \lambda_{\mu+1} \ge \cdots \ge \lambda_n$. Then at $x_0$, for each $i$ with $1\le i \le n$,
\begin{equation} \label{fd}
\tilde{g}_{k\ov{\ell}, i} = f_i g_{k\ov{\ell}} , \quad \textrm{for } 1\le k, \ell \le \mu,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{sd}
f_{i\ov{i}} \ge \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1}, i\ov{i}} + \sum_{q>\mu} \frac{ | \tilde{g}_{q\ov{1},i}|^2 + | \tilde{g}_{q\ov{1}, \ov{i}}|^2}{\lambda_1-\lambda_q}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} The proof only uses the fact that $f$ is smooth and satisfies (\ref{fcondition}).
For a smooth vector field $V = V^k \frac{\partial}{\partial z^k}$ defined in a neighborhood of $x_0$, we consider the function
$$h = \tilde{g}_{k\ov{\ell}} V^k \ov{V^{\ell}} - f g_{k\ov{\ell}} V^k \ov{V^{\ell}},$$
which is nonpositive.
For any choice of $V$ with $V^k(x_0) =0$ for $k > \mu$ we have $h(x_0)=0$ and hence
$h$ has a local maximum at $x_0$.
For (\ref{fd}), choose $V$ with $V^k(x_0)=0$ for $k>\mu$ and $$\nabla_i V^k(x_0)=0 = \nabla_{\ov{i}} V^k(x_0), \quad \textrm{for } k \le \mu.$$
Then at $x_0$,
\[
\begin{split}
0 = h_i = {}
{} &\tilde{g}_{k\ov{\ell},i} V^k \ov{V^{\ell}} - f_i g_{k\ov{\ell}} V^k \ov{V^{\ell}},
\end{split}
\]
and (\ref{fd}) follows since we can choose $V^k(x_0)$ for $k \le \mu$ to be whatever we like.
For (\ref{sd}) we choose $V$ with $V(x_0) = \frac{\partial}{\partial z^1}$ and
$$\nabla_i V^q(x_0) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0, \quad & q \le \mu \\ \frac{ \tilde{g}_{1\ov{q},i}}{\lambda_1-\lambda_q}, \quad & q >\mu \end{array} \right.$$
and
$$\nabla_{\ov{i}} V^q(x_0) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0, \quad & q \le \mu \\ \frac{ \tilde{g}_{1\ov{q}, \ov{i}}}{\lambda_1-\lambda_q}, \quad & q >\mu. \end{array} \right.$$
Then at $x_0$,
\begin{equation} \label{calc1}
\begin{split}
0 \ge h_{i\ov{i}} = {} & \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1}, i\ov{i}} - f_{i\ov{i}} + \tilde{g}_{k\ov{\ell},i} (\nabla_{\ov{i}} V^k) \ov{V^{\ell}} + \tilde{g}_{k\ov{\ell},i} V^k \ov{\nabla_i V^{\ell}}
+ \tilde{g}_{k\ov{\ell}, \ov{i}} (\nabla_i V^k) \ov{V^{\ell}} \\ & \mbox{} + \tilde{g}_{k\ov{\ell}, \ov{i}} V^k \ov{\nabla_{\ov{i}} V^{\ell}} + \tilde{g}_{k\ov{\ell}} \nabla_i V^k \ov{\nabla_i V^{\ell}} + \tilde{g}_{k\ov{\ell}} \nabla_{\ov{i}} V^k \ov{\nabla_{\ov{i}} V^{\ell}} \\
{} & \mbox{} - f g_{k\ov{\ell}} \nabla_i V^k \ov{\nabla_i V^{\ell}} - f g_{k\ov{\ell}} \nabla_{\ov{i}} V^k \ov{\nabla_{\ov{i}} V^{\ell}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
noting that terms of the type
$f_i g_{k\ov{\ell}} (\nabla_{\ov{i}} V^k) \ov{V^{\ell}}$ vanish by definition of $V$ and
$$\tilde{g}_{k\ov{\ell}} (\nabla_{\ov{i}} \nabla_i V^k) \ov{V^{\ell}} - f g_{k\ov{\ell}} (\nabla_{\ov{i}} \nabla_i V^k) \ov{V^{\ell}}=0=\tilde{g}_{k\ov{\ell}} V^k \ov{\nabla_i \nabla_{\ov{i}}V^{\ell}} - f g_{k\ov{\ell}} V^k \ov{\nabla_i \nabla_{\ov{i}} V^{\ell}}$$
since $fg_{1\ov{1}} = \lambda_1 = \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1}}$ at $x_0$. Continuing from (\ref{calc1}), using the definition of $V$,
\[
\begin{split}
0 \ge {} & \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1}, i\ov{i}} - f_{i\ov{i}} + 2\sum_{q > \mu} \frac{ | \tilde{g}_{q\ov{1},i}|^2}{\lambda_1-\lambda_q} + 2\sum_{q > \mu} \frac{ | \tilde{g}_{q\ov{1},\ov{i}}|^2}{\lambda_1-\lambda_q} \\
{} & \mbox{} + \sum_{q>\mu} \lambda_q \frac{ | \tilde{g}_{1\ov{q},i}|^2}{(\lambda_1-\lambda_q)^2} + \sum_{q>\mu} \lambda_q \frac{ | \tilde{g}_{1\ov{q},\ov{i}}|^2}{(\lambda_1-\lambda_q)^2} \\
{} & \mbox{} - \lambda_1 \sum_{q>\mu} \frac{ | \tilde{g}_{1\ov{q},i}|^2}{(\lambda_1-\lambda_q)^2} - \lambda_1 \sum_{q>\mu} \frac{ | \tilde{g}_{1\ov{q},\ov{i}}|^2}{(\lambda_1-\lambda_q)^2} \\
= {} & \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1},i\ov{i}} - f_{i\ov{i}} + \sum_{q>\mu} \frac{ | \tilde{g}_{q\ov{1},i}|^2 + | \tilde{g}_{q\ov{1},\ov{i}}|^2}{\lambda_1-\lambda_q},
\end{split}
\]
as required.
\end{proof}
Differentiating (\ref{pde}) we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{1d}
\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \tilde{g}_{i\ov{i}, k} = \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} (u_{i\ov{i}k} + a_{i,k} u_{\ov{i}} + a_i u_{k\ov{i}} +a_{\ov{i},k} u_i + a_{\ov{i}} u_{ik})= F_k,
\end{equation}
where here and henceforth we are computing at the point $x_0$.
Differentiating again, and setting $k=1$,
\begin{equation} \label{F11}
\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \tilde{g}_{i\ov{i},1\ov{1}} - \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \tilde{g}^{j\ov{j}} \tilde{g}_{i\ov{j}, 1} \tilde{g}_{j\ov{i},\ov{1}} = F_{1\ov{1}}.
\end{equation}
Now apply $\nabla_i$ to the defining equation (\ref{defnf}) of $f$ to obtain
\begin{equation} \label{Qi}
0 = \frac{f_i}{\lambda_1} + \varphi' \left( u_p u_{\ov{p}i} + u_{pi} u_{\ov{p}} \right) + \psi' u_i.
\end{equation}
Next apply the operator $L$, as defined in (\ref{defnL}), to the defining equation of $f$ to obtain,
\begin{equation} \label{LQ}
\begin{split}
0 = {} & \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}}f_{i\ov{i}}}{\lambda_1} - \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} | f_i|^2}{\lambda_1^2}
+ \varphi' \sum_{p} \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \left( | u_{p\ov{i}}|^2 + |u_{pi}|^2 \right) \\{}& \mbox{} + \varphi' \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} (u_{pi\ov{i}} u_{\ov{p}} + u_{\ov{p} i \ov{i}} u_p)
+ \psi'' \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} | u_i|^2 + \psi' (n- \tr{\tilde{g}}{g}) \\ & \mbox{}+
2\textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_{\ov{i}} \frac{f_i}{\lambda_1} \right)
+ 2\varphi' \textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_{\ov{i}} \left( u_p u_{\ov{p}i} + u_{pi} u_{\ov{p}} \right) \right),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we have made use of (\ref{Lu}).
We wish to compare $\sum_i \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} f_{i\ov{i}}$ and $\sum_i \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \tilde{g}_{i\ov{i},1\ov{1}}$. From Lemma \ref{lemmaviscosity},
\begin{equation} \label{lambda1d}
f_i = \tilde{g}_{11,\ov{i}}, \ \textrm{and } f_{i\ov{i}} \ge \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1}, i\ov{i}} + \sum_{q >\mu} \frac{ | \tilde{g}_{1\ov{q}, i}|^2 + | \tilde{g}_{q\ov{1}, i}|^2}{\lambda_1- \lambda_q}.
\end{equation}
To compare $\tilde{g}_{11,i\ov{i}}$ and $\tilde{g}_{i\ov{i},1\ov{1}}$ we first compute, using $T^{k}_{ij}$ and $R_{k\ov{\ell}i}^{\ \ \ \, p}$ to denote the torsion and Chern curvature tensors of $g$ respectively (see for example \cite{TW5}),
\begin{equation} \label{u4}
\begin{split}
u_{i\ov{i}1\ov{1}} = {} & u_{i\ov{i}\ov{1}1} + R_{1\ov{1}i}^{\ \ \ \, p} u_{p\ov{i}} - R_{1\ov{1} \ \, \ov{i}}^{\ \ \, \ov{q}} u_{i\ov{q}} \\
= {} & u_{i\ov{1}\ov{i}1} + R_{1\ov{1}i}^{\ \ \ \, p} u_{p\ov{i}} - R_{1\ov{1} \ \, \ov{i}}^{\ \ \, \ov{q}} u_{i\ov{q}} + \nabla_1 \ov{T^q_{i1}} u_{i\ov{q}} + \ov{T^q_{i1}} u_{i\ov{q}1} \\
= {} & u_{\ov{1}i1\ov{i}} + R_{1\ov{1}i}^{\ \ \ \, p} u_{p\ov{i}} - R_{1\ov{1} \ \, \ov{i}}^{\ \ \, \ov{q}} u_{i\ov{q}} + \nabla_1 \ov{T^q_{i1}} u_{i\ov{q}} + \ov{T^q_{i1}} u_{i\ov{q}1} \\ {} & + R_{1\ov{i} \ \, \ov{1}}^{\ \ \, \ov{q}} u_{\ov{q}i} - R_{1\ov{i}i}^{\ \ \ p} u_{\ov{1}p} \\
= {} & u_{1\ov{1} i\ov{i}} + R_{1\ov{1}i}^{\ \ \ \, p} u_{p\ov{i}} - R_{1\ov{1} \ \, \ov{i}}^{\ \ \, \ov{q}} u_{i\ov{q}} + \nabla_1 \ov{T^q_{i1}} u_{i\ov{q}} + \ov{T^q_{i1}} u_{i\ov{q}1} \\
{} & + R_{1\ov{i} \ \, \ov{1}}^{\ \ \, \ov{q}} u_{\ov{q}i} - R_{1\ov{i}i}^{\ \ \ p} u_{\ov{1}p} + \nabla_{\ov{i}} T^q_{i1} u_{\ov{1}q} + T^q_{i1} u_{\ov{1}q \ov{i}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where for the second inequality and fourth inequalities, we used the formulae
\begin{equation} \label{u3}
u_{j\ov{\ell} \ov{k}} - u_{j \ov{k}\ov{\ell}}= \ov{T^q_{\ell k}} u_{j\ov{q}}, \quad u_{\ov{j} \ell k} - u_{\ov{j} k \ell} = T^q_{\ell k} u_{\ov{j}q}.
\end{equation}
From (\ref{u4}) and the definition of $\tilde{g}_{i\ov{j}}$,
\[
\begin{split}
\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1},i\ov{i}} = {} & \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \tilde{g}_{i\ov{i},1\ov{1}} + \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \{ u_{1\ov{1}i\ov{i}} - u_{i\ov{i}1\ov{1}}
+ a_{1,i\ov{i}} u_{\ov{1}} - a_{i,1\ov{1}} u_{\ov{i}} \\
{} & + a_{\ov{1},i\ov{i}} u_1 - a_{\ov{i},1\ov{1}} u_i + a_{1,i} u_{\ov{1}\ov{i}} - a_{i,1} u_{\ov{i}\ov{1}} + a_{1,\ov{i}} u_{\ov{1} i} - a_{i,\ov{1}} u_{\ov{i}1} \\
{} & + a_{\ov{1},i} u_{1\ov{i}} - a_{\ov{i},1}u_{i\ov{1}} + a_{\ov{1}, \ov{i}} u_{1i} - a_{\ov{i},\ov{1}} u_{i1} + a_1 u_{\ov{1}i\ov{i}} - a_i u_{\ov{i}1 \ov{1}} \\
{} & + a_{\ov{1}} u_{1i\ov{i}} - a_{\ov{i}} u_{i1\ov{1}} \} \\
\ge{} & \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \tilde{g}_{i\ov{i},1\ov{1}} + \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \left( \ov{T^q_{1i}} u_{i\ov{q}1} + T^q_{1i} u_{\ov{1}q\ov{i}} + a_1 u_{\ov{1}i\ov{i}} - a_i u_{\ov{i}1 \ov{1}} + a_{\ov{1}} u_{1i\ov{i}} - a_{\ov{i}} u_{i1\ov{1}} \right) \\
& - \sum_{p} \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \left( |u_{p\ov{i}}|^2 + |u_{pi}|^2 \right) - C( \tr{\tilde{g}}{g} )( \tr{g}{\tilde{g}}),
\end{split}
\]
where for the last line we used the assumption that $K \le \lambda_1 \le \tr{g}{\tilde{g}}$, and the uniform lower bound of $\tr{g}{\tilde{g}}$ which follows from our equation (\ref{pde}).
Next, observe that
\begin{equation} \label{comm1}
\begin{split}
& u_{i\ov{j} k} = u_{k\ov{j}i} + T^p_{ik} u_{\ov{j}p}= u_{ki\ov{j}} + T^p_{ik} u_{\ov{j}p}- u_p R_{i\ov{j} k}^{\ \ \ \, p}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Then, using this and (\ref{1d}),
\[
\begin{split}
\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} (a_1 u_{\ov{1} i \ov{i}} + a_{\ov{1}} u_{1i\ov{i}}) = {} & 2 \textrm{Re}\left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_{\ov{1}} u_{1i \ov{i}} \right) - a_{1} u_{\ov{q}} \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} R_{i\ov{i}\ \, \ov{1}}^{\ \, \, \ov{q}} \\
= {} & 2 \textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_{\ov{1}} \left( u_{i\ov{i} 1} -T^p_{i1} u_{\ov{i}p} + u_p R_{i\ov{i} 1}^{\ \ \ \, p} \right) \right) - a_{1} u_{\ov{q}} \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} R_{i\ov{i}\ \, \ov{1}}^{\ \, \, \ov{q}} \\
= {} & 2 \textrm{Re} \left( a_{\ov{1}} F_{1} - \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_{\ov{1}} (T^p_{i1} u_{\ov{i}p} - u_pR_{i\ov{i}1}^{\ \ \ \, p} \right. \\ {} & \left. \mbox{} + a_{i,1} u_{\ov{i}} + a_i u_{1\ov{i}} + a_{\ov{i},1} u_i + a_{\ov{i}} u_{i1})
\right) - a_{1} u_{\ov{q}} \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} R_{i\ov{i}\ \, \ov{1}}^{\ \, \, \ov{q}}.
\end{split}
\]
We also have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\lefteqn{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} ( \ov{T^q_{1i}} u_{i\ov{q}1} + T^q_{1i} u_{\ov{1}q\ov{i}})} \\= {} & 2 \textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \ov{T^q_{1i}} u_{1\ov{q}i} \right) + \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \ov{T^q_{1i}} T^p_{1i} u_{\ov{q}p} \\
= {} & 2 \textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \ov{T^q_{1i}} \left( \tilde{g}_{1\ov{q},i} - a_{1,i} u_{\ov{q}} - a_1 u_{\ov{q}i} - a_{\ov{q},i} u_1 - a_{\ov{q}} u_{1i} \right) \right) \\ {} & \mbox{} + \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \ov{T^q_{1i}} T^p_{i1} u_{\ov{q}p}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Combining the above with (\ref{F11}) gives
\begin{equation} \label{gii11ii}
\begin{split}
\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1},i\ov{i}}
\ge{} & \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \tilde{g}^{j\ov{j}} \tilde{g}_{i\ov{j}, 1} \tilde{g}_{j\ov{i},\ov{1}} + 2 \textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \ov{T^q_{1i}} \tilde{g}_{1\ov{q},i} \right) - \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \{ a_i u_{\ov{i}1 \ov{1}} + a_{\ov{i}} u_{i1\ov{1}} \} \\
& - 2\sum_{i,p} \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \left( |u_{p\ov{i}}|^2 + |u_{pi}|^2 \right) - C (\tr{\tilde{g}}{g} )( \tr{g}{\tilde{g}} ).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Next, using again Lemma \ref{lemmaviscosity},
\begin{equation} \label{2Relambda1i}
\begin{split}
2\textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_{\ov{i}} \frac{f_i}{\lambda_1} \right) = {} & 2\textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_{\ov{i}} \frac{\tilde{g}_{1\ov{1},i}}{\lambda_1} \right) \\=
{} & \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}}}{\lambda_1} \left( a_{\ov{i}} u_{i1\ov{1}} + a_i u_{\ov{i} 1 \ov{1}} +a_{\ov{i}}T^p_{1i} u_{\ov{1}p}- a_{\ov{i}} u_p R_{1\ov{1}i}^{\ \ \ \, p} + a_i \ov{T^q_{1i}} u_{1\ov{q}}\right) \\
{} & + 2\textrm{Re} \left( \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}}}{\lambda_1} a_{\ov{i}} \{ a_{1,i} u_{\ov{1}} + a_1 u_{\ov{1}i} + a_{\ov{1},i}u_1 +a_{\ov{1}}u_{1i} \} \right) \\
\ge {} & \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}}}{\lambda_1} \left( a_{\ov{i}} u_{i1\ov{1}} + a_i u_{\ov{i} 1 \ov{1}} \right) - \frac{1}{\lambda_1} \sum_{p} \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \left( |u_{p\ov{i}}|^2 + |u_{pi}|^2 \right) \\ & \mbox{} - C \tr{\tilde{g}}{g},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and note that the terms involving three derivatives of $u$ exactly match those from (\ref{gii11ii}), after multiplying by $-1/\lambda_1$.
Now from (\ref{1d}) we have,
\[
\begin{split}
\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} u_{ i\ov{i}p} u_{\ov{p}} = {}& F_p u_{\ov{p}} - \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_{i,p} u_{\ov{i}} u_{\ov{p}} - \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_i u_{\ov{i}p} u_{\ov{p}} - \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_{\ov{i},p} u_i u_{\ov{p}} - \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_{\ov{i}} u_{ip} u_{\ov{p}}.
\end{split}
\]
Hence, making use of (\ref{comm1}), and recalling that $\varphi' =1/K$,
\begin{equation} \label{upii}
\begin{split}
\lefteqn{ \varphi' \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} (u_{pi\ov{i}} u_{\ov{p}} + u_{\ov{p}i\ov{i}} u_p)} \\ = {} & \varphi' \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \left( u_{i\ov{i}p} u_{\ov{p}} + u_{\ov{i}i \ov{p}}u_p + u_r u_{\ov{p}} R_{i\ov{i}p}^{\ \ \ \, r} - T^r_{ip}u_{\ov{p}} u_{\ov{i}r} + \ov{T^q_{pi}} u_pu_{i\ov{q}} \right) \\ = {} &
2\varphi' \textrm{Re} \left(F_p u_{\ov{p}} - \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_{i,p} u_{\ov{i}} u_{\ov{p}} - \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_i u_{\ov{i}p} u_{\ov{p}} - \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_{\ov{i},p} u_i u_{\ov{p}} - \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_{\ov{i}} u_{ip} u_{\ov{p}} \right) \\ & \mbox{} + \varphi' \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} u_r u_{\ov{p}} R_{i\ov{i}p}^{\ \ \ \, r} - 2 \varphi' \textrm{Re}\left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} T^r_{ip}u_{\ov{p}} u_{\ov{i}r} \right) \\
\ge {} & - \frac{\varphi'}{4} \sum_p \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} (|u_{p\ov{i}}|^2 + |u_{pi}|^2 ) - C \tr{\tilde{g}}{g}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We also have
\begin{equation} \label{phi2r}
2\varphi' \textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} a_{\ov{i}} \left( u_p u_{\ov{p}i} + u_{pi} u_{\ov{p}} \right) \right) \ge - \frac{\varphi'}{4} \sum_p \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} (|u_{p\ov{i}}|^2 + |u_{pi}|^2 ) - C \tr{\tilde{g}}{g}.
\end{equation}
Combining (\ref{LQ}), (\ref{lambda1d}), (\ref{gii11ii}), (\ref{2Relambda1i}), (\ref{upii}) and (\ref{phi2r}) gives
\begin{equation} \label{tog}
\begin{split}
0 \ge {} & \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \tilde{g}^{j\ov{j}} \tilde{g}_{i\ov{j},1} \tilde{g}_{j\ov{i}, \ov{1}}}{\lambda_1} + \sum_{q>\mu} \frac{ \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}}( | \tilde{g}_{1\ov{q}, i}|^2 + | \tilde{g}_{q\ov{1}, i}|^2)}{\lambda_1(\lambda_1- \lambda_q)} - \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} | \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1}, i}|^2}{\lambda_1^2} \\ {} & + \frac{2\textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \ov{T^q_{1i}} \tilde{g}_{1\ov{q},i} \right)}{\lambda_1} \mbox{} + \left(\frac{1}{2} \varphi' - \frac{C}{\lambda_1} \right)\sum_{p} \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \left( | u_{p\ov{i}}|^2 + |u_{pi}|^2 \right) \\ & \mbox{}
+ \psi'' \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} | u_i|^2 + \psi' (n- \tr{\tilde{g}}{g}) - C \tr{\tilde{g}}{g} \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for $C$ a universal constant (depending on $F$, $a$ etc).
We need to get a lower bound of
\begin{equation} \label{dontforget}
\frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \tilde{g}^{j\ov{j}} \tilde{g}_{i\ov{j},1} \tilde{g}_{j\ov{i}, \ov{1}}}{\lambda_1} - \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} | \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1}, i}|^2}{\lambda_1^2} \ge \sum_{i=2}^n \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \tilde{g}_{i\ov{1}, 1} \tilde{g}_{1\ov{i},\ov{1}}}{\lambda_1^2} - \sum_{i=2}^n \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} | \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1},i}|^2}{\lambda_1^2},
\end{equation}
where we have discarded the terms with $j\neq 1$.
But note that
\[
\begin{split}
\tilde{g}_{i\ov{1},1} = {} & \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1},i} + \lambda_1 X_{1\ov{1}i},
\end{split}
\]
where $X_{1\ov{1}i}$ is defined by
$$X_{1\ov{1}i}:=\frac{1}{\lambda_1} \left(
T^p_{i1} u_{\ov{1}p} + a_{i,1} u_{\ov{1}} + a_i u_{1\ov{1}}+a_{\ov{1},1} u_i - a_{1,i} u_{\ov{1}} - a_1 u_{i\ov{1}} - a_{\ov{1},i}u_1 + a_{\ov{1}} T_{1i}^k u_k\right),$$
and satisfies $|X_{1\ov{1}i}|\le C$ for a uniform $C$. In the above, we used (\ref{comm1}) and the formula
$$u_{ij}-u_{ji} = T^k_{ji}u_k.$$
Then
\begin{equation} \label{uno}
\begin{split}
\sum_{i=2}^n \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \tilde{g}_{i\ov{1}, 1} \tilde{g}_{1\ov{i},\ov{1}}}{\lambda_1^2} \ge {} & \sum_{i=2}^n \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} | \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1},i}|^2}{\lambda_1^2} + 2\textrm{Re} \left( \sum_{i=2}^n \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} g_{1\ov{1}, i} \ov{X_{1\ov{1}i}}}{\lambda_1} \right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
To deal with the second term, we use (\ref{Qi}) to compute
\begin{equation} \label{dos}
\begin{split}
\lefteqn{2 \textrm{Re}\left( \sum_{i=2}^n \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1}, i} \ov{X_{1\ov{1}i}}}{\lambda_1} \right)} \\ ={} & - 2 \textrm{Re} \left( \sum_{i=2}^n \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}}(\varphi' (u_p u_{\ov{p}i} + u_{pi}u_{\ov{p}}) + \psi' u_i) \ov{X_{1\ov{1}i}} \right) \\
\ge {} & - \frac{\varphi'}{8} \sum_p \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}}(|u_{p\ov{i}}|^2+|u_{pi}|^2) - C\tr{\tilde{g}}{g} + \psi' ( C \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}}|u_i|^2 + \frac{1}{4} \tr{\tilde{g}}{g}),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we recall that $\psi'<0$.
Next we deal with the fourth term on the right hand side of (\ref{tog}). From Lemma \ref{lemmaviscosity} we have $\tilde{g}_{1\ov{q},i}=0$ for $1<q\le \mu$ and hence
\begin{equation} \label{tres}
\begin{split}
\frac{2\textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \ov{T^q_{1i}} \tilde{g}_{1\ov{q},i} \right)}{\lambda_1} = {} & \frac{2\textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \ov{T^1_{1i}} \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1},i} \right)}{\lambda_1} + 2 \sum_{q>\mu} \frac{\textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \ov{T^q_{1i}} \tilde{g}_{1\ov{q},i} \right)}{\lambda_1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
But using the same argument as in (\ref{dos}), replacing $|X_{1\ov{1}i}|\le C$ by $|T^1_{1i}|\le C$, we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{tres2}
\begin{split}
\frac{2\textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \ov{T^1_{1i}} \tilde{g}_{1\ov{1},i} \right)}{\lambda_1} \ge {} & - \frac{\varphi'}{8} \sum_p \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}}(|u_{p\ov{i}}|^2+|u_{pi}|^2) - C\tr{\tilde{g}}{g} \\ {} & + \psi' ( C \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}}|u_i|^2 + \frac{1}{4} \tr{\tilde{g}}{g}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
On the other hand we have
\begin{equation} \label{tres3}
\begin{split}
2 \sum_{q>\mu} \frac{\textrm{Re} \left( \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \ov{T^q_{1i}} \tilde{g}_{1\ov{q},i} \right)}{\lambda_1} \ge {} & - \sum_{q>\mu} \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} |\tilde{g}_{1\ov{q},i}|^2}{\lambda_1(\lambda_1-\lambda_q)}
- \sum_{q >\mu} \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} |T^q_{1i}|^2 \frac{(\lambda_1-\lambda_q)}{\lambda_1} \\
\ge {} & - \sum_{q>\mu} \frac{\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} |\tilde{g}_{1\ov{q},i}|^2}{\lambda_1(\lambda_1-\lambda_q)} - C\tr{\tilde{g}}{g}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Combining (\ref{tog}) with (\ref{dontforget}), (\ref{uno}), (\ref{dos}), (\ref{tres}), (\ref{tres2}) and (\ref{tres3}) we obtain for a uniform constant $C$,
\[
\begin{split}
0 \ge {} & \left( \frac{1}{4} \varphi' - \frac{C}{\lambda_1} \right) \sum_{i,p} \tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}} \left( |u_{p\ov{i}}|^2+|u_{pi}|^2 \right) + \left(-\psi'/2 - C \right) \tr{\tilde{g}}{g} \\ {} & + (\psi'' + C \psi')\tilde{g}^{i\ov{i}}|u_i|^2 + \psi' n.
\end{split}
\]
But since we may assume that $\lambda_1 \ge 4C K$, the first term on the right hand side is nonnegative.
Pick $A=2(C+1)$ so that $-\psi'/2 -C \ge 1$ and $\psi'' + C\psi' \ge 0$. Then $\tr{\tilde{g}}{g}$ and hence $\lambda_1$ is uniformly bounded from above at the maximum of $Q$, and the result follows.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Remark.} \
In the proof above we used a viscosity type argument to deal with the non-differentiability of the largest eigenvalue $\lambda_1$. There are other methods to deal with this issue: one is to use a perturbation argument as in \cite{Sz, STW}; another is to replace $\lambda_1$ by a carefully chosen quadratic function of $\tilde{g}_{i\ov{j}}$ as in \cite{TW5}.
\section{Proof of the main theorem} \label{sectionproof}
\subsection{Higher order estimates}\label{higher} First, we discuss the {\em a priori} higher order estimates, in the same setting as Theorems \ref{0th} and \ref{2nd}.
Thanks to the estimates in these Theorems, a blowup argument can be employed exactly as in \cite{DK,Sz,STW,TW3} to obtain that
$\sup_M |\partial u|_g\leq C,$ and therefore also $\sup_M\tr{g}{\ti{g}}\leq C.$ Here we use the classical Liouville Theorem stating that a bounded plurisubharmonic function on $\mathbb{C}^n$ is constant (indeed, by restricting to complex lines, this reduces to the well-known fact that a bounded subharmonic function in $\mathbb{C}$ is constant).
The PDE \eqref{pde} then implies that $\ti{g}$ is uniformly equivalent to $g$, at which point we can then apply the Evans-Krylov theory \cite{E, K, Tr} (see also \cite{TWWY}) to obtain uniform {\em a priori} $C^{2,\alpha}$ bounds on $u$, for some uniform $0<\alpha<1$. Differentiating the equation and using Schauder theory, we then deduce uniform {\em a priori} $C^k$ bounds for all $k\geq 0.$
\subsection{Existence of a solution} We employ the continuity method. For $t\in [0,1]$ we consider the family of equations for $(u_t,b_t)$
\begin{equation} \label{mat}
\begin{split}
& \det (g_{i\ov{j}} + a_i u_{t,\ov{j}} + a_{\ov{j}} u_{t,i} + u_{t,i\ov{j}}) = e^{tF+b_t}\det (g_{i\ov{j}}), \\
& \mathrm{with\ } (g_{i\ov{j}} + a_i u_{t,\ov{j}} + a_{\ov{j}} u_{t,i} + u_{t,i\ov{j}})>0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Suppose we have a solution for $t=\hat{t}$ and write $$\hat{\omega}=\omega+\sqrt{-1} a\wedge\overline{\partial} u_{\hat{t}} -\sqrt{-1}\ov{a}\wedge\partial u_{\hat{t}}+\sqrt{-1} \partial \overline{\partial} u_{\hat{t}},$$
and $\hat{H}$ for the linearized operator defined as in \eqref{hhat}. By the same argument of Gauduchon \cite{Ga0} that was mentioned earlier, we may find a smooth function $v$,
normalized by $\int_M e^v\hat{\omega}^n=1$, such that
$$\int_M \hat{H}(\psi) e^v\hat{\omega}^n=0,$$
for all smooth functions $\psi$, i.e. $e^v$ generates the kernel of the adjoint $\hat{H}^*$ of $\hat{H}$ (with respect to the $L^2$ inner product with volume form $\hat{\omega}^n$). Fix $0<\alpha<1$ and consider the operator
\[\begin{split}
\Upsilon(\psi)&=\log\frac{(\hat{\omega}+\sqrt{-1} a\wedge\overline{\partial}\psi-\sqrt{-1}\ov{a}\wedge\partial\psi+\sqrt{-1} \partial \overline{\partial}\psi)^n}{\hat{\omega}^n}\\
&-\log\left(\int_M e^v(\hat{\omega}+\sqrt{-1} a\wedge\overline{\partial}\psi-\sqrt{-1}\ov{a}\wedge\partial\psi+\sqrt{-1} \partial \overline{\partial}\psi)^n\right),
\end{split}\]
mapping $C^{3,\alpha}$ functions $\psi$ with zero average (and such that $\hat{\omega}+\sqrt{-1} a\wedge\overline{\partial}\psi-\sqrt{-1}\ov{a}\wedge\partial\psi+\sqrt{-1} \partial \overline{\partial}\psi>0$) to the space of $C^{1,\alpha}$ functions $w$ satisfying $\int_M e^{w+v}\hat{\omega}^n=1$ (whose tangent space at $0$ consists precisely of $C^{1,\alpha}$ functions orthogonal to the kernel of $\hat{H}^*$). For any $C^{3,\alpha}$ function $\zeta$ we have
$$\int_M e^v\hat{H}(\zeta)\hat{\omega}^n=\int_M \zeta\hat{H}^*(e^v)\hat{\omega}^n=0,$$
hence the linearization of $\Upsilon$ at $0$ is $\hat{H}$. Thanks to the Fredholm alternative, $\hat{H}$ is an isomorphism of the tangent spaces, and so the Inverse Function Theorem provides us with $C^{3,\alpha}$ functions $\psi_t$ for $t$ near $\hat{t}$ which satisfy
$$\Upsilon(\psi_t)=(t-\hat{t})F-\log\left(\int_M e^{(t-\hat{t})F}e^v\hat{\omega}^n\right),$$
so that $u_t=u_{\hat{t}}+\psi_t$ solve \eqref{mat} for some $b_t\in\mathbb{R}$. Lastly, differentiating \eqref{mat} and using Schauder estimates and bootstrapping, we easily see that our $C^{3,\alpha}$ solutions are in fact smooth.
This establishes that the set of all $t\in [0,1]$ for which we have a solution $(u_t,b_t)$ of \eqref{mat} is open (and nonempty, since we can take $(u_0,b_0)=(0,0)$). At this point we can also impose that $\sup_Mu_t=0$ by adding a $t$-dependent constant. To show that the set of such $t\in[0,1]$ is also closed, it suffices to prove {\em a priori} estimates for $u_t$ (in $C^k$ for all $k\geq 0$) and $b_t$. The bound $|b_t|\leq \sup_M|F|$ is elementary by the maximum principle, and then the estimates for $u_t$ follow from section \ref{higher} above.
\subsection{Uniqueness} In the setting of the main theorem \ref{main}, uniqueness of $b$ and $u$ follows from a simple maximum principle argument, see e.g. \cite{CTW}.
|
\section{Introduction}
CMOS image (CI) sensors are essential parts of computer vision (CV) systems in autonomous robots, self-driving vehicles, and surveillance systems. Currently, CI sensors used for these systems are frame based with fixed global exposure that locks to the pixel readout timing. The inability to adjust each pixel’s exposure and frame rate independently can lead to regions of motion blur and overexposure. Some examples are shown in Fig. 1(a)-(d) with regions of sub-optimal exposure settings. These saturated and/or blurred video frames cause information loss and lead to errors in a range of CV tasks such as motion estimation, object segmentation, and recognition.
In this work, we demonstrate a camera system that can adaptively control each pixel’s exposure and sampling rate in real-time to maximize information content acquired from the scene. It does this using all electronic control without external optical modulators. The system consists of three parts: an image sensor with pixel-wise exposure configurability, a high speed bi-directional chip to computer interface using the PCIe bus, and real-time a exposure controller implemented on a computer.
The paper is organized as follows: In section II, we discuss previous work in the area of high dynamic range (HDR) and coded exposure imaging. In section III, we describe the adaptive pixel-wise imaging system in detail. In section IV, we characterize adaptive exposure control using our system with experiment results. In section V, we address some areas of improvement in discussion and conclude the paper.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig1}
\caption{(a-d) Snapshot of videos acquired with frame based CI sensors. Highlighted area in the image are not optimally exposed. (a) Motion blur due to low frame rate. (b-d) Under and overexposure in image local regions. (a-d) are snapshots of videos from Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com) (e) Block diagram of our system. It consists of three parts: an image sensor with pixel-wise exposure configurability, a high speed bi-directional chip to computer interface using the PCIe bus, and real-time exposure control algorithms.}
\label{Fig1}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary of previous work}
Several previous works provide non-integrated technologies for adaptively controlling exposure patterns on conventional CI sensors. Here, we review each class of these works:
\textit{Temporally varying exposure:} To minimize imaging imperfection due to suboptimal exposure, a conventional CI sensor can be used to sequentially capture multiple images of the same scene at different global exposures \cite{burt1993enhanced} \cite{mitsunaga1999radiometric}\cite{mann1994beingundigital}. Short exposure images capture details in bright regions while long exposure images enhance the signal quality in the dark regions. These sequential snapshots are then merged through tone-mapping algorithms to enhance overall scene dynamic range. While this method is widely used in photography, it is not suitable for non-stationary scenes as any movements during the sequential snapshots would cause ghosting in the tone-mapped HDR image. Furthermore, the need for multiple exposures limits the frame rate of the CI sensor, making it sub-optimal for video applications.
\textit{Multiple image sensors:} We can extend the above methods to videos by using a multi-sensor system to capture the scene at different exposure settings simultaneously \cite{tocci2011versatile}\cite{aggarwal2004split}. These setups use beam splitters after the objective lens to generate multiple copies of the scene and then project them onto multiple detectors set at different exposures. While this method produces HDR frames in real-time, it requires multiple cameras and well-tuned optics for alignment. Further, spitting the image between two sensors attenuates collected light which degrades the maximum frame rate.
\textit{Spatially varying transmittance:} Spatially modulating pixel transmittance can be used to enhance dynamic range without using multiple detectors\cite{nayar2000high}\cite{schechner2001generalized}. These methods use off-chip spatial light modulators (SLMs) prior to the CI sensor to modulate incoming light intensity at each pixel. By placing an optical spatially varying transmittance mask across the focal plane, it allows local pixel groups to capture a wider dynamic range. But to generate the HDR scene, spatial low pass filtering is needed which results in loss of spatial resolution. In addition, this technique suffers from the added complexity of the off-chip SLM, which must be well aligned to each pixel.
\textit{Adaptive optical light intensity modulation:} The optical transmittance mask can be coupled with a feedback control loop to modulate light intensity at pixel-level \cite{nayar2000high}\cite{nayar2003adaptive}. These adaptive systems first detect over-exposed and dark region within the scene. They then adjust incident pixel-wise light intensity within the region to optimize the dynamic range. This method improves scene dynamic range without sacrificing spatial resolution. But like other optically modulated methods, these systems require precise optical alignment. In addition, the image sensor's framerate is fixed. Thus, these systems cannot increase pixel sampling speed during short exposure because the exposure clock must be tuned to the dimmest part of the scene.
\section{Pixel-wise adaptive imaging system}
Here we describe an adaptive imaging system that optimizes exposure and frame rate at the pixel level. It achieves pixel-wise exposure control without external optical modulation. Figure 1(e) illustrates this system, which consists of three parts: (1) an image sensor with flexible pixel-wise exposure configurability, (2) a high speed chip computer bi-directional PCIe data link, and (3) exposure controller implemented on the computer. These three elements operate in a closed-loop to sample, detect and optimize each pixel’s exposure and frame rate to enhance image quality. The PCIe link and the exposure controller could be further integrated to a system-on-chip (SoC) solution to further decrease overall system size and power.
Figure 1(e) also shows an example of this system’s operation. The image sensor outputs frame 1 of a video at time (t-1). In this frame, the sky region of the scene is over-exposed which leads to saturation of important objects including poles and traffic lights. From this frame, the exposure controller then segments the region of sub-optimal exposure and re-calculates the optimal exposure for this region. It feeds back updated exposure to the image sensor, which then uses it to sample the next frame at time (t), where both the sky and the road regions of the scene are optimally sampled. In this section, we describe each part of the proposed system in detail.
\subsection{Image sensor with pixel-wise exposure configurability}
A number of image sensors with pixel-wise exposure configurability have been demonstrated, including our previous work \cite{zhang2016compact}\cite{luo2017exposure}\cite{sarhangnejad20195}. We first proposed a pixel-wise configurable exposure image sensor architecture \cite{zhang2016compact}. However, as we shall discuss here in detail, this first design’s timing causes small unintended sampling deadtime during exposure. Subsequently, Luo, Ho and Mirabbasi, Sarhangnejad et al. have proposed dual-tap approaches which use two floating diffusions ($FD$) to collect charges from the photodiode\cite{luo2017exposure}\cite{sarhangnejad20195}. This design ensures minimal sampling deadtime but doubles the number of readout circuits. In this work, we improve on our previous design to ensure all the charges are accumulated during pixel exposure. This pixel can achieve the performance of dual-tap design without using additional readout circuits.
\newline
\subsubsection{Image sensor architecture}
The image sensor design is outlined in Fig. 2. The pixel array consists of 256 $\times$ 256 pixels with 6.5$\mu m$ pixel pitch and is fabricated using a standard 130$nm$ CMOS process. Pixel circuitry is modified based on our previous work and consists of three parts: a 4T pixel, an exposure control ($EX$) gate and an in-pixel static random access memory (SRAM) block. The 4T pixel include a pinned-photodiode ($PD$), a transfer gate ($TX$), a reset gate ($RST$) and a row selection gate ($RSEL$) \cite{zhang2016compact}\cite{fossum2014review}. We inserted the EX gate between PD and the readout circuitry for pixel-wise exposure control. An in-pixel 1-bit static random access memory (SRAM) block controls the $EX$ gate to modulate pixel-wise exposure according to the timing diagram in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.
Unlike our previous design where $EX$ is placed between $PD$ and $TX$ \cite{zhang2016compact}, in this design the $EX$ gate is inserted between $TX$ and $FD$. As we shall elaborate in the next section, this modification fixes sampling deadtime caused by charge dissipation that was present in our previous design.
On the chip level, we use analog correlated double sampling (CDS) and cyclic ADCs for column readout. Compared to successive approximation register (SAR) ADC used in our previous work, the cyclic ADC occupies less area by minimizing the use of on-chip capacitors \cite{mase2005wide}\cite{park2009high}. The schematic and timing of the ADC are shown in Fig. 3. The operational transconductance amplifier (OTA) is shared between the CDS circuit and ADC. We choose a single-ended architecture over the fully differential one to further save chip area. Each cyclic ADC’s layout has dimension of 6.5$\mu m \times$ 200$\mu m$ to fit into the pixel column pitch.
Pixel-wise exposure control is done through the SRAM drivers located at the bottom of each column. When a row is selected for readout through $RSEL$, these SRAM drivers are loaded with the exposure bits for all the pixel within that row. The timing for SRAM writing procedure is explained in the next subsection.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig2}
\caption{Pixel-wise image sensor architecture. The sensor is fabricated in a standard 130nm CMOS process featuring an array of 256 $\times$ 256 pixels with 6.5$\mu m$ pitch}
\label{Fig2}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Timing}
The circuit timing diagram is shown in Fig. 3 for a pixel located at row zero and column one. When this row is selected for readout, we pre-charge the $BIT$ line for this column ($BIT[1]$) to high, indicating this pixel is ending its exposure. The CDS circuit then samples the reset value onto $C_1$, while putting voltage $V_{RP}-V_{COM}$ across $C_2$. The $WORD$ line for row zero ($WORD[0]$) subsequently pulses to write the SRAM with the logic value of $BIT$. This turns $EX[0,1]$ gate ON, connecting $PD$ to the readout structure. Then $TX$ pulses to transfer light generated charge from the $PD$ onto the $FD$ node. $FD$ voltage is subsequently sampled onto $C_1$ while $C_2$ is place in the feedback path of the amplifier. At the end of the CDS signal phase, the voltage, $V_{OUT}$, is:
\begin{equation}
V_{OUT} = \frac{C_1}{C_2}(V_{RESET} - V_{SIGNAL}) + V_{RP}
\end{equation}
where $V_{RESET}$ is the $FD$ reset value and $V_{SIGNAL}$ is $FD$ signal value after charge transfer. $V_{RP}$ is the voltage to adjust $V_{OUT}$ into the proper ADC dynamic range. Note that the CDS’s reset sampling must occur before EX is programmed to release charge onto the $FD$ node.
Analog to digital (AD) conversion begins after the conclusion of CDS. We divide the digitization process into two repeating sub-phases driven by two non-overlapping clocks ($\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$). During the sampling sub-phase, the ADC samples the output of the OTA onto the capacitor $C_1$ and $C_2$. Then during the amplification phase, it drives $V_{OUT}$ to the value given by:
\begin{equation}
V_{OUT} = 2V_{OTA} - V_R
\end{equation}
where $V_R$ is determined by the 1.5-bit MDAC based on the output of the sub-ADC:
\begin{equation}
V_R =
\begin{cases}
V_{RH},& \text{if } D = 2\\
V_{COM},& \text{if } D = 1\\
V_{RL}, & \text{if } D = 0
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The MDAC generates 1.5-bit per conversion stage. This is a widely used technique in pipeline/cyclic ADC design to relax sub-ADC’s comparators precision \cite{mase2005wide}\cite{park2009high}. The ADC repeats sampling and amplification sub-phase ten times. Addition logic then generates 10-bit digital output based on each stage’s results and transmit the digital word to a serial interface for readout.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig3}
\caption{An example pixel timing diagram and the schematic of the CDS and column cyclic ADC circuits}
\label{Fig3}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Modified pixel design}
Fig. 4(a) shows the pixel timing across multiple frames and charge potential diagrams to illustrate charge transferring at key timing point. We use this figure to illustrate the sampling deadtime present in our previous design, and our design modification.
To end this pixel’s previous exposure, we pull $EX$ signal high to sample the pixel. This pixel potential is then reset at timing point A. The $EX$ remains high until this pixel is selected at the next frame at timing point B. In our previous design \cite{zhang2016compact}, where $EX$ is inserted between $PD$ and $TX$, the photo-generated charge will pour into $MID$ when $EX$ is high between timing A and B (Fig. 4(b)). These charges would then be trapped at $MID$ when $EX$ is pulled low at point B, and subsequently cleared when $TX$ and $RST$ are pulled high at timing point C. Therefore, these charges would be absent when the pixel value is readout at the end of exposure (timing point D). With this charge dissipation, the final charge measured at point D is the charges collected between B and D and we lose the charges collected between A and B. Of course, since $MID$’s well-potential is much smaller compare to FD and PD, this non-ideality can be negligible in bright light conditions. But it would nevertheless be a problem when overall signal is small.
Aiming to fix this issue, we switch the location of $EX$ and $TX$ gate such that $TX$ is placed between $PD$ and $EX$ (Fig. 4(c)). Between timing point A and B, the charges are kept at $PD$ since $TX$ is always high. At timing point B, $EX$ is pulled high before $TX$ to rise the potential barrier. The subsequent TX pulses would transfer charge onto the $MID$ node. But $MID$ node would be protected from reset by the $EX$ potential barrier. At timing location D, $EX$ is lowered to allow this pixel to be sampled. Note that during CDS, we sample the reset prior to lowering $EX$. Therefore, the charge trapped at $MID$ would be counted as the signal voltage. The resulting sample at point D would the charges collected between point A and D.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig4}
\caption{Timing diagram during pixel pixel exposure and pixel charge transfer (a) pixel timing diagram across multiple frames (b) charge transfer plot of pixels in our previous design \cite{zhang2016compact} (b) charge transfer plot of modified pixels in this work }
\label{Fig5}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Chip-computer bi-directional interface }
To prototype pixel exposure control algorithms, it is convenient to work with a high level language running on a desktop PC. However, with a computer in the loop it is imperative to minimize communication delay times to prevent closed-loop instability. To achieve single frame delay in the exposure control, we must minimize the communication delay from the chip to computer so more time can be allocated to the exposure control algorithms on the computer side. We have selected the PCIe bus for chip-computer communication due to its high bandwidth and low transmission latency. We implement the bi-directional PCIe interface using a Xilinx Kintex-7 FPGA with IP cores from Xillybus \cite{xillybus.com}. We characterized the round-time communication delay to average around 70$\mu s$, with maximum delay of 85$\mu s$ \cite{oe2016}. This makes communication speed negligible compared to the time between frame (for framerate $<$100 FPS).
In addition to hosting the bi-directional PCIe interface, the same Kintex-7 FPGA also implements logic to convert pixels' exposure values from the computer to serial data streams. These data streams are then send to the image sensor to load the shift registers at the input of the SRAM drivers, shown in Fig. 2.
To rapidly prototype different feedback control algorithms, we made use of the Bonsai visual programming language \cite{lopes2015bonsai}. We developed Bonsai plugins on top of a data streaming API \cite{jonathan_newman_2019_3254431}. Specifically, we developed a source plugin (PCECameraRead) to capture images from the camera and a sink (PCECameraWrite) to write pixel exposure times to the camera using the bi-directional PCIe link. Code for these plugins is available on the Bonsai.CodedPixel git repository (https://github.com/jonnew/Bonsai.CodedPixel). Bonsai includes many high performance image processing components and easy to use stream synchronization elements making it ideal for our purposes. Bonsai workflows implementing for each of the control algorithms presented in this paper can be found in the algorithms folder of the CodedPixel git repository.
\subsection{Pixel-wise exposure and sample rate controller}
For prototyping, the pixel-wise exposure controller is hosted on a computer linked to the image sensor using the PCIe interface. By controlling pixel-wise exposure, the controller can also adjust each pixel’s sampling rate. The goal of the controller is to optimize pixel exposure based on estimates of local intensity and motion information. Pixel exposure should be adjusted to avoid overexposure, underexposure and motion blur. We divide this optimization task into two control modes: exposure optimization based on (1) intensity and (2) local scene motion.
\subsubsection{PI mode: Exposure optimization based on intensity}
We used a proportional integral (PI) controller to control pixel exposure based on its intensity measurement. The goal is to maintain the intensity of each pixel, $I_{x,y}$ within a desired range that is set just below the point of over-exposure, similar to \cite{nayar2003adaptive}. To define this controller, we first calculate an intensity error for every pixel:
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{x,y} =
\begin{cases}
I_{x,y}(n)-I_{target},& \text{if } |I_{x,y} -I_{target}| > e_{tol} \\
0, & \text{otherwise }
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_{x,y}(n)$ is the intensity error for pixel at row $x$ and column $y$. $I_{target}$ is a constant representing the desired intensity. The positive constant, $e_{tol}$, is an error tolerance such that $\epsilon_{x,y}(n)$ is non-zero only when $|I_{x,y}-I_{target}|$ is larger than $e_{tol}$. With the error term defined, the PI controller is written as:
\begin{equation}
r_{x,y}(n) = K_p\epsilon_{x,y}(n) + K_i\sum_{n'=0}^{n}\epsilon_{x,y}(n')
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
E_{x,y}(n) = \lfloor E_{x,y}(n-1) - r_{x,y}(n) \rfloor
\end{equation}
where $r_{x,y}(n)$ is the output of the PI controller. $K_p$ and $K_i$ are the proportional and integral gain respectively. Finally, the pixel exposure value, $E_{x,y}(n)$, is an integer representing the multiples of the shortest exposure. We calculate the $E_{x,y}(n)$ as the numerical floor of the difference between the previous exposure $E_{x,y}(n)$ and $r_{x,y}(n)$. the PI controller will minimize $r_{x,y}(n)$ to achieve steady state $E_{x,y}(n)$ and $I_{x,y} \approx I_{target}$.
There are four parameters to set for the PI controller: $I_{target}$, $e_{tol}$, $K_p$ and $K_i$. The choice of these parameters depends on the pixel intensity range and the max allowable $E_{x,y}(n)$. For example, if $1 \leq E_{x,y}(n) \leq 8$ and in a standard image format where pixel value range from 0 – 255, $I_{target}$ can be selected to be around 200, with $e_{tol}$ of 30. That means the PI controller will try to keep optimal pixel in the range between 170 to 230. We should increase $K_p$ to speed up settling speed. But its value should not be too larger to induce instability. $K_i$ should be kept as a small fraction of $K_p$ to eliminate residual error after the application of the proportional control. We select these gain parameters using the following rule of thumb:
\begin{equation}
K_p \textless \frac{max(E_{x,y})}{max(\epsilon_{x,y})} \text{ and } K_i \textless 0.1 \dot K_p
\end{equation}
where $K_p$ should be less than the quotient of maximum exposure and maximum intensity error, and $K_i$ should be less than 10\% of $K_p$. This parameter selection ensures that in most extreme condition $r_{x,y}$ does not cause $E_{x,y}$ to overshoot and create instability. In this example, if $I_{target}$ is 200, then $K_p$ should be less than $8/170 = 0.04$ and $K_i$ should be less than 0.004.
\subsubsection{OF mode: Exposure optimization based on motion}
For a static scene, it is optimal to use longer pixel exposure and slower frame rate to enhance SNR. But for motion scenes, it is desirable to use short pixel exposure and fast frame rate to minimize motion blur and to avoid temporal aliasing. Because the scene can change during camera operation, using a derivative (D) term to estimate temporal trends in pixel exposure is ineffective (e.g. in the case of a sharp edge or line passing through the scene). Instead, we update pixel exposure by directly estimating local motion using optical flow (OF) measurements \cite{farneback2003two}\cite{lucas1981iterative}. This measurement can be used to predicts scene motion which is used to preemptively tune pixel exposure.
However, using OF-based control introduces some issues into the PI controller. First, for a static scene, when we change exposure at $E(n-1)$ using the PI controller, it results in non-zero optical flow vectors computed at time $t$ due to the pixel intensity change. This “false” OF value is representative of our control signal and not actual scene motion and therefore causes an error on motion driven exposure optimization. Second, OF measurement can be noisy at the pixel level, especially at low light condition with low SNR. Further, OF measurements' accuracy can also be affected by motion blur caused by long exposures. All of these factors make pixel-wise motion driven exposure difficult to achieve.
To address these issues, we allow the PI controller and the OF controller to engage pixels separately depending on the magnitude of pixel motion. We first divide the image into sub-blocks of size $M \times M$ pixels. We then calculate the average OF for all the pixels within each of these blocks over a period of $T_{switch}$:
\begin{equation}
v_{i,j}(n) = \frac{1}{M^2\dot T_{switch}} \sum_{y=1}^{M} \sum_{x=1}^{M} \sum_{n'=n-T_{switch}}^{n}|u_{x,y}(n')|
\end{equation}
where $|u_{x,y} |$ is magnitude of the optical flow vector at pixel $(x,y)$. $v_{i,j}$ is the average of $|u_{x,y}|$ over a period $T_{switch}$ for all the pixels within this block. Spatially averaging of OF enhances measurement accuracy, while temporal averaging over a period of $T_{switch}$ allows us to distinguish motion from instantaneous change in pixel value due to closed-loop exposure update. After incorporating $v_{i,j}(n)$, pixel exposures are determined as:
\begin{equation}
E_{x,y}(n) =
\begin{cases}
E_{PI_{x,y}}(n),& \text{if } v_{i,j} < v_{tol} \text{\; \; PI mode} \\
\lfloor max(E_{x,y})-K_v v_{i,j} \rfloor, & \text{if } v_{i,j} \geq v_{tol} \text{\; \; OF mode}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
$v_{tol}$ is a constant threshold to determine controller mode selection. For static regions or regions with instantaneous motion, we allow PI mode to control pixel exposure. But for regions with constant motion, we use OF mode which calculates exposure based on the magnitude of the motion. $K_v$ is the gain that converts the OF magnitude, measured in units of pixels moved, to exposure values. $K_v$ was determined using test images, where lines are moved in front of the camera at different speed to determine the correct $K_v$ to avoid motion blurring.
\section{Experiments}
We next experimentally investigated the adaptive exposure feedback imaging system. In all the experiments described here, $E_{x,y}$ is represented by a 3-bit integer. $E_{x,y}=1$ corresponds to shortest pixel exposure of $30$ ms, while longest exposure $E_{x,y}=8$ corresponds to pixel exposure of $240$ ms. This setting also configures the fastest pixel sampling rate to around 30 frames per second (FPS) and slowest sampling rate to around 4 FPS. Before the raw images from the sensor is sent to the exposure controllers, they first undergo fixed-pattern noise correction and are filtered by a 3 $\times$ 3 median filter to remove salt-and-pepper noise from non-responsive pixels.
In these experiments, we take the 10-bit ADC full scale as pixel's value range $(0 – 1024)$. We set the PI controller parameter following equation (7): $I_{target} = 800$, $\epsilon_{tor} = 120$, $K_p = 0.01$ and $K_i = 0.001$. We compute the OF measurements using the Farnelback method based on polynomial expansion\cite{farneback2003two}. We set $K_v = 2$, this means for every motion magnitude $v_{x,y}$ of 1 pixels, we reduce exposure, $E_{x,y}$, by 2 steps. $M$ is set to be 8 corresponding to $v_{x,y}$ averaging over an 8 $\times$ 8 blocks.
\subsection{Setup}
Fig. 6 shows the chip micrograph, the data collection setup, and two scenes used for experiments. The chip is wirebonded onto the PCB and mounted behind an objective lens, shown in Fig. 6 (a) and (d). The data from the image sensor is transmitted to a connector board which sends the data into the KC705 FPGA its FPGA Mezzanine Card (FMC) port, shown in Fig. 6(b). The KC705 hosts the PCIe bi-directional interface and is mounted onto one of computer’s PCIe slots. Fig. 6 (c) is a scene used in this experiment. It is a cardboard cutout in a shape of a cartoon sun. We overlay it with a transparent paper with a drawing of a smiley face. This setup is then back-illuminated to create high dynamic range scene for imaging experiment. Fig. 6 (d) is a setup to create continuous motion to test the functionality of the controller in OF mode. Objects are mounted on a rotating stand. The spinning motion then creates continuous motion at the top-half of the video, while the bottom half remain stationary. The detailed experiment results are described in the next sections.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig5}
\caption{Chip micrograph and experimental setups: (a) chip micrograph (b) data collection setup (c and d) scenes and objects used for testing the PI controller (c) and OF controller (d)}
\label{Fig6}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Stationary scenes}
Fig. 6 shows a back-illuminated pictures of a cartoon cardboard cutout in the shape of a Sun under different exposure settings. In Fig. 6(a) and (b), the entire scene undergoes short (30ms) and long (240ms) global exposures respectively. During short exposure, the smiley face overlaid on top of the circle, and the gap between the circle and the triangles cutouts are visible and can be easily segmented. But the background remains dark. Conversely, during long exposure, the background text of the MIT logo is visible, but the circle and the triangles of the Sun are over-exposed. As a result, the edges between the triangle and the circle shrinks due to over-exposure. This makes the segmentation more difficult. In addition, due to over-exposure, the smiley face is statured and not visible.
Fig. 6(c) shows an example when each pixel’s exposure is tuned based on its intensity using the pixel-wise exposure controller as described in section III.C. Since the camera is imaging a static scene, the control adjusts pixel-wise exposure in PI mode. The exposure pattern to needed to generate Fig. 6(c) is shown in Fig. 6(d). The controller sets most of the background to long exposure of 240ms to enhance the SNR. It only lowers the exposure values for pixels within the back-illuminated circle and triangles to avoid over-exposure. The pixels around the bright regions are tuned to have exposure between 30ms and 240ms. As a result, both the background text and the smiley face at the back-illuminated region are visible. The gaps between the circle and triangles are also wide and distinguishable.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig6}
\caption{Pixel-wise exposure optimization for stationary scene using controller in PI mode. (a) Image acquire with short global exposure, (b) long global exposure. (c) Image acquired with optimized pixel-wise exposure set by the PI controller}
\label{Fig6}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig7}
\caption{Pixel-wise exposure optimization for scenes with instantaneous motion using controller in PI mode. Two video examples are shown in (a) and (b). The top row of each example shows the image sensor output, while the bottom row shows the corresponding pixel exposure pattern. The legend for pixel exposure length is also}
\label{Fig7}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig8}
\caption{Pixel-wise exposure optimization for scenes with continuous motion using controller in OF mode. (a) Six frame from a video where image sensor outputs are shown in the top row, while pixel exposure patterns and OF measurements are shown in the bottom row. (b) A timeline showing the duration between each frames. when pixels exposure are shorten at $T_{switch}$, the pixel sampling rate also increase in the corresponding region}
\label{classification}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Motion scenes}
\textit{Instantaneous motion:} Fig. 7 demonstrates the controller’s performance for scenes with instantaneous motion. We show two examples here. For each example, we plot the image sensor output on the top row and the corresponding pixel exposure pattern is on the bottom row. In the example (a), we move the back-illuminated cardboard cutout to the right at frame 2. This motion is not large enough to cause the controller to switch to OF mode from PI mode. As a result, pixels in the region where the motion occurs become overexposed and underexposed. This causes the error function to grow and PI controller starts to regulate pixels exposure, shown in frame 3 and 4. The pixels’ exposure eventually settles at frame 5, after 3 frames following the end of motion
Fig. 7(b) shows another example, where an incandescent light bulb is placed in front of an MIT logo. The PI controller tunes the pixels at bulb’s filament to short exposure while keeping the background at longer exposure. This enables us to see both the shape of the filament and the background. We then introduce motion at frame 2 and 3 by moving the bulb to the right. Pixels at the motion region become sub-optimally exposed. But PI controller then optimizes the them which eventually settles to their new exposure at frame 6.
\textit{Continuous motion:} Fig. 8 demonstrates an example where continuous motion triggers the OF mode for pixel exposure control. In this example, objects are placed on a rotating stand, as shown in Fig. 6(c). We then spin the stand to generate continuous motion. This results in continuous object motion on the top section of the video frame, while the bottom section remain stationary.
Fig. 8(a) top row shows the outputs of image sensors, while the bottom row shows pixel exposure and corresponding OF vectors. Initially, each pixel is configured to have exposure of 120ms, sampling at around 8 FPS. Some example image are shown in frame 1 – 3. The long pixel exposures, although optimal from SNR perspective, generate blurring effects in frame 1 to 3.
The optical flow measurements are continuously integrated according to equation (8) and It reaches the threshold $v_{tol}$ at end of period, $T_{switch}$. This causes the controller to switch from PI mode to OF mode according to equation (9). In OF mode, the pixel exposures are optimized according to the magnitude of the velocity instead of intensity. In this example, it shortens pixel exposure and increase framerate for the top region of the frame for the amount proportional to the magnitude of the motion. These pixels now update every 30ms instead of 120ms and results in blur-less capturing of the motion.
It can also be observed that the OF measurements, especially the direction of the motion vectors in frame 1-3 are less accurate in reflecting the actual motion due to the blurring effects from long exposures. This is compared to OF measurements in frame 4-6 during where blurless frames results in much more accurate motion measurements.
\section{Discussion, future work and conclusion}
We have demonstrated a closed-loop, all-electronic, pixel-wise exposure control system that is capable of adapting to both changes in scene intensity and motion in order to tune exposure in over-and-over exposed scene regions. We have provided a simple PI control algorithm to tune each pixels exposure time in order to achieve ultra-high dynamic range imaging of static scenes with large differential lighting levels. Further, we have provided exposure control based on predicted scene motion using optical flow in order to adjust pixel exposure times to minimize blurring.
Our current system uses a PCIe based communication protocol and high-level software in the control loop for prototyping purposes. In the future, we foresee the complete integration of the control logic system directly into the camera sensor to form an SoC capable of native and automatic adaptive pixel exposure control. In addition, several areas of the system could also be improved in future works:
\subsubsection{Application dependent metrics for measuring sub-optimally sampled pixels}
The key to high performance controller is well-defined error functions. In our controller, we used intensity error to measure over and under exposure, and in addition used optical flow as an indicator for motion blur. These performance metrics are selected for general applications. But a better approach would be to find application dependent metric to measure sub-optimally sampled pixels. For example, when the videos are inputs to classification or segmentation tasks, we could use classification or segmentation accuracy as a metric to adjust exposure and frame rate.
\subsubsection{Combining learning to pixel-wise exposure estimation}
The recent development in convolutional neural network (CNN) could also be utilized to learn the optimal pixel exposure patterns. Previous work using CNN for optical flow estimation and motion blur detection and removal have been proposed \cite{dosovitskiy2015flownet}\cite{sun2015learning}\cite{nah2017deep}. A similar network architecture could be used to segment the scene based optical pixel exposure. A potential difficulty with this approach is the collection of high dynamic range and multi-frame rate video data for network training.
\subsubsection{Using coded exposure patterns}
The most difficult case for the exposure controller is when there is high continuous motion with low illumination. Prolonging exposure increases SNR but leads to motion blur. Shortening exposure reduces motion blur but causes low SNR. In this case, we could configure the pixels to sample in coded exposure patterns and use computational imaging methods to enhance image quality [9], [22].
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
First-principles numerical modeling of core-collapse supernova (CCSN) is an indispensable approach to reveal two unresolved mechanisms: explosion and neutron star (NS) kick. These two issues are intimately related with each other and should be addressed simultaneously. One of the numerical challenges in addressing the issue is a requirement of high accuracy under multi-scale, multi-dimensional (multi-D) and multi-physics circumstances, since small numerical errors could crucially affect the final outcome. In this paper we present a novel method to improve the accuracy of linear momentum conservation in Boltzmann-radiation-hydrodynamics simulations of CCSNe.
We first give a brief overview of our CCSN code and some relevant differences from others. The most important feature in our code is that multi-D Boltzmann equations for neutrino transport are solved by discretizing the full phase space (3 in space and 3 in momentum space). The basic framework of our code was developed in \citet{2012ApJS..199...17S}, which treated the non-relativistic Boltzmann equation for a given matter profile (see also \citet{2015ApJS..216....5S}). \citet{2014ApJS..214...16N} extended it to a special relativistic treatment, in which relativistic corrections were taken into account to all orders of $v/c$ in a non-conventional way. In the same paper we also coupled the Boltzmann solver with a Newtonian self-gravity hydrodynamics, which employs essentially the same numerical method as in \citet{2011ApJ...731...80N} except for special relativistic terms. \citet{2017ApJS..229...42N} further developed a moving mesh technique to track proper motions of PNS. The technique is built on a general relativistic (GR) description of radiation-hydrodynamics, in which we use a conservative form of GR Boltzmann equation in \citet{2014PhRvD..89h4073S}. It is probably a unique approach to implement the moving mesh covariantly. More recently we entered the phase of scientific runs of axisymmetric CCSN simulations on $\sim 10$ PFLOPS K-computer \citep{2018ApJ...854..136N,Harada:2018ubo}.
On the other hand, other state-of-the-art numerical simulations have employed some approximations for neutrino transport (see e.g., \citep{2015ApJ...807L..31L,2016MNRAS.461L.112T,2016ApJS..222...20K,2016ApJ...831...98R,2016ApJ...818..123B,2016ApJ...817...72P,2017MNRAS.472..491M,2018MNRAS.481.4786J,2018ApJ...865...81O,2018arXiv180610030P,2018arXiv180910146G,2018MNRAS.477L..80K,2018MNRAS.475L..91T,2019MNRAS.482..351V} ). Most of them take advantage of (angular) moment approaches one way or another. Integrating out the angular degrees of freedom in the Boltzmann equation, one obtains an infinite hierarchy of equations for all ranks of angular moments. For practical reasons, it is truncated at a certain level: most of the schemes normally treat moments up to the 0th or 1st order. Importantly, the 2nd angular moment is related with the energy-momentum tensor of neutrinos, and its divergence describes the conservation of energy and momentum in neutrino transport (see e.g., \citet{2011PThPh.125.1255S}). It is hence straightforward for these schemes to satisfy the conservation of energy and momentum simultaneously in simulations\footnote{Strictly speaking, the statement depends on individual numerical schemes.}.
Contrary to the moment method, Boltzmann solvers do not guarantee the conservation of energy and momentum in general. The conservative form of GR Boltzmann equation implemented in our code satisfies only the conservation of number and the conservation of the energy and momentum is violated in general once the equation is finite-differenced. In fact, the difficulty of handling multiple conservation laws (number, energy and momentum) in the Boltzmann neutrino transport has been discussed over the past few decades (see e.g., \citet{1993ApJ...405..669M,2004ApJS..150..263L,2013PhRvD..88b3011C}). Unfortunately, however, no satisfactory solution has been demonstrated in realistic CCSN simulations so far.
We found in one of our recent simulations that violation of the linear momentum conservation in the Boltzmann neutrino transport could manifest itself in hydrodynamics, i.e., artificial acceleration of PNS to unphysically large velocities. In this paper we present a novel approach to reduce the error in the momentum conservation and prevent the artificial acceleration of PNS. We will not employ the moment method but cling to solving the Boltzmann equation and change the treatment of the feedback from neutrino to matter. We will also show that the previous treatment, in which the collision term is directly integrated for the feedback, generates a systematic error in the momentum exchange between neutrino and matter in the optically thick region (see in Sec.~\ref{sec:Invcause}). We investigate the cause of the error, which, it turns out, is intimately related with the problem of the Boltzmann solver in the diffusion limit. The new method alleviates the shortcoming of the Boltzmann solver and allows us to overcome the problem with computationally feasible angular resolutions in momentum space.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:issues} we briefly summarize the issue of the unphysical PNS acceleration that we encountered in one of our axisymmetric CCSN simulations. Then, we investigate the cause of the PNS acceleration by systematically carrying out Boltzmann simulations for a frozen fluid background in Sec.~\ref{sec:Invcause}. In Sec.~\ref{sec:NeuTransDif} we describe the connection between the artificial PNS acceleration and the problem of the Boltzmann solver in the diffusion limit, and then we present the new method in detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:newmethod}. We examine its validity using a series of axisymmetric CCSN simulations in Sec.~\ref{sec:exam}. We summarize our conclusions in Sec.~\ref{sec:conc}. Throughout this paper, Greek and Latin subscripts denote space-time and space components, respectively. We use the metric signature of $- + + +$. Unless otherwise stated, we work in units with $c=G=1$, where $c$ and $G$ are the light speed and gravitational constant, respectively.
\section{Summary of the problem} \label{sec:issues}
In one of our latest axisymmetric CCSN simulations, we found that a PNS was accelerated to velocities more than $1000 {\rm km/s}$ by the end of the simulation ($300$ms after bounce). It should be noted, however, that we did not find such an unphysically large PNS kick in other simulations and this happens only in a special situation. In Sec.~\ref{sec:Invcause}, we investigate the cause of this anomalous PNS acceleration and also clarify the reason why other models do not have the same issue. As we shall see, the large PNS acceleration turns out to be a numerical artifact due to an error in the momentum feedback from neutrino to matter in the optically thick region. Before going into details of the analysis, we summarize the essential results of the simulation, particularly focusing on the PNS kick.
In the simulation, most parts of the numerical setup are the same as those used in \citet{2018ApJ...854..136N}. We employ one of the most realistic nuclear equations-of-state \citep{2013NuPhA.902...53T,2017NuPhA.961...78T}. Neutrino-matter interactions are based on those given in \citet{1985ApJS...58..771B} except for the recent improvements \citep{2018arXiv181209811N}. Note that we also incorporated nonisoenergetic scatterings on electrons and positrons, bremsstrahlung by nucleon collisions and electron-positron pair processes together with their inverse reactions (see e.g., \citet{2005ApJ...629..922S,2012ApJS..199...17S} and references therein). We employ a 11.2 $M_{\sun}$ progenitor in \citet{2002RvMP...74.1015W}. We adopt spherical coordinates $(r, \theta)$ covering $0 \le r \le 5000{\rm km}$ and $0^{\circ} \le \theta \le 180^{\circ}$ in the meridian section and deploy $384(r) \times 128(\theta)$ grid points. Neutrino energy space is discretized non-uniformly with $20$ energy grid points. The lowest-energy cell covers $0 \le \varepsilon \le 1{\rm MeV}$ and the rest of the mesh covers $1 \le \varepsilon \le 300{\rm MeV}$ logarithmically. In our code, the polar and azimuthal angles $(\tilde{\theta}, \tilde{\phi})$ in neutrino momentum space are locally measured from the radial direction. The angular space is covered with $10(\tilde{\theta}) \times 6(\tilde{\phi})$ grid points over the entire solid angle. The grid structure is described in the appendix of \citet{2012ApJS..199...17S}. In our Boltzmann solver, we distinguish three neutrino species: electron-type neutrinos $\nu_{\rm e}$, electron-type anti-neutrinos $\bar{\nu}_{\rm e}$ and all the others collectively denoted by $\nu_x$.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{15mm}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{graph_rshock_Pre.eps}
\caption{Shock radii as a function of time in a simulation with an unphysically large accleration of PNS. The shaded region shows the range of the shock radius and the solid line represents the angle average. For comparisons, a shock radius in the spherically symmetric simulation is also displayed as dashed line.
\label{graph_rshock_Pre}}
\end{figure}
In the simulation, a rapid shock expansion occurs in the northern hemisphere at $\sim 180$ms after bounce and then the north-south asymmetry persists. Figure~\ref{graph_rshock_Pre} displays the trajectory of shock radius, in which the shaded region corresponds to the range of shock radius. Then, the PNS receives a linear momentum in the opposite direction to the stronger shock expansion. We display the PNS velocity and position in Fig.~\ref{graph_artiPNS_velo_posi} as a function of time. Note that the velocity of PNS exceeds $1000 {\rm km/s}$ and still keeps rising at the end of our simulation ($t = 300 {\rm ms}$). This unphysically large acceleration is highly likely an numerical artifact.
Before we move on to the in-depth analysis of the cause of the large PNS acceleration, we would like to emphasize that the moving mesh technique developed in \citet{2017ApJS..229...42N} has nothing to do with the current issue and it works quite well in the simulation. Note that many other state-of-the-art simulations treat PNS motions quite pragmatically. For instance, some simulations sphericalize either gravitational field or matter distributions or both \citep{2012ApJ...756...84M,2014ApJ...786...83T,2015MNRAS.448.2141M,2015MNRAS.453..287M,2015ApJ...807L..31L,2016ApJ...818..123B,2017ApJ...850...43R,2018MNRAS.477.3091V,2018arXiv181105483M,2019MNRAS.482..351V}, others excise the PNS region from their computational domain \citep{2013ApJ...770...66H,2013A&A...552A.126W,2018ApJ...865...61G}.
Note that \citet{2006A&A...457..963S} implemented their own moving mesh technique to treat the proper motions of PNS. However, it was applied only to hydrodynamics but not to neutrino transport; they also excised the interior of PNS from the computational domain, in sharp contrast to our computations, in which neutrino transport and hydrodynamics are treated fully consistently on the moving mesh and the whole PNS is included in the computational domain. \citet{2010PhRvD..82j3016N} handled the NS kick directly in their radiation hydrodynamic simulations with the multi-group flux limited diffusion (MGFLD) approximation without excising the interior of PNS. However, their treatment of neutrino transport is not self-consistent: they added neutrino luminosities by hand on top of the solution of MGFLD neutrino transport in order to promote shock revival. \citet{2011ApJ...728....8B} carried out axisymmetric CCSN simulations with their own neutrino transport solver without excising the interior of PNS. They solved Boltzmann neutrino transport in the optically thin regime, meanwhile the MGFLD transport was used in the optically thick side. In addition they did not include velocity dependent terms in their transport solver. These are again sharp contrast to our computations. Note also that strong asymmetric shock expansions and NS proper motions were not observed in their simulations.
In these simulations, kick velocities of PNS have been estimated by post-process calculations, i.e., possible feedbacks from the PNS kick to neutrino transport and hydrodynamics are entirely neglected. It is true that these treatments allow CCSN simulations to avoid various practical problems arising from the PNS motion, but it is necessary to justify the prescriptions. Since our method directly handles the PNS motion in a self-consistent manner, it has a potential to serve as a reference model to validate other treatments once the current issue is addressed properly.
\begin{figure*}
\vspace{15mm}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{graph_artiPNS_velo_posi.eps}
\caption{Time evolution of the PNS velocity ($V_{\rm PNS}$) (left panel) and position along the z-axis (right panel).
\label{graph_artiPNS_velo_posi}}
\end{figure*}
\section{Cause of the unphysically large acceleration of PNS} \label{sec:Invcause}
In this section, we investigate the cause of the unphysically large acceleration of PNS in detail. To identify the source of the problem clearly, we run additional simulations, in which we freeze the time evolution of matter and compute only steady neutrino distributions on top of it. As shown below, these simulations allow us to disentangle neutrino transport from the complexity of CCSN dynamics and easily quantify the error of linear momentum conservation in our Boltzmann solver. The detailed analysis finally leads us to the conclusion that the large PNS acceleration is a indeed numerical artifact caused by an error in the momentum exchange between neutrino and matter. We also find that the error is negligibly small if the matter profile inside of PNS is almost spherically symmetric. This is the main reason why other CCSN simulations did not yield such a numerical artifact. In this section, we describe these analyses in detail.
By taking the same strategy in \citet{2015ApJS..216....5S,2017ApJ...847..133R}, we compute steady neutrino distribution functions by evolving only the neutrino distributions on top of the fixed matter background in the flat spacetime and neglecting the velocity dependence. The matter profile is taken from a snapshot of our axisymmetric CCSN simulation that yielded the large PNS kick. We select the time $t=200$ms, since a runaway of PNS was initiated around this time (see Fig.~\ref{graph_artiPNS_velo_posi}). In these simulations, we also put another simplification: we do not include electron(positron)-neutrino scatterings to save the computational time. Since the opacity of these non-isoenergetic scatterings is subdominant compared with other reactions, this simplification does not affect any conclusions in this analysis.
At first, we explain a reason why the analysis on steady states is useful. We take advantage of the following fact that the advection and the neutrino-matter interactions are balanced with each other for all conserved quantities. As already explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:intro}, however, grid-based Boltzmann solvers like ours fail to guarantee all the balances simultaneously in general. In fact, since we obtain the neutrino distribution function by solving the conservative form of Boltzmann equation, the balance is satisfied for neutrino numbers but it is not the case for energy and momentum. As we will show below, we can easily quantify the violation of momentum conservation in the steady-state analysis. It also provides us with crucial information to judge whether such errors in the Boltzmann solver account for the large PNS accleration observed in the CCSN simulation.
We first prepare some useful equations to check the violation of linear momentum conservation in the steady-state. We start with the equation for the conservation law of the energy-momentum of neutrinos:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& T^{\alpha}_{({\rm rad}) \beta ; \alpha} = G_{\beta}, \label{eq:Tmunuconrad}
\end{eqnarray}
where the left- and right hand sides are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& T^{\alpha}_{({\rm rad}) \beta} \equiv \sum^{}_{i=1} \int f_{\rm (i)} p^{\alpha} p_{\beta} dV_p, \label{eq:Tmunudef} \\
&& G_{\beta} \equiv \sum^{}_{i=1} \int p_{\beta} \nu S_{\rm{rad} (\rm{i})} dV_p, \label{eq:Gdef}.
\end{eqnarray}
In these expressions, $f$ and $p^{\mu}$ denote the distribution function and four momentum of neutrinos, respectively. $S_{\rm{rad}}$ originates from the collision term for neutrino-matter interactions in the Boltzmann equations (see also Eq.~(1) in \citet{2017ApJS..229...42N}); $dV_{p} (= \nu {\rm sin}\bar{\theta} d \nu d \bar{\theta} d \bar{\phi} )$ denotes the invariant volume in the neutrino momentum space. Note that we adopt the spherical coordinates in the neutrino momentum space and $\bar{\theta}$ and $\bar{\phi}$ stand for the polar and azimuthal angles, respectively, while $\nu$ denotes the energy of neutrino. $\nu$, $\bar{\theta}$ and $\bar{\phi}$ are measured in the fluid-rest frame\footnote{We neglect the fluid-velocity dependence in all simulations discussed in this section, which implies that there is no difference between the fluid-rest and laboratory frames. Note that our new method can be applied even when the velocity-dependent terms are present. We hence specify the frame in defining the momentum variables.}. The subscript "$\rm{i}$" indicates the neutrino species.
Because of axisymmetry, we only focus on the linear momentum parallel to the symmetry axis (z-axis). We make an inner product of the unit 4-vector aligned with the z coordinate, $\mbox{\boldmath $e$}_z$, with Eq.~(\ref{eq:Tmunuconrad}):
\begin{eqnarray}
&& (\mbox{\boldmath $e$}_z)^{\beta} T^{\alpha}_{({\rm rad}) \beta ; \alpha} = (\mbox{\boldmath $e$}_z)^{\beta} G_{\beta}. \label{eq:Tmunuconrad_Zcompo}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\mbox{\boldmath $e$}_z$ is a killing vector in the flat spacetime, we can rewrite the equation as:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \frac{1}{r^2 {\rm sin}{\theta}} \partial_{\alpha}
\biggl(
r^2 {\rm sin}{\theta}
( \mbox{\boldmath $e$}_z \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $T$} )^{\alpha}
\biggl)
= \mbox{\boldmath $e$}_z \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $G$}, \label{eq:Tmunuconrad_Zcompov2}
\end{eqnarray}
which describes the linear momentum conservation of neutrinos with respect to the z-direction. In this expression, we employ the spherical coordinates in real space since it is adopted in our Boltzmann solver. By further imposing the steady-state condition in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Tmunuconrad_Zcompov2}), it can be written as:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \frac{1}{r^2 {\rm sin}{\theta}} \partial_{j}
\biggl(
r^2 {\rm sin}{\theta}
( \mbox{\boldmath $e$}_z \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $T$} )^{j}
\biggl)
= \mbox{\boldmath $e$}_z \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $G$}, \label{eq:Tmunuconrad_Zcompo_steady}
\end{eqnarray}
where $j$ stands for the spatial components: $j = \{r, \theta, \phi\}$.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{15mm}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{graph_steadycheck_local_v2.eps}
\caption{The flux and collision terms as a function of polar angle ($\theta$) at fixed radii: $5$km (red) and $10$km (blue).
\label{graph_steadycheck_local_v2}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\vspace{15mm}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{graph_steady_valance.eps}
\caption{Radial profiles of the cumulative flux- (solid lines) and collision (dashed lines) terms for the results of the steady-state Boltzmann simulations. Red and blue colors show the result in standard and high angular resolutions in momentum space (left panel) and the zoom in to the range $20 < R < 40$km (right panel). See the body of this paper for more details.
\label{graph_steady_valance}}
\end{figure*}
We evaluate each term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Tmunuconrad_Zcompo_steady}) by using the steady profile of $f$ computed with the Boltzmann solver. We then take the sum of all terms on the left hand side of the equation, which is, hereafter, denoted by "flux-term" while the right hand side of the equation is referred to as "collision-term". Their spatial distributions are displayed in Fig.~\ref{graph_steadycheck_local_v2}. In this figure, we selected two radii inside the PNS ($r=5$ and $10$km), and show the profile as a function of the polar angle. As displayed in this figure, the two terms are almost identical at both radii, which indicates that the balance is well achieved: indeed, the difference is less than $1 \%$ with our standard angular resolution in momentum space. As we will show below, however, the precision is not sufficient to make reliable estimations of the PNS acceleration.
We proceed further to assess directly the error in the linear momentum of PNS. We take the volume integral of Eq.~(\ref{eq:Tmunuconrad_Zcompo_steady}) over the spatial range $r \le R$ to obtain the following relation:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& 2 \pi R^{2} \int_{0}^{\pi} {\rm sin}{\theta} ( \mbox{\boldmath $e$}_z \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $T$} )^{r} (R,\theta) d\theta
= \nonumber \\
&& 2 \pi \int_{0}^{R} \int_{0}^{\pi} r^2 {\rm sin}{\theta} (\mbox{\boldmath $e$}_z \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $G$}) (r,\theta) d\theta dr. \label{eq:Tmunuconrad_Zcompo_steadyInteg}
\end{eqnarray}
The left hand side of this equation represents the (radially) cumulative profile of the "flux-term" while the right hand side is the "collision-term" counterpart. The axisymmetry is also used in obtaining this expression. Importantly, the dimension in the equation is "[dyn]", which means that this equation allows us to directly quantify the error in the linear momentum of neutrinos.
In Fig.~\ref{graph_steady_valance}, the flux- (left hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:Tmunuconrad_Zcompo_steadyInteg})) and collision- (right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:Tmunuconrad_Zcompo_steadyInteg})) terms are displayed as solid and dashed lines, respectively. Red color denotes the standard resolution. Note that we run a higher angular resolution simulation, in which we use $14(\bar{\theta}) \times 8(\bar{\phi})$ angular grid points: the result is shown in blue color. The right panel focuses on the radial range $20 \le R \le 40$km for the same quantities. Note that the radial profiles of the flux term for the two angular resolutions are almost identical: the blue solid line masks the red one. This result tells us that the flux term can be computed with a sufficiently high precision even in the standard angular resolution. On the other hand, some angular-resolution dependence can be clearly seen in the collision term. Importantly, the difference between the flux and collision terms is smaller for the higher angular resolution than for the standard one, which is the evidence that the error of linear momentum is smaller in the higher angular resolution in momentum space as expected.
The angular-resolution study reveals that the collision term contains the dominant error in the linear momentum conservation. Since the neutrino transport and hydrodynamics are coupled through the collision term in our CCSN simulations, the errors may be the cause of the PNS acceleration. Here we quantify to what extent the errors are transferred from neutrino to matter using the result of the steady-state simulations. As shown in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{graph_steady_valance}, the difference between the flux and collision terms at the edge of PNS surface ($\sim 40$km) is an order of $\sim 10^{42}$dyn, which corresponds to the PNS acceleration of $\sim 10^{9} {\rm cm/s}^2$. This value is consistent with the PNS motion we found in our CCSN simulation (see Fig.~\ref{graph_artiPNS_velo_posi}). We hence conclude that the strong PNS acceleration is a numerical artifact caused by the errors in the momentum exchange between neutrino and matter.
We performed the same analysis for the axisymmetric steady-state simulation with the spherically symmetric matter profile and confirmed that both the flux and collision terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Tmunuconrad_Zcompo_steadyInteg}) were zero to the machine precision. This implies that the artificial PNS acceleration appears once the matter profile strongly deviates from spherical symmetry, which occurs almost at the same time when the shock on the north side expands rapidly in the simulation that gives rise to the unphysically large acceleration of PNS . It is also important to note that the error may have increased with time due to the fact that the PNS motion itself enhances the asymmetry in the matter distribution. In other CCSN simulations, on the other hand, we found less asymmetric matter profiles in the post-shock flow including the PNS. This is the main reason why we did not encounter the numerical artifact of large PNS acceleration in these models.
The analysis in this section shows that the inaccuracy in the momentum conservation is primarily due to the lack of angular resolution in momentum space. This study also indicates that just increasing the angular resolution in momentum space will suppress the artificial acceleration of PNS (see Fig.~\ref{graph_steady_valance}). However, it is not the best solution at the moment, since the CCSN simulations with the full Boltzmann neutrino transport are numerically expensive even under the current standard resolution. In addition, we need to know how fine an angular resolution is required prior to the beginning of simulations, since it may depend on models.
\section{Neutrino transport in the diffusion regime} \label{sec:NeuTransDif}
The steady-state analysis in the previous section reveals that the large PNS acceleration is due to the violation of linear momentum conservation in the optically thick region ($r \lesssim 10$km). We also find that the flux-term defined as the left hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:Tmunuconrad_Zcompo_steadyInteg}) is more accurate than the collision-term for the same angular resolution. We take advantage of this property in the new method (see Sec.~\ref{sec:newmethod} for details of the method). Before entering into details of the new method, we describe how the different resolution dependences of the flux- and collision-terms are obtained in our Boltzmann solver.
It should be noted that it is not easy for the angular-grid-based Boltzmann solvers to accurately handle the neutrino transport in the diffusion regime: more specifically, it is difficult to evaluate the neutrino flux (i.e., the 1st moment) precisely (see e.g., \citet{1993ApJ...405..669M,2004ApJS..150..263L}). In our previous paper \citep{2012ApJS..199...17S}, we conducted detailed tests of our Boltzmann solver in the diffusion regime, in which we studied 1D, 2D and 3D diffusions of a Gaussian packet in a uniform matter background and found in fact that our Boltzmann solver tends to overestimate the neutrino flux due to the numerical diffusion arising from the finite resolution. As shown below, the different angular-resolution dependences of the flux- and collision-terms are intimately related with this problem of the Boltzmann neutrino transport in the diffusion regime.
In this regime, neutrinos interact with matter very frequently and, as a consequence, their angular distribution is almost isotropic. This fact allows us to express the 1st ($H_i$) and 2nd ($K_{i j}$) moments in terms of the 0th moment ($J$) as follows (see, e.g., \citet{2011PThPh.125.1255S}):
\begin{eqnarray}
&& H_{i} = \frac{1}{3 \kappa} \nabla_{i} J + \mathcal{O}({\frac{1}{\kappa^2}}), \label{eq:1stmomDif} \\
&& K_{i j} = \frac{1}{3} \gamma_{ij} J + \mathcal{O}({\frac{1}{\kappa^2}}), \label{eq:2ndmomDif}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\kappa$ and $\gamma_{i j}$ denote the total opacity and the 3-metric for flat space, respectively. From these equations, we can also obtain the following relation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nabla_{z} K_{z z} = \kappa H_{z} + \mathcal{O}({\frac{1}{\kappa}}). \label{eq:1st2ndrelaDif}
\end{eqnarray}
It is important to realize that this is the same as the diffusion limit of Eq.~(\ref{eq:Tmunuconrad_Zcompo_steady})\footnote{See also \citet{2012arXiv1212.1623B} to derive the diffusion equation from the Boltzmann equation.}. By virtue of this correspondence, we can understand the angular-resolution dependences of the flux- and collision-terms as follows.
Eq.~(\ref{eq:1st2ndrelaDif}) indicates that the flux- and collision-terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Tmunuconrad_Zcompo_steadyInteg}) are nothing but the 2nd and 1st moments, respectively, in the diffusion limit. This implies that the collision-term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Tmunuconrad_Zcompo_steadyInteg}) is more difficult to evaluate precisely with the angular-grid-based Boltzmann solvers in the diffusion limit, since we derive it mainly from the 1st moment. To the contrary, the 0th and 2nd moments are more accurate, since they are dominated by the isotropic component of the angular distribution in this regime. This is the main reason why the larger angular-resolution dependence is observed for the collision-term than for the flux-term. It should be now clear that the use of the 2nd moment instead of the 1st one for the evaluation of the momentum exchange between neutrino and matter in the diffusion regime is the key to the solution of the large-kick problem.
\section{New method} \label{sec:newmethod}
The analyses in Sections~\ref{sec:Invcause} and \ref{sec:NeuTransDif} reveal the problem in the original treatment of the momentum feedback from neutrino to matter. The direct integration of the collision term is essentially equivalent to utilizing the 1st moment of neutrino angular distribution in the diffusion regime. The angular-grid-based Boltzmann solvers like ours have difficulties in reproducing the 1st moment accurately, compared with the 0th and 2nd moments. It is important to note that the above problem have been already recognized in some previous papers: for instance, \citet{2016ApJ...817...72P} does not use the collision term but compute the neutrino-pressure gradient instead to evaluate the momentum feedback from neutrino to matter in their simulations. It should be noted that we can not utilize the same formulation to address the current issue, since their prescription is based on the diffusion approximation, which is not compatible with the Boltzmann solver. Moreover, our Boltzmann solver is formulated in the fully general relativistic framework and it is a highly non-trivial issue how to evaluate the momentum feedback without inconsistency. In this section, we present a new method, which satisfies all requirements stated above.
The essence of our new method is as follows. We modify only the treatment of the momentum feedback from neutrino to matter without changing the numerical algorithms to solve the Boltzmann equation, the hydrodynamic equations and the Poisson equation for Newtonian gravity (see Fig. 6 in \citet{2014ApJS..214...16N}). In the original treatment, we first compute the momentum exchange from individual neutrino-matter interactions, and then their sum is given to the source term of the Euler equation (see Sec.~4 in \citet{2017ApJS..229...42N}\footnote{It should be noted that there are several typos in \citet{2017ApJS..229...42N}. On the right hand side of Eq.(31), $G_{i}$ should be replaced with $\alpha \sqrt{\gamma} G_i$. In Eq.(43), $G^{r}, G^{\theta}$ and $G^{\phi}$ should be replaced with $G_{r}, G_{\theta}$ and $G_{\phi}$, respectively. Finally, the sign on the right hand side of Eq.(44) is negative.}). In the new method, on the other hand, we evaluate the momentum exchange by taking an appropriate average of the values obtained in two different ways, one of which is the original treatment and the other is the employment of the energy-momentum tensor of neutrinos (see below for more details).
In the new method, the latter treatment is adopted only in the optically thick region with the original treatment still being used in other regions. There are mainly two reasons why we take this approach. The first one is that, in the optically thin region, the accuracy of the 0th and 2nd moments is not much different from that of the 1st moment. In fact, \citet{2017ApJ...847..133R} showed that these moments computed by our Boltzmann solver with the standard angular resolution deviate from those provided by the Monte Carlo transport (which is capable of evaluating moments with higher precision than our method) by $\sim 10 \%$ in the optically thin region. The second reason is that the original treatment is preferable for hydrodynamics in the optically thin region. This is simply because the original treatment guarantees that the feedback to hydrodynamics becomes small in the optically thin region just as expected while the new treatment may generate some artificial momentum exchange from numerical errors. Although the resolution dependence and the effect of momentum feedback on CCSN dynamics should be investigated in detail even under the original treatment to make reliable CCSN models, it is not a main subject in this study and will be conducted elsewhere.
Now we describe the new method in detail. We emphasize that the formulation is consistent with the fully general relativistic treatment of neutrino transport in our code and ensures the accurate momentum feedback from neutrino to matter even in the diffusion regime. We start with the total energy-momentum conservation:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& T^{\alpha}_{({\rm tot}) \beta ; \alpha} = 0, \label{eq:totTmunucon}
\end{eqnarray}
where the total energy-momentum tensor is decomposed as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mbox{\boldmath $T$}_{\rm (tot)} = \mbox{\boldmath $T$}_{\rm (rad)} + \mbox{\boldmath $T$}_{\rm (mat)}. \label{eq:totTmunu}
\end{eqnarray}
In the above equation, $\mbox{\boldmath $T$}_{\rm (mat)}$ denotes the energy-momentum tensor of matter. From Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Tmunuconrad}),~(\ref{eq:totTmunucon}) and ~(\ref{eq:totTmunu}), we can obtain the following relation:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& T^{\alpha}_{({\rm mat}) \beta ; \alpha} = - G_{\beta}. \label{eq:GeneTmunumatcon_v1}
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, we can simply rewrite Eq.~(\ref{eq:totTmunucon}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& T^{\alpha}_{({\rm mat}) \beta ; \alpha} = - T^{\alpha}_{({\rm rad}) \beta ; \alpha} . \label{eq:GeneTmunumatcon_v2}
\end{eqnarray}
Mathematically speaking, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:GeneTmunumatcon_v1}) and~(\ref{eq:GeneTmunumatcon_v2}) are equivalent to each other. It is not true in practice, though, since Eq.~(\ref{eq:Tmunuconrad}) is not exactly satisfied in our Boltzmann solver (see in Sec.~\ref{sec:intro}). Hence, in the new method, we mix the two equations by introducing a parameter $\lambda$ $(0 \le \lambda \le 1)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& T^{\alpha}_{({\rm mat}) \beta ; \alpha} = - \lambda \hspace{0.5mm} T^{\alpha}_{({\rm rad}) \beta ; \alpha} - (1-\lambda) \hspace{0.5mm} G_{\beta} . \label{eq:GeneTmunumatcon_v3}
\end{eqnarray}
It is chosen so that $\lambda \rightarrow 1$ in the optically thick limit whereas $\lambda \rightarrow 0$ in the opposite limit. Since the optical depth is correlated with the matter density, we determine $\lambda$ as a function of $\rho_{\rm ave}$, which denotes the angle average of matter density. According to the steady-state analyses in Sec.~\ref{sec:Invcause}, the main region violating the balance between the flux and collision terms is the interior of PNS with $\rho_{\rm ave} \gtrsim 10^{13} {\rm g/cm}^3$. We hence take the following function:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \lambda(\rho_{\rm ave}) = {\rm max} \left( {\rm min}(1,\frac{\rho_{\rm ave} - \rho_L}{\rho_H - \rho_L}),0 \right), \label{eq:lambdafuncrho}
\end{eqnarray}
where we set $\rho_H = 10^{13} {\rm g/cm}^3$ and $\rho_L = 7 \times 10^{12} {\rm g/cm}^3$, respectively. Although there may be better choices and it is possible to change $\rho_H$ and $\rho_L$ depending on the angular resolution, we do not explore them further here. The important thing is that the new method with the above choice significantly improves the accuracy of the momentum conservation and addresses well the issues of the unphysical acceleration of PNS (see Sec.~\ref{sec:exam}).
Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:GeneTmunumatcon_v3}), we rewrite the Euler equation in the new method as:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \gamma^{\beta}_{\hspace{1.0mm}i} T^{\alpha}_{({\rm mat}) \beta ; \alpha} =
- \lambda \hspace{0.5mm} \gamma^{\beta}_{\hspace{1.0mm}i} T^{\alpha}_{({\rm rad}) \beta ; \alpha} - (1-\lambda) \hspace{0.5mm} \gamma^{\beta}_{\hspace{1.0mm}i} G_{\beta} . \label{eq:Eulerequ_newmethod}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\gamma^{\beta}_{\hspace{1.0mm} \alpha}$ denotes the projection tensor restricted to the spacelike 3-dimensional hypersurface. Below, we describe a procedure to compute $\gamma^{\beta}_{\hspace{1.0mm}i} T^{\alpha}_{({\rm rad}) \beta ; \alpha}$ (the first term of right hand side of the equation), while we refer the reader to \citet{2017ApJS..229...42N} for the procedure computing the 2nd term. It is convenient to use a moment formalism of \citet{2011PThPh.125.1255S}, since it is fully general relativistic and is compatible with our Boltzmann solver:
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma^{\beta}_{\hspace{1.0mm}i} T^{\alpha}_{({\rm rad}) \beta ; \alpha} &=& \frac{1}{\alpha \sqrt{\gamma}} \biggl[ \partial_t( \sqrt{\gamma} F_i ) + \partial_j \{ \sqrt{\gamma} ( \alpha P_{i}^{\hspace{0.5mm} j} - \beta^{j} F_{i} ) \} \biggl] \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{1}{\alpha} ( E \partial_i \alpha - F_{k} \partial_i \beta^{k} )
- \frac{1}{2} P^{jk} \partial_{i} \gamma_{jk},
\label{eq:momentumexpression}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha$, $\beta^{i}$ and $\gamma$ denote the lapse function, the shift vector and the determinant of 3-metric ($\gamma_{ij}$), respectively. Other quantities, $E, F_i$ and $P_{i}^{\hspace{0.5mm} j}$ are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&E = T^{\alpha \beta}_{({\rm rad})} n_{\alpha} n_{\beta}, \label{eq:Edef} \\
&&F_{i} = - T^{\alpha \beta}_{({\rm rad})} n_{\alpha} \gamma_{\beta i}, \label{eq:Fidef} \\
&&P_{i}^{\hspace{0.5mm} j} = T^{\alpha \beta}_{({\rm rad})} \gamma_{\alpha i} \gamma_{\beta}^{\hspace{1.0mm} j}, \label{eq:Pijdef}
\end{eqnarray}
where $n^{\alpha}$ denotes the unit 4-vector normal to the spacelike 3-dimensional hypersurface. We evaluate each term on the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:momentumexpression}) in our code as follows.
Suppose we know the distribution function $f$ at $t=t^{(n)}$ and $t^{(n+1)}$, where the subscripts represent the time steps. $F_{i}$ can be obtained at both time steps by using Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fidef}). We then evaluate the time derivative of $F_i$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \partial_t F_{i} = \frac{ F_{i}^{(n+1)} - F_{i}^{(n)} }{\Delta t}, \label{eq:dFidt}
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_i^{(n)}$ and $F_i^{(n+1)}$ denote the values of $F_i$ at $t=t^{(n)}$ and $t^{(n+1)}$, respectively; $\Delta t$ is the time difference between the two time steps. Note that $\partial_t \gamma$ is zero in our current CCSN simulations, since we assume that the spacetime is flat. In a dynamical spacetime, on the other hand, $\partial_t \gamma$ will be given by solving the Einstein equation possibly under the 3+1 formalism, which we will couple to our CCSN code in the future. The lapse function $\alpha$ is also set to 1 in the current CCSN code. Note that the shift vector $\beta^{i}$ is not zero and time-dependent quantity in our code since we utilize it to deal with the motion of PNS (see \citet{2017ApJS..229...42N}). Only the value of $\beta^{i}$ at $t=t^{(n)}$ is used to evaluate $\beta$-related terms on the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:momentumexpression}). The values of $E, F_i$ and $P_{i}^{\hspace{0.5mm} j}$ in the same equation are evaluated at $t=t^{(n+1)}$, on the other hand. All spatial derivatives are evaluated as the central difference.
We expect that the above formulation will improve not only the exchange of linear momentum between neutrino and matter but also the total momentum conservation in the radiation-hydrodynamic simulations. This is because our new method is essentially reduced to solving the total momentum conservation equation in the optically thick region, where $\lambda$ is set to 1 in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Eulerequ_newmethod}). In addition, the dominant component on the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:momentumexpression}) is the neutrino pressure gradient, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma^{\beta}_{\hspace{1.0mm}i} T^{\alpha}_{({\rm rad}) \beta ; \alpha} &\sim& \frac{1}{\alpha \sqrt{\gamma}} \partial_j \{ \alpha \sqrt{\gamma} P_{i}^{\hspace{0.5mm} j} \}
- \frac{1}{2} P^{jk} \partial_{i} \gamma_{jk},
\label{eq:momentumexpression_primary}
\end{eqnarray}
in the optically thick region, as long as the motion of PNS is slow, $V_{\rm NS}/c \ll 1$, where $V_{\rm NS}$ denotes the speed of the proper motion of PNS with respect to the laboratory frame. Recall that the neutrino pressure is evaluated much more accurately than the flux in the diffusion regime with our code. Note also that Eq.~(\ref{eq:momentumexpression_primary}) is essentially the same as the treatment of momentum feedback in \citet{2016ApJ...817...72P}. This implies that our new formulation is an extension from the previous treatment that reproduces the diffusion limit but incorporates the all other effects such as deviations from the limit as well as proper motions of PNS, which could not be handled by the previous prescription, without losing the consistency with the general relativistic Boltzmann neutrino transport.
Note also that our method is fundamentally different from the two-moment method, since we evaluate $P_{i}^{\hspace{0.5mm} j}$ based on the solution of Boltzmann equation\footnote{Note that the closure relation in the optically thick region is well established in the two-moment method. Thus, the difference of $P_{i}^{\hspace{0.5mm} j}$ between our method and the two-moment method may be small.}. On the other hand, our method does not perfectly guarantee the conservation of momentum since we keep using a original Boltzmann solver in the optically thin region. Note that if we used the prescription for the optically thick region also in the optically thin region, it would enforce the multiple conservation laws simultaneously. However, as mentioned already, that would sacrifice the accuracy and may generate different problems from the lack of precision in the moments in the optically thin region.
Finally we make a comment on the energy feedback from neutrino to matter. Since the energy equation has nothing to do with the artificial PNS acceleration, we leave untouched the original treatment in the energy equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& n^{\beta} T^{\alpha}_{({\rm mat}) \beta ; \alpha} = - n^{\beta} G_{\beta}, \label{eq:enecon}
\end{eqnarray}
i.e., we compute the feedback by directly integrating the neutrino-matter interactions.
\section{Examinations} \label{sec:exam}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{15mm}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{dcompare_VPNS200ms.eps}
\caption{Time evolutions of the PNS velocity ($V_{\rm PNS}$). Red and blue lines display the results of the simulations with the original and new methods, respectively. The line type indicates the difference of angular resolution in neutrino momentum space: the solid and dashed lines denote the standard and high resolutions, respectively.
\label{dcompare_VPNS200ms}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\vspace{15mm}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{graph_PNScompari_VPNS_ZPNS.eps}
\caption{The same as Fig.~\ref{graph_artiPNS_velo_posi} but with the result of the simulation with the new method. The red and blue lines correspond to the results of the original and new methods, respectively.
\label{graph_PNScompari_VPNS_ZPNS}}
\end{figure*}
In this section we examine the validity of our new method by running some axisymmetric CCSN simulations. As shown below, we find that the new method successfully suppresses the artificial acceleration of PNS. We also show that the new method improves the accuracy of the total linear momentum conservation in our CCSN code.
As the first examination, we run four short-term ($8$ms) simulations. We name them "Old-ST", "Old-HR", "New-ST" and "New-HR", respectively. The term of "Old" denotes the simulations under the previous treatment, while "New" is given to the models employing the new method. "ST" and "HR" represent the standard and high angular resolutions, respectively, in the former of which $10(\tilde{\theta}) \times 6(\tilde{\phi})$ and in the latter $14(\tilde{\theta}) \times 8(\tilde{\phi})$ grid points are deployed, respectively. We prepare the initial condition by taking the matter and neutrino profiles at $t=200$ms in the original simulation. In the "HR" models, we set the initial angular distribution of neutrinos by linearly interpolating the original data. In these simulations, we restore all input physics, velocity-dependent terms and the moving-mesh technique.
Fig.~\ref{dcompare_VPNS200ms} displays the time evolution of the velocity of PNS ($V_{\rm PNS}$) for all models. Different colors distinguish the previous and new treatments while the line types represent the angular resolutions. As clearly seen in this figure, our new method (blue lines) suppresses the PNS acceleration. We also find that the difference of $V_{\rm PNS}$ between New-ST and New-HR is much smaller than that in "Old" models. This indicates that the accuracy of momentum conservation is improved by our new method. Note that the result in Old-HR is close to those in "New" models. This fact implies that even the previous prescription will obtain the convergence to the true result by increasing angular resolutions. Another important finding is that New-ST may decelerate the PNS a bit excessively, since the result of New-HR comes between those of Old-HR and New-ST. This may indicate that the new treatment with the standard angular resolution would underestimate the velocity of PNS. This fact should be kept in mind in our future CCSN simulations.
Finally we carry out a long-term simulation (up to $t = 300$ms) with the new method. The simulation is started at $t=150$ms from the result of the original simulation. We choose this time because it is slightly before the start of the runaway motion of PNS in the original computation. Fig.~\ref{graph_PNScompari_VPNS_ZPNS} displays the time evolution of the position and $V_{\rm PNS}$ of PNS. We also show the same quantities in the original simulation as red lines. As can be seen in this figure, our new treatment works quite well and no numerical problems are observed in this long-term simulation.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conc}
We develop a new method for the neutrino-matter coupling to improve the accuracy of the linear momentum conservation in multi-D CCSN simulations with the angular-grid-based Boltzmann solver for neutrino transport. This effort is motivated by the requirement of extremely high accuracy of CCSN simulations for reliable modelling of CCSN explosions and PNS kicks under restricted computational resources. In fact, we observed an unphysically large acceleration of PNS in one of our axisymmetric CCSN simulations and suspected that it was due to the violation of linear momentum conservation in our Boltzmann solver.
To see the problem clearly, we perform Boltzmann simulations on top of the fixed matter profile. This study reveals that the large acceleration of PNS is due to errors in the momentum feedback from neutrino to matter in the optically thick region. Note that our Boltzmann solver works basically well (see Fig.\ref{graph_steadycheck_local_v2}): indeed, it satisfies the linear momentum conservation within $\lesssim 1 \%$ for the standard angular resolution in momentum space. However, this accuracy is not sufficient to handle the PNS motion when the matter profile becomes strongly asymmetric. We find that the error of total linear momentum leads to the PNS acceleration of $\sim 10^{9} {\rm cm/s}^2$, which accounts indeed for the large acceleration of PNS observed in one of our CCSN simulations (see Fig.~\ref{graph_steady_valance}). We also find that increasing the angular resolution in momentum space alone reduces the PNS acceleration, which indicates that the inaccuracy in the momentum conservation is due to the lack of angular resolution in momentum space for neutrinos. This means that we can avoid the problem simply by increasing the angular resolution. However, it is not the best solution, since it is inhibitingly costly in terms of the numerical resource. Thus, the development of the new method for the improvement of the neutrino-matter coupling is one of necessary tasks in our CCSN project.
The basic idea in the new method is that our Boltzmann solver accurately evaluates the momentum feedback from neutrino to matter in the optically thick region with the currently available angular resolution in momentum space if the energy-momentum tensor of neutrinos is employed. This is due to the fact that the energy momentum tensor is dominated by the isotropic component of the angular distribution of neutrino. We also identify the source of errors in the previous treatment, in which the collision term is directly integrated. The problem is that it essentially utilizes the 1st moment of the angular distribution in momentum space to evaluate the momentum feedback from neutrino to matter. It should be noted that the angular-grid-based Boltzmann solvers tend to generate larger relative errors in the 1st moment than in the 0th and 2nd moments, since the former depends solely on the deviation from isotropy, which is very small in the diffusion regime; on the other hand, the latter two are mainly determined by the dominant isotropic component and can be obtained accurately in the same regime. This is the main reason why the original treatment has higher sensitivity to the angular resolution in momentum space.
Although the problem of the Boltzmann neutrino transport in the diffusion regime has been already recognized and possible solutions were proposed for some numerical schemes (see e.g., \citet{2016ApJ...817...72P}), they took full advantage of the diffusion approximation, which is not compatible with our Boltzmann solver. Moreover, we need to ensure that the solution should be consistent with the general relativistic formulation of our code. This is not a trivial issue and needs the new method, which satisfies all these requirements.
In the new method, the momentum feedback from neutrino to matter is computed based on the temporal and spatial derivatives of energy-momentum tensor (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:momentumexpression})). Although the new treatment can be applied in all regimes in principle, we adopt it only in the optically thick region. In the optically thin region, we continue to use the original treatment, in which we compute the momentum exchange between neutrino and matter by integrating the collision terms for individual neutrino-matter interactions and then give their sum to the Euler equation. In fact, the original method is more suitable in the optically thin region, since the momentum exchange decreases just as expected as the neutrino-matter interaction becomes inefficient, while it is not necessarily guaranteed in the new treatment.
We find that the new method works quite well. It successfully suppresses the unphysically large PNS acceleration even with the standard angular resolution in momentum space (see Fig.~(\ref{graph_PNScompari_VPNS_ZPNS})). The angular-resolution study also shows that the difference between the standard- and high-resolution simulations is smaller in the new method than in the original treatment (see Fig.~(\ref{dcompare_VPNS200ms})).
Importantly, we still have a coherent PNS motion in the same simulation but with the new treatment (see Fig.~\ref{graph_PNScompari_VPNS_ZPNS}). We believe that this recoil of PNS is real, i.e., this is the first successful direct treatment of PNS kick in multi-D radiation-hydrodynamic simulations with the full Boltzmann neutrino transport. The impact on CCSN dynamics will be discussed in a separate paper. Last but not least, the new method will be useful to improve the accuracy of the momentum exchange between radiation and matter for other radiation-hydrodynamic codes that adopt multi-angle treatments such as those by \citet{2004ApJ...609..277L,2008ApJ...685.1069O} for neutrinos and by \citet{2014ApJS..213....7J,2014ApJ...796..106J,2015ApJS..217....9R,2018MNRAS.tmp.2941H} for photons. The versatility is one of the important merits in the new method.
\acknowledgments
We acknowledge Adam Burrows for fruitful discussion. The numerical computations were performed on the supercomputers at K, at AICS, FX10 at Information Technology Center of Nagoya University. Large-scale storage of numerical data is supported by JLDG constructed over SINET4 of NII. H.N. was supported by Princeton University through DOE SciDAC4 Grant DE-SC0018297 (subaward 00009650). This work was also supported by Grant-in-Aid for the Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan (15K05093, 25870099, 26104006, 16H03986, 17H06357, 17H06365), HPCI Strategic Program of Japanese MEXT and K computer at the RIKEN (Project ID: hpci 160071, 160211, 170230, 170031, 170304, hp180179, hp180111, hp180239).
|
\section{Introduction}
Non-interacting or weakly interacting fermions play a crucial role in many aspects of condensed matter
theory and quantum chemistry. For example, using density functional theory, many materials
can be accurately approximated by weakly interacting fermions; Hartree-Fock theory is an excellent
starting point for quantum chemical calculations; and transport in electronic nanodevices is often captured
by non-interacting models. While the computational effort in all these applications scales polynomially with the size of the system
that must be considered, the desire to obtain a realistic description -- reached,
for example, by including many orbitals in a complex material or a microscopic multi-band
model for a nanostructure -- means that computing properties of a non-interacting fermion model can
nevertheless become a computational bottleneck.
For interacting quantum systems, tensor networks have in many cases become the tool of choice
for numerical simulations. They exploit the locality of entanglement in the low-energy states of
local quantum Hamiltonians for a more compact classical description of these states. The
prototypical example are matrix-product states~\cite{fannes1992,ostlund1995}, which form
the basis of the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG)~\cite{white1992,white1992-1}.
Since its inception, DMRG has become the standard method to solve one-dimensional quantum
systems~\cite{schollwoeck2005,schollwoeck2011}. Many extensions of matrix-product states
to higher-dimensional systems have been
suggested~\cite{sierra1998,nishino1998,nishino2000,nishio2004,verstraete2004,jordan2008,vidal2007-1,vidal2008};
for recent reviews, see Refs.~\onlinecite{orus2014,orus2014-1,bridgeman2017}.
In this paper, we will show that it is possible to apply the
benefits of tensor networks to non-interacting fermions to obtain
significantly more efficient numerical methods for the simulation of very large free
fermion systems, allowing us to simulate systems far beyond what is
possible with existing methods. While tensor network
states have previously been described for systems of free
fermions~\cite{kraus2010,schuch2012,dubail2015,haegeman2013,fishman2015,evenbly2016,haegeman2018},
thus far they have not been used primarily as numerical tools. In this
work, we will describe practical tensor network algorithms to compute the
many-body ground state as well as the dynamics of many-body states for
free-fermion systems. Our methods capture the full equal-time Green's
function of the system, from which any physical observable can be
computed. While exact methods for this property scale cubically with the
system size, our approach scales linearly with the length of a
quasi-one-dimensional system and thus outperforms exact methods
significantly.
We work within the framework of Gaussian fermionic matrix product states
(GFMPS)~\cite{schuch2012}. These states are constructed using Gaussian
fermionic states, which are the most general class of states for which a
Wick's theorem holds, i.e.\ whose equal-time correlation functions are
characterized fully through the equal-time single-particle Green's
function. We will review this formalism in Sec.~\ref{sec:gcm}, where we
also introduce the required building blocks for Gaussian tensor network
algorithms, such as contraction and decomposition of tensors. We introduce
the specific case of GFMPS in Sec.~\ref{sec:GFMPS}, where we also discuss
the key technical tool of our work: a \emph{canonical form} for
GFMPS. This crucial technical step will allow us to generalize many
well-established numerical algorithms for matrix-product states, such as
single- and two-site DMRG as well as time evolution approaches such as
TDVP~\cite{haegeman2011,haegeman2016} to the Gaussian setting; this will
be discussed in Secs.~\ref{sec:optim} and~\ref{sec:GFMPS-opt}. Finally, in
Sec.~\ref{sec:numerics}, we numerically demonstrate the performance of our
algorithms.
\subsection{Quadratic fermion systems}
To set the stage, consider a lattice system of $N$ sites, each comprised of some
number $n_s$ of fermionic modes. For our purposes, it will be convenient to work
in a basis of self-adjoint -- so-called Majorana -- fermions $c_i$, with
$c_i^\dagger = c_i$ and $\{c_i,c_j\}=2\delta_{ij}$. A fermionic system
comprised of conventional complex fermions created by some operator
$a_i^\dagger$ can always be rewritten in such a Majorana basis by taking
$c_{2i-1} = a_i+a_i^\dagger$, $c_{2i} = -i(a_i-a_i^\dagger)$.
We will be interested in quadratic Hamiltonian, i.e.,
Hamiltonians of the form
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:Hmaj}
\mathcal H = -i \sum_{ij} H_{ij} c_i c_j + E\ ,
\end{equation}
with $E$ a constant offset.
We denote the total number of Majorana modes, which must be even in a
physical system, by $M=2\sum n_s$. Thus, $H$ is a real matrix of size $M\times
M$, which we can choose w.l.o.g.\ anti-symmetric, $H^\tr=-H$,
and we will do so in the following.
To compute properties of such a system, one can fully diagonalize the matrix $H$ to obtain all single-particle eigenvalues and eigenvectors, from which all other observables can be constructed. In the absence of any special structure of $H$, this will scale as $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$. If, on the other hand, only a few low-lying single-particle eigenstates (or a few states near a particular energy, such as the Fermi energy) are desired and the matrix $A$ is sufficiently sparse (as is the case for short-range hopping models), one can use sparse Krylov-space diagonalization methods such as Lanczos or shift-and-invert methods. These are generally expected to scale linearly in $N$ and the number of non-zero elements per row of $A$, as well as exhibit some dependence on spectral properties such as the energy gap. However, it should be emphasized that having computed only a few low-lying states, physical observables such as the density or more generally equal-time Green's function cannot be computed.
There are many other methods that overcome this limitation. A very efficient method to compute the spectral density of some operator (as well as certain dynamical correlation functions) in a time that scales only linearly with the number of modes is the kernel polynomial method (KPM)~\cite{weisse2006}.
There is also a large variety of Green's-function-based methods. To compute the frequency-dependent Green's function, the recursive Green's function (RGF) approach~\cite{thouless1981,lewenkopf2013} can be used. For a one-dimensional system, this method scales linearly with the length; for two- or three-dimensional systems, the method can be applied by taking the system to be a one-dimensional collection of "slices". However, to obtain equal-time properties, a frequency integral must be taken.
Finally, the non-equilibrium Green's function approach~\cite{datta2000nanoscale} incorporates systems driven out of equilibrium, for example by an applied voltage in a nanodevice. For a recent review and a related wavefunction-based approach, see Ref.~\onlinecite{gaury2014}.
Finally, in the context of density functional theory, several approximate methods to solve the Kohn-Sham equation in linear time have been developed, see e.g. Ref.~\onlinecite{goedecker1999}.
In contrast to these methods, our GFMPS method is based on the \emph{many-body} wavefunction for a low-energy or time-dependent state of the system, and thus allows the straightforward calculation of arbitrary expectation values without having to integrate over frequencies. Furthermore, our approach gives access to quantities such as the entanglement spectrum and entanglement entropy of the state.
\subsection{Gaussian tensor networks}
The power of matrix-product states is most easily understood from the properties of the Schmidt
decomposition. For a quantum state $|\psi\rangle$ on a tensor product space
$\mathcal{H}_A \otimes \mathcal{H}_B$, it is given by
\begin{equation}
|\psi\rangle = \sum_{\alpha=1}^M s_\alpha |A_\alpha\rangle |B_\alpha\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $s_\alpha \geq 0$ are real, and the \emph{Schmidt vectors} $|A_\alpha\rangle$, $|B_\alpha\rangle$ are orthonormal bases for
$\mathcal{H}_A$ and $\mathcal{H}_B$, respectively.
The von Neumann entanglement entropy between $A$ and $B$ is given by
$S = -\Tr ( \rho_A \log \rho_A ) = -\sum s_\alpha^2 \log s_\alpha^2$, and is bounded by $S \leq \log(M)$.
Thus, coarsely speaking, the number of terms that are relevant grows exponentially with the
bipartite entanglement of the state.
Given that low-energy states of local Hamiltonians are weakly entangled in the sense that they
exhibit area law scaling of the entanglement
entropy~\cite{eisert2010,hastings:arealaw,arad:rg-algorithms-and-area-laws,huang:area-law},
one can exploit the properties of the Schmidt decomposition to construct more compact representations
of such states. In particular, it is natural to assume that the Schmidt values $s_\alpha$ decay very
quickly with $\alpha$ in such weakly entangled states~\cite{white1998,verstraete2006,hastings2007,schuch2008,hastings:arealaw,arad:rg-algorithms-and-area-laws,huang:area-law}. This directly leads to the construction of
matrix-product states,
which can be obtained by recursively performing a Schmidt decomposition
between all sites of a one-dimensional system and truncating
the sum on each bond to the $D$ largest Schmidt values $s_\alpha$.
The computational cost of such a state will scale exponentially with the bipartite entanglement entropy.
In systems of non-interacting fermions, the Schmidt decomposition and thus also the bipartite entanglement take
a simpler form. This is due to the fact that reduced density matrix for a
subsystem is itself a Gibbs state of a quadratic
Hamiltonian~\cite{botero2003,vidal2003,peschel2003,botero2004}. Thus, even its many-body spectrum can be
obtained through single-particle modes and their eigenvalues, and the entanglement can be fully
characterized through \emph{mode-wise} entanglement~\cite{botero2003,botero2004} between single-particle
modes in each part of the bipartite system. In other words, the Schmidt decomposition of a Gaussian
state can itself be expressed entirely in terms of Gaussian states. Crucially, each mode can contribute
a fixed amount to the bipartite entanglement, and the maximum entanglement is thus linear in the number
of modes rather than logarithmic in the number of terms in the Schmidt decomposition. This constitutes
an exponential compression of the Schmidt decomposition in the Gaussian case.
To exploit this computationally, one can construct a Gaussian MPS (GFMPS) in an analogous fashion to the
interacting case by recursively applying the Schmidt decomposition on each bond of a given Gaussian state.
Owing to the structure of Gaussian states, such a GFMPS will scale only polynomially rather than exponentially
with the amount of bipartite entanglement.
This exponential speedup also benefits more general tensor networks. In the context of a conventional
tensor network, a tensor is nothing but a high-dimensional array of numbers, which are enumerated by an array of indices.
The number of indices is commonly referred to as ``tensor rank'' $R$ (not to be confused with the
matrix rank), and each index runs over integers $1,\ldots,D$, where $D$ is referred to as the bond dimension.
A quantum state is expressed through such a tensor network by identifying some indices of the tensors
with physical degrees of freedom, and contracting (summing) over the remaining ones in some predetermined
pattern.
To understand the case of a Gaussian tensor network, it is convenient to think of a rank-$R$ tensor
of bond dimension $D$ as a quantum state on the tensor product of $R$ $D$-dimensional Hilbert spaces.
One can now consider the case where this state is Gaussian, i.e. it satisfies a Wick theorem and can
thus be described completely through the expectation values of quadratic operators.
Such a representation is exponentially
more compact, i.e. requires only $\mathcal{O}(R \log D)$ rather than $\mathcal{O}(D^R)$ numbers.
Using techniques that we will discuss in more detail below, one can generalize the contraction of
tensors and other important operations on tensor networks to this framework.
\section{Covariance matrix formalism for Gaussian tensor networks}
\label{sec:gcm}
We will now introduce Gaussian tensor networks
on a more technical level. This will establish the essential tools that we will use for the
construction of Gaussian MPS in Sec.~\ref{sec:GFMPS} as well as specific optimization algorithms
in Sec.~\ref{sec:optim}.
We first review the fermionic covariance matrix
formalism. We follow the conventions of Ref.~\onlinecite{Bravyi2017}; for further details,
see also Ref.~\onlinecite{bravyi2004}. Throughout this section, we will assume a system of $2n$
Majorana fermions described by a Hamiltonian of the form~\eqref{eqn:Hmaj}.
\subsection{Covariance matrix formalism}
Gaussian states are states that are fully characterized
through their equal-time two-point correlation functions. A convenient formalism
for describing these is the covariance matrix, which is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cm-def}
\gamma_{ij} = \tfrac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\mathrm{tr}\big(\rho [c_i,c_j]\big)\ .
\end{equation}
The covariance matrix $\gamma$ is real and antisymmetric, and satisfies
$\gamma^2\ge-\openone$; for pure states,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pure-state-cond}
\gamma^2=-\openone\ .
\end{equation}
In the following, we discuss some
further properties of quadratic Hamiltonians and Gaussian states.
\paragraph{Energy of a state and normal form.}
The energy of a state $\rho$ under the Hamiltonian $\mathcal H$ [Eq.~\eqref{eqn:Hmaj}] is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ham-energy}
\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{tr}[\mathcal H\rho]&=
-\sum H_{ij}\:\mathrm{i}\:\mathrm{tr}(\rho c_i c_j)+E
\\
&=-\sum H_{ij}\gamma_{ij}+E
\\
&= \mathrm{tr}(H\gamma)+E\ .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Any real antisymmetric matrix $A$ (such as $H$ or $\gamma$) can be brought
into a canonical form by an orthogonal transformation,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:can-form-antisym}
O A O^\tr = \bigoplus_{k=1}^n \Ymatrix{\lambda_k}{-\lambda_k}\ ,
\end{equation}
with $\lambda_k\ge0$. If $A$ is of odd size, additionally a single
$0$ block appears. Note that $\pm \lambda_k$ are
exactly the
eigenvalues of the Hermitian matrix $iA$.
We can use this to bring a Hamiltonian of the form Eq.~\eqref{eqn:Hmaj}
into a normal form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal H = -\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\: \sum_{k=1}^n \epsilon_k [\eta_{2k-1}, \eta_{2k}]\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\eta_k$ are new canonical Majorana operators given by $\eta_k =
\sum_i O_{ki} c_i$, with $O H O^\tr = \bigoplus_{k=1}^n
\Ysmatrix{\epsilon_k/2}{-\epsilon_k/2}$. The $\epsilon_k$ correspond exactly
to the non-negative half of the single-particle eigenvalues of the
equivalent Bogoliubov-de Gennes
Hamiltonian. The ground state of $\mathcal H$, which we will denote as
$|0\rangle$, is characterized by having $\mathrm{i} \eta_{2k-1} \eta_{2k} |0\rangle
= |0\rangle$ for all $k = 1, \ldots, n$, and thus has total energy $E_0 =
-\sum \epsilon_k$. Its covariance matrix in the basis of canonical
operators $\eta_k$ is thus given by
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\gamma}_0 = \tfrac{i}{2}\bra 0 [\eta_i, \eta_j] \ket0
= \bigoplus \Ymatrix{1}{-1}\ .
\end{equation}
Using the orthogonal matrix $O$ that brings $A$ into the normal form, we
can obtain the covariance matrix in the basis of local, physical Majorana
operators $c_i$ as $\gamma_0 = O^\tr \tilde{\gamma}_0 O$.
Using Eq.~\eqref{eq:ham-energy}, we can verify that the ground state
energy is indeed $E_0=-\sum \epsilon_k$.
Numerically, $\gamma_0$ can be determined by diagonalizing the
antisymmetric matrix $H$ (giving imaginary eigenvalues) and then replacing
them by the sign of the imaginary part. For other approaches,
see Ref.~\onlinecite{Wimmer2012}.
\paragraph{Expectation values and state overlaps.}
The expectation value of arbitrary operators in a Gaussian state can be
computed using Wick's theorem, which takes a particularly simple form in
the representation of Gaussian covariance matrices. Consider a product of
Majorana operators $C = \prod_{i \in \mathcal{I}} c_i$. The expectation
value of $C$ in a state $|\phi \rangle$ with CM
$\gamma$ is given by~\cite{Bravyi2017}
\begin{equation}
\langle \phi |C| \phi \rangle = \Pfaffian (i \gamma_{\mathcal{I}} ),
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_{\mathcal{I}}$ is the submatrix of $M$ with row and column
indices in $\mathcal{I}$.
The square modulus of the overlap between two states is easily determined from the
covariance formalism~\cite{lowdin1955,Bravyi2017}.
Consider two many-body states $|A\rangle$ and $|B\rangle$ with corresponding covariance matrices
$\gamma_A$ and $\gamma_B$ and the same fermion parity, i.e.
$\Pfaffian(i \gamma_A) = \Pfaffian(i \gamma_B) = p$. Then,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:overlap-main}
|\langle A|B \rangle|^2 = p 2^{-n} \Pfaffian(\gamma_A + \gamma_B).
\end{equation}
When the phase of the overlap is also desired, a complication arises from
the fact that the covariance matrix formalism does not capture the global
phase of the state -- clearly for some fermionic state $|\psi\rangle$, all
states $e^{i \phi} |\psi\rangle$ will have the same expectation values
of physical operators, and thus the same covariance matrix. To overcome this
problem, one can introduce a reference state $|C\rangle$ and observe that
$\langle C|A \rangle\langle A|B \rangle\langle B|C \rangle$ is invariant
under multiplying any of the three states by a phase. Therefore, it can
be computed from the covariance formalism; for explicit expressions, see
Ref.~\onlinecite{Bravyi2017}.
\paragraph{Composite systems.}
Consider a Gaussian state described by a covariance matrix $\gamma'$ on
$N$ modes, and $\gamma''$ on $M$ modes. The joint state $\gamma$ is
characterized by the direct sum of the covariance matrices,
\begin{equation}
\gamma = \gamma' \oplus \gamma'' = \mtx{\gamma' &0 \\ 0&\gamma''}.
\end{equation}
To describe a general state of such a joint system, it is convenient to introduce
collective labels for the Majorana modes in each subsystem. For example, we can
denote the $N$ modes of the state $\gamma'$ as $a$, and the $M$ modes of the
other system as $b$. A general Gaussian state of the joint system thus takes the
block form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gen-bipartite-system}
\gamma = \mtx{\gamma_{aa}&\gamma_{ab}\\-\gamma_{ab}^\tr&\gamma_{bb}}.
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_{aa}$ contains the correlations of the $a$ modes,
$\gamma_{ab}$ the correlations of $a$ modes with $b$ modes, etc.
We will occasionally write $|a|$ for the number of modes in $a$, i.e. $|a|=N$.
More generally, for multipartite systems, such as a tripartite system with
modes $a$, $b$, and $c$, we can express $\gamma$ in different partitions,
e.g.\
\begin{equation}
\gamma=\begin{pmatrix}
\gamma_{aa}&\gamma_{ab}&\gamma_{ac}\\
\gamma_{ba}&\gamma_{bb}&\gamma_{bc}\\
\gamma_{ca}&\gamma_{cb}&\gamma_{cc}
\end{pmatrix}
=\begin{pmatrix}
\gamma_{ab|ab} & \gamma_{ab|c}\\
\gamma_{c|ab} & \gamma_{c|c}
\end{pmatrix}\ ,
\end{equation}
where we use a vertical bar to separate row and column indices when
ambiguous; e.g., $\gamma_{ab | c}$ holds the correlations of the modes
$a$ and $b$ vs.\ $c$, i.e.,
$\gamma_{ab| c}=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\gamma_{ac}\\
\gamma_{bc}\end{smallmatrix}\right)$.
We will generally follow this notation throughout this paper. Note
that due to the explicit labeling of the modes in this notation, the
actual ordering of the blocks in the matrix does not matter.
\paragraph{Partial traces.}
The dual operation to composing systems is the partial trace, i.e.
considering only the state of a subsystem; we will make frequent use of it
in this paper. Given a system composed of $N+M$ modes $a$ and $b$ with
covariance matrix
\begin{equation}
\gamma = \mtx{\gamma_{aa}&\gamma_{ab}\\-\gamma_{ab}^\tr&\gamma_{bb}}\ ,
\end{equation}
the covariance matrix which describes the state of the $a$ modes (i.e., the system after
tracing out the $b$ modes) is given by $\gamma_{aa}$; this follows
immediately from the definition of the covariance matrix.
\subsection{Tensor networks and contraction}
\label{sec:contraction}
\paragraph{Formalism.}
Tensor networks are a way to describe multipartite quantum states
\begin{equation}
\ket{\Psi}=\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_N}c_{i_1,\dots,i_N}\ket{i_1,\dots,i_N}
\end{equation}
by rewriting $c_{i_1,\dots,i_N}=\sum_{\alpha_k} \prod
C_{\{i_s,\alpha_p\}}$, using tensors $C_{\{i_s\},\{\alpha_p\}}$ which depend
on only on a few (if any) physical indices $\{i_s\}$ and auxiliary indices (or
\emph{entanglement degrees of freedom}) $\{\alpha_p\}$ each,
where each auxiliary index is contained in exactly two tensors,
and where the
auxiliary indices are contracted (i.e.\ summed over). In the context of
fermionic tensor networks, it is convenient to instead consider each
$C_{\{i_s\},\{\alpha_p\}}$ as describing a
pure state (``fiducial state'') $\ket{C_{\{i_s\},\{\alpha_p\}}}=
\sum C_{\{i_s\},\{\alpha_p\}} \ket{\{i_s\},\{\alpha_p\}}$
of the physical \emph{and} virtual indices jointly, where the contraction is
achieved by projecting pairs of virtual indices onto a maximally entangled
state $\ket{\omega_{\alpha,\alpha'}}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:contraction-GH-def}
\ket\Psi = \left(\bigotimes \bra{\omega_{\alpha,\alpha'}}\right)
\left(\bigotimes \ket{C_{\{i_s\},\{\alpha_p\}}}\right)\ .
\end{equation}
This framework is particularly suited for the case of fermionic tensor network states, as
it removes the requirement to specify an ordering of the fermionic tensors
(and bonds), since both $\bra{\omega_{\alpha,\alpha'}}$ and
$\ket{C_{\{i_s\},\{\alpha_p\}}}$ have fixed fermion parity, and all
tensors $C$ mutually commute (as they don't share fermionic operators),
and similarly all bonds $\omega$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{figs/tn_and_trace}
\caption{
\textbf{(a)} Tensors are described by their covariance matrix $\gamma$, which
has blocks of rows/columns labeled by the different indices; the size of
each block equals the number of Majorana modes in the block. \textbf{(b)} Since
$\gamma$ describes pure and mixed state on equal footing, we will
sometimes draw even pure state tensors with both ket and bra indices.
\textbf{(c)} This allows e.g.\ to naturally capture tracing of an index in
the graphical calculus.}
\label{fig:tndef}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Contraction.}
In the case of Gaussian fermionic tensor networks, the fiducial states are
given by covariance matrices $\gamma$ which are indexed by the
corresponding physical and auxiliary modes. The maximally entangled state
$\ket\omega$ (which can either be a product of maximally entangled states
between complex fermions, or a product of pairs of
Majorana fermions in their joint vacuum) is itself Gaussian, such that each
contraction gives rise to a new Gaussian state. The basic step is thus the
contraction of two Gaussian tensors (i.e.\ states). This corresponds to
integrating out the auxiliary degrees of freedom in a Gaussian integral,
and thus gives rise to a Schur
complement~\cite{Giedke2002,Eisert2002,fiurasek2002,bravyi2004}.
This leads to the following explicit expressions for contraction: Given two tensors
\begin{equation}
G=\left(\begin{matrix}G_{aa}&G_{ac}\\-G_{ac}^\tr&G_{cc}\end{matrix}\right)
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
H=\left(\begin{matrix}H_{bb}&H_{bc'}\\-H_{bc'}^\tr&H_{c'c'}
\end{matrix}\right),
\end{equation}
(possibly with blocked indices), the tensor resulting from contracting the
$c$ index of $G$ with the $c'$ index of $H$ is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:contraction:schur}
K=\mtx{K_{aa}&K_{ab}\\-K_{ab}^\tr&K_{bb}}
=&\mtx{\!G_{aa}\\&\!\!H_{bb}}\! \\ \nonumber +\! \mtx{G_{ac}\\&\!\!H_{bc'}}\!
&\mtx{\!G_{cc}&\openone\\-\openone&H_{c'c'}}^{\!\!-1\!}\!
\mtx{\!G_{ac}\\&\!\!H_{bc'}\!}^{\!\tr}\ .
\end{align}
Note that the contraction is oriented (swapping $c$ and $c'$ changes the
sign of the $\openone$'s); we will from now on use the notation
$c\triangleright c'$ to indicate the order.
The matrix inverse in Eq.~\eqref{eq:contraction:schur} can be carried
out block-wise using Schur complements.
Explicitly,
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:sammlung:inv-w-id}
\begin{pmatrix}A&\openone\\-\openone&D\end{pmatrix}^{-1}
= \\
\begin{pmatrix} (DA+\openone)^{-1} \\ & (AD+\openone)^{-1} \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} D & -\openone \\ \openone & A \end{pmatrix}
\end{multline}
and as a special case which we will use later
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sammlung:inv-w-0}
\begin{pmatrix}A&\openone\\-\openone&0\end{pmatrix}^{-1}
=
\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -\openone \\ \openone & A \end{pmatrix}\ .
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{figs/contraction}
\caption{
Contraction of two indices $r$ and $l'$ (contraction is oriented, denoted
as $r\contr l'$, and indicated by the arrow on the contracted index). The
CM $\Gamma$ of the resulting state is obtained as a Schur complement, as
given by the formulas in the figure or Eq.~(\ref{eq:contraction:schur}).
(Here, $\openone_{xy}$ denotes the identity matrix betweeen modes $x$ and
$y$.)} \label{fig:contraction}
\end{figure}
For generalizations of this approach as well as the normalization of the
state after contraction, see App.~\ref{app:overlaps}.
\paragraph{Graphical calculus.} Tensor networks can be conveniently
expressed using a graphical calculus, where each tensor is described by a
box with one leg per index (where each index can contain any number of
Majorana modes), Fig.~\ref{fig:tndef}a. Contraction of indices is indicated by
connecting the corresponding legs; the orientation of the contraction will
be indicated by an arrow. This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:contraction}.
Note that the covariance matrix formalism (and thus Gaussian tensor
networks) does not distinguish between pure and mixed states. Yet, we will
generally use the tensor notation for \emph{pure} states; when referring
to the density operator, we will instead draw the tensor twice, once for
the ``ket'' and once for the ``bra'' system (Fig.~\ref{fig:tndef}b). In
particular, an essential operation will be tracing out part of a tensor,
which corresponds to contracting the ``ket'' and ``bra'' part of the
corresponding index, and which will be drawn as in Fig.~\ref{fig:tndef}c.
\subsection{Entanglement in Gaussian states and Schmidt decomposition}
\label{sec:schmidt}
A crucial step in the DMRG algorithm is the Schmidt decomposition, i.e.,
the decomposition of a bipartite entangled state $\ket\Psi$ in the form
$\ket\Psi = \sum_{k} \lambda_k \ket{\ell_k}\ket{r_k}$ with orthonormal
vectors $\{\ket{\ell_k}\}$ and $\{\ket{r_k}\}$ (see also Sec.~\ref{sec:svd}).
The procedure for fermionic Gaussian states is quite analogous. Consider a
pure bipartite Gaussian state
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bip-state-svd}
\gamma = \mtx{\gamma_{aa}&\gamma_{ab}\\-\gamma_{ab}^\tr&\gamma_{bb}}\ ,
\end{equation}
and assume for the moment that $\gamma_{ab}$ is square (i.e., the two systems have the same dimension) and has full rank; this corresponds to the case where all modes on either side are entangled.
Since $\gamma$ is pure, we have $\gamma^2=-\openone$, which implies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pure-blocks-relations}
\gamma_{aa}^2 = \gamma_{ab}^{\phantom\tr}\gamma_{ab}^\tr - \openone \ ,
\quad
\gamma_{bb}^2 = \gamma_{ab}^\tr\gamma_{ab}^{\phantom\tr} - \openone \ ,
\end{equation}
as well as $\gamma_{aa}\gamma_{ab}=-\gamma_{ab}\gamma_{bb}$, or equivalently
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pure-blocks-offdiag-relations}
\gamma_{bb}=
-\gamma_{ab}^{-1}\gamma_{aa}\gamma_{ab}
\end{equation}
We now perform an SVD of $\gamma_{ab}$, $O \gamma_{ab} Q^\tr=
\Lambda_{ab}$, where $\Lambda_{ab}$ is diagonal with positive entries which are ordered descendingly, and
$O$ and $Q$ are real orthogonal, as they diagonalize the real symmetric
matrices
$\gamma_{ab}^{\phantom\tr}\gamma_{ab}^\tr$ and
$\gamma_{ab}^\tr\gamma_{ab}^{\phantom\tr}$, respectively.
Eq.~\eqref{eq:pure-blocks-relations} then
immediately implies that also $O\gamma_{aa}^2O^\tr$
is diagonal with descending entries. Following
Eq.~\eqref{eq:can-form-antisym}, we find that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:O_gaa_O}
O\gamma_{aa}O^\tr =
\bigoplus_k\begin{pmatrix}&\lambda_k\\-\lambda_k\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
(possibly after rearranging rows of $O$ within degenerate blocks; by
performing the same permutation on $Q$, we can ensure that
$O\gamma_{ab}Q^\tr$ remains diagonal).
Therefore,
\begin{align}
Q\gamma_{bb}Q^\tr
&=
Q(-\gamma^{-1}_{ab}\gamma_{aa}\gamma_{ab})Q^\tr
\\
&=
-(O\gamma_{ab}Q^\tr)^{-1}(O\gamma_{aa}O^\tr)(O\gamma_{ab}Q^\tr)
\end{align}
must be again of the form
\begin{equation}
Q\gamma_{bb}Q^\tr =
\bigoplus_k\begin{pmatrix}&-\lambda_k\\\lambda_k\end{pmatrix}\ ,
\end{equation}
where the fact that the entries $\lambda_k$ equal those in Eq.~(\ref{eq:O_gaa_O}) follow from \eqref{eq:pure-blocks-relations}, as well as that
\begin{equation}
O\gamma_{ab}Q^\tr =
\bigoplus_k\begin{pmatrix}\mu_k\\&\mu_k\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
with $\mu_k = \sqrt{1-\lambda_k^2}$. Together, we find that the local
rotations $O\oplus Q$ transform $\gamma$ to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gaussian-schmidt}
(O\oplus Q)\gamma(O\oplus Q)^\tr =
\bigoplus_k
W(\lambda_k)\ ,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gaussian-schmidt-Sblock}
W(\lambda_k)=\begin{pmatrix}
&\lambda_k& \mu_k\\
-\lambda_k & & & \mu_k\\
-\mu_k & & & -\lambda_k\\
& -\mu_k & \lambda_k
\end{pmatrix},\ \:\mu_k=\sqrt{1-\lambda_k^2}\ ,
\end{equation}
where each block $W(\lambda_k)$ captures the correlations between two $a$
and two $b$ Majorana modes (in this order). This is the fermionic
Gaussian equivalent of the Schmidt decomposition (and of the Williamson
normal form for bosonic Gaussian states), a result first derived by Botero
and Reznik~\cite{botero2004}.
From this form, the von Neumann entanglement entropy between the
modes $a$ and $b$ is now easily found to be
\begin{equation}
S_\mathrm{vN} = \sum_k H\left(\frac{1-\lambda_k}{2}\right)
\end{equation}
with $H(p) = -p \log p - (1-p) \log (1-p)$.
In the more general case where $\gamma_{ab}$ does not have full rank (or
is not square), we can still perform an SVD of $\gamma_{ab}$, which in
that case will give rise to blocks where $\gamma_{ab}\gamma_{ab}^\tr$ (or
$\gamma_{ab}^\tr\gamma_{ab}$) is zero.
Eq.~\eqref{eq:pure-blocks-relations} implies that the corresponding blocks
of $\gamma_{aa}$ ($\gamma_{bb}$) decouple and are equal to
$\bigoplus\left(\begin{smallmatrix}&-1\\1\end{smallmatrix}\right)$, i.e.,
they describe a mode in a pure (vaccum) state, which is thus not entangled
to any other mode. In the general case, we thus obtain the form
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:gaussian-schmidt-general}
(O\oplus Q)\gamma(O\oplus Q)^\tr = \\
\bigg[ \bigoplus \left(\begin{smallmatrix}&-1\\1\end{smallmatrix}\right) \bigg]
\,\oplus\,
\bigg[ \bigoplus_k W(\lambda_k) \bigg]
\,\oplus\,
\bigg[ \bigoplus \left(\begin{smallmatrix}&-1\\1\end{smallmatrix}\right) \bigg]
,
\end{multline}
where the first (last) term in the sum lives only on the $a$ ($b$) modes, and the middle
term captures their correlations; as before, it is obtained from the SVD of
$\gamma_{ab}$, together with a suitable rearrangement of degenerate modes.
Note that while instead of performing the SVD of $\gamma_{ab}$, we could
have as well diagonalized $\gamma_{aa}$ and $\gamma_{bb}$. The approach
approach chosen here has two advantages: First, it doesn't require to match up
eigenvalues, and second, the singular values of $\gamma_{ab}$ relate to
the square roots of the eigenvalues of $\gamma_{aa}$, thus yielding a higher
accuracy (also in the basis transformations $O$ and $Q$) for weakly entangled modes.
\subsection{Tensor decompositions}
Tensor decompositions, such as the singular value decomposition (SVD) and the closely
related QR decomposition, are core ingredients in DMRG and other tensor network algorithms. Their main
role is that they allow to decompose the state in terms of an
orthonormal basis; furthermore, they are an efficient way of obtaining
the Schmidt decomposition and thus information about the entanglement,
including the full entanglement spectrum. We will start by
introducing the Gaussian version of the SVD, and then discuss how to build
different related decompositions which are potentially easier or more
efficient to implement.
\begin{figure}
{\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{figs/svd}
}
\caption{
Gaussian fermionic SVD. \textbf{(a)} The SVD expresses a CM $\gamma$ as the
contraction of three CMs $L$, $\Lambda$, and $R$, where $L$ and $R$ are
isometries when contracting $a$ and $b$, respectively (i.e., $L_{a'a'}=0$,
$R_{b'b'}=0$), and $\Lambda=\bigoplus W(\lambda_k)$,
Eq.~\eqref{eq:gaussian-schmidt-Sblock}. \textbf{(b)}~The derivation
proceeds by using the Schmidt decomposition of $\gamma=(O\oplus
Q)^\tr\Lambda(O\oplus Q)$, rewriting $\Lambda$ as the contraction of itself
with two maximally entangled states $\omega^L$ and $\omega^R$, and
applying
$O$ and $Q$ to $a$ and $b$, respectively. } \label{fig:gaussian-svd}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Singular value decomposition (SVD)} \label{sec:svd}
The SVD decomposes a matrix $M=UDV^\dagger$, where $U$ and $V$ are
isometries ($U^\dagger U=\openone$, $V^\dagger V=\openone$), and $D$ is
diagonal and full rank. It is closely related to the Schmidt
decomposition, which for a state $\ket{\Psi}=\sum_{ij} M_{ij}\ket{i}\ket{j}$
is obtained from the SVD of $M$ as
\begin{gather}
\mathclap{\ket\Psi=\sum d_k \ket{a_k}\ket{b_k}} \\
d_k=D_{kk},\,\, \ket{a_k}=\sum U_{ik}\ket{i},\,\, \ket{b_k}=\sum V_{jk}^*\ket{j}\ .
\end{gather}
This can be viewed as an elementary tensor network: the state $\ket{\Psi}$ is given
as the contraction of tensors $U$, $D$ and $V^*$, where $U$ and $V^*$ have one auxiliary
and one physical index each, and $D$ has only auxiliary indices.
We have discussed the Gaussian version of the Schmidt decomposition in the previous
section, Sec.~\ref{sec:schmidt}.
Building on this, we will now describe how to view the Schmidt decomposition
as a tensor decomposition, i.e. how to view the state as the contraction of a
minimal tensor network of three tensors.
Specifically, the Gaussian SVD corresponds to the decomposition of the covariance matrix $\gamma$ of
a bipartite system $ab$ into the contraction of three covariance matrices $L$, $\Lambda$,
and $R$, as indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig:gaussian-svd}a (including the
labeling of the modes). Here, the isometry
condition $U^\dagger U=\openone$ translates naturally to $L_{a'a'}=0$, which
is the CM of the maximally mixed state $\openone$, cf.\
Fig.~\ref{fig:tndef}c, and correspondingly $R_{b'b'}=0$;
furthermore, we require $\Lambda=\bigoplus W(\lambda_k)$ [cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:gaussian-schmidt}].
As a starting point, consider the covariance matrix $\gamma$ written as
\begin{equation}
\gamma=(O\oplus Q)^\tr \Lambda (O\oplus Q)
\end{equation}
with orthogonal $O$ and $Q$; note that at this point, we don't need to make
any assumption about $\Lambda$, i.e. the decomposition can be more general than Eqn.~\eqref{eq:gaussian-schmidt}.
We will generalize it to the case with
additional local degrees of freedom as in
Eq.~\eqref{eq:gaussian-schmidt-general} in a moment.
The first step is to rewrite $\Lambda$ as a contraction of three tensors
$\omega^L$, $\Lambda$, and $\omega^R$, as depicted in
Fig.~\ref{fig:gaussian-svd}b (note the relabelling of the indices of
$\Lambda\equiv \Lambda_{a''b''| a''b''}$) -- this is the equivalent
of contracting with the identity tensor, i.e.\ writing
$D=\openone\cdot D\cdot\openone$. The tensors $\omega^{L,R}$ are
given by
\begin{equation}
\omega^L \equiv \omega^L_{aa'| aa'}=
\begin{pmatrix}0 & \openone_{aa'}\\
-\openone_{a'a} & 0 \end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\omega^R \equiv \hat\omega_{b'b| b'b}= \begin{pmatrix}0 &
\openone_{b'b}\\ -\openone_{bb'} & 0 \end{pmatrix}\ .
\end{equation}
They describe maximally entangled states between $a$ and $a'$ and $b'$ and
$b$, respectively (corresponding to the identity tensor $\openone$).
It is easy to check using Eqn.~\eqref{eq:contraction:schur}
that contracting $a'\triangleright a''$ returns $\Lambda$, and likewise for
$b''\triangleright b'$~\footnote{This can also be seen without calculation by noting that this amounts to a
postselected teleportation protocol (i.e.\ attaching a maximally entangled state
and projecting onto the maximally entangled state).}.
In a second step, we now take Fig.~\ref{fig:gaussian-svd}b and apply $O$
and $Q$ to the $a$ and $b$ system, respectively. On the left-hand side,
this yields $(O\oplus Q)\Lambda(O\oplus Q)^\tr=\gamma$, while on the right-hand
side, $\omega^L$ and $\omega^R$ are transformed to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:svd-omega-to-L}
L =
(O^\tr\oplus\openone)\omega^L (O\oplus\openone) =
\begin{pmatrix}0 & O^\tr\\
-O & 0 \end{pmatrix}\ ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:svd-omega-to-R}
R =
(\openone\oplus Q^\tr)\omega^R (\openone\oplus Q) =
\begin{pmatrix}0 & Q\\
-Q^\tr & 0 \end{pmatrix}\ ,
\end{equation}
respectively. Furthermore, the contraction and the application of $O$ and
$Q$ commute, as they act on different indices (and as can be also checked
explicitly). We thus find that $\gamma$ can be written as the contraction
of $L$, $\Lambda$, and $R$, as in Fig.~\ref{fig:gaussian-svd}a, with $L$
and $R$ isometries. In the case where $\Lambda$ is the Schmidt
decomposition, this yields the Gaussian analogue of the SVD.
In the general case where the Schmidt decomposition contains additional
unentangled local degrees of freedom, as in
Eq.~\eqref{eq:gaussian-schmidt-general}, these modes need to be attached
to the $a$ and $b$ system of $\omega^L$ and $\omega^R$, respectively,
before applying the transformations in
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:svd-omega-to-L},\ref{eq:svd-omega-to-R}); the resulting $L$ and
$R$ are still isometries, and the decomposition in
Fig.~\ref{fig:gaussian-svd}a still holds with $\Lambda=\bigoplus
W(\lambda_k)$. Note that we can always regard a pair of decoupled modes
as $W(\lambda_k\equiv1)$ if we do not want to minimize the bond dimension
(i.e., the dimension of $\Lambda$).
\subsubsection{Truncation of bond dimension.}
An important scenario, in particular in $2$-site DMRG, is to truncate the
bond dimension. This corresponds to carrying out an SVD $M=UDV^\dagger$
of a matrix $M$, and replacing it by a matrix $M'=(UW)(W^\dagger D
V^\dagger)$ with an isometry $W$ such that $WW^\dagger$ projects onto the
$\chi$ largest singular values of $D$.
In the Gaussian scenario, given a CM $\gamma$ this amounts to carrying out
the Schmidt decomposition Eq.~\eqref{eq:gaussian-schmidt-general}, and
keeping only the blocks $W(\lambda_k)$ with the $\kappa$ smallest
$\lambda_k$, while replacing the additional blocks with
\begin{equation}
W(\lambda=1) \equiv \begin{pmatrix}
&1\\-1\\&&&-1\\&&1
\end{pmatrix}\ ,
\end{equation}
i.e.\ decoupled modes. Those modes are henceforth counted towards the
decoupled modes in Eq.~\eqref{eq:gaussian-schmidt-general}, and the
truncated SVD is obtained by applying the SVD construction,
Fig.~\ref{fig:gaussian-svd}a, with $\Lambda$ from the truncated Schmidt
decomposition.
\subsubsection{Variants: QR and related decompositions.}
\label{sec:other-decomp}
In most applications, a full SVD is not needed. For example,
to obtain the canonical form of an MPS (see below for details)
one only needs to be able to rewrite a covariance matrix
$\gamma\equiv\gamma_{ab| ab}$, with $|a|\ge |b|$,
as the contraction of an isometry and a tensor with equal-sized systems on both sides.
(In DMRG, $a$ corresponds to the left virtual + physical modes, while $b$ corresponds to the right virtual modes.)
To this end, we need to isolate modes in $a$ that are not entangled with any modes in $b$; we will denote
the modes that are unentangled as $a_0$ and the others as $a_1$, i.e. $|a|
= |a_0| + |a_1|$ and $|a_1| = |b|$. (We assume that all modes in $b$ are
entangled with modes in $a$, as happens in practice; the generalization is
straightforward.)
To achieve this, we find an $|a| \times |a|$ orthogonal transformation $O$ such that
\begin{equation}
(O\oplus\openone)\gamma(O\oplus\openone)^\tr =
\left( \begin{array}{c|cc}
\gamma_{a_0 a_0} &0 &0 \\ \hline
0 &\gamma_{a_1 a_1} &X \\
0 &-X^\tr &\gamma_{bb}
\end{array} \right)
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_{a_0 a_0} = \bigoplus \left( \begin{smallmatrix} &-1 \\ 1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$, and $X$ is $|b| \times |b|$.
Note that this is a weaker version of the decomposition of Eqn.~\eqref{eq:gaussian-schmidt}, where no transformation
is applied on the $b$ modes. To obtain this form, it is sufficient to choose $O$ such that
\begin{equation}
O\gamma_{ab} = \begin{pmatrix}0\\X\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
with $X$ a square matrix; this can e.g.\ be achieved by determining the
kernel of $\gamma_{ab}^\tr$ (or the image of $\gamma_{ab}$). The fact that this
implies $\gamma_{a_0 a_1} = 0$ can be verified by invoking purity of the state.
Once such an $O$ is found, following the SVD construction of Fig.~\ref{fig:gaussian-svd}a
with $Q=\openone$ and
$\Lambda\equiv \left( \begin{smallmatrix} \gamma_{a_1 a_1} &X \\ -X^\tr &\gamma_{bb} \end{smallmatrix} \right)$
gives the desired result. For the case where $|a|\le |b|$, the equivalent transformation is obtained by acting with $O$ on the $b$ modes. Note that for $|a|=|b|$, $O$ can be chosen trivial.
Similarly, in order to obtain a decomposition which allows to truncate the bond dimension (such as in 2-site DMRG), it
is sufficient to determine $O$ such that $\gamma_{aa}$ is diagonalized;
this allows to determine which modes decouple, and yields the $\lambda_k$
of the $W(\lambda_k)$ which can be used to identify and disentangle the least entangled modes, without the need to determine $Q$.
\section{Gaussian fermionic MPS (GFMPS)}
\label{sec:GFMPS}
\subsection{Construction}
\begin{figure}[t]
{\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figs/gfmps-def}}
\caption{
Construction of a Gaussian fermionic MPS: To each site, we associate a
tensor $\gamma^s_{l_sp_sr_s| l_sp_sr_s}$ (with $l_1$ and $r_N$
trivial); the state of the ``physical modes'' $p_1,\dots,p_N$ is obtained
by contracting the ``virtual modes'' $r_s\contr l_{s+1}$.
}
\label{fig:GFMPS-construction}
\end{figure}
For the remainder of this manuscript, we will focus on the Gaussian fermionic
version of matrix-product states. A matrix product state (MPS) is a particular
type of tensor network state in one dimension, where the sites of the physical system
are arranged on a chain and one tensor is associated with each physical site.
The tensor is connected to its left and right neighbors.
In the following discussion, we will focus on the case of open boundary conditions.
For a chain of $N$ sites, an MPS consists of $N$ rank-3 tensors. In the
case of Gaussian fermionic MPS (GFMPS), it is thus fully specified by a set of covariance matrices
\begin{equation}
\gamma^s_{l_sp_sr_s| l_sp_sr_s},
\end{equation}
where $s=1,\dots,N$ denotes the sites of the chain (from left to right),
$p_s$ corresponds to the physical modes at each site, and the dimensions
$|r_s|=|l_{s+1}|$ of the virtual modes $r_s$, $l_{s+1}$
are the \emph{Majorana bond mode number} of the bond $(s,s+1)$. As in conventional
MPS, the bond mode number -- analogous to the bond dimension -- can be increased
to systematically increase the class of variational states, and an exact description
is recovered for $|l_s| \sim \mathcal{O}(N)$. As noted in the Introduction, the bond
dimension $M$ in a conventional MPS is related to the Majorana bond number $\chi$ used here
by $M = \sqrt{2}^\chi$. For open boundary conditions,
there are no left modes on the left-most tensor and no right modes on the right-most tensor,
i.e. $|l_1|=0$ and $|r_N|=0$. It is therefore often convenient to omit these and set
$\gamma^1 = \gamma^1_{p_1 r_1 | p_1 r_1}$ and $\gamma^N =
\gamma^N_{l_Np_N| l_Np_N}$. When clear from the context, we will often omit the
site subscripts to the modes and e.g.\ write $\gamma^s_{lpr|lpr}$.
A description of the state on $N$ sites is now
obtained by arranging the $\gamma^s$ on a line and contracting the
adjacent virtual indices $\md{r_s}\triangleright\md{l_{s+1}}$, as depicted
in Fig.~\ref{fig:GFMPS-construction}, which yields a CM describing the
physical modes $\md{p_1},\dots,\md{p_N}$.
Note that on physical grounds, it is clear that the state obtained through
the above construction is independent of the order of the contractions,
even though this is not evident from the description of the contraction in
the CM formalism through Schur complements.
Owing to the properties of the Gaussian formalism, a GFMPS always
describes a normalized state up to an overall global phase. This fact has
the potential to complicate practical MPS algorithms somewhat: in the
conventional formalism, physical observables such as the energy are
generally bilinear in the individual tensor elements. Thus, optimization
at least over individual tensors manifestly is a quadratic and thus
well-behaved problem. Since GFMPS are a special case of MPS, this must in
principle also be true for GFMPS, but it is not apparent in the Gaussian
formulation. However, with some extra steps the usual structure can be
exposed and the conventional and well-tested algorithms, such as single-
and two-site DMRG optimization as well as related time-evolution
algorithms,
can be formulated. A central role is played by the canonical form of the MPS. While this
form is in practice very useful for the stability and performance of conventional MPS algorithms,
it is not strictly required; in the Gaussian case, on the other hand, we will find it to be essential.
In the following, we will first introduce the canonical form of GFMPS, and
in the following sections will proceed to discuss
some important algorithms, such as efficient computation of the total energy, single- and two-site
optimization, and finally the time-dependent variational principle.
\subsection{Canonical form}
\label{sec:canform}
\paragraph{Definition.}
\begin{figure}[b]
{\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{figs/canform-def}\hspace*{2em}}
\caption{
(a) Left- and (b) Right-canonical form of a tensor $\gamma^s$, and the
corresponding condition on $\gamma^s$.
}
\label{fig:can-form}
\end{figure}
The first step in defining the canonical form of an MPS is to choose a
center ``working'' site $s_0$ with respect to which the canonical form is
defined. Then, all tensors to the left of $s_0$ are brought into
left-canonical form, and the ones to its right into right-canonical
form. The definitions of these are given by $\gamma_{rr}^s=0$ (left-canonical form, $s<s_0$) and $\gamma_{ll}^s=0$ (right-canonical form, $s>s_0$),
as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:can-form}.
This definition precisely correspond to that in the
conventional MPS formalism: There, an MPS tensor is said to be
left-canonical if the contraction with its own adjoint over the left and
physical index yields the identity matrix (see tensor diagram of
Fig.~\ref{fig:can-form}a), or equivalently, the tensor -- seen as a map
from right to physical and left index -- is an isometry. The contraction
corresponds to tracing out the left and physical system, and thus for GFMPS,
the left-canonical form amounts to require that the reduced density
matrix of the $r$ modes is $\gamma^s_{rr}=0$. Correspondingly, for the
right-canonical one has $\gamma^s_{ll}=0$. Note that this is precisely the
isometry condition we used in the derivation of the Gaussian SVD.
\paragraph{Elementary move.}
The elementary move in establishing and keeping the canonical form is the
following: Given a site $s$ such that all tensors left of it are in
left-canonical form, transform $\gamma^s$ into left-canonical form by
changing $\gamma^s$ and $\gamma^{s+1}$, without changing the state
described by the GFMPS. We focus on the left-canonical form, but the
corresponding procedure for the right-canonical form is completely analogous.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\columnwidth]{figs/canform-moves}
\caption{
Bringing a tensor into left-canonical form. In Step (I), $\gamma^s$ is
split into a left-canonical tensor $\hat\gamma^s$ and a tensor $\Lambda$
on the bond. In Step (II), $\Lambda$ is absorbed in the tensor
$\gamma^{s+1}$ to the right, yielding $\hat\gamma^{s+1}$.
}
\label{fig:can-form-elem-move}
\end{figure}
We proceed in two steps, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:can-form-elem-move}: In step (I),
$\gamma^s$ is rewritten with two tensors, namely a new tensor
$\hat\gamma^s$ in left-canonical form, contracted with a new tensor
$\Lambda$ on its right virtual bond. In step (II), $\Lambda$ is
contracted with $\gamma^{s+1}$, giving a new tensor $\hat\gamma^{s+1}$.
Step (I) is implemented by blocking $(lp)\equiv a$ and performing the SVD
of $\gamma^s_{ar| ar}$ as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:svd}, or one the
simplified versions in Sec.~\ref{sec:other-decomp}, which yields a decomposition of
$\gamma^s$ into an isometry $L\equiv \hat\gamma^s$ and $\Lambda$, as
desired. (If a decomposition with non-trivial $R$ [cf.\ Fig.~\ref{fig:gaussian-svd}(a)], such as the SVD,
is used, $\Lambda$ and $R$ need to be contracted.)
Specifically, it is sufficient to choose an $O$ such that
$O\gamma^s_{ar}=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\Y\end{smallmatrix}\right)$
with $Y$ square, define
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{c|cc}X & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
0 &
\\
0 &\multicolumn{2}{c}{\smash{\raisebox{.5\normalbaselineskip}{$\ \Lambda$}}}
\end{array}
\right)
\equiv
(O\oplus\openone)\gamma^s (O\oplus\openone)^\tr
\end{equation}
(on the l.h.s., the first two blocks correspond to $a$ and the third block
to $p$), and let
\begin{equation}
\hat\gamma^s\equiv
(O\oplus \openone)^\tr \left(
\begin{array}{c|cc}X & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & \openone \\
0 & -\openone & 0 \end{array}
\right)
(O\oplus\openone)\ .
\end{equation}
For the sizes of $X$ and $\Lambda$ and more details on the procedure,
see Sec.~\ref{sec:other-decomp}.
In the second step, $\Lambda$ and $\gamma^{s+1}$ are contracted as indicated in
Fig.~\ref{fig:can-form-elem-move}, using Eq.~\eqref{eq:contraction:schur}.
In order to obtain the right-canonical form, the same steps have to be
followed; the only core difference is the inverse contraction order, which
in particular implies that the signs of the $\pm\openone$ in the SVD and
the contraction have to be reversed.
\paragraph{Obtaining and updating the canonical form.}
Given this elementary step, the GFMPS can be kept in canonical form at all times
using the same procedures that are used for conventional MPS and described in detail
in, e.g., Ref.~\onlinecite{schollwoeck2011}. In particular, given an initial GFMPS on $N$ sites
that is not in canonical form, it can be brought into canonical form by sweeping from one end
to the other, i.e. in $N$ elementary operations. All practical optimization or time evolution
algorithms for MPS perform local operations in each step and sweep over the system from one
end to the other (see also Sec.~\ref{sec:GFMPS-opt}). Therefore, the state can be kept in
canonical form by moving the center $s$, i.e. the site such that all tensors left (right) of it are
left-canonical (right-canonical), by only a single site, requiring only local operations.
\section{Energy computation for GFMPS}
\label{sec:optim}
We now explain how to compute and optimize the energy of a GFMPS for a
given Hamiltonian. We start with a simple elementary step, which takes a
two-site Hamiltonian and a two-site GFMPS in canonical form, and expresses
the energy of the GFMPS as a linear function of one of the GFMPS tensors
through an effective single-site Hamiltonian. This will allow us to
derive an iterative formula for the energy which is valid for any
Hamiltonian, and which can moreover be used to optimize the energy of a
given working site. Subsequently, we show how this formula can be
specialized to different cases, such as local Hamiltonians, to obtain more
efficient ways to compute the energy.
For sake of completeness, we recall from the Introducion
[Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:Hmaj},\ref{eq:ham-energy})]
that a general Gaussian Hamiltonian is of the form
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:Hmaj-rep}
\mathcal H = -\mathrm{i} \sum H_{ij}c_i c_j + E\ ,
\end{equation}
(with $H$ an antisymmetric matrix and $E$ a constant offset), and
the energy of a state $\rho$ with CM $\gamma$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ham-energy-2}
\mathrm{tr}[\mathcal H\rho] =
\mathrm{tr}(H\gamma)+E\ .
\end{equation}
We will henceforth denote this Hamiltonian by $(H,E)$.
\subsection{Energy in GFMPS: Elementary step}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{figs/ham-elementary}
\caption{Elementary step for evaluating energies in MPS: Dependence of the
energy on one tensor $\gamma$ (see text).}
\label{fig:ham-elementarystep}
\end{figure}
Let us first consider the scenario depicted in
Fig.~\ref{fig:ham-elementarystep}: We are given two tensors
$G_{pr| pr}$ and $\gamma_{lq| lq}$, where $G_{rr}=0$, i.e. it is in left-canonical form,
and $r\triangleright l$ is contracted, and consider a Hamiltonian $(H,E)$ acting
on $pq$. Following Eq.~\eqref{eq:contraction:schur} for the contraction,
using Eq.~\eqref{eq:sammlung:inv-w-0} for the inverse, and rearranging
some terms, we find that the contraction yields a CM
\begin{equation}
\Theta=\mtx{G_{pp}&0\\0&0} +
\mtx{G_{pr}&0\\0&\openone}
\mtx{\gamma_{ll}&-\gamma_{ql}^\tr\\\gamma_{ql}&\gamma_{qq}}
\mtx{G_{pr}^\tr&0\\0&\openone}\:.
\end{equation}
We can thus rewrite
\begin{align}
\nonumber
&\mathrm{tr}[H\Theta] \\
& =
\mathrm{tr}\Big[H \mtx{G_{pp}&0\\0&0}\Big]
+ \mathrm{tr}\Big[H
\mtx{G_{pr}&0\\0&\openone}
\gamma
\mtx{G_{pr}^\tr&0\\0&\openone}\Big]
\\
&=
\mathrm{tr}[H_{pp}G_{pp}]
+ \mathrm{tr}[H'\gamma]\ ,
\end{align}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ham:hprime}
H'=\mtx{G_{pr}^\tr&0\\0&\openone} H \mtx{G_{pr}&0\\0&\openone}\ ,
\end{equation}
where the size of the identities is $|q| \times |q|$, and of course $|r|=|l|$,
and therefore $H'$ has dimensions $(|l|+|q|)\times(|l|+|q|)$.
The effective Hamiltonian acting on the $\gamma$ system -- comprised of the modes in $l$ and $q$ -- is thus obtained
from the old Hamiltonian through
\begin{equation}
(H,E)\mapsto (H',E'=E+\mathrm{tr}[H_{pp}G_{pp}])
\end{equation}
with $H'$ from Eq~\eqref{eq:ham:hprime}.
Note that if the right tensor were canonical and we instead contracted $l\triangleright r$,
the signs of the $\openone$'s in Eq.~\eqref{eq:ham:hprime} had to be reversed.
\subsection{Energy in GFMPS: Iteration formula}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{figs/ham-effective-full}
\caption{Scheme for the contraction of the Hamiltonian. We proceed
stepwise from both ends (here shown from the left end), which gives an
effective Hamiltonian for successively smaller patches which also acts on
the dangling virtual bonds at the boundary, finally yielding an effective
Hamiltonian for $\gamma^{\hat s}$.
}
\label{fig:ham-fulliteration}
\end{figure}
We are now ready to derive how the energy of a
given GFMPS for some Hamiltonian $(H^{1,N},E^{1,N})$, acting on $p_1,\dots,p_N$,
depends on the GFMPS tensor at a specific site $\hat s$.
It is based on iterated application of the elementary step above, and is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:ham-fulliteration}.
Consider an MPS in canonical form around $\hat s$, with $H$
acting on all physical sites $p_1,\dots,p_N$. For the description, we assume
the generic case $1 < \hat s < N$, but the procedure is easily applied to any $\hat s$.
By applying the procedure derived in the last section to $\gamma^1$ (corresponding to $G$ above)
vs.\ the remaining tensors (seen as one blocked tensor $\gamma$), we obain an effective Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H^{2,N}
\stackrel{l_2\leftarrow r_1} = (\gamma^{1}_{p_1r_1}\oplus\openone)^\tr H^{1,N}
(\gamma^1_{p_1r_1}\oplus\openone)\ ,
\end{equation}
where $H^{2,N}$ is acting on $l_2,p_2,\dots, p_N$, and we re-label $r_1$
to $l_2$, as indicated on top of the equality sign.
We can repeat this procedure
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ham:iteration-from-left}
H^{s+1,N}
\stackrel{l_{s+1}\leftarrow r_s} =
(\gamma^{s}_{l_sp_s|r_s}\oplus\openone)^\tr H^{s,N}
(\gamma^s_{l_sp_s|r_s}\oplus\openone)\ ,
\end{equation}
until we reach site $\hat s$.
Similarly, we can contract $H$ from the right, using
\begin{equation}
H^{\hat s,s-1}
\stackrel{r_{s-1}\leftarrow l_s} = (\gamma^{s}_{p_sr_s|l_s}\oplus
(-\openone))^\tr H^{\hat s,s}
(\gamma^{s}_{p_sr_s|l_s}\oplus (-\openone))
\end{equation}
-- note the $-\openone$ due to the opposite contraction order -- until we
reach $\hat s$.
In words, each step removes one site from the MPS and instead updates the
way in which the Hamiltonian acts on the dangling virtual leg at the
boundary (this update rule thus involves the correlations between this
dangling leg and the physical leg in the bulk). This is illustrated for
the left boundary in Fig.~\ref{fig:ham-fulliteration}: In order to update
$H$, we have to take the Hamiltonian part corresponding to the
left+physical leg which are being removed (site $s$), and transform it
with $\gamma^s_{lp|r}$ which relates those legs to the new dangling leg
(and correspondingly from the right).
In order to compute the total energy, we must also keep track of the $E$
contribution. It is updated as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ham:update-constant}
\begin{aligned}
E^{s+1,N}&=\mathrm{tr}[H^{s,N}_{l_sp_s|l_sp_s}\gamma^s_{l_sp_s|l_sp_s}]
+ E^{s,N}\\
E^{\hat s,s-1}&=\mathrm{tr}[H^{\hat
s,s}_{p_sr_s|p_sr_s}\gamma^s_{p_sr_s|p_sr_s}] + E^{\hat s,s}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with $E^{2,N}=\mathrm{tr}[H^{1,N}_{p_1p_1}\gamma^1_{p_1p_1}]=
\mathrm{tr}[H_{p_1p_1}\gamma^1_{p_1p_1}]$, and accordingly
$E^{\hat s,N-1}=\mathrm{tr}[H_{p_Np_N}\gamma^N_{p_Np_N}]$.
We are thus left with a single-site Hamiltonian
$H^{\hat s,\hat s}$ acting on $l_{\hat s}p_{\hat s}r_{\hat s}$, such that
the total energy is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ham:total-effective-ham}
E_\mathrm{tot}(\gamma^{\hat s}) = \mathrm{tr}[H^{\hat s,\hat s}\gamma^{\hat
s}] + E^{\hat s,\hat s}\ .
\end{equation}
\subsection{Local Hamiltonians}
Let us now consider the special case of local Hamiltonians -- for
simplicity, we consider nearest-neighbor Hamiltonians -- and explain how
the evaluation of the Hamiltonian in this case can be accomplished in
linear time in the system size. Moreover, just as in conventional DMRG, it
is possible to store intermediate terms at each cut such that the effort
required to update this information when moving by one site is independent
of system size.
In the following, it will be convenient to also carry an $l_1$ and $r_N$
label, with the corresponding spaces being zero-dimensional (in the CM).
In any step of the computation, the Hamiltonian will be of the banded form
\begin{equation} \label{lh_ham_1}
H^{s,N} = \
\begin{blockarray}{ccccc}
l_s & p_{s} & p_{s+1} & p_{s+2} & \dots \\
\begin{block}{(c|c|c|c|c)}
A^s_\blacktriangleright & B^s_\blacktriangleright & & & \phantom\ddots \\
\BAhline
-(B^s_\blacktriangleright)^\tr & D^s_\blacktriangleright+ h_{11} & h_{12} & & \phantom\ddots \\
\BAhline
& -h_{12}^\tr & h_{22}+k_{11} & k_{12} & \phantom\ddots \\
\BAhline
& & -k_{12}^\tr & k_{22} + \dots & \ddots\\
\BAhline
& & & \ddots & \ddots \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}\;\; .
\end{equation}
Here, $A^s_\blacktriangleright$, $B^s_\blacktriangleright$, and $D^s_\blacktriangleright$ summarize the information from all sites to the
left of $s$, and $h$ ($k$) is the two-site Hamiltonian term acting on sites
$p_{s},p_{s+1}$ ($p_{s+1},p_{s+2}$), respectively. One update step
Eq.~\eqref{eq:ham:iteration-from-left} maps this to
\begin{equation} \label{lh_ham_2}
H^{{s+1},N} = \
\begin{blockarray}{cccc}
l_{s+1} & p_{s+1} & p_{s+2} & \dots \\
\begin{block}{(c|c|c|c)}
A^{s+1}_\blacktriangleright & B^{s+1}_\blacktriangleright & & \phantom\ddots \\
\BAhline
-{(B^{s+1}_\blacktriangleright)}^\tr & D^{s+1}_\blacktriangleright+k_{11} & k_{12} & \phantom\ddots \\
\BAhline
& -k_{12}^\tr & k_{22} + \dots & \ddots\\
\BAhline
& & \ddots & \ddots \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}\;\; .
\end{equation}
with the update rule
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ham:locham-update-rule}
\begin{aligned}
A^{s+1}_\blacktriangleright&=\gamma_{lr}^\tr A^s_\blacktriangleright \gamma_{lr} +
\gamma_{pr}^\tr(D^s_\blacktriangleright+h_{11})\gamma_{pr}\\
& \hspace*{4em}
+ \gamma_{lr}^\tr B^s_\blacktriangleright\gamma_{pr} -\gamma_{pr}^\tr{(B^s_\blacktriangleright)}^\tr\gamma_{lr}
\\
B^{s+1}_\blacktriangleright & = \gamma_{pr}^\tr h_{12}\\
D^{s+1}_\blacktriangleright & = h_{22}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma\equiv \gamma^s$.
We thus see that (\emph{i}) the block-diagonal form of $H^{s,N}$ is
preserved, (\emph{ii}) the initial Hamiltonian is of this form with
$A^1_\blacktriangleright=0$, $B^1_\blacktriangleright=0$, $D^1_\blacktriangleright=0$, and (\emph{iii}) updating the information about the
Hamiltonian only requires local updates.
Analogously, we can also keep the integrated Hamiltonian terms for all sites right of $s$ through the update rule
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ham:locham-update-rule-right}
\begin{aligned}
A^{s-1}_\blacktriangleleft & =
\gamma_{rl}^\tr A^s_\blacktriangleleft\gamma_{rl} +
\gamma_{pl}^\tr(h_{22}+D^s_\blacktriangleleft)\gamma_{pl}
\\
& \hspace*{4em}
+ \gamma_{rl}^\tr B^s_\blacktriangleleft\gamma_{pl}
- \gamma_{pl}^\tr{(B^s_\blacktriangleleft)}^\tr\gamma_{rl}
\\
B^{s-1}_\blacktriangleleft & = \gamma_{pl}^\tr h_{12}^\tr\\
D^{s-1}_\blacktriangleleft & = h_{11}
\ ,\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where again $\gamma=\gamma^s$, and $h$ acts on sites $p_{s-1},p_{s}$ (with $h_{11}$ corresponding to $p_{s-1}$, etc.),
starting with $A^{N}_\blacktriangleleft=B^N_\blacktriangleleft=D^N_\blacktriangleleft=0$.
For a state with working site $\hat s$, we find that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:Hss}
\hat H^{\hat s,\hat s} =
\begin{pmatrix}
A^{\hat s}_\blacktriangleright & B^{\hat s}_\blacktriangleright & 0 \\
-{(B^{\hat s}_\blacktriangleright)}^\tr &
D^{\hat s}_\blacktriangleright + D^{\hat s}_\blacktriangleleft & -{(B^{\hat s}_\blacktriangleleft)}^\tr \\
0 & B^{\hat s}_\blacktriangleleft & A^{\hat s}_\blacktriangleleft
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
with mode ordering $lpr$. Similarly, we can compute $E^{\hat s, \hat
s}=E^{\hat s}_\blacktriangleright + E^{\hat s}_\blacktriangleleft$, where $E^1_\blacktriangleright=E^N_\blacktriangleleft=0$,
and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:E-left}
\begin{aligned}
E^{s+1}_\blacktriangleright &= E^s_\blacktriangleright +
\mathrm{tr}[H^{s,N}_{l_sp_s|l_sp_s}\gamma^s_{l_sp_s|l_sp_s}]
\\
&=
E^s_\blacktriangleright +
\mathrm{tr}\big[\begin{pmatrix}
A^s_\blacktriangleright&B^s_\blacktriangleright \\ -{(B^s_\blacktriangleright)}^\tr & D_\blacktriangleright^s +
h^s_{11}\end{pmatrix} \gamma^s_{lp|lp} \big]
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and accordingly
\begin{equation} \label{eq:E-right}
E^{s-1}_\blacktriangleleft = E^s_\blacktriangleleft +
\mathrm{tr}\big[\begin{pmatrix}
h^{s-1}_{22} + D_\blacktriangleleft^s &-{(B^s_\blacktriangleleft)}^\tr \\ B^s_\blacktriangleleft &
A^s_\blacktriangleleft
\end{pmatrix} \gamma^s_{pr|pr} \big]
\end{equation}
where $h^s_{11}$ ($h^s_{22}$) are the left (right) part of the Hamiltonian
term acting between sites $s$ and $s+1$.
Overall, the dependence of the energy on $\gamma^{\hat s}$ is then given
by
\begin{equation}
E_\mathrm{tot}(\gamma^{\hat s}) = \mathrm{tr}[H^{\hat s,\hat s}\gamma^{\hat s}] + E^{\hat s,\hat s}\ .
\end{equation}
Since all update rules for the $A$, $B$, $D$, and $E$ are local, they can be updated (and thus the energy dependence on $\gamma^{\hat s}$ computed) at a cost independent of the system size when moving the working site.
The generalization beyond nearest-neighbor Hamiltonians follows the same pattern
illustrated above, but the Hamiltonian of Eq.~\eqref{lh_ham_1} will have additional
off-diagonal terms. In particular, the first row/column, which contains
coupling terms between sites $q < s$ and $p \geq s$, will be modified as follows:
(\emph{i}) The terms $A^s_\blacktriangleright$ and $B^s_\blacktriangleright$ will contain additional contributions from
terms between $q < s$ and $s$, and (\emph{ii}) there will be additional off-diagonal blocks similar to
$B^s_\blacktriangleright$ for coupling terms between $q < s$ and $p > s$.
The update rule~\eqref{eq:ham:locham-update-rule}
is adapted by applying the rule for $B^{s+1}_\blacktriangleright$ for all similar off-diagonal
terms, and including additional terms in $A^{s+1}_\blacktriangleright$.
The update for the constant term can be adapted similarly.
The total number of blocks that need to be treated in each step depends on the
total number of Hamiltonian terms between sites $q < s$ and $p \geq s$.
\subsection{Energy minimization\label{sec:energy-minimization-eigenvalue}}
A core ingredient in DMRG algorithms is the optimization of the energy as a function of a single tensor $\gamma^{\hat s}\equiv \gamma$. As we have seen, this energy dependence can be summed up in an effective Hamiltonian $H^{\hat s,\hat s}\equiv H$ and constant offset $E^{\hat s,\hat s}\equiv E$.
In order to minimize
$E(\gamma)=\mathrm{tr}(H\gamma)+E$,
we need to fill all modes with negative energy. This can be done by
by going to the eigenbasis of $H$,
\begin{equation}
H\cong \bigoplus_i \mtx{0 & e_i\\-e_i & 0}
\end{equation}
and choosing
\begin{equation}
\gamma\cong \bigoplus_i \mtx{0 & 1\\-1 & 0}\ .
\end{equation}
Numerically, this can be done by diagonalizing the antisymmetric
matrix $H$ (giving imaginary eigenvalues) and then replacing them by their
sign, $\gamma=\mathrm{sign}(H)$, or by following the numerical approaches
discussed in Ref.~\onlinecite{Wimmer2012}.
\section{GFMPS optimization algorithms}
\label{sec:GFMPS-opt}
We now describe some commonly used MPS algorithms specifically in the
context of GFMPS. Most importantly, we will describe how to carry out the
DMRG algorithm in its formulation as a variational method over GFMPS. In
addition, we will discuss how to implement the time-dependent variational
principle (TDVP), which is suitable for both time evolution and ground
state simulations, with GFMPS, as well as a translational invariant
version of those methods.
\subsection{Gaussian fermionic DMRG}
The DMRG algorithm can be naturally described as a variational method over
the family of MPS with a given bond dimension. The key idea is to sweep
through the system and sequentially optimize a small number (usually one
or two) GFMPS tensors in each step. Each such optimization is a quadratic
problem and can thus be efficiently solved.
In the case where more than one tensor is optimized, the state can be
brought back into MPS form using the singular value decomposition. While
local convergence does not guarantee global convergence of the energy,
this algorithm is empirically found to perform extremely well.
\subsubsection{The algorithm}
Gaussian fermionic DMRG, i.e. DRMG for a quadratic fermionic Hamiltonian
and with GFMPS as a variational family, follows closely the conventional
way of doing DMRG with MPS, see
e.g.~\cite{schollwoeck2005,schollwoeck2011}. It consists of an
initialization step, followed by a number of sweeps; each sweep in turn
consists of a right- and a left-sweep. For concreteness, we will consider
the case of a nearest-neighbor Hamiltonian, but the same steps equally
apply to more complex Hamiltonians (with suitable modifications regarding
the computation of effective Hamiltonians, cf.\ Sec.~\ref{sec:optim}). The
notation follows the one used in the previous sections. In addition, we
will denote the complete set of left and right boundary terms that enter
the effective Hamiltonian at position $s$ by $\mathcal
B_\blacktriangleright^s=\{A^s_\blacktriangleright,B^s_\blacktriangleright,D^s_\blacktriangleright,E^s_\blacktriangleright\}$ and $\mathcal
B_\blacktriangleleft^s=\{A^s_\blacktriangleleft,B^s_\blacktriangleleft,D^s_\blacktriangleleft,E^s_\blacktriangleleft\}$, respectively. We
begin by describing the variant where only one tensor is optimized at a
time ("single-site DMRG").
\noindent
\emph{(i) Initialization.---}%
Fix a bond mode number for each bond $(s,s+1)$, $s=1,\dots,N-1$, and
choose a random (pure) initial tensor $\gamma^s$ for each site $s$.
Let $\mathcal B^N_\blacktriangleleft=\{\varnothing,\varnothing,\varnothing,\varnothing\}$, where by $\varnothing$ we denote a $0 \times 0$ matrix. \\
For $\hat s=N,N-1,\dots,2$ do:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Bring $\gamma^{\hat s}$ into right-canonical form (Sec.~\ref{sec:canform}).
\item Compute
$\mathcal B^{\hat s-1}_\blacktriangleleft$ as given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:ham:locham-update-rule-right}), and store the result.
\end{enumerate}
After the initialization, we are left with an GFMPS with all tensors in right-canonical form.
\noindent
\emph{(ii) Right-sweep.---}%
Let $\mathcal B^1_\blacktriangleright=\{\varnothing,\varnothing,\varnothing,\varnothing\}$.\\
For $\hat s=1,\dots,N-1$ do:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute $H^{\hat s,\hat s}$ from $\mathcal B^{\hat s}_\blacktriangleright$ using Eq.~\eqref{eqn:Hss} (or a suitable modification, based on Sec.~\ref{sec:optim}, for longer ranged Hamiltonians.)
\item Choose $\gamma^{\hat s}$ such as to optimize the energy $\mathrm{tr}[H^{\hat s, \hat s}\gamma^{\hat s}]$.
\item Bring $\gamma^{\hat s}$ into left-canonical form (updating $\gamma^{\hat s+1}$ correspondingly).
\item (Re-)compute $\mathcal B^{\hat s+1}_\blacktriangleright$.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent\emph{(iii) Left-sweep.---}%
The left-sweep works analogous to the right-sweep, just that one iterates
over $\hat s=N,N-1,\dots,2$, and steps 3 and 4 are replaced by bringing
$\gamma^{\hat s}$ into right-canonical form and updating $\mathcal B^{\hat
s-1}_\blacktriangleleft$, respectively.
To find the ground state, one performs several left- and right-sweeps until convergence is reached. Convergence is typically tested for using the ground state energy (see also our discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec:numerics}).
A straightforward generalization of this algorithm is to the "two-site DMRG" algorithm, which optimizes
two adjacent tensors in each step. This coincides with the original DMRG algorithm due to
White~\cite{white1992,white1992-1}. Given a GFMPS in canonical form around
a center site $\hat s$ during a sweep to the right, the tensors on sites
$\hat s, \hat{s}+1$ are optimized by first using
the steps laid out in Sec.~\ref{sec:optim} to obtain an effective Hamiltonian $H^{(\hat{s},\hat{s}+1),(\hat{s},\hat{s}+1)}$.
One then finds the ground state of this Hamiltonian on the modes $l_{\hat s}, p_{\hat s}, p_{\hat{s}+1}, r_{\hat{s}+1}$.
Using the singular value decomposition of Sec.~\ref{sec:svd} and absorbing the middle tensor
$\Lambda$ into the right tensor, one can put the state back into canonical GFMPS form with
a new center site $\hat{s}' = \hat{s}+1$; therefore, no extra steps
are required to keep the state canonical.
When sweeping to the left, the same steps are performed on the sites $\hat{s} -1, \hat{s}$,
and in the final SVD $\Lambda$ is absorbed into the left tensor.
During the singular value decomposition, the bond dimension can be truncated as appropriate.
In conventional DMRG, the single-site algorithm needs to be augmented with the technique described
in Ref.~\onlinecite{white2005}. This addresses two issues of the single-site algorithm, namely that
the number of states on a bond is difficult to adapt dynamically, and a
tendency to become stuck
in local minima. While this technique does not have a simple generalization to the GFMPS case, we
find in practice that for a fixed bond dimension, the convergence of single- and two-site DMRG
on GFMPS is very similar; furthermore, given the much lower cost of the GFMPS-based algorithms,
it is often not necessary to dynamically adapt the bond number.
\subsubsection{Scaling and efficiency\label{sec:GFDMRG-scaling}}
All steps in the GFDMRG algorithm can be carried out at a cost of
$\mathcal{O}\left((\chi+p)^3\right)$, where $\chi$ is the number of Majorana modes
on each bond and $p$ the number of physical Majorana modes on each site. In practical
numerical implementations, the most costly step will usually be the inversion required
to contract two tensors, which can be optimized using the block formulas of
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:sammlung:inv-w-id},\ref{eq:sammlung:inv-w-0}). The scaling
of a single sweep with system size is $\mathcal{O}(N)$. The number of
sweeps required to reach convergence heavily depends on the underlying
problem and cannot in general be bounded.
Additional cost is incurred if the Hamiltonian is not nearest-neighbor. In particular,
the number of additional blocks that need to be included when computing the effective
Hamiltonian at site $s$ depends on the number of Hamiltonian terms that couples sites
$p < s$ and $q \geq s$. Therefore, the scaling depends crucially on details of the
Hamiltonian. In a simple case, such as periodic boundary conditions leading to a single
additional term between the left and the right end of the system, the additional cost is
constant, while in the most general case of coupling between all sites an additional
factor $N^2$ could be incurred.
In contrast to conventional DMRG algorithms, the performance can be improved
significantly by blocking a group of $n_b$ sites together.
To understand this, consider a system of $N$ sites with $p$ Majorana modes on each site, and a GFMPS description with
Majorana bond number $\chi$.
In this case, the matrices of the MPS will be of size $(2\chi + p) \times (2\chi + p)$, and
the computational cost of a sweep will scale as $L (2\chi + p)^3$.
If we group $n_b$ sites into one, we instead obtain a scaling of $(L/n_b) (2\chi + n_b p)^3$.
In general, one has $\chi \gg p$, and optimal performance will be achieved for $n_b > 1$.
For local Hamiltonians, the optimal choice is $n_b = \chi/2$. For non-local Hamiltonians,
an additional advantage can arise because the Hamiltonian may become less long-ranged
if sites are blocked together.
Finally, in the discussion so far we have considered general Gaussian states rather than
states with a fixed particle number. In principle, Gaussian states with fixed
particle number can be described by matrices that are smaller by a factor of two, thus
potentially leading to a speedup of order $2^3$.
We will perform a more detailed analysis of the performance for specific models in
Sec.~\ref{sec:runtime}.
\subsection{TDVP}
The time-dependent variational principle (TDVP) can be adapted
to use MPS~\cite{haegeman2011} as variational manifold to approximately solve
the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation both in real and imaginary time.
In Ref.~\onlinecite{haegeman2016}, it is shown that TDVP can be re-formulated as a
modification of the DMRG method, with only a few modifications. In the following,
we discuss how to modify the GFDMRG algorithm described above to obtain TDVP
for GFMPS following the recipe of Ref.~\onlinecite{haegeman2016}.
To perform the evolution for some sufficiently small timestep $t$
(where real time evolution corresponds to real $t$, and imaginary time evolution to $t=i\tau$, $\tau>0$),
the steps 2, 3, and 4 in \emph{(ii) Right-sweep} are replaced by the following sequence:
steps :
\begin{enumerate}
\item[2a.]
Evolve $\gamma^{\hat s}$ under $H^{\hat s,\hat s}$ for time $t$. \item[3a.]
Perform Step (I) of the elementary move to bring $\gamma^{\hat s}$ into left-canonical form, see Sec.~\ref{sec:canform} and Fig.~\ref{fig:can-form-elem-move}, i.e. bring $\gamma^{\hat s}$ into left-canonical form $\hat\gamma^{\hat s}$ by splitting off the SVD $\Lambda$, but do not absorb $\Lambda$ in $\gamma^{\hat s+1}$ yet.
\item[4.] (Re-)compute $\mathcal B^{\hat s+1}_\blacktriangleright$, using the new (left-canonical) $\hat \gamma^{\hat s}$. (Since $\mathcal B^{\hat s+1}$ does not depend on $\gamma^{\hat s+1}$, this is already the correct $\mathcal B^{\hat s+1}$.)
\item[2b.] Compute the effective Hamiltonian $H_\Lambda$ for $\Lambda$, which describes the dependence of the energy on $\Lambda$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Heff-Lambda}
H_\Lambda=\begin{pmatrix}
A^{\hat s+1}_\blacktriangleright & B^{\hat s+1}_\blacktriangleright \gamma_{pl}^{\hat s+1} \\
{-(B^{\hat s+1}_\blacktriangleright\gamma_{pl}^{\hat s+1})}^\tr & A^{\hat s}_\blacktriangleleft
\end{pmatrix}\ ,
\end{equation}
and evolve $\Lambda$ with $H_\Lambda$ for time $-t$.
\item[3b.] Absorb the evolved $\Lambda$ into $\gamma^{\hat s+1}$.
\end{enumerate}
A core ingredient, used in Step 2a and 2b, is to evolve a state $\rho$ with covariance matrix $\Gamma$ with a
time-independent Hamiltonian $\mathcal H = \mathrm{i} \sum H_{ij} c_i c_j$ either in real or imaginary time.
In the covariance matrix formalism, the Schr\"odinger equation in real time takes the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:time-evol-cm}
\Gamma(0)\mapsto \Gamma(t)=O(t)\Gamma(0)O(t)^\tr\ ,
\end{equation}
with $O(t)=\exp(4Ht)$~\footnote{This can be shown by observing that Eq.~\eqref{eq:time-evol-cm} is equivalent to
$c_k(t)=\sum O(t)_{kl} c_l(0)$ and thus $\dot c_k = 4\sum H_{kl} c_l$, and on the other hand comparing it
with the evolution $\dot c_k = \mathrm{i}[\mathcal H,c_k]$ of $c_k$ in the
Heisenberg picture.}.
For imaginary time, this is replaced by integrating~\cite{kraus2010-ghf}
\begin{equation}
\dot\Gamma(t) = -4(H+\Gamma(t)H\,\Gamma(t))\ .
\end{equation}
For details on the implementation, such as the optimal choice of
time discretization as well as the generalization to a two-site version of
the algorithm that allows a dynamical choice of the bond dimension, we
refer the reader to Ref.~\cite{haegeman2016}. Note that in the case where
$t\to\mathrm{i}\:\infty$, we recover the DMRG algorithm.
\subsection{Infinite systems}
It was already pointed out in Ref.~\onlinecite{white1992} that DMRG is in
principle suitable for infinite systems. While this approach initially
enjoyed some success, for a long time DMRG for finite systems was
considered more accurate. More recently, however, DMRG for infinite
systems has been reinterpreted in the language of matrix product states,
which has allowed for accurate and efficient methods for infinite,
translationally invariant MPS to be
developed~\cite{mcculloch2008infinite,crosswhite2008,vanderstraeten2019,schollwoeck2011}.
The underlying idea of this reinterpretation is to consider an MPS made up
of a unit cell of $K$ sites that repeats indefinitely; in the simplest
case, $K=1$, the tensor is the same on each site of the lattice. It turns
out that most MPS algorithms can be generalized to such an infinite,
translationally invariant ansatz by reformulating them in terms of
eigenvectors of transfer operators along the MPS.
While non-interacting systems can be solved directly in the thermodynamic
limit by expressing the problem in momentum space,
such an approach may scale unfavorably with the number of sites in the unit cell and
does not give access to real-space correlation functions without solving for all
momenta and transforming back to real space. Therefore, for a large number of sites
in the unit cell, a GFMPS approach directly in the thermodynamic limit will be
advantageous.
To illustrate how GFMPS can be generalized to the infinite
case, we will limit ourselves to the iDMRG algorithm, and
restrict the discussion to the aspects which need to adapted in the GFMPS
case. However, similar generalizations are also possible for other
infinite MPS methods, such as VUMPS~\cite{vanderstraeten2019}.
We begin by briefly reviewing the conventional iDMRG algorithm of Ref.~\onlinecite{white1992}, where we specialize to the case of a two-site Hamiltonian $H$. Our description follows closely Ref.~\onlinecite{schollwoeck2011}, which we refer to for details. The algorithm proceeds in the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute the covariance matrix $\Gamma^{n=1}$ corresponding to the ground state of $H$ on two sites, and perform an SVD such that $\Gamma$ is given as the contraction of three tensors $A^n$, $\Lambda^n$ and $B^n$, where $A^n$ and $B^n$ are left- and right-canonical MPS tensors, respectively.
\item Extend the lattice by two sites in the middle and consider an MPS where the tensor immediately to the left (right) of the newly inserted sites is given by $A^n$ ($B^n$). Follow the steps outlined in Sec.~\ref{sec:optim}, especially Eqns.~\eqref{eq:ham:locham-update-rule}-\eqref{eqn:Hss} (adapted for two center sites), to obtain the effective Hamiltonian for the two sites newly added in the center. Use Eqns.~\eqref{eq:E-left},\eqref{eq:E-right} to obtain the constant part of the energy.
\item Find the ground state $\Gamma^{n+1}$ of this new effective Hamiltonian and again perform a singular value decomposition to obtain $A^{n+1}$, $\Lambda^{n+1}$ and $B^{n+1}$. Return to step (2).
\end{enumerate}
All of the steps outlined here can be performed using techniques already discussed. Note that this approach effectively simulates a finite system of length $2n$, where $n$ is the number of iterations performed. The energy obtained as the sum of the constant term and the effective Hamiltonian for the center sites is variational for this system of $2n$ sites. One generally finds that for sufficiently large $n$, the tensors converge.
One can now take the tensors obtained in the last step, and use them to form an infinite, translationally invariant MPS~\cite{mcculloch2008infinite,schollwoeck2011}. Let $A^n$, $\Lambda^n$, and $B^n$ be the tensors obtained in the last iteration of the infinite DMRG algorithm, and $\Lambda^{n-1}$ the central tensor from the previous iteration. We then define, analogous to Ref.~\onlinecite{vidal2007tebd},
\begin{align}
\Gamma^A &= \left( \Lambda^{n-1} \right)^{-1} \contr A^n &\lambda^A &= \Lambda^n \\
\Gamma^B &= A^n \contr \left( \Lambda^{n-1} \right)^{-1} &\lambda^B &= \Lambda^{n-1}.
\end{align}
(In the following, we use the notation $A\contr B$ to denote the contraction of
tensors; which indices are to be contracted follows from the structure of
the tensor network.)
Here, $\Lambda^{-1}$ denotes a square rank-2 tensor such that $\Lambda
\contr \Lambda^{-1}$ yields the maximally entangled state between the two
sets of modes. From the SVD, $\Lambda$ is of the form $\Lambda = \bigoplus
W(\lambda_k)$ (see Eq.~\eqref{eq:gaussian-schmidt-Sblock}); for a tensor
of this form, the inverse of this sense is given by exchanging the left
and right modes (i.e., mapping $\lambda_k\to-\lambda_k$). This can be verified explicitly using
Eqn.~\eqref{eq:contraction:schur}.
If the state is well-converged and the bond dimension large enough,
$\gamma^{L,1}=\lambda^B \contr \Gamma^A \contr \lambda^A \contr \Gamma^B$
and $\gamma^{L,2} = \lambda^A \contr \Gamma^B
\contr \lambda^B \contr \Gamma^A$ will be approximately left-canonical,
and $\gamma^{R,1}=\Gamma^A \contr \lambda^A \contr \Gamma^B \contr
\lambda^B$ and $\gamma^{R,2}=\Gamma^B \contr \lambda^B \contr \Gamma^A
\contr \lambda^A$ will be approximately right-canonical.
Expectation values of local
observables, such as the energy on a bond,
can be obtained from the observation that the reduced density
matrix for the two-site unit cell AB is given by $\left(\lambda^B \contr
\Gamma^A \contr \lambda^A \contr \Gamma^B \contr \lambda^B \right)_{p^A
p^B | p^A p^B}$, where the physical indices in the subscript refer to the
physical indices of $\Gamma^A$ and $\Gamma^B$.
Note that for the average energy, one must compute the energy for the AB and BA
unit cells separately and average.
\section{Numerical results}
\label{sec:numerics}
Below we test our numerical implementation of the algorithms presented in the previous sections for three relevant
cases: We first study a one-dimensional system that exhibits non-trivial spatial correlation functions, but can be exactly solved, thus
providing a simple comparison. Then we turn to a two-dimensional system, which we solve on quasi-two-dimensional cylinder
geometries, to assess how accurately our approach works beyond a strictly one-dimensional system and when
it performs better than exact approaches.
Finally, we study charge transport through a quantum point contact in a simple geometry at finite bias voltage
to demonstrate the capability of TDVP to compute dynamical properties of nanostructures.
While the models discussed in this section preserve particle number, we use the Majorana formalism described
throughout this manuscript without exploiting particle number conservation.
\subsection{The resonant level model}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{figs/RLM_corr}
\caption{Rescaled real-space correlation function $\langle d^\dagger c_r
\rangle$ of the ground state of Eqn.~\eqref{eqn:HRLM} as a function of
(rescaled) distance $r \cdot J'^2$. Other parameters are $J'=0.05J$ and
the number of sites per block $n_b=\chi/2$ (see
Sec.~\ref{sec:GFDMRG-scaling}). $\chi$ denotes the maximum
Majorana bond number, and $L$ is the size of the system including the
impurity. Dashed lines indicate a fit to the exact
solution~\eqref{eqn:Cr}. \label{fig:RLM} }
\end{figure}
First, we consider a one-dimensional system which still exhibits non-trivial real-space correlation functions:
the resonant-level model, which appears as the non-interacting limit of a number of
impurity models (see, e.g., Refs.~\onlinecite{anderson1961,toulouse1970,schlottmann1980,filyov1981}).
Here, we follow the discussion of Ref.~\onlinecite{ghosh2014}. We consider a fermionic impurity with a corresponding
creation operator $d^\dagger$ coupled to a bath of fermions, which here is represented by a periodic chain of $L$
fermions with associated creation operators $c_i^\dagger$. The Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eqn:HRLM}
H &=& J' \left( d^\dagger c_1 + c_1^\dagger d \right) + J T_{\rm chain} \\
T_{\rm chain} &=& \sum_i^{L-1} \left( c_i^\dagger c_{i+1} + c_{i+1}^\dagger c_i \right) + \left( c_L^\dagger c_1 + c_1^\dagger c_L \right)
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $T$ is the kinetic energy operator on the chain and $J$ sets the bandwidth; we set the unit of energy to $J=1$ and fix the system to half filling, leaving $J'$ as the only free parameter aside from system size.
The quantity of interest is the correlation between the impurity site and the sites in the bath, $C(r) = \langle d^\dagger c_r \rangle / J'$.
Owing to the non-interacting nature of the problem, this correlation function can be computed exactly in the thermodynamic limit (assuming a constant density of
states around the Fermi energy)
and at zero temperature is found to be given by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eqn:Cr}
C(r) &=& A f(B J'^2 r) \\
f(\kappa) &=& -\pi \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx \frac{x \cos(\kappa x) + \sin(\kappa x)}{(x^2+1)(1+\delta(x))}.
\end{eqnarray}
The constants $A$ and $B$ are independent of $L$ and $J'$, but depend on the microscopic choice for the bath such as the Fermi velocity and density of states at the Fermi energy,
and are taken as fit parameters here; however, they can be computed exactly for certain choices of the bath~\cite{ghosh2014}.
The relevant universal behavior is that $C(r)$ shows a characteristic crossover from short-distance to long-distance
behavior around $\kappa = B J'^2 r \approx 1$; for $\kappa \ll 1$, $f(\kappa) \sim \ln(\kappa) + \gamma$, while for $\kappa \gg 1$,
$f(\kappa) \sim 1/\kappa$.
In the previous literature, this crossover was illustrated by collapsing many datasets for different values of $J'$, each covering a different
range of $\kappa$. Since we are able to study systems almost three orders of magnitude larger than previously possible, we can exhibit the full scaling form
in a \emph{single} dataset. This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:RLM}.
Here, $\chi$ denotes the maximum number of Majorana modes on the bonds of the MPS. This corresponds to a conventional bond dimension
of $D(\chi)=\sqrt{2}^\chi$; for $\chi=80$, this works out to $D \approx 10^{12}$, and for $\chi=100$ to $D \approx 10^{15}$. The dashed
line indicates the exact solution of Eqn.~\eqref{eqn:Cr} with $A$, $B$ chosen as best fit to the MPS data. We see that agreement is essentially
exact up to the largest distances, which are weakly affected by finite-size effects.
\subsection{Quasi-two-dimensional systems}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{figs/lattice-figure0}
\caption{Lattice used to define the 2d Hamiltonian Eqn.~\eqref{eqn:H2d}. Solid lines indicate bonds with strength $t$, and dashed
lines indicate bonds with strength $t'$. For $t'=t$, the square lattice is recovered, while for $t'=0$ the brickwall representation of the
honeycomb lattice is obtained. The dotted lines indicate periodic boundary conditions in one direction, effectively wrapping
the system onto a cylinder.}
\label{fig:lattice}
\end{figure}
For a more challenging test, we turn to a model of spinless fermions hopping on a two-dimensional lattice,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:H2d}
H_{\rm hop} = - \sum t_{xy}^{x'y'} \left( c_{xy}^\dagger c_{x'y'} + c_{x'y'}^\dagger c_{xy} \right)
\end{equation}
where $c_{xy}^\dagger$ creates a fermion on the $x$'th ($y$'th) site in the horizontal (vertical) direction, and
the hopping elements $t_{xy}^{x'y'}$ are chosen to give rise to the brickwall lattice as sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:lattice}.
There are three particular limits of this model that we are interested in: (1) The limit where $t'=t$, where the system simply becomes
the square lattice; (2) the limit of $t'=0$, where it becomes the brickwall lattice, whose connectivity equals that of the honeycomb lattice;
and (3) the limit of $t=0$, where it becomes a lattice of isolated dimers.
From the point of view of a matrix-product state description, the most relevant property of the system is its entanglement structure,
which differs significantly between these three limits. Most easily understood is the case of isolated dimers: in this case, the spectrum
is fully gapped with a gap of $2t$, and there is only entanglement between the sites that together form a dimer, and no entanglement
(or correlations) otherwise. The state thus has a very simple MPS description. Upon adding the $t$ term and interpolating to
the square lattice limit $t=t'$, the gap decreases and finally the system becomes gapless at $t=t'$. Correspondingly, the entanglement
increases. The square lattice hosts a gapless state with one-dimensional Fermi surface. This leads to a logarithmic
violation of the area law~\cite{wolf2006,gioev2006,barthel2006,li2006} and thus represents the most difficult case for a tensor network state approach. Finally, in the
case of the brickwall/honeycomb lattice, the system is gapless, but with Dirac points instead of Fermi surfaces.
In this limit, the entanglement follows an area law despite the gapless nature of the system.
In the following, we will focus on the case of the honeycomb/brickwall lattice, and defer a discussion of the
other cases to Appendix~\ref{app:squarelimits}.
Due to the area law in the honeycomb/brickwall case, the maximum entropy that must be captured in the MPS
scales linearly in its width $W$. We therefore choose $\chi$ proportional to the width of the system $W$.
For the numerical simulations using DMRG methods, we study this lattice on cylinders of circumference $W$ and length $L$, i.e.
with a total of $W \cdot L$ sites. We map the sites to a chain following each rung (of length $W$) from bottom to top. We have found that the
single-site and two-site optimization algorithm generally lead to comparable results, and thus use the single-site algorithm
throughout. We perform at least 5 sweeps and terminate when the absolute change in energy between sweeps drops below $10^{-3}$.
\subsubsection{Convergence of real-space correlation functions}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{figs/honeycomb_correlations}
\caption{Real-space correlation functions for the ground state of Eqn.~\eqref{eqn:H2d} with $t=1$, $t'=0$.
Correlations are shown between two sites of the same (odd) vertical position and different horizontal
positions, i.e. probing the decay of correlations along the cylinder.
These results are obtained using the single-site optimization algorithm with $W$ sites blocked into one
for systems of aspect ratio 10, i.e. $L=10W$. Exact results are obtained from a full diagonalization of the
same system.}
\label{fig:honeycombcorr}
\end{figure}
To characterize how well the MPS ground state approximates the exact one, we study the real-space
correlations. Fig.~\ref{fig:honeycombcorr} shows the decay of the equal-time Green's function
along the long direction of the cylinder in the limit of a brickwall/honeycomb lattice, $t'=0$.
Here, we scale the Majorana bond number with the width of the cylinder, showing $\chi = 2W,4W,6W$.
This choice is motivated by the area law.
It is well-known that for finite bond dimension, correlations in an MPS decay exponentially at
sufficiently long distances~\cite{fannes1992}. At shorter distances, the correlations can approximate
a polynomial decay. This is clearly borne out in the data of Fig.~\ref{fig:honeycombcorr}: for small
Majorana bond number $\chi$, the correlations exhibit an artificial and unphysical exponential decay, while for
sufficiently large $\chi$ the exact polynomial decay $\mathcal{O}(1/l)$ is recovered to
high accuracy.
\subsubsection{Performance comparison against exact methods}
\label{sec:runtime}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{figs/honeycomb_scaling}
\caption{Run time to a converged solution for the ground state of Eqn.~\eqref{eqn:H2d} with $t=1$, $t'=0$
for aspect ratio $L=20W$, i.e. the largest system has $60^2 \cdot 20 = 72{,}000$ sites. The dashed
line indicates a best fit of the GFMPS data for $\chi/W=6$ to $aW^4$, with $a$ a fit parameter,
and the dotted line is a best fit of the exact method to $aW^6$.
These simulations are performed on 4 cores of an Intel(R) Xeon(R) E5-2690 v3 @ 2.60GHz.}
\label{fig:scaling}
\end{figure}
We now examine the runtime of the MPS algorithm for quasi-one-dimensional systems compared to
exact, full diagonalization methods. Of course absolute run-times
are implementation-specific and, in particular in the case of MPS methods, may depend sensitively
on details such as the choice of initial states, convergence criterion and many others. More pertinent
is therefore an analysis of the scaling of the method.
Exact methods based on fully diagonalizing the hopping matrix of the underlying problem will scale
as the cube of the matrix size, i.e. in the case at hand as $\mathcal{O}(W^3 L^3)$. Estimating the
cost of the MPS method is more challenging since in general, we cannot make any strong assertions on the
convergence with the number of sweeps~\footnote{See Ref.~\onlinecite{landau2015polynomial} for an
MPS-based variational method where convergence can be guaranteed in certain cases.} or the bond dimension.
However, we can quantify the cost of a single sweep for fixed bond
dimension. As stated in Sec.~\ref{sec:GFDMRG-scaling},
the cost is $(N/n_b) (2\chi+n_b p)^3 D$, where $N$ is the number of sites, $p$ the number of Majorana
modes per site, $n_b$ the number of physical sites that are grouped into one site of the MPS,
$\chi$ the Majorana bond number, and $D$ the number of operators that must be tracked to accomodate
long-range hopping terms, which depends on the details of the Hamiltonian and $n_b$.
For the case of a quasi-1d system at hand, as we have
seen above, to achieve fixed accuracy we scale $\chi \sim W$, and block a number of sites $n_b = \chi/2$
for optimal performance; therefore, $n_b \sim W$. For this case, it turns out that $D$ is a constant
independent of $W$. Therefore, the overall scaling becomes $L W^3$. For the case where we fix
the aspect ratio, $L \sim W$, we thus
obtain a scaling of $\mathcal{O}(W^6)$ for the exact methods and $\mathcal{O}(W^4)$ for the MPS method.
The memory usage of the exact method scales as $(WL)^2$, while the GFMPS approach scales as
$(WL/n_b)(2\chi+n_bp)^2$. For the choices made above ($W \sim L,\chi,n_b$), this leads to the exact
method scaling as $W^4$ and the GFMPS approach scaling as $W^3$. In practice, given our choice
of aspect ratio, the memory requirements of the exact approach are much greater than the GFMPS
approach, and turn out to be the limiting factor.
We numerically confirm the scaling of the runtime in Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling}, where we show the
time to achieve a converged solution instead of the time to perform a single sweep. The GFMPS
approach shows polynomial scaling consistent with $W^4$ across a range of bond dimensions. This
is consistent with the empirical expectation that the number of sweeps scales at most very weakly
with the size of the system.
For the parameters chosen here and our implementation, the crossover where the GFMPS method
becomes faster than exact approaches is around $W=14$. This is most strongly influenced by
the aspect ratio: upon approaching the one-dimensional limit, the GFMPS approach will
become more and more favorable.
\subsection{Transport through a quantum point contact}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/conductance_quantization}
\caption{GFMPS simulation of the quantized conductance across a Gaussian potential barrier of height $V_B$ in a $W \times 500$ system. For details, see main text.}
\label{fig:conductance}
\end{figure}
To illustrate the power of the time-dependent variational principle applied to GFMPS, we study a simple
transport problem, namely the quantization of conductance through a quantum point contact in a multi-channel
wire~\cite{nazarov2009quantum}. We model the system as a square lattice of
spinless fermions of size $W \times L$, i.e.\
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lattice} with hopping Hamiltonian~\eqref{eqn:H2d} for $t'=t=1$ . We add an
on-site potential
\begin{equation}
H_{\rm pot} = \sum \left[ -\mu_0 + V_B \exp\left( -\frac{(x-L/2)^2}{d^2} \right) \right] n_{xy}
\end{equation}
where $n_{xy} = c_{xy}^\dagger c_{xy}$. This corresponds to a Gaussian potential barrier of height $V_B$
and width $d$ at the center of the system in $x$ direction, and independent of $y$.
We initialize the system in the ground state of $H_{\rm hop} + H_{\rm pot}$ using the single-site
DMRG algorithm and then apply a voltage $V$ by evolving under the Hamiltonian
$H_{\rm hop} + H_{\rm pot} + H_{\rm bias}$ with
\begin{equation}
H_{\rm bias} = \frac{V}{2} \sum_y \left( \sum_{x=1}^{L/2-4d} n_{xy} - \sum_{x=L/2+4d}^L n_{xy} \right).
\end{equation}
Here, we use the sites that are more than $4d$ away from the center of the barrier as leads and
apply a symmetric bias voltage, and consider the region between the leads as the quantum point contact.
We then meausure the charge in the left half of the system, $N_{\rm left} = \sum_y \sum_{x=1}^{L/2} c_{xy}^\dagger c_{xy}$,
as a function of time. Due to conservation of charge, we can compute the current flowing across the junction as $J(t)=dN_{\rm left}/dt$.
Alternatively, we could evaluate the charge operator across the junction.
After a transient time of order $d$, the current settles to a plateau value that will last until the charge transport
reaches the end of the leads after a time of order $L$. We compute the average current $\bar{J}$ over this plateau, and define the
conductance as $G = \bar{J}/V$. According to well-known theoretical calculations, in the limit of a smooth barrier the conductance
should be quantized as $G = N G_0/2$, where $N$ is the number of conducting \emph{spin} channels (i.e., for a usual spin-degenerate
system, $N=2K$ with $K$ the number of spinful channels, but here we consider a spinless system) and $G_0 = 2e^2/h$.
We use units where $e = \hbar = 1$, and thus $G_0 = 1/\pi$.
For $V_B=0$, we expect the system to have $W$ conducting channels and thus $G=W G_0/2$; as we increase the barrier height,
the number of channels is reduced one by one as the lowest-momentum channels are cut off first. We confirm this behavior in
Fig.~\ref{fig:conductance} for a system with $W=4$, $L=500$, $d=10$, and applied bias voltage $V=0.1$.
Our simulations are performed with a GFMPS of Majorana bond number $\chi=50$ and with $n_b = W$, and TDVP is run with a timestep of $dt=0.05$.
We also note that since the Hamiltonian is
time-independent after the quench, a time $t$ can be reached in one step for exact simulations while requiring $t/dt$ steps in TDVP;
however, one can easily generalize the TDVP simulation to a time-dependent Hamiltonian, as would arise for example when
computing the ac conductance, without incurring additional computational cost.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we have studied how to apply the DMRG algorithm and other MPS-based
algorithms to the simulation of systems of non-interacting
fermions. By combining the advantages of the exponentially compressed description
of non-interacting fermionic states in terms of second moments and the
efficient description of states with bounded (area-law) entanglement
through Matrix Product States, we were able to simulate systems far
beyond what is possible with either method alone. The central insight of
our GFDMRG algorithm is the use of a suitable canonical form, which allows
to express the minimization of the energy as a function of a given tensor
as an eigenvalue problem, much like in conventional DMRG. This enabled us
to realize the variational algorithm for non-interacting fermions in close
analogy to the conventional MPS-based formulation of DMRG, as well as to
generalize the method to other MPS-based algorithms such as TDVP for
time evolution or iDMRG for infinite systems.
The computational cost of the GFDMRG method scales as $L\chi^3$ per sweep,
with $L$ the length of the chain and $\chi$ the number of modes per bond.
Due to the exponential compression of the representation in terms of
second moments, the effective bond dimension is $D=2^{\chi/2}$. This
allows us to simulate even systems with an amount of entanglement that grows
faster than an area law, such as a Fermi surface or states after a quantum
quench, efficiently and to high accuracy for
very large system sizes. We have demonstrated the power of our method for
both one-dimensional and quasi-2D systems, and obtained results for up to
one million lattice sites and effective bond dimensions of $10^{15}$.
An interesting follow-up question is how to generalize the method to
two-dimensional systems using Projected Entangled Pair States (PEPS). A
key point to be addressed is that in our 1D algorithm, the canonical form
serves a more central role than in conventional MPS simulations: While in
the latter case, the canonical form is primarily used to stabilize the
method, in our case it is the key ingredient which allows us to express
the dependence of the energy on a tensor as an eigenvalue problem in the
first place. Therefore, generalizing the method to 2D requires either to
understand how to solve the energy optimization problem without using a
canonical form, or consider more specialized two-dimensional tensor networks
that have a canonical form.
\acknowledgements
NS acknowledges support by the European Research Council (ERC) under the
European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme through
the ERC Starting Grant WASCOSYS (No.~636201), and by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Germany's Excellence Strategy (EXC-2111
-- 390814868).
|
\section{Introduction}
Image registration is essential for medical image analysis methods, where corresponding anatomical structures in two
or more images need to be spatially aligned. The misalignment often occurs in images from the same structure between
different imaging modalities (CT, SPECT, MRI) or during the acquisition of dynamic time series (2D+t, 4D).
An overview of registration methods and their different categories is given in \cite{sotiras2013}.
In this work, we will focus on parametric transformation models in combination with learning-based registration methods.
There are mainly two major classes of transformation models used in medical image registration.
The first class are the non-parametric transformation models or so-called optical-flow \cite{horn1981}. Here, the transformation of each
pixel in the image is directly estimated (Figure~\ref{fig::transformationModels}a).
The second class of models are the parametric transformation models (Figure~\ref{fig::transformationModels}b). Parametric
transformation models approximate the transformation between both images with a set of fixed basis functions
(e.g. Gaussian, B-spline) among a fixed grid of the image domain \cite{Rueckert1999, Vishnevskiy2017, Jud2016a, Jud2016b}.
These models reduce the number of free parameters for the optimization, but restrict the space of admissible
transformations. Both transformation models have advantages and disadvantages. The non-parametric models allow preservation
of local discontinuities of the transformation, while the parametric models
achieve a global smoothness if the chosen basis function is smooth.
Although the computation time for the registration has been reduced in the past, image registration is still computationally costly,
because a non-linear optimization problem needs to be solved for each pair of images.
In order to reduce the computation time and to increase the accuracy of the registration result, learning-based registration methods have been
recently introduced. As the registration is now separated in a training and an inference part, a major advantage in computation time for the registration is
achieved. A detailed overview of deep learning methods for image registration is given in \cite{Haskins2019}.
The FlowNet \cite{Dosovitskiy2015} uses a convolutional neural network (CNN) to learn the optical flow between two input images.
They trained their network in a supervised fashion using ground-truth transformations from synthetic data sets.
Based on the idea of the spatial transformer networks \cite{jaderberg2015}, unsupervised learning-based
registration methods were introduced \cite{deVos2017, Dalca2018, stergios2018, Hu2018}. All of these methods have in common that the output
of the network is directly the final transformation. In contrast, sequence-based methods do not estimate the final transformation in one step
but rather in a series of transformations based on observations of the previous transformation result. This process is iteratively continued until
the desired accuracy is achieved.
Applying a sequence of local or global deformations is inspired by how a human
would align two images by applying a sequence of local or global deformations. Sequence-based methods for rigid
\cite{liao2017artificial, miao2018dilated} and for deformable \cite{krebs2017robust} registration using
reinforcement learning methods were introduced in the past. However, the action space for deformable image registration can be very large
and the training of deep reinforcement learning methods is still very challenging.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.8]
\draw[rounded corners=1mm, fill=gray!20, very thick] (0,0) rectangle ++ (1.5,1.5) node [midway] {R2N2};
\draw[thick, <-] (0.75, 0) --++(0, -0.4) node[yshift=-0.2cm] {$(F, M \circ f_0)$};
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=2mm] (0.75, 1.5) --++(0, +0.5) --++(1.25, 0) -- ++(0, -3.25);
\node[] at (0.5, 2) {$g_1$};
\draw[thick] (0.5,-1.5) -- (4.5,-1.5);
\draw[thick] (5.8,-1.5) -- (9.5,-1.5);
\draw[rounded corners=1mm, fill=myGreen, very thick] (0.3,-2) rectangle ++ (0.9,0.9) node [midway] {$f_0$};
\draw[fill=myGreen, opacity=1, thick] (2, -1.5)circle (0.25cm) node (a) {$+$};
\node[xshift=2cm] at (0.5, 2) {$g_2$};
\draw[rounded corners=1mm, fill=gray!20, very thick] (2.5,0) rectangle ++ (1.5,1.5) node [midway] {R2N2};
\draw[thick, <-] (3.25, 0) --++(0, -0.4) node[yshift=-0.2cm] {$(F, M \circ f_1)$};
\draw[rounded corners=1mm, fill=myGreen, very thick] (2.8,-2) rectangle ++ (0.9,0.9) node [midway] {$f_1$};
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=2mm, xshift=2.5cm] (0.75, 1.5) --++(0, +0.5) --++(1.25, 0) -- ++(0, -3.25);
\draw[fill=myGreen, opacity=1, thick, xshift=2.5cm] (2, -1.5)circle (0.25cm) node (a) {$+$};
\draw[rounded corners=1mm, fill=gray!20, very thick, xshift=3.5cm] (2.5,0) rectangle ++ (1.5,1.5) node [midway] {R2N2};
\node[xshift=4.8cm] at (0.5, 2) {$g_t$};
\draw[rounded corners=1mm, fill=myGreen, very thick, xshift=3.5cm] (2.8,-2) rectangle ++ (0.9,0.9) node [midway] {$f_{t-1}$};
\draw[thick, <-, xshift=6cm] (0.75, 0) --++(0, -0.4) node[yshift=-0.2cm, xshift=-0.2cm] {$(F, M \circ f_{t-1})$};
\draw[rounded corners=1mm, fill=myGreen, very thick, xshift=5.7cm] (3,-2) rectangle ++ (0.9,0.9) node [midway] {$f_t$};
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=2mm, xshift=6cm] (0.75, 1.5) --++(0, +0.5) --++(1.25, 0) -- ++(0, -3.25);
\draw[fill=myGreen, opacity=1, thick, xshift=6cm] (2, -1.5)circle (0.25cm) node (a) {$+$};
\draw[fill=myGreen, opacity=1, thick, xshift=3.6cm] (2, -1.5)circle (0.25cm) node (a) {$+$};
\node[] at(5.1, 0.75) {$\cdots$};
\node[] at(5.1, -1.5) {$\cdots$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Sequence-based registration process for pairwise deformable image registration of a fixed image $F$ and a moving image $M$.}
\label{fig::r2nn}
\end{figure}
In this work, we present the \emph{Recurrent Registration Neural Network} (R2N2), a novel sequence-based registration method for deformable image registration.
Figure \ref{fig::r2nn} shows the registration process with the R2N2.
Instead of learning the transformation as a whole, we iteratively apply a network to detect local differences
between two images and determine how to align them using a parameterized local deformation. Modeling the final transformation
of interest as a sequence of local parametric transformations
instead of a fixed set of basis functions enables our method to extend the space of admissible transformations,
and to achieve a global smoothness. Furthermore, we are able to achieve a compact representation of the final transformation.
As we define the resulting transformation as a recursive sequence of local transformations,
we base our architecture on recurrent neural networks.
To the best of our knowledge, recurrent neural networks are not used before for deformable image registration.
\section{Background}
Given two images that need to be aligned, the fixed image ${F : \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}} \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and the moving image ${M : \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}} \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$
on the image domain $ \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}} \subset \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^d$, the pairwise registration problem can be defined as a regularized minimization problem
\begin{equation}
f^* = \argmin_{f} \mathcal{S}[F, M \circ f] + \lambda \mathcal{R}[{f}].
\label{eq::regMinFunc}
\end{equation}
Here, ${f^*:\mathcal{X} \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^d}$ is the transformation of interest and a minimizer of \eqref{eq::regMinFunc}.
The image loss ${\mathcal{S}: \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}} \times \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}} \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ determines the image similarity of $F$
and ${M \circ f}$, with ${(M \circ f) (x) = M(x + f(x))}$.
In order to restrict the transformation space by using prior knowledge of the transformation, a
regularization loss ${\mathcal{R}: \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^d \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and the regularization weight $\lambda$ are added to the optimization problem.
The regularizer is chosen
depending on the expected transformation characteristics (e.g. global smoothness or piece-wise smoothness).
\subsection{Transformation}
In order to optimize \eqref{eq::regMinFunc} a transformation model $f_{\theta}$ is needed.
The minimization problem then becomes
\begin{equation}
\theta^* = \argmin_{\theta} \mathcal{S}[F, M \circ f_{\theta}] + \lambda \mathcal{R}[{f_{\theta}}],
\label{eq::regMinFuncParam}
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ are the parameters of the transformation model.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[] at (0, 0) {\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[step=0.25,black, thick] (0,0) grid (3,3);
\foreach \x in {0, 0.25, ...,2.75}{
\foreach \y in {0,0.25,...,2.75}{
\draw[->, thick, red, line cap=round] (\x+0.125, \y+0.125) -- (\x + 0.4+rand*0.2, \y + 0.4+rand*0.2);
}}
\end{tikzpicture}};
\node[] at (0, -2.5) {(a) non-parametric};
\node[] at (4, 0) {\begin{tikzpicture}
\def\x,{1*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2))}{\x,{0.8*exp(-((\x)^2/0.2))}}
\def\x,{1*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.03))}{\x,{0.5*exp(-((\x-0.75)^2/0.2))}}
\def\x,{1*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.03))+1*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2))}{\x,{0.5*exp(-((\x-1.5)^2/0.2))}}
\draw[step=0.25,gray!50, thick] (0,0) grid (3,3);
\draw[step=0.75,black, thick] (0,0) grid (3,3);
\draw[color=blue,domain=0:3, yshift=3cm, thick, smooth] plot (\x,{1*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.03))}) node[right] {};
\draw[color=blue,domain=0:3, yshift=3cm, thick, smooth] plot (\x,{1*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.03))+1*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2))}) node[right] {};
\draw[color=blue,domain=0:3, yshift=0cm, thick, smooth, rotate=90] plot (\x,{1*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.03))}) node[right]{};
\draw[color=blue,domain=0:3, yshift=0cm, thick, smooth, rotate=90] plot (\x,{1*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.03))+1*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2))}) node[right]{};
\foreach \x in {0, 0.75, 1.5, 2.25, 3}{
\foreach \y in {0,0.75, 1.5, 2.25, 3}{
\draw[fill=blue, opacity=1] (\x, \y) circle (0.15cm);
\draw[->, thick, red, opacity=1, line cap=round] (\x, \y) -- (\x + 0.3 + rand*0.2, \y + 0.3 + rand*0.2);
}}
\end{tikzpicture}};
\node[] at (4, -2.5) {(b) parametric};
\node[] at (9, 0.25) {\begin{tikzpicture}
\def\x,{1*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2))}{\x,{1*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2))}}
\def\x,{1*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.03))}{\x,{1*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.03))}}
\def\x,{1*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.03))+1*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2))}{\x,{1*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.03))+1*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2))}}
\def\x,{0.8*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.3))}{\x,{0.8*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.3))}}
\def\x,{0.8*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2))}{\x,{0.8*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2))}}
\def\x,{0.8*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2)) + 0.8*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.3))}{\x,{0.8*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2)) + 0.8*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.3))}}
\draw[step=0.25,gray!50, fill=white, xshift=0.66cm, yshift=0.66cm, thick] (0,0) grid (3,3);
\draw[black, fill=none, xshift=0.66cm, yshift=0.66cm, thick] (0,0) rectangle ++ (3,3);
\draw [fill=white, xshift=0.33cm, yshift=0.33cm] (0,0) rectangle (3,3);
\draw[step=0.25,gray!50, fill=white, xshift=0.33cm, yshift=0.33cm, thick] (0,0) grid (3,3);
\draw[black, fill=none, xshift=0.33cm, yshift=0.33cm, thick] (0,0) rectangle ++ (3,3);
\draw [fill=white] (0,0) rectangle (3,3);
\draw[step=0.25,gray!50, fill=white, thick] (0,0) grid (3,3);
\draw[black, fill=none, thick] (0,0) rectangle ++ (3,3);
\draw[red, thick, rotate around={5:(1,1)}] (1,1) ellipse (0.2cm and 0.8cm);
\draw[blue, thick, rotate around={20:(2,2)}] (2,2) ellipse (0.5cm and 0.8cm);
\draw[fill=red, opacity=1] (1, 1) circle (0.15cm);
\draw[->, thick, red, opacity=1, line cap=round] (1, 1) -- (1 + 0.4 + rand*0.2, 1 + 0.4 + rand*0.2);
\draw[fill=blue, opacity=1] (2, 2) circle (0.15cm);
\draw[->, thick, red, opacity=1, line cap=round] (2, 2) -- (2 + 0.4 + rand*0.2, 2 + 0.4 + rand*0.2);
\draw[color=red,domain=0:3, yshift=3.66cm, xshift=0.66cm, thick, smooth] plot (\x,{1*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.03))}) node[right] {};
\draw[color=blue,domain=0:3, yshift=3.33cm, xshift=0.33cm, thick, smooth] plot (\x,{1*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2))}) node[right] {};
\draw[color=black,domain=0:3, yshift=3cm, thick, smooth] plot (\x,{1*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.03))+1*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2))}) node[right] {};
\draw[color=red,domain=0:3, yshift=3.66cm, xshift=3.66cm, thick, smooth, rotate=270] plot (\x,{0.8*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2))}) node[right] {};
\draw[color=blue,domain=0:3, yshift=3.33cm, xshift=3.33cm, thick, smooth, rotate=270] plot (\x,{0.8*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.3))}) node[right] {};
\draw[color=black,domain=0:3, yshift=3cm, xshift=3cm, thick, smooth, rotate=270] plot (\x,{0.8*exp(-((\x-2)^2/0.2)) + 0.8*exp(-((\x-1)^2/0.3))}) node[right] {};
\node[color=black] at (3.2, -0.1) {$f_T$};
\node[color=blue] at (4, 0.2) {$l(g_{T-1}^{\theta})$};
\node[color=red] at (4.5, 0.6) {$l(g_{T-2}^{\theta})$};
\end{tikzpicture}};
\node[] at (8.5, -2.5) {(c) proposed};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Non-parametric, parametric and proposed transformation models.}
\label{fig::transformationModels}
\end{figure*}
There are two major classes of transformation models used in image registration: parametric and non-parametric.
In the non-parametric case, the transformation at position $x$ in the image is defined by a displacement vector
\begin{equation}
f_{\theta}(x) = \theta_x,
\end{equation}
with $\theta_x = (\vartheta_1, \vartheta_2, \ldots, \vartheta_d) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^d$. For the parametric case the transformation at position $x$ is
normally defined in a smooth basis
\begin{equation}
f_{\theta}(x) = \sum_i^N \theta_i k(x, c_i).
\end{equation}
Here, ${\{c_i\}_{i=1}^N, c_i \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$ are the positions of the fixed regular grid points in the image domain, ${k: \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}} \times \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}} \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ the basis function, and $N$ the number of grid points.
The transformation between the control points $c_i$ is an interpolation
of the control point values $\theta_i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^d $ with the basis function $k$. An visualization
of a non-parametric and parametric transformation model is shown in Figure~\ref{fig::transformationModels}.
\subsection{Recurrent Neural Networks}
Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) are a class of neural networks designed for sequential data.
A simple RNN has the form
\begin{equation}
h_t = \phi(Wx_t + Uh_{t-1}),
\end{equation}
where $W$ is a weighting matrix of the input at time $t$, $U$ is the weight matrix of the last output at time $t-1$, and $\phi$ is an activation function like
the hyperbolic tangent or the logistic function. Since the output at time $t$ directly depends on the weighted previous output $h_{t-1}$,
RNNs are well suited for the detection of sequential information which is encoded in the sequence itself.
RNNs provide an elegant way of incorporating the whole previous sequence without adding a large
number of parameters.
Besides the advantage of RNNs for sequential data, there are some difficulties to address e.g.
the problem to learn long-term dependencies.
The long short-term memory (LSTM) architecture was introduced
in order to overcome these problems of the basic RNN \cite{Hochreiter1997}.
A variation of the LSTM, the gated recurrent unit (GRU) was presented by \cite{Cho2014}.
\section{Methods}
In the following, we will present our \emph{Recurrent Registration Neural Network} (R2N2) for the application of sequence-based pairwise medical
image registration of 2D images.
\subsection{Sequence-Based Image Registration}
Sequence-based registration methods do not estimate the final transformation in one step but rather in a series of local transformations.
The minimization problem for the sequence-based registration is given as
\begin{equation}
\theta^* = \argmin_{\theta} \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t = 1}^T\mathcal{S}[F, M \circ f_{t}^{\theta}] + \lambda \mathcal{R}[{f_T}].
\end{equation}
Compared to the registration problem \eqref{eq::regMinFuncParam} the transformation $f_{t}^{\theta}$
is now defined as a recursive function of the form
\begin{equation}
f_t^{\theta}(x, F, M) =\begin{cases} 0, & \text{if } t = 0,\\
f^{\theta}_{t-1} + l(x, g_{\theta}(F, M \circ f^{\theta}_{t-1})) & \text{else}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Here, $g_{\theta}$ is the function that outputs the parameter of the next local transformation given the two images $F$ and $M \circ f_{t}^{\theta}$.
In each time step $t$, a local transformation ${l: \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}} \times \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}\to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2}$ is computed and added to the transformation $f_t^{\theta}$.
After transforming the moving image $M$ with $f_t^{\theta}$, the result
is used as input for the next time step, in order to compute the next local transformation as shown in Figure~\ref{fig::r2nn}.
This procedure is repeated until both input images are aligned. We define a local transformation as a Gaussian function
\begin{equation}
l(x, \tilde{x}_t, \Gamma_t, v_t) = v_t \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}(x - \tilde{x}_t)^T\Sigma(\Gamma_t)^{-1}(x - \tilde{x}_t)\right),
\end{equation}
where ${\tilde{x}_t = (x_t, y_t) \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$ is the position, $v_t = (v_t^x, v_t^y) \in [-1, 1]^2$ the weight, and ${\Gamma_t = \{\sigma_t^x, \sigma_t^y, \alpha_t \}}$ the shape parameter with
\begin{equation}
\Sigma(\Gamma_t) = \begin{bmatrix} \cos(\alpha_t) & -\sin(\alpha_t) \\ \sin(\alpha_t) & \cos(\alpha_t) \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} \sigma_t^x & 0 \\ 0 & \sigma_t^y \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \cos(\alpha_t) & -\sin(\alpha_t) \\ \sin(\alpha_t) & \cos(\alpha_t)\end{bmatrix}^T.
\end{equation}
Here, ${\sigma_t^x, \sigma_t^y\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}}$ control the width
and ${\alpha_t \in [0, \pi]}$ the rotation of the Gaussian function. The output of $g_{\theta}$ is defined as ${g_{\theta} = \{\tilde{x}_t, \Gamma_t, v_t\}}$.
Compared to the parametric registration model shown in Figure~\ref{fig::transformationModels}b,
the position $\tilde{x}_t$ and shape $\Gamma_t$ of the basis functions are not fixed during the registration in our method (Figure \ref{fig::transformationModels}c).
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [fill=white, thick] (-0.8,-0.6) rectangle ++ (0.25,2) node [midway, rotate=90, align=center] {\tiny{\textsf{Fixed Image}}};
\draw [fill=white, thick] (-0.55,-0.6) rectangle ++ (0.25,2) node [midway, rotate=90, align=center] {\tiny{\textsf{Moving Image}}};
\draw [fill=white, thick] (-1.05,-0.6) rectangle ++ (0.25,2) node [midway, rotate=90, align=center] {\tiny{\textsf{Image Grid}}};
\draw [draw=none, thick, fill=none] (-1.3,-0.6) rectangle ++ (0.25,2) node [midway, rotate=90, align=center] {\tiny{\textsf{$256\times256\times4$}}};
\draw [fill=orange!30, thick] (0, -0.5) rectangle ++ (0.4, 1.8) node [midway, rotate=90] {\small{\textsf{K=7 S=2}}};
\draw [fill=blue!30, thick, yshift=-0.5cm] (0.4, 0) rectangle ++ (0.4, 1.8) node [midway, rotate=90] {\textsf{\scriptsize{tanh}}};
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=gray!20, thick] (1.3, -0.1) rectangle ++ (1.1, 1.1) node [midway, align=center] {\scriptsize{\textsf{GR2U}}\\\scriptsize{\RNum{1}}};
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=gray!20, thick] (1.3, -1.7) rectangle ++ (1.1, 1.1) node [midway, align=center] {\baselineskip=1pt \scriptsize{\textsf{Position}}
\\\baselineskip=1pt \scriptsize{\textsf{Network}}\\\scriptsize{\RNum{1}}\par};
\draw [fill=orange!30, thick] (2.9, -0.5) rectangle ++ (0.4, 1.8) node [midway, rotate=90] {\small{\textsf{K=3 S=2}}};
\draw [fill=blue!30, thick, yshift=-0.5cm] (3.3, 0) rectangle ++ (0.4, 1.8) node [midway, rotate=90] {\textsf{\scriptsize{tanh}}};
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=gray!20, thick] (4.2, -0.1) rectangle ++ (1.1, 1.1) node [midway, align=center] {\scriptsize{\textsf{GR2U}} \\\scriptsize{\RNum{2}}};
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=gray!20, thick] (4.2, -1.7) rectangle ++ (1.1, 1.1) node [midway, align=center] {\scriptsize{\textsf{Position}} \\\scriptsize{\textsf{Network}}\\\scriptsize{\RNum{2}}};
\draw [fill=orange!30, thick] (5.8, -0.5) rectangle ++ (0.4, 1.8) node [midway, rotate=90] {\small{\textsf{K=3 S=2}}};
\draw [fill=blue!30, thick, yshift=-0.5cm] (6.2, 0) rectangle ++ (0.4, 1.8) node [midway, rotate=90] {\textsf{\scriptsize{tanh}}};
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=gray!20, thick] (7.1, -0.1) rectangle ++ (1.1, 1.1) node [midway, align=center] {\scriptsize{\textsf{GR2U}}\\\scriptsize{\RNum{3}} };
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=gray!20, thick] (7.1, -1.7) rectangle ++ (1.1, 1.1) node [midway, align=center] {\scriptsize{\textsf{Position}} \\\scriptsize{\textsf{Network}} \\\scriptsize{\RNum{3}}};
\draw [fill=orange!30, thick] (8.7, -0.5) rectangle ++ (0.4, 1.8) node [midway, rotate=90] {\small{\textsf{K=1 S=1}}};
\draw [fill=blue!30, thick, yshift=-0.5cm] (9.1, 0) rectangle ++ (0.4, 1.8) node [midway, rotate=90] {\textsf{\scriptsize{tanh}}};
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=gray!20, thick] (10, -0.1) rectangle ++ (1.3, 1.1) node [midway, align=center] {\scriptsize{\textsf{Parameter}} \\ \scriptsize{\textsf{Network}}};
\draw [fill=myGreen, thick] (10.5, -2.7) rectangle ++ (0.5, 0.75) node [midway] {$\Sigma$};
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (-0.3, 0.5) -- ++(0.3, 0);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (0.8, 0.5) -- ++(0.5, 0);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (2.4, 0.5) -- ++(0.5, 0);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (3.7, 0.5) -- ++(0.5, 0);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (5.3, 0.5) -- ++(0.5, 0);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (6.6, 0.5) -- ++(0.5, 0);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (8.2, 0.5) -- ++(.5, 0);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (9.5, 0.5) -- ++(.5, 0);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (2.4, 0.5) -- ++(0.25, 0) --++(0, -0.75)--++(-0.75, 0) --++(0, -0.35);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (5.3, 0.5) -- ++(0.25, 0) --++(0, -0.75)--++(-0.75, 0) --++(0, -0.35);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (8.2, 0.5) -- ++(0.25, 0) --++(0, -0.75)--++(-0.75, 0) --++(0, -0.35);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (7.65, -1.7) -- ++(0, -0.4) -- ++(2.85, 0);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (4.75, -1.7) -- ++(0, -0.6) -- ++(5.75, 0);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (1.85, -1.7) -- ++(0, -0.8) -- ++(8.65, 0);
\draw[thick, ->] (11.3, 0.5) -- ++(0.3, 0) node[xshift=0.35cm] {$\begin{pmatrix}\sigma_t^x \\ \sigma_t ^y\\ v^x_t \\ v^y_t \\ \alpha_t\end{pmatrix}$};
\draw[thick, ->] (11, -2.3) -- ++(0.5, 0) node[xshift=0.35cm] {$\begin{pmatrix}x_t \\ y_t\end{pmatrix}$};
\node [] at (2.7, -2.3) {\tiny{$(x_t, y_t, w_t)_1$}};
\node [] at (5.6, -2.1) {\tiny{$(x_t, y_t, w_t)_2$}};
\node [] at (8.5, -1.9) {\tiny{$(x_t, y_t, w_t)_3$}};
\draw [fill=orange!30, thick] (-1, -1.5) rectangle ++ (2, 0.5) node [midway] {\tiny \textsf{Convolution Layer}};
\node [] at (-0.4, -0.86) {\tiny{\textsf{Input Channel}}};
\node [] at (0.35, -1.65) {\tiny{\textsf{Output Channel}}};
\node [] at (-0.4, -2) {\tiny{\textsf{K: Kernel Size}}};
\node [] at (-0.65, -2.3) {\tiny\textsf{{S: Stride}}};
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=none, dashed] (-1.2, -2.5) rectangle ++ (2.4, 1.8);
\node [rotate=90] at (-0.15, -0.45) {\tiny{4}};
\node [rotate=90] at (1, 1.25) {\tiny{64}};
\node [rotate=90, yshift=-2.9cm] at (-0.15, -0.45) {\tiny{64}};
\node [rotate=90, yshift=-2.9cm] at (1, 1.25) {\tiny{128}};
\node [rotate=90, yshift=-5.7cm] at (-0.1, -0.45) {\tiny{128}};
\node [rotate=90, yshift=-5.7cm] at (1.12, 1.35) {\tiny{256}};
\node [rotate=90, yshift=-8.6cm] at (-0.1, -0.45) {\tiny{256}};
\node [rotate=90, yshift=-8.6cm] at (1.12, 1.35) {\tiny{512}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Network architecture of the presented Recurrent Registration Neural Network.}
\label{fig:complete_network}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[] at (0.4, 1.4){
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=gray!20, thick] (-0.2, -3.3) rectangle ++ (4.6, 4.3);
\draw [fill=orange!30, thick] (0, 0) rectangle ++ (2, 0.4) node [midway] {\small{\textsf{K=1 S=1}}};
\draw [fill=orange!30, thick] (2.2, 0) rectangle ++ (2, 0.4) node [midway] {\small{\textsf{K=1 S=1}}};
\draw[thick, <-, rounded corners=0.1cm] (1, 0.4) -- ++(0, 0.3) -- ++(1.1, 0) -- ++(0, 0.5);
\draw[thick, <-, rounded corners=0.1cm] (3.2, 0.4) -- ++(0, 0.3) -- ++(-1.1, 0) -- ++(0, 0.5);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (1, 0) -- ++(0, -0.5);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (3.2, 0) -- ++(0, -0.5);
\draw [fill=orange!30, thick] (0, -0.9) rectangle ++ (2, 0.4) node [midway] {\textsf{\tiny{Spatial Softmax}}};
\draw [fill=orange!30, thick] (2.2, -0.9) rectangle ++ (2, 0.4) node [midway] {\textsf{\tiny{Spatial Softmax}}};
\draw [fill=orange!30, thick] (0, -2.4) rectangle ++ (0.8, 0.8) node [midway, text width= 0.5cm, align=center]
{\baselineskip=1pt \tiny{\textsf{Pixel} \\ \textsf{Coord.}}\par};
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (1.4, -0.9) -- ++(0, -0.85);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (0.8, -2) -- ++(0.35, 0);
\draw[thick, ->] (1.4, -2) -- ++(0, -.65);
\draw[fill=myGreen, opacity=1, thick] (1.4, -2) circle (0.25cm) node (b) {$\times$};
\draw[thick, ->] (3.5, -0.9) -- ++(0, -1.49);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (1.4, -0.9) -- ++(0, -0.3) -- ++(1.7, 0) --++(0, -1.18);
\draw [fill=red!30, thick] (2.8, -2.8) rectangle ++ (1, 0.4) node [midway] {\textsf{\tiny{Similarity}}};
\draw[thick, ->] (3.3, -2.8) -- ++(0, -0.8) node [midway, yshift=-.55cm] {$w_t$};
\draw[thick, ->] (1.4, -3.1) -- ++(0, -.5) node [midway, yshift=-.4cm] {$(x_t, y_t)$};
\draw[fill=myGreen, opacity=1, thick] (1.4, -2.9) circle (0.25cm) node (b) {$\Sigma$};
\node [] at (0.1, 0.5) {\tiny{$M$}};
\node [] at (2, -0.125) {\tiny{$1$}};
\node [] at (2.3, 0.5) {\tiny{$M$}};
\node [] at (4.2, -0.125) {\tiny{$1$}};
\node [] at (2, -1) {\tiny{$1$}};
\node [] at (0, -0.4) {\tiny{$1$}};
\node [] at (4.2, -1) {\tiny{$1$}};
\node [] at (2.2, -0.4) {\tiny{$1$}};
\node [] at (2.8, -2.1) {\tiny{$p^l$}};
\node [] at (3.8, -2.1) {\tiny{$p^r$}};
\end{tikzpicture}};
\node at (0.4, -1.3) {(a) Position Network};
\node[] at (7, 0.3) {
\begin{tikzpicture}[rotate=0]
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=gray!20, thick] (-0.2, -4.6) rectangle ++ (5.4, 6.4);
\draw [fill=orange!30, thick] (0, -0.4) rectangle ++ (2, 0.4) node [midway, rotate=0] {\small{\textsf{K=3 S=1}}};
\draw [fill=blue!30, thick, yshift=-0.4cm] (0, -0.4) rectangle ++ (2, 0.4) node [midway, rotate=0] {\textsf{\scriptsize{tanh}}};
\draw [fill=blue!30, thick, yshift=0.4cm] (0, -0.4) rectangle ++ (2, 0.4) node [midway, rotate=0] {\textsf{\scriptsize{tanh}}};
\draw [fill=orange!30, thick] (3, -0.4) rectangle ++ (2, 0.4) node [midway, rotate=0] {\textsf{\tiny{Spatial Softmax}}};
\draw [fill=orange!30, thick] (1.5, 1) rectangle ++ (2, 0.4) node [midway, rotate=0] {\small{\textsf{K=3 S=1}}};
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (2.5, 2) -- ++(0, -0.6);
\draw[thick, <-, rounded corners=0.1cm] (1, 0.4) -- ++(0, 0.3) -- ++(1.5, 0) -- ++(0, 0.3);
\draw[thick, <-, rounded corners=0.1cm] (4, 0.0) -- ++(0, 0.7) -- ++(-1.5, 0) -- ++(0, 0.3);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (1, -0.8) -- ++(0, -0.3) -- ++(1.25, 0);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (4, -0.4) -- ++(0, -0.7) -- ++(-1.25, 0);
\draw[fill=myGreen, opacity=1, thick] (2.51, -1.1) circle (0.25cm) node (b) {$\times$};
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (2.51, -1.35) -- ++(0, -0.4);
\draw[fill=myGreen, opacity=1, thick] (2.51, -2) circle (0.25cm) node (b) {$\Sigma$};
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (2.51, -2.25) -- ++(0, -0.4);
\draw [fill=orange!30, thick] (1.75, -2.65) rectangle ++ (1.5, -0.4) node [midway, rotate=0] {\textsf{FC}};
\draw [fill=blue!30, thick, yshift=-0.8cm] (1.75, -2.65) rectangle ++ (1.5, 0.4) node [midway, rotate=0] {\textsf{\scriptsize{tanh}}};
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (2.5, -3.45) -- ++(0, -0.45);
\draw [fill=orange!30, thick] (1.75, -3.9) rectangle ++ (1.5, -0.4) node [midway, rotate=0] {\textsf{FC}};
\draw[thick, ->] (2.5, -4.3) -- ++(0, -0.6) node[xshift=0.1cm, yshift=-0.2cm] {$(c^1_t, c^2_t, c^3_t, c^4_t, c^5_t)$};
\node [rotate=0] at (1.7, 1.58) {\tiny{$512$}};
\node [rotate=0] at (3.4, 0.85) {\tiny{$512$}};
\node [rotate=0] at (1.7, 0.55) {\tiny{$1, \ldots, 256$}};
\node [rotate=0] at (3.25, 0.55) {\tiny{$257, \ldots, 512$}};
\node [rotate=0] at (0.1, 0.55) {\tiny{$256$}};
\node [rotate=0] at (1.9, -0.95) {\tiny{$256$}};
\node [rotate=0] at (3.1, 0.15) {\tiny{$256$}};
\node [rotate=0] at (4.9, -0.55) {\tiny{$256$}};
\node [rotate=0] at (2, -2.5) {\tiny{$256$}};
\node [rotate=0] at (3, -3.58) {\tiny{$512$}};
\node [rotate=0] at (2, -3.8) {\tiny{$512$}};
\node [rotate=0] at (3.2, -4.45) {\tiny{$5$}};
\end{tikzpicture}};
\node at (7, -3.5) {(b) Parameter Network};
\node at (0.5, -2.4) {
\begin{tikzpicture}[rotate=0]
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=gray!20, thick, yshift=-.2cm] (-0.3, -0.15) rectangle ++ (5.5, 1.65);
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=white, thick] (0, 0) rectangle ++ (1.5, 1) node [midway] {\textsf{Residual}};
\draw[thick, ->] (-0.6, 0.5) -- ++(0.6, 0);
\draw[thick, ->] (1.5, 0.6) -- ++(0.5, 0);
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=white, thick] (2,0) rectangle ++ (1.5,1) node [midway] {\textsf{C-GRU}};
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (3.5, 0.5) -- ++(0.2, 0) -- ++(0, -0.75) --++(-2, 0) -- ++(0, 0.6) --++(0.3, 0);
\draw[thick, ->] (3.5, 0.5) -- ++(2.1, 0);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (1.5, 0.6) -- ++(0.2, 0) -- ++(0, 0.6) -- ++(2.4, 0) -- ++(0, -0.45);
\draw[fill=myGreen, opacity=1, thick] (4.1, 0.5) circle (0.25cm) node (b) {$+$};
\draw [fill=blue!30, thick, yshift=0.4cm] (4.6, -0.5) rectangle ++ (0.4, 1.2) node [midway, rotate=90] {\textsf{\scriptsize{tanh}}};
\node[] at (0.75, 0.8) {\scriptsize{\textsf{K=3 S=1}}};
\node[] at (2.75, 0.8) {\scriptsize{\textsf{K=3 S=1}}};
\end{tikzpicture}};
\node at (0.5, -3.5) {(c) Gated Recurrent Registration Unit};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Architectures for the position network, the parameter network, and the gated recurrent registration unit.}
\label{fig::pos_param_net}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Network Architecture}
We developed a network architecture to approximate the unknown function $g_{\theta}$, where $\theta$ are the parameters of the network.
Since the transformation of the registration is defined as a recursive sequence,
we base our network up on GRUs due to their efficient gated architecture.
An overview of the complete network architecture is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:complete_network}. The input of the network are two images, the fixed image $F$ and
the moving image $M \circ f_t$. As suggested in \cite{liu2018intriguing}, we attached the position of each pixel as two additional coordinate channels
to improve the convolution layers for the handling of spatial representations.
Our network contains three major sub-networks to generate the parameters of the local transformation:
the gated recurrent registration unit (GR2U), the position network, and the parameter network.
\paragraph{Gated Recurrent Registration Unit}
Our network contains three GR2U for different spatial resolutions ($128\times128$, $64\times64$, $32\times32$). Each GR2U has an internal structure
as shown in Figure~\ref{fig::pos_param_net}c.
The input of the GR2U block is passed through a residual network, with three stacked residual blocks \cite{he2016}.
If not stated otherwise, we use the hyperbolic tangent as activation function in the network.
The core of each GR2U is the C-GRU block. For this,
we adopt the original GRU equations shown in \cite{Cho2014} in order to use convolutions instead of a fully connected
layer as presented in \cite{andermatt2017a}. In contrast to \cite{andermatt2017a}, we adapt the proposal gate \eqref{eq:proposel}
for use with convolutions, but without factoring $r_j$ out of the convolution. The C-GRU is then defined by:
\begin{align}
r^j &= \psi\left(\sum_i^I\left(x * w_r^{i,j}\right) + \sum_k^J\left( h_{t-1}^k*u^{k,j}_r \right) + b_r^j \right),\\
z^j &= \psi\left(\sum_i^I\left(x * w_z^{i,j}\right) + \sum_k^J\left( h_{t-1}^k*u^{k,j}_z\right) + b_z^j \right),\\ \label{eq:proposel}
\tilde{h}_t^j &= \phi\left(\sum_i^I\left(x * w^{i,j}\right) + \sum_k^J\left((r_j \odot h_{t-1}^k)*u^{k,j}\right) + b^j \right),\\
h_t^j &= (1 - z^j) \odot h_{t-1}^j + z_j \odot \tilde{h}_t^j.
\end{align}
Here, $r$ represents the reset gate, $z$ the update gate, $\tilde{h}_t$ the proposal state, and $h_t$ the output at time $t$.
We define $\phi(\cdot)$ as the hyperbolic tangent, $\psi(\cdot)$ represents the logistic function, and
$\odot$ is the Hadamard product.
The convolution is denoted as $*$ and $u_., w_., b_.$ are the parameters to be learned.
The indices $i$, $j$, $k$ correspond to the input and output/state channel index. We also applied
a skip connection from the output of the residual block to the output of
the C-GRU.
\paragraph{Position Network} The architecture of the position network is shown in Figure \ref{fig::pos_param_net}a and contains two paths.
In the left path, the position of the local transformation $x_t^n$ is calculated using
a convolution layer followed by the \emph{spatial softmax} function \cite{finn2016}. Here, $n$ is the level of the spatial resolution.
The spatial softmax function is defined as
\begin{equation}
p_k(c^k_{ij}) = \frac{\exp(c^k_{ij})}{\sum_{i'}\sum_{j'} \exp(c^k_{i'j'})},
\end{equation}
where $i$ and $j$ are the spatial indices of the $k$-th feature map $c$.
The position is then calculated by
\begin{equation}
x_t^n = \left(\sum_i\sum_j p(c_{ij})X_{ij}^{n}, \sum_i\sum_j p(c_{ij}) Y_{ij}^{n}\right),
\end{equation}
where $(X_{ij}^{n}$, $Y_{ij}^{n}) \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ are the coordinates of the image pixel grid.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:complete_network} an estimate of the current transformation position is computed on all three spatial
levels. The final position is calculated as a weighted sum
\begin{equation}
\tilde{x}_t = \frac{\sum_n^3 x_t^nw_t^n}{\sum_n^3 w_t^n}.
\end{equation}
The weights $w_t^n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ are calculated on the right side of the position block.
For this, a second convolution layer and a second \emph{spatial softmax} layer are applied to the input of the block.
We calculated the similarity of the left spatial softmax $p^l(c_{ij})$ and the right spatial softmax $p^r(c_{ij})$
as the weight of the position at each spatial location
\begin{equation}
w_t^n = 2 - \sum_i \sum_j \left| p^l(c_{ij}) - p^r(c_{ij}) \right|.
\end{equation}
This weighting factor can be interpreted as certainty measure of the estimation of the current position at each spatial resolution.
\paragraph{Parameter Network}
The parameter network is located at the end of the network. Its detailed structure is shown in Figure~\ref{fig::pos_param_net}b.
The input of the parameter block is first passed through a convolution layer. After the convolution layer, the first half of the output feature maps
is passed through a second convolution layer. The second half is applied to a \emph{spatial softmax} layer.
For each element in both outputs, a point-wise multiplication is applied, followed by an average pooling layer down to a spatial resolution of $1\times1$.
We use a fully connected layer with one hidden layer in order to reduce the output to the number of needed parameters. The final output parameters are then defined as
\begin{align}
\sigma^x_t &= \psi(c^1_t)\sigma_{\text{max}}, &\sigma^y_t &= \psi(c^2_t)\sigma_{\text{max}},
&v^x_t &= \phi(c^3_t), &v^y_t &= \phi(c^4_t),
&\alpha_t &= \psi(c^5_t)\pi,
\end{align}
where $\phi(\cdot)$ is the hyperbolic tangent, $\psi(\cdot)$ the logistic function, and $\sigma_{\text{max}}$ the maximum extension of the shape.
\section{Experiments and Results}
\paragraph{Image Data} We trained our network on images of a 2D+t magnetic resonance (MR) image series of the lung.
Due to the low proton density of the lung parenchyma in comparison to other body tissues as well
as strong magnetic susceptibility effects, it is very challenging to acquire MR images with a sufficient
signal-to-noise ratio. Recently, a novel MR pulse sequence called ultra-fast steady-state free precession
(ufSSFP) was proposed \cite{Bauman2016}. ufSSFP allows detecting physiological signal changes in lung parenchyma caused
by respiratory and cardiac cycles, without the need for intravenous contrast agents or hyperpolarized gas tracers.
Multi-slice 2D+t ufSSFP acquisitions are performed in free-breathing.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[]
\node[] at (0, 0) {};
\end{tikzpicture}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[]
\foreach \i in {0, 1, ...,6}{
\edef\imagepath{images/image_data/image_0_8-\i.png}
\node[inner sep=0cm, outer sep=0cm] at (\i*1.89, 0){\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{\imagepath}};
}
\foreach \i in {0, 1, ...,6}{
\edef\imagepath{images/image_data/image_1_8-\i.png}
\node[inner sep=0cm, outer sep=0cm] at (\i*1.89, -2){\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{\imagepath}};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Maximum inspiration (top row) and maximum expiration (bottom row) for different slice positions of one patient from back to front.}
\label{fig::img_series}
\end{figure}
For a complete chest volume coverage, the lung is scanned at different slice positions as
shown in Figure \ref{fig::img_series}.
At each slice position,
a dynamic 2D+t image series with 140 images is acquired.
For the further analysis of the image data, all images of one slice position need to be spatially aligned.
We choose the image which is closest to the mean respiratory cycle as fixed image of the series.
The other images of the series are then registered to this image.
Our data set consists of 48 lung acquisitions of 42 different patients.
Each lung scan contains between 7 and 14 slices. We used
the data of 34 patients for the training set, 4 for the evaluation set, and 4 for the test set.
\paragraph{Network Training} The network was trained in an unsupervised fashion for $\sim\!180,\!000$
iterations with a fixed sequence length of $t=25$. Figure \ref{fig::training_us} shows an overview of the training procedure.
We used the Adam optimizer \cite{Adam2014} with the AMSGrad option \cite{Sashank2019} and a learning rate of $0.0001$.
The maximum shape size is set to ${\sigma_{\text{max}}=0.3}$ and the regularization weight to $\lambda_{R2N2} = 0.1$.
For the regularization of the network parameter, we use a combination of \cite{srivastava2014dropout} particularly the use of Gaussian
multiplicative noise and dropconnect \cite{wan2013regularization}. We apply multiplicative Gaussian noise $\mathcal{N}(1, \sqrt{0.5}/0.5)$
to the parameter of the proposal and the output of the C-GRU.
As image loss function $\mathcal{S}$ the mean squared error (MSE) loss is used and as transformation regularizer $\mathcal{R}$ the isotropic total variation (TV).
The training of the network was performed on an NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPU.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[]
\node[] at (0, 0){\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{images/image_data/image_0_8-1.png}};
\node[] at (0, -2){\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{images/image_data/image_1_8-1.png}};
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=gray!20, thick] (1.25 ,-1.5) rectangle ++ (1.75,1) node[midway] {\scriptsize{\textsf{R2N2}}};
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=white, thick] (4,-1.5) rectangle ++ (1.75,1) node[midway, align=center] {\scriptsize{\textsf{Dense}} \\\scriptsize{\textsf{Displacement}}};
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=white, thick] (6.75,-1.5) rectangle ++ (1.75,1) node [midway, align=center] {\scriptsize{\textsf{Spatial}} \\ \scriptsize{\textsf{Transformer}}};
\draw [rounded corners=1mm, fill=red!20, thick] (9.5,-1.5) rectangle ++ (1.75,1) node[midway] {\scriptsize{ \textsf{Image Loss}}};
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (0.9, 0) -- ++(9.4, 0) -- ++(0, -0.5);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (0.9, 0) -- ++(1.05, 0) -- ++(0, -0.5);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (0.9, -2) -- ++(6.65, 0) -- ++(0, 0.5);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (0.9, -2) -- ++(1.05, 0) -- ++(0, 0.5);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (3, -1) -- ++(1,0);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (5.75, -1) -- ++(1, 0);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm] (8.5, -1) -- ++(1, 0);
\draw[thick, ->, rounded corners=0.1cm, dotted] (8.5, -1) -- ++(0.5, 0) -- ++(0, -1.7) --++(-8.1, 0);
\node[] at (0, -3.1) {\scriptsize \textsf{Moving Image (M)}};
\node[] at (0, 1.05) {\scriptsize \textsf{Fixed Image (F)}};
\node[] at (3.5, -0.75) {\small{ $g_t^{\theta}$}};
\node[] at (9, -0.75) {\small{$W_{t}$}};
\node[] at (1.5, -1.8) {\small{$M_{t}$}};
\node[] at (1.5, 0.15) {\small{$F$}};
\node[rotate=0] at (5, -2.5) {\textsf{\scriptsize{Update input image $M_{t + 1}$ with $W_{t}$}}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Unsupervised training setup ($W_t$ is the transformed moving image).}
\label{fig::training_us}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[b]
\caption{Mean target registration error (TRE) for the proposed method R2N2 and a standard B-spline registration (BS) for the test data set in millimeter. The small number is
the maximum TRE for all images for this slice.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|cccccccc|c}
\toprule
Patient & Slice 1& Slice 2& Slice 3& Slice 4& Slice 5& Slice 6& Slice 7& Slice 8& mean\\
\midrule
R2N2 & 1.26 \scriptsize{1.85} & 1.08 \scriptsize{2.14} & 1.13 \scriptsize{1.82} & 1.23 \scriptsize{2.58} & 1.47 \scriptsize{2.74} & 1.12 \scriptsize{1.51} & 0.92 \scriptsize{1.33} & 1.04 \scriptsize{1.87} & 1.16 \\
BS & 1.28 \scriptsize{1.81} & 1.16 \scriptsize{2.0} & 1.40 \scriptsize{2.52} & 1.15 \scriptsize{2.67} & 0.96 \scriptsize{1.71} & 0.99 \scriptsize{1.41} & 0.84 \scriptsize{1.14} & 1.02 \scriptsize{1.65} & 1.10 \\
\midrule
R2N2 & 0.84 \scriptsize{1.99} & 0.92 \scriptsize{2.49} & 0.79 \scriptsize{1.04} & 0.81 \scriptsize{1.2} & 0.74 \scriptsize{1.43} & -- & -- & -- & 0.82 \\
BS & 1.50 \scriptsize{5.07} & 0.69 \scriptsize{1.73} & 0.73 \scriptsize{1.05} & 0.77 \scriptsize{1.13} & 0.86 \scriptsize{1.76} & -- & -- & -- & 0.91 \\
\midrule
R2N2 & 1.65 \scriptsize{3.88} & 1.06 \scriptsize{2.55} & 0.86 \scriptsize{2.08} & 0.83 \scriptsize{1.48} & 0.80 \scriptsize{1.39} & 0.73 \scriptsize{1.08} & -- & -- & 0.99 \\
BS & 1.15 \scriptsize{2.73} & 0.81 \scriptsize{1.42} & 0.75 \scriptsize{1.64} & 0.79 \scriptsize{1.14} & 0.72 \scriptsize{0.94} & 0.83 \scriptsize{1.95} & -- & -- & 0.84 \\
\midrule
R2N2 & 1.30 \scriptsize{3.03} & 0.77 \scriptsize{0.98} & 0.79 \scriptsize{2.07} & 1.09 \scriptsize{1.92} & 0.84 \scriptsize{1.12} & -- & -- & -- & 0.96 \\
BS & 1.09 \scriptsize{3.15} & 0.78 \scriptsize{1.01} & 0.73 \scriptsize{1.73} & 1.09 \scriptsize{2.5} & 0.79 \scriptsize{1.13} & -- & -- & -- & 0.90 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab::tre}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Experiments}
We compare our method against a standard B-spline registration method (BS) implemented in the AirLab framework \cite{sandkuhler2018airlab}.
The B-spline registration use three spatial resolutions (64, 128, 256) with a kernel size of (7, 21, 57) pixels. As image loss the MSE and as regularizer the isotropic TV is used,
with the regularization weight $\lambda_{BS}=0.01$. We use the Adam optimizer \cite{Adam2014} with the AMSGrad option \cite{Sashank2019}, a learning rate of $0.001$, and
we perform $250$ iterations per resolution level.
From the test set we select 21 images of each slice position, which corresponds to one breathing cycle.
We then select corresponding landmarks in all 21 images in order to compute the registration accuracy.
The target registration error (TRE) of the registration is defined as the mean root square error of the landmark distance after the registration.
The results in Table \ref{tab::tre} show that our presented method performed on par with the standard B-spline registration in terms of accuracy.
Since the slice positions are manually selected for each patient, we are not able to provide the same amount of slices for each patient.
Despite that the image data is different at each slice position, we see a good generalization ability
of our network to perform an accurate registration independently of the slice position at which the images are acquired.
Our method achieve a compact representation of the final transformation, by using only $\sim\!7.6\%$ of the amount of parameters than the final B-spline transformation.
Here, the number of parameters of the network are not taken into account only the number of parameters needed to describe the final transformation.
For the evaluation of the computation time for the registration of one image pair, we run both methods on an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080. The computation of the B-spline registration takes $\sim\!4.5$\si{\second}
compared to $\sim\!0.3$\si{\second} for our method.
An example registration result of our presented method is shown in Figure \ref{fig::result_image_pair}. It can be seen that the first local transformations the network creates are
placed below the diaphragm (white dashed line) (Figure~\ref{fig::result_image_pair}a),
where the magnitude of the motion between the images is maximal. Also the shape and rotation of the local transformations are computed optimally in order to apply a transformation only at the liver and the lung
and not on the rips. During the next time steps, we can observe that the shape of the local transformation
is reduced to align finer details of the images (Figure \ref{fig::result_image_pair}g-h).
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[]
\node[] at (0, 0) {};
\end{tikzpicture}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[]
\node[inner sep=0cm, outer sep=0cm] at (0, 0){\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{images/fixed_image.png}};
\node[] at (0, -1.9) {(a) Fixed Image};
\node[inner sep=0cm, outer sep=0cm] at (3.4, 0){\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{images/moving_image.png}};
\node[] at (3.4, -1.9) {(b) Moving Image};
\node[inner sep=0cm, outer sep=0cm] at (6.8, 0){\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{images/warped_image.png}};
\node[] at (6.8, -1.9) {(c) Warped Image};
\node[inner sep=0cm, outer sep=0cm] at (10.2, 0){\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{images/displacement.png}};
\node[] at (10.2, -1.9) {(d) Final Displacement};
\draw[white, dashed] (-1.8, -0.21) -- (12.5, -0.21);
\node[inner sep=0cm, outer sep=0cm] at (0, -3.8){\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{images/disp_2.png}};
\node[] at (0, -5.7) {(e) Displacement $t=2$};
\node[inner sep=0cm, outer sep=0cm] at (3.4, -3.8){\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{images/disp_4.png}};
\node[] at (3.4, -5.7) {(f) Displacement $t=4$};
\node[inner sep=0cm, outer sep=0cm] at (6.8, -3.8){\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{images/disp_8.png}};
\node[] at (6.8, -5.7) {(g) Displacement $t=8$};
\node[inner sep=0cm, outer sep=0cm] at (10.2, -3.8){\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{images/disp_25.png}};
\node[] at (10.2, -5.7) {(h) Displacement $t=25$};
\draw[white, dashed] (-1.8, -4.01) -- (12.5, -4.01);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Top Row: Registration result of the proposed recurrent registration neural network for one image pair.
Bottom Row: Sequence of local transformations after different time steps.}
\label{fig::result_image_pair}
\end{figure*}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we presented the \emph{Recurrent Registration Neural Network} for the task of deformable image registration.
We define the registration process of two images as a recursive sequence of local deformations.
The sum of all local deformations yields the final spatial alignment of both images
Our designed network can be trained end-to-end in an unsupervised fashion.
The results show that our method is able to accurately register two images with a similar accuracy compared to a standard B-spline registration method.
We achieve a speedup of $\sim\!\!15$ for the computation time compared to the B-spline registration. In addition,
we need only $\sim\!\!7.6\%$ of the amount of parameters to describe the final transformation than the final transformation of the standard B-spline registration.
For future work we will including uncertainty measures for the registration result as a possible stopping criteria and extend our method for the registration of 3D volumes.
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The central limit theorem states that the distribution of the sum $S : = \sum_{i=1}^nX_i$ of independent copies of a random variable $X$ with finite second moment, after being normalized, converges weakly to the standard normal distribution. The Berry-Esseen bound ensures that, if $X$ has the finite third moment, the error of the normal approximation, measured in the Kolmogorov metric, is not worse than $c/\sqrt{n}$, where $c$ is a constant determined by the distribution of $X$. In other words, the central limit theorem has the large sample property (LSP), i.e., the quality of the approximation improves as the sample size becomes large. The LSP can also be established for the functional central limit theorem measured in the L\'evy-Prokhorov distance \cite{BS80,H84,Ku85, F94,Utev86}. Moreover, Stein's method can be used to estimate the errors of diffusion approximation \cite{Barbour90}.
The Poisson law of small numbers, on the other hand, does not possess the LSP. More precisely, if $X_i$'s are independent indicator random variables with $\mathbb{P}(X_i=1)=1-\mathbb{P}(X_i=0)=p_i$ for each $i$, then the total variation distance between the distribution of $W=\sum_{i=1}^nI_i$ and the Poisson distribution with mean $\lambda:=\sum_{i=1}^np_i$ is of the order ${\Omega}\left(\lambda^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n p_i^2\right)$ \cite{BH84}. In particular, if $p_i=p$ for all $i$, one can see that the quality of approximation does not improve when $n$ becomes large. This is due to the fact that a Poisson distribution has only one parameter while a normal distribution has two parameters. To recover the LSP, one has to introduce more parameters into the approximating distributions, e.g., signed compound Poisson measures, translated Poisson, compound Poisson, negative binomial and polynomial birth-death distributions
\cite{Presman,Kru,Ce,BX99,BC04,Roelin07,BCL92,BP99,BX01}.
If we consider point processes rather than {nonnegative integer-valued} random variables, the counterpart is the superposition ${\cal V}_n = \Xi_1 + \cdots + \Xi_n$ of point processes $\{\Xi_i:\ 1\le i\le n\}$. The pioneering work of Grigelionis \cite{Grigelionis} demonstrates that the distribution of {the} superposition of independent sparse point processes on the carrier space $\mathbb{R}_+$ converges weakly to a Poisson process distribution. The same phenomenon can be established for the superposition of dependent sparse point processes on a general carrier space \cite{Goldman,Jagers72,Brown78,Kallenberg83}. The accuracy of Poisson point process approximation has been of considerable interest since 1970's \cite{Ser75,Brown78}. Stein's method for Poisson process approximation was subsequently established by \cite{Barbour88,BB92} for estimating the approximation errors and the method was further refined by \cite{BWX,Xia05b,CX04}. In the context of the aforementioned superposition of {i.i.d.}\ point processes, no error estimates were studied until the last decade \cite{Schuhmacher,CX11} and these studies show that the Poisson point process approximation to the superposition of {i.i.d.}\ point processes does not possess the LSP either. The aim of this note is to show that, by introducing more parameters into the approximating point process distribution, it is possible to recover a LSP in approximating the superposition of {i.i.d.}\ point processes.
Given that a Poisson point process on a compact metric space can be viewed as a Poisson number $Z$ of {i.i.d.}\ points in the space, a natural step of introducing more parameters into the approximating point process is to replace the Poisson number $Z$ by a random variable $N$ whose distribution is controlled by two or more parameters, such as the translated Poisson \cite{BC04,Roelin07}, negative binomial \cite{BP99} and polynomial birth-death distributions \cite{BX01}. The family of approximating distributions we will consider in this note is the polynomial birth-death process distributions introduced in \cite{XZ08}. To quantify the difference between two point processes, as in \cite{Schuhmacher,CX11}, we use the Wasserstein distance $d_2$ initiated in \cite{BB92}. The formal statement of the main result is given in Theorem~\ref{mainresult}. Several applications are provided in Section~\ref{Section.Example} to illustrate the order of convergence in the LSP. Section~\ref{Section.Proof} is devoted to the proof of the main result.
\section{Preliminaries and the main result} \label{Section.Main}
{\em 1. Point processes.} For the reader's convenience, in this part, we collect some basic concepts and facts, and introduce a {\it partitional total variation distance}
for comparing point processes under a partition of the carrier space. The basic concepts needed for this note are point process, reduced palm process \cite[Chapter~10]{Kallenberg83}, the Wasserstein distance $d_2$ \cite{BB92} and partition \cite{XZ12}.
Let ${\Gamma}$ be a compact metric space with metric $d_0$ bounded by 1. Let ${\mathscr{B}} ({\Gamma})$ be the Borel ${\sigma}$-algebra induced by $d_0$. A {\em configuration} $\xi$ on ${\Gamma}$ is a collection of finitely many particles located in ${\Gamma}$. Equivalently, it can be represented as a non-negative integer-valued finite measure on ${\Gamma}$. Denote by $|\rho|$ the total mass of a measure $\rho$. Therefore, we can write $\xi$ as $\sum_{i=1}^{|\xi|} \delta_{x_i}$, where $\delta_x$ is the Dirac measure at $x$. Let ${\mathscr{H}}$ be the set of all configurations on ${\Gamma}$, and ${\mathscr{B}} ({\mathscr{H}})$ be the ${\sigma}$-algebra generated by the mappings $\xi \mapsto \xi (C)$, $C \in {\mathscr{B}} ({\Gamma})$ \cite[p.~12]{Kallenberg83}. A {\em point process} is a measurable mapping from a probability space into $({\mathscr{H}},{\mathscr{B}} ({\mathscr{H}}))$. We use $\xi, \eta, \cdots$ to stand for configurations, $\Xi$, ${\cal V}, {\cal W}, {\cal Z}, \cdots$ to stand for point processes, and ${\bf P}, {\bf Q}, \mathscr{L}(\Xi), \mathscr{L}({\cal V}), \cdots$ to stand for the laws of point processes.
Let $\Xi$ be a point process with finite mean measure ${\lambda} (d x) := \mathbb{E} \Xi (d x)$. The family of point processes $\{ \Xi_x : x \in {\Gamma} \}$ are said to be the {\it reduced Palm processes} associated with $\Xi$ if for any measurable function $f : {\Gamma} \times {\mathscr{H}} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_+:=[0,\infty)$,
$$
\mathbb{E} \[ \int_{\Gamma} f(x,\Xi-\delta_x)\Xi(dx) \] = \int_{\Gamma} \mathbb{E} f(x,\Xi_x) {\lambda}(dx) ,
$$
\cite[Chapter~10]{Kallenberg83}. Furthermore, suppose ${\lambda}^{[2]}(dx,dy) : = \mathbb{E} \Xi(dx)(\Xi-\delta_x)(dy)$ is finite, then one can define the {\it second order reduced Palm processes} $\{ \Xi_{xy}: x,y \in {\Gamma} \}$ associated with $\Xi$ by
$$
\mathbb{E} \[ \iint_{{\Gamma}^2}
f(x,y;\Xi-\delta_x-\delta_y)\Xi(dx)(\Xi-\delta_x)(dy) \] = \iint_{{\Gamma}^2} \mathbb{E}
f(x,y;\Xi_{xy}) {\lambda}^{[2]} (dx,dy) ,
$$
for any measurable function $f : {\Gamma}^2 \times {\mathscr{H}} \rightarrow [0,\infty)$ \cite[Chapter~12]{Kallenberg83}.
\cite{BB92} introduce a Wasserstein distance $d_2$ for quantifying the difference between two probability measures ${\bf P}$, ${\bf Q}$ on $({\mathscr{H}},{\mathscr{B}} ({\mathscr{H}}))$. The metric is defined in two stages. First, for two finite measures $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ on ${\Gamma}$, define $$
d_1(\rho_1,\rho_2) :=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1,& \mbox{for }|\rho_1| \neq |\rho_2|,\\
0,& \mbox{for }|\rho_1|=|\rho_2|=0,\\
\sup_{u \in \mathscr{K}} \left| \bar{\rho}_1 (u) - \bar{\rho}_2 (u) \right| ,& \mbox{for }|\rho_1|= |\rho_2|>0,
\end{array}\right.
$$
where $\bar {\rho} : = \rho / |\rho|$ is the normalized measure of $\rho$, $\mathscr{K}: = \{ u : |u(x)-u(y)|\le d_0(x,y) , \forall x,y\in{\Gamma} \}$ and $\rho (u) : = \int_{{\Gamma}} u d \rho$. In particular, by the Kantorovich-Rubinstein duality theorem \cite[Theorem 8.1.1]{Rachev}, for two probability measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ on ${\Gamma}$, $d_1 (\mu, \nu) = \inf_{X \sim \mu, Y \sim \nu} \mathbb{E} d_0 (X,Y) $, where $X,\ Y$ are ${\Gamma}$-valued ${\mathscr{B}} ({\Gamma})$-measurable random elements. For two configurations $\xi_1:=\sum_{i=1}^{|\xi_1|} \delta_{x_{1i}},\xi_2:=\sum_{i=1}^{|\xi_2|} \delta_{x_{2i}}\in {\mathscr{H}}$, {we have the duality representation $d_1(\xi_1,\xi_2)=\min_{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\left\lbrace n^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^nd_0
(x_{1i},x_{2\boldsymbol{\pi}(i)})\right\rbrace $} when $|\xi_1|=|\xi_2|=n$ and $1$ otherwise, where $\min$ is taken over all permutations of $\{1,2,\cdots,n\}$. The metric $d_2$ is defined as
$$
d_2 ({\bf P}, {\bf Q}) : = \sup_{f \in \mathscr{F} } |{\bf P} (f) - {\bf Q} (f)|
= \inf_{{\cal W} \sim {\bf P}, {\cal Z} \sim {\bf Q}} \mathbb{E} d_1 ({\cal W}, {\cal Z}) ,
$$
where $ \mathscr{F}: = \{ f: |f(\xi) - f(\eta)| \le d_1 (\xi, \eta), \ \forall \
\xi, \eta \in {\mathscr{H}} \} $, \label{pageofcapitalF}and the last equality is due to the duality theorem \cite[Theorem 8.1.1]{Rachev}.
For a partition $\mathscr{G} = \{ G_i:\ i\in I \} \subset {\mathscr{B}} ({\Gamma})$ of ${\Gamma}$, where $I\subset\mathbb{N}:=\{1,2,3,\dots\}$ is a finite set, let $t_i\in\argmin_{x}\sup_{s \in G_i} d_0 (s, x)$, that is, $t_i \in {\Gamma}$ is a point such that $d_0 (G_i,t_i) : = \sup_{s \in G_i} d_0 (s, t_i)$ is as small as possible, $i\in I$. We call $t_i$ a {\em center} of $G_i$. Let $d_0 (\mathscr{G}) := \max_{i\in I} d_0 (G_i,t_i)$. We call $\mathscr{G}$ an {\em $\varepsilon$-partition} of ${\Gamma}$ if $d_0 (\mathscr{G}) \le \varepsilon$. Denote all $\varepsilon$-partitions of ${\Gamma}$ by ${\mathscr{P}}_\varepsilon$.
For any partition $\mathscr{G}=\{ G_i:\ i\in I \} $, we define an {\it assembling mapping} $\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G}$ as
$$
\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \eta := \sum_{i\in I} \eta (G_i) \delta_{t_i}.
$$
The assembling mapping, when applied to a configuration $\eta$, shifts all particles of $\eta$ in $G_i\in\mathscr{G}$ to its center $t_i$.
For a point process ${\cal W}$, we define the {\it partitional total variation distance} as
\begin{equation} \label{Eq.tv}
{\rm TV}_\mathscr{G} ({\cal W}) := \max_{i\in I} d_{tv} (\mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ {\cal W} + \delta_{t_i}) ; \mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ {\cal W}) ) ,
\end{equation}
where for two probability measures ${\bf P}$ and ${\bf Q}$ on ${\mathscr{H}}$, $d_{tv}({\bf P},{\bf Q})=\sup_{A\in{\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{H}})}|{\bf P}(A)-{\bf Q}(A)|.$ We {write}
$$
\vartheta_\varepsilon ({\cal W}) := \inf_{ \mathscr{G} \in {\mathscr{P}}_\varepsilon} {\rm TV}_\mathscr{G} ({\cal W}) .
$$
{\em 2. Polynomial birth-death point process.} As mentioned in the Introduction, there are various ways to introduce more parameters into the approximating point process for better accuracy of approximation. In this part, we collect the facts around the polynomial birth-death point process established in \cite{XZ08}.
For $a > 0$, $0 \le b < 1$, ${\beta} \ge 0$, we define the polynomial birth-death distribution introduced in \cite{BX01} as
$$\pi_{a,b;{\beta}}(i+1):={\cal C}\prod_{j=0}^i\frac{a+bj}{(j+1)(1+{\beta} j)},\ i\in \mathbb{Z}_+:=\{0,1,2,\dots\},$$
where $${\cal C}:={\cal C}(a,b;{\beta})=\left(1+\sum_{i=0}^\infty\prod_{j=0}^i\frac{a+bj}{(j+1)(1+{\beta} j)}\right)^{-1}.$$
The distribution can be viewed as the equilibrium distribution of the birth-death process with birth rates $\{a+bk:\ k\in\mathbb{Z}_+\}$ and death rates $\{k(1+{\beta} (k-1)):\ k\in\mathbb{N}\}$. The
polynomial birth-death point process is given by
$${\cal Z} := \sum_{n=1}^Z \delta_{U_n},$$
where $Z; U_1, U_2, \cdots$ are independent, $Z \sim \pi_{a,b;{\beta}}$, $U_n \sim \mu$ with $\mu$ being a probability measure on ${\Gamma}$, $\forall n \ge 1$.
Denote $\mathscr{L} ({\cal Z})$ by $\mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b;{\beta};\mu}$.
{\em 3. Main Result.} Suppose $\Xi_1, \cdots, \Xi_n$ are independent and identically distributed point processes. In each of the following two cases, we can give the polynomial birth-death point process approximation of the superposition ${\cal V}_n= \Xi_1 + \cdots + \Xi_n$ under the Wasserstein distance $d_2$. Denote
$$
{\lambda} (dx) : = \mathbb{E} \Xi_1 (d x), \ \ {\lambda}^{[2]} (dx, dy) : = \mathbb{E} \Xi_1 (dx) (\Xi_1 - \delta_x) (dy),
$$
$$
\theta_r := \mathbb{E} \[ |\Xi_1| (|\Xi_1| - 1 ) \cdots (|\Xi_1| - r+1) \] , \ \ \ \forall r \in\mathbb{N} .
$$
\noindent {\bf Case 1}. If ${\rm Var} (|\Xi_1|) \ge \mathbb{E} |\Xi_1|$, we take $b = \frac {\theta_2 - \theta_1^2}{ \theta_2 - \theta_1^2 + \theta_1}$ and ${\beta} = 0$.
\noindent {\bf Case 2}. Either $\frac 1 2 \mathbb{E} |\Xi_1| < {\rm Var} (|\Xi_1|) < \mathbb{E} |\Xi_1|$ or $\frac 1 2 \mathbb{E} |\Xi_1| = {\rm Var} (|\Xi_1|)$ and $\theta_3 > \theta_2 (\theta_1 - 1)$, we set $b = 0$ and
$$
{\beta} = \frac {\theta_1^2 - \theta_2} {(n-1)\theta_1 \[ \theta_1 - 2 ( \theta_1^2- \theta_2) \] + (\theta_3 + \theta_2 - \theta_1 \theta_2) }.
$$
\begin{rem} Note that $\theta_2 - \theta_1^2 = {\rm Var} \( |\Xi_1| \) - \mathbb{E} |\Xi_1| $ and
$$ \theta_1 - 2 ( \theta_1^2- \theta_2) = 2 \[ {\rm Var} (|\Xi_1|) - \frac 1 2 \mathbb{E} |\Xi_1| \],$$ we have $0 \le b < 1$ and ${\beta} > 0$ for $n>1+\frac{\theta_1\theta_2-\theta_2-\theta_3}{\theta_1(\theta_1-2(\theta_1^2-\theta_2))}\vee 0$.
\end{rem}
In all cases, let
\begin{eqnarray}
a & = & n \[ (1-b) \theta_1 + {\beta} \theta_2 + {\beta} (n-1) \theta_1^2 \] , \label{Eq.a} \\
\mu(dx) & = & \frac {1 + {\beta} \mathbb{E} |\Xi_{1,x}| + {\beta} (n-1) \theta_1 } {\theta_1 + {\beta} \[ \theta_2 + (n-1) \theta_1^2 \]} {\lambda} (dx) , \label{Eq.mu}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Xi_{1,x}$ is the reduced Palm distribution of $\Xi_1$ at $x$. Our main result is as follows.
\begin{thm} \label{mainresult}
For both cases above, there exists a constant $C$, depending on $\mathscr{L} (\Xi_1)$, and $0 < \rho < 1$ such that for any $\varepsilon>0$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&d_2 \( \mathscr{L} \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k \) , \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \mu} \) \nonumber\\
&&\le 2 \varepsilon + C \vartheta_\varepsilon \( \sum_{k=1}^{n-2} \Xi_k \) + Cn \mathbb{P} \( \sum_{k=1}^{n-2} | \Xi_k | \le \rho (n-2) \theta_1 \)
\label{mainresultineq1}\\
&&\le 2 \varepsilon + C \vartheta_\varepsilon \( \sum_{k=1}^{n-2} \Xi_k \) + O\left(n^{-1/2}\right)\label{mainresultineq1.1}
\end{eqnarray}
for $n>2$ in Case 1 and $n>1+\frac{\theta_1\theta_2-\theta_2-\theta_3}{\theta_1(\theta_1-2(\theta_1^2-\theta_2))}\vee 0$ in Case 2.
In particular,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&d_2 \( \mathscr{L} \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k \) , \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \mu} \)\nonumber\\
&&\le (C+1) 2 \varepsilon_{n-2} + C n \mathbb{P} \( \sum_{k=1}^{n-2} | \Xi_k | \le \rho (n-2) \theta_1 \) \label{mainresultineq2}\\
&&\le (C+1) 2 \varepsilon_{n-2} + O\left(n^{-1/2}\right),\label{mainresultineq2.1}
\end{eqnarray}
valid for the same range of $n$ specified above, where $\varepsilon_n$ is defined as
$$
\varepsilon_n = \inf\left\{v:\ 2v\ge \vartheta_v \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k \)\right\}.$$
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}{\rm The last terms of \Ref{mainresultineq1} and \Ref{mainresultineq2} are typically of order $O(e^{-cn})$ for a positive constant $c$ depending on the distribution of $\Xi_1$ \cite[Theorem~2.7]{CL06} but the remaining terms of \Ref{mainresultineq1} and \Ref{mainresultineq2} are typically of order no better than $O\left(n^{-1/2}\right)$.}
\end{rem}
\begin{prop} \label{Prop.epsilon}
$\varepsilon_n$ is decreasing in $n$.
\end{prop}
{\em Proof.} First, $\vartheta_\varepsilon (\sum_{i=1}^{n+1} \Xi_i) \le \vartheta_\varepsilon (\sum_{i=1}^n \Xi_i)$ since $TV_\mathscr{G} (\sum_{i=1}^{n+1} \Xi_i) \le TV_\mathscr{G} (\sum_{i=1}^n \Xi_i)$ for any partition $\mathscr{G}$. It follows that $\vartheta_{\varepsilon_n} (\sum_{i=1}^{n+1} \Xi_i) \le \vartheta_{\varepsilon_n} (\sum_{i=1}^n \Xi_i) \le 2 \varepsilon_n$. Noting that $\vartheta_\varepsilon ( \sum_{i=1}^{n+1} \Xi_i ) > 2 \varepsilon$ when $\varepsilon < \varepsilon_{n+1}$ and $\vartheta_\varepsilon (\sum_{i=1}^{n+1} \Xi_i) \le 2 \varepsilon$ when $\varepsilon > \varepsilon_{n+1}$, we obtain $\varepsilon_n \ge \varepsilon_{n+1}$. {\hfill\hbox{\vrule width 5pt height 5pt depth 0pt}}
\begin{rem} {\rm Case 1 is known as {\it over-dispersion} \cite{Fad94}. It is shown in \cite{BHX98} that over-dispersion in statistics arising from natural phenomena is much more common than under-dispersion, i.e., ${\rm Var} (|\Xi_1|) < \mathbb{E} |\Xi_1|$\ignore{, ``coinciding with folk-lore and practice"}.}
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}\label{meanchange} {\rm Let $\nu (dx)= \frac 1 \theta_1{\lambda} (dx)$ be the normalized distribution of ${\lambda} (dx)$.
Since $\mu(dx)$ is the normalized distribution of ${\lambda} (dx) + \frac { {\beta} \mathbb{E} |\Xi_{1,x}| }{1 + {\beta} (n-1) \theta_1} {\lambda} (dx)$, we have
$$d_2 \( \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \mu} , \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \nu} \) \le d_1 (\mu, \nu) = O (n^{-1}).$$ Thus $\mu$ in Theorem~\ref{mainresult} can be replaced by $\nu$ at the cost of $O(n^{-1})$ being added to the upper bound.}
\end{rem}
\ignore{ \begin{rem}
If the point process $\Xi_1$ is near space homogeneous, one can take $\varepsilon = O (n^{-r})$. Then $k$ has order $n^{rd}$, where $d$ is the dimension of ${\Gamma}$. { Consequently, $\vartheta_\varepsilon (\Xi_1) = O (n^{rd/2})$. Why?} In general, if we set $u_1=\frac12\wedge\left(1-d_{tv} ( \mathscr{L} ( \mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi_1 + \vartheta_{t_i} ), \mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi_1))\right)$, then arguing as in the proof of Proposition~4.6 of \cite{BX99} \blue{(cf. \cite{MR07})}, we have
\blue{ $$
d_{tv} (\mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi + \vartheta_{t_i}), \mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi)) \le \frac 1 {\sqrt{nu_1}}.
$$ }
Thus has order $n^{-1/2+ rd/2}$. By taking $r = \frac 1 {d+2}$, one has $\varepsilon_n = O (n^{- \frac 1 {d+2}} )$.
\end{rem}}
\section{Examples} \label{Section.Example}
In this section, we demonstrate the use of Theorem~\ref{mainresult} in five applications: Bernoulli process, Bernoulli process with shifts, compound Poisson process, renewal process and entrances and exits of Markov process. For simplicity, except in subsection~\ref{sectcompoundPoisson}, we only consider point processes on the carrier space ${\Gamma}=[0,1]$ with $d_0(x,y)=|x-y|$. Extension to any compact carrier space is a straightforward exercise.
\subsection{Bernoulli process}\label{sectBernoulli}
As a warming up example, we consider a simple Bernoulli process $\Xi_1 = \sum_{i=1}^mI_i \delta_{t_i}$, where $\{I_i:\ 1\le i\le m\}$ are independent Bernoulli random variables with $\mathbb{P}(I_i=1)=1-\mathbb{P}(I_i=0)=p_i\in (0,1)$, $\{t_i:\ 1\le i\le m\}\subset{\Gamma}$ and $m$ is a finite positive integer. This is a typical case where the actual support space of the point process is a subset of the carrier space and it reminds us that the partition technique should not be applied blindly. The following theorem is a generalisation of \cite{XZ08} with the same order of convergence as that for the special case in \cite{XZ08}.
\begin{thm} \label{3.1} For {i.i.d.}\ Bernoulli processes $\{\Xi_k\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$, if $\sum_{i=1}^mp_i(1-p_i)>\frac12\sum_{i=1}^mp_i$, let $a,b;{\beta}$ and $\mu$ be as defined in Case 2, we have
$$
d_2 \( \mathscr{L} \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k \) , \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \mu} \)=O\left(n^{-1/2}\right)\mbox{ as }n\to\infty.
$$
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}\label{Bernoullinorole}
{\rm The distances amongst $\{t_i:\ 1\le i\le m\}$ play no role in the speed of convergence. }
\end{rem}
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem~\ref{3.1}.} The support of
$\Xi_1$ is a reduced carrier space ${\Gamma}_r:=\{t_i:\ 1\le i\le m\}$, so it suffices to consider the reduced carrier space ${\Gamma}_r$ with partition $\mathscr{G} = \{\{t_i\}:\ 1\le i\le m\}$ and $\varepsilon=0$.
With the partition $\mathscr{G}$, $\Xi_1$ corresponds to the vector $\vec X = (I_1, \cdots , I_m)$. Let $\vec Y$ be the sum of $n-2$ independent copies of $\vec X$, and $e_j$ be the vector with value $1$ at the $j$-th component and $0$ otherwise. Then, by the independence,
\begin{equation}
d_{tv} (\mathscr{L} (\vec Y+ e_j), \mathscr{L} (\vec Y )) = d_{tv} (\mathscr{L} (Y_j + 1), \mathscr{L} (Y_j)).\label{bernoulli1}
\end{equation}
Noting that $Y_j$ is the sum of independent Bernoulli$(p_j)$ random variables, we have $Y_j\sim{\rm Binomial}(n-2,p_j)$, which implies
$$
d_{tv} (\mathscr{L} (Y_j + 1), \mathscr{L} (Y_j)) =\max_{0\le l\le n-2}{n-2\choose l}p_j^l (1-p_j)^{n-l} \le\frac{C}{\sqrt{(n-2) p_j(1-p_j)}}.
$$
Hence, it follows from \Ref{bernoulli1} that the second term of \Ref{mainresultineq1.1} is bounded by $O\left(n^{-1/2}\right)$.
{\hfill\hbox{\vrule width 5pt height 5pt depth 0pt}}
\subsection{Bernoulli process with shifts}\label{sectBernoullishifts}
The aim of this example is to show that we may use a marked point process to get better approximation bounds.
Similar to the previous subsection, we define $\Xi_1 = \sum_{i=1}^mI_i \delta_{\zeta_i}$, where $\{(I_i,\zeta_i)\}$ are independent with $I_i$ having Bernoulli distribution with $\mathbb{P}(I_i=1)=1-\mathbb{P}(I_i=0)=p_i\in (0,1)$, $\zeta_i$ taking values in ${\Gamma}$, and $m$ is a fixed positive integer.
\begin{thm} \label{3.2} If $\sum_{i=1}^mp_i(1-p_i)>\frac12\sum_{i=1}^mp_i$, let $a,b;{\beta}$ and $\mu$ be as defined in Case 2, then for ${i.i.d.}$ Bernoulli processes with shifts $\{\Xi_k\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$,
$$
d_2 \( \mathscr{L} \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k \) , \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \mu} \)=O\left(n^{-1/2}\right),\mbox{ as }n\rightarrow\infty.
$$
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
{\rm If we apply a partition $\mathscr{G}$ as introduced in the previous section directly, then the bound we may obtain is at most of order $o(1)$. }
\end{rem}
\noindent{\it Proof.} According to Remark~\ref{meanchange}, with $\nu(dx)=\frac{1}{\mathbb{E}|\Xi_1|}\mathbb{E}\Xi_1(dx)$, it suffices to show
\begin{equation}
d_2 \( \mathscr{L} \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k \) , \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \nu} \)=O\left(n^{-1/2}\right),\mbox{ as }n\rightarrow\infty.\label{Bernoullishiftproof0}
\end{equation}
We embed $\{\Xi_i\}$ into marked point processes \cite[pp.~194--195]{Daley08} and use Theorem~\ref{3.1} to complete the proof. To this end,
we take fixed points $\{t_i:\ 1\le i\le m\}$ with $d_0'$ distances $1$ from each other and define a {\it ground process} \cite[p.~194]{Daley08} of $\Xi_1$ as $\Xi'_1=\sum_{i=1}^nI_i\delta_{t_i}$.
The metric $d_0'$ induces $d_1'$ and $d_2'$ in the same way as that $d_0$ generates $d_1$ and $d_2$. The mean measure of $\Xi'_1$ is $\lambda'=\sum_{i=1}^mp_i\delta_{t_i}$. Let $\theta_1,\theta_2;a,b;{\beta}$ be the same as those defined in Theorem~\ref{3.2} and set
$\nu'(dx) =\left(\sum_{i=1}^mp_i\right)^{-1}\lambda'(dx).$
For ${i.i.d.}$ Bernoulli processes $\{\Xi'_k\}$, it follows from Theorem~\ref{3.1}, Remark~\ref{Bernoullinorole} and Remark~\ref{meanchange} that
\begin{equation}
d_2' \( \mathscr{L} \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k' \) , \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \nu'} \)=O\left(n^{-1/2}\right)\mbox{ as }n\to\infty.\label{Bernoullishiftproof1}
\end{equation}
Using the Rubinstein duality theorem \cite[Theorem 8.1.1]{Rachev} and decompositions of point processes \cite[\S2.1]{Kallenberg83}, we can find $\mathbb{Z}_+^m$-valued random vectors $\(Y_{11},\dots,Y_{1m}\)$ and $\(Y_{21},\dots,Y_{2m}\)$ such that $\mathscr{L}\left(\sum_{i=1}^mY_{1i}\delta_{t_i}\right)=\mathscr{L}\left(\sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k'\right)$,
$\mathscr{L}\left(\sum_{i=1}^mY_{2i}\delta_{t_i}\right)=\mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \nu'}$ and
\begin{equation}\mathbb{E} d_1'\left(\sum_{i=1}^mY_{1i}\delta_{t_i},\sum_{i=1}^mY_{2i}\delta_{t_i}\right)=d_2' \( \mathscr{L} \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k' \) , \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \nu'} \).\label{Bernoullishiftproof2}\end{equation}
We now use $\sum_{i=1}^mY_{1i}\delta_{t_i}$ and $\sum_{i=1}^mY_{2i}\delta_{t_i}$ as ground processes
to construct marked point processes as suitable realisations of $\mathscr{L} \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k \)$ and $ \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \nu}$.
Let $\{\(\zeta_{1i},\dots,\zeta_{mi}\):\ i\in \mathbb{N}\}$ be independent copies of $\(\zeta_1,\dots,\zeta_m\)$ such that $\{\(\zeta_{1i},\dots,\zeta_{mi}\):\ i\in \mathbb{N}\}$ is independent of
$\{\(Y_{11},\dots,Y_{1m}\),\(Y_{21},\dots,Y_{2m}\)\}$, define
$${\cal W}_1:=\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{j=1}^{Y_{1i}}\delta_{\zeta_{ij}}\mbox{ and }{\cal W}_2:=\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{j=1}^{Y_{2i}}\delta_{\zeta_{ij}},$$
then $\mathscr{L}\({\cal W}_1\)=\mathscr{L} \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k \)$, $\mathscr{L}\({\cal W}_2\)=\mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \nu}$, and
\begin{equation}
d_2 \( \mathscr{L} \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k \) , \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \nu} \)\le \mathbb{E} d_1\({\cal W}_1,{\cal W}_2\)\le \mathbb{E} d_1'\left(\sum_{i=1}^mY_{1i}\delta_{t_i},\sum_{i=1}^mY_{2i}\delta_{t_i}\right).\label{Bernoullishiftproof3}\end{equation}
Combining \Ref{Bernoullishiftproof1}, \Ref{Bernoullishiftproof2} and \Ref{Bernoullishiftproof3} gives \Ref{Bernoullishiftproof0}.
{\hfill\hbox{\vrule width 5pt height 5pt depth 0pt}}
\subsection{Compound Poisson process}\label{sectcompoundPoisson}
\cite{BCL92} and \cite{BM02} demonstrate that a compound Poisson process is often good enough as a suitable asymptotic model for a variety of
random phenomena. In this example, we show that the superposition of such a model can be well described by Theorem~\ref{mainresult}.
Recall that a compound Poisson process on a compact carrier space ${\Gamma}$ is defined as $\Xi_1 = \sum_{i=1}^\infty i X_i$, where $\{X_i\}$ are independent Poisson processes with mean measures $\{\lambda_i\}$ on ${\Gamma}$ respectively and we write $\Xi_1\sim{\rm CP}(\lambda_1, \lambda_2,\dots)$.
\ignore{For brevity, we write $\Xi = \sum_{i=1}^\infty i W_i \sim{\rm CP}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots)$, where $W_i$ is the sum of $n$ independent copies of $X_i$. Note that its superposition is still a compound Poisson process $\Xi\sim{\rm CP}(n \lambda_1, n \lambda_2,\dots)$, consequently, with suitably chosen parameters, $\mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b;{\beta};\mu}$ can be used to replace a compound Poisson process in the context of superposition of point processes.}
\begin{thm} \label{3.4} If $\Xi_1\sim{\rm CP}(\lambda_1, \lambda_2,\dots)$ with $\mathbb{E}|\Xi_1|<\infty$ and $\sum_{j\ge 2}\lambda_j$ being absolutely continuous with respect to $\lambda_1$, then for {i.i.d.}\ compound Poisson processes $\{\Xi_k\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$, with
$a,b;{\beta};\mu$ chosen as in Case 1, we have
$$
d_2 \( \mathscr{L} \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k \) , \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \mu} \)=o(1),\mbox{ as }n\to\infty.$$
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
{\rm Noting that the superposition $\sum_{i=1}^n\Xi_i\sim{\rm CP}(n \lambda_1, n \lambda_2,\dots)$, Theorem~\ref{3.4} states that, with suitably chosen parameters, $\mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b;{\beta};\mu}$ can be used to replace a compound Poisson process in the context of superposition of point processes.}
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
{\rm The condition that $\sum_{j\ge 2}\lambda_j$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\lambda_1$ guarantees aperiodicity of the distribution and it plays the crucial role
in the theory of compound Poisson approximation in \cite{BCL92,BU98,BU99,BM02,Xia05a}.}
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
{\rm It can be observed from the proof below that better upper bounds are possible if more information about $\{\lambda_i\}$ is available.}
\end{rem}
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem~\ref{3.4}.} Taking a reduced carrier space if necessary, without loss of generality, we assume ${\Gamma}$ equals the support of $\lambda_1$,
that is, the smallest closed set $A$ such that $\lambda_1(A)=|\lambda_1|$. Since ${\rm Var}(|\Xi_1|)=\sum_{i=1}^\infty i^2\lambda_i({\Gamma})\ge\mathbb{E}|\Xi_1|=\sum_{i=1}^\infty i\lambda_i({\Gamma})$, Case~1 applies. Set $\Xi = \sum_{i=1}^{n-2}\Xi_i$, let $\mathscr{G} = \{ G_1, \cdots, G_k \}$ be a partition and $W_1$ be a Poisson process on ${\Gamma}$ with mean measure $(n-2)\lambda_1$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & d_{tv} (\mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi + \delta_{t_j}) , \mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi )) \le d_{tv} (\mathscr{L} (\Xi (G_j) + 1), \mathscr{L} (\Xi (G_j)))
\\ & \le &
d_{tv} (\mathscr{L} (W_1 (G_j) + 1), \mathscr{L} (W_1 (G_j)) ) \le \frac 1 {\sqrt{ 2e (n-2) \lambda_1 (G_j)}} ,
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last inequality is from Proposition~A.2.7 in \cite{BHJ}.
Hence
$$
{\rm TV}_\mathscr{G} (\Xi) \le \max_{1\le j\le k} \frac 1 {\sqrt{ 2e (n-2) \lambda_1 (G_j)}}, \ \ \ n \ge 4,
$$
which implies, for arbitrary $\varepsilon>0$, $\vartheta_\varepsilon (\Xi) \le \inf_{\mathscr{G}\in{\mathscr{P}}_\varepsilon} {\max_{G\in\mathscr{G}} {\frac 1 {\sqrt{ 2e (n-2) \lambda_1 (G)}}}}$. It then follows from \Ref{mainresultineq1.1} that
$$\limsup_{n\to\infty}d_2 \( \mathscr{L} \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k \) , \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \mu} \)\le 2\varepsilon,$$
completing the proof.
{\hfill\hbox{\vrule width 5pt height 5pt depth 0pt}}
\subsection{Renewal process}\label{sectrenewal}
The superposition of renewal processes is not a renewal process except that they are Poisson processes \cite[p.~370]{Feller68} and the exact behaviour of the superposition is generally hard to extract. In this subsection, we establish its asymptotic behaviour.
Let $W_0$, $W_1$, $W_2$, $\cdots$ be independent non-negative random variables defined on a probability space $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, \mathbb{P})$. The variables $W_1$, $W_2$, $\cdots$ are strictly positive and identically distributed, which play the role of {\it inter-renewal times} of the renewal process $\mathbf{S}=(S_n)_0^\infty:=(\sum_{i=0}^n W_i)_0^\infty$. We assume $\mathbb{E}(W_1^2)<\infty$ and choose the delay $W_0$ to make the renewal process stationary \cite[p.~75]{Daley08}.
We define $\Xi_1=\sum_{m=0}^\infty \delta_{S_m} \mathbf{1}_{S_m\in {\Gamma}}$, which is the
renewal point process {\it restricted} to $\Gamma=[0,1]$ \cite[p.~12]{Kallenberg83}. Before stating the result in this subsection, we briefly recall three terminologies. The support of a random variable $X$ is defined as the smallest closed set $A$ such that $\mathbb{P}(X\in A)=1$ and, for two subsets $B_1,B_2$ of ${\mathbb{R}}$, $B_1+B_2:=\{x+y:\ x\in B_1,y\in B_2\}$ and $d_0(B_1,B_2)=\inf\{d_0(x,y):\ x\in B_1,y\in B_2\}$.
\begin{thm} \label{3.3} Assume the renewal time $W_1$ satisfies
\begin{equation}d_0( {\rm supp}(W_1)+{\rm supp}(W_1),{\rm supp}(W_1))=0\label{renewalcondition}
\end{equation}
and ${\rm Var}(|\Xi_1|)> \frac12\mathbb{E}|\Xi_1|$, then for ${i.i.d.}$ renewal processes $\{\Xi_k\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$, with
$a,b;{\beta};\mu$ chosen as in Case 1 if ${\rm Var}(|\Xi_1|)\ge \mathbb{E}|\Xi_1|$ and in Case 2 if $\frac12\mathbb{E}|\Xi_1|< {\rm Var}(|\Xi_1|)<\mathbb{E}|\Xi_1|$, we have
$$
d_2 \( \mathscr{L} \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k \) , \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \mu} \)=o(1), \mbox{ as }n\rightarrow\infty.
$$
\end{thm}
\begin{rem} {\rm If $0 \in {\rm supp}(W_1)$, then it satisfies \Ref{renewalcondition} and the bound in Theorem~\ref{3.3} holds.}
\end{rem}
\begin{rem} {\rm The condition \Ref{renewalcondition} is almost necessary. See counterexample~\ref{counterex1} below.}
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}{\rm The condition ${\rm Var}(|\Xi_1|)> \frac12\mathbb{E}|\Xi_1|$ can not be easily deduced from the moments of $W_1$. However, if we consider a sufficiently large carrier space, the asymptotic behaviour of the renewal process ensures that the condition can be verified through the first two moments of $W_1$.}
\end{rem}
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem~\ref{3.3}.} For any $\epsilon>0$, we take an $m$ such that $2^{-m}<\epsilon$. We divide ${\Gamma}$ into $2^m$ equally spaced intervals with $s_j = j / 2^m$ so that $\mathscr{G} = \{G_1,\dots,G_{2^m}\}$, where $G_1=[0,s_1]$ and $G_j = \( s_{j-1}, s_j \]$ for $2 \le j\le
2^m$. The centre of $G_j$ is $t_j = (s_{j-1} + s_j)/2$ and $d_0(\mathscr{G}) = 2^{-(m+1)}$. Consequently, the first term in \Ref{mainresultineq1.1} is bounded by $\epsilon$. With the partition $\mathscr{G}$, set $X_j = \Xi (G_j)$, define $\vec X = (X_1, \cdots , X_{2^m})$ and $\vec Y$ as the sum of $n-2$ independent copies of $\vec X$. Applying \cite[Lemma 4.1]{BLX17}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
d_{tv} (\mathscr{L} (\vec Y + e_j), \mathscr{L} (\vec Y )) \le \frac{C}{\sqrt{(n-2) u_m}},
\end{eqnarray*} where $u_m:=\min_{1\le j \le 2^m}\{1-d_{tv}(\mathscr{L}(\vec{X}), \mathscr{L}(\vec{X}+e_j) )\}$ and $C$ is a universal constant. If $u_m\neq0$, then
the second term in \Ref{mainresultineq1.1} with $\varepsilon=2^{-(m+1)}$ is also dominated by $\epsilon$ for sufficiently large $n$, which implies that the bound
in \Ref{mainresultineq1.1} can be made arbitrarily small {as $n\to\infty$}. To establish $u_m\neq0$,
we make use of the assumption that the support $A$ of $W_1$ satisfies $d_0(A+A,A)=0$. Since $A$ is closed, and in ${\mathbb{R}}_+$, the operation $+$ is continuous, $A+A$ and $A$ are both closed, which means that $(A+A)\cap A\neq \emptyset $. This in turn implies that there exists at least one $x \in \mathbb{R}_+$ such that both $\mathbb{P}(W \in (x-\epsilon_1,x+\epsilon_1))$ and $\mathbb{P}(W_1+W_2 \in (x-\epsilon_1,x+\epsilon_1))$ are positive for all $\epsilon_1 >0$. It is also possible to find a $0<y<x$ such that $\mathbb{P}(W_1 \in (y-\epsilon_2,y+\epsilon_2), W_1+W_2\in (x-\epsilon_1,x+\epsilon_1))\neq 0$ for all $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2>0$. For the convenience of argument, we extend the stationary renewal point process $\Xi_1$ to $\Xi_1'$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$. For $0< j\leq m$, if $\varsigma>0$ is small enough, the set
$$B_\varsigma:=\left(\left.\frac{j-1}{2^m}+\varsigma-y,\frac{j}{2^m}-\varsigma-y\right] \right\backslash
\left\{\bigcup_{n_1\leq 2^m}\bigcup_{n_2\in \mathbb{N}}\left(\frac{n_1}{2^m}-2\varsigma -n_2x,\frac{n_1}{2^m}+2\varsigma-n_2x\right]\right\}$$ has positive Lebesgue measure.
From stationarity, there is a positive probability that there is at least one point in $B_\varsigma$, and conditional on the largest point in $B_\varsigma$ and the past, the renewal process has a positive probability for the future inter-renewal times $W_1'$, $W_2'$, $\cdots$ to evolve as $W_{i}' \in (x-\frac{2\varsigma}{2^i},x+\frac{2\varsigma}{2^i})$ for all $i\in \mathbb{N}$ until time $1$ and it also guarantees a positive probability that the incoming inter-renewal times $W_1''$, $W_2''$, $\cdots$ evolve as $W_1'' \in (y-\varsigma,y+\varsigma)$, $W_1''+W_2''\in (x-\varsigma,x+\varsigma)$, ${W_i'' =W_{i-1}'}\in (x-\frac{4\varsigma}{2^i},x+\frac{4\varsigma}{2^i})$ for $i\ge 3$ until time $1$. The choice of $B_\varsigma$ and synchronicity of $\{W_i':\ i\ge 1\}$ and $\{W_i'':\ i\ge 1\}$ ensure that an extra renewal point caused by $W''_1$ is added in $G_j$, and the subsequent renewal points of the two renewal processes occur in the same partition sets $\{G_k:\ k\ge j\}$ simultaneously.
{Consequently,} we can set aside a positive probability event $B_+$ such that on $B_+$, {the} two renewal processes run together until the point in $B_\varsigma$ and then one runs according to $\{W_i'\}$ and the other evolves as $\{W''_i\}$.
Figure~\ref{fig1} shows the coupling when $m=2$, $x=0.5$, $y=0.2$, $j=1$,
a renewal happens at around $-0.25$, with a positive probability, the next three inter-arrival times are each around $x=0.5$; with another positive probability, the incoming four inter-arrival times respectively take values around $y=0.2$, $x-y=0.3$, $x=0.5$, $x=0.5$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
\draw (0,0) -- (14,0);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,0.2);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,0.2);
\draw (7,0) -- (7,0.2);
\draw (9,0) -- (9,0.2);
\draw (11,0) -- (11,0.2);
\node[] at (3,0.35) () {0};
\node[] at (5,0.35) () {0.25};
\node[] at (7,0.35) () {0.5};
\node[] at (9,0.35) () {0.75};
\node[] at (11,0.35) () {1};
\node[circle,draw,inner sep=2pt] at (2,0.6) (a1) {};
\node[circle,draw,inner sep=2pt] at (6,0.6) (a2) {};
\node[circle,draw,inner sep=2pt] at (10,0.6) (a3) {};
\node[circle,draw,inner sep=2pt] at (14,0.6) (a4) {};
\draw [-](a1)--node[above]{$\approx0.5$} (a2);
\draw [-](a2)--node[above]{$\approx0.5$} (a3);
\draw [-](a3)--node[above]{$\approx0.5$} (a4);
\node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=3,draw,inner sep=1.5pt] at (2,-0.2) (b1) {};
\node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=3,draw,inner sep=1.5pt] at (3.6,-0.2) (b2) {};
\node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=3,draw,inner sep=1.5pt] at (6,-0.2) (b3) {};
\node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=3,draw,inner sep=1.5pt] at (10,-0.2) (b4) {};
\node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=3,draw,inner sep=1.5pt] at (14,-0.2) (b5) {};
\draw [-](b1)--node[below]{$\approx0.2$} (b2);
\draw [-](b2)--node[below]{$\approx0.3$} (b3);
\draw [-](b3)--node[below]{$\approx0.5$} (b4);
\draw [-](b4)--node[below]{$\approx0.5$} (b5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{minipage}{0.70\textwidth}\centering
\caption{\label{fig1} $m=2$, $x=0.5$, $y=0.2$, $j=1$}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For this coupling, the corresponding vectors $\vec X'$ and $\vec X''$ satisfy that $\vec X''=\vec X'+e_j$ on $B_+$ (in Figure~\ref{fig1}, $\vec X'=(0,1,0,1)$ and $\vec X''=(1,1,0,1)$),
which implies that $d_{tv}(\mathscr{L}(\vec{X}), \mathscr{L}(\vec{X}+e_j) )<1$ for all $0<j\le 2^m$. This concludes the proof. {\hfill\hbox{\vrule width 5pt height 5pt depth 0pt}}
\begin{counterex}\label{counterex1}{\rm If ${\rm supp}{(W_1)}\subset[a,2a-b]$ for some $0<b<a\le \frac{1}{2}$, then $u_m=0$ for some $m$ so the method does not work.}
\end{counterex}
In fact, for $m$ large enough, when $X_{2^{m-1}}=0$, there is one point of $\mathbf{S}$ sitting in the interval $B_3:=\left[\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2^m}-a+\frac{b}{2},\frac{1}{2}+a-\frac{b}{2}\right]$ almost surely. But when we have $X_{2^{m-1}}=1$, there are no points in $B_3$ except in $G_{2^{m-1}}$. On the other hand, for $m$ large enough, $X_{2^{m-1}}\leq 1$ almost surely because $a>0$. In this situation, $d_{tv}(\mathscr{L}(\vec{X}), \mathscr{L}(\vec{X}+e_{2^{m-1}}) )=1$, i.e., $u_m=0$.
\begin{rem}{\rm It is possible to extend Theorem~\ref{3.3}
to the superposition of ${i.i.d.}$ non-stationary renewal processes, provided there are use-friendly criteria for ensuring $u_m:= \min_{1\le j \le 2^m}\{1-d_{tv}(\mathscr{L}(\vec{X}), \mathscr{L}(\vec{X}+e_j) )\}\neq0$ for all $m\ge 1$ and $0<j\le 2^m$.}
\end{rem}
\subsection{Entrances or exits of Markov Process }\label{sectmarkov}
Let $\{M_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{R}}$ be a
time-reversible and irreducible Markov chain with finite state space $E$. Let $S_0$ be a proper subset of $E$. As the exit process from $S_0$ can be viewed as the entrance process of $E\backslash S_0$, we consider entrance process to $S_0$ only. Let $T_1:=\inf \{t\ge 0:\ M_{t^-} \notin S_0 \mbox{ and }M_t \in S_0\}$ and $T_{i+1}=\inf \{t> T_{i}: M_{t^-} \notin S_0 \mbox{ and }M_t \in S_0\}$ for $i\geq 1$. Then the total number of entrances to $S_0$ in ${\Gamma}=[0,1]$ can be written as $\tau=\max\{n: T_n\leq 1\}$ with $\max\emptyset:=0$, and the times of entrances form a point process $\Xi_1:=\sum_{1\leq i\leq \tau} \delta_{T_i}$ with convention $\Xi_1=0$ when $\tau=0$.
Clearly, $|\Xi_1|$ is almost surely finite.
\begin{thm} \label{entrance} For {i.i.d.}\ entrance processes $\{\Xi_k\}_{k \in\mathbb{N}}$, with
$a,b;{\beta};\mu$ chosen as in Case 1,
$$
d_2 \( \mathscr{L} \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k \) , \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \mu} \)=o(1), \mbox{ as }n\to\infty. $$
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}{\rm When $S_0$ is a single point set, $(T_n)_{0}^\infty$ forms a renewal process, Theorem~\ref{entrance} becomes a special case of Theorem~\ref{3.3}. However, when $S_0$ contains more than one state, then $\Xi_1$ is no longer a renewal process.}
\end{rem}
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem~\ref{entrance}.} \cite[Corollary~2]{BHX98} implies that ${\rm Var}(|\Xi_1|)\ge \mathbb{E}|\Xi|$, so Case 1 applies.
The rest of the proof is essentially the same as that of Theorem~\ref{3.3}. For any $\epsilon>0$, we choose an $m$ such that $2^{-m}<\epsilon$. Let $s_j = j / 2^m$ and $\mathscr{G} = \{G_1,\dots,G_{2^m}\}$, where $G_1=[0,s_1]$ and $G_j = \( s_{j-1}, s_j \]$ for $2 \le j\le
2^m$. The centre of $G_j$ is at $t_j = (s_{j-1} + s_j)/2$ and $d_0(\mathscr{G}) = 2^{-(m+1)}$. This partition ensures that the first term in \Ref{mainresultineq1.1} is bounded by $\epsilon$. Set $X_j = \Xi (G_j)$ and define $\vec X = (X_1, \cdots , X_{2^m})$ and $\vec Y$ as the sum of $n-2$ independent copies of $\vec X$. It follows from \cite[Lemma 4.1]{BLX17} that
\begin{eqnarray*}
d_{tv} (\mathscr{L} (\vec Y + e_j), \mathscr{L} (\vec Y )) \le \frac{C}{\sqrt{(n-2) u_m}},
\end{eqnarray*} where $u_m:=\min_{1\le j \le 2^m}\{1-d_{tv}(\mathscr{L}(\vec{X}), \mathscr{L}(\vec{X}+e_j) )\}$ and $C$ is a universal constant. It remains to show
that $u_m\neq0$. Since $\{M_t\}_{t\in{\mathbb{R}}}$ is irreducible, we can choose a state $s\in E\backslash S_0$ such that there is a positive probability of entering $S_0$ {immediately after leaving} $s$. Let $\tau_1$ be the first time that the Markov chain enters $S_0$, $\tau_2$ be the first time after $\tau_1$ to depart from $S_0$, $T_1'$ and $T_2'$ be the first and second jump times of $\{M_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{R}}$ after time $0$. From the assumption that $\{M_t\}_{t\in{\mathbb{R}}}$ is finite irreducible, we can conclude that $\mathbb{P}(M_0=s)>0$ and so $q_1:=\mathbb{P}\(\vec X= \mathbf{0}\)\ge \mathbb{P}\(M_0=s,\tau_1>1\)\ge\mathbb{P}\(M_0=s,T_1'>1\)>0$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
q_2&:=&\mathbb{P}\(\vec X=e_j\)\ge\mathbb{P}\(M_0=s,\tau_1\in G_j,\tau_2>1\) \\
&\ge&\mathbb{P}\(M_0=s,T_1'\in G_j, M_{T_1'}\in S_0,T_2'>1\)>0,\end{eqnarray*}
which in turn imply
$d_{tv}(\mathscr{L}(\vec{X}), \mathscr{L}(\vec{X}+e_j) )\le \max\{1-q_1,1-q_2\}<1$,
as claimed. {\hfill\hbox{\vrule width 5pt height 5pt depth 0pt}}
\section{The Proof of Theorem~\ref{mainresult}} \label{Section.Proof}
The advantage of using $\mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b;{\beta};\mu}$ as approximating distribution is that it can be considered as
the unique stationary distribution of an ${\mathscr{H}}$-valued positive recurrent process with the generator
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathscr{A}} h (\xi)&:=& \big( a + b |\xi| \big) \int_{\Gamma} \big( h (\xi + \delta_x) - h (\xi)
\big) \mu (dx) \\
&&+ \big( 1 + {\beta}( |\xi| - 1) \big) \int_{\Gamma} \big( h(\xi - \delta_x) -
h(\xi) \big) \xi (d x),
\end{eqnarray*}
see \cite{XZ12} for more details.
We use $\mathbb{Z}_\xi(\cdot) $ to stand for a birth-death point process with generator ${\mathscr{A}}$ and initial configuration $\xi$. For any bounded measurable function $f$ on $({\mathscr{H}},{\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{H}}))$, it can be shown that
$$h_f (\xi) := - \int_0^\infty \big( \mathbb{E} f (\mathbb{Z}_\xi (t)) - \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b;{\beta};\mu} (f)
\big) d t$$
is well defined and is the solution of the Stein equation
$$
{\mathscr{A}} h(\xi) = f(\xi) - \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b;{\beta};\mu} (f) .
$$
To estimate $d_2 (\mathscr{L} ({\cal W}), \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b;{\beta};\mu})$, it is equivalent to bound $\mathbb{E} {\mathscr{A}} h_f ({\cal W})$ for all $f \in \mathscr{F}$
defined on page~\pageref{pageofcapitalF}. As $\mathbb{E} {\mathscr{A}} h ({\cal W})$ can be expressed via the differences of $h$, the successful application of the Stein method hinges on sharp upper bounds of
$$
\Delta h (\xi; x) : = h (\xi + \delta_x) - h (\xi) , \ \Delta_2 h (\xi; x,y) : = \Delta h (\xi + \delta_y; x) - \Delta h (\xi; x) .
$$
Let $\Delta_2 h (\xi) := \sup \{ |\Delta_2 h(\xi; x, y)| :\ x,y \in {\Gamma} \}$. Then it is shown in \cite{XZ12} that
\begin{equation} \label{Eq.Steinfactor}
\Delta_2 h_f (\xi) \le \frac 2 {| \xi | + 1} + \frac 5 a , \ \ \ \forall f \in \mathscr{F}, \xi \in {\mathscr{H}}.
\end{equation}
Now, we are ready to prove Theorem~\ref{mainresult}.
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem~\ref{mainresult}.} The inequalities \Ref{mainresultineq1.1} and \Ref{mainresultineq2.1} are due to the well-known concentration inequality, see \cite[Theorem~2.7]{Mc98}
and \cite[Theorem~2.7]{CL06}. Hence it remains to show \Ref{mainresultineq1} and \Ref{mainresultineq2}.
Suppose $\mathscr{G} \in {\mathscr{P}}_\varepsilon$. The ``assembling mapping" $\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G}$ ensures that for any configuration $\eta$,
$$
d_1 (\eta, \mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \eta) \le d_0 (\mathscr{G}) \le \varepsilon .
$$
It follows that $ d_2 (\mathscr{L} ({\cal W}), \mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ {\cal W})) \le \varepsilon$ for any point process ${\cal W}$, which yields
\begin{eqnarray}
& &
d_2 (\mathscr{L} (\Xi), \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b;{\beta};\mu}) \nonumber
\\ & \le &
d_2 (\mathscr{L} (\Xi), \mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi)) + d_2 (\mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi), \mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ {\cal Z})) \nonumber\\
&&+ d_2 (\mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ {\cal Z}), \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b;{\beta};\mu})
\\ & \le &
2 \varepsilon + d_2 (\mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi), \mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ {\cal Z})) . \label{Eq.proof1}
\end{eqnarray}
To compute the $d_2$ distance between $\mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi)$ and $\mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ {\cal Z})$, we concentrate on the space $\tilde {\Gamma} := \{ t_1, \cdots, t_k \}$ and apply Stein's method. Denote by $\tilde {\mathscr{H}}$ the class of all configurations on $\tilde {\Gamma}$.
For any $\xi \in \tilde {\mathscr{H}}$, let
$$
\tilde {\mathscr{A}} \tilde h (\xi) : = (a + b |\xi|) \int \Delta \tilde h (\xi; x) \tilde \mu (d x) - (1 + {\beta} (|\xi|-1)) \int \Delta \tilde h (\xi - \delta_x; x) \xi (d x) .
$$
Then, with generator $\tilde {\mathscr{A}}$, we have a positive recurrent Markov process on $\tilde {\mathscr{H}}$. The unique stationary measure is $\tilde \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$} : = \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b;{\beta}; \tilde \mu} = \mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ {\cal Z})$, where
$$
\tilde \mu (dx)= \sum_{i=1}^k \mu (G_i) \delta_{t_i} (dx) .
$$
Denote
$$
\tilde \mathscr{F} : = \{ \tilde f : |\tilde f (\xi) - \tilde f (\eta) | \le d_1 (\xi, \eta), \forall \xi, \eta \in \tilde {\mathscr{H}} \} .
$$
For any $\tilde f \in \tilde \mathscr{F}$, let $\tilde h_{\tilde f}$ be the unique solution of
$$
\tilde {\mathscr{A}} \tilde h_{\tilde f} = \tilde f - \tilde \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$} ( \tilde f) .
$$
Then
\begin{equation} \label{Eq.proof2}
d_2 (\mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi), \mathscr{L} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ {\cal Z})) = \sup_{\tilde f \in \tilde \mathscr{F}} \mathbb{E} \tilde {\mathscr{A}} \tilde h_f (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi) .
\end{equation}
Now we concentrate on estimating $\mathbb{E} \tilde {\mathscr{A}} \tilde h_f (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi)$. Let
$$
h (\xi) : = \tilde h_{\tilde f} (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \xi) , \ \ \ \forall \xi \in {\mathscr{H}}.
$$
Then
$$
\tilde {\mathscr{A}} \tilde h (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \xi) = (a + b |\xi|) \int \Delta h (\xi; x) \mu (d x) - (1 + {\beta} (|\xi| - 1)) \int \Delta h (\xi - \delta_x; x) \xi (d x) .
$$
First of all, we can write $\mathbb{E} \tilde {\mathscr{A}} \tilde h (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi)$ via $\Delta^2 h$'s. Namely, since $\Xi_1, \cdots, \Xi_n$ are independent identically distributed,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathbb{E} \tilde {\mathscr{A}} \tilde h (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi)\\
&&= a \int \mathbb{E} \[ \Delta h (\Xi; x) \] \mu (dx) + b \int \mathbb{E} \[ \Xi \Delta h (\Xi; x) \] \mu (dx)
\\ & &\ \ \ - \mathbb{E} \[ \( 1 + {\beta} (|\Xi| - 1) \) \int \Delta h (\Xi - \delta_x; x) \Xi (dx) \]
\\ &&= a \int \mathbb{E} \[ \Delta h (\Xi; x) \] \mu (dx) + b n \int \mathbb{E} \[ \Xi_1 \Delta h (\Xi; x) \] \mu (dx)
\\ &&\ \ \ - n \mathbb{E} \[ \(1 + {\beta} (|\Xi_1| - 1) + {\beta} (n-1) |\Xi_2| \) \int \Delta h (\Xi - \delta_x; x) \Xi_1 (dx) \] .
\end{eqnarray*}
With the reduced Palm processes, one can write $\mathbb{E} \tilde {\mathscr{A}} \tilde h (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& a \int \mathbb{E} \[ \Delta h (\Xi; x) \] \mu (dx) + b n \iint \mathbb{E} \[ \Delta h \left(\Xi_{1,y} + \delta_y + \sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j ; x\right) \] \mu (dx) {\lambda} (dy) \nonumber
\\ & & - n \int \mathbb{E} \[ \Delta h \left(\Xi_{1,x} + \sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j ; x\right) \] {\lambda} (dx) \nonumber
\\ & & - {\beta} n \iint \mathbb{E} \[ \Delta h \left(\Xi_{1,x,y} + \delta_y + \sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j; x\right) \] {\lambda}^{[2]} (dx,d y) \nonumber
\\ & & - {\beta} n (n-1) \iint \mathbb{E} \[ \Delta h \left(\Xi_{1,x} + \Xi_{2,y} + \delta_y + \sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k ; x\right) \] {\lambda} (dx) {\lambda} (dy) . \label{Eq.intoDh}
\end{eqnarray}
We subtract $\Delta h (\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j; x)$ in the first four terms and $\Delta h (\sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k ; x)$ in the last one. Then, $\mathbb{E} \tilde {\mathscr{A}} \tilde h (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi)$ can be written via $\Delta_2 h$'s, provided that the number of $-\Delta_2 h$ added is balanced with that of $\Delta_2$ added. More precisely, we need
$$
a \mu (dx) + b n |{\lambda}| \mu (dx) - n {\lambda} (dx) - {\beta} n {\lambda}^{[2]} (dx, {\Gamma}) = {\beta} n (n-1) |{\lambda}| {\lambda} (dx) ,
$$
which is equivalent to \eqref{Eq.a} and \eqref{Eq.mu}. With \eqref{Eq.a} and \eqref{Eq.mu}, we write $\mathbb{E} \tilde {\mathscr{A}} \tilde h (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi)$ via $\Delta_2 h$'s. For example, the first term in \eqref{Eq.intoDh} becomes
$$
a \int \mathbb{E} \[ \Delta h (\Xi; x) - \Delta h ( \sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j ; x) \] \mu (dx) .
$$
The difference $\Delta h (\Xi; x) - \Delta h ( \sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j ; x)$ can be telescoped out as the sum of $|\Xi_1|$ $\Delta_2 h$ functions. Provided the number of $\Delta_2 h$ is balanced with that of $- \Delta_2 h$, one can further write $\mathbb{E} \tilde {\mathscr{A}} \tilde h (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi)$ via $\Delta_3 h$'s or differences of two $\Delta_2 h$'s. To this end, let $z \in {\Gamma}$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
e_1(x) & = & \mathbb{E} \[ \Delta h (\Xi; x) - \Delta h \left(\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j; x\right) \] - \mathbb{E} \[ |\Xi_1| \Delta_2 h \left(\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j; z,z\right) \] ,
\\
e_2(x,y) & = & \mathbb{E} \[ \Delta h \left(\Xi_{1,y} + \delta_y + \sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j ; x\right) - \Delta h \left(\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j; x\right) \] \\
&&- \mathbb{E} \[ (|\Xi_{1,y}| + 1 ) \Delta_2 h \left(\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j ; z,z\right) \] ,
\\
e_3(x) & = & \mathbb{E} \[ \Delta h \left(\Xi_{1,x} + \sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j ; x\right) - \Delta h \left(\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j; x\right) \] \\
&& - \mathbb{E} \[ |\Xi_{1,x}| \Delta_2 h \left(\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j ; z,z\right) \] ,
\\
e_4(x,y) & = & \mathbb{E} \[ \Delta h \left(\Xi_{1,x,y} + \delta_y + \sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j; x\right) - \Delta h \left(\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j; x\right) \] \\
&&- \mathbb{E} \[ ( |\Xi_{1,x,y}|+1) \Delta_2 h \left(\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j ; z,z\right) \] ,
\\
e_5(x,y) & = & \mathbb{E} \[ \Delta h \left(\Xi_{1,x} + \Xi_{2,y} + \delta_y + \sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k ; x\right) - \Delta h \left(\sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k ; x\right) \] \\
&& - \mathbb{E} \[ (|\Xi_{1,x}| + |\Xi_{2,y}|+1) \Delta_2 h \left(\sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k ; z,z\right) \] ,
\\
e_6(x) & = & \mathbb{E} \[ \Delta h \left(\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j; x\right) - \Delta h \left( \sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k ; x\right) \] - \mathbb{E} \[ |\Xi_2| \Delta_2 h \left(\sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k ; z,z\right) \] ,
\\
e_7 & = & \mathbb{E} \Delta_2 h \left(\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j; z,z\right) - \mathbb{E} \Delta_2 h \left(\sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k ; z,z\right) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Then,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
\mathbb{E} \tilde {\mathscr{A}} \tilde h (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi)
\\ &=& a \int e_1(x) \mu (dx) + b n \iint e_2(x,y) \mu (dx) {\lambda} (dy) \\
&&- n \int e_3(x) {\lambda} (dx) - {\beta} n \iint e_4(x,y) {\lambda}^{[2]} (dx,d y)
\\ & & - {\beta} n (n-1) \iint e_5(x,y) {\lambda} (dx) {\lambda} (dy) + {\beta} n (n-1) |{\lambda}| \int e_6(x) {\lambda} (dx)
\\ & &
+ {\beta} n (n-1) ( 2 \theta_1 \theta_2 + \theta_1^2 - \theta_1^3 ) e_7 ,
\end{eqnarray*}
provided that
\begin{eqnarray*}
& &
\theta_1^2 - \theta_2 + b \( \theta_2 + \theta_1 - \theta_1^2 \)
=
{\beta} (n-1)\theta_1 \[ \theta_1 - 2 ( \theta_1^2- \theta_2) \] + {\beta} (\theta_3 + \theta_2 - \theta_1 \theta_2) .
\end{eqnarray*}
In both cases, $b$ and ${\beta}$ are taken to ensure the above equality.
To estimate $e_1, \cdots, e_7$, we decompose them into the sum of $\Delta_2 h$ functions of the forms
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta_3 h (x,y;z) & : = & \Delta_2 h (\xi + \delta_z ; x,y) - \Delta_2 h (\xi; x,y), \\
D_{2,T} h (\xi; x,y; z,w) & := & \Delta_2 h (\xi; x,y) - \Delta_2 h (\xi; z,w) .
\end{eqnarray*}
The bounds in the following lemma can be found in \cite[pp.~3060-3061]{XZ12}.
\begin{lem}
\label{Lem.D3}
For any point process ${\cal W}$, and $u > 0$, both $|\mathbb{E} \Delta_3 h ({\cal W}; x,y,z) |$ and $ |\mathbb{E} \Delta_{2,T} h ({\cal W}; x,y; z,z) | $ are bounded above by
$$
r ({\cal W}) := \frac {4u + 10}{a} {\rm TV}_\mathscr{G} ({\cal W}) + 4 \mathbb{P} \( 1 + |{\cal W}| \le \frac a u \) ,
$$
where $a$ is defined in \eqref{Eq.a} and ${\rm TV}_\mathscr{G} ({\cal W})$ is defined in \eqref{Eq.tv}.
\end{lem}
To estimate $e_1$, let $\Xi_1 = \sum_{n=1}^{|\Xi_1|} \delta_{X_n}$, $\langle \Xi_1\rangle_r : = \sum_{n=1}^r \delta_{X_n}$, ${\cal W} = \sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j$. Then,
\begin{eqnarray*}
e_1(x) & = &
\mathbb{E} \[ \Delta h ({\cal W} + \Xi_1 ; x) - \Delta h ({\cal W}; x) \] - \mathbb{E} \[ |\Xi_1| \Delta_2 h ({\cal W}; z,z) \]
\\ & = &
\mathbb{E} \sum_{r=1}^{|\Xi_1|} \[ \Delta_2 h ({\cal W} + \langle \Xi_1\rangle_{r-1} ; x, X_r ) - \Delta_2 h ({\cal W}; z,z) \]
\\ & = &
\mathbb{E} \sum_{r=1}^{|\Xi_1|} \sum_{s=1}^{r-1} \Delta^3 h ({\cal W} + \langle \Xi_1\rangle_{s-1} ; x, X_r; X_s ) + \mathbb{E} \sum_{r=1}^{|\Xi_1|} D_{2,T} h ({\cal W} ; x, X_r; z,z) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Since ${\cal W}$ is independent of $\Xi_1$, it follows that
$$
|e_1(x)| \le \( \frac 1 2 \mathbb{E} \[ |\Xi_1| (|\Xi_1| - 1) \] + \mathbb{E} |\Xi_1| \) r ({\cal W}) = \frac 1 2 \mathbb{E} \[ |\Xi_1| (|\Xi_1| + 1) \] r \left(\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j\right).
$$
Similarly, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|e_2(x,y) | & \le & \frac 1 2 \mathbb{E} \[ (|\Xi_{1,y}| + 1)( |\Xi_{1,y}| +2) \] r \left(\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j\right) , \\
|e_3(x)| & \le & \frac 1 2 \mathbb{E} \[ |\Xi_{1,x}| ( |\Xi_{1,x}| + 1) \] r \left(\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j\right) , \\
|e_4(x,y)| & \le & \frac 1 2 \mathbb{E} \[ (|\Xi_{1,x,y}| + 1) (|\Xi_{1,x,y}| + 2) \] r \left(\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j\right) , \\
|e_5(x,y)| & \le & \frac 1 2 \mathbb{E} \[ (|\Xi_{1,x}| + |\Xi_{2,y}| + 1) (|\Xi_{1,x}| + |\Xi_{2,y}| + 2) \] r \left(\sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k \right) , \\
|e_6(x)| & \le & \frac 1 2 \mathbb{E} \[ |\Xi_2| (|\Xi_2| + 1) \] r \left(\sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k \right), \\
|e_7| & \le & \mathbb{E} |\Xi_2| r \left(\sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k\right) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $r (\sum_{j=2}^n \Xi_j) \le r (\sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k)$, we have $ |\mathbb{E} \tilde {\mathscr{A}} \tilde h (\Xi) | \le C_n r (\sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k) $, where
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_n & = & \frac 1 2 a ( \theta_2 + 2 \theta_1 ) + \frac 1 2 b n ( \theta_3 + 4\theta_2+2\theta_1 ) + \frac 1 2 n ( \theta_3 + 2 \theta_2 ) + \frac 1 2 {\beta} n ( \theta_4 + 4 \theta_3 + \theta_2 )
\\ & & + {\beta} n (n-1) \left\{ \frac 1 2 \cdot 2\(\theta_1 (\theta_3 + 3 \theta_2 + \theta_1) + \theta_2 (\theta_2 + \theta_1) \) \right.\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left.+ \frac 1 2 \theta_1^2 ( \theta_2 + 2 \theta_1 ) + \theta_1 |2 \theta_1 \theta_2 + \theta_1^2 - \theta_1^3| \right\} .
\end{eqnarray*}
It is not difficult to check that in each of the two cases, $a$ has order $n$, $b$ is a constant and ${\beta}$ has order $1/n$. Hence $C_n$ has order $n$. Let $u$ be a constant independent of $n$ such that $ a / u < n \theta_1 / 4$, then for $n>2$,
$$
|\mathbb{E} \tilde {\mathscr{A}} \tilde h (\mathscr{M}_\mathscr{G} \circ \Xi)| \le C \cdot {\rm TV}_\mathscr{G} \left(\sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k\right) + Cn \mathbb{P} \( \left|\sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k\right| \le \frac 3 4 \theta_1 (n-2) \) ,
$$
where $C$ is a constant. Using the fact that $\sum_{k=3}^n \Xi_k$ and $\sum_{k=1}^{n-2} \Xi_k$ have the same distribution, we combine \eqref{Eq.proof1} and \eqref{Eq.proof2} to conclude that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&d_2 \( \mathscr{L} \( \sum_{k=1}^n \Xi_k \) , \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}_{a,b ; {\beta}; \mu} \)\\
&& \le 2 \varepsilon + C\left\{ {\rm TV}_\mathscr{G} \( \sum_{k=1}^{n-2} \Xi_k \) + n \mathbb{P} \( \sum_{k=1}^{n-2} | \Xi_k | \le \frac 3 4 \theta_1 (n-2) \)\right\} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\mathscr{G}$ is arbitrary, the proof of Theorem~\ref{mainresult} is complete. {\hfill\hbox{\vrule width 5pt height 5pt depth 0pt}}
|
\section{Supplemental material: The contact in the unitary Fermi gas across the superfluid phase transition}
\twocolumngrid
\section{Finite-temperature AFMC}
We use auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo (AFMC) methods~\cite{SAlhassid2017,SJensen2018,SJensen2018-2} on a spatial lattice to calculate thermal expectation values of observables in the canonical ensemble. The method is based on a Hubbard-Stratonovich representation of $e^{-\beta\hat H}$, where $\beta = 1/k_{B}T$ is the inverse temperature (with $k_{B}$ the Boltzmann constant).
Dividing the imaginary time $\beta$ into $N_\tau$ time slices of length $\Delta \beta$, we use a symmetric Trotter decomposition of $e^{-\beta\hat H}$ and a Gaussian Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation for each lattice site ${\bf x}$ and discretized imaginary time $\tau_{n} = n\Delta \beta$ ($n=1,2,...,N_\tau)$. This results in a path integral over auxiliary fields $\sigma_{\bf{x}}(\tau_{n})$:
\begin{equation}
e^{-\beta \hat{H}} = \int D[\sigma ]G_{\sigma }\hat{U}_{\sigma } + O((\Delta \beta)^2) \;,
\end{equation}
where $G_{\sigma }$ is a Gaussian weight and $\hat{U}_{\sigma}$ is a propagator of non-interacting particles moving in external auxiliary fields $\sigma_{\bf x}(\tau)$. The thermal expectation value of an observable $\hat O$ is then given by
\begin{equation} \label{expect}
\langle \hat{O} \rangle=\frac{\textrm{Tr}(\hat{O}e^{-\beta \hat{H}})}{\textrm{Tr}(e^{-\beta \hat{H}})}=\frac{\int D[\sigma] \langle \hat{O} \rangle _{\sigma}W_{\sigma}\Phi_{\sigma} }{\int D[\sigma]W_{\sigma}\Phi_{\sigma}} \;,
\end{equation}
where $\Phi_{\sigma}=\textrm{Tr}(\hat{U}_{\sigma})/|\textrm{Tr}(\hat{U}_{\sigma})|$ is the Monte Carlo sign, $W_{\sigma}=G_{\sigma}|\textrm{Tr}(\hat{U}_{\sigma})|$ is a positive-definite weight, and $\langle \hat{O} \rangle_\sigma=\textrm{Tr}(\hat{O}\hat{U}_\sigma)/\textrm{Tr}(\hat{U}_{\sigma})$ is the thermal expectation value of the observable $\hat{O}$ for the auxiliary-field configuration $\sigma$. Here we use the canonical ensemble, so the traces are evaluated for fixed particle numbers $N_{\sigma}$ ~\cite{SAlhassid2017, SGilbreth2013, SJensen2018} using the method of Ref.~\cite{SGilbreth2015}.
\section{Data Analysis}
The symmetric Trotter decomposition we use produces an error $O((\Delta \beta)^2)$ for small imaginary time step $\Delta \beta$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:Contact_fit}, we show extrapolations in $\Delta \beta$ for the contact with $N=40$ particles and lattice size $9^3$ at temperatures (a) $T/T_{F}=0.353$, (b) $T/T_{F}=0.202$, and (c) $T/T_{F}=0.149$, where a linear fit has been carried out in $(\varepsilon_{F}\Delta \beta)^2$ for small $\Delta \beta$ ($\varepsilon_F$ is the Fermi energy of the free gas).
\onecolumngrid
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{linear_contact_dbeta.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{linear_contact_dens.pdf}
\caption{(a-c) AFMC results for the contact $C$ as a function of $(\varepsilon_{F} \Delta \beta)^{2}$ using a $9^3$ lattice for $N=40$ particles and temperatures of (a) $T/T_{F}=0.353$, (b) $T/T_{F}=0.202$, and (c) $T/T_{F}=0.149$.
The lines describe a linear extrapolation in $(\varepsilon_{F} \Delta \beta)^{2} $ for $(\varepsilon_{F} \Delta \beta)^{2} < 0.003$ to obtain the $\Delta\beta\to 0$ limit.
(d-f) The contact $C$ for $N=40$ particles as a function of $\nu^{1/3}$ at the same temperatures shown in panels (a)-(c) using multiple lattice sizes. The results shown are after carrying out the $\Delta \beta \to 0$ extrapolation. The lines are linear extrapolations in $\nu^{1/3}$ used to obtain the $\nu \to 0$ limit.}
\label{fig:Contact_fit}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\twocolumngrid
A significant systematic error is due to the finite filling factor $\nu$ of the simulations. In panels (d)-(f) of Fig.~\ref{fig:Contact_fit} we show the continuum extrapolations $\nu \to 0$ of the contact at several temperature (after the $\Delta\beta \rightarrow 0$ extrapolation), where a linear fit in $\nu^{1/3}$ is carried out for low values of the filling factor $\nu$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:Contact_raw} we show the contact as a function of temperature for several values of the filling factor $\nu$ at constant number of particles $N=40$ (panel (a)) and $N=66$ (panel (b)). We observe that the contact is particularly sensitive to finite filling factor effects. The extrapolated values for $\nu \to 0$ are also shown by the solid squares in panel (a) and solid circles in panel (b).
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{Contact_raw.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{ (a) AFMC results for the contact $C$ of $N=40$ particles as a function of temperature $T$ for lattice sizes of $5^3$ (open purple up triangles), $7^3$ (open red circles), $9^3$ (open blue squares), $11^3$ (open green down triangles), $13^3$ (open brown diamonds), and $15^3$ (open black squares). The results are shown after carrying out the $\Delta\beta \to 0$ extrapolations. We also show the extrapolated continuum results for the contact (solid blue squares) and the low-temperature experimental result of Ref.~\cite{SHoinka2013} (open black up triangle). (b) The contact versus temperature for $N=66$ particles and different lattice sizes using similar conventions as in (a). We also show the continuum results for $N=66$ particles (solid orange circles) and the experimental result of Ref.~\cite{SHoinka2013} (open black up triangle).}
\label{fig:Contact_raw}
\end{figure}
\section{Comparison of various dispersion relations}
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.85]{energies_2body.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The lowest two interacting energies of the two-body problem in a periodic box with center-of-mass wavevector $\bold{K}=0$ as a function of $\nu^{1/3}$. The interacting energies are shown in units $E_{0}=(2\pi\hbar)^2/2mL^2$ for (a) the first excited level, and (b) the ground state. In both panels we show results for three different single-particle dispersion relations: the quadratic relation $\epsilon^{(2)}_{k}$ used in our AFMC simulations (solid blue squares), a nearest-neighbor hopping dispersion $\epsilon^{(h)}_{\bold{k}}$ used in the lattice simulations of Refs.~\cite{SBurovski2006, SBurovski2006-2, SGoulko2010, SCarlson2011, SGoulko2016} (open green circles), and the quartic dispersion $\epsilon^{(3)}_{k}$ used in the $T=0$ results of Ref.~\cite{SCarlson2011} (open orange down triangles).
The lines describe linear extrapolations in $\nu^{1/3}$ to obtain the energies at $\nu\to 0$.}
\label{fig:2-body}
\end{figure}
Several dispersion relations for the dependence of the single-particle energy on momentum were used in the literature~\cite{SBulgac2006, SBurovski2006, SBurovski2006-2, SBulgac2008, SGoulko2010, SCarlson2011, SGoulko2016, SJensen2018} for the UFG.
The results shown in the main text use a quadratic dispersion relation as in Refs.~\cite{SBulgac2006, SBulgac2008, SJensen2018}. In Figs.~\ref{fig:2-body} and \ref{fig:Contact_dispersions} we compare results obtained for different dispersion relations to further test our continuum limit extrapolations. We consider the following dispersion relations
\begin{subequations}\label{dispersions}
\begin{equation}
\epsilon^{(2)}_{k}=\frac{\hbar^{2}k^2}{2m} \;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\epsilon^{(h)}_{\bold{k}}=\frac{\hbar^2}{m\delta x^{2}}[3-\sum_{i}\textrm{cos}(k_{i}\delta x)] \;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\epsilon^{(3)}_{k}=\frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m}\left[1-\alpha\left(\frac{k\delta x}{\pi}\right)^2 \right] \;,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
where $\epsilon^{(2)}_{k}$ is the quadratic dispersion, $\epsilon^{(h)}$ is the standard hopping relation used in Refs.~\cite{SBurovski2006, SBurovski2006, SBurovski2006-2, SGoulko2010, SCarlson2011, SGoulko2016} ($\delta x$ is the lattice spacing), and $\epsilon^{(3)}_{k}$ is a quartic dispersion introduced in Ref.~\cite{SCarlson2011} with $\alpha=0.257022$.
Each dispersion relation has a different dependence on the filling factor with different effective range parameters $r_{e}$ and $R_{e}$~\cite{SWerner2012}.
Using the method of Ref.~\cite{SPricoupenko2007}, we calculated the two-particle energies with center-of-mass wavevector $\bold{K}=0$ for lattices of size up to $41^3$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:2-body}, we show the lowest two such energies as a function of $\nu^{1/3}$ for the dispersion relations in Eqs.~(\ref{dispersions}). We see that various dispersion relations exhibit a different dependence on $\nu^{1/3}$ but they all extrapolate to the same energies in the continuum limit.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Contact_dispersions} we show continuum extrapolations of the contact for $N=40$ particles and $T/T_{F}\simeq 0.235$ using the dispersions $\epsilon^{(2)}_{k}$, $\epsilon^{(h)}_{\bold{k}}$ and $\epsilon^{(3)}_{k}$ in Eqs.~(\ref{dispersions}). Carrying out AFMC calculations on lattices of size $7^3,9^3,11^3,13^3$, and $15^3$, and performing a linear extrapolation in $\nu^{1/3}$ for values of $\nu^{1/3}$ below $\sim 0.4$, we find that the extrapolated values for the different dispersions agree within their statistical errors.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{Contact_N40_dispersions.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The contact $C$ for $N=40$ particles at temperature $T/T_{F}=0.235$ as a function of $\nu^{1/3}$ using the dispersion relations $\epsilon^{(2)}_{k}$ (solid blue squares), $\epsilon^{(h)}_{\bold{k}}$ (open green circles), and $\epsilon^{(3)}_{k}$ (open orange down triangles). The results extrapolated to $\nu\to 0$ for the different dispersions agree with each other within statistical errors.}
\label{fig:Contact_dispersions}
\end{figure}
\section{Momentum distribution}
The momentum distribution $n_{k}=\langle\hat{a}^{\dagger }_{k}\hat{a}_{k}\rangle$ (we suppress the spin index $\sigma$ as the distribution is independent of spin for the spin-balanced case) is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Momentum}(a) for $N=40$ particles and temperature of $T/T_{F}=0.235$ for lattice sizes $7^3,11^3$ and $15^3$ (open symbols). The momentum distribution is broadened by both the interaction and temperature.
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{Nk.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{(a) AFMC momentum distribution $n_{k}$ for $N=40$ particles as a function of $k/k_F$ at temperature $T/T_{F}=0.235$ for lattice sizes $7^3$ (open red circles), $11^3$ (open green down triangles), and $15^3$ (open black squares). (b) Scaled momentum distributions $3\pi^2(k/k_F)^4 n_{k}$ of panel (a), whose tails describe the contact $C/(Nk_{F})$. The dashed lines show the results for the contact calculated from the average potential energy using lattice sizes of $7^3$ (dotted red line), $11^3$ (dashed-dotted green line), and $15^3$ (dashed black line).}
\label{fig:Momentum}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Momentum}(b) we show the scaled momentum distributions $3\pi^2(k/k_F)^4 n_{k}$ of Fig.~\ref{fig:Momentum}(a).
For reference we also show the values of the contact $C/(Nk_{F})$ for lattice sizes of $7^3,11^3$ and $15^3$, calculated from the expectation value of the potential energy $\langle \hat{V}\rangle$ using Eq.~(\ref{contact-V}) (horizontal lines). We observe that for the smaller lattice size of $7^3$ there is a substantial difference between the scaled tail of the momentum distribution and the value of the contact extracted from the potential energy, while this difference becomes much smaller for larger lattice sizes. This stronger lattice size dependence of the tail makes reliable extraction of the contact from the tail of the momentum distribution challenging. In this work, we therefore extracted the contact from used the average potential energy.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Although Type Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia) have been used as a standard candle to measure the expansion of the Universe, there is a small but significant variation in their luminosities. Brighter SNe Ia show a slower decay, which shows a correlation between the peak luminosity and light curve width \citep{phi93}. The luminosity variation is empirically corrected in the supernova cosmology \citep{Perlmutter1999,Riess1998}, although the physical origin of the relation is uncertain.
The dependence of this variation on the host galaxies has first been reported by \citet{ham96}, where the mean peak brightness is dimmer in elliptical galaxies than in spiral galaxies.
\citet{ume99} provided the first theoretical explanation for this dependence, assuming that a smaller C/O ratio leads to a dimmer SN Ia (see also visualization in Fig. 7 of \citealt{nom00}).
Similar dependencies of the luminosity variation on various properties of host galaxies are found in more recent observations \citep[e.g.,][]{chi13}, but the origin of the variation has not been confirmed yet.
The progenitor of SNe Ia is still a matter of big debate (see \citealt {hil00,mao14,sok19} for a review). It is a combined problem of the progenitor systems and the explosion mechanism. In recent works, common progenitors are (1) deflagration or delayed detonation (DDT) of a near-Chandrasekhar (Ch)-mass carbon-oxygen (C+O) white dwarf (WD) in a single degenerate system \citep[][]{whe73,Nomoto1982a}, (2) sub-Ch-mass explosion in a double degenerate system \citep[e.g.,][]{ibe84,web84,pak12}, (3) double detonations of sub-Ch-mass WDs in a single or double degenerate system \citep[e,g,][]{Nomoto1982b,ibe91,rui14}, (4) weak deflagration of a near-Ch or super-Ch mass WD with a low mass WD remnant in a single degenerate system, which possibly correspond to a Type Iax supernova \citep[SN Iax,][]{fol13,men14,fin14,mcc14}, and (5) delayed explosion of a rotating super-Ch-mass C+O WD \citep{ben15}, which could be formed from merging of a C+O WD with the core of massive asymptotic giant branch (AGB) star during common envelope evolution \citep{sok15}.
For the nucleosynthesis yields of SNe Ia, the so-called W7 model \citep{Nomoto1984,thi86,Nomoto1997,iwa99} has been the most favoured 1D model for reproducing the observed spectra of SNe Ia \citep{hof96,nug97}.
In recent works, 3D simulations of a delayed detonation in a Ch-mass WD and of a violent merger of two WDs \citep{Roepke2012}, and 2D simulations of a double detonation in a sub-Ch-mass WD \citep{kro10} can also give a reasonable match with observations.
The advantage of the W7 model is that it also reproduces the Galactic chemical evolution (GCE) in the solar neighborhood, namely, the observed increase of Mn/Fe with metallicity as well as the decrease of $\alpha$ elements (O, Mg, Si, S, and Ca) \citep{kob06}; with the updated nucleosynthesis yields of core-collapse supernovae (with a mix of normal supernovae with $10^{51}$ erg and hypernovae with $\ge 10^{52}$ erg at $\ge 20M_\odot$ stars), [Mn/Fe] is about $-0.5$ at [Fe/H] $\ltsim -1$, and increases toward higher metallicities because of the delayed enrichment of SNe Ia.
However, there is a remaining problem in GCE with the W7 yields; the Ni/Fe ratio is higher than observed at [Fe/H] $\gtsim -1$, which could be solved with DDT models \citep[e.g.,][]{iwa99}.
An updated GCE model with the DDT yields from \citet{Seitenzahl2013} was shown in \citet{sne16}, which indeed gives Ni/Fe ratios closer to the observational data.
In contrast to these Ch-mass models, sub-Ch-mass models, which have been re-considered for SNe Ia with a number of other observational results such as supernova rates \citep[e.g.,][]{mao14} and the lack of donors in supernovae remnants \citep{ker09}, do not match the GCE in the solar neighborhood.
The Mn production from sub-Ch-mass models is too small to explain the observations in the solar neighborhood \citep{Seitenzahl2013}.
SNe Iax could compensate this with their large Mn production, but their rate seems to be too low for the solar neighborhood \citep[][hereafter K19]{kob15,kob19}.
Recently, dwarf spheroidal galaxies (dSphs) have been used as another site for constraining nucleosynthesis yields because of their low metallicities.
Using our GCE model, \citet{kob15} showed that a mix of sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia and SNe Iax may be able to explain the scatter in the observed abundance ratios, which was confirmed by a stochastic chemical evolution model in \citet{ces17}.
Recently, \citet{kir19} used a large sample of observational data and concluded that sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia are the main enrichment source in dSphs.
In this paper, we test SN Ia progenitor models using updated SN Ia yields sets both for Ch and sub-Ch mass explosions. The yields are calculated with our new 2D explosion and nucleosynthesis code \citep{Leung2018} for a wide range of metallicity (\S 2).
Using a GCE model \citep{kob00}, we show the evolution of elemental abundances ratios of iron-peak elements in the solar neighborhood (\S 3) and dSphs (\S 4), and put a constraint on the explosion models of SNe Ia comparing with observed stellar abundances.
\S5 gives our conclusions.
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\caption{
Model setup for the benchmark models with the initial metallicity $Z = 0.02$:
``Mechanism'' is the explosion mechanism used in our simulations
including the DDT and double detonation (DD) models.
Central densities of $\rho_{\rm c}$
are in units of $10^{8}$ g cm$^{-3}$.
The total mass of WDs, $M_{\rm WD}$, and helium envelope mass, $M_{{\rm He}}$, are in units of solar mass.
$R$ is the initial stellar radius in kilometers.
$E_{\rm nuc}$ and $E_{\rm tot}$ are the energy released by nuclear reactions
and final total energy, respectively, both in units of $10^{50}$ erg.
$t_{{\rm trans}}$ is
the first detonation transition time in units of second.
$M({\rm ^{56}Ni})$, $M({\rm Mn})$, and $M({\rm Mn})$
are the masses of $^{56}$Ni,
stable Mn, and $^{58}$Ni at the end of
simulations, after short-live radioactive isotopes
have decayed.
}
\label{table:std}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Model & mechanism & $\rho_{c({\rm NM})}$ & $M_{\rm WD}$ & $M_{\rm He}$ &
$R$ & $E_{{\rm nuc}}$ & $E_{{\rm tot}}$ &
$t_{{\rm trans}}$ & $M(^{56}{\rm Ni})$ & $M({\rm Mn})$ & $M(^{58}$Ni) \\ \hline
Near-Ch-mass model & DDT & 30 & 1.38 & 0 & 1900
& 17.7 & 12.7 & 0.78 & 0.63 & $8.46 \times 10^{-3}$ & $4.42 \times 10^{-2}$ \\ \hline
Sub-Ch-mass model & DD & 0.32 & 1.0 & 0.05 & 6200 & 10.2 & 8.7 & 0.98 & 0.63 & $5.68 \times 10^{-4}$ & $1.34 \times 10^{-3}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\section{Nucleosynthesis yields}
Here we briefly describe
the methods for producing the representative
SN Ia models using both Ch and
sub-Ch mass C+O WD.
Detailed model descriptions and parameter studies can be found in \citet[][hereafter LN18]{Leung2018} and \citet[][hereafter LN19]{Leung2019subChand}, respectively.
\subsection{Methods}
We use our own two-dimensional hydrodynamics
code, primarily developed to model SNe Ia
\citep{Leung2015a}. The code has been applied
to various types of SN explosions, including sub-luminous
SNe Ia \citep{Leung2015b}, near-Ch-mass
SNe Ia (\citealt{Nomoto2017a}; LN18)
sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia (LN19)
and electron-capture SNe \citep{Nomoto2017b, Leung2019PASA, Leung2019ECSN}.
The code includes the necessary physics such as
the flame-capturing scheme by the level-set method \citep{Reinecke1999a}
with reinitilization \citep{Sussman1994},
sub-grid turbulence \citep{Clement1993,Niemeyer1995a,Schmidt2006b},
and the three-step simplified nuclear reaction scheme \citep{Calder2007}.
In contrast to \cite{Calder2007}, we choose to record the
chemical composition in the hydrodynamical simulations
explicitly;
our hydrodynamical code includes
a simplified 7-isotope network
of $^{4}$He, $^{12}$C, $^{16}$O, $^{20}$Ne,
$^{24}$Mg, $^{28}$Si, and $^{56}$Ni \citep[Eq.8 of LN18, see also][]{Timmes2000a}
with their three-step scheme.
For post-processing nucleosynthesis, we use a larger 495-isotope network
for nuclear reactions, containing isotopes from $^{1}$H to $^{91}$Tc.
We use the tracer particle
scheme \citep{Travaglio2004}, which records the thermodynamic
trajectory $\rho-T$ as a function of time. We also use the
$torch$ nuclear reaction network \citep{Timmes1999a} to compute the exact nucleosynthesis
yields.
Nucleosynthesis yield tables are obtained after short-life radioactive isotopes
have decayed\footnote{The decay time was $10^3$ years in LN18 and LN19, but is $10^6$ years in this paper, which results in a significant difference in Co yields.}.
Note that $^{26}$Al and $^{60}$Fe yields are added to those of $^{26}$Mg and $^{60}$Ni, respectively, in GCE calculation.
\subsection{Near-Chandrasekhar-Mass White Dwarf}
For near-Ch-mass models, we first construct
an isothermal hydrostatic equilibrium C+O WD.
In this paper,
we assume the central density $\rho_{\rm c} = 3 \times 10^9$ g cm$^{-3}$
with uniform temperature $10^8$ K \citep{Nomoto1982a}.
The composition is assumed to be uniform as
$X(^{12}$C) = $X(^{16}$O) = $(1-Z)/2$
for the metallicities of $Z= 0, 0.002, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.06,$ and $0.10$.
The $Z$ component is scaled to the solar abundances \citep{Lodders2010} in this paper, which gives a significant difference in the nucleosynthesis yields.
With $Z=0.02$,
the benchmark model is selected by
requiring three conditions: 1) it has
a yield of $^{56}$Ni $\sim$ 0.6 $M_{\odot}$ as found in typical SNe Ia \citep{Li2011, Piro2014};
2) it has a comparable Mn production at the solar metallicity; 3) it does not severely
over-produce stable Ni.
In Table \ref{table:std} we tabulate
the fundamental stellar parameters and
the resultant explosion energies of our benchmark models for
Ch and sub-Ch mass SNe Ia. It can be seen
that the nucleosynthesis yields of the near-Ch-mass model satisfy
these three criteria of the benchmark models.
In LN18 we have computed
45 models of SNe Ia using near-Ch-mass
C+O WDs as the progenitors.
In view of the diversity of observed
SNe Ia, an extended
parameter space, including a central densities
of $5 \times 10^8$ to $5 \times 10^9$ g cm$^{-3}$
(corresponding to initial masses of 1.30 - 1.38
$M_\odot$), metallicities from $X$($^{22}$Ne) $=$ 0 to 5 $Z_\odot$\footnote{The solar metallicity was 0.02 and the other elements were not included in the initial composition in LN18 and LN19, which gives a significant difference in $^{58}$Ni yields.},
C/O mass ratios from 0.3 to 1, and different
ignition kernels from the centered flame to the
off-centered flame have been surveyed. We have then shown that
the central density and metallicity are important
parameters that strongly affect
nucleosynthesis yields;
higher central
density allows larger production in
neutron-rich isotopes such as $^{50}$Ti, $^{54}$Cr,
$^{58}$Fe, and $^{64}$Ni, while higher
metallicity mostly enhances isotopes related to
the direct product of $^{22}$Ne, such as
$^{50}$V, $^{50}$Cr, $^{54}$Fe, and $^{58}$Ni.
For the explosion mechanism, in this paper
the turbulent deflagration
model with deflagration-detonation transition (DDT) \citep[see e.g.][]{Khokhlov1991a, Golombek2005, Roepke2007d, Seitenzahl2013}
is adopted
for the following two reasons.
First, the multi-dimensional pure turbulent deflagration (PTD) model \citep{Reinecke1999b, Reinecke2002a, Reinecke2002b, Roepke2007a, Ma2013, fin14} is very likely to leave a remnant and its
explosion is weak. The low ejecta mass may not be important
for chemical enrichment compared to other explosion
models.
Second, the gravitationally confined detonation (GCD) model \citep{Plewa2004, Jordan2008, Meakin2009, Jordan2012, Seitenzahl2016} tends to produce very strong explosions
with a small amount of neutron-rich isotopes, including Mn.
As discussed in \cite{Seitenzahl2013}, there is not yet another
major site for the production of Mn. Therefore, we focus on the DDT
model, which is more robust in producing iron-peak elements,
although the PTD was also investigated in LN18.
In the core of near-Ch-mass C+O WDs, we introduce an initial
carbon deflagration. The flame structure is
a ``three-finger'' structure as in \cite{Reinecke1999b}.
Other flame structures were also investigated in
LN18 and we showed that the overall abundance
pattern is less sensitive to the initial flame structure.
The deflagration starts at the center of the WD
and makes the star expand slowly,
so that the core is always the place of highest
central density and temperature.
At $t \sim 1$ second after the deflagration started,
the DDT occurs. The detonation provides
a strong shock for compressing the surrounding
material.
This causes a sharp rise in the global maximum density and temperature ($\rho_{\rm max}$ and $T_{\rm max}$, respectively),
which leads to a ``wiggling'' rise in the central density and temperature from 1 - 2 seconds.
Beyond $t \sim 10$ seconds,
the star enters homologous expansion and
observable exothermic nuclear reactions take place
(see Figs. 2, 3, 25, and 26 of LN18 for the density, temperature, energy, and luminosity evolution).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=8cm,height=5.7cm]{traj_den_Chand_plot.eps}
\caption{$T_{{\rm max}}$ against $\rho_{{\rm max}}$
for the near-Ch-mass benchmark model according to
the thermodynamic trajectories. The tracer particles
being burnt by deflagration (solid lines) or detonation (dashed lines) are separated. Contours stand for
100 (black), 300 (blue), 500 (green), 700
(red), and 900 (orange) tracer particles, respectively.
The straight lines roughly indicate the nuclear reactions in this diagram; nuclear statistical equilibrium (NSE), $\alpha$-rich freezeout, and incomplete Si-burning \citep{woo73}.
}
\label{fig:traj_Chand_std}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:traj_Chand_std} we show the distribution of
$T_{{\rm max}}$ against $\rho_{{\rm max}}$ for
the near-Ch-mass benchmark model according
to the thermodynamic trajectories of the tracer particles.
There are two populations of tracer particles.
For $\rho_{{\rm max}} \geqslant 10^9$ g cm$^{-3}$,
there is a tight relation of $T_{{\rm max}}$ increasing with $\rho_{{\rm max}}$.
This corresponds to the
particles being incinerated by the deflagration wave.
Due to the sub-sonic nature, no shock wave is created
during its propagation. The particles are burnt
according to their local density. On the other hand,
for particles with $\rho_{{\rm max}} < 10^9$ g cm$^{-3}$,
$T_{{\rm max}}$ spans a wider range. This corresponds to the
particles being incinerated by the detonation wave.
Because there is more than one C-detonation
triggered during the explosion, the collision of
shock waves provide an observable shock heating, which
creates the $T_{{\rm max}}$ spectra as seen in the figure.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=8cm,height=5.7cm]{traj_ye_Chand_plot.eps}
\caption{$Y_{e,{\rm~min}}$ against $T_{{\rm max}}$
for the near-Ch-mass benchmark model according to
the thermodynamic trajectories. The tracer
particles burnt by deflagration (solid lines) and detonation (dashed lines) are separated.
The contours are the same as in
Figure \ref{fig:ye_Chand_std}.}
\label{fig:ye_Chand_std}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:ye_Chand_std} we show the distribution of
the electron fraction, $Y_e$, against $T_{{\rm max}}$ for the
tracer particles. It can be seen again, that there are two
populations of particles. At
$T_{{\rm max}} > 7 \times 10^9$ K, $Y_e$
drops towards higher $T_{{\rm max}}$
from the initial 0.5 to $\sim 0.46$.
This corresponds to
the particles incinerated by the deflagration wave
at high densities, where electron capture can
efficiently take place. The other population corresponds
to the particles burnt by the detonation wave
or by the deflagration wave with a low density.
Electron capture occurs at a much slower rate,
so that $Y_e$ stays between $0.5$ and $0.499$ at $T_{{\rm max}} < 7 \times 10^9$ K.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=8cm,height=5.7cm]{final_solarcomp_plot.eps}
\caption{$[X_i/^{56}{\rm Fe}]$ of stable isotopes
in the near-Ch-mass benchmark model
after short-lived radioactive isotopes have
decayed. The ratios are scaled to the solar ratios.
The horizontal lines at
$\pm 0.3$ correspond to 0.5 or 2.0 times the solar values.}
\label{fig:final_Chand_std}
\end{figure}
The nucleosynthesis yields of the benchmark model
are shown
in Figure \ref{fig:final_Chand_std}, where
mass ratios scaled to the solar ratios, [$X_i/^{56}$Fe],
are plotted against the mass number.
The two horizontal lines correspond to
twice- and half-solar ratios.
Due to the fast detonation wave, very small amounts of C, O,
and Ne are left in the WD. The detonation wave
mostly burns matter at a low density and produces
intermediate mass elements from Si to Ca close to
the solar ratios.
One can also see a healthy production of iron peaked
elements from Cr to Ni, except mild over-production of $^{54}$Fe and
$^{58}$Ni. Heavier iron-peak elements
such as Co and Zn are under-produced.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=8cm,height=5.7cm]{final_defndet_solar_plot.eps}
\caption{The same as Figure \ref{fig:final_Chand_std} but for the particles ignited by deflagration (solid lines) and detonation (dashed lines), respectively.}
\label{fig:final_Chand_defndet_std}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:final_Chand_defndet_std} we plot
the same abundances split into the deflagration
and detonation components.
As noted previously, the detonation (dashed line)
mainly burns the low density matter, and small amounts of
C, O and Ne are left. It mostly produces
the intermediate mass elements, in particular
$^{28}$Si, $^{32}$S, $^{36}$Ar and $^{40}$Ca,
with the values even higher than the solar ratios. The detonation
wave also produces some iron-peak elements
very close to the solar ratios. On the other hand,
the deflagration wave (solid line) burns mainly
high density matter and no fuel is left. It
also produces very little intermediate mass elements.
However, electron capture
occurs mainly in matter burnt by the deflagration,
where the iron-peak elements, including neutron-rich
ones such as $^{54}$Fe, $^{55}$Mn, and $^{58}$Ni, are largely enhanced.
\subsection{Sub-Chandrasekhar-Mass White Dwarf}
For the sub-Ch-mass models, we construct a
two-layer WD with carbon-oxygen in the core
and pure helium in the envelope. The helium layer has to be thin (e.g., Fig. \ref{fig:final_sChand_std}),
and in this paper we adopt $M({\rm He})=0.05 ~M_{\odot}$.
Note that this value is smaller than assumed in the binary population synthesis model by \citet[][$0.1M_\odot$]{rui11} and is consistent with other previous works on explosions \citep{bil07,she09,fin10,kro10,woo11}.
The total WD masses including the He layer are 0.9, 0.95, 1.0, $1.1$, and $1.2M_\odot$.
The assumption of the composition is the same as near-Ch-mass models in \S 2.2 but with the metallicities of $Z= 0$, 0.001, 0.002, 0.004, 0.01, $0.02$, and $0.04$.
For $Z=0.02$,
the benchmark model is selected to
produce a normal SN Ia of $^{56}$Ni mass
$\sim 0.6 ~M_{\odot}$. It is known that
sub-Ch-mass models cannot produce
sufficient Mn for explaining the solar abundance
\citep{Seitenzahl2013}. Thus, we do not
impose any constraint on the Mn production.
Again, we also require stable Ni not to be
over-produced.
In LN19 we have computed a series
of 40 models of SNe Ia using sub-Ch
mass C+O WDs as the progenitors.
A wide range of models with
a progenitor mass from 0.9 - 1.2 $M_\odot$ has been
computed for metallicities from 0 to 5 $Z_\odot$\footnote{The initial composition and the decay time are updated in this paper, similar to near-Ch-mass models.},
C/O mass ratios from 0.3 to 1.0, and He envelope masses from 0.05 to 0.2 $M_\odot$.
The initial mass
and metallicity strongly affects nucleosynthesis yields.
Unlike the near-Ch-mass models where
the central density determines the occurrence of electron capture,
the initial mass determines the $^{56}$Ni production,
and the abundance pattern mainly depends on the scaling with
$^{56}$Fe.
Therefore, compared to the near-Ch-mass models,
there is a smaller variety of abundance patterns for sub-Ch-mass models
because of its pure detonation
nature, where most matter does not have a sufficiently high
density for rapid electron capture before it
cools down by expansion.
For the explosion mechanism, in this paper
the double detonation
model is used, where the carbon detonation is triggered by
helium detonation.
In LN19, multiple types
of detonation-triggers were investigated; one bubble (a spherical shell),
multiple bubbles, and a belt-shaped helium detonation at the beginning of the simulations.
Although this affects the minimum helium mass required for detonation, for the models with $M({\rm Fe})\sim0.6M_\odot$ the abundance patterns of iron-peak elements are not so different, and thus we only use the spherical one (``S''-type in LN19) in this paper.
The simulation starts from a He detonation in a 100km spherical shell just outside of the C+O core.
Since it is super-sonic,
both central density and temperature of
the WD remain unchanged for the first 1 second,
although the global maximum temperature ($T_{{\rm max}}$) gradually decreases.
Once the shock wave reaches the centre, the central C-detonation is triggered,
and the central temperature and density rapidly increase.
After that the expansion allows the
matter to cool down rapidly.
Both central and global maximum densities
drop together, showing that the core has relaxed
and starts its expansion
(see Figs. 5, 6, and 7 of LN19 for the temperature, energy, and luminosity evolution).
As in Figure \ref{fig:traj_Chand_std},
Figure \ref{fig:traj_sChand_std} shows
the distribution of $T_{{\rm max}}$ against $\rho_{{\rm max}}$ for
the sub-Ch-mass benchmark model. Due to the detonation nature,
there is always a wide spectrum of $T_{{\rm max}}$ for
a given $\rho_{{\rm max}}$. This means that the detonation
waves inside the stars can efficiently re-heat the matter,
even when the matter is completely burnt. Compared
to the near-Ch-mass model, this model can achieve similar
$T_{{\rm max}}$ even with a lower $\rho_{{\rm max}}$. This is
because part of the tracer particles
can encounter much stronger shock heating due to
geometric convergence, especially near the center.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=8cm,height=5.7cm]{traj_den_subChand_plot.eps}
\caption{$T_{{\rm max}}$ against $\rho_{{\rm max}}$
for the sub-Ch-mass benchmark model according to
the thermodynamic trajectories. Contours correspond to
tracer particle numbers of 100 (purple), 300 (blue), 500 (green), 700 (red), and
900 (orange) for the C+O matter (dashed lines), and those with 10 times smaller numbers for the He matter
(solid lines).}
\label{fig:traj_sChand_std}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=8cm,height=5.7cm]{traj_ye_subChand_plot.eps}
\caption{$Y_{e,{\rm~min}}$ against $\rho_{{\rm max}}$
for the sub-Ch-mass benchmark model according to
the thermodynamic trajectories.
The contours are the same as in Figure \ref{fig:traj_sChand_std}.}
\label{fig:ye_sChand_std}
\end{figure}
As in Figure \ref{fig:ye_Chand_std},
Figure \ref{fig:ye_sChand_std} shows the
distribution of $Y_e$.
Compared to the near-Ch-mass counterpart,
there are much less tracer particles where
significant electron capture takes place.
Although the maximum $\rho_{{\rm max}}$
can be comparable to the near-Ch-mass model,
the high density is due to shock compression and
the time duration for the particle to remain
in such a density is comparatively short. Therefore,
the fluid elements have less time
to carry out weak interactions than
in the near-Ch-mass model.
Therefore, only a few particles can be found at relatively low $Y_e$ as $\sim 0.499$.
Note that the range of $Y_e$ is much smaller than in Fig. \ref{fig:ye_Chand_std}.
The nucleosynthesis yields, [$X_i/^{56}$Fe], are shown
in Figure \ref{fig:final_sChand_std}
for the sub-Ch
mass benchmark model (solid line),
comparing to the model with a thicker helium envelope.
The star is completely burnt, and only small amounts of
C, O, and Ne are left. Intermediate
mass elements from Si to Ca show the ratios close to half-solar
values.
With $M({\rm He})=0.1M_\odot$ (dashed line),
there is a large enhancement of $^{48}$Ti, $^{51}$V, and $^{52}$Cr.
This is related to
the helium detonation, especially during the end of
He detonation. The iron-peak elements are also
healthily produced, except for Mn.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=8cm,height=5.7cm]{final_subChand_GCE_plot.eps}
\caption{$[X_i/^{56}{\rm Fe}]$ of stable isotopes
in the sub-Ch-mass benchmark model (solid lines)
after short-lived radioactive isotopes have
decayed. The ratios are scaled to the solar ratios. The horizontal lines at
$\pm 0.3$ correspond to 0.5 or 2.0 times the solar values.
A similar model but with a thicker helium layer $M({\rm He})=0.1M_\odot$ (dashed lines) is shown for comparison.
}
\label{fig:final_sChand_std}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=8cm,height=5.7cm]{final_henco_solar_plot.eps}
\caption{The same as Figure \ref{fig:final_sChand_std} but for the particles ignited by carbon (solid lines) and helium (dashed lines) detonation, respectively.}
\label{fig:final_sChand_henco_std}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:final_sChand_henco_std} we plot
[$X_i/^{56}$Fe] for the sub-Ch-mass benchmark
model with the He- and C-detonation components, separately.
Again, in the C-detonation component (solid line),
since low density matter in the core is also detonated,
small amounts of C, O, and Ne remain.
Intermediate mass elements are still produced.
Sc, Ti, and Cr are under-produced, unlike the full abundance
profile in Fig. \ref{fig:final_sChand_std}.
Among iron-peak elements, only $^{57}$Fe and $^{60}$Ni are sufficiently
produced. On the other hand, the He-detonation (dashed line) produces a very different abundance
pattern. Intermediate mass elements are significantly under-produced.
In contrast, there is a large enhancement of Ti, Cr, and V, with
ratios to $^{56}$Fe as large as $\sim 30$ times
the solar values.
Iron-peak elements from Mn to Zn
look enhanced, but this is due to
the small production of $^{56}$Ni.
Note that the mass of the He envelope is 20 times smaller than that of the C+O core.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=8.5cm]{comp_MnFe_mass_plot.eps}
\caption{The total masses of Ca, Mn,
Fe, and Ni in the ejecta of sub-Ch-mass
models as a function of WD mass. All models have the initial
metallicity $Z = 0.02$.}
\label{fig:element_mass}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:element_mass} we plot the
total yielded mass of Ca, Mn, Fe and Ni in the ejecta for
our sub-Ch-mass models as a function of WD mass.
Clear trends can be observed for all elements.
The mass yields of Fe and Ni are monotonically
increasing against WD, while that of Ca is monotonically decreasing.
In contrast,
Mn mass increases and then decreases with a
transition at $M_{\rm WD} = 1.0 M_{\odot}$. These trends
show how the C-detonation strength contributes
to the formation and destruction of elements
during nucleosynthesis. For the intermediate mass
elements such as Si, S, and Ca, when the WD mass increases
the C+O-fuel is more likely to undergo complete
burning until NSE, and thus the nuclear reactions
do not stop at Ca but continue to form iron-peak elements.
This also explains the monotonic increase in Fe and Ni with WD mass.
The falling part of Mn is also a consequence
of the strong C-detonation, which gives
more NSE-burning instead of $\alpha$-rich freezeout.
The rising part of Mn is caused by suppression of
the incomplete and complete Si-burning
at the globally low density in
low mass WDs.
\subsection{Comparison between Benchmark Models}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=8.5cm]{element_massCK.eps}
\caption{The total masses of Cr, Mn,
Fe, and Ni
as a function of metallicity for the Ch (red solid lines)
and sub-Ch (blue dashed lines) mass benchmark models.
The dotted lines show the masses of
the major isotopes, $^{56}$Fe and $^{58}$Ni.
}
\label{fig:comp_element_plot}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=8.5cm]{element_mass_Ne22CK.eps}
\caption{The same as Fig. \ref{fig:comp_element_plot} but for the LN19 yields with only $^{22}$Ne for the $Z$ component of the initial composition.}
\label{fig:comp_element_plot_Ne}
\end{figure}
Finally, in Figure \ref{fig:comp_element_plot}, we plot the total yielded
masses of Cr, Mn, Fe, and Ni in the Ch
and sub-Ch mass models as a function of
initial metallicity $Z$.
The metallicity dependence is significantly different from the yields in LN19, which are shown in Figure \ref{fig:comp_element_plot_Ne} for comparison.
In general, Cr, Mn, Ni are produced more in near-Ch-mass models than in sub-Ch-mass models by a factor of $\sim 2,10,6$, respectively, and the metallicity dependence for Mn and Ni is stronger (i.e., Z=0 to Z=0.04) in sub-Ch-mass models than in near-Ch-mass models.
The total Cr mass decreases when
$Z$ increases.
This trend comes from the
the lower energy releases with higher $Z$.
At $Z > 0.04$ in Figure \ref{fig:comp_element_plot_Ne}, however, Cr mass increases with $Z$.
For these near-Ch-mass models, when $Z$ further increases,
deflagration is further suppressed, leaving
more matter to be burnt by detonation.
Note that Cr is produced not only by deflagration and but also by detonation (Fig. \ref{fig:final_Chand_defndet_std}).
The total Mn mass increases monotonically with $Z$
because the initial $^{22}$Ne is the seed of $^{55}$Mn.
Mn is much more produced in near-Ch-mass models than in sub-Ch-mass models.
This is due to electron capture during the initial deflagration phase,
where more matter can have the $Y_{\rm e}$ required to form Mn.
In near-Ch-mass models, Mn is mainly produced by NSE during deflagration via $^{52}$Fe($\alpha$,p)$^{55}$Co, and a ten times smaller amount of Mn can also be produced by incomplete Si-burning at detonation (Fig. \ref{fig:final_Chand_defndet_std}) depending on $Z$.
In sub-Ch-mass models, Mn mostly comes from incomplete Si-burning at He detonation (Fig. \ref{fig:final_sChand_henco_std}), which also depends on $Z$.
The total Fe mass decreases monotonically with $Z$
because most Fe comes from
$^{56}$Fe, most of which comes from decay of
$^{56}$Ni (which has $Y_e = 0.5$).
This isotope is
produced by the ash in detonation which enters
the NSE region.
Increasing metallicity lowers the
original $Y_e$ of the fuel. As
a result, even without significant electron capture
compared to the deflagration ash, the high metallicity
automatically suppresses production of $^{56}$Ni,
and hence decreases total Fe mass.
The total $^{58}$Ni mass increases monotonically with $Z$,
because the
initial $^{22}$Ne is connected to $^{58}$Ni directly
by an $\alpha$-chain (e.g., $^{54}$Fe($\alpha, \gamma$)$^{58}$Ni).
However, this trend becomes much weaker if we adopt the solar composition for the initial metallicity (Fig. \ref{fig:comp_element_plot}).
Higher metallicity models have a
slightly stronger detonation, which also enhances
$^{58}$Ni production.
$^{58}$Ni is produced in NSE by the deflagration in near-Ch-mass models (Fig. \ref{fig:final_Chand_defndet_std}) independent of $Z$, and also by incomplete Si-burning at detonation in near-Ch and sub-Ch mass models, depending on $Z$ (Fig. \ref{fig:final_sChand_henco_std}).
\section{Galactic Chemical Evolution}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{snialifet.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:ia}
Delay-time/lifetime distributions in our model, comparing to the observation from \citet[][black solid and long-dashed lines]{mao14}, and to the binary population synthesis from \citet[][black dotted line]{rui14} where all possible SN Ia progenitors are included; single-degenerate, double-degenerate, and He delayed-detonation.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\center
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{fig4.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:mdf}
(a) Star formation history, (b) iron abundance evolution, and (c) metallicity distribution functions in the solar neighborhood for the model with Ch-mass SNe Ia only (red solid lines), sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia only (green dotted lines), 50 \% Ch and 50 \% sub-Ch mass SNe Ia (blue short-dashed lines), and 75 \% Ch and 25 \% sub-Ch mass SNe Ia (magenta long-dashed lines).
See K19 for the observational data sources.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig5.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:snr}
The same as Fig. \ref{fig:mdf} but for supernova rate histories: the time evolution of core-collapse supernova rates (panel a), total SN Ia rate (panel b), and the ratio of sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia to the total SNe Ia (panel c).
The open circles indicate the observed SN Ia rate in a Milky Way-type galaxy taken from \citet{li11}.
The cross shows the observational estimate of the sub-Ch-mass fraction by \citet{sca14}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=8.2cm]{zeffect.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:iaz}
The [O/Fe]--[Fe/H] relations in the solar neighborhood for the models with Ch-mass SNe Ia only.
The red solid line is our fiducial model with the metallicity effect of WD winds. The green short-dashed line does not include the metallicity effect. The blue long-dashed line does not include it either, but include the metallicity dependence of the binary fraction from \citep{moe19}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\center
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{fig1.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:ch}
Evolution of iron-peak elements against [Fe/H]
for the fiducial model with our 2D DDT yields (red solid lines), 3D DDT yields from \citet{Seitenzahl2013} (green dotted lines), the updated W7 yields (blue short-dashed lines), and the old W7 yields \citep{Nomoto1997,iwa99} (magenta long-dashed lines). The cyan dot-dashed lines are for the model in K11 where the old W7 yields are adopted.
Observational data sources are:
filled circles with errorbars, \citet{zha16};
filled squares with errorbars, \citet{reg17};
crosses, \citet{ful00};
small filled and open circles, \citet{red03,red06,red08} for thin and thick disk/halo stars;
for Cr II,
filled triangles, \citet{ben03};
for Mn,
filled triangles, \citet{fel07};
for Ni,
small filled and open triangles, \citet{ben14} for thin and thick disk stars.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\center
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{fig2.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:subch}
The same as Fig. \ref{fig:ch} but for our 2D yields of sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia from 0.9-1.2 $M_\odot$ (green dotted lines) and $1.0 M_\odot$ (blue short-dashed lines) WDs, and 0.8-1.1 $M_\odot$ (magenta long-dashed lines) and $1.0 M_\odot$ (cyan dot-dashed lines) 1D yields from \citet{Shen2018}.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\center
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{fig3.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:both}
The same as Fig. \ref{fig:ch} but for sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia only (green dotted lines), 50 \% Ch and 50 \% sub-Ch mass SNe Ia (blue short-dashed lines), and 75 \% Ch and 25 \% sub-Ch mass SNe Ia (magenta long-dashed lines).
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}
\center
\caption{\label{tab:param}
Parameters of the GCE models for the solar neighbourhood (SN) and dwarf spheroidal galaxies: timescales of infall ($\tau_{\rm i}$), star formation ($\tau_{\rm s}$), and outflow ($\tau_{\rm o}$), and the galactic wind epoch $\tau_{\rm w}$, all in Gyr.}
\begin{tabular}{l|cccc}
\hline
& $\tau_{\rm i}$ & $\tau_{\rm s}$ & $\tau_{\rm o}$ & $t_{\rm w}$ \\
\hline
SN, Ch only & 5 & 4.7 & - & - \\
SN, 75\% sub-Ch & 5 & 4.0 & - & - \\
SN, 50\% sub-Ch & 5 & 3.2 & - & - \\
SN, sub-Ch only & 5 & 1.0 & - & - \\
\hline
Fornax & 10 ($t<9$) & 25 & 5 & 12 \\
Fornax, no sub-Ch & 10 ($t<9$) & 15 & 5 & 12 \\
Sculptor & 1 & 50 & 1 & 9 \\
Sculptor, no sub-Ch & 1 & 40 & 1 & 9 \\
Sextans & 0.5 & 100 & 1.4 & 7 \\
Sextans, no sub-Ch & 0.5 & 70 & 1.4 & 7 \\
Carina & 0.1 ($t<6.5$) & 200 & 5 & 12 \\
& 100 ($t=6.5-9$) & & & \\
Carina, no sub-Ch & 0.1 ($t<6.5$) & 100 & 5 & 12 \\
& 100 ($t=6.5-9$) & & & \\
Carina, Iax*50 & 0.1 ($t<6.5$) & 400 & 5 & 12 \\
& 100 ($t=6.5-9$) & & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{The GCE code}
\label{sec:gce}
Since nucleosynthesis yields are significantly different between Ch and sub-Ch mass SNe Ia, changing the relative contribution results in different elemental abundance ratios at a given metallicity.
The evolutionary tracks of elemental abundance ratios depend on the star formation history. However, the star formation history can be tightly constrained from the other independent observations, namely, the metallicity distribution function of stars in the system considered, and in the solar neighborhood, only a small variation is possible for the evolutionary tracks of elemental abundance ratios (see Appendix A).
Therefore, the elemental abundance ratios in the solar neighborhood have been used as the most stringent constraint for the nucleosynthesis yields of core-collapse supernovae \citep[e.g.,][]{tim95,kob06,rom10} and for the progenitor models of SNe Ia \citep[e.g.,][]{mat86,kob98}.
The evolutionary tracks of elemental abundance ratios are calculated with GCE models \citep{tin80,pagel1997,matteucci2001}, and our basic equations are described in \citet{kob00}.
The code follows the time evolution of elemental and isotopic abundances in a system where the interstellar medium (ISM) is instantaneously well mixed (and thus it is also called a ``one-zone'' model).
No instantaneous recycling approximation is adopted and thus chemical enrichment sources with long time-delays such as SNe Ia are properly included.
The stellar physics/empirical relations included in our GCE models are as follows;
The star formation rate (SFR) is proportional to the gas fraction, which evolves with inflow and outflow to/from the system considered as well as mass-loss from dying stars and supernova explosions.
The Kroupa initial mass function (IMF) is adopted \citep[][hereafter K11]{kob11agb}. The nucleosynthesis yields of core-collapse supernovae, Type II supernovae and hypernovae (HNe), are also taken from K11\footnote{The yield table is identical to that in \citet{Nomoto2013}.} but with failed supernovae at $>30M_\odot$ (K19). The HN fraction depends on the metallicity; $\epsilon_{\rm HN}=0.5, 0.5, 0.4, 0.01$, and $0.01$ for $Z=0, 0.001, 0.004, 0.02$, and $0.05$ \citep{kob11mw}.
Then, the gas infall and star formation timescales, $\tau_{\rm i}$ and $\tau_{\rm s}$, are determined to match the observed metallicity distribution function (MDF) of the system.
As shown in Appendix A, the set of $\tau_{\rm i}$ and $\tau_{\rm s}$ can be uniquely determined from the MDF (Fig.\ref{fig:gce2}), and we chose $\tau_{\rm i}=5$ and $\tau_{\rm s}=4.7$ for our fiducial model (K11). Our conclusions are not affected by this choice of these parameters.
\subsection{SN Ia model}
\label{sec:snia}
For Ch-mass SNe Ia ($1.37M_\odot$), we introduced our formulation for the rate in K98, and the details are discussed in \citet[][hereafter KN09]{kob09}.
The lifetime distribution function (also called delay-time distribution, DTD) is calculated
with Eq.[2] in KN09; it multiplies the mass functions of primary and secondary stars, and gives a very similar results to the formula in \citet{gre83}.
The main difference is that we include the metallicity dependence of secondary mass ranges due to the requirements of the WD optically-thick winds \citep{kob98} and
the mass-stripping on the binary companion stars (KN09).
As a result, our SN Ia rate drops at lower [Fe/H] than $\sim -1.1$ (i.e., $A({\rm O}) \sim 7.6$).
Without this metallicity effect on the SN Ia rate, it is not possible to reproduce the observed [O/Fe]--[Fe/H] relation in the solar neighborhood (K98, see also Fig.\ref{fig:iaz}).
This metallicity cut is not inconsistent with the observed metallicities of host galaxies (KN09), although such metallicity dependence has not yet been seen in the observations of SN Ia rates.
In the observed mass-metallicity relation of galaxies, the stellar metallicity of [Fe/H] $\sim -1.1$ corresponds to a stellar mass of $\sim 10^{7-8}M_\odot$ \citep{zah17}, above which the specific SN Ia rate increases toward lower-mass galaxies but is uncertain below this mass \citep{bro19}.
The range of lifetimes are determined from the mass ranges of secondary stars (K09).
As a result,
the main sequence (MS) star$+$WD systems have timescales of
$\sim 0.1-1$ Gyr, which are dominant in star-forming galaxies and correspond to the observed ``prompt'' population \citep{man06,sul06},
while the red giant (RG) star$+$WD systems have lifetimes of $\sim 1-20$ Gyr, which are dominant in
early-type galaxies and correspond to the ``delayed'' population.
The shortest lifetime depends on the maximum secondary mass, which depends the progenitor metallicity (KN09). The longest lifetime is determined from the minimum secondary mass, which is $0.9 M_\odot$ independent of metallicity. At high metallicity, stellar luminosity is lower due to the higher opacity, which results in a longer stellar lifetime. Therefore, our SN Ia lifetime becomes as long as 20 Gyr at solar metallicity. This metallicity dependent lifetime was not taken into account in \citet{hac08}.
Finally, the normalization, i.e., the absolute rate of (Ch-mass) SNe Ia, is determined by two binary parameters respectively for the MS+WD and RG+WD systems, $b_{\rm MS}$ and $b_{\rm RG}$.
The set of $b_{\rm MS}$ and $b_{\rm RG}$ can be uniquely determined from the [O/Fe]--[Fe/H] relation at [Fe/H] $>-1$ (Fig.\ref{fig:gce3}), and we chose $b_{\rm RG}=0.02$ and $b_{\rm MS}=0.04$ for our fiducial model.
This choice does not affect our conclusions either, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:gce3} of Appendix A.
The binary parameters include not only binary fractions, but also separations and any other conditions that successfully lead SN Ia explosions, and the numbers are defined as the fractions of WDs that eventually explode as SNe Ia at $Z=0.004$.
At $Z \sim 0.02$, the resultant delay-time/lifetime distribution is very similar to that derived from observed supernova rates in nearby galaxies \citep{mao14}.
Figure \ref{fig:ia} shows the comparison of observational and theoretical distributions to ours.
For sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia, we used the same formula for single degenerate systems in \citet{kob15}. In this paper, however, in order to include sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia both from single and double degenerate systems, we use the ``observed'' delay-time distribution function instead; the rate is $10^{-13} {\rm yr}^{-1} M_\odot^{-1}$ at 1 Gyr, proportional to $1/t$ over 0.04-20 Gyr, independent of metallicity.
For single degenerate systems, the rate could be higher for lower metallicities because the maximum secondary mass becomes lower (see Fig.1 of \citealt{kob15}).
For double degenerate systems, however, no such a metallicity dependence is expected, but this should be studied in more details with binary population synthesis.
For sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia, the nucleosynthesis yields not only depend on metallicity but also depend on the masses of the primary WD.
Since the mass distribution of primary WDs is uncertain, we add the contributions from $0.9, 1.0, 1.1$, and $1.2M_\odot$ WDs respectively with 10\%, 40\%, 40\%, and 10\% for our 2D double detonation yields.
With this weighting, on average sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia give less Fe mass per event than for Ch-mass SNe Ia.
\subsection{Star Formation History}
In this paper, we show four GCE models with Ch-mass SNe Ia only (solid lines), sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia only (dotted lines), 50\% each contribution (short-dashed lines), and 75\% Ch-mass and 25\% sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia contributions (long-dashed lines).
For each case, star formation and infall timescales are chosen to reproduce the observed metallicity distribution function (Fig. \ref{fig:mdf}c), as well as the present SFR (Fig. \ref{fig:mdf}a) and the solar metallicity at 4.6 Gyr ago (Fig. \ref{fig:mdf}b).
In the models with sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia, because of lower Fe production (on average), higher SFRs are required to obtain the same peak metallicity of the MDF, compared with the model with Ch-mass SNe Ia only (Table \ref{tab:param}).
Figure \ref{fig:snr} shows supernova rate histories.
Reflecting the small difference in the SFRs, there is also a small difference in the core-collapse supernova rates (panel a).
The middle panel shows the total SN Ia rates.
With the ``observed'' delay-time distribution, sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia start to occur $0.04$ Gyr after the onset of galaxy formation, and the rate monotonically decreases as a function of time.
Therefore, with a larger fraction of sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia, the total SN Ia rate becomes higher at early epochs.
This means that the ISM reaches [Fe/H] $=-1.1$ earlier, Ch-mass SNe Ia start to occur earlier with our progenitor model, and thus the second peak caused by Ch-mass SNe Ia also appears earlier.
The model with Ch-mass SNe Ia only gives the best match to the observed rate for Milky-Way type galaxies.
Note that, however, this is not a totally fair comparison since the observed values are for the entire galaxy while the model is for the solar neighborhood.
It is difficult to observationally estimate the sub-Ch-mass fraction in the total SN Ia rate; it requires estimating ejecta mass from supernova light curves modelling as well as handling the selection bias of observed supernovae.
\citet{sca14} estimated the sub-Ch-mass fraction at 25-50\% in their unbiased sample of spectroscopically normal SNe Ia.
The bottom panel shows the fraction of sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia to the total SNe Ia rate for our models, which evolves as a function of time. It is 100\% at the beginning, while it decreases once Ch-mass SNe Ia starts to occur.
At present, 50\% GCE contribution of sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia results in 25\% of sub-Ch-mass fraction in the SN Ia rate (blue short-dashed line), which is in reasonable agreement with the observational estimate.
This fraction also depends on the evolutionary phase of the galaxy, and hence on the type/mass of the host galaxies.
On the other hand, the observational estimate of the sub-Ch-mass fraction is for the average of various types/masses of galaxies with various stellar ages.
Because of these reasons, we do not adopt the ``observed'' sub-Ch-mass fraction, but instead aim to constrain the fraction using GCE modes.
Figure \ref{fig:iaz} shows the resultant [O/Fe]--[Fe/H] relations for the models with Ch-mass SNe Ia only.
Without the metallicity effect on the WD winds, it is not possible to reproduce the observed evolutionary change of [O/Fe] at [Fe/H] $\sim -1$ (see \S \ref{sec:xfe} for the observational data).
As noted above, changing star formation timescale would not solve this problem, while reproducing the observed MDF (see also Fig.\ref{fig:gce2}).
Recently, metallicity dependence of the binary fraction is indicated from observations \citep{moe19}, where the binary fraction is higher at lower metallicities.
If we scale our binary parameter ($b_{\rm MS}$ and $b_{\rm RG}$) to the observed metallicity-dependent binary fraction, then there are many more SNe Ia at earlier epochs, which decreases the [O/Fe] ratios even further away from the observational data.
Therefore, it is necessary to include our metallicity effect of Ch-mass SNe Ia in order to reproduce this most important observation of GCE.
\subsection{Elemental Abundance Ratios}
\label{sec:xfe}
Not only [O/Fe] ratios but also abundance ratios among iron-peak elements are the key to constrain the fraction of sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia.
For the elemental abundance ratios of individual stars, the most accurate observational data, i.e., high-resolution observations with star-by-star analysis, are available for the solar neighborhood.
We take the non-local-thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE) abundances for oxygen \citep{zha16}, while LTE abundances are used for iron-peak elements \citep[e.g.,][]{red03,fel07,ben14,reg17}.
The NLTE effects of iron-peak abundances could also be important. It is worth noting, however, that the effects may not be so large with the updated atomic data (\citealt{sne16}, but see \citealt{ber08}).
The exception is for Cr, and we plot Cr II observations (see \citealt{kob06} for the comparison between Cr I and Cr II observations).
Figure \ref{fig:ch} shows the evolution of elemental abundances against [Fe/H] for the models with various yields of Ch-mass SNe Ia.
[O/Fe] shows a decrease from [Fe/H] $\sim -1$ to higher [Fe/H], while [Mn/Fe] shows an increase; these opposite behaviours are well reproduced by the delayed enrichment of SNe Ia.
The observed [Ni/Fe] ratios show a constant value of $\sim 0$ over all the metallicity range.
It has been known that the W7 yields \citep{Nomoto1997,iwa99} over-produce Ni by $\sim 0.5$ dex (magenta long-dashed and cyan dot-dashed lines; see also Fig. 24 of \citealt{kob06}).
This Ni over-production problem is mostly solved with the updated nuclear reaction rates, mainly due to the lower electron-capture rates (blue dashed lines)\footnote{The updated W7 yields were presented in \citet{Nomoto2018} and LN18, which are re-calculated with new initial composition and decay time in this paper.}.
$Y_{\rm e}$ becomes higher approaching to 0.5, which gives lower [(Ni, Co)/Fe] and higher [(Cr, Mn)/Fe].
Our 2D DDT yields of $1.37M_\odot$ give very similar results (red solid lines) as the updated W7 yields, but the [Mn/Fe] ratio is reduced by 0.1 dex because of slower flame speed in our more realistic 2D model, which gives a better agreement with observations.
The 3D DDT yields from \citet{Seitenzahl2013} also give very similar results (green dotted lines) as our 2D DDT yields but with 0.1 dex higher [(Mn, Ni)/Fe] ratios. This is probably because their multi-ignitions result in more material to be burnt by deflagration waves.
In summary, with the updated electron-capture rates, these three models (W7, 2D DDT, and 3D DDT) of Ch-mass SNe Ia give the elemental abundance ratios within the observational scatters in the solar neighborhood, and our 2D DDT gives the best fit to [Mn/Ni] ratios at $-1 \ltsim$ [Fe/H] $\ltsim 0.3$.
The [Ni/Fe] ratio still shows a mild increase from $-0.2$ to $+0.05$ with [Fe/H]. Whether this is inconsistent or not depends on the yields of core-collapse supernovae that determine the plateau value of [Ni/Fe] at [Fe/H] $\ltsim -1$. Since both Ni and Fe are formed at the innermost regions of core-collapse supernovae, multidimensional effects can change the Ni/Fe ratios.
Although the star formation history is the same as in K11 (cyan dot-dashed lines) and K19 (red solid lines), the K19 model is updated by including faint supernovae, a metal-dependent HN fraction, and different SN Ia parameters.
These result in a slightly higher time-integrated SN Ia rate with slightly later start (see Fig.\ref{fig:snr}), which leads to the lower [O/Fe] and higher [(Mn, Ni)/Fe] ratios than in the K11 model, at [Fe/H] $\sim 0$.
The better match of Ni is not due to the GCE modelling; the K19 model with the old W7 yields (magenta long-dashed lines) still shows the over-production of Ni.
Figure \ref{fig:subch} shows the impact of sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia on GCE models.
There are two problems when compared with observations.
First of all, the decrease of Fe yield results in a much shallower [O/Fe] slope. The difference around [Fe/H] $\sim -1$ is caused by the metal-independent delay-time distribution adopted for sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia; sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia occur earlier than Ch-mass SNe Ia in the solar neighborhood models.
Secondly, the [Mn/Fe] ratio is much lower, giving almost no increase at [Fe/H] $\gtsim -1$, which cannot explain the observations.
For Ni, if the Ni/Fe ratio of core-collapse supernovae becomes 0.2 dex higher, sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia might not be inconsistent with the observations.
The [Cr/Fe] is 0.05 dex lower than the Ch-mass model, which is more consistent with the observations.
As noted in \S \ref{sec:snia}, there is a WD mass dependence on the yields of sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia, and $1.0M_\odot$ WD models gives relatively high Mn/Fe ratios (Fig. \ref{fig:element_mass}).
Even if we include $1.0M_\odot$ WDs only (blue short-dashed lines), our conclusion is unchanged; only with sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia, it is impossible to produce enough Mn to explain the observations in the solar neighborhood.
Our 2D yields are notably different from the 1D detonation yields from \citet{Shen2018} (magenta long-dashed lines), with which [(Cr, Mn, Ni)/Fe] ratios are higher than in our models.
Here we add the contributions from $0.8, 0.85, 0.9, 1.0$, and $1.1 M_\odot$ WDs respectively with 5\%, 5\%, 10\%, 40\%, and 40\%.
The difference is not caused by this summation; for the model with $1.0M_\odot$ only (cyan dot-dashed lines), we also find the same difference between our yields and \citet{Shen2018}'s yields.
Note that their yields were calculated using their 1D code without any He layer, and with the initial metallicity given by $^{22}$Ne only. Although a larger network is included during hydrodynamical calculation, the network during post-processing is smaller than ours.
In summary, compared with observations, none of these sub-Ch-mass SN Ia models (1D and 2D) show better a match than in the Ch-mass SN Ia model (red solid lines).
Sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia may help further in solving the Ni over-production problem, at the expense of reproducing the observed [$\alpha$/Fe] and [Mn/Fe]. Then, the next question is what fraction of SNe Ia can come from sub-Ch-mass WDs?
Figure \ref{fig:both} shows the evolution of elemental abundance ratios with varying the fraction of sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia.
If 50\% of the delay-time distribution comes from sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia, the [O/Fe] slope with [Fe/H] is too shallow, although the [(Mn, Ni)/Fe] ratios are within the scatters of observational data.
With 25\% sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia and 75\% Ch-mass SNe Ia, it is possible to reasonably reproduce all observational constraints.
\section{Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies}
\label{sec:dsph}
\begin{figure*}
\center
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{fig6.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:dsph-mdf}
The same as Fig. \ref{fig:mdf} but for dwarf spheroidal galaxies, Fornax (red solid lines), Sculptor (green long-dashed lines), Sextans (blue short-dashed lines), and Carina (magenta dotted lines).
The observational data sources are: \citet{deboer12for}, \citet{deboer12scl}, \citet{deboer14}, \citet{lee09} for the panel (a) and \citet{sta10} for the panel (c).
}
\end{figure*}
Detailed elemental abundances are also obtained for the stars in dSph galaxies \citep[e.g.,][]{tol09}, and from the observed abundance patterns, it has been debated if dSphs galaxies are the building blocks of the Galactic halo or not. The very different abundance patterns of the stars in `classical' dSphs (with relatively large stellar masses) suggest that dSphs are not the building blocks\footnote{Metal-poor stars of ultra-faint dSph galaxies can still be the building blocks.}, but instead they provide an independent constraint on stellar physics at a different environment.
DSph galaxies are not a homogeneous population but have formed with a variety of star formation histories, and various chemical evolution models have been presented \citep[e.g.,][]{carigi02,lanfranchi06,cescutti08,vincenzo14}.
Because of the shallow potential well, the ISM can be easily blown away due to supernova feedback after the initial star burst. In addition to the description in \S \ref{sec:gce}, outflow is also included, proportional to the SFR, i.e., the gas fraction of the system, with a timescale $\tau_{\rm o}$.
If supernova energies are accumulated, star formation can be totally quenched. This is called galactic winds, and the epoch is defined with $t_{\rm w}$.
In order to constrain GCE model parameters, it is necessary to have a number of observational constraints such as MDFs, and thus we model four dSphs galaxies, Fornax, Sculptors, Sextans, and Carina, which have stellar masses of $20, 2.3, 0.44$, and $0.38 \times 10^6M_\odot$ \citep{mcc12}.
Stellar age distributions have also been estimated comparing photometric data to stellar evolutionary tracks, which are also used for constraining model parameters. The adopted parameters are summarized in Table \ref{tab:param}.
Figure \ref{fig:dsph-mdf} shows the adopted observational constraints of SFRs and MDFs, as well as the model predictions of age-metallicity relations, for the fiducial models of these four dSph galaxies. The resultant formation histories can be summarised as follows.
The models for Sculptor and Sextans are very similar; both are formed by a rapid infall and star formation with a strong outflow. Since the star formation efficiency in Sextans is lower than in Sculptor, the average [Fe/H] of the MDF is $\sim 0.3$ dex lower, which is probably due to the mass difference of the systems.
The models for Fornax and Carina are also similar; both have extended star formation histories with longer infall timescales. Since the star formation efficiency in Carina is lower than in Fornax, the peak [Fe/H] of the MDF is $\sim 0.6$ dex lower, which is also due to the mass difference of the systems. There is also an outflow, but this is weaker than in Sculptor and Sextans.
Through dynamical interaction, it is possible to have multiple gas infalls in dSph galaxies. The observed age distribution of Carina is well reproduced by two infalls, one with a short timescale and another with a much longer timescale at time $t=6.5$ Gyr.
Because of the reasons described in the next section, in these fiducial models, the 100\% contribution of sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia is added on top of the contributions from core-collapse supernovae and Ch-mass SNe Ia\footnote{For the solar neighborhood models in \S 3, the total SN Ia rate is fixed and only the relative contribution from Ch and sub-Ch mass SNe Ia is varied.} (or SN Iax for Sculptor).
In the predicted iron abundance evolutions (panel b), chemical enrichment timescales are shorter for more massive systems. In observational data, the age--metallicity relations should have steeper slopes at $t\ltsim 3$ Gyr, although for such old stars it is very difficult to estimate age and metallicity independently.
The three dSph galaxies (except for Carina) reached [Fe/H] $\sim -1$ at $t=$ 5 to 10 Gyrs, and after that the iron abundance evolution is speeded up because of Ch-mass SNe Ia. In Carina, however, [Fe/H] never reaches $\sim -1$ as in the observed MDF (panel c), and thus there is no enrichment from Ch-mass SNe Ia\footnote{Note that, however, in more realistic hydrodynamical simulations \citep[e.g.,][]{kob11mw}, Ch-mass SNe can occur at [Fe/H] $\ltsim -1$ due to inhomogeneous enrichment, and [$\alpha$/Fe] can show a decrease in the case of strong supernova feedback.}.
\subsection{Elemental Abundance Ratios}
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig7.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:fornax}
Evolution of elemental abundances against [Fe/H] for Fornax dSph galaxy with all SN Ia channels (red solid lines), sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia only (green short-dashed lines), and Ch-mass SNe Ia and SNe Iax (blue long-dashed lines).
The large points show high-resolution NLTE abundances from \citet{mas17} and LTE abundances for Mn and Cr from \citet{jab15}.
The small points show low-resolution observational data from \citet{kir19}.
The gray points show LTE abundances (see \citealt{kob15} for the references therein).
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig8.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:sculptor}
The same as Fig.\ref{fig:fornax} but for Sculptor dSph galaxy with all SN Ia channels (red solid lines), sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia only (green dotted lines), Ch-mass SNe Ia plus 50 times more SNe Iax (blue short-dashed lines), and sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia plus 50 times more SNe Iax (magenta long-dashed lines).
}
\end{figure}
As in \S \ref{sec:xfe}, abundance ratios among iron-peak elements are the key to constrain the contribution of various types of SNe Ia in dSph galaxies.
However, it is much harder to estimate these abundance ratios because of the distance of the systems (the only observed stars are red-giants) and the limited samples of each system. In particular, NLTE analysis has been made only for a small number of stars.
For constraining models, Mg NLTE abundances and Ni LTE abundances are taken from \citet{mas17}, which uses the same NLTE model as in \citet{zha16} for the solar neighborhood.
Mn and Cr data are taken from \citet{jab15} also with their LTE analysis.
Cr abundances are obtained from the Cr I lines, which are known to underestimate Cr abundances, and a +0.4 dex shift is applied as in \citet{kob06}.
LTE Mn abundances are also taken from \citet{nor12}.
A few more stars are taken from the data compilation by \citet{ven12}, and a large sample from medium-resolution spectra by \citet{kir19}.
Figures \ref{fig:fornax}-\ref{fig:carina} show the evolutions of elemental abundances for these four dSph models, with varying the contributions of various types of SNe Ia.
As for the solar neighborhood models, the elemental abundance ratios at [Fe/H] $\ltsim -3$ are determined from the IMF-weighted yields of core-collapse supernovae. The predicted ratios cannot be rejected by these small sample of observations, but lower [Mg/Fe] ratios might be preferred, which could be produced with an IMF truncated at $\sim 20M_\odot$ \citep{kob06,Nomoto2013}.
Around [Fe/H] $\sim -3$, [X/Fe] starts to decrease in the models with sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia, while [X/Fe] stays constant without sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia.
This transition is caused by the shortest lifetime, which is set at 0.04 Gyr as in the ``observed'' delay-time distribution \citep{mao14} for sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia in our models (\S \ref{sec:snia}).
Around [Fe/H] $\sim -1$, [(Mn, Ni)/Fe] rapidly increases in the models with Ch-mass SNe Ia, while [X/Fe] stays constant without Ch-mass SNe Ia.
This transition is caused by the metallicity effect of Ch-mass SNe Ia in our models.
As in \citet{kob15}, we call pure deflagrations of hybrid C+O+Ne WDs ``SNe Iax'' and use the nucleosynthesis yields from \citet{fin14}, which can produce very high [Mn/Fe] ratios at [Fe/H] $\ltsim -1$.
In the fiducial models of this paper, the SN Iax rate is determined from the calculated mass range of hybrid WDs (K19), which is much narrower and gives a lower SN Iax rate than in \citet{kob15}. The normalization is given by the same binary parameters for Ch-mass C+O WDs; $b_{\rm RG}=0.02$ and $b_{\rm MS}=0.04$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig9.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:sextans}
The same as Fig.\ref{fig:fornax} but for Sextans dSph galaxy with all SN Ia channels (red solid lines), without sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia (green short-dashed lines), and with 10 times more SNe Iax (blue long-dashed lines).
}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:fornax} for Fornax, the observed [Mg/Fe] ratios seem to decrease from [Fe/H] $\sim -2$ toward higher metallicities, which cannot be reproduced without sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia (blue long-dashed lines).
The model with only sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia (green short-dashed lines) cannot reproduce the monotonic increase of [Mn/Fe] from [Fe/H] $\sim -1$ to $\sim -0.5$, and thus it is necessary to include Ch-mass SNe Ia as well.
The model including all three SN Ia channels (red solid lines) are in good agreement not only with [Mg/Fe] but also with [Mn/Fe] ratios.
Some of the stars with very high [Mn/Fe] ratios at [Fe/H] $\ltsim -2$ might be locally enriched by SNe Iax.
The errors of the other iron-peak elements are too large to place further constraints.
Also in Figure \ref{fig:sculptor} for Sculptor, the observed [Mg/Fe] decreases at [Fe/H] $\gtsim -2$, which cannot be reproduced without sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia.
The observed [Mn/Fe] ratios are highest around [Fe/H] $\sim -1.5$, and then sharply decreases until [Fe/H] $\sim -1$. This is not reproduced with the model including all three SN Ia channels (red solid lines).
Obviously, without Ch-mass SNe Ia, [Mn/Fe] monotonically decreases (green dotted lines). The SN Iax is a potentially good source to reproduce this [Mn/Fe] evolution but a higher rate is required. If we multiply the SN Iax rate by a factor of 50, then, it is possible to reproduce the rapid increase of [Mn/Fe] from [Fe/H] $\sim -2$ to $\sim -1.5$ (blue short-dashed lines).
Then, in order to reproduce the [Mn/Fe] decrease from [Fe/H] $\sim -1.5$ to $\sim -1$, it is better to exclude normal Ch-mass SNe Ia (magenta long-dashed lines).
In Figure \ref{fig:sextans} for Sextans, the observed [Mg/Fe] ratios cannot be reproduced without sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia (green short-dashed lines), but are in reasonably good agreement with the model including all three SN Ia channels (red solid lines). The observed [Mn/Fe] can be better explained if the SN Iax rate is boosted by 10 times (blue long-dashed lines).
In Figure \ref{fig:carina} for Carina, the observed scatters are larger than the ranges of [X/Fe] evolutions, and the inhomogeneous enrichment should be important \citep{ven12}.
Nonetheless, the model including all three SN Ia channels (red solid lines) is closer to the observed [Mg/Fe] ratios, while the model without sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia is better for the observed [Mn/Fe] ratios (green short-dashed lines).
Similar to Sculptor, with a 50$\times$ boosted SN Iax rate (blue long-dashed lines), the model is in good agreement with the observations both for [Mg/Fe] and [Mn/Fe].
In summary, for all four dSphs we have modelled, [Mg/Fe] ratios can be well reproduced with larger enrichment from sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia than in the solar neighborhood.
However, with sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia, [Mn/Fe] ratios become too low, which can be solved with additional enrichment from SNe Iax.
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig10.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:carina}
The same as Fig.\ref{fig:fornax} but for Carina dSph galaxy with all SN Ia channels (red solid lines), without sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia (green short-dashed lines), and with 50 times more SNe Iax (blue long-dashed lines).
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{iayield.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:nimn}
The Ni--Mn diagram for constraining the SN Ia enrichment.
Our nucleosynthesis yields are shown for
near-Ch-mass SNe Ia with WD masses $M_{\rm WD}=1.38$ (magenta), 1.37 (red), 1.33 (orange), and $1.30M_\odot$ (yellow) and initial metallicities $Z=0, 0.002, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.06$, and 0.10 (from left to right),
and for sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia with $M_{\rm WD}=0.9$ (purple), 1.0 (blue), 1.1 (cyan), and $1.2M_\odot$ (green) and $Z= 0, 0.001, 0.002, 0.004, 0.01, 0.02$, and 0.04 (from left to right).
Our yields with the solar-scaled initial composition (solid lines with filled circles) are significantly different from the LN18/LN19 yields with $^{22}$Ne only (dashed lines with open squares).
The large open circle indicates the average yields in the solar neighborhood at [Fe/H] $\gtsim -1$.
The stars with errorbars show the empirical yields obtained from the observed abundances of stars in dSphs from \citet{kir19}.
}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{The Mn/Fe--Ni/Fe diagram}
Mn and Ni are the key elements to constrain the enrichment sources in dSphs, and we present a useful diagram in Figure \ref{fig:nimn}.
We show our nucleosynthesis yields of near-Ch and sub-Ch mass models for various WD masses and initial metallicities in the diagram of [Mn/Fe] vs [Ni/Fe].
The near-Ch-mass models with different WD masses are calculated with changing central densities of WDs (LN18).
The solid lines are for the new yields in this paper, while the dashed lines are for LN18 and LN19 yields with only $^{22}$Ne for the $Z$ component of the initial composition.
There is an almost linear trend where both [Mn/Fe] and [Ni/Fe] increase with higher metallicities (see Fig. \ref{fig:comp_element_plot} for the reasons). At a given metallicity, [Mn/Fe] and [Ni/Fe] are higher for less massive WDs in sub-Ch-mass models, but for more massive WDs in near-Ch-mass models.
The dotted lines denote the solar ratios, and the large open circle indicates the average SN Ia yields in the solar neighborhood at [Fe/H] $\gtsim -1$.
It is clear that there is no single model that can simultaneously reproduce the Mn/Fe and Ni/Fe ratios, but the Ch-mass model (red solid line) is the closest.
$0.9 M_\odot$ sub-Ch-models (purple solid line) with the highest metallicity ($Z=0.04$) is also close, but $0.9 M_\odot$ WDs should be rare because of the low iron mass, and is even rarer at such high metallicities.
The stars with errorbars show the empirical SN Ia yields obtained from the observed evolutionary trends in dSphs.
Only Ni/Fe values are estimated for 5 dSphs (Scl, LeoII, Dra, Sex, UMi) \citep{kir19}, and the Mn/Fe value in Scl \citep{del19} is used for all dSphs in this figure.
The low Mn/Fe and Ni/Fe can be better explained with sub-Ch-mass models.
Note that, however, the initial composition of the nucleosynthesis calculation is crucial for this argument; with simplified models with only $^{22}$Ne, the observational data of dSphs could be well reproduced with low-metallicity sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia, while with more realistic solar-scaled initial composition, the dSphs data can be better reproduced with metal-rich sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia.
Normal Ch-mass SNe Ia ($1.37M_\odot$, red solid line) clearly cannot reproduce the dSphs data, which is consistent with our GCE results in Figs. \ref{fig:fornax}-\ref{fig:carina}.
\section{Conclusions}
In our quest to identify the progenitors of SNe Ia, we first update the nucleosynthesis yields both for Ch and sub-Ch mass C+O WDs, for a wide range of metallicity, with our two-dimensional hydrodynamical code \citep{Leung2015a} and the latest nuclear reaction rates.
In particular, new electron capture rates even change the W7 yields significantly for Cr, Mn, and Ni.
For the explosion mechanism, deflagration-detonation transition is used for Ch-mass SNe Ia (LN18), while the double detonation model with the carbon detonation triggered by helium detonation is used for sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia (LN19).
The helium envelope has to be as thin as $M({\rm He})=0.05M_\odot$; otherwise, Ti, V, and Cr would be over-produced at [Fe/H] $\gtsim -1.5$ (Fig. \ref{fig:final_sChand_std}).
We then include the nucleosynthesis yields in our galactic chemical evolution code \citep{kob00} to predict the evolution of elemental abundances in the solar neighborhood and dSph galaxies.
For Ch-mass SNe Ia, the timescale of supernovae is mainly determined from the metallicity-dependent secondary mass range of our single degenerate model (\citealt{kob98}; KN09).
For sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia, we use the delay-time distribution estimated from observed supernova rates \citep{mao14}.
Including failed supernovae, the star formation histories are assumed in order to reproduce other observational constraints such as the metallicity distribution functions (K19).
In the observations of the solar neighborhood stars, Mn shows an opposite trend to $\alpha$ elements, showing an increase toward higher metallicities, which is very well reproduced by Ch-mass SNe Ia, but never by sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia alone.
Mn is mainly produced by NSE during deflagrations in Ch-mass WDs where electron captures lower the electron fraction of the incinerated matter, and the double-detonation models for sub-Ch-mass WDs do not have enough material with such a low electron fraction.
A small amount of Mn can also be produced by incomplete Si-burning during detonations, depending on the initial metallicity.
Previously, the problem with Ch-mass SNe Ia was the over-production of Ni at high metallicities, which is not observed.
In this paper, however, we find that Ni yields of Ch-mass SNe Ia are much lower than in previous works when we use a more realistic initial composition of WDs (i.e., not $^{22}$Ne but the solar-scaled composition), which keeps the predicted Ni abundance within the observational scatter.
Among Ch-mass models, W7, 2D DDT, and 3D DDT give the elemental abundance ratios within the observational scatters in the solar neighborhood, and our 2D DDT gives the best fit to [Mn/Ni] ratios at $-1 \ltsim$ [Fe/H] $\ltsim 0.3$.
We also find that both for Ch and sub-Ch mass SNe Ia, the metallicity dependence of Mn and Ni is much weaker than in previous works (Fig. \ref{fig:comp_element_plot}).
From the evolutionary trends of elemental abundance ratios in the solar neighborhood, we conclude that the contribution of sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia in chemical enrichment is up to 25\%.
In dSph galaxies, however, the contribution of sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia seems to be higher than in the solar neighborhood, which is consistent with the low-metallicity inhibition of our single-degenerate scenario for Ch-mass SNe Ia.
In dSphs, sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia cause a decrease of [($\alpha$, Cr, Mn, Ni)/Fe], while so-called SNe Iax can increase Mn and Ni abundances {\it if} they are pure deflagrations.
Among dSphs, all galaxies we model in this paper (Fornax, Sculptor, Sextans, and Carina) seem to require larger enrichment from sub-Ch-mass SNe Ia than in the solar neighborhood. The observed [Mn/Fe] ratios in Sculptor and Carina may also require additional enrichment from SNe Iax.
Future observations of a large number of stars in dSphs would provide more stringent constraints on the progenitor systems and explosion mechanism of SNe Ia.
Within the one-zone GCE framework, it is not possible to reproduce the observed elemental abundance ratios of dSph stars (Figs. \ref{fig:fornax}-\ref{fig:carina}) only by the variations of IMF and SFRs among dSph galaxies.
Different SFRs could change the relative contribution between core-collapse supernovae and SNe Ia, and thus could change [Mg/Fe] ratios at a given time (or [Fe/H]). At the same time (or [Fe/H]), [(Cr, Mn, Ni)/Fe] ratios should also be similarly affected by SNe Ia.
IMF variation mostly appears as the mass dependence of nucleosynthesis yields of core-collapse supernovae, and thus could change the normalization of abundance ratios. During core-collapse supernova explosions, Cr and Mn are synthesized in incomplete Si-burning regions, while Ni and Fe are synthesized in complete Si-burning regions, and thus [Cr/Mn] and [Ni/Fe] do not vary more than $\sim 0.2$ dex \citep{kob06}.
In this paper we show that the contributions from different sub-types of SNe Ia could explain the variations among [(Mg, Cr, Mn, Ni)/Fe] ratios.
Note that, however, in more realistic chemodynamical simulations, selective metal-loss could be caused by supernovae feedback in a shallow potential well, which might explain some of these variations in elemental abundances of dSph stars.
\acknowledgments
We thank K.\ Shen and I.\ Seitenzahl for providing nucleosynthesis data, and A.\ Ruiter for binary population synthesis data.
We are grateful to E. Kirby, M. de los Reyes, K. Hayashi, and A. Bunker for fruitful discussion.
CK acknowledges funding from the UK Science and Technology Facility Council (STFC) through grant ST/M000958/1 \& ST/R000905/1.
This work used the DiRAC Data Centric system at Durham University, operated by the Institute for Computational Cosmology on behalf of the STFC DiRAC HPC Facility (www.dirac.ac.uk). This equipment was funded by a BIS National E-infrastructure capital grant ST/K00042X/1, STFC capital grant ST/K00087X/1, DiRAC Operations grant ST/K003267/1 and Durham University. DiRAC is part of the National E-Infrastructure.
Numerical computations were also in part carried out on PC cluster at Center for Computational Astrophysics, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.
SCL acknowledges support by funding HST-AR-15021.001-A.
This work has been supported by the World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan, and JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP17K05382 and JP20K04024.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}
We study the task of extending deep learning to naturally complex-valued data, where useful information is intertwined in both magnitudes and phases. For example, synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images, magnetic resonance (MR) images, and radio frequency (RF) signals are acquired in complex numbers, with the magnitude often encoding the amount of energy and the phase indicating the size of contrast or geometrical shapes. Even for real-valued images, their complex-valued representations could be more successful for many pattern recognition tasks; the most notable examples are the Fourier spectrum and spectrum-based computer vision techniques ranging from steerable filters \cite{freeman1991design} to spectral graph embedding \cite{maire2016affinity,yu2012angular}.
A straightforward solution is to treat the complex-valued data as two-channel real-valued data and apply real-valued deep learning. Such an Euclidean space embedding would not respect the intrinsic geometry of complex-valued data. For example, in MR and SAR images, the pixel intensity value could be subject to complex-valued scaling. One way to get around such an ambiguity is to train a model with data augmentation \cite{Krizhevsky2012,Dieleman2015,wang2017joint}, but such extrinsic data manipulation is time-consuming and ineffective. Ideally, deep learning on such images should be invariant to the group of non-zero scaling and planar rotation in the complex plane.
We treat each complex-valued data sample as a field in the space of complex numbers, which is a special non-Euclidean space. This perspective allows us to develop novel concepts for both convolution and fully connected layer functions that achieve equivariance and invariance to complex-valued scaling.
A major hurdle in extending convolution from the Euclidean space to a non-Euclidean space is the lack of a vector space structure. In the Euclidean space, there exists a translation to go from one point to another, and convolution is equivariant to translation. In a non-Euclidean space such as a sphere, a point undergoing translation may no longer remain in that space, hence translation equivariance is no longer meaningful. What is essential and common between a non-Euclidean space and the Euclidean space is that, there is a group that transitively acts in the space. For example, there is a rotation, {\it instead of translation}, to go from one point to another on a sphere. Extending convolution to a non-Euclidean space should consider equivariance to some transitive action group specific to that space.
Note that such a manifold view applies to both the domain and the range of the data space. To extend deep learning to complex-valued images or signals, we take the manifold perspective towards the {\it range} space of the data.
There is a long line of works that define convolution in a non-Euclidean space by treating each data sample as a function in that space \cite{worrall2017harmonic,cohen2016group,cohen2018spherical,esteves2017polar,chakraborty2018h,kondor2018generalization}.
Our key insight is to represent a complex number by its polar form, such that the general group that acts in this space is the product of planar rotation and non-zero scaling. This representation turns the complex plane into a particular Riemannian manifold.
We want to define convolution that is equivariant to the action of this product group in that space.
When a sample is a field on a Riemannian manifold,
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0mm}
\item Convolution defined by weighted Fr\'{e}chet mean (wFM) \cite{Frechet1948a} is equivariant to the group that naturally acts on that manifold \cite{chakraborty2018manifoldnet}.
\item Non-linear activation functions such as ReLU may not be needed, since wFM is a non-linear contraction mapping \cite{Mallat2016} analogous to ReLU or sigmoid.
\item Taking the Riemannian geometric point of view, we could also use tangent ReLU for better accuracy.
\item We further propose a distance transform as a fully-connected layer operator that is invariant to complex scaling. It takes complex-valued responses at a previous layer to the real domain, where all kinds of standard CNN functions can be subsequently used.
\end{itemize}
A neural network equipped with our wFM filtering and distance transform on complex-valued data has a group invariant property similar to the standard CNN on real-valued data. Existing complex-valued CNNs tend to extend the real-valued counterpart to the complex domain based on the form of functions \cite{bunte2012adaptive,trabelsi2017deep}, e.g. convolution or batch normalization.
None of complex-valued CNNs are derived by studying the desired property of functions, such as equivariance or linearity. Our complex-valued CNN is composed of layer functions with all the desired properties and is a theoretically justified analog of the real-valued CNN.
On the SAR image dataset MSTAR, compared to the baseline of a real-valued CNN acting on the two-channel real representation of complex-valued data and reaching $94\%$ accuracy,
our complex-valued CNN acting directly on the complex-valued data (i.e., also without any preprocessing) achieves $98\%$ target classification accuracy with only $8\%$ of parameters. Likewise,
on the radio frequency signal dataset RadioML, our method achieves comparable modulation mode classification (a harder task than target recognition) performance with fewer parameters.
To summarize, we make two major contributions.
\begin{enumerate}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0mm}
\item We propose novel complex-valued CNNs with theoretically proven equivariance and invariance properties.
\item We provide {\it sur-real} (pun intended) experimental validation of our method on complex-valued data classification tasks, demonstrating significant performance gain at a fraction of the baseline model size.
\end{enumerate}
These results demonstrate significant benefits of designing new CNN layer functions with desirable properties on the complex plane as opposed to applying the standard CNN to the 2D Euclidean embedding of complex numbers.
\section{Our Complex-Valued CNN Theory}\label{theory}
We first present the geometry of the manifold of complex numbers and then
develop complex-valued convolutional neural network (CNN) on that manifold.
\noindent
{\bf Space of complex numbers.} Let $\mathbf{R}$ denote the set of real numbers. All the complex number elements assume the form $a+ib$, where $i=\sqrt{-1}$, $a,b \in \mathbf{R}$, and lie on a a Riemannian manifold \cite{boothby1986introduction} denoted by $\mathbf{C}$. The distance induced by the canonical Riemannian metric is:
\begin{align}
\label{theory:eq0}
d(a+ib, c+id) = \sqrt{(a-c)^2+(b-d)^2}.
\end{align}
We identify $\mathbf{C}$ with the polar form of complex numbers.
\begin{definition}
\label{def1}
We identify each complex number, $a+ib$, with its polar form, $r\exp(i\theta)$, where $r$ and $\theta$ are the {\it absolute value ($\abs$) or magnitude} and {\it argument ($\arg$) or phase} of $a+ib$. Here $\theta \in [-\pi, \pi]$. Hence, we can identify $\mathbf{C}$ as $\mathbf{R}^+ \times \SO(2)$, where
$\mathbf{R}^+$ is the set of positive numbers, and $\SO(2)$ is the manifold of planar rotations. Let $F: \mathbf{C}\rightarrow \mathbf{R}^+ \times \SO(2)$ be the mapping from the complex plane to the product manifold $\mathbf{R}^+ \times \SO(2)$:
\begin{align*}
a+ib & \overset{F}{\mapsto} \left(r, R(\theta)\right),\\
r &=\abs(a+ib)= \sqrt{a^2+b^2}\\
\theta &= \arg(a+ib)=\atan(b,a)\\
R(\theta) &= \begin{bmatrix} \cos(\theta) & -\sin(\theta) \\ \sin(\theta) & \cos(\theta)\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
\noindent
Note that $F$ is bijective.
\noindent
{\bf Manifold distance between complex numbers.}
The geodesic distance on this manifold is the Euclidean distance induced from Eq. \eqref{theory:eq0} in the tangent space. Given $\mathbf{z}_1, \mathbf{z}_2 \in \mathbf{C}$, let $(r_1, R_1) = F(\mathbf{z}_1)$ and $(r_2, R_2) = F(\mathbf{z}_2)$. While the Euclidean distance between two complex numbers is Eq. \eqref{theory:eq0}, their manifold distance $\mathbf{R}^+ \times \SO(2)$ is:
\begin{align}
\label{theory:eq1}
d\left(\mathbf{z}_1, \mathbf{z}_2\right) = \sqrt{\log^2(r_1^{-1}r_2)+\|\logm\left(R_1^{-1}R_2\right)\|_F^2},
\end{align}
where $\logm$ is the matrix logarithm. Note that, for $A =R(\theta) \in \SO(2)$, we choose $\logm(A)$ to be $\theta \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0\end{bmatrix}$.
\noindent
{\bf Transitive actions and isometries.}
$\mathbf{C}$ is in fact a {\it homogenous Riemannian manifold} \cite{helgason1962differential}, a topological space on which there is a group of actions acts transitively \cite{dummit2004abstract}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def2}
Given a (Riemannian) manifold $\mathcal{M}$ and a group $G$, we say that $G$ acts on $\mathcal{M}$ (from left) if there exists a mapping $L: \mathcal{M} \times G \rightarrow \mathcal{M}$ given by $\left(X, g\right) \mapsto g.X$ satisfies \begin{inparaenum}[\bfseries (a)] \item $L\left(X, e\right) = e.X = X$ \item $(gh).X = g.(h.X)$ \end{inparaenum}.
An action is called a transitive action {\it iff} given $X, Y \in \mathcal{M}$, $\exists g \in G$, such that $Y = g.X$.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{theory:prop1} Group $G:=\left\{\mathbf{R}\setminus \{0\}\right\} \times \SO(2)$ transitively acts on $\mathbf{C}$ and the action is given by $\left(\left(r, R\right), \left(r_g, R_g\right)\right) \mapsto \left(r_g^2r, R_gR\right)$.
\end{proposition}
It is straightforward to verify that group $G$ transitively acts on $\mathbf{C}$. We show that $G$ is the set of isometries on $\mathbf{C}$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{theory:prop2}
Given $\mathbf{z}_1 = (r_1, R_1), \mathbf{z}_2 = (r_2, R_2) \in \mathbf{C}$ and $g = (r_g, R_g) \in G$, $d\left(g.\mathbf{z}_1, g.\mathbf{z}_2\right) = d\left(\mathbf{z}_1, \mathbf{z}_2\right)$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent
The proof follows from the definitions of $d$ and $g$:
\begin{align*}
&d\left(g.\mathbf{z}_1, g.\mathbf{z}_2\right) \\ =&\sqrt{\log^2\left((r_g^2r_1)^{-1}(r_g^2r_2)\right)+
\|\logm\left(R_1^{-1}R_g^{-1}R_gR_2\right)\|_F^2} \\
=&d\left(\mathbf{z}_1, \mathbf{z}_2\right). \hspace{2.3in} \qed
\end{align*}
Having defined our manifold range space for complex numbers, we focus on extending two key properties, {\it equivariance} of a convolution operator and {\it invariance} of a CNN, from real-valued CNNs to complex-valued CNNs.
\noindent
{\bf Equivariance property of convolution.} In the Euclidean space $\mathbf{R}^n$, the convolution operator is equivariant to translation: Given the kernel of convolution, if the input is translated by $\mathbf{t}$, the output would also be translated by $\mathbf{t}$. This property enables weight sharing across the entire spatial domain of an image. The group of translations is the group of isometries for $\mathbf{R}^n$, and it transitively acts on $\mathbf{R}^n$.
We extend these concepts to our complex number manifold $\mathbf{C}$. Our
$G = \left\{\mathbf{R}\setminus \{0\}\right\} \times \SO(2)$ transitively acts on $\mathbf{C}$ and is the group of isometries. In order to generalize the Euclidean convolution operator on $\mathbf{C}$, we need to define an operator on $\mathbf{C}$ which is equivariant to the action of $G$.
CNNs on manifold valued data have recently been explored in \cite{chakraborty2018manifoldnet}, where convolution is defined
on manifold $\mathcal{M}$ and equivariant to the group $G$ that acts on $\mathcal{M}$. In our case, manifold $\mathcal{M}\! =\! \mathbf{C}$ and action group $G = \{\mathbf{R}\!\setminus\! \{0\}\} \!\times\! \SO(2)$.
\noindent
{\bf Convolution as manifold Fr{\'e}chet mean filtering.}
Given $K$ points on our manifold $\mathbf{C}$: $\left\{\mathbf{z}_i\right\}_{i=1}^K\!\subset\! \mathbf{C}$, and $K$ nonnegative weights $\left\{w_i\right\}_{i=1}^K \!\subset\! (0,1]$ with $\sum_i w_i=1$, the {\it weighted Fr{\'e}chet mean (FM)} ($\textsf{wFM}$) is defined as \cite{Frechet1948a}:
\begin{align}
\label{theory:eq2}
\textsf{wFM}\left(\left\{\mathbf{z}_i\right\}, \left\{w_i\right\}\right) = \argmin_{\mathbf{m}\in \mathbf{C}} \sum_{i=1}^K w_id^2\left(\mathbf{z}_i, \mathbf{m}\right),
\end{align}
where $d$ is the distance defined in Eq. \eqref{theory:eq1}. Unlike the standard Euclidean convolution which {\it evaluates} the weighted data mean given the filter weights, the manifold convolution
wFM {\it solves} the data mean that minimizes the weighted variance. There is no closed-form solution to wFM; however, there is a provably convergent $K-$step iterative solution \cite{chakraborty2018manifoldnet}.
While our filter response
$\textsf{wFM}\left(\left\{\mathbf{z}_i\right\}, \left\{w_i\right\}\right) \in \mathbf{C}$ is complex-valued, a minimizing argument to Eq. \eqref{theory:eq2}, the filter weights $\left\{w_i\right\}$ themselves are real-valued. They are learned through stochastic gradient descent, subject to additional normalization and convexity constraints on $\left\{w_i\right\}$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{theory:prop3}
The convolution definition in Eq. \eqref{theory:eq2} is equivariant to the action of $G = \left\{\mathbf{R}\setminus \{0\}\right\} \times \SO(2)$.
\end{proposition}
The equivariance property of convolution follows from the isometry in Prop. \eqref{theory:prop2}.
Fig \eqref{fig:fig0} illustrates the equivariance of wFM with respect to planar rotation and scaling.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{rotation_equiv.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{scaling_equiv.eps}
\caption{Equivariance of weighted Fr{\'e}chet mean filtering with respect to rotation and scaling in the complex plane.}\label{fig:fig0}
\end{figure}
\noindent
{\bf Manifold vs. Euclidean convolution.} Convolution is often written as $\sum_i w_i x_i$, where $\left\{w_i\right\}$ is the filter and $\left\{x_i\right\}$ is the signal. With our convexity constraint on $\left\{w_i\right\}$, $\sum_i w_i x_i$ is the wFM on the Euclidean space as it is the minimizer of the weighted variance defined in Eq. \eqref{theory:eq2}. The convexity constraint is to ensure that the resultant stays on the manifold. Therefore, wFM as a convolution operator on the manifold might appear rather arbitrary at first glance, it is an obvious choice if we regard the standard convolution as the minimizer of the weighted variance in the Euclidean space.
Next we turn to nonlinear activation functions. Our wFM is non-linear and {\it contractive} \cite{chakraborty2018manifoldnet}, it thus performs not only convolution but also nonlinear activation to a certain extent. Nevertheless, we extend ReLU in the Euclidean space to a manifold in a principled manner.
\noindent
{\bf ReLU on the manifold: tReLU.} The tangent space of a manifold could be regarded as a local Euclidean approximation of the manifold, and a pair of transformations, logarithmic and exponential maps, establish the correspondence between the manifold and the tangent space.
Our tReLU is a function from $\mathbf{C}$ to $\mathbf{C}$, just like the Euclidean ReLU from $\mathbf{R}^n$ to $\mathbf{R}^n$, but it is composed of three steps: {\bf 1)} Apply logarithmic maps to go from a point in $\mathbf{C}$ to a point in its tangent space;
{\bf 2)} Apply the Euclidean ReLU in the tangent space; {\bf 3)}
Apply exponential maps to come back to $\mathbf{C}$ from the tangent space.
\begin{align}
&(r, R) \overset{\text{tReLU}}{\mapsto} \nonumber\\
&\left(\; \exp(\relu(\log(r))),
\expm(\relu(\logm(R))) \;\right)
\end{align}
where $\expm$ is the matrix exponential operator.
Our manifold perspective leads to a non-trivial extension of ReLU, partitioning the complex plane by $r$ and $\theta$ into four scenarios, e.g., those with $r\!<\!1$ would be rectified to $r\!=\!1$.
\noindent
{\bf Invariance property of a CNN classifier.}
For classification tasks, having equivariance of convolution and range compression of nonlinear activation functions are not enough; we need the final representation of a CNN invariant to within-class feature variations.
In a standard Euclidean CNN classifier, the entire network is invariant to the action of translations, achieved by the fully connected (FC) layer. Likewise, we develop a FC function on $\mathbf{C}$ that is invariant to the action of $G$.
\noindent
{\bf Distance transform as an invariant FC layer.} Since our distance $d$ is shown invariant to $G$,
we propose the distance of each point in a set to their weighted Fr{\'e}chet mean, which is equivariant to $G$, as a new FC function on $\mathbf{C}$.
Consider turning an $m$-channel $s$-dimensional feature representation, $\left\{\mathbf{t}_i\right\}_{i=1}^m \!\subset\! \mathbf{C}$, into a single FC feature $u$ of $m$ dimensions. Each input channel $\mathbf{t}_i$ contains $s$ elements (in any matrix shape) and is treated as an $s$-dimensional feature vector. Our distance transform first computes the wFM of $m$ input features and then turns input channel $i$ into a single scalar $u_{i}$ as its distance to the mean:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{m} &= \textsf{wFM}(\{\mathbf{t}_i\}, \{v_i\})\\
u_{i} &= d(\mathbf{t}_i, \mathbf{m}),
\end{align}
The $m$ filter weights $v_i$ are learned per FC output channel, and there could be multiple output channels in the FC layer.
\begin{proposition}
\label{theory:prop4}
The above distance transform, defined as the distance to the wFM, is invariant to the action of $G$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent
The proof follows from Propositions \ref{theory:prop2} and \ref{theory:prop3}:
\begin{align*}
& d(g.\mathbf{t}_i, \textsf{wFM}(g.\{\mathbf{t}_i\}, \{v_i\}))&\\
=&d(g.\mathbf{t}_i, g. \textsf{wFM}(\{\mathbf{t}_i\}, \{v_i\}))
&\text{equivariance of wFM}\phantom{.\qed}\\
=&d(\mathbf{t}_i, \textsf{wFM}(\{\mathbf{t}_i\}, \{v_i\}))
&\text{invariance of distance}.\qed
\end{align*}
With our distance transform, complex-valued intermediate feature representations are turned into real values, upon which we can apply any of the standard layer functions in the real domain, such as softmax to the last layer of $c$ channels for $c$-way classification.
\noindent
{\bf Complex-valued neural network.} With these new convolution, nonlinear activation, and FC layer functions, we can construct a complex-valued CNN which is invariant to the action of $G$.
Fig. \eqref{fig:fig1} illustrates a possible CNN architecture.
Alg. \eqref{alg:complexnet} presents a CNN work-flow with two convolution layers and one FC layer.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{manifoldnet_fig.eps}
\caption{Sample architecture of our complex-valued CNN classifier that is invariant to $G$. It consists of our newly proposed wFM convolution, tReLU nonlinear activation, and FC distance transform layer functions, together achieving invariance to complex-valued scaling in the range space.
}\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}
{\begin{algorithm}[]
\caption{ \label{alg:complexnet} Workflow of our sample CNN classifier with 2 convolution layers and 1 FC layer.}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Function {Complex-Valued CNN variables}{$c^1_{in}, c^1_{out}, k_1, c^2_{out}, k_2, l, c$}
\State $x \leftarrow Input(c^1_{in}, h, w)$
\State $x \leftarrow Conv(x, c^1_{out}, k_1)$
\State $x \leftarrow tReLU(x)$
\State $x \leftarrow Conv(x, c^2_{out}, k_2)$
\State $x \leftarrow tReLU(x)$
\State $x \leftarrow Inv(x, l, c)$
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}}
\section{Experimental Results}\label{sec3}
We conduct our experiments on two publicly available complex-valued datasets: MSTAR \cite{keydel1996mstar} and RadioML \cite{convnetmodrec,rml_datasets}. MSTAR contains complex-valued 2D SAR images, and RadioML contains complex-valued 1D RF signals.
\subsection{MSTAR Experiments}
\noindent
{\bf MSTAR dataset.} It consists of X-band SAR image chips with 0.3m $\times$ 0.3m resolution of $10$ target classes such as infantry combat vehicle (BMP2) and armored personnel carrier BTR70. The number of instances per class varies greatly from $429$ to $6694$. We crop $100\times 100$ center regions from each image without other preprocessing (Fig. \eqref{fig0}).
\begin{figure}[!hbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth,clip]{mstar_complex.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth,clip]{distri.eps}\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{MSTAR has 10 imbalanced target classes, a sample image per class shown on the top and the total number of images per class shown in the bottom. We use the HSV color map for visualizing the phase of a complex-valued image. SAR images are noisy with a large intensity range.}\label{fig0}
\end{figure}
\noindent
{\bf MSTAR baselines.} We use the real-valued CNN model in Fig. \eqref{fig1} and consider 4 possible representations of
complex-valued inputs as real-valued data. Let $\mathbf{z}=a+ib=r e^{j\theta}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\setlength{\itemsep}{-1mm}
\item $(a,b)$: Treat a 1-channel complex-valued image as a 2-channel real-valued image, with real and imaginary components in two separate channels.
\item $r$: Take only the absolute value of a complex-valued image to make a 1-channel real-valued image, with the phase of complex numbers ignored.
\item $(a,b,r)$: Take both the real, imaginary, and magnitude of a complex-valued image to make a 3-channel real-valued image.
\item $(r,\theta)$: Take the magnitude and phase of a complex-valued image to make a 2-channel real-valued image.
\end{enumerate}
We perform a $30$-$70$ random train-test split and report the average classification accuracy over $10$ runs.
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth,clip]{mstar_baseline.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth,clip]{mstar_our_so2.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Real-valued CNN baseline model (top) and our complex-valued model (bottom) for MSTAR. CBRM denotes Conv, Batch-Normalization, ReLU, Pooling. CCtR denotes Complex Convolution, tangent ReLU.
}\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\noindent
{\bf Our CNN model.} We use two complex convolution layers with kernel size $5\times 5$ and stride $5$ followed by one complex convolution layer with kernel size $4\times 4$ and stride $4$, then we use an invariant last layer with a softmax layer at the end for classification. For the three complex convolution layers, the number of output channels are $50$, $100$ and $200$ respectively. We use ADAM optimizer with learning rate $0.005$ and mini-batch size $100$.
\noindent
{\bf MSTAR results.}
Table \eqref{tab1} shows the
confusion matrix and the overall classification accuracy for each of the four real-valued CNN baseline and our complex-valued CNN model.
Ours has a $3.6\%$ accuracy gain over the best baseline.
\begin{table}
\centering
\scalebox{0.72}{
\begin{tabular}{@{}|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|@{}}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{$\textcolor{red}{(a,b): 89.77\%}$}\\
\topline
$\highest{84.5}$ & 2.1 & 0.9 & 11.7 & & 0.6 & & 0.2 & 0.1 & \\
0.2 & $\highest{78.3} $ & & 21.2 & & & & 0.2 & & \\
0.5 & & $\highest{94.2}$ & 0.9 & 0.2 & 0.1 & & 3.8 & & 0.2 \\
& 0.7 & & $\highest{99.3}$ & & & & & & \\
0.8 & 1.6 & 0.4 & 4.6 & $\highest{81.7}$ & 6.2 & & 4.6 & 0.1 & 0.1 \\ \midrule
0.1 & & & 5.3 & 0.1 & $\highest{94.1}$ & & & 0.4 & \\
& & 4.2 & 0.3 & & 1.2 & $\highest{88.5}$ & 2.1 & 1.9 & 1.7 \\
& & 7.7 & 4.4 & 0.2 & 0.2 & & $\highest{87.6}$ & & \\
& & 4.2 & 1.2 & 0.5 & 0.5 & & 0.5 & $\highest{93.0}$ & \\
0.1 & & 8.9 & 2.4 & & 8.2 & 0.6 & 3.1 & 0.4 & $\highest{76.4}$ \\
\bottomline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{ $\textcolor{red}{r: 94.46\%}$}\\
\topline
$\highest{95.3}$ & 4.0 & 0.5 & & 0.2 & & & & & \\
& $\highest{98.6}$ & 0.7 & & 0.7 & & & & & \\
0.4 & 0.1 & $\highest{99.2 }$ & & & 0.1 & & 0.1 & & 0.1 \\
0.9 & 65.4 & 4.7 & $\highest{22.2}$ & 1.8 & 0.4 & & 4.7 & & \\
0.1 & 3.4 & 1.1 & & $\highest{94.0}$ & 1.0 & & 0.1 & & 0.3 \\\midrule
2.9 & 0.6 & 0.3 & & 0.4 & $\highest{94.4}$ & 0.1 & 0.1 & 1.0 & 0.3 \\
& & 0.2 & & & & $\highest{98.8}$ & & 0.2 & 0.9 \\
& & 21.5 & & 2.4 & & & $\highest{75.5}$ & 0.2 & 0.3 \\
& & 3.0 & & 1.0 & & 0.3 & & $\highest{94.9}$ & 0.7 \\
& & 0.6 & & & & 0.2 & & & $\highest{99.1}$ \\
\bottomline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{$\textcolor{red}{(a,b,r): 96.87\%}$} \\ \topline
$\highest{97.0}$ & 0.1 & 0.9 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 1.0 & & & 0.1 & \\
3.5 & $\highest{90.4 }$ & & 4.4 & 0.9 & 0.7 & & & & \\
0.1 & & $\highest{98.5}$ & & 0.1 & 0.1 & & 0.2 & 0.1 & 0.9 \\
1.6 & 0.2 & 0.2 & $\highest{96.9}$ & 0.2 & 0.7 & 0.2 & & & \\
0.1 & & 0.3 & 0.3 & $\highest{97.3}$ & 1.3 & & 0.2 & 0.4 & 0.1 \\\midrule
0.2 & & & & & $\highest{99.4}$ & 0.1 & & 0.9 & 0.1 \\
0.2 & & & & & & $\highest{99.0}$ & & 0.2 & 0.7 \\
0.2 & & 7.9 & & 0.3 & & 0.3 & $\highest{86.7}$ & 3.3 & 1.2 \\
& & & & 0.2 & 0.2 & 2.3 & & $\highest{97.4}$ & \\
0.3 & & 0.6 & & 0.4 & 0.1 & 5.8 & & 0.1 & $\highest{92.8}$ \\
\bottomline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{$\textcolor{red}{(r, \theta): 93.51\%}$} \\ \topline
$\highest{91.7}$ & 0.2 & 1.8 & & 4.4 & 0.5 & 0.1 & 1.2 & 0.2 & \\
5.1 & $\highest{86.2}$ & 0.2 & 0.7 & 7.7 & & & & & \\
0.2 & & $\highest{96.8}$ & & 0.5 & & & 1.9 & 0.3 & 0.3 \\
9.5 & 13.5 & & $\highest{56.1}$ & 16.9 & 1.8 & 0.7 & 1.3 & 0.2 & \\
0.1 & 0.1 & 1.3 & & $\highest{96.6}$ & 0.1 & & 1.1 & 0.6 & 0.1 \\\midrule
0.1 & 0.1 & 0.6 & & 3.3 & $\highest{94.1}$ & 0.1 & & 1.3 & 0.4 \\
& & & & & & 99.7 & & 0.2 & 0.2 \\
& & 11.0 & & 0.3 & & & $\highest{86.0 }$ & 2.4 & 0.2 \\
& & & & & & 1.0 & 0.2 & $\highest{98.6}$ & 0.2 \\
& & 6.7 & & 0.1 & 0.1 & 1.9 & 0.6 & 1.4 & $\highest{89.2}$ \\
\bottomline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{$\textcolor{red}{\mathbf{z}: 98.16\%}$} \\ \topline
$\highest{97.8}$ & 0.1 & 1.9 & & 0.2 & 0.1 & & & & \\
1.4 & $\highest{97.4}$ & 0.2 & 0.7 & 0.2 & & & & & \\
0.4 & & $\highest{99.0}$ & & 0.1 & 0.1 & & & & 0.4 \\
4.2 & 1.8 & 1.1 & $\highest{90.2}$ & 1.6 & 1.1 & & & & \\
& 0.2 & 1.8 & & $\highest{96.4}$ & 1.0 & & & & 0.6 \\\midrule
& & 0.4 & & 0.1 & $\highest{98.9}$ & 0.1 & & & 0.5 \\
& & & & & & 10 & & & \\
& & 4.9 & & & & 0.2 & $\highest{94.4}$ & 0.5 & \\
& & 1.2 & & & & 0.5 & & $\highest{98.3}$ & \\
& & 0.9 & & 0.1 & 0.1 & & & & $\highest{98.9}$ \\
\bottomline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Confusion matrices for 4 real-valued baselines and our complex-valued CNN. The method and the overall accuracy is listed at the top left corner of each table. The order of categories is the same as that in Fig. \ref{fig0}.}
\label{tab1}
\end{table}
This performance gain has to come from the group equivariant property of our convolution and the group invariant property of our CNN classifier. The group that acts on the complex numbers is $\mathbf{R}\setminus \left\{0\right\}\times \textsf{SO}(2)$. Our equivariance and invariance properties guarantee that our learned CNN is invariant to scaling and planar rotations, unlike any standard real-valued CNN architecture.
Table \eqref{tab1} also suggests that our learned CNN is more robust to the imbalanced training data. For example, on the smallest class `BTR70' with test set size $429$, our model correctly classifies $406$ samples while the baseline correctly classifies only $172$ samples.
Among the real-valued baselines, just the magnitude $r$ alone gives a better classification accuracy than the two-channel real-valued representation $(a,b)$. Their combination $(a,b,r)$ achieves a classification accuracy of $96.87\%$, with $2\%$ improvement over the magnitude only representation of $r$.
The polar representation $(r, \theta)$ is better than the two-channel real-imaginary representation $(a,b)$, but is in fact worse than the magnitude $r$ only representation. A natural question is whether phase information is useful at all.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.72}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{ $\textcolor{red}{(a,b): 45.98\%}$ }\\
\topline
& & $\highest{100}$ & & & & & & & \\
& & $\highest{100}$ & & & & & & & \\
& & $\highest{100}$ & & & & & & & \\
& & $\highest{100}$ & & & & & & & \\
& & $\highest{100}$ & & & & & & & \\\midrule
& & $\highest{100}$ & & & & & & & \\
& & $\highest{100}$ & & & & & & & \\
& & $\highest{100}$ & & & & & & & \\
& & $\highest{100}$ & & & & & & & \\
& & $\highest{100}$ & & & & & & & \\
\bottomline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{$\textcolor{red}{\mathbf{z:} 97.00\%}$ } \\
\topline
$\highest{95.6}$ & 0.3 & 2.9 & 0.8 & 0.2 & 0.2 & & & & \\
2.6 & $\highest{94.4}$ & 0.2 & 2.3 & 0.5 & & & & & \\
0.6 & & $\highest{97.9}$ & & 0.4 & 0.3 & & & 0.2 & 0.4 \\
2.9 & 2.0 & 1.6 & $\highest{90.7}$ & 2.0 & 0.9 & & & & \\
& 0.3 & 1.5 & 0.3 & $\highest{94.8}$ & 2.6 & & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.3 \\\midrule
& & 0.6 & & 0.5 & $\highest{98.4}$ & 0.1 & & 0.1 & 0.4 \\
& & & & & & $\highest{99.7 }$ & & 0.3 & 1.7 \\
& & 6.8 & & 0.7 & 0.2 & & $\highest{91.1}$ & 0.9 & 0.3 \\
& 0.2 & 0.7 & & & & 0.3 & & $\highest{98.8}$ & \\
& & 1.5 & & 0.4 & 0.3 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1 & $\highest{97.6 }$\\
\bottomline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Confusion matrices for the baseline model $(a,b)$ (top) and our model (bottom) applied to normalized complex numbers. Same convention as Table \ref{tab1}. With an overall accuracy of 97\% over the baseline accuracy 46\%, our complex-valued CNN brings significant discrimination power out of the phase information alone.}
\label{tab2}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth,clip]{barplot.eps}
\caption{MSTAR classification accuracies by real-valued baseline CNNs and our complex-valued CNN, with raw and normalized complex number inputs.
}\label{fig0.25}
\end{figure}
\noindent
{\bf How useful is phase alone?} We remove any useful information in the magnitude by normalizing each complex number to norm $1$. On the normalized complex numbers, Table \eqref{tab2} shows the classification confusion matrix for the baseline $(a,b)$ CNN model and our model. The real-valued CNN achieves an overall accuracy of $45.98\%$,
with all the test set classified as the largest class which consists of $45.98\%$ samples of the entire dataset. That is, the real-valued CNN is completely confused by the phase and unable to tease apart different classes. On the other hand, our model gives a surprisingly high accuracy of $97\%$, only $1\%$ less than our result on the raw complex numbers which contains the class-discriminative magnitude.
Fig. \eqref{fig0.25} compares the classification accuracies in different settings.
The stark contrast in real- and complex-valued CNNs to phase data alone demonstrates not only the effectiveness of our complex-valued CNN due to its invariance to $G$, but also the richness of the phase information alone.
\begin{table}[tp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|r}
\toprule
\bf CNN model &
\bf domain representation &
\bf \# parameters \\ \midrule
real & $(a,b)$ & $530,170$ \\ \hline
real & $r$ & $530,026$ \\ \hline
real & $(a,b,r)$ & $530,314$ \\ \hline
real & $(r, \theta)$ & $530,170$ \\ \hline
complex & $\mathbf{z}$ & $\mathbf{44,826}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{CNN model size comparison. Our complex-valued CNN is $8\%$ of the baseline real-valued CNN model size.}
\label{tab5}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.335\textheight,clip]{Figure_conv1_cropped2.eps}%
\includegraphics[height=0.335\textheight,clip]{Figure_1_cropped.eps}%
\includegraphics[height=0.335\textheight,clip]{Figure_11_cropped.eps}
\caption{Sample MSTAR filter responses of our model after the first, second and third conv layer. Each row corresponds to the same image; each column represents a particular channel's absolute valued response. }
\label{fig2}
\end{figure*}
\noindent
{\bf Our complex-valued CNN is better and leaner.}
Table \eqref{tab5} lists the total number of
parameters used in each CNN model.
As our complex-valued CNN captures the natural equivariance and invariance in the non-Euclidean complex number range space, which standard CNNs fail to do,
our model achieves a higher accuracy with a significant (more than 90\%) parameter reduction.
\noindent
{\bf CNN visualization.}
Fig. \eqref{fig2} shows examples of filter responses at three convolution layers on the representative images in Fig. \eqref{fig0}. The first convolution layer produces basically blurred versions of the input image.
From the second convolution layer onward, the filter response patterns grow more divergent for different classes. While we show one sample output from each class, the patterns within each class are similar. For classes `D7', `T62', `ZIL131', the filter responses are higher than the other classes. Furthermore, the last convolution layer shows significantly different patterns between different classes.
\subsection{RadioML Experiments}
\begin{figure}[!bp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth,clip]{radio_vis.eps}
\caption{RadioML data samples. We plot one sample per class at SNR 18. We use the HSV colormap to encode and visualize the phase of complex valued 1D signals.}\label{radioml}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.28\textheight,clip]{rmlconv_1.eps}%
\includegraphics[height=0.28\textheight,clip]{rmlconv_2.eps}%
\includegraphics[height=0.28\textheight,clip]{rmlconv_3.eps}
\caption{Representative filter outputs after the first, second, third convolutional layers (absolute valued responses) of our complex-valued network on the RadioML data. Same convention as Fig. \ref{fig2}.}\label{fig1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[bp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{radioml_baseline.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{radioml_our_so2.eps}
\caption{Real-valued CNN model and our complex-valued model for RadioML. CBRM denotes Convolution, Batch-Normalization, ReLU, and Pooling. CCtR denotes our Complex-valued Convolution and tangent ReLU, and dFM our distance transform with respect to the Fr{\'e}chet mean.
}\label{fig1.1}
\end{figure}
\noindent
{\bf RadioML dataset.} RF modulation operates on both discrete binary alphabets (digital modulations) and continuous alphabets (analog modulations). Over each modem the known data is modulated and then exposed to channel effects using GNU Radio. It is then segmented into short-time windows in a fashion similar to how
a continuous acoustic voice signal is typically windowed for voice recognition
tasks. Fig. \eqref{radioml} visualizes these 1D complex-valued time series as colored lines. There are $220,000$ samples in RadioML \cite{convnetmodrec,rml_datasets}.
We use a 50-50 train-test split and 10 random runs as in our MSTAR experiments.
\noindent
{\bf RadioML baseline.}
It consists of two convolutional and two fully connected layers as used in \cite{convnetmodrec}. The convolution kernel is of size $3$ with $256$ and $80$ channels respectively. Each convolutional layer is followed by ReLU and dropout layers. This network has $2,830,491$ parameters.
\noindent
{\bf Our RadioML CNN model.}
It has two complex convolutional layers of stride 5, kernel sizes 7 and 5, the numbers of channels 64 and 128, followed by an invariant distance transform layer and a final softmax layer for classification.
Fig. \ref{fig1.1} shows both the real-valued baseline CNN and our complex-valued CNN architectures. We use ADAM optimizer \cite{kingma2014adam} with learning rate 0.05 and mini-batch size 500.
Our complex-valued CNN has only $299,117$ parameters, i.e., roughly $10\%$ of the baseline model, yet it can achieve test accuracy $70.23\%$, on par with $70.68\%$ of the baseline real-valued CNN model. This lean model result is consistent with our MSTAR experiments. Fig. \eqref{fig1} also shows that discriminative filter response patterns emerge quickly from various smoothing effects of convolutional layers.
\section{Summary}
\label{sec4}
We take a manifold view on complex-valued data and present a novel CNN theory.
Our convolution from Fr{\'e}chet mean filtering is equivariant and our distance transform is invariant to complex-valued scaling, an inherent ambiguity in the complex value range space.
Our experiments on MSTAR and RadioML demonstrate that our complex-valued CNN classifiers can deliver better accuracies with a surreal leaner CNN model, at a fraction of the real-valued CNN model size.
By representing a complex number as a point on a manifold instead of two independent real-valued data points, our model is more robust to imbalanced classification and far more powerful at discovering discriminative information in the phase data alone.
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements.}
This research was supported, in part, by Berkeley Deep Drive and DARPA. The views, opinions and/or findings expressed are those of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the official views or policies of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEbib}
|
\section{Introduction}
In the framework of Quantum Mechanics (QM), it is well established
that the decay of unstable states is from a fundamental point of view
non-exponential, see e.g. Ref. \cite{Fonda:1978dk} for a theoretical
description, Ref. \cite{Reizen1} for the experimental proof of short
times deviations and Ref. \cite{Rothe} for the experimental proof of
late times deviations from the exponential decay law.
In particular, the survival probability $p(t)$ at early times after the
preparation of the unstable system scales as $p(t)=1-t\gamma(t)$ where the
decay rate $\gamma(t)$ is itself time dependent and vanishes in the limit
$t\rightarrow0$ (how fast it depends on the interaction leading to the decay
and on the kinematics of the decay, see for instance
\cite{Giacosa:2010br,Giacosa:2012hd,Giacosa:2011xa} for decays within
super-renormalizable and renormalizable field theories, respectively).
Short time deviations from the exponential decay law lead inevitably
to a possibility of modifying the effective decay of the unstable
state by means of observations. In particular the most spectacular
effects are the so called (direct) quantum Zeno effect (QZE)
\cite{Misra:1976by,Koshino:2004rw,Degasperis:1974yr} and inverse
quantum Zeno effect (IZE) \cite{KK1,KK2,FP,facchiprl}, which
correspond to a slowing down or a speeding up of the decay rate of the
observed system, see Ref. \cite{2001PhRvL..87d0402F} for the
experimental proof of both of them. In those experiments, cold atoms
are trapped in the sites of optical lattices and they could "decay"
via a tunneling process which allow them to escape from the confining
potential. Moreover, the QZE has been verified also for the case of
Rabi oscillations between atomic levels \cite{Itano:1990zz} by a
dedicated procedure to measure the occupation number of the
levels. In general, it is very difficult to observe these subtle QM
effects since the deviations from the exponential decay law occur only
for a very short time scale after the preparation of the system in its
initial (unstable) state.
However, as discussed in Refs. \cite{KK1,KK2,FP}, the IZE is expected
to be more ubiquitous than the QZE. Namely, the experimental
conditions to observe this effect should be less restrictive than the
ones required to observe the QZE. In particular, in Ref. \cite{KK2}
it has been suggested that in principle the IZE could be realized even
for nuclear $\beta$ decays. By following this suggestion, we will
study in this paper whether it is possible to prove the existence of
the IZE in association with one of the most important decay process of
nuclear and particle physics, i.e. the decay of the neutron.
Indeed, the process $n\rightarrow p+e^{-}+\bar{\nu}_{e}$ has been the subject
of many theoretical and experimental investigations
since the very beginning of
particle physics (including the hypothesis about the very existence of neutrinos).
A precise measurement of the lifetime $\tau_{\mathrm{n}}$ of the neutron
is of primary importance for fundamental physics
\cite{Wietfeldt:2011suo}: $\tau_{\mathrm{n}}$ determines directly the
primordial helium abundance within the big-bang nucleosynthesis and the vector
coupling $g_{V}$ characterizing the weak decays of nuclei is strictly
connected with the $V_{ud}$ matrix element and thus to the unitarity of the
CKM matrix. Also, possible rare decay channels of the neutron can reveal the
existence of dark matter particles, such as mirror particles which mix with
the standard model ones \cite{Berezhiani:2018eds,Berezhiani:2018udo}.
There have been several measurements of $\tau_{\mathrm{n}}$ which can be
classified into two categories: (i) beam measurements, which involve the
propagation of a beam of free neutrons (here, the emitted protons are counted)
\cite{PhysRevLett.65.289,Byrne_1996,PhysRevLett.91.152302,PhysRevC.71.055502,PhysRevLett.111.222501
and (ii) trap measurements, in which a sample of trapped ultracold neutrons
(UCNs)) is monitored and counted
\cite{PhysRevLett.63.593,PICHLMAIER2010221,PhysRevC.85.065503,KHARITONOV198998,SEREBROV200572,Serebrov:2017bzo}.
Especially the last class of experiments is very interesting from the
perspective of fundamental QM since, as we will discuss in this paper,
they offer the opportunity to test the occurrence of the IZE in the neutron decay.
The main message of this paper is indeed to show that the IZE could
indeed play a role in future trap experiments aiming at measuring the
neutron lifetime. Basically, the idea is that the correlations which
are necessarily present in a sample of UCNs, allow for a much more
efficient way of measuring the survival probability of the neutron at
short times scales.
There is an additional peculiar fact related to the neutron decay that
deserves to be mentioned. To date \cite{Wietfeldt:2018upi}, the averages of
$\tau_{\mathrm{n}}$ as computed by considering all the beam experiments
$\tau_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{beam}}=888.1\pm2.0$ s and all the trap experiments
$\tau_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{trap}}=879.37\pm0.58$ s separately show a
$\sim4\sigma$ discrepancy, with the latter being $\sim8$ s shorter than the
former. More precisely, the mismatch reads $\Delta\tau=\tau_{\mathrm{n
}^{beam}-\tau_{\mathrm{n}}^{trap}=8.7\pm2.1$ s or, in terms of the ratio of
decay widths, $\Gamma_{n}^{\text{trap}}/\Gamma_{n}^{\text{beam}}
=1.0098\pm0.0024$.
This so-called "neutron decay anomaly", confirmed also recently in
\cite{Pattie:2017vsj}, has been the subject of many theoretical investigations
aiming at explaining this discrepancy. One of the most exciting proposals,
involving beyond standard model physics, is based on a possible new decay
channel of the neutron into dark matter particles $n^{\prime}$ slightly
lighter than the neutron \cite{Fornal:2018eol}. In this interpretation, while
beam experiments (which detect the protons generated by the neutron decays)
measure just the branching ratio for the proton decay channel, trap
experiments can measure the whole width of the neutron and therefore, in
presence of an additional decay channel, the neutron decay width is
necessarily larger (thus leading to a shorter -and in this framework correct-
lifetime). Of course, such an interpretation would have far reaching
consequences for the physics beyond the standard model. The dark matter
interpretation has been however criticized: the existence of such a fermion
would imply that it can be formed in the dense core of neutron stars leading
to a strong softening of the equation of state. It would be difficult in such
a case to explain the existence of neutron stars as massive as $2M_{\odot}$
\cite{McKeen:2018xwc,Baym:2018ljz,Motta:2018rxp}.
Another, more important, problem with this interpretation arises when
comparing with the recent precise measurements on beta decay neutron asymmetry
which are consistent with the lifetime as measured by trap experiments and not
with the one obtained by beam experiments \cite{Czarnecki:2018okw}, thus
suggesting that some systematics affects the beam experiments and a new decay
channel is not needed \cite{Dubbers:2018kgh,Markisch:2018ndu}, see also Ref.
\cite{Belfatto:2019swo}. In particular, in Ref. \cite{Fornal:2018eol}, by
using the PDG average for the axial-vector to vector coupling ratio
$\lambda=-1.2723+\pm0.0023$, it turns out that both lifetime measurements are
compatible with the SM within the error bar of $\lambda$. However the most
recent experiments \cite{Dubbers:2018kgh,Markisch:2018ndu} have measured a
slightly larger value for $\lambda=-1.27641(45)_{stat}(33)_{sys}$ which are
definitely in agreement with trap experiments and rule out
the beam experiments results.
To summarize, the discrepancy between $\tau_{\mathrm{n}}^{beam}$ and
$\tau_{\mathrm{n}}^{trap}$ is most likely due to complicated
systematics in the beam measurements as discussed also in Refs.
\cite{Wietfeldt:2018upi,Wietfeldt:2011suo}. New measurements with the
beam technique would be clearly very important to definitely rule out
any possible discrepancy.
In this context, a quite speculative but nevertheless interesting idea
is worth being here investigated: one might assume that the IZE
already took place in ongoing trap experiments. In this way, the IZE
could offer an explanation of the "neutron decay anomaly", since the
smaller decay width $\tau_{\mathrm{n}}^{trap}$ would be a consequence
of the increased decay rate for this particular experimental setup.
The article is organized as follows: In Sec. II we briefly review the QZE and
IZE by introducing a suitable mathematical formalism describing the effect of
measurement/environment via response functions \cite{KK1,KK2}. This formalism
is then applied to the particular case of the neutron in Sec. III. In Sec. IV
we discuss under which conditions the IZE is sizable enough to be detected in
future (or even ongoing) experiments. Conclusions and outlooks are outlined
in Sec. V.
\section{Brief review of the QZE and IZE}
In this section we present how the QZE and the IZE can be described
theoretically. To this end, we use the results of
Refs. \cite{KK1,KK2,FP}, in which a theoretical model for the process
of measurement, that we shall use in our approach, has been
described.
Let us consider a certain decay process of an unstable
state denoted as `$n$', whose decay width is expressed by the function
$\Gamma(\omega).$ Later, the state $n$ will be identified with the
neutron, but here it is a generic unstable quantum state or
particle. The energy $\omega$ reads $\omega=m-\sum_{j=1}^{N}m_{j},$
where $m_{j}$ are the masses of the $N$ decay products of the state
$n.$ The quantity $\omega$ (and thus the mass $m$) are variables,
since the mass of an unstable state is not fixed. As a consequence
$\omega\geq0$ i.e. is a positive real number. The on-shell value is
obtained for
$\omega_{\text{on-shell}}\equiv\omega_{n}=m_{n}-\sum_{j=1}^{N}m_{j}$,
where $m_{n}=m_{\text{on-shell}}$; the `on-shell' decay width reads
$\Gamma _{n}=\Gamma(\omega_{n})=\Gamma_{\text{on-shell}}$. The
on-shell mass and the on-shell width are useful concepts for particles
or unstable states which are "narrow" i.e. if their mass
distribution is peaked at $m_{\text{on-shell}}$ and
$\Gamma_{\text{on-shell}}/m_{\text{on-shell}}<<1$. The neutron falls
within this category of unstable states since it has only a weak
interaction decay channel.
A quite general result is that, in presence of a series of
measurements and/or interactions of the system with the environment,
the effective measured decay width may change according to the
weighted average, see \cite{KK1}:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\text{measured}}(\tau)=\int_{0}^{\infty}f(\tau,\omega)\Gamma
(\omega)d\omega\text{ ,}\label{gamman1
\end{equation}
where the parameter $\tau$ parameterizes the time-scale interval
between two subsequent collapses (or -in the spirit of decoherence-
dephasing) of the wave function. The functional form of
$f(\tau,\omega)$ -peaked at $\omega_{n}$ and typically symmetric
w.r.t. $\omega_{n}$ - depends on the details of the performed
measurements and of the whole environment coupled with the unstable
system, but three general constraints are:
\begin{equation}
\int_{0}^{\infty}f(\tau,\omega)d\omega=1\text{ , }f(\tau\rightarrow
\infty,\omega)=\delta(\omega-\omega_{n})\text{ , }f(\tau\rightarrow
0,\omega)=\text{small const .}\label{cond
\end{equation}
The first condition in Eq. (\ref{cond}) guarantees the
normalization. As a consequence, in the Breit-Wigner limit (in which
no deviations from the exponential decay occurs) the function
$\Gamma(\omega)=\Gamma_{n}$ is a simple constant, then
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\text{measured}}(\tau)=\int_{0}^{\infty}f(\tau,\omega)\Gamma
(\omega)d\omega=\,\Gamma_{n}\text{ ,
\end{equation}
independently on the precise form of $f(\tau,\omega)$. Hence, as
expected, neither the QZE nor the IZE takes place. This case is however
unphysical from the theoretical point of view, since a constant decay
width and the corresponding Breit-Wigner distributions are only
approximations (actually excellent approximations for most of the
phenomenology of nuclear and particle physics).
The second condition in Eq. (\ref{cond}) assures that, if the system is
undisturbed, one obtains the `on-shell' decay width
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\text{measured}}(\tau\rightarrow\infty)=\Gamma_{n}\text{ .
\end{equation}
Finally, the third condition in Eq. (\ref{cond}) implies that, for $\tau$ very
small, $f(\tau\rightarrow0,\omega)$ is a (small) constant, hence
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\text{measured}}(\tau\rightarrow0)=(\text{small constant})\int
_{0}^{\infty}\Gamma(\omega)d\omega\,\rightarrow0.\label{qze
\end{equation}
This limit corresponds to the case in which the measurement
occurs so quickly after the preparation of the system that the decay is strongly hindered, namely the famous QZE. In the energy domain, this means
that the decay is governed by the high energy tail of $\Gamma(\omega)$ which, as we will discuss later, must be small when $\omega$ large enough.
The functional form of $f(\tau,\omega)$ depends on which type of measurement
is performed. For instance, for instantaneous ideal measurements performed at
times $0,\tau,$ $2\tau,...$ it reads \cite{KK1}:
\begin{equation}
f(\tau,\omega)=\frac{\tau}{2\pi}\frac{\sin^{2}\left[\tau \left( \omega
-\omega_{n}\right) /2\right] }{[\tau\left( \omega-\omega_{n}\right) /2]^{2
}.\label{f1
\end{equation}
If, instead, a continuous measurement is considered (continuous dephasing, see
Refs. \cite{KK1,KK2,FP} for details) one obtains the Lorentzian form
\begin{equation}
f(\tau,\omega)=\frac{1}{\pi\tau}\frac{1}{\left( \omega-\omega_{n}\right)
^{2}+\tau^{-2}}.\label{f2
\end{equation}
More in general, the emergence of a response function does not need to be
caused by measurements. Indeed the time scale $\tau$ can be
considered to be associated with the decoherence time for the unstable state under study. Namely,
it is not important if the dephasing is caused by an experiment aiming at
ascertaining if the unstable system decayed or not or by the
complex interaction of the unstable system with the environment.
Indeed, in many physical cases,
the value of $\tau$ induced by the coupling with the environment is smaller
than the one due to the observation process thus making environmental
dephasing more efficient than the measurement itself \cite{omnes}.
There is a subtle and important problem related to Eq. (\ref{gamman1}). In
general, $\Gamma(\omega\rightarrow\infty)=0$ sufficiently fast to guarantee
convergence of $\Gamma^{\text{measured}}(\tau)$ (independently on the use of
Eq. (\ref{f1}) or (\ref{f2})). Yet, in most cases, the function $\Gamma
_{n}(\omega)$ may start to decrease only for very large $\omega,$ Moreover,
when the unstable state is \textquotedblleft created\textquotedblright, there
is a certain energy indetermination $\Delta E$, in turn meaning that one
should consider $\omega$ between the range $\omega_{n}-\Delta E$ and
$\omega_{n}+\Delta E=\omega_{C}$. When repetitive collapses are considered (of
whatever type), the case in which each measurement occurs instantaneously
(ideal case) would correspond to $\Delta E=\infty,$ thus the whole function
$\Gamma(\omega)$ should be considered for the computation of the decay rate. However, each realistic measurement in
between (it does not matter if continuous or not) takes a finite time and therefore also
$\Delta E$ is finite.
In our approach we then modify Eq. (\ref{gamman1}) as it follows:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\text{measured}}(\tau,\Delta E)=\int_{\omega_{n}-\Delta E}^{\omega
_{n}+\Delta E}f(\tau,\omega)\Gamma_{n}(\omega)d\omega\label{gamman2
\end{equation}
Of course, if $\omega_{\text{n}}-\Delta E<0,$ one should replace $0$ as
the lower bound of the integral. Note, this discussion is only qualitative,
since -in general- a modification of the integration range should also be
accompanied with a modification of $f(\tau,\omega),$ but this aspect can be
neglected if $\Delta E$ is sufficiently larger than the width of the unstable
state (the normalization $\int_{\omega_{n}-\Delta E}^{\omega_{n}+\Delta E}f(\tau,\omega)d\omega\simeq1$ is guaranteed at a very good level of accuracy).
As a simple example, let us assume that
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{n}(\omega)\simeq g^{2}\omega^{\alpha
\end{equation}
in the energy range $(\omega_{\text{n}}-\Delta E,\omega_{\text{n}}+\Delta E$), with $g$ being a coupling strength. By considering $\Delta E\ll\omega
_{\text{n}}$ and, being the function $f(\tau,\omega)$ centered at $\omega=\omega_{\text{n}}$, it is
easy to see that
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\text{measured}}(\tau,\Delta E)>\Gamma_{n}\text{ for }\alpha>1\text{
and }\alpha<0\text{ ,
\end{equation}
thus the IZE is realized in such a case. Vice-versa, one finds
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\text{measured}}(\tau,\Delta E)<\Gamma_{n}\text{ for }0<\alpha<1\text{
,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to the standard QZE. For the limiting cases $\alpha=0$ and
$\alpha=1$ no changes occur, $\Gamma^{\text{measured}}(\tau,\Delta
E)=\Gamma_{n}.$ This simple but rather general result confirms that the
IZE\ is even more common than the QZE.
\section{The IZE and the neutron: general features}
Let us now discuss the IZE for the neutron decay.
First, we introduce the $Q$ value $\omega=m-m_{p}-m_{e}$,
where we consider $m,$ and thus $\omega,$ as variables. The on-shell value is
$\omega_{\text{on-shell}}=\omega_{n}=m_{n}-m_{p}-m_{e}=0.782333$ MeV (using the values from the PDG
\cite{pdg} and neglecting the error).
Since the aim of this paper is a qualitative discussion of the neutron IZE, we use a simplified formula for the decay function of the
nucleon (the Sargent rule) that allows to understand analytically how this
effect could occur
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(\omega)=g_{n}^{2}\omega^{5}\,\,\,\,\mathrm{for}\,\,\,\,\omega
\lesssim\omega_{\text{n}}+m_{\pi}\,,\label{gamman
\end{equation}
where $g_{n}\propto g_{V}V_{ud}.$ The on-shell value $\Gamma_{n}=\Gamma
(\omega_{n})=g_{n}^{2}\omega_{n}^{5}=\hslash/888.1$ sec$^{-1}=7.41146\cdot
10^{-25}$ MeV implies that $g_{n}=1.59028\cdot10^{-12}$MeV$^{-2}$ if we use
the bottle results and $g_{n}=1.57465\cdot10^{-12}$MeV$^{-2}$ by using the
trap average. The use of the correct phase space expression for the decay formula ($\omega^{5}$ being the
dominant term, see e.g. \cite{Berezhiani:2018udo} ) would not change the
argument of this paper and is left for future studies.
The behavior of $\Gamma(\omega)$ in Eq. (\ref{gamman}) is valid up to the
opening of the strong interaction threshold at $m_{n}+m_{\pi}.$ Moreover,
modifications at much higher energy for $\omega\sim M_{W}$ (the mass of the
weak interaction bosons) are also expected. Indeed, $\Gamma(\omega)$ should
scale as $\omega$ for $\omega$ much larger than $M_{W}$. For $\omega$ even
larger than GUT and/or Planck scales, one should eventually enter into the
domain in which $\Gamma(\omega\rightarrow\infty)=0.$
On the practical level, we will be interested in the behavior of
$\Gamma(\omega)$ in a range which is much smaller than the first threshold,
hence the behavior in\ Eq. (\ref{gamman}) is sufficient for our purposes.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{centering}
\epsfig{file=fig1.eps,height=10cm,width=7cm,angle=-90}
\caption{Relation between $\omega_C$ and $\tau$ for a fixed value of the ratio between the decay rate as observed in trap experiments and beam experiments, see text.
The insert displays a wider range of the variables in order to visualize the strong interaction energy scale for $\omega_C$. }
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
We immediately realize that the use of Eq. (\ref{gamman1}) is problematic in
the case of the neutron: indeed by adopting Eq. (\ref{gamman})
the integral of Eq.
(\ref{gamman1}) is not convergent (if the response functions (\ref{f1}) and (\ref{f2}) are used to model the measurement). Then, the details of
$\Gamma_{n}^{\text{measured}}(\tau)$ would depend also on the high energy
behavior of $\Gamma_{n}(\omega),$ where strong interaction starts to play a
role and -at even higher energies- the effects of the weakly interacting
bosons become important. While this is true in principle, additional
considerations are needed. In practice, it is not realistic to assume that in
the case of the neutron $\omega$ varies up to very large values since the
production processes of the neutron involve much smaller energy uncertainties.
We then turn to the corrected Eq. (\ref{gamman2}). In the case of the neutron,
we assume that $\Delta E \sim$ a few $\omega_{\text{n}},$ since an
off-shellness of few MeV is typical in nuclear processes that produce a
neutron. When applying Eq. (\ref{gamman2}) to the case of the neutron, we
obtain
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\text{measured}}(\tau,\omega_{C})=\int_{0}^{\omega_{C}}f(\tau
,\omega)\Gamma_{n}(\omega)d\omega\label{gammaneutronmeas
\end{equation}
where $\omega_{C}=\omega_{n}+\Delta E$ is the upper range of the integration.
The lower limit is set to zero since we shall consider $\omega_{C}>\omega_{n}$. Note, for the neutron decay $\alpha=5$
thus the IZE is
clearly favoured according to the general discussion of Sec. II. Moreover, since the integration range in Eq. (\ref{gammaneutronmeas}) is asymmetric
around $\omega_{n}$, the IZE is even more enhanced (as long as Eq. (\ref{gamman})
is used).
For illustrative purposes, we shall use the Lorentzian form of $f(\tau,\omega)$ of Eq. (\ref{f2}). By using Eq. (\ref{gamman2}), the explicit result
reads:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\text{measured}}(\tau,\omega_{C})\simeq\Gamma_{n}\left( 1+\frac
{\hbar}{\tau}\frac{\omega_{C}^{4}}{4\pi\omega_{n}^{5}}\right)
\end{equation}
in the limit of $1/\tau<<\omega_{C}$, which is fulfilled for the decay under
study, see Ref. \cite{KK2}.
As anticipated previously one obtains that:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\text{measured}}(\tau,\omega_{C})>\Gamma_{n}\text{ .
\end{equation}
This aspect is \textit{per se} very interesting at a qualitative level: an
increase of the decay width, and hence a decrease of the lifetime, are always
realized. Notice that this result does not depend on the specific choice of
the measurement function $f(\tau,\omega)$: in Ref. \cite{Giacosa:2019akr} it
has been shown that also by using other functional forms, such as the one
describing ideal instantaneous measurements, the results are qualitatively
similar to the ones obtained with the Lorentzian form. This is clear when
considering the limit $1/\tau<<\omega_{C}$, for which both continuous and
instantaneous ideal measurements lead to the very same results.
The important phenomenological question is whether the IZE can be sizable enough to be measured
experimentally. A reasonable estimate to start with shall be $\omega_{C
\simeq2\omega_{n}$. Such degree of off-shellness is well below the lowest
threshold for the modifications associated with the strong interaction (and
much below the threshold for weak interaction modifications). Hence,
$\omega_{C}$ is not `intrinsic' to the neutron but is related to the process
of formation and subsequent monitoring of the neutron(s) by the environment
described by the whole physical system, see the discussion in the next subsection.
As a last general point of this section, we discuss why the opposite effect,
the QZE, is excluded for all practical purposes for the case of the neutron.
In fact, in order for Eq. (\ref{qze}) to apply, one needs a very large and
unrealistic value of the parameter $\omega_{C}$ of the order of GUT (or even
larger) scale. In fact, it is necessary for the QZE to occur that, for the
large value of $\omega$ admitted in the integral, the function $\Gamma(\omega)$ is very small. Yet, such a large value of off-shellness can hardly
occur. Moreover, the parameter $\tau$ should be also small enough (much
smaller than $1/M_{W}$ ) to guarantee that such high value of $\omega$
dominate the integral. This discussion shows that in the study of the neutron decay
the QZE can be safely neglected. Similar conclusions have been obtained in Ref. \cite{KK2}.
\section{IZE in future and ongoing neutron experiments}
\subsection{General considerations}
The main question about the emergence of the IZE in neutron experiments
concerns the value of the parameter $\tau$ that is a measure of how often the neutron
wave function is probed by the environment (not necessarily the `textbook' QM measurement \cite{omnes}).
As a first example, let us take $\omega_{C}$ in the reasonable range $\sim 2$-$10\omega_{n}$ and let us use Eq.~(14) for providing an estimate of
the value of $\tau$ needed to decrease the neutron lifetime
by a few seconds. It turns out that $\tau$ must be as small
as $10^{-16}$-$10^{-19}$ sec. It is important then to understand if and how
such a small value of $\tau$ can be realized in the case of the neutron lifetime experiments (yet,
similar arguments hold in general also for other weak nuclear decays).
To this end, we now discuss separately both types of experiments for the neutron decay and
we shall see that there are indeed crucial differences between them.
First, let us consider beam experiments. In that case, we should assess how
often does the collapse (or equivalently, the dephasing) of the wave function
take place. Electrons and protons emitted by the neutrons could be quite fast
(typically a velocity of a few tenths of $c$ for the electrons and up to
$\sim10^{-3}c$ for the protons ). Taking into account that the typical
distance that the protons or the electrons have to cover before interacting
with the environment (which includes the detector, but is much larger), thus
causing the collapse, is of about $0.1-1$ m, one obtains that $\tau$ could be
as small as $\sim10^{-9}$ s. For $\omega_{C}$ of the order of $2\omega_{n}$ or
even $10\omega_{n}$, it follows that the beam decay width basically coincides
with the on-shell decay width
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\text{beam}}\simeq\Gamma^{\text{measured}}(\tau\sim10^{-9}s,\omega
_{C}\sim2\text{-}10\omega_{n})\simeq\Gamma_{n}\text{, }\label{beam
\end{equation}
to a very good level of accuracy. In fact, as long as $\omega_{C}$ is
sufficiently small, no deviation from the on-shell value is possible. In fact,
in order to obtain a $\Gamma^{\text{beam}}$ sizably larger than $\Gamma_{n},$
unrealistic values of $\omega_{C}$ are required. For instance, by fixing $\tau=10^{-9}$s and by requiring a $1\%$ IZE:
$\Gamma^{\text{beam}}\simeq1.01\Gamma_{n}$ one would need $\omega_{C}\sim621\omega_{n}=486$ MeV, which is even sizably larger than the pion mass.
Summarizing, the validity of Eq. (\ref{beam}) seems well upheld. No IZE is
expected in such experiments.
Next, let us turn to the trap experiments. For a single neutron, we also
obtain a similar dephasing time of about $\tau\sim10^{-9}$ s. Yet, here the
situation is different due to fact that trap experiments deal with UCNs
(temperature of the order of 1mK and de Broglie wavelength $\lambda$ greater
than 100nm, see e.g. \cite{Serebrov:2017bzo}), thus neutrons are strongly
correlated (entangled) by the requirement of anti-symmetrization of the wave function.
Moreover the spectrum of neutrons is prepared in the experiment in such a way
that energetic neutrons rapidly escape the trap. Conversely, neutrons in beam
experiments have a rather broad spectrum \cite{Wietfeldt:2011suo} and we
expect therefore to be very weakly correlated to each other. As a consequence,
we can provide this simple qualitative argument:
the collapse of a single neutron (i.e. the detection of one of its decay
products by the environment) implies the collapse of the whole wave function,
and thus of all neutrons. Since one can estimate that there are about $10^{8}$
neutrons in the trap \footnote{The exact number of neutrons in the trap is
obviously not known and indeed the method for measuring the lifetime is based
on the measurement of ratios of number of neutrons for different storage
times. By considering e.g. the experimental setup of \cite{Serebrov:2017bzo},
one can notice that during the initial stage of the preparation of the system,
a flux of the order of $10^{3}$sec$^{-1}$ is measured by the neutron detector
during the filling time which lasts typically a few hundreds seconds. This
leads to a total number of neutrons detected of the order of a few $10^{5}$.
By correcting with the ratio between the surface of the detector and the
surface of the trap we find it reasonable to assume that the trap contains a
factor $10^{2-3}$ more neutrons. This leads to an upper value of $10^{8}$. One
can also extract those estimates by considering the simulated spectra of
neutrons shown in Fig.6 of \cite{Serebrov:2017bzo}.} the effective $\tau$
reads $\tau\sim10^{-9}\cdot10^{-8}=10^{-17}$ s under the assumption of a complete correlation between all the neutron in the trap. If we then consider
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\text{trap}}\simeq\Gamma^{\text{measured}}(\tau\sim10^{-17
s,\omega_{C}\sim2\text{-}10\omega_{n})\gtrsim\Gamma_{n}\simeq\Gamma
_{n}^{\text{beam}}\text{ ,
\end{equation}
$\Gamma^{\text{trap}}$ can be sizable larger than $\Gamma_{n}.$
By repeating the previous analysis, in this case with $\tau=10^{-17}$s,
to obtain a $1\%$ IZE, the degree of off-shellness is much smaller:
$\omega_{C} \sim 5$ MeV thus within the reasonable range of values.
The
consequence of this considerations is that the IZE is indeed possible in trap
experiments. Since it is difficult to control the off-shellness parameter
$\omega_{C},$ the most promising way to test this idea is
to decrease the parameter $\tau$ as much as possible.
According to the discussion above, this goal can be achieved
by increasing
the number of neutrons in the traps. In that case, one should measure a
smaller lifetime of the neutron as compared with beam experiments
and one should
find the following simple qualitative correlation: the larger the number of neutrons in the trap the smaller the lifetime.
\subsection{Discrepancy among neutron lifetime measurements}
As a last topic, we discuss the rather speculative but interesting possibility
that the IZE experiment has been already realized in ongoing trap experiments. In
this way the neutron decay anomaly could be a consequence of the IZE occurring
in trap experiments (and not in the beam ones). For instance, for $\tau
\sim10^{-17}$ and for the quite realistic value $\omega_{C}=6.19\omega_{n}$
one obtains the required value $\Gamma^{\text{trap}}=1.0098\Gamma
^{\text{on-shell}}=1.0098\Gamma^{\text{beam}}.$ In Fig. 1 we display the
relation between $\tau$ and $\omega_{C}.\ $In particular, we show $\omega_{C}$
as a function of $\tau$ for a fixed ratio $\Gamma^{\text{measured}
(\tau,\omega_{C}(\tau))=1.0098\Gamma_{n}$. For each value of $\omega_{C},$ one
can read off which value of $\tau$ is needed to obtained a larger decay width,
such as the one found in the trap measurements.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{centering}
\epsfig{file=fig2.eps,height=10cm,width=7cm,angle=-90}
\caption{Variation of the ``effective'' decay width as a function of $\tau$ for different values of $\omega_C$. $R=\Gamma_n^{\mathrm{measured}}/\Gamma_n^{\mathrm{on-shell}}$.}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
A quite strong implication of this interpretation of the so called "neutron decay anomaly" in
terms of IZE is that the beam experiments provide the `natural' value of the
lifetime of the neutron and in that case a puzzle would arise concerning the
value of $\lambda$ and/or the value of the CKM matrix element $V_{\mathrm{ud
}$.
Some kind of `new physics' (but different from an invisible decay as in Ref.
\cite{Fornal:2018eol}) would then be needed, such as violations of CKM
unitarity or nuclear structure effects when extracting the value of
$V_{\mathrm{ud}}$ from superallowed nuclear decays could play a major role,
see discussions in Refs.
\cite{Czarnecki:2019mwq,Seng:2018qru,Gorchtein:2018fxl}. Alternatively, even
if at the present state of knowledge it seems quite improbable, beyond standard model processes
could affect the value of the contribution of the radiative corrections, such
that the lifetime measured in beam experiments is the correct one for an
isolated free neutron. It is then clear that the application of the IZE to
ongoing trap experiments should be regarded with much care, but as long as the
anomaly is not resolved in terms of systematic errors in the beam experiments,
it represents an interesting scenario which is based on
a fundamental quantum phenomenon.
It should be stressed that our mechanism is -at the present stage- only
qualitative, since a very simple measurement model has been used. Yet, it may
point to an interesting possibility that needs further investigation in the
future. As a simple prediction, we note that an additional measurement of
protons in trap experiments should confirm the decreased value of
$\tau^{\text{trap}},$ since this has no influence in our scenario where the
only decay channel of the neutron is the standard beta-decay. Also the
strength of the magnetic field (used in some trap experiments and in beam
experiments) should not change the lifetime of the neutron at variance with
the scenario proposed in \cite{Berezhiani:2018eds} where neutron oscillations
into mirror neutrons are enhanced by the magnetic field. On the other hand, as
already mentioned above, if one could (significantly) decrease or increase the
number of neutrons in the trap, one should correspondingly measure a decrease
or increase the \textquotedblleft effective\textquotedblright\ decay width.
This effect is shown in Fig. 2 where we display the variation of the ratio
$R=\Gamma^{\text{measured}}/\Gamma_{n}$ as a function of $\tau$ for different
values of $\omega_{C}$.
\section{Conclusions}
In this work we have discussed that the inverse quantum Zeno effect,
i.e. the \textit{acceleration} of the decay of unstable systems induced by the measurement, is in principle detectable
in experiments on the lifetime of the neutron. In particular, trap experiments represent a very interesting setup in which the neutrons are
ultracold and quantum effects may become relevant. Indeed the IZE is induced by a very efficient and fast collapse of the wave function which should occur with time scales of the order of $10^{-17}$s. Such a small time scale is completely out of reach in beam experiments but is instead attainable in trap experiments due to the possibly high degree of entanglement of ultra cold neutrons.
To this end, an increase of the number of neutron in the trap (thus going towards a more degenerate fermionic system)
represents the easiest way to test our proposal, since it should lead to a
smaller measured lifetime of the neutron.
Quite remarkably, trap experiments on ultracold neutrons decay could probe
the very same quantum effect that has been proven for ultracold atoms trapped in
optical lattices i.e. the inverse quantum Zeno effect
\cite{2001PhRvL..87d0402F}.
In addition, we have also discussed the possibility that the IZE has been
already realized in trap experiments and is the ultimate reason for the
so called "neutron decay anomaly" i.e. the fact that $\tau^{\text{trap }}$ is $1\%$ smaller than $\tau
^{\text{beam }}$. While in the former case the IZE occurred, in the latter
it cannot be obtained since neutrons are uncorrelated.
We remark that, presently, the most viable solution to this discrepancy is that
beam experiments are affected by some uncontrolled systematics \cite{Wietfeldt:2011suo}; indeed the value of the neutron lifetime as measured in trap experiments is fully compatible with the most recent measurements of the beta decay neutron asymmetry \cite{Dubbers:2018kgh,Markisch:2018ndu}.
In conclusion, even if the IZE has not yet been observed, future trap experiments on ultra cold neutrons are capable of verifying this very subtle quantum effect and open therefore the possibility of tuning the rate of nuclear decays. Clearly this could have enormous impact also on applied physics and nuclear engineering.
\vskip 0.1cm
\textbf{Acknowledgments}: F.G. thanks S. Mr\'{o}wczy\'{n}ski for useful discussions.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
The quality of any public transport system is crucially dependent on its reliability. One of the primary metrics that measure the reliability of a public transit is the predictability of its vehicles in reaching specific pre-determined locations (bus stops in case of a bus-based transit). A predictable and a reliable public transportation also attracts more users \cite{brakewood2018literature} thereby increasing the economic viability of the transit as well as reducing congestion in the road, a huge urban challenge, especially in the developing world. From the point of view of the transit operators, predictability is key to maintaining its efficiency. For instance, predicting bus-bunching in real time also helps in avoiding it. From the passengers perspective, predictability is generally measured by the accurate determination of the expected time of arrival (ETA) of a vehicle on a route. With the advent of smart phones and GPS enabled public transport, it is now easier to show the ETAs of various routes on the phone applications, especially of those routes which are not very frequent. Not just for the bus based public transport routes, the ETA determination is necessary and vital even for the private on-demand transportation companies like Shuttl (India) and Chariot (US and India), as well as cab companies such as Lyft, Uber, and Ola. \par
The ETA estimation problem is as follows. Given the current location of the vehicle and its future trajectory, what is the expected time of its arrival in a given set of locations? In this paper, we focus the ETA estimation problem only for bus based public transport routes, especially those that make frequent stops. One of the ways to estimate the ETA to a location is to predict the future traffic speed using the historic speed data on the given route. This approach, however, has several limitations. The first limitation is the lack of availability of the future traffic speed data across the city network. Large commercial entities like Google and Microsoft provide APIs that provide a prediction for future speed data in a city, but they may be both expensive and inaccurate. More importantly, these APIs are heavily biased towards cars. In reality, the speed profile for buses is often different than that of cars. The other significant limitation in using these speed profiles is the fact that a bus would often make many stops, which needs to be accounted in the calculations for ETA. In summary, the ETA calculation would be erroneous due to the unavailability of stopping time and inaccurate road speed information. In this work, we argue that one can build a simple yet effective system for predicting ETA for a given bus route by using only the past GPS trajectories of a given route. \par
As noted earlier, a bus route consists of set of pre-determined locations, also called bus stops. Each route comprises of many trips (up and down) throughout the day. We assume that all the route vehicles are customised with GPS units. The location information from these GPS units is then used to calculate the time taken to travel between the consecutive stops thereby making a database of historic and actual ETA of the route. Given this data of historic ETA data set and the current location of the bus in a trip, the problem is to ``predict" in real-time the ETA for all the remaining stops in the trip. Note that the historic (and ongoing) data of ETA would constitute both travel timings as well as the stoppage timings specific only to the bus route. \par
\par
In this work, we employ what is known as generative autoregressive models to predict the ETA in a given trip conditional on the travel times between stops so far in the trip. The generative model is trained using the historic data for the previous trips on the same route. To this end, we form an ETA matrix, whose rows are the trips on a given day and whose columns contain the time taken to travel between consecutive bus stops. As an example, an ETA matrix corresponding to one day for a route operating 20 trips a day with 20 stops will be of the size $20 \times 20$. We learn the joint distribution of the underlying ETA data using a generative model based on a CNN and predict the ETA in real-time while the route is operational. Our approach is inspired by pixel-CNN \cite{oord2016pixel} which is used to learn the distribution of natural images (which are also matrices) in order to complete an incomplete image. However, unlike images, the ETA matrix has a temporal (causal) nature and each row of the matrix can only be filled sequentially. We modify the pixel-CNN approach to suit the special structure in the ETA estimation task. We introduce masking to make our system causal. Masking also helps in controlling the level of dependencies from past used for the prediction of future values. We explored two different mask instead of using the traditional mask proposed in \cite{oord2016pixel}. One of the contribution of our work is to make the masking operation automatic thereby making the system plug and play. The generative model used in our paper has been demonstrated \cite{oord2016pixel} to explicitly model complex probability distributions that fits the training data and handles both noisy as well as the missing data case well. Through this approach, we integrate both stopping time as well as time travel time in the training data itself. To the best of our knowledge, the transportation researchers have not explored conditional generative models for either traffic prediction or ETA prediction tasks. The results indicate that we can make a simple and reliable ETA prediction mechanism by using only bus GPS data without relying on any other external speed data. \par
In summary, the main contributions presented in the work are:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a novel ETA prediction algorithm based on generative autoregressive model that integrates both traffic speed corresponding to the bus as well as the stopping time in one framework.
\item The algorithm utilizes only the historic GPS data from the same route and can be independently implemented irrespective of availability of traffic data in the city. The algorithm is adaptive in nature and can also be implemented in real-time.
\item The key algorithm parameters can be tuned automatically thereby increasing the ease of implementation in the real-world scenarios.
\item Finally, we implement our algorithm on the real-world transit data available in Delhi, India and it outperforms other traffic prediction based ETA estimation algorithms.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
Most ETA estimation works \cite{sevlian2010travel,de2008traffic,asif2014spatiotemporal,rahmani2013route,billings2006application} in the literature are based on future speed prediction relying on the historic speed data from cars/cabs across the network. As noted before, the structure of the city network available to the car based traffic speed prediction models may not be valid for the bus routes which also need to allow for stopping times at the bus stops. For instance, authors in \cite{billings2006application} employ an autoregressive moving average (ARIMA) model that relies on the fact the future link (road segment) speeds can be accurately predicted by a linear combination of past speeds from few other links. The variability of link speed profiles of buses from our data set indicate a much higher dimension. Moreover, many of the above methods rely on structured ``big" data which simply may not be available for bus route networks. Further, some previous approaches based on individual road segment based travel time estimation assumes that the travel time on consecutive road segments as independent \cite{westgate2013travel, hofleitner2012learning, sevlian2010travel,pan2012utilizing,de2008traffic, asif2014spatiotemporal, lv2015traffic, rahmani2013route}, which may not always be true as illustrated in recent works based on machine learning. \par
ML techniques based on $K$ nearest neighbor approach was used to predict the travel time in \cite{rice2001simple,myung2011travel}. Authors in \cite{chien2003dynamic} suggest a Kalman filtering method. In \cite{wu2003travel}, support vector regression was suggested for predicting the travel time. Gradient boosting method was proposed in \cite{zhang2015gradient}. However, the above methods mainly incorporate temporal nature of the data, while the spatial dependencies were not explicitly modeled. \par
Recently, deep learning based methods have been proposed and have shown state of the art performance. Recurrent neural networks (RNN) in \cite{zeng2013development,wang2016traffic} and long short term memory (LSTM) in \cite{{duan2016travel}} have been proposed to predict the travel time. Spatio-Temporal Hidden Markov Models (STHMM) are used to model correlations among different traffic time series in \cite{yang2013travel}. Recently, deep end to end travel time estimation (DeepTTE) \cite{deepTTE} uses raw GPS and also captures the local spatial dependencies like weather conditions, driving habits, start time, day of the week and an RNN is used to learn the temporal dependencies on the feature map generated by the geo convolutional layer. This model predicts the travel time for a complete path, but when generating the individual estimation of road segments, it does not incorporate the spatial correlation in the road segments. All the deep learning model need an extensive data set to train the non-linearity in the models. They also need considerable effort in turning parameters. \par
Closer to the problem taken in this paper, authors in \cite{lee2012http} and \cite{wang2016simple} use historical bus trajectories for predicting speed across future road segments.
\section{Methodology}
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
We first discuss the problem formulation for the ETA estimation problem. To this end, we first introduce key notations. A bus route is defined as an ordered list of bus stops $(k=1,...K)$, where $k=1$ is the source and $k=K$ is the destination stop respectively. Each route is undertaken by several trips in a day where each trip ideally should run according to a predetermined timetable. But, these trips may not adhere to the timetable due to various reasons. Let there be a total of $T$ such trips in a route.
We denote the travel time between stops $k-1$ to $k$ by $t_{\tau,k}$ during the $\tau^{th}$ trip where, $(\tau=1,\dots, T)$. The ETA estimation problem tackled in this paper is the following. Assuming the $\tau^{th}$ trip is in progress, and the bus is near the $k^{th}$ stop, what is the ETA for the remaining stops on the route.
Mathematically, we would like to predict $\hat{t}_{\tau,(k+\Delta)}$ where $\Delta =\{1,....K-k\}$. We assume the availability of the historical travel time data for the bus route. Note that historical data could be both noisy as well as incomplete. As we shall see later, we use this historical data to train our prediction model. Further, we also assume travel times of the current trip ${t}_{\tau,(1:k-1)}$, and the previous trips {\it of the same day} ${t}_{(1:\tau-1),(1:k-1)}$ is also available. Mathematically, given the prediction model, we use ${t}_{\tau,(1:k-1)}$ and the previous trips i.e. ${t}_{(1:\tau-1),(1:k-1)}$ to predict $\hat{t}_{\tau,(k+\Delta)}$, for $\Delta= 1$ to $K-k$. \par
One way of estimating the ETA ${t}_{\tau,(1:k)}$ for the $\tau^{th}$ trip is to employ the Maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation method.
\begin{align} \label{eqn:map}
\hat{t}_{\tau,(k+\Delta)}= \argmax_{\hat{t}_{\tau,(k+\Delta)}} \, p\left(\,\hat{t}_{\tau,(k+\Delta)}\,|\, {t}_{\tau,(1:k-1)},{t}_{(1:\tau-1),(1:k-1)}\,\right).
\end{align}
where, $p(.)$ denote the conditional probability distribution function (pdf) of the travel times from stop $k$ to $k+\Delta$, $\Delta=1$ \text{to} $K-k$, at the $\tau^{th}$ trip conditional on previous travel times of the current trip and the previous trips on the same day. The above method is also optimal assuming the above mentioned conditional pdfs are known and the MAP estimator can be evaluated. However, estimation of such vast number of pdfs for each route is intractable and the MAP computation becomes impractical. To alleviate the above issues, we employ what is known as the generative modeling approach to learn the conditional distributions required in \eqref{eqn:map} in a single and unified framework thereby making ETA estimation sufficiently accurate while enabling low complexity computations that require less data. These learned distributions is then sampled to estimate the ETA values for the future stops in a trip.
\subsection{Generative Modeling for traffic prediction}
Generative modeling is a powerful way of estimating the distribution of the data in an unsupervised way. Last few years have witnessed tremendous research efforts towards generative modeling of the data \cite{doersch2016tutorial, goodfellow2014generative, oord2016pixel}. Generative models generally employ deep learning frameworks to learn an approximation of the true distribution of the data. In this paper, we utilise an autoregressive generative model to explicitly learn the distribution of the ETA data. \par
Our model is inspired by pixel-CNN \cite{oord2016pixel}, where the authors learn a distribution of natural images. An image is nothing but a matrix of pixel values. The distribution of natural images is thus the joint distribution of all the pixels of a matrix. Formally, let ${\bf X} =(x_1,x_2,x_3, ...,x_{n^2})$ be a matrix shown in Fig. \ref{fig_img}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{image.pdf}
\caption{Matrix X }
\label{fig_img}
\end{figure}
Using the chain-rule, the joint distribution of the matrix $\boldsymbol{X}$ is
\begin{align} \label{eqn:probability}
\ p({\bf X})=\prod_{i=1}^{n^2}\, p \left(x_i \,| \,x_{1},....,x_{i-1} \right)
\end{align}
In words, if $\bf X$ is an image, the very first pixel $x_1$ is independent, albeit with a distribution, the second pixel $x_2$ dependent on first, third depends on the first and second and so on. In summary, the matrix is ordered as a sequence of points where the probability distribution of one point depends on the observed values of the previous points. The generation proceeds row by row and pixel by pixel. Similarly, we can determine the probability of pixel $x_i$ conditioned on $x_{i-1}...x_{1}$. \par
Likewise, the travel times of a bus route can be seen as an image of size $T \times K$ with rows as trips and the columns denote the travel times between consecutive stops. In a way, one day of a bus route travel time matrix can be seen as a single image. Consequently, we can learn the distribution of these ETA matrices using generative models like in \cite{oord2016pixel} by suitably modifying to suit the specifics of the ETA estimation problem. To learn the generative model, we use mask-convolutional neural networks (CNN) based autoregressive model. CNN based models are well known and widely studied for capturing local correlation in images for classification tasks \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}. \par
The architecture of mask-CNN is fundamentally simple with two blocks in it --- the training and the real-time ETA estimation blocks. The mask-CNN is utilised to learn the generative model in the training block using the historical route travel time data. Once the model is trained, we use it to compute ETA for a given route. The observed ETA values after the completion of the trip is fed to the training block which simultaneously adapts the model that is used for the future trips. We first briefly describe CNN, followed by detailed discussion of the usage of these models for the ETA estimation problem.
Before discussing the mask-CNN framework in detail, we provide a simple example to discuss inference based on generative models.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{exam.pdf}
\caption{Example dataset with 4 elements and inferencing the dataset }
\label{fig:exam}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Generative Modeling: an example}
Consider a data set with 4 elements as shown in Figs. (\ref{fig:exam}a - \ref{fig:exam}d). Each element of this data set is a $3 \times 3 $ matrix whose entries are ordered from $T_1$ to $T_9$, where each of the element of the matrix comes from the set $S = \{ 0, \, \times, \, | \}$. Assume that we can estimate the joint probability distribution $p \left(T_1, T_2, \dots, T_9 \right)$ for the data in Fig. \ref{fig:exam}(a-d). The inference after training is shown in Figs. \ref{fig:exam}(e- l). Suppose we observe (Fig. \ref{fig:exam}f) $T_1=\times$. We can now predict the values from $T_2, T_3$ to $T_9$ onwards conditional on $T_1=\times$ using the trained generative model. Note that there are two paths to take once we observe $T_1=\times$, with different conditional probabilities. It can be easily inferred from the data (Figs. (\ref{fig:exam}a - \ref{fig:exam}d)), that probability that $T_2$ will be $0$ is higher as compared from $\times$. Further on observing $T_2$ (which may not be same as what was predicted before), we update the probabilities for $T_3$ to $T_9$ and the sequential prediction process continues as we observe more variable. The next question therefore is, how to model the joint and the conditional distributions?
\subsection{Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) for ETA}
Convolutional neural networks (CNN) is a class of deep learning models that has provided state of the art performance in various image/video classification tasks. CNN captures the local spatial coherence by ``convolving" a local 2-D area with filters and thereby absorbing the spatial dependencies in an image. Intuitively, filters perform the task of feature extraction from the matrix (or an image). Many filters can be passed through these matrices, each picking a different set of features. For example, a horizontal line or a vertical line filter. Convolutional networks employ these filters, slices of the matrix feature space, and map them one by one. In other words, they create a map of each place where these features occur. A general CNN architecture ( Figs. ~\ref{fig:m44}) has many layers. Following convolution operation through filters, the resulting matrix is passed through layers containing nonlinear transforms like $tanh$ or a rectified linear unit ($ReLU$) that is generally applied to each element of the matrix. \par
Similar to an image, one of the major motivation for using a CNN for the ETA estimation problem is the natural spatial and temporal correlation available in the ETA data of bus trips for a given route. However, using the ``regular" convolution filter in mask-CNN may imply that we end up using points for the convolution operation that may not have been generated yet. This implies that we may break the causality of the system. For instance, to predict the ETA between stops $j-1$ to $j$, we cannot use the data for stops $j$ to $j+1$, as that trip has not happened yet. This challenge can be overcome by using an appropriate mask along with convolution operation that maintains the causality of the system. Also, masking gives the flexibility to restrict the dependencies. One of the contributions of our work is to automate the selection of an appropriate filter that decides the optimal dependencies for the ETA estimation task.
The dependencies that are captured using the CNN are nothing but the conditional probability distribution function that we seek to obtain. We now discuss the proposed mask-CNN model and the ETA estimation problem in more detail.
\subsection{Mask-CNN architecture}
The mask-CNN architecture is a fully convolutional network of seven layers that preserves the spatial resolution of its input throughout the layers and outputs a conditional distribution at each location.
We first define the input provided for the training of the architecture. The time taken to travel between any two consecutive stops in the evening may not be dependant on the time taken in the morning. Therefore, we can divide everyday trip data into smaller overlapping chunks of window size $H$.
Let $K$ denote the total number of stops in a route. Similar to an image, we define the collected bus ETA data as a 2-D matrix of dimension $H \times K$, one for each day, whose rows are the trips on a route in a day and the columns contain the travel time between two consecutive stops. In the case of an image, a pixel generally takes value in the range of $0$ to $255$. The traffic ETA matrix can be seen as an image with ETA values ranging from $0$ to $C$ (seconds). The value of $C$ is decided based on the maximum possible value of ETA and quantization levels $l$.
The architecture of mask-CNN is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:m44} where the input to the model is $H \times K$ ETA matrix and the corresponding output is a $H \times K \times C$ tensor. Here $H$ is the window size for the number of routes and $K$ is the number of bus stops. Applying a softmax layer on the above tensor generates an output tensor $H \times K \times C$ corresponding to the probabilities of each pixel taking $C$ values. Finally, the value with maximum probability is chosen. The first layer is a mask A CNN layer with filter dimension $F\times F$ with a total of $N$ filters, padding as $p$ and stride as 1. See Fig. \ref{fig:mask}. Next $k - 1 $ layers after the first layer is Mask B layer with filter dimension $L\times L$ with $n$ number of filters, padding as $p_1$ and stride as 1. ReLU activation function is used after every convolution layer. The last convolution layer $FC$ is a fully connected layer with filter size 1. The number of filters in the fully connected layer $FC$ is equal to $C$. The end layer in the mask-CNN layer is the softmax layer which assigns the probability to all the discrete variables $C$ and output is the discrete variable with the highest probability.
The overall architecture of the masked CNN for traffic state prediction is as follows
\begin{enumerate}
\item First layer is the Mask A CNN layer with filter dimension $F \times F$.
\item There are $k-1$ Mask B CNN layers with filter dimension $L \times L$.
\item $ReLU$ activation is followed by every convolution layer.
\item At the output stage there is a fully connected convolution layer followed by a $C$-way softmax layer.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{arch.pdf}
\caption{Architecture of mask-CNN}
\label{fig:m44}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Masking}
There are two mask used in the masked CNN, mask A and mask B. Mask A is the first layer in the mask CNN and shows the effect of already predicted ETA points on the point that we are about to predict sequentially. Mask B is used in rest of the layers. For mask B the connection with the about to be predicted pixel point is also included. Mask A and B for $5 \times 5$ filter are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:mask} (a, b) where $0$ denotes that the future dependencies are removed from the prediction. In mask A and mask B, the entries $M_{i,j}$ can be 0 or 1 based on how we want to model the past dependencies for the next prediction. We employ three Masks (Mask 1, Mask 2 and Mask 3) for ETA prediction with different $M_{i,j}$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{masking.pdf}
\caption{Different masks used in mask-CNN}
\label{fig:mask}
\end{figure}
\subsection{ETA prediction using the trained model}
Once the model is trained using the historic travel time data, we are now ready to provide ETA estimation for every trip in the route. Fig. \ref{fig:m3} explains the inference process with a simple example of a route with 4 stops for the $t^{th}$ trip. At the beginning of the trip, the ETAs for various stops is generated using sampling from the joint distribution that is trained using historic data. However, as soon the bus crosses the first stop, the subsequent sequential generation of ETAs would take into account the actual travel time $t_{t,1}$ to the first step. Similarly, the ETAs are updated when the trip crosses second and the third stops. We predict the ETA as:
\begin{equation}
\hat{t}_{tr,(k+1)}\leftarrow \textbf{Model}\,\left( {t}_{tr,(1:k)} \,\,,{t}_{(1:tr-1),(1:K)}\right)
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{inference.pdf}
\caption{Inferencing the Travel Time}
\label{fig:m3}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
We now discuss the performance of the proposed mask-CNN algorithm for the ETA estimation task for a bus route network. We compare our technique with the state-of-the-art approaches like time series prediction, deep learning, as well as the matrix completion approaches below:
\begin{enumerate}
\item ARIMA (Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average) \cite{billings2006application}.
\item LSTM (Long Short Term Memory) \cite{duan2016travel} is one of the recent methods to compute the ETA in public transit as well as cabs. We used the architecture shown in fig \ref{fig:lstm}.
\item VBSF (Variational Bayesian Subspace Filtering) \cite{vbsf}: Online matrix completion frameworks are not only employed to fill the missing entries of a matrix but also for prediction of the future columns. VBSF is one of the matrix completion algorithm that is used for traffic estimation and prediction and is shown to outperform other similar techniques.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{LSTM.pdf}
\caption{The LSTM architecture is unrolled along time to describe a complete trip}
\label{fig:lstm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Dataset}
Our dataset consists of travel time information of three bus routes in New Delhi as drawn in Fig. \ref{fig:map}. The lengths of these routes are approximately 30 km, 22 km and 20 km. Each route operates around 40 trips per day with nearly fixed starting timetable. The bus route is made of a sequence of stops, and we collect the arrival time and the departure time for these stops. We divide everyday day into smaller overlapping chunks of $h=10$ trips. Of the three months of collected data, we use two months of data for training and the third month data is used for evaluation of all the algorithms.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{map.png}
\caption{Routes used for data collection}
\label{fig:map}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Training Parameters}
We employ a variety of masks based on the dependencies we want to capture in the dataset. We use three different kinds of the mask in our evaluation (mask A1 and B1 for mask 1, mask A2 and B2 for mask 2, mask A3 and B3 for mask 3)
The masks 1, 2 and 3 for filter dimension 5 is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:mask} (c, d, e) respectively, where the middle element in Fig. \ref{fig:mask} (c, d, e) is 0 for mask A and 1 for mask B. \par
To train our model, we use a batch size of 32 with a learning rate of 0.01 along with RMSprop optimizer \cite{ruder2016overview}. We test three filter dimension values of 7, 5 and 3 for both $F$ and $L$ in mask A and B. Also, the number of blocks $k-1$ for mask B is set to 6. The number of classes for softmax layer $C$ is taken as 128, 256 and 512. Stride in the CNN is taken as 1, while zero padding ($p$, $p1$) for filter size 7 is taken as 3, for filter size 5 is taken as 2, and for filter size 3 is taken as 1. We first remove the outliers from the training data and fix the maximum ETA for a stop as 1024 for our data. The number of classes $C= 1024/l$ is decided based on the travel time data where $l$ is the quantization level . In our case, we fix the value of $C$ using the grid search as shown in Table \ref{tab1:tune}.
\subsection{ETA Estimation}
We use the standard mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) as our performance metrics defined as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\text{MAE}= \frac{1}{T\,K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{\tau=1}^T {| \hat{t}_{\tau,k}-t_{\tau,k}|}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\text{MAPE}= \frac{1}{T\,K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{\tau=1}^T \frac {| \hat{t}_{\tau,k}-t_{\tau,k}|}{| t_{\tau,k}|} \times 100\%
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\text{RMSE}= \frac{1}{T}\sum_{\tau=1}^T\sqrt{\frac{\sum_{k=1}^K {( \hat{t}_{\tau,k}-t_{\tau,k})}^2}{K}}
\end{equation*}
The comparative performance of different filters, masks, and number of classes are shown in Table \ref{tab1:tune}.
Based on these results, we tune the filter dimension as 5, mask as 2 and softmax classes as 512.. Mask 2 and filter dimension of 5 performs better than the other mask and filter because there are lesser dependencies of the road segments far away from the predicted road segment. Note all these parameters can easily be auto-tuned to make the system manual-tuning free. \par
\begin{table}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\hline
&MAPE\\
\hline
Filter 3 ,mask 1 , classes-256 &0.2927 \\
Filter 3 ,mask 2 , classes-256 &0.2815 \\
Filter 3 ,mask 2 , classes-512 &0.2619 \\
Filter 5 ,mask 1, classes-512 &0.27114 \\
Filter 5 ,mask 2 , classes-512 &0.23991 \\
Filter 5 ,mask 3 , classes-512 &0.24208 \\
Filter 7 ,mask 2 , classes-512 &0.27078 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Performance comparison for different filter size and Quantization classes}
\label{tab1:tune}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{result_new1.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of Masked CNN for a bus route}
\label{fig:res3}
\end{figure}
To evaluate the performance of the mask-CNN approach, we compare it with ARIMA, LSTM and VBSF, since these methods outpeform other methods in their class. Comparing our approach with other deep learning approaches is not possible due to a relatively smaller data set that we deal with. Further as mentioned before, we do not possess other parameters like driver id, weather information, etc. that methods like \cite{wang2018will, deepTTE} use. Finally, none of the methods use the online prediction mechanism as the trip progresses.
Table \ref{tab:comp} and Fig. \ref{fig:res3} provide the required comparison. Fig. \ref{fig:res3} shows the variation in performance concerning all the stops in the route for the first route. The other two routes behave similarly. LSTM is popular method used for the time series data. We show that mask-CNN performs better than LSTM for the bus ETA problem. For eg. in case of route 1, the average ETA for the stops are 150 secs. There are 7 stops with standard deviation higher than 100 secs and 16 stops with standard deviation less than 50 secs. The prediction for the stops with high variation contribute to high error. On an average the error in the ETA prediction for LSTM is 38 secs while for mask-CNN is 30 sec. We demonstrate that our algorithm performs better than the ARIMA, LSTM and VBSF in most of the cases. \par
The advantage of the mask-CNN model is that it is not designed empirically for different times. Our model does not require any information regarding the time, day, driver profiles and other complex features required by other models \cite{wang2018will, deepTTE} to model the ETA prediction. The only information to train the model is the travel time data between stops. Mask-CNN captures the dependency in the data temporally as well as spatial by representing the ETA as a image and modeling the same with different masks.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l}
\hline
& &Route 1&& Route 2&& \\
&MAPE &MAE &RMSE &MAPE &MAE &RMSE \\
&(\%)&(sec)&(sec) &(\%)&(sec)&(sec) \\\hline
ARIMA&48.64&53.77&69.42&68.42&73.84&84.18\\ \hline
VBSF&37.02&50.62&65.27&74.96&99.35&121.26\\ \hline
LSTM&29.587&38.59&56.65&52.82&65.76&79.97\\ \hline
mask-CNN&23.991&30.40&45.84&46.24&62.15&76.60\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l }
\hline
& &Route 3&\\
&MAPE &MAE &RMSE \\
&(\%)&(sec)&(sec) \\\hline
ARIMA&47.44&49.37&60.75\\ \hline
VBSF&45.2&48.31&59.05\\ \hline
LSTM&41.09&43.25&52.15\\ \hline
mask-CNN&36.04.991&39.42&49.89\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Performance Comparison}\label{tab:comp}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we investigate a deep learning based generative model to estimate the ETA of a bus trip in real time. We train a model for each individual route using historical data of trips collected over two months. We observe that we could learn a reasonably accurate joint distribution of the ETA variables across day and bus stops. Our model is easy to implement for transit agencies, adaptive and utilises the real-time information of the trip as well. It has a great potential to be used in places where other dense traffic data set is not available. For future work, we planned to explore the model for unexpected events. Also, we are interested in determining the uncertainties in our prediction results.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction
An exemplary moderate deviation theorem is as follows (see \cite[p.~228]{Petrov75}). Let $X_i$, $1\le i\le n$, be independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with $\E(X_1)=0$ and $\var(X_1)=1$. If for some $t_0>0$,
\begin{equation}
\E e^{t_0|X_1|}\le c_0<\infty,\label{momentgeneratingcondition}
\end{equation}
then there exist positive constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ depending on $c_0$ and $t_0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\frac{P}{\prob{P}\left(\frac1{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^nX_i\ge z\right)}{1-\Phi(z)}=1+O(1)\frac{1+z^3}{\sqrt{n}},\ \ \ 0\le z\le c_1n^{1/6},\label{petrov1}
\end{equation}
where $\Phi(z)$ is the distribution function of the standard normal, $|O(1)|\le c_2$. However, since the pioneering work \cite{Chen75}, it has been shown \cite{BHJ} that, for the counts of rare events, Poisson distribution provides a better approximation. For example, the distribution of the number of records \cite{Dwass60,Renyi62} in Example~\ref{exam1} below
can be better approximated by the Poisson distribution having the same mean than by a normal distribution \cite{DP88}. \red{Moreover, a suitable} refinement of the Poisson distribution can further improve the performance of the approximation \cite{Borovkov88,BP96}.
The right tail probabilities of counts of rare events are often needed in statistical inference but these probabilities are so small that the error estimates in approximations of distributions of the counts are usually of no use because the bounds are often larger than the probabilities of interest. Hence it is of practical interest to consider their approximations via moderate deviations in Poisson approximation in a similar fashion to \Ref{petrov1}. However, there is not much progress in the general framework except the special cases in \cite{CC92,BCC95,CFS,TLX18,CV19}. This is partly due to the fact that the tail behaviour of a Poisson distribution is significantly different from that of a normal distribution and this fact is observed by \cite{Gn43} in the context of extreme value theory. In particular, \cite{Gn43} concludes that the Poisson distribution does not belong to any domain of attraction while the normal distribution belongs to the domain of attraction of the Gumbel distribution.
\begin{exam}\label{exam1} {\rm We use the distribution of the number of records to explain the difference of moderate deviations between Poisson and normal approximations.
More precisely, let $\{\eta_i:\ 1\le i\le n\}$ be {i.i.d.} random variables with a continuous
cumulative distribution function. As the value of $\eta_1$ is always a record, for $2\le i\le n$, we say $\eta_i$ is a record if
$\eta_i>\max_{1\le j\le i-1}\eta_j$. We define the indicator random variable
$$I_i:={\bf 1}[\eta_i>\max_{1\le j\le i-1}\eta_j],$$
that is, $I_i=1$ if a new record occurs at
time $i$ and $I_i=0$ otherwise. Our interest is on the distribution of $S_n:=\sum_{i=2}^nI_i$, denoted by $\mathscr{L}(S_n)$. \cite{Dwass60,Renyi62} state that $\E I_i=1/i$, $\{I_i:\ 2\le i\le n\}$ are independent {so}
$$\lambda_n:=\E S_n=\sum_{i=2}^n\frac1i;\ \ \ \sigma_n^2:=\var(S_n)=\sum_{i=2}^n\frac1i\left(1-\frac1i\right)
$$
We use ${\rm Pn}(\lambda)$ to stand for the Poisson distribution with mean $\lambda$,
${\rm Pn}(\lambda)(A):=P}{\prob{P}(Y\in A)$ for $Y\sim{\rm Pn}(\lambda)$, and $N(\mu,\sigma^2)$ to stand for the
normal distribution with mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$.
Let $v_n:=\lambda_n+x\cdot\sigma_n$, and we consider approximations of
$P}{\prob{P}(S_n\ge v_n)$ by moderate deviations based on ${\rm Pn}(\lambda_n)$ \cite{BCC95,CFS} and $N_n\sim N(\lambda_n,\sigma_n^2)$. For $x=3$, figures~\ref{figure1},~\ref{figure2}
and~\ref{figure4}
are respectively the plots of the ratios
$P}{\prob{P}(S_n\ge v_n)/{\rm Pn}(\lambda_n)([v_n,\infty))$, $P}{\prob{P}(S_n\ge v_n)/P}{\prob{P}(N_n\ge v_n)$ and $P}{\prob{P}(S_n\ge v_n)/{\rm Pn}(\sigma_n^2)([v_n,\infty))$ for the range of $n\in[3,10^5]$.
As observed in \cite{BP96}, Poisson and normal approximations to $\mathscr{L}(S_n)$ are resp. with order $O((\ln n)^{-1})$ and $O((\ln n)^{-1/2})$, the numerical studies confirm that approximation by the Poisson distribution is better than that by normal distribution. In fact, it appears that the speed of convergence of
$P}{\prob{P}(S_n\ge v_n)/P}{\prob{P}(N_n\ge v_n)$ to $1$ as $n\to\infty$ is too slow to be of practical use. In the context of normal approximation to the distribution of integer valued random variables, a common practice is to introduce a 0.5 correction, giving the ratios $P}{\prob{P}(S_n\ge v_n)/P}{\prob{P}(N_n\ge\lceil v_n\rceil-0.5)$, where $\lceil x\rceil$ is the smallest integer that is not less than $x$. Figure~\ref{figure3} is the plot of the ratios and we can see that the ratios
are still far away from the limit of 1. Finally, the difference between Figure~\ref{figure1}
and Figure~\ref{figure4} shows that a minor change of the mean of the approximating Poisson can change the quality of moderate deviation approximation significantly, further highlighting the difficulty of obtaining sharp bounds in theoretical studies in the area.
}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[trim = 10mm 75mm 5mm 80mm,height=0.26\textheight]{vsPn3sd.eps}
\caption{Pn($\lambda_n$)} %
\label{figure1} \end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\linewidth}
\includegraphics[trim = 10mm 75mm 5mm 80mm,height=0.26\textheight]{vsNormal3sdNoCorrection.eps}
\caption{$N(\lambda_n,\sigma_n^2)$ without correction} %
\label{figure2} \end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[trim = 10mm 75mm 5mm 80mm,height=0.26\textheight]{vsNormal3sdCorrection.eps}
\caption{$N(\lambda_n,\sigma_n^2)$ with correction} %
\label{figure3} \end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\linewidth}
\includegraphics[trim = 10mm 75mm 5mm 80mm,height=0.26\textheight]{vsPnvar.eps}
\caption{${\rm Pn}(\sigma_n^2)$} %
\label{figure4} \end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\end{exam}
Example~\ref{exam1} shows that the distribution of the counts of rare events often has a heavier right tail than that of the corresponding normal distribution,
approximations by the moderate deviations in the normal distribution are generally \red{inferior to those by the moderate deviations in the
Poisson distribution}. The next example says that the parameter of the approximating Poisson distribution suggested in \cite{CC92,BCC95,CFS} is not optimal and some adjustment can significantly improve the quality of approximations by the moderate deviations in the Poisson distribution.
\begin{exam}\label{exam2} {\rm With $0<p<1$, let $W_n\sim\text{Bi}(n,p)$, $Y_n\sim{\rm Pn}(np)$ and $Z\sim N(0,1)$, then for a fixed $x>0$,
\red{$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W_n\ge np+x\sqrt{np(1-p)})}{P}{\prob{P}(Y_n\ge np+x\sqrt{np(1-p)})}= \frac{P}{\prob{P}\left(Z\ge x\right)}{P}{\prob{P}(Z\ge x\sqrt{1-p})},$$}
which systematically deviates from 1 as $x$ moves away from 0. The systematic bias can be removed by introducing an adjustment into the approximate models: for a fixed $x>0$,
\red{$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W_n\ge np+x\sqrt{np(1-p)})}{P}{\prob{P}(Y_n\ge np+x\sqrt{np})}{=}1$$}
or equivalently, with $Y_n'\sim {\rm Pn}(np(1-p))$,
\red{$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W_n\ge np+x\sqrt{np(1-p)})}{P}{\prob{P}(Y_n'\ge np(1-p)+x\sqrt{np(1-p)})}{=}1.$$}
}
\end{exam}
Example~\ref{exam2} suggests that it is more suitable to approximate the right tail probabilities by looking at the number of standard variations away from the mean, which is essentially the original idea of the translated (shifted) Poisson approximation \cite{BX99,Roellin05,Roellin07}. In this paper, we show that {it is indeed better to approximate} the right tail probabilities via the moderate deviations in the {translated} Poisson distribution.
Our approach does not rely on the boundedness of the Radon-Nikodym derivative as in \cite{CC92,BCC95} or the tacit assumption of well-behaved tail probabilities as in \cite{CFS}, see Remark~\ref{diffofliterature} for more details. For the case of Poisson-binomial, we show in Proposition~\ref{secondpropPnBi} that our approach works for the case that the maximum of the success probabilities of the Bernoulli random variables is not small, such as the distribution of the number of records.
The paper is organised as follows. We state the main results in the context of local dependence, size-biased distribution
and discrete zero-biased distribution in Section~\ref{secMainresult}. The accuracy of our bounds is illustrated in six examples in Section~\ref{secExamples}. The proofs of the main results are postponed to Section~\ref{secProof} where we also establish Stein's factors for Poisson moderate deviations in Lemma~\ref{lma2}.
\section{The main results}\label{secMainresult}
In this section, we state three theorems on moderate deviations in Poisson approximation, the first is under a local dependent structure, the second is with respect to the size-biased distribution and the last is in terms of the discrete zero-biased distribution.
We first consider a class of non-negative integer valued random variables $\{X_i:\ i\in{\cal I}\}$ satisfying the local dependent structure (LD2) in \cite{ChenShao04} \red{(see also \cite{AGG89} for its origin)}. For ease of reading, we quote the definition of (LD2) below.
\vskip5pt
\begin{tabular}{l} (LD2) For each $i\in{\cal I}$, there exists an $A_i\subset B_i\subset {\cal I}$ such that $X_i$ is independent of \\
\hskip1.2cm$\{X_j:\ j\in A_i^c\}$ and $\{X_i:\ i\in A_i\}$ is independent of $\{X_j:\ j\in B_i^c\}$.
\end{tabular}
\vskip5pt
We set $W=\sum_{i\in{\cal I}} X_i$, $Z_i=\sum_{j\in A_i} X_j$, $Z_i'=\sum_{j\in B_i}X_j$, $W_i=W-Z_i$ and $W_i'=W-Z_i'$. We write
\be{\mu_i=P}{\prob{E} (X_i),~~\mu=P}{\prob{E} (W),~~\sigma^2=\Var{(W)}.} As suggested in Example~\ref{exam2}, we consider $Y\sim{\rm Pn}(\lambda)$ approximation to $W-a$ with \red{$\left|\lambda-\sigma^2\right|$ being not too large} and $a=\mu-\lambda$ being an integer so that $k$ in $P}{\prob{P}(W-a\ge k)$ and $P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)$ is in terms of the number of standard deviations of $W$. In principle, the constant $a$ is chosen to minimise the error of approximation, however, our theory is formulated in such a flexible way that other choices of $\lambda$ and $a$ are also acceptable. The three most useful choices of $a$ are $a=0$, $a=\floor {\mu-\sigma^2}$ and $a=\ceil{\mu-\sigma^2}$, where $\floor{\cdot}$ stands for the largest integer in $(-\infty,\cdot]$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm1} With the setup in the preceding paragraph, assume that $\{X_i:\ i\in{\cal I}\}$ satisfies (LD2) and, for each $i$, there exists a $\sigma$-algebra ${\cal F}_i$ such that $\{X_j:\ j\in B_i\}$ is ${\cal F}_i$
measurable. Define
$$\theta_i:=\esssup\max_jP}{\prob{P}(W=j|{\cal F}_i),$$
where $\esssup V$ is the essential supremum of the random variable $V$. Then for integer $a<\mu$, $\lambda=\mu-a$ and positive integer $k>\lambda$, we have
\bean{\left\vert\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W-a\ge k)}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)}-1\right\vert\le&{\mathds{C}}_2(\lambda,k)\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}\theta_i\left\{{|P}{\prob{E}(X_i-\mu_i)Z_i|}P}{\prob{E} (Z_i')\right.\nonumber\\
&+\left.P}{\prob{E}\left[|X_i-\mu_i|Z_i(Z_i'-Z_i/2-1/2)\right]\right\}\nonumber\\
&+{\mathds{C}}_1(\lambda,k)|\lambda-\sigma^2|+P}{\prob{P}(W-a<-1),
\label{esti1}
}
{where, with $F(j)=P}{\prob{P}(Y\le j)$, $\overline{F}(j)=P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge j)$,}
{\begin{eqnarray}{\mathds{C}}_1(\lambda,k)&:=&\frac{F(k-1)}{kP}{\prob{P}(Y=k)}\left\{1-\min\left(\frac{F(k-2)}{F(k-1)}\cdot\frac{\lambda}{k-1},\frac{\overline{F}(k+1)}{\overline{F}(k)}\cdot\frac{k}{\lambda}\right)\right\},\label{Steinconstantnew1}\\
{\mathds{C}}_2(\lambda,k)&:=&\frac{F(k-1)}{kP}{\prob{P}(Y=k)}\left(2-\frac{F(k-2)}{F(k-1)}\cdot\frac{\lambda}{k-1}-\frac{\overline{F}(k+1)}{\overline{F}(k)}\cdot\frac{k}{\lambda}\right).\label{Steinconstantnew2}
\end{eqnarray}}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}\label{remarknaive}
{\rm Both ${\mathds{C}}_1$ and ${\mathds{C}}_2$ can be numerically computed in applications and they can't be generally improved (see the proofs below).
They are better than the ``naive'' counterparts
$(1-e^{-\lambda})/(\lambda P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k))$ derived through the total variation bounds in \cite{BE84,BHJ}. Figure~\ref{figure5} provides details of
$$\mbox{ratio }i:={\mathds{C}}_i(\lambda,k)/[(1-e^{-\lambda})/(\lambda P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k))], \ i=1,2,$$ for $\lambda=10$,
$k$ from $10$ to $43$. We would like to mention that for large $k$ and/or large $\lambda$, the tail probabilities are so small that the calculation using MATLAB produces unstable results since accumulated computation errors often exceed the tail probabilities\red{, hence more powerful computational tools are needed to achieve the required accuracy or one has to resort to known approximations to the Poisson right tails and point probabilities.}
\vskip5pt
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 10mm 55mm 5mm 50mm,height=0.4\textheight]{lambda-10-c1c2.eps}
\caption{Performance of the bound} %
\label{figure5}
\hfill
\end{figure}
}
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}{\rm Due to the discrete nature of Poisson distribution, it seems impossible to analytically simplify ${\mathds{C}}_1$ and ${\mathds{C}}_2$ at negligible costs for the diverse range of $k>\lambda$.
}
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}\label{diffofliterature}{\rm If $\lambda$ is chosen reasonably close to $\sigma^2$ so that $\lambda-\sigma^2$ is bounded, then $\theta_i$ in the bound \Ref{esti1} converges to $0$ when $\sigma^2$ converges to $\infty$. Our bound does not rely on the Radon-Nikodym derivative of $\mathscr{L}(W)$ with respect to ${\rm Pn}(\lambda)$, which is the crucial ingredient in \cite{CC92,BCC95}. On the other hand, the tacit assumption of \cite{CFS} is {that} $\sup_{\lambda\le r\le k}\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W\ge r)}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge r)}$ for $W$ and $Y$ in Theorem~\ref{thm1} is well-behaved and this assumption is hard to verify. The bound \Ref{esti1}, although relatively crude, does not rely on this assumption and covers more general cases.}
\end{rem}
\begin{cor}\label{cor1}For the sum of independent non-negative integer valued random variables $W=\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}X_i$, let $\theta_i=\max_{j}P}{\prob{P}(W-X_i=j)$, $\mu_i=P}{\prob{E} X_i$, $\mu=\sum_{i\in{\cal I}} \mu_i$, $\sigma^2=\Var(W)$. For any integer $a<\mu$, let $\lambda=\mu-a$, $Y\sim{\rm Pn}(\lambda)$, then for $k> \lambda$,
\bea{&\left\vert\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W-a\ge k)}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)}-1\right\vert\nonumber\\
&\le {\mathds{C}}_2(\lambda,k)\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}\theta_i\left\{\mu_i{|P}{\prob{E}[X_i(X_i-\mu_i)]|}+\frac{1}{2}P}{\prob{E}\left[\vert X_i-\mu_i\vert X_i(X_i-1)\right]\right\}\nonumber\\
&\ \ \ +{\mathds{C}}_1(\lambda,k)|\lambda-\sigma^2|+P}{\prob{P}(W-a<-1)
}\end{cor}
\begin{rem}{\rm We leave $P}{\prob{P}(W-a<-1)$ in the upper bound \Ref{esti1} because the current approach can not remove it from the bound. Nevertheless, it is no more than $1$ and {converges to zero exponentially fast} with suitable choice of $a$. For the sum of independent non-negative integer valued random variables in Corollary~\ref{cor1}, if $a$ is at least less than $\mu$ by a few $\sigma$s, we can use \cite[Theorem~2.7]{CL06} to obtain
\begin{equation}P}{\prob{P}(W-a<-1)\le e^{-\frac{(\mu-a+2)^2}{2\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}\E(X_i^2)}}. \label{cor1-1}
\end{equation}
}
\end{rem}
For any non-negative random variable $W$ with mean $\mu
\in (0,\infty)$ and distribution $dF(w)$, the $W$-{\it size
biased} distribution \cite{Cochran,AG10} is given by
\be{
dF^s(w) = \frac{wdF(w)}{\mu}, \quad
\mbox{$w \ge 0$,}}
or equivalently by the characterising equation
$$
\E [Wg(W)]=\mu \E g(W^s) \quad \mbox{for all $g$ with
$\E|Wg(W)|<\infty$.}
$$
\begin{thm}\label{thm1.2}Let $W$ be a non-negative integer-valued random variable with mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$, $a<\mu$ be an integer, $\lambda=\mu-a$. Then for integer $k>\lambda$, we have \bean{
\left\vert\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W-a\ge k)}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)}-1\right\vert\le&{\mathds{C}}_1(\lambda,k)\left\{\muP}{\prob{E}\vert W+1-W^s\vert+\vert\mu-\lambda\vert\right\}\nonumber\\
&+P}{\prob{P}(W-a<-1),\label{estimate1.2}
}where $Y\sim{\rm Pn}(\lambda)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}{\rm Theorem~\ref{thm1.2} improves \cite[Theorem~3]{CFS} in a number of ways, with less restrictive conditions
and no unspecified constants.
}
\end{rem}
The next theorem is based on the discrete zero-biased distribution defined in \cite{Goldstein06} and the approach is very similar to that in \cite{CFSb}. For an integer valued random variable $V$ with mean $\mu$ and finite variance $\sigma^2$, we say that
$V^\star$ has the discrete $V$-zero biased distribution \cite[Definition~2.1]{Goldstein06} if, for
all bounded functions $g:\ P}{\prob{Z}:=\{0,\pm1,\pm2,\dots\} \rightarrow P}{\prob{R}$ with $P}{\prob{E}|Vg(V)|<\infty$,
$$\E [(V-\mu)g(V)] =
\sigma^2\E\Delta g(V^\star)
$$
{where $\Delta f(i):=f(i+1)-f(i)$.}
\begin{thm}\label{thm2}Let $W$ be a non-negative integer-valued random variable with mean $\mu$, variance $\sigma^2$, $a<\mu$ be an integer, and $W^\star$ have the discrete $W$-zero biased distribution and be defined on the same probability space as $W$.
Set $R=W^\star-W$ and define
$$\theta_R=\max_{j}P}{\prob{P}(W=j|R).$$
Then, for integer $k>\lambda$, with $\lambda=\mu-a>0$, we have
\bean{
&\left\vert\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W-a\ge k)}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)}-1\right\vert\nonumber\\
&\le{\mathds{C}}_2(\lambda,k)\sigma^2P}{\prob{E}[|R|\theta_R]+{\mathds{C}}_1(\lambda,k)|\lambda-\sigma^2|\lambda^{-1}+P}{\prob{P}(W-a<-1),\label{estimate2}
}where $Y\sim{\rm Pn}(\lambda)$.
\end{thm}
\section{Examples}\label{secExamples}
As many applications of Poisson approximation rely on size biased distributions, we begin with a review of some facts about size biasing.
Size biasing has been of considerable interest for many decades (see \cite{BHJ}, \cite{Ross11}, \cite{AGK13} and references therein). In the context of the sum of Bernoulli random variables,
its size biasing is particularly simple. More precisely,
if $\{X_i:\ i\in{\cal I}\}$ is a family of Bernoulli random variables with $P}{\prob{P}(X_i=1)=p_i$, then the size biased distribution of $W=\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}X_i$
is
\ben{W^s=\sum_{j\ne I}X_j^{(I)}+1,\label{sizebiasing}}
where
$$\mathscr{L}(\{X_j^{(i)}:\ j\in{\cal I}\})=\mathscr{L}(\{X_j:\ j\in{\cal I}\}\vert X_i=1),$$
$I$ is a random element independent of $\{\{X_j^{(i)}:\ j\in{\cal I}\}:\ i\in{\cal I}\}$ having distribution $P}{\prob{P}(I=i)=\frac{p_i}{P}{\prob{E} W}$, $i\in{\cal I}$.
Moreover, $\{X_i:\ i\in{\cal I}\}$ are said to be negatively related (resp. positively related) \cite[p.~24]{BHJ} if one can construct $\{\{X_j^{(i)}:\ j\in{\cal I}\}:\ i\in{\cal I}\}$ such that $X_j^{(i)}\le$ (resp. $\ge$) $X_j$ for all $j\ne i$. When $\{X_i:\ i\in{\cal I}\}$ are negatively related, we have
\bean{P}{\prob{E}\vert W+1-W^s\vert
=P}{\prob{E}(W+1-W^s)=\mu^{-1}(\mu-\sigma^2)\label{monotonecoupling1},}
where $\mu=P}{\prob{E} W$ and $\sigma^2=\var(W)$.
On the other hand, if $\{X_i:\ i\in{\cal I}\}$ are positively related, then
\bean{P}{\prob{E}\vert W+1-W^s\vert&=P}{\prob{E} \left\vert\sum_{j\ne I}(X_j^{(I)}-X_j)-X_I\right\vert\nonumber\\
&\leP}{\prob{E}\left\{\sum_{j\ne I}(X_j^{(I)}-X_j)+X_I\right\}\nonumber\\
&=P}{\prob{E}(W^s-W-1)+2\mu^{-1}\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}p^2_i\nonumber\\
&=\mu^{-1}(\sigma^2-\mu)+2\mu^{-1}\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}p^2_i.\label{monotonecoupling2}}
\subsection{Poisson-binomial trials}
Let $\{X_i,~1\le i\le n\}$ be independent Bernoulli random variables with $P}{\prob{P}(X_i=1)=p_i\in (0,1)$, $W=\sum_{i=1}^nX_i$, {$\mu=P}{\prob{E} W$} and {$\mu_2=\sum_{i=1}^np_i^2$}. When $\tilde p:=\max_{1\le i\le n}p_i\to 0$, the large deviation of $W$ is investigated in \cite{CC92,BCC95} with precise asymptotic order. We give two results for this particular case without the assumption $\tilde p$ being small, the first is direct consequences of the general results in Section~\ref{secMainresult} and the second is based on our approach using a more fine-tuned analysis and well-studied properties of the tail behaviour of $W$.
\begin{prop} \red{Recalling ${\mathds{C}}_1$ and ${\mathds{C}}_2$ in \Ref{Steinconstantnew1} and \Ref{Steinconstantnew2}, for any integer $k>\mu$, we have}
\ben{\left\vert\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W\ge k)}{{\rm Pn}(\mu)([k,\infty))}-1\right\vert\le{\mathds{C}}_1(\mu,k)\mu_2\label{Poissonbinomial0}
and, with {$a=\floor{\mu_2}$ and $\lambda:=\mu-a$},
\bean{\left\vert\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W-a\ge k)}{{\rm Pn}(\lambda)([k,\infty))}-1\right\vert\le&
\frac{{\mathds{C}}_2(\lambda,k)\sum_{i=1}^np_i^2(1-p_i)}{1\vee \sqrt{(\sum_{i=1}^np_i\wedge(1-p_i)-1/4)\pi/2}}\nonumber\\
&+{\mathds{C}}_1(\lambda,k)|\lambda-\sigma^2|+{e^{-(\lambda+2)^2/(2\mu)}}.\label{PoissonBino}}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\bf Proof} The claim \Ref{Poissonbinomial0} is a consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm1.2} with $a=0$ and $\muP}{\prob{E} |W+1-W^s|=\sum_{i=1}^np_i^2$, as shown in \Ref{monotonecoupling1}.
The bound \Ref{PoissonBino} is a special case of Corollary~\ref{cor1}. Since $\mathscr{L}(W_i)$ is unimodal, \cite[Corollary~1.6]{MR07} says that
\bean{\theta_i= d_{\mathrm{TV}}(W_i,W_i+1)&\le1\wedge\left\{\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\left(\frac{1}{4}+\sum_{j\ne i}p_j\wedge(1-p_i)\right)^{-1/2}\right\}\nonumber\\
&\le 1\wedge \left\{\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\left(\sum_{i=1}^np_i\wedge(1-p_i)-1/4\right)^{-1/2}\right\}.
\label{MRmaximumprob}}
On the other hand, $P}{\prob{E}(X_i^2)=p_i$, hence the upper bound \Ref{PoissonBino} is an immediate consequence of Corollary~\ref{cor1} and \Ref{cor1-1}.
One can also use Theorem~\ref{thm2} to obtain the same bound. More precisely, according to the construction of the discrete zero-biased distribution suggested in \cite{Goldstein06}, let $I$ be a random variable independent of
$\{X_i,~1\le i\le n\}$ with distribution $P}{\prob{P}(I=i)=p_i(1-p_i)/\sigma^2$ for $1\le i\le n$, then we can write $W^\star=W-X_I$, giving $R=-X_I$. We then apply \Ref{MRmaximumprob} to bound $\theta_R$ as
$$\theta_R=\max_{j}P}{\prob{P}(W=j|R)\le \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\left(\sum_{i=1}^np_i\wedge(1-p_i)-1/4\right)^{-1/2},$$
and a routine calculation gives $P}{\prob{E}|R|=\sum_{i=1}^np_i^2(1-p_i)/\sigma^2$, hence \Ref{PoissonBino} follows from \Ref{estimate2} and \Ref{cor1-1}. \nopagebreak\hspace*{\fill
\vskip10pt
\begin{prop}\label{secondpropPnBi} Define$$M:=M(p_1,\dots,p_n)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
e^\mu,&\mbox{ if }0<\mu<1,\\
e^{13/12}\sqrt{2\pi}\left(1-\mu_2/\mu\right)^{-1/2},&\mbox{ if }\mu\ge 1,
\end{array}\right.$$
then for any integer $k$ with $x:=(k-\mu)/\sqrt{\mu}\ge 1$, we have
\ben{0>\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W\ge k)}{{\rm Pn}(\mu)([k,\infty))}-1>- 2M(\mu_2/\mu)\left(x^2+{1}+4x{\sqrt{\frac{1-e^{-\mu}}\mu}}\right).\label{Poissonbinomial1}}
\end{prop}
The proof relies on more information of the solutions of Stein's equation and it is postponed to the end of Section~\ref{secProof}. The bound \Ref{Poissonbinomial1} improves \cite[(3.1)]{CFS} \red{in two aspects: it contains no unspecified constants and it does not require $\tilde p$ being small}. For the distribution of the number $S_n$ of records, the large deviation results in \cite{BCC95} do not apply. However, recalling that $\lambda_n=\sum_{i=2}^n\frac1i$, we apply Proposition~\ref{secondpropPnBi} with the harmonic series $\lambda_n=\sum_{i=2}^n\frac1i\ge \ln n+\gamma-1$ and the Riemann zeta function $\sum_{i=2}^n\frac1{i^2}\le \sum_{i=2}^\infty\frac1{i^2}=\frac{\pi^2}6-1$ to get the following estimate.
\begin{cor} For any integer $k$ with $x:=(k-\lambda_n)/\sqrt{\lambda_n}\ge 1$, we have
$$0>\frac{P}{\prob{P}(S_n\ge k)}{{\rm Pn}(\lambda_n)([k,\infty))}-1> -\frac{2e^{13/12}\sqrt{2\pi}(\pi^2/6-1)}{\sqrt{(\ln n+\gamma-1)(\ln n+\gamma-\pi^2/6)}}\left(x^2+{1}+\frac{4x}{\sqrt{\ln n+\gamma-1}}\right),$$
where $\gamma$ is Euler's constant.
\end{cor}
{\begin{rem}{\rm We conjecture that, with $a=\floor{\mu_2}$ and $\lambda:=\mu-a$, the bound in \Ref{PoissonBino}
can be significantly improved and the better estimate is likely dependent on the Radon-Nikodym derivative bound $\sup_{r\ge 0}\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W-a=r)}{{\rm Pn}(\lambda)(\{r\})}$. }
\end{rem}}
\subsection{Matching problem
For a fixed $n$, let $\pi$ be a uniform random permutation of $\{1,\dots,n\}$, $W=\sum_{j=1}^n{\bf 1}_{\{j=\pi(j)\}}$ be the number of fixed points in the permutation.
\begin{prop}\label{propmatching} For the random variable $W$ defined above and any integer $k\ge 2$, we have
\ben{\left\vert\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W\ge k)}{{\rm Pn}(1)([k,\infty))}-1\right\vert\le{\frac{2}{n}{\mathds{C}}_1(1,k)}.\label{matching1-1}}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\bf Proof of Proposition~\ref{propmatching}} In this case, the size-biased distribution $\mathscr{L}(W^s)$ can be coupled with $W$ as follows \cite{CDM}. Let $I$ be uniformly distributed on $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$, independent of $\pi$, and define \be{\pi^s(j)=\begin{cases}
I&\text{if~}j=I,\\
\pi(I)&\text{if~}j=\pi^{-1}(I),\\
\pi(j)&\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}}
Set $W^s=\sum_{j=1}^n{\bf 1}_{\{j=\pi^s(j)\}}$, one can easily verify that $W^s$ has the size-biased distribution of $W$. Also, we can check that $P}{\prob{E} W=\Var(W)=1$, giving $P}{\prob{E} W^s=2$.
Let $\Delta=W+1-W^s$, using the above construction of $W^s$, we can conclude that $\Delta$ takes values in $\{-1,0,1\}$ and
$P}{\prob{P}(\Delta=1\vert W)=W/n$. Since $P}{\prob{E}\Delta=0,$ we have $P}{\prob{P}(\Delta=1)=P}{\prob{P}(\Delta=-1)$, and $P}{\prob{E}\vert\Delta\vert=2/n$. On the other hand, $\lambda=\mu$ allows us to get rid of the second term in \Ref{estimate1.2}. By Theorem \ref{thm1.2} with $a=0$, $\lambda=\mu=1$, the claim follows. \nopagebreak\hspace*{\fill
\begin{rem}{\rm The bound \Ref{matching1-1} contains no unknown constants and improves the bound of \cite[\S3.3]{CFS}. \ignore{If we derive a naive bound using
$$d_{\mathrm{TV}}(\mathscr{L}(W),{\rm Pn}(1))\le 2(1-e^{-1})/n$$
(see \cite{CDM}), then ${\mathds{C}}_1(1,k)$ is replaced with ${\mathds{C}}_1'(1,k)=(1-e^{-1})/{{\rm Pn}(1)([k,\infty))}$. We list the differences between these two constants for $k=1,\dots,9$ in Table~\ref{table1}.
\vskip10pt
\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4.6pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\centerline{\begin{tabular}{|c|ccccccccc|}
\hline
$k$ &1 &2 &3 &4 &5 &6 &7 &8 &9\\
\hline
${\mathds{C}}_1(1,k)$ &0.58 &1.00 &3.00 &11.00 &49.00 &261.00 &1631.00 &11743.00 &95901.00\\
${\mathds{C}}_1'(1,k)$ &1.00 &2.39 &7.87 &33.29 &172.72 &1063.85 &7593.85 &61675.13 &561783.77\\
\hline
$\frac{{\mathds{C}}_1'(1,k)}{{\mathds{C}}_1(1,k)}$&1.72&2.39&2.62&3.03& 3.52&4.08&4.66&5.25&5.86\\ [2pt]
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\captionof{table}{Constants for matching problem}\label{table1}
\endgroup
\vskip10pt}
}
\end{rem}
\subsection{Occupancy Problem}
The occupancy problem has a long history dating back to the early development of probability theory. General references on this subject can be found in classics, e.g., \cite[Vol~1, Chapter~2]{Feller68} and \cite[Chapter 6]{BHJ}.
The occupancy problem can be formulated as follows. Let $l$ balls be thrown independently of each other into $n$ boxes uniformly. Let $X_i$ be the indicator variable of the event that $i$-th box being empty, so the number of empty boxes can be written as $W=\sum_{i=1}^nX_i$. Noting that $p:=P}{\prob{E} X_i=\left(1-\frac{1}{n}\right)^l$, direct computation gives \be{\mu:=P}{\prob{E} W=np,}
\bea{\sigma^2:=\Var(W)=\mu-\mu^2+\mu(n-1)\left(1-\frac{1}{n-1}\right)^l.}
\begin{prop}\label{propoccupancy}
For the random variable $W$ defined above and any integer $k>\mu$, we have
\ben{\left\vert\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W\ge k)}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)}-1\right\vert\le{\mathds{C}}_1(\mu,k)\mu\left[\mu-(n-1)\left(1-\frac{1}{n-1}\right)^l\right],
\label{occupancyadd1}} where $Y\sim {\rm Pn}(\mu)$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\bf Proof of Proposition~\ref{propoccupancy}} For the sake of completeness, we provide the following proof which is essentially a repeat of \cite[p.~23]{BHJ}.
From the construction of $W$-size biased distribution in \Ref{sizebiasing}, we can construct a coupling as follows. Let $I$ be uniform on $\{1,\dots,n\}$, that is, we randomly pick one box with equal probability. If the selected box is not
empty, we redistribute all balls in the box randomly into the other $n-1$ boxes with equal probability $1/(n-1)$. Define $X_{j}^{(i)}$ as the indicator of the event that the box being selected is $i$, and after the redistribution, box $j$ is empty. With this coupling in mind, one can verify that $\{X_i\}$ is negatively related so it follows from
\Ref{monotonecoupling1} that
\be{
P}{\prob{E}\vert W+1-W^s\vert=\mu-(n-1)\left(1-\frac{1}{n-1}\right)^l.
}
{Now, applying Theorem~\ref{thm1.2} with $a=0$ yields} \Ref{occupancyadd1}. \nopagebreak\hspace*{\fill
\subsection{Birthday problem}
The classical birthday problem is essentially a variant of the occupancy problem. For this reason, we throw $l$ balls independently and equally likely into $n$ boxes and let $X_{ij}$ be the indicator random variable of the event that ball $i$ and ball $j$ fall into the same box. The number of pairs of balls going into the same boxes (i.e., the number of pairs of people having the same birthdays) can be written as $W=\sum_{i<j}X_{ij}$. Define $p=P}{\prob{E} X_{ij}=\frac{1}{n}$, so $\mu=P}{\prob{E} W={l\choose 2}p.$ \cite{CDM} \red{give the following construction of $W^s$: label the balls from $1$ to $l$, randomly choose two balls $J_1$ and $J_2$ and move ball $J_1$ into the box that $J_2$ is in, then $W$ is the number of pairs of balls before the move while $W^s$ is the number of pairs of balls after the move. Let $E$ be the event that $J_1$ and $J_2$ are from the same box. When $E$ occurs, $W^s=W$ so $\vert W+1-W^s\vert=1$; otherwise, $J_1$ and $J_2$ are from different boxes with $B_1$ and $B_2$ balls respectively, giving
\be{ W+1-W^s=B_1-B_2.}
Hence,
\bea{P}{\prob{E}\vert W+1-W^s\vert&=P}{\prob{P}(E)+P}{\prob{E}[\vert W+1-W^s\vert\vert E^c]P}{\prob{P}(E^c)\\
&\le\frac1n+P}{\prob{E}\vert B_1-B_2\vert\\
&\le\frac1n+P}{\prob{E} (B_1+B_2)=\frac{1+2l}{n}.}
This, together with Theorem~\ref{thm1.2} and $a=0$, gives the following Proposition.}
\begin{prop}
For the random variable $W$ defined above and any integer $k>\mu$, we have
\be{\left\vert\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W\ge k)}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)}-1\right\vert\le{\mathds{C}}_1(\mu,k)\mu\frac{1+2l}{n},} where $Y\sim {\rm Pn}(\mu)$.
\end{prop}
\ignore{\begin{rem}
If $l=c\sqrt{n}$ for $c$ fixed and $n$ large, from Theorem~\ref{thm1.2} we have an estimate of the order $O(n^{-1/2})$.
\end{rem}}
\subsection{\red{Triangles in the Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi~random graph}}
Let $G=G(n,p)$ be an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi~random graph on $n$ vertices with edge probability $p$. Let $K_n$ be the complete graph on $n$ vertices, and $\Gamma$ be the set of all triangles in $K_n$. For $\alpha\in\Gamma$, let $X_\alpha$ be the indicator that there is a triangle in $G$ at $\alpha$, i.e. \be{X_\alpha={\bf 1}_{\{\alpha\subset G\}}.} Therefore the number of triangles in $G$ can be represented as $W=\sum_{\alpha\in\Gamma}X_\alpha$. \red{Clearly, $X_\alpha$ is independent of $X_\beta$ if $\alpha$ and $\beta$ don't share a common edge. By analysing} the numbers of shared edges, we obtain (see \cite[p.~255]{Ross11})\be{\mu=P}{\prob{E} W={n\choose 3}p^3,}\be{\sigma^2=\Var(W)={n \choose 3}p^3[1-p^3+3(n-3)(p^2-p^3)].}
\begin{prop}\label{proprandomgraph}
For the random variable $W$ defined above and any integer $k>\mu$, we have
\ben{\left\vert\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W\ge k)}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)}-1\right\vert\le{\mathds{C}}_1(\mu,k)\mu\left(3(n-3)p^2(1-p)+p^3\right),\label{randomgraph}} where $Y\sim {\rm Pn}(\mu)$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\bf Proof of Proposition~\ref{proprandomgraph}} The following proof is a special version of the general argument in \cite[p.~89]{BHJ}. \red{Since $X_\alpha$ and $X_\beta$ are independent if $\alpha$ and $\beta$ have no common edges,} a size biased distribution of $W$ can be constructed as follows. Let \be{X_\beta^{(\alpha)}:={\bf 1}_{\{\beta\subset G\cup\alpha\}},\ \beta\in\Gamma,}
then $\mathscr{L}(\{X_\beta^{(\alpha)},\beta\ne\alpha\})=\mathscr{L}(\{X_\beta,\beta\ne\alpha\}|X_\alpha=1)$. Here the union of graphs is in the sense of set operation of their vertices and edges. Let $I$ be a random element taking values in $\Gamma$ with equal probability and be independent of $\mathscr{L}(\{X_\beta^{(\alpha)},\alpha,\beta\})$, then we can write $W^s=\sum_{\beta\ne I}X_\beta^{(I)}+1$. Because $X_\beta^{(\alpha)}\ge X_\beta$ {for all $\beta\in\Gamma$}, \Ref{monotonecoupling2} implies
\bea{P}{\prob{E}\vert W+1-W^s\vert&\le
\mu^{-1}(\sigma^2-\mu+2\mu p^3)\\
&=3(n-3)p^2(1-p)+p^3.}
The claim follows from Theorem~\ref{thm1.2} with $a=0$. \nopagebreak\hspace*{\fill
\begin{rem}
Since $\mu={n\choose 3}p^3$, if $p=O(1/n)$, then the error bound \Ref{randomgraph} is of the same order $O(1/n)$.
\end{rem}
\subsection{2-runs
Let $\{\xi_i,\dots,\xi_n\}$ be i.i.d. $Bernoulli(p)$ random variables with $n\ge 9$, $p<2/3$. For each $1\le i\le n$, define $X_i=\xi_i\xi_{i+1}$ and, to avoid edge effects, we define $\xi_{j+n}=\xi_j$ for $-3\le j\le n$. The number of $2$-runs in the Bernoulli sequence is defined as $W=\sum_{i=1}^nX_i$, then $\mu=np^2$ and variance $\sigma^2=np^2(1-p)(3p+1)$.
{\begin{prop}
For any integer $k>\mu$,
\ben{\left\vert\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W_n\ge k)}{{\rm Pn}(\mu)([k,\infty))}-1\right\vert\le {\mathds{C}}_1(\mu,k)np^3(2-p).\label{2runsadd1}}
With $a:=\floor{np^3(3p-2)}$, $\lambda=\mu-a$, then for any integer $k>\lambda$,
\ben{\left\vert\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W_n-a\ge k)}{{\rm Pn}(\lambda)([k,\infty))}-1\right\vert\le{\mathds{C}}_2(\lambda,k)\frac{9.2np^2(1+5p)}{\sqrt{(n-8)(1-p)^3}}+{\mathds{C}}_1(\lambda,k)(1\wedge\lambda).\label{2runs2}}
\end{prop}}
\noindent{\bf Proof} For \Ref{2runsadd1}, we apply Theorem~\ref{thm1.2} with $a=0$, {$$X_j^{(i)}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
X_j,&\mbox{ if }|j-i|\ge 2,\\
\xi_j,&\mbox{ if }j=i-1,\\
\xi_{j+1},&\mbox{ if }j=i+1,\\
1,&\mbox{ if }j=i,
\end{array}\right.$$
$I$ a uniform random variable on $\{1,\dots,n\}$ independent of $\{X_j^{(i)}\}$,}
and
$$W^s=\sum_{j\ne I}X_j^{(I)}+1,$$ giving
\bea{P}{\prob{E}\vert W+1-W^s\vert&=P}{\prob{E}\vert X_{I-1}+X_I+X_{I+1}-\xi_{I-1}-\xi_{I+2}\vert\nonumber\\
&=P}{\prob{E}\vert\xi_{i-1}\xi_{i}+\xi_{i}\xi_{i+1}+\xi_{i+1}\xi_{i+2}-\xi_{i-1}-\xi_{i+2}\vert\nonumber\\
&=p(2-p).}
Apropos of \Ref{2runs2},
we make use of Theorem~\ref{thm1}. To this end, let
$A_i=\{i-1,i,i+1\}$, $B_i=\{i-2,i-1,i,i+1,i+2\}$, ${\cal F}_i=\sigma\{\xi_j:\ i-2\le j\le i+3\}$, then
\cite[Lemma~5.1]{BX99} with $\alpha_j=0$ or $1$ for $j=i-2,\cdots,i+5$ gives
\bea{\theta_i&\led_{\mathrm{TV}}\left(W,W+1|{\cal F}_i\right)\le\frac{2.3}{\sqrt{(n-8)p^2(1-p)^3}}.}
On the other hand, $P}{\prob{E}(Z_i')=5p^2$, {$|P}{\prob{E}((X_i-\mu_i)Z_i)|\le P}{\prob{E}(Z_i)=3p^2$,}
$$P}{\prob{E}[|X_i-\mu_i|Z_i(Z_i'-Z_i/2-1/2)]\le P}{\prob{E}[Z_i(Z_i'-Z_i/2-1/2)]=4p^3+5p^4,$$
and $|\lambda-\sigma^2|\lambda^{-1}\le 1\wedge (\lambda^{-1})$, $a=\floor{np^3(3p-2)}\le0$, {$\lambda\ge \sigma^2$,} hence $P}{\prob{P}(W-a<-1)=0$
and \Ref{2runs2} follows from Theorem~\ref{thm1} by collecting these terms.
\nopagebreak\hspace*{\fill
\ignore{\begin{rem}{\rm \cite{BX99} use compound Poisson signed measures with two parameters to approximate the distribution of $2$-runs with an error of order $O(n^{-1/2})$, and the topic is also studied in \cite{Roellin05} by using a translated Poisson approximation, giving the same order of approximation error. The bound \Ref{2runs2} of moderate deviation approximation is again
of the same order but with an improvement. At the cost of more complexity, the proof can be extended to study $k$-runs for $k\ge 3$ with unequal probabilities in the Bernoulli trials.}
\end{rem}}
\section{The proofs of the main results}\label{secProof}
The celebrated Stein-Chen method \cite{Chen75} is based on the observation that a non-negative random variable $Y\sim{\rm Pn}(\lambda)$
if and only if $P}{\prob{E}[\lambda f(Y+1)-Yf(Y)]=0$ for all bounded functions $f:~P}{\prob{Z}_+:=\{0,1,2,\dots\}\rightarrowP}{\prob{R}$, leading to a Stein identity for Poisson approximation as
\ben{\label{steinid}\lambda f(j+1)-jf(j)=h(j)-{\rm Pn}(\lambda)\{h\},~~j\ge 0,}
where ${\rm Pn}(\lambda)\{h\}:=P}{\prob{E} h(Y)$. Since $f(0)$ plays no role in Stein's equation, we set $f(0)=f(1)$ and $f(j)=0$ for $j<0$. The following Lemma plays the key role in the proofs of the main results and it enables us to circumvent checking the moment condition \Ref{momentgeneratingcondition} which seems to be inevitable in the existing procedure for proving moderate deviation theorems.
\begin{lma}\label{lma2} For fixed {$k\inP}{\prob{Z}_+$}, let $h={\bf 1}_{[k,\infty)}$. With {$\pi_\cdot={\rm Pn}(\lambda)(\{\cdot\})$,} $\Delta f(i)=f(i+1)-f(i)$ and $\Delta^2f=\Delta(\Delta f)$, the solution $f:=f_h$ of the Stein equation \Ref{steinid} has the following properties:
{\begin{description}
\item{(i)} $\|f\|:=\sup_{i\inP}{\prob{Z}_+}\vert f(i)\vert={\mathds{C}}_{0}(\lambda,k){\rm Pn}(\lambda)\{h\}$, where ${\mathds{C}}_{0}(\lambda,k):=\frac{F(k-1)}{k\pi_k}$;
\item{(ii)} $\Delta f(i)$ is negative and decreasing in $i\le k-1$; and positive and decreasing in $i\ge k$;
\item{(iii)} $\|\Delta f\|_{k-}:=\sup_{i\le k-1}\vert\Delta f(i)\vert ={\mathds{C}}_{1-}(\lambda,k){\rm Pn}(\lambda)\{h\}$ and
$\|\Delta f\|_{k+}:=\sup_{i\ge k}\vert\Delta f(i)\vert= {\mathds{C}}_{1+}(\lambda,k){\rm Pn}(\lambda)\{h\}$, where
$${\mathds{C}}_{1-}(\lambda,k):=\frac{F(k-1)}{k\pi_k}\left(1-\frac{F(k-2)}{F(k-1)}\cdot\frac{\lambda}{k-1}\right)$$
and $${\mathds{C}}_{1+}(\lambda,k):=\frac{F(k-1)}{k\pi_k}\left(1-\frac{\overline{F}(k+1)}{\overline{F}(k)}\cdot\frac{k}{\lambda}\right);$$
\item{(iv)} $\|\Delta f\|:=\sup_{i\inP}{\prob{Z}_+}\vert\Delta f(i)\vert={\mathds{C}}_1(\lambda,k){\rm Pn}(\lambda)\{h\}$ and $\|\Delta^2 f\|:=\sup_{i\inP}{\prob{Z}_+}\vert\Delta^2 f(i)\vert={\mathds{C}}_2(\lambda,k) {\rm Pn}(\lambda)\{h\}$;
\end{description}}
\red{where ${\mathds{C}}_1$ and ${\mathds{C}}_2$ are defined in \Ref{Steinconstantnew1} and \Ref{Steinconstantnew2}.}
\end{lma}
{For $k>\lambda$, death rates are bigger than the birth rate, so it seems intuitively obvious that $\tau_{k}^-$ is stochastically less than or equal to $\tau_{k-2}^+$ for such $k$. In view of representation \Ref{conj} and $f(k)<0$ as shown in \Ref{sol3}, this is equivalent to ${\mathds{C}}_{1-}(\lambda,k)> {\mathds{C}}_{1+}(\lambda,k)$, leading to the following conjecture.
\begin{con}{\rm We conjecture that ${\mathds{C}}_{1-}(\lambda,k)> {\mathds{C}}_{1+}(\lambda,k)$ for all $k>\lambda$ and the gap increases exponentially as a function of $k-\lambda$.}
\end{con}}
\noindent{\bf Proof of Lemma~\ref{lma2}} We build our argument on the birth-death process representation of the solution
\ben{\label{sol1}
f(i)=-\int_0^{\infty}P}{\prob{E}\left[h(Z_i(t))-h(Z_{i-1}(t))\right]dt,\mbox{ for }i\ge 1,
} where $Z_n(t)$ is a birth-death process with birth rate $\lambda$, unit per capita death rate and initial state $Z_n(0)=n$
\cite{Barbour88,BB92,BX01}. For convenience, we adopt the notation in \cite{BX01}: for $i,j\inP}{\prob{Z}_+$, define\be{\tau_{ij}=\inf\{t:Z_i(t)=j\},~~\tau^+_j=\tau_{j,j+1},~~\tau^-_j=\tau_{j,j-1}}and \be{\overline{\tau^+_j}=P}{\prob{E}(\tau^+_j);~~\overline{\tau^-_j}=P}{\prob{E}(\tau^-_j);~~\pi_i={\rm Pn}(\lambda)(\{i\}).}
Applying Lemmas~2.1 and 2.2 of \cite{BX01} with birth rate $\lambda$, death rate $\beta_i=i$, $A:=[k,\infty)$ and $\pi(\cdot)=\sum_{l\in \cdot}\pi_l$, we have
\ben{\label{sol2}f(i)=\overline{\tau^-_i}\pi(A\cap[0,i-1])-\overline{\tau^+_{i-1}}\pi(A\cap[i,\infty)),~~i\ge 1}
and for $j\inP}{\prob{Z}_+$,\ben{\label{notation1}\overline{\tau^+_j}=\frac{F(j)}{\lambda\pi_j},~~\overline{\tau^-_j}=\frac{\overline{F}(j)}{j\pi_j},}
where, {as in Theorem~\ref{thm1},}
\ben{\label{notation2}F(j)=\sum_{i=0}^j\pi_i;~~\overline{F}(j)=\sum_{i=j}^{\infty}\pi_i.}
One can easily simplify \Ref{sol2} to get
\ben{\label{sol3}f(i)=\begin{cases}
-\overline{\tau^+_{i-1}}\pi(A)&\mbox{for }i\le k,\\
-\overline{\tau^-_i} F(k-1)&\mbox{for }i>k,
\end{cases}}
which, together with \Ref{notation1} and the balance equations
\begin{equation}
\lambda \pi_i=(i+1)\pi_{i+1},\mbox{ for all }i\inP}{\prob{Z}_+,\label{balancedeq}
\end{equation}
implies
\ben{\label{diff11}\Delta f(i)=\begin{cases}
-\pi(A)\left(\frac{F(i)}{\lambda\pi_i}-\frac{F(i-1)}{\lambda\pi_{i-1}}\right)~~&\mbox{for }i\le k-1,\\
-(1-\pi(A))\left(\frac{\overline{F}(i+1)}{\lambda\pi_i}-\frac{\overline{F}(i)}{\lambda\pi_{i-1}}\right)~~&\mbox{for }i\ge k.
\end{cases}}
It follows from \cite[Lemma~2.4]{BX01} that for $i\ge 1$,
\be{\frac{F(i)}{F(i-1)}\ge\frac{\lambda}{i}\ge\frac{\overline{F}(i+1)}{\overline{F}(i)},} which,
together with \Ref{balancedeq}, ensures
\bean{\label{diff12}\Delta f(i)\le 0~~~~&\text{for~}i\le k-1,\\
\label{diff13}\Delta f(i)\ge 0~~~~&\text{for~}i\ge k,
}hence, $f(k)\le f(i)\le 0$ and combining \Ref{notation1}, \Ref{notation2} and \Ref{sol3} gives $\|f\|=\vert f(k)\vert=\frac{F(k-1)}{k\pi_k}\pi(A),$ as claimed in (i).
Apropos of (ii), because of \Ref{diff12} and \Ref{diff13}, it remains to show that $\Delta f$ is decreasing in the two ranges. To this end,
we will mainly rely on the properties of the solution \Ref{sol1}. Let $T$ be an exponential random variable with mean $1$ and independent of
birth-death process $Z_{i-1}$, then $Z_i$ can be represented as
\be{Z_i(t)=Z_{i-1}(t)+{\bf 1}_{\{T>t\}},}
hence we obtain from \Ref{sol1} and the strong Markov property in the second last equality that
\bea{f(i)&=-\int_0^{\infty}P}{\prob{E}\left[{\bf 1}_{\{Z_{i-1}(t)+{\bf 1}_{\{T>t\}}\ge k\}}-{\bf 1}_{\{Z_{i-1}(t)\ge k\}}\right]dt\nonumber\\
&=-P}{\prob{E}\int_0^{\infty}e^{-t}{\bf 1}_{\{Z_{i-1}(t)=k-1\}}dt\nonumber\\
&=-P}{\prob{E}\left\{\int_{\tau_{i-1,k-1}}^{\infty}e^{-t}{\bf 1}_{\{Z_{i-1}(t)=k-1\}}dt\right\}\nonumber\\
&=-P}{\prob{E}\left\{e^{-\tau_{i-1,k-1}}\right\}P}{\prob{E}\int_0^{\infty}e^{-t}{\bf 1}_{\{Z_{k-1}(t)=k-1\}}dt\nonumber\\
&=P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i-1,k-1}}f(k).}
This enables us to give another representation of \Ref{diff11} as
\ben{\Delta f(i)=f(k)(P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i,k-1}}-P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i-1,k-1}}),\label{conj}}
and so
\be{\Delta^2f(i)=f(k)(P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i+1,k-1}}-2P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i,k-1}}+P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i-1,k-1}}).}
For
$i\ge k$, using the strong Markov property again in the equalities below, we have
\bea{&P}{\prob{E} (e^{-\tau_{i+1,k-1}}-2e^{-\tau_{i,k-1}}+e^{-\tau_{i-1,k-1}})\nonumber\\
&=P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i-1,k-1}}(P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i+1,i-1}}-2P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i,i-1}}+1)\nonumber\\
&=P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i-1,k-1}}(P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i+1,i}}P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i,i-1}}-2P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i,i-1}}+1)\nonumber\\
&\ge P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i-1,k-1}}(P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i,i-1}}-1)^2\ge0,}
where the inequality follows from
\bea{&\tau_{i,i-1}=\inf\{t:Z_{i}(t)=i-1\}\\
&=\inf\{t:Z_{i}(t)+{\bf 1}_{\{T>t\}}=i-1+{\bf 1}_{\{T>t\}}\}\\
&\ge\inf\{t:Z_{i+1}(t)=i\}=\tau_{i+1,i}.}
Similarly, for $i\le k-2$, $\tau_{i-1,i}$ is stochastically less than or equal to $\tau_{i,i+1}$, so
\bea{&P}{\prob{E} (e^{-\tau_{i+1,k-1}}-2e^{-\tau_{i,k-1}}+e^{-\tau_{i-1,k-1}})\nonumber\\
&=P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i+1,k-1}}(P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i-1,i+1}}-2P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i,i+1}}+1)\nonumber\\
&\geP}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i+1,k-1}}(P}{\prob{E} e^{-\tau_{i,i+1}}-1)^2\ge 0.
} Hence, $\Delta^2 f(i)\le 0$ for $i\ge k$ and $i\le k-2$, which concludes the proof of (ii).
In terms of (iii),
we use (ii) to obtain
\bea{\|\Delta f\|_{k-}&=\vert\Delta f(k-1)\vert=f(k-1)-f(k)\nonumber\\
&=\pi(A)\frac{1}{\lambda}\left(\frac{F(k-1)}{\pi_{k-1}}-\frac{F(k-2)}{\pi_{k-2}}\right)\nonumber\\
&={\pi(A)\frac{F(k-1)}{k\pi_k}\left(1-\frac{F(k-2)}{F(k-1)}\cdot\frac{\lambda}{k-1}\right)}.}
Likewise,
\bea{\|\Delta f\|_{k+}&=\vert\Delta f(k)\vert=f(k+1)-f(k)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{F(k-1)}{\lambda\pi_{k-1}}\pi(A)-\frac{\overline{F}(k+1)}{\lambda\pi_k}F(k-1)\nonumber\\
&={\pi(A)\frac{F(k-1)}{k\pi_k}\left(1-\frac{\overline{F}(k+1)}{\overline{F}(k)}\cdot\frac{k}{\lambda}\right)}.}
Since (iv) is clearly an immediate consequence of (iii), \Ref{Steinconstantnew1} and \Ref{Steinconstantnew2}, the proof of Lemma~\ref{lma2} is complete. \nopagebreak\hspace*{\fill
\vskip10pt
\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{thm1}}~~As in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lma2}, we set $A=[k,\infty)$ and $h={\bf 1}_A$,
then
\be{P}{\prob{P}(W-a\ge k)-P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)=P}{\prob{E} h(W-a)-{\rm Pn}(\lambda)\{h\}.} Define \bea{
e_1:=&P}{\prob{E}(h(W-a)-{\rm Pn}(\lambda)\{h\}){\bf 1}_{\{W-a<0\}}-\lambda f(0)P}{\prob{P}(W-a=-1),\\
e_2:=&P}{\prob{E}(\lambda f(W-a+1)-(W-a)f(W-a)),
}then it follows from \Ref{steinid} that \ben{\label{trans1}P}{\prob{P}(W-a\ge k)-P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)=e_1+e_2.}
For the estimate of $e_1$, from $f(0)=f(1)$, we know that $\lambda f(0)=-{\rm Pn}(\lambda)\{h\}$, thus \be{e_1=-P}{\prob{P}(W-a<-1){\rm Pn}(\lambda)\{h\},}
which gives
\ben{\label{error1}\vert e_1\vert=\pi(A)P}{\prob{P}(W-a<-1).}
For the estimate of $e_2$, denoting ${\tilde f}(j):=f(j-a)$, we have
\ben{e_2=P}{\prob{E}\left\{\lambda\Delta{\tilde f}(W)-(W-\mu){\tilde f}(W)\right\}.\label{e2-1}
}
Using Lemma~\ref{lma2} (ii), we have $\Delta^2{\tilde f}(m)$ is negative for all $m$ except $m=a+k-1$, which implies $-\sum_{m\ne k-1}\Delta^2 f(m)\le \Delta^2 f(k-1)=\|\Delta^2 f\|$ and
$$\E\left[\left.\Delta^2{\tilde f}(W_i'+l)\right|{\cal F}_i\right]\le \Delta^2 f(k-1) P}{\prob{P}\left[\left.W_i'=k-1+a-l\right|{\cal F}_i\right]\le \|\Delta^2 f\|\theta_i $$
and
$$\E\left[\left.\Delta^2{\tilde f}(W_i'+l)\right|{\cal F}_i\right]\ge \sum_{m\ne k-1}\Delta^2 f(m) P}{\prob{P}\left[\left.W_i'=m+a-l\right|{\cal F}_i\right]\ge -\theta_i \|\Delta^2 f\|,
$$
hence
\begin{equation}
\left|\E\left[\left.\Delta^2{\tilde f}(W_i'+l)\right|{\cal F}_i\right]\right|\le \|\Delta^2 f\|\theta_i. \label{conditionalbound}
\end{equation}
By taking \be{\theta:=\lambda-\sigma^2,}
we have from \Ref{e2-1} that
\bean{e_2&=\thetaP}{\prob{E}\Delta{\tilde f}(W)+P}{\prob{E}\left\{\sigma^2\Delta{\tilde f}(W)-(W-\mu){\tilde f}(W)\right\}\nonumber\\
&=\thetaP}{\prob{E}\Delta{\tilde f}(W)+P}{\prob{E}\left\{\sigma^2\Delta{\tilde f}(W)-\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}(X_i-\mu_i){\tilde f}(W)\right\}\nonumber\\
&=\thetaP}{\prob{E}\Delta{\tilde f}(W)+\sigma^2P}{\prob{E}\Delta{\tilde f}(W)-\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}P}{\prob{E}\left\{(X_i-\mu_i)\left({\tilde f}(W)-{\tilde f}(W_i)\right)\right\}\nonumber\\
&=\thetaP}{\prob{E}\Delta{\tilde f}(W)+\sigma^2P}{\prob{E}\Delta{\tilde f}(W)-\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}P}{\prob{E}\left\{(X_i-\mu_i)\left(\sum_{j=0}^{Z_i-1}\Delta{\tilde f}(W_i+j)\right)\right\}\nonumber\\
&=\thetaP}{\prob{E}\Delta{\tilde f}(W)+\sigma^2P}{\prob{E}\Delta{\tilde f}(W)-\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}P}{\prob{E}\left[(X_i-\mu_i)Z_i\right]P}{\prob{E}\Delta{\tilde f}(W_i')\nonumber\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}P}{\prob{E}\left\{(X_i-\mu_i)\sum_{j=0}^{Z_i-1}\left[\Delta{\tilde f}(W_i+j)-\Delta{\tilde f}(W_i')\right]\right\}\nonumber\\
&=\thetaP}{\prob{E}\Delta{\tilde f}(W)+\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}P}{\prob{E}\left[(X_i-\mu_i)Z_i\right]P}{\prob{E}\left[\Delta{\tilde f}(W)-\Delta{\tilde f}(W_i')\right]\nonumber\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}P}{\prob{E}\left\{(X_i-\mu_i)\sum_{j=0}^{Z_i-1}\left[\Delta{\tilde f}(W_i+j)-\Delta{\tilde f}(W_i')\right]\right\}\nonumber\\
&=\thetaP}{\prob{E}\Delta{\tilde f}(W)+\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}P}{\prob{E}\left[(X_i-\mu_i)Z_i\right]P}{\prob{E}\left[\sum_{j=0}^{Z_i'-1}\Delta^2{\tilde f}(W_i'+j)\right]\nonumber\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}P}{\prob{E}\left\{(X_i-\mu_i)\sum_{j=0}^{Z_i-1}\sum_{l=0}^{Z_i'-Z_i+j-1}\Delta^2{\tilde f}(W_i'+l)\right\}\nonumber\\
&=\thetaP}{\prob{E}\Delta{\tilde f}(W)+\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}P}{\prob{E}\left[(X_i-\mu_i)Z_i\right]P}{\prob{E}\left[\sum_{j=0}^{Z_i'-1}P}{\prob{E}\left(\left.\Delta^2{\tilde f}(W_i'+j)\right|{\cal F}_i\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}P}{\prob{E}\left\{(X_i-\mu_i)\sum_{j=0}^{Z_i-1}\sum_{l=0}^{Z_i'-Z_i+j-1}P}{\prob{E}\left(\left.\Delta^2{\tilde f}(W_i'+l)\right|{\cal F}_i\right)\right\},\label{xiathm1-1}}
where the third last equality is because $\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}P}{\prob{E}[(X_i-\mu_i)Z_i]=\sigma^2$ and $(X_i,Z_i)$ is independent of $W_i'$, and the last equality is due to the assumption
that $\{X_j:\ j\in B_i\}$ is ${\cal F}_i$ measurable. Using \Ref{conditionalbound} in \Ref{xiathm1-1},
we obtain
\bean{
&|e_2|\le \|\Delta f\||\theta|\nonumber\\
&+\|\Delta^2 f\|\sum_{i\in{\cal I}}\theta_i\left\{{|P}{\prob{E}(X_i-\mu_i)Z_i|}P}{\prob{E} (Z_i')+P}{\prob{E}\left[|X_i-\mu_i|Z_i(Z_i'-Z_i/2-1/2)\right]\right\}.\label{xiathm1-2}}
Now, combining Lemma~\ref{lma2} (iii), (iv), \Ref{trans1}, \Ref{error1}
and \Ref{xiathm1-2} gives \Ref{esti1}. \nopagebreak\hspace*{\fill
\vskip10pt
\noindent{\bf Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor1}} Under the setting of the local dependence, the claim follows from Theorem~\ref{thm1} by taking $Z_i=Z_i'=X_i$. \nopagebreak\hspace*{\fill
\vskip10pt
\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{thm1.2}}~~Recall the Stein representation \Ref{trans1} and the estimate \Ref{error1}, it remains to tackle \Ref{e2-1}. However,
\bea{e_2&=P}{\prob{E}\left(\lambda {\tilde f}(W+1)-\mu {\tilde f}(W^s)+a{\tilde f}(W)\right)\nonumber\\
&=\muP}{\prob{E}({\tilde f}(W+1)-{\tilde f}(W^s))+(\lambda-\mu)P}{\prob{E}\Delta {\tilde f}(W),}
thus\bean{\label{error2}
\vert e_2\vert&\le\|\Delta f\|(\muP}{\prob{E}\vert W+1-W^s\vert+\vert\lambda-\mu\vert)\nonumber\\
&\le{\rm Pn}(\lambda)\{h\}\left[{\mathds{C}}_1(\lambda,k)(\muP}{\prob{E}\vert W+1-W^s\vert+\vert\lambda-\mu\vert)\right].}
Hence, combining \Ref{trans1}, \Ref{error1} and \Ref{error2} completes the proof.\nopagebreak\hspace*{\fill
\vskip10pt
\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{thm2}}~~Again, we make use of the Stein representation \Ref{trans1} and the estimate \Ref{error1} so that it suffices to deal with \Ref{e2-1}. To this end, we have
\bea{e_2&=P}{\prob{E}\left(\lambda \Delta{\tilde f}(W)-(W-\mu) {\tilde f}(W)\right)\nonumber\\
&=P}{\prob{E}\left(\lambda \Delta{\tilde f}(W)-\sigma^2 \Delta{\tilde f}(W^\star)\right)\nonumber\\
&=P}{\prob{E}\left((\lambda-\sigma^2) \Delta{\tilde f}(W)+\sigma^2 (\Delta{\tilde f}(W)-\Delta{\tilde f}(W^\star))\right).}
However, with $R=W^\star-W$,
\bea{&P}{\prob{E}\left[\Delta{\tilde f}(W)-\Delta{\tilde f}(W^\star)\right]\nonumber\\
&=-P}{\prob{E}\left\{\sum_{j=0}^{R-1}P}{\prob{E}\left(\Delta^2{\tilde f}(W+j)\right){\bf 1}_{R>0}-\sum_{j=1}^{-R}P}{\prob{E}\left(\Delta^2{\tilde f}(W-j)\right){\bf 1}_{R<0}\right\}\nonumber\\
&=-P}{\prob{E}\left\{\sum_{j=0}^{R-1}P}{\prob{E}\left(\left.\Delta^2{\tilde f}(W+j)\right|R\right){\bf 1}_{R>0}-\sum_{j=1}^{-R}P}{\prob{E}\left(\left.\Delta^2{\tilde f}(W-j)\right|R\right){\bf 1}_{R<0}\right\},}
and a similar argument for \Ref{conditionalbound} ensures
$$\left|P}{\prob{E}\left(\left.\Delta^2{\tilde f}(W+j)\right|R\right)\right|\le \|\Delta^2f\|\theta_R,$$
hence
\bean{\label{error4}
\vert e_2\vert&\le|\lambda-\sigma^2|\|\Delta f\|+\sigma^2\|\Delta^2f\|P}{\prob{E}[|R|\theta_R].}
The claim follows from combining \Ref{trans1}, \Ref{error1} and \Ref{error4} and using Lemma~\ref{lma2} (iii), (iv).\nopagebreak\hspace*{\fill
\vskip10pt
\noindent{\bf Proof of Proposition~\ref{secondpropPnBi}}~~The first inequality of \Ref{Poissonbinomial1} is a direct consequence of \cite{Hoeffding56}. For the second inequality, let $h={\bf 1}_{[k,\infty)}$ and $f$ be the solution of the Stein identity \Ref{steinid} with $\lambda=\mu$, set $W_i=W-X_i$, $Y\sim{\rm Pn}(\mu)$, the following argument is standard (see \cite[p.~6]{BHJ}) and we repeat it for the ease of reading:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&P}{\prob{P}(W\ge k)-P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)\nonumber\\
&&=P}{\prob{E}\{\mu f(W+1)-Wf(W)\}\nonumber\\
&&=\mu P}{\prob{E} f(W+1)-\sum_{i=1}^nP}{\prob{E} \{X_if(W)\}\nonumber\\
&&=\mu P}{\prob{E} f(W+1)-\sum_{i=1}^np_iP}{\prob{E} \{f(W_i+1)\}\nonumber\\
&&=\sum_{i=1}^np_i^2P}{\prob{E}\Delta f(W_i+1).\label{secondpropPnBi01}
\end{eqnarray}
For any non-negative integer valued random variable $U$ such that the following expectations exist, the summation by parts gives
$$
P}{\prob{E} g(U+1)=\sum_{j=1}^\infty \Delta g(j)P}{\prob{P}(U\ge j)+g(1).$$
On the other hand, \cite[Proposition~2.1]{BCC95} ensures
$$\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W_i\ge j)}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge j)}\le \frac{P}{\prob{P}(W\ge j)}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge j)}\le \sup_{r\ge 0}\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W=r)}{P}{\prob{P}(Y=r)}\le M,$$
so using Lemma~\ref{lma2} (ii), we have
\begin{eqnarray}
P}{\prob{E}\Delta f(W_i+1)&=&\sum_{j=1}^\infty \Delta^2f(j)P}{\prob{P}(W_i\ge j)+\Delta f(1)\nonumber\\
&\ge&M\sum_{j\ge 1, j\ne k-1} \Delta^2f(j)P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge j)+\Delta f(1)\nonumber\\
&=&M\left\{\sum_{j=1}^\infty \Delta^2f(j)P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge j)+\Delta f(1)\right\}\nonumber\\
&&-M\Delta^2f(k-1)P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k-1)+(1-M)\Delta f(1)\nonumber\\
&=&MP}{\prob{E}\Delta f(Y+1)-M\Delta^2f(k-1)P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k-1)+(1-M)\Delta f(1)\nonumber\\
&>&MP}{\prob{E}\Delta f(Y+1)-M\Delta^2f(k-1)P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k-1).\label{secondpropPnBi03}
\end{eqnarray}
However, by \Ref{sol1}, since ${\rm Pn}(\mu)$ is the stationary distribution of $Z_i$, $Z_{Y}(t)\sim {\rm Pn}(\mu)$, leading to
\begin{eqnarray}
&&P}{\prob{E}\Delta f(Y+1)\nonumber\\
&=&-\int_0^\infty P}{\prob{E}[h(Z_{Y+2}(t))-2h(Z_{Y+1}(t))+h(Z_{Y}(t))]dt\nonumber\\
&=&-\int_0^\infty P}{\prob{E}[h(Y+{\bf 1}_{\{T_1>t\}}+{\bf 1}_{\{T_2>t\}})-h(Y+{\bf 1}_{\{T_1>t\}})-h(Y+{\bf 1}_{\{T_2>t\}})+h(Y)]dt\nonumber\\
&=&-\int_0^\infty e^{-2t}P}{\prob{E}[\Delta^2h(Y)]dt=-\frac12 (\pi_{k-2}-\pi_{k-1}),\label{secondpropPnBi04}
\end{eqnarray}
{where $T_1,T_2$ are i.i.d. $\exp(1)$ random variables independent of $Y$.}
Combining \Ref{secondpropPnBi01}, \Ref{secondpropPnBi03} and \Ref{secondpropPnBi04},
we have
{\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{P}{\prob{P}(W\ge k)}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)}-1\nonumber\\
&&> -\frac12M\mu_2\frac{\pi_{k-2}-\pi_{k-1}}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)}-M\mu_2\Delta^2f(k-1)\frac{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k-1)}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)}.\label{secondpropPnBi05}
\end{eqnarray}}
For the first term of \Ref{secondpropPnBi05}, using \cite[Proposition~A.2.1 (ii)]{BHJ}, we obtain
\bean{
\frac{\pi_{k-2}-\pi_{k-1}}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)}&=\frac k {\mu}\cdot \frac{\pi_k}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)}\cdot\frac{k-1-\mu}{\mu}\nonumber\\
&\le \frac {4(k-\mu)} {\mu}\cdot\frac{k-1-\mu}{\mu}\le 4x^2/\mu.\label{secondpropPnBi08}
}
For the second term of \Ref{secondpropPnBi05}, we use the crude estimate of {$\Delta^2 f(k-1)\le 2 \|\Delta f\|\le 2(1-e^{-\mu})/\mu$} (see \cite[Lemma~1.1.1]{BHJ} or Remark~\ref{remarknaive}), so applying \cite[Proposition~A.2.1 (ii)]{BHJ} again,
{\bean{&\Delta^2 f(k-1)\frac{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k-1)}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)}\nonumber\\
&\le \frac{2(1-e^{-\mu})}\mu\left(1+\frac{\pi_k}{P}{\prob{P}(Y\ge k)}\cdot \frac k\mu\right)\nonumber\\
&\le \frac{2(1-e^{-\mu})}\mu\left(1+\frac{4(k-\mu)}{\mu}\right)\le \frac2{\mu}\left(1+4x\sqrt{\frac{1-e^{-\mu}}\mu}\right).\label{secondpropPnBi09}
}}
The bound \Ref{Poissonbinomial1} follows by collecting \Ref{secondpropPnBi05}, \Ref{secondpropPnBi08} and \Ref{secondpropPnBi09}.
\nopagebreak\hspace*{\fill
\vskip10pt
\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgements} We thank the anonymous referees for suggesting the ``naive bound'' in Remark~\ref{remarknaive} and
comments leading to the improved version of the paper. We also thank Serguei Novak for email discussions about the quality of the bounds presented in the paper versus the
``naive bound''.
\def{Academic Press}~{{Academic Press}~}
\def{Adv. Appl. Prob.}~{{Adv. Appl. Prob.}~}
\def{Ann. Probab.}~{{Ann. Probab.}~}
\def{Ann. Appl. Probab.}~{{Ann. Appl. Probab.}~}
\def\eljp{{\it Electron.\ J.~Probab.\/}~}
\def{J. Appl. Probab.}~{{J. Appl. Probab.}~}
\def{John Wiley~$\&$ Sons}~{{John Wiley~$\&$ Sons}~}
\def{New York}~{{New York}~}
\def{Probab. Theory Related Fields}~{{Probab. Theory Related Fields}~}
\def{Springer}~{{Springer}~}
\def{Stochastic Process. Appl.}~{{Stochastic Process. Appl.}~}
\def{Springer-Verlag}~{{Springer-Verlag}~}
\def{Theory Probab. Appl.}~{{Theory Probab. Appl.}~}
\def{Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete}~{{Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete}~}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $\sigma(n)$ and $\gamma(n)$ denote the sum of divisors and
the product of distinct prime divisors of $n$, called the {\em radical} of $n$, respectively.
Moreover, let $\omega(n)$ denote the number of distinct prime divisors of $n$.
De Koninck \cite{Kon} posed the problem to prove or disprove that
the only solutions
\begin{equation}\label{eq10}
\sigma(n)=(\gamma(n))^2
\end{equation}
are $n=1, 1782$.
According to the editorial comment, it is shown that such an integer $n\neq 1, 1782$ must be even,
have at least four prime factors, be neither square-free and squarefull,
be greater than $10^9$ and have no prime factor raised to a power congruent to $3\pmod{4}$.
Later, further necessary conditions to satisfy \eqref{eq10} have been shown.
Broughan, De Koninck, K\'{a}tai and Luca \cite{BKKL} showed that,
if an integer $n>1$ satisfies \eqref{eq10}, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq11}
n=2^{e_0} \prod_{i=1}^s p_i^{e_i},
\end{equation}
where $p_i$ are distinct odd primes and $e_i$ are positive integers satisfying
(a) $p_1\equiv 3\pmod{8}, e_1=1$ and the other $e_i$'s are even,
or
(b) $p_1\equiv p_2\equiv e_1\equiv e_2\equiv 1\pmod{4}, \min\{e_1, e_2\}=1$ and the other $e_i$'s are even.
Moreover, they showed that $\omega(n)\geq 5$ and $n$ cannot be fourth power free.
Broughan, Delbourgo and Zhou \cite{BDZ} showed that $p_1\geq 43$ in the case (a),
$p_1\geq 173$ in the case (b) with $\alpha_2>\alpha_1=1$
and $n$ must be divisible by the fourth power of an odd prime.
Chen and Tong \cite{CT} showed that if $n\neq 1, 1782$ satisfies \eqref{eq10} with (a),
then $n$ is divisible by $3$ and by the fourth powers of at least two odd primes, $p_1\geq 1571$,
at most two of $p_i$'s are greater than $p_1$,
$e_i=2$ for at least two $i$'s and $e_i=2$ for any $i$ such that $10p_i^2\geq p_1$.
Moreover, they showed that for any $n$ satisfying \eqref{eq10},
at least half of the numbers among $e_i+1$'s $(0\leq i\leq s)$ must be either primes or prime squares.
Tang and Zhou \cite{TZ} showed that no integer $n=2^{e_0} p_1 p_2 p_3^4 p_4^4$ other than $1, 1782$ satisfies \eqref{eq10}.
Furthermore, there exist only finitely many integers of the form \eqref{eq11} satifying \eqref{eq10}
for any given integer $s$.
More generally, Luca \cite{Luc} showed that, if a positive integer $n$ satisfies $\omega(n)=T$
and $\sigma(n)\mid L(\gamma(n))^K$ with $K, L$ positive integers, then
\[n<\exp \left(((K+\log L)T!)^{2^T}\right).\]
As usual, $p^e\mid\mid n$ denotes that $p^e\mid n$ but $p^{e+1}\nmid n$.
In this paper, we shall give the following new necessary condition for an integer $n$
to satisfy \eqref{eq10}.
\begin{thm}\label{th11}
If an integer $n\neq 1, 1782$ of the form \eqref{eq11} satisfies \eqref{eq10},
then there exist odd (not necessarily distinct) primes $p, p^\prime$ and (not necessarily odd)
distinct primes $q_{j_i} (i=1, 2, \ldots, k)$ with $k\leq 3$ such that
$p, p^\prime \mid\mid n$, $q_i^2\mid\mid n (i=1, 2, \ldots, k)$ and
$q_1\mid \sigma(p^2), q_{i+1}\mid\sigma(q_i^2) (i=1, 2, \ldots, k-1), p^\prime \mid\sigma(q_k^2)$.
\end{thm}
Our idea is based on the following simple observation, which has been used by previous authors
mentioned above.
For example, consider the special case $e_i=1$ only for $i=1$, $q_1\mid \sigma(p^2)$ for two primes $p$ and
for each $p$, $p\mid \sigma(q_i^{e_i})$ with $e_i\geq 4$ for two primes $q_i$.
Now we have $\sigma(q_i^{e_i})/q_i^2>\sqrt{\sigma(q_i^{e_i})}>p^{1/2}>q_1^{1/4}$ for each $i$.
Hence, $((q_1+1)/q_1^2) \prod_i \sigma(q_i^{e_i})/q_i^2>q_1(q_1+1)/q_1^2>1$
and $\sigma(n)/(\gamma(n))^2>1$, which contradicts to \eqref{eq10}.
In order to generalize this observation,
we introduce a directed multigraph related to prime power divisors of $n$.
In the next section, we introduce some basic terms on directed multigraphs and prove
an identity on directed multigraphs.
In Section 3, we introduce a certain directed multigraph related to prime power divisors of $n$
satisfying \eqref{eq10} and give the key point lemma for our proof
as well as some arithmetic preliminaries.
Under our settings described in Sections 2 and 3, we shall prove the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{th12}
Let $n\neq 1, 1782$ be an integer of the form \eqref{eq11} satisfying \eqref{eq10}
and $L$ be the set of odd prime divisors $q_i$'s with $e_i=1$.
Let $G(n), N=N(L), M=M(L), B=B(L)$ and $C=C(L)$ be directed multigraphs or sets defined in Section 3.
Then,
\begin{itemize}
\item[i)] If $q_{k+1}\rightarrow q_k\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow q_1\rightarrow p$
is a path from a vertex $q_{k+1}$ in $B$ to a vertex $p$ in $L$ via vertices in $M$,
then $k\leq 3$ and $q_i\equiv 1\pmod{3}$ for $1\leq i\leq k-1$.
\item[ii)] $M$ contains at most two primes $\equiv 1\pmod{3}$.
Furthermore, $\# M\leq 6$ if $\# L=1$ and $\# M\leq 8$ if $\# L=2$.
\item[iii)] There exists a path from $q_i$ in $L$ to $q_j$ in $L$
consisting of vertices $q_l\in N$ other than $q_i, q_j$,
where $q_i$ and $q_j$ may be the same prime.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
Now Theorem \ref{th11} is an arithmetic translation of iii) of Theorem \ref{th12}.
In Sections 4 and 5, we prove that
the directed multigraph related to prime power divisors of $n$ defined in Section 3
cannot have some forms, which yields iii) of Theorem \ref{th12}.
Other statements of Theorem \ref{th12} easily follow from an elementary divisibility property of
values of $\sigma(p^2)$ with $p$ prime.
\section{An identity on directed multigraphs}
Before stating our result on directed multigraphs,
we would like to introduce some basic terms on directed multigraphs according to \cite{BJG}
with some modifications.
A {\em directed multigraph} $G=(V, A)$ consists of a set $V$ of elements called {\em vertices}
and a multiset $A$, where an element may be contained more than once,
of ordered pairs of distinct elements in $V$ called {\em arcs}.
$V=V(G)$ and $A=A(G)$ are called the vertex set and the arc set of $G$ respectively.
For an arc $(u, v)$ in $A$, which we call an arc from $u$ to $v$,
the former vertex $u$ and the latter vertex $v$ are called its {\em tail} and its {\em head} respectively.
We often write $u\rightarrow v$ if $(u, v)\in A$
and $u\overset{k}{\rightarrow} v$ if $(u, v)\in A$ exactly $k$ times.
The {\em subgraph} of $G=(V, A)$ spanned by a given set of vertices $S\subset V$ is
the directed multigraph whose vertex set is $S$ and whose arc set consists of all arcs in $A$
whose tail and head both belong to $S$.
A {\em walk} $(a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_k)$ of length $k$
is a sequence of arcs $a_i=(u_i, v_i) (i=1, 2, \ldots, k)$
such that $v_i=u_{i+1}$ for all $i=1, 2, \ldots, k-1$.
A walk $(a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_k)$ with $a_i=(u_i, u_{i+1}) (i=1, 2, \ldots, k)$
is called a {\em path} if $u_1, u_2, \ldots, u_{k+1}$ are all distinct
and a {\em cycle} if $u_1, u_2, \ldots, u_k$ are all distinct and $u_1=u_{k+1}$.
A walk $(a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_k)$ with $a_i=(u_i, u_{i+1}) (i=1, 2, \ldots, k)$
is often written as $u_1\rightarrow u_2\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow u_{k+1}$.
A directed multigraph $G=(V, A)$ is called {\em acyclic} if $A$ contains no cycle.
The {\em out-degree} $d^+(v)=d_G^+(v)$ and the {\em in-degree} $d^-(v)=d_G^-(v)$ of the vertex $v$
are the number of arcs from $v$ and to $v$ respectively counted with multiplicity.
A vertex $v$ is called a {\em sink} if $d^+(v)=0$
and a {\em source} if $d^-(v)=0$.
$S(G)$ denotes the set of sources of the directed multigraph $G$.
Now we would like to state our identity.
\begin{lem}\label{lm21}
Let $G$ be a directed acyclic multigraph.
Then, for any vertex $v_0$ of $G$ with $d^-(v_0)>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqa1}
\sum_{\substack{P: v_k\rightarrow v_{k-1}\rightarrow\cdots \rightarrow v_0\subset G, \\v_k\in S(G)}} \frac{1}{\prod_{i=0}^{k-1} d_G^-(v_i)}=1.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If $G$ consists of only one sink $v_0$ and sources $u_1, u_2, \ldots, u_l$ with arcs $(u_i, v_0)$,
then \eqref{eqa1} is clear.
For any fixed vertices $v_0, v_1, \ldots, v_{k-1}$ such that $v_{k-1}\rightarrow v_{k-2}\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow v_0$ and any vertex $w\rightarrow v_{k-1}$ is a source in $G$, we have
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\substack{v_k\in S(G), \\ v_k\rightarrow v_{k-1}\rightarrow\cdots \rightarrow v_0\subset G}} \frac{1}{\prod_{i=0}^{k-1} d_G^-(v_i)}=\frac{1}{\prod_{i=0}^{k-2} d_G^-(v_i)}.
\end{equation}
Thus, setting $H$ to be the directed multigraph obtained from $G$ by eliminating all arcs to $v_{k-1}$,
we have
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\substack{P: v_k\rightarrow v_{k-1}\rightarrow\cdots \rightarrow v_0\subset G,\\ v_k\in S(G)}} \frac{1}{\prod_{i=0}^{k-1} d_G^-(v_i)}
=\sum_{\substack{P: v_k\rightarrow v_{k-1}\rightarrow\cdots \rightarrow v_0\subset H,\\ v_k\in S(H)}} \frac{1}{\prod_{i=0}^{k-1} d_H^-(v_i)}.
\end{equation}
Since $G$ is acyclic, this descent argument eventually reduces $G$ to a directed multigraph
$(V, A)$ with $V=\{v_0, u_1, u_2, \ldots, u_l\}$ and $A=\{(u_i, v_0), i=1, \ldots, l\}$.
Now the lemma follows by induction.
\end{proof}
\section{A directed multigraph related to divisors of an integer}
Let $n$ be a positive integer greater than one.
We define the directed multigraph $G=G(n)$ arising from $n$
by setting its vertex set to be the set of primes dividing $n\sigma(n)$
and each arc $p \overset{k}{\rightarrow} q$ to be of multiplicity $k$
if $q^k \mid\mid\sigma(p^e)$ for the exponent $e$ with $p^e\mid\mid n$.
For convenience, we write $p^e\rightarrow q^f$ if $p\rightarrow q$ and $p^e, q^f\mid\mid n$
and $p^e\in S$ if $p^e\mid\mid n$ and $p$ belongs to a set $S$ of vertices.
For a set $S$ of vertices $w_1, w_2, \ldots, w_k$ of $G$,
we define their {\em $2$-incomponent} $N(S)$ to be the subgraph of $G$
consisting $w_1, w_2, \ldots, w_k$ themselves and the vertices $w$ such that there exists a path
$v^2\rightarrow v_1^2 \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow v_l^2 \rightarrow w_i$ to some vertex $w_i$,
their {\em $2$-boundary} $B(S)$ by the set of vertices $v\not\in N(S)$
from which there exists an edge to some vertex in $N(S)$
and their {\em $2$-closure} $C(S)$ by the subgraph whose vertex set is $N(S)\cup B(S)$
and whose arc set consists of all edges in $B(S)$ and all arcs from $N(S)$ to $B(S)$.
For convenience, we simply write $N(w)$ for $N(\{ w\})$ and so on.
Moreover, we put $p_0=2$ and $M(S)=N(S)\backslash S$.
We note that $C(S)$ may contain $p_0=2$.
Now Theorem \ref{th11} can be restated as in iii) of Theorem \ref{th12}.
For a set $S$ of prime powers, we define $h(S)=\prod_{p^e\in S} \sigma(p^e)/p^2$.
Clearly, we have $h(S_0)=\sigma(n)/(\gamma(n))^2$ for the set $S_0$ of all prime-power divisors of $n$.
For convenience, we write $h(p^e)=h(\{p^e\})$ for a prime power $p^e$
and $h(n)=h(S_0)$ for the set $S_0$ mentioned above.
We clearly have the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lm31}
We have $h(m)\geq 1$ for any positive integer $m$ with the equality just when $m=1$.
If $m_1$ divides $m_2$, then $h(m_1)\leq h(m_2)$.
Furthermore, if $S$ and $T$ are disjoint sets of prime-power divisors of $n$, then
$h(S\cup T)=h(S)h(T)$.
\end{lem}
We also use the following divisibility property of values of the polynomial $x^2+x+1$.
\begin{lem}\label{lm32}
If $m$ is an integer and a prime $p$ divides $m^2+m+1$, then $p=3$ or $p\equiv 1\pmod{3}$.
Furthermore, $3$ divides $m^2+m+1$ if and only if $m\equiv 1\pmod{3}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The former is a special case of Theorem 94 of \cite{Nag}.
Indeed, if $p\neq 3$ divides $m^2+m+1$, then $m\nequiv 1\pmod{p}$ and $m^3\equiv 1\pmod{p}$.
Hence, $m\pmod{p}$ has the multiplicative order $3$ and therefore $p-1$ must be divisible by $3$.
The latter can be easily confirmed by calculating modulo $3$.
\end{proof}
The following lemma is the key point of our proof of Theorem \ref{th11}.
\begin{lem}\label{lm40}
Let $n$ be an integer of the form \eqref{eq11} satisfying \eqref{eq10}
and $L$ be a set of prime power divisors of $n$.
We define quantities $\kappa_i$ for $p_i\in C=C(L)$ and $\lm_i$ for $p_i\in M=M(L)$ by
\begin{equation}
\sigma(p_i^{e_i})=\kappa_i \prod_{p_j\in N(L)} p_j^{k_{i, j}}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
p_i^2=\lm_i \prod_{p_j\in N(L)} p_j^{k_{i, j}},
\end{equation}
where $\kappa_i, \lm_i$ are integers not divisible by any prime in $N(L)$.
If $N=N(L)$ is acyclic and any element of $L$ is a sink of $N$, then
\begin{equation}
\prod_{p_i\in B}\sigma(p_i^{e_i})=\prod_{p_i\in B}\kappa_i
\prod_{p_j\in M}\lm_j \prod_{p_i\in L}p_i^2
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
h(C)>\prod_{p_i\in B}\kappa_i^\frac{1}{2} p_i^{\frac{e_i}{2}-2}
\prod_{p_j\in M}\frac{\sqrt{\sigma(p_j^2)}}{p_j} \prod_{p_i\in L}p_i^{e_i-1}.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We see that
\begin{equation}\label{eq41}
p_i=\lm_i^\frac{1}{2} \prod_{p_i\rightarrow p_j, p_j\in N} p_j^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
for $p_i\in M$.
Since we assume that a vertex in $L$ must be a sink in $C=C(L)$,
if $P: q_1^2 \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow q_k^2\rightarrow q_0$ is a path in $N$
and a prime $q$ in $L$ occurs in $P$, then $q=q_0$.
Moreover, by the assumption, $N$ is acyclic.
Hence, we iterate \eqref{eq41} to obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq42}
q_1=\prod_{q_1^2 \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow q_k^2\rightarrow p^1, p\in L}
(\lm_{j_1}^\frac{1}{2}\lm_{j_2}^\frac{1}{4}\cdots \lm_{j_k}^\frac{1}{2^k}) q_i^\frac{1}{2^k}
\end{equation}
for any $q_1\in M$,
where $j_m$'s $(m=1, 2, \ldots, k)$ are indices such that $p_{j_m}=q_m$.
Moreover, we see that
\begin{equation}\label{eq43}
\sigma(p_i^{e_i})=\kappa_i \prod_j p_j^{k_{i, j}}
=\kappa_i \prod_{p_i\rightarrow p_j, p_j\in N} p_j
\end{equation}
for $p_i\in B$.
Combining \eqref{eq42} and \eqref{eq43}, we have
\begin{equation}
\prod_{p_i\in B} \sigma(p_i^{e_i})=\left(\prod_{p_i\in B}\kappa_i\right)\prod_{p_j\in M}\lm_j^{s_j}
\prod_{p_i\in L} p_j^{2s_j},
\end{equation}
where, observing that $d_C^-(p_i)=d_G^-(p_i)=2$ for any $p_i\in N$ from \eqref{eq10},
\begin{equation}
s_j=\sum_{\substack{q_0\rightarrow q_1\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow q_k=p_j, \\
q_0\in B, q_1, \ldots, q_{k-1}\in N}} \frac{1}{2^k}
=\sum_{\substack{q_0\rightarrow q_1\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow q_k=p_j, \\
q_0\in B, q_1, \ldots, q_{k-1}\in N}} \frac{1}{\prod_{l=1}^k d_C^-(q_l)}.
\end{equation}
Since $N$ is acyclic by the assumption,
Lemma \ref{lm21} gives that $s_j=1$ for all $p_j\in N$.
Thus we obtain
\begin{equation}
\prod_{p_i\in B}\sigma(p_i^{e_i})=\left(\prod_{p_i\in B}\kappa_i\right)\left(\prod_{p_j\in M}\lm_j\right) \prod_{p_i\in L}p_i^2
\end{equation}
and therefore
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\prod_{p_i\in C}\frac{\sigma(p_i^{e_i})}{p_i^2}
> & \prod_{p_i\in B} p_i^{\frac{e_i}{2}-2}\sqrt{\sigma(p_i^{e_i})}
\prod_{p_j\in M}\frac{\sigma(p_j^2)}{p_j^2} \prod_{p_i\in L}p_i^{e_i-1} \\
\geq & \prod_{p_i\in B} \kappa_i^\frac{1}{2} p_i^{\frac{e_i}{2}-2}
\prod_{p_j\in M}\lm_j^\frac{1}{2} \frac{\sigma(p_j^2)}{p_j^2} \prod_{p_i\in L} p_i^{e_i-1}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Now the lemma immediately follows observing that $\lm_j\geq p_j^2/\sigma(p_j^2)$ for $p_j\in M$.
\end{proof}
\section{Acyclic cases}
In this and the next sections,
we assume that $n$ is an integer of the form \eqref{eq11} satisfying \eqref{eq10}
and we put $L$ to be the set of odd primes $p_i$ with $e_i=1$.
Thus, $L=\{p_1, p_2\}$ in the case (b) with $e_1=e_2=1$ and
$L=\{p_1\}$ in the case (a) and the case (b) with $e_1=1<e_2$.
In this section, we shall show that,
$N=N(L)$ must have a cycle or we must have $L=\{p_1, p_2\}$ and $p_1\in B(p_2)$ or $p_2\in B(p_1)$.
\begin{lem}\label{lm41}
If $n$ is divisible by $4$ or $2\times 3^6$ or
$n$ is divisible by $2$ and $3$ does not belong to $C=C(L)$, then
$N=N(L)$ must have a cycle or we must have $L=\{p_1, p_2\}$ and $p_1\in B(p_2)$ or $p_2\in B(p_1)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $n$ of the form \eqref{eq11} is divisible by $2^2$ or $2\times 3^6$
and $N$ is acyclic and, in the case $L=\{p_1, p_2\}$, $p_1\not\in B(p_2)$ and $p_2\not\in B(p_1)$.
We can easily see that any prime $p_i$ in $L$ must be a sink in $N$.
Indeed, if $p_i\in L$ and $p_i\rightarrow p_j$ for some $p_j\in N$
not necessarily distinct from $p_i$, then, there exists a path
from $p_i$ to $p_j\in L$ via $N$, which contradicts to the assumption.
Thus, we can apply Lemma \ref{lm40} and, observing that $\kappa_i\geq 1$ for all $p_i\in B=B(L)$,
we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq44}
h(C)>\prod_{p_i\in B} p_i^{\frac{e_i}{2}-2}.
\end{equation}
If $4=2^2$ divides $n$, then, observing that $e_i/2\geq 2$ for $p_i\in B$,
Lemma \ref{lm31} and \eqref{eq44} gives that $h(n)>h(C)>1$.
If $2$ divides $n$ and $3$ does not belong to $C$, then, by Lemma \ref{lm31}, we have
$h(n)\geq h(C\cup \{2, 3^2\})=h(\{2, 3^2\}) h(C)>(3/4)(13/9)>1$.
If $2\times 3^6$ divides $n$ and $3$ belongs to $C$, then
\eqref{eq44} yields that $h(C)>3$ and $h(n)\geq (3/4)h(C)>9/4>1$.
Thus, in any case, we have $h(n)>1$ or, equivalently,
$\sigma(n)>(\gamma(n))^2$, which contradicts to the assumption that $n$ satisfies \eqref{eq10}.
\end{proof}
Now it suffices to settle two cases: $e_0=1$ and $3^2\in N(L)$ or $e_0=1$ and $3^4\in B(L)$.
\begin{lem}\label{lm42}
If $e_0=1$ and $3^2\in N=N(L)$, then $N$ must have a cycle
or we must have $L=\{p_1, p_2\}$ and $p_1\in B(p_2)$ or $p_2\in B(p_1)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $3^2\in N$, $N$ is acyclic and,
in the case (b) with $e_1=e_2=1$, $p_1\not\in B(p_2)$ and $p_2\not\in B(p_1)$.
Since $3^2$ belongs to $N$, $3^2\rightarrow 13$ also belongs to $N$.
If $13\in M=M(L)$, then $3^2\rightarrow 13^2\rightarrow 3$,
which contradicts to the assumption that $N$ is acyclic.
Thus, $13^1\in L$.
Now we may assume that $p_1=13$.
We see that $p_2\in L$ and $p_2\equiv 1\pmod{4}$ since $p_1\equiv 1\pmod{4}$.
Hence, $13\rightarrow 7^e$ divides $N$.
We see that $e\geq 2$ must be even since $2^3\mid (7+1)$.
If $7^2\mid\mid N$, then $13\rightarrow 7^2\rightarrow 3^2\rightarrow 13$,
contrary to the assumption that $N$ is acyclic.
Thus, $e\geq 4$.
If $7^e\not\in B(p_2)$, then, applying Lemma \ref{lm40}, we have
\begin{equation}
h(n)\geq h(\{2, 3^2, 13, 7^e\}) h(C(p_2))>h(C(p_2))>1,
\end{equation}
which is a contradiction.
Similarly, if $L=\{p_1\}$, then $h(n)\geq h(\{2, 3^2, 13, 7^e\})>1$,
which is a contradiction.
Thus, we may assume that $7^e\in B(p_2)$.
If $e\geq 8$, then, Lemma \ref{lm40} gives that
\begin{equation}
h(\{2, 3^2, 13\}) h(C(p_2))>7^2 h(\{2, 3^2, 13\})>1,
\end{equation}
which is a contradiction again.
Assume that $7^4\in B(p_2)$, which immediately yields that $2801\in N(p_2)$.
If $p_2=2801$, then $p_2\rightarrow 3^2\rightarrow 13=p_1$,
contrary to the assumption that $p_2^{e_2}\not\in B(p_1)$.
Thus, $2801^2\in N(p_2)$ and $2801^2\rightarrow 37, 43, 4933$.
If $p_2=37$, then $p_3=19$ divides $n$.
If $p_2=4933$, then $p_3=2467$ divide $n$.
In both cases, if $p_3^2\mid\mid n$, then $p_2\rightarrow p_3^2\rightarrow 3^2\rightarrow 13=p_1$, which is impossible.
If $p_3^4\mid n$, then
\[h(n)\geq h(\{2, 3^2, 13, 7^4, 2801^2, 37, 19^4\})>1\]
or
\[h(n)\geq h(\{2, 3^2, 13, 7^4, 2801^2, 4933, 2467^4\})>1.\]
Hence, $p_2=37$ and $p_2=4933$ are both impossible.
If $37^2\in N(p_2)$, then $\sigma(37^2)=3\times 7\times 67$ and therefore $67\in N(p_2)$.
Since $67\equiv 3\pmod{4}$, we have $p_2\neq 67$ and
$37^2 \rightarrow 67^2$.
But this implies that $3^3\mid \sigma(2\times 37^2\times 67^2)\mid \sigma(n)$,
which is a contradiction.
If $4933^2\in N(p_2)$, then $\sigma(4933^2)=3\times 127\times 193\times 331$ and therefore $p_2=193$,
since $p_3^2\in N(p_2)$ with $p_3=127, 193$ or $331$ would imply that $3^3\mid\sigma(2\times 4933^2\times p_3^2)$,
a contradiction.
Thus $p_3=97$ must divide $n$.
If $e_3=2$, then $3^3\mid\sigma(2\times 4933^2\times 97^2)\mid \sigma(n)$, which is impossible.
But, if $e_3\geq 4$, then
\[h(n)\geq h(\{2, 3^2, 13, 7^4, 2801^2, 4933^2, 193, 97^4\})>1,\]
which is a contradiction again.
If $43^2\in N(p_2)$, then $\sigma(43^2)=3\times 7\times 631$ and therefore $631\in N(p_2)$.
Since $631\equiv 3\pmod{4}$, we must have $631^2\in N(p_2)$
and $3^3\mid\sigma(2\times 43^2\times 631^2)\mid \sigma(n)$, which is impossible.
Thus we see that $2801^f\not\in N(p_2)$ and therefore $7^4\not\in N(p_2)$.
Now we must have $7^6\in B(p_2)$.
$\sigma(7^6)=29\times 4733$ must divide $n$.
It is impossible that $p_2=29, 4733$ since this would imply that $p_2\rightarrow 3^2\rightarrow 13=p_1$.
If $29^2\in N(p_2)$, then, observing that $\sigma(29^2)=13\times 67$ and $\sigma(67^2)=3\times 7^2\times 31$,
we must have $29^2 \rightarrow 67^2 \rightarrow 31^2$.
However, this is impossible since $3^3\mid\sigma(2\times 67^2\times 31^2)$.
If $4733^2\in N(p_2)$, then, observing that $4733^2+4733+1=22406023\equiv 3\pmod{4}$ is prime, we must have $22406023^2\in N(p_2)$.
If $22406023^2\rightarrow p_2$, then $p_2=1117$ or $p_2=606538249$.
However, neither of them is impossible since $13^3\mid \sigma(3^2\times 22406023^2\times 1117)$
and $5^3\mid \sigma(606538249)$.
Hence, we must have $22406023^2\rightarrow p_3^2\in N(p_2)$ for some prime divisor $p_3\neq 3$ of $\sigma(22406023^2)$.
But, this is also impossible since $3^3\mid \sigma(2\times 22406023^2\times p_3^2)$.
Now we conclude that $7$ cannot divide $N$ and therefore $13$ cannot be in $L$.
Hence, $3^2$ cannot be in $N(L)$.
This proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lm43}
If $e_0=1$ and $3^4\in B=B(L)$, then
$n=1782$, $N=N(L)$ must have a cycle or we must have $L=\{p_1, p_2\}$ and $p_1\in B(p_2)$ or $p_2\in B(p_1)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $3^4\in B$, $p_1=11$ or $11^2\in N$.
If $p_1=11$, then $n=2\times 3^4\times p_1=1782$.
We note that if $n=n_0$ is a solution of \eqref{eq10}, then $n=kn_0$ with $k>1$ odd and $\gcd(k, n)=1$ can never be a solution of \eqref{eq10}.
Indeed, $h(n_0)=h(kn_0)=1$, then $h(k)=1$.
However, this is impossible since $n=1$ is the only odd solution of \eqref{eq10}.
Now we may assume that $11^2\in N$.
If $p_3^2\in N$ with $p_3=7$ or $19$, then $3^4\rightarrow 11^2\rightarrow p_3^2\rightarrow 3^4$ in $N$,
contrary to the assumption.
Thus, we must have $p_1=19$ and $7^4\mid n$.
Since $p_1\equiv 3\pmod{8}$, we must have $L=\{p_1\}$.
Hence,
\[h(n)\geq h(\{2, 3^4, 11^2, 7^4, 19\})>1,\]
which is impossible again.
\end{proof}
\section{Cyclic cases}
In the previous section, we showed that,
if an integer $n$ of the form \eqref{eq11} satisfies \eqref{eq10}
and $L$ is the set of odd primes $p_i$ with $e_i=1$, then $N(L)$ must be cyclic
or we must have $L=\{p_1, p_2\}$ and $p_1\in B(p_2)$ or $p_2\in B(p_1)$.
In this section, we shall show that $M(L)$ must be acyclic and then
complete the proof of Theorems \ref{th11} and \ref{th12}.
We begin by showing that $M=M(L)$ cannot contain a cycle of length $\geq 3$.
\begin{lem}\label{lm51}
Assume that for there exists no arc $p_i\rightarrow p_j$ from $p_i\in L$ to $p_j\in N(L)$.
Then $M=M(L)$ cannot contain a cycle of length $\geq 3$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $q_i (i=1, 2, \ldots, l)$ is a cycle of length $l\geq 3$.
We see that $q_i\equiv 1\pmod{3}$ for all $i$ except possibly one index $j$, for which $q_j=3$.
We must have $l=3$ and $q_j=3$ for some $j$ since otherwise we must have
$q_i\equiv 1\pmod{3}$ for at least three $i$'s by Lemma \ref{lm31}
and $3^3\mid \prod_j \sigma(q_i^2)\mid n$, which is a contradiction.
Now we see that $3^2\rightarrow 13^2\rightarrow 61^2\rightarrow 3^2$ is a cycle in $M$ and $p_1=97\in L$.
Hence, $97\rightarrow 7^e$ must divide $n$ and,
observing that no more prime $p_i\equiv 1\pmod{3}$ can satisfy $p_i^2\mid\mid N$ again, $e\geq 4$ must be even.
Moreover, we must have $e_0\geq 2$ since $3^3\mid \sigma(2\times 13^2\times 61^2)$.
If $L=\{p_1\}$ and $7^6$ divides $n$, then
\[h(n)\geq h(7^6)h(C(L))>h(\{3^2, 13^2, 61^2, 97, 7^6\})>1,\]
which is a contradiction.
If $L=\{p_1, p_2\}$ and $7^{10}$ divides $n$, then, since $N(p_2)$ is acyclic, Lemma \ref{lm40} gives
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
h(n)\geq & h(\{3^2, 13^2, 61^2, 97\}) h(C(p_2)\cup \{7^{10}\}) \\
> & 7^3 h(\{3^2, 13^2, 61^2, 97\})>1.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Now we must have $e=4, 6$ or $8$.
We can never have $97\rightarrow 7^8$ since $3^3\mid \sigma(13^2\times 61^2\times 7^8)$.
In both cases $e=4$ and $e=6$, we have a contradiction that $p^3\mid\sigma(n)=(\gamma(n))^2$ for some prime $p$
or $h(n)>1$ as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[A.] If $97\rightarrow 7^6$, then $\sigma(7^6)=29\times 4733$.
\item[A1.] If $7^6\rightarrow p_3^4$ with $p_3=29$ or $4733$, then $h(\{3^2, 13^2, 61^2, 97, 7^6, p_3^4\})>1$.
\item[A2.] If $p_2=29$ or $4733$, then $3^3\mid \sigma(13^2\times 61^2 \times p_2)$.
\item[A3.] We cannot have $7^6\rightarrow 29^2$ since $13^3\mid \sigma(3^2\times 61^2\times 29^2)$.
\item[A4.] If $7^6\rightarrow 4733^2$, then $4733^2\rightarrow 22406023^2$ and $3^3\mid\sigma(13^2\times 61^2 \times 22406023^2)$.
\item[B.] If $97\rightarrow 7^4$, then $7^4\rightarrow 2801^f$ for some integer $f>0$.
\item[B1.] If $f\equiv 1\pmod{4}$, then $3^3\mid \sigma(13^2\times 61^2\times 2801)$.
\item[B2.] If $f\geq 6$ and $L=\{p_1, p_2\}$, then
$h(\{3^2, 13^2, 61^2, 97, 7^4, 2801^f\}\cup C(p_2))>2801h(\{97, 7^4\})>1$.
\item[B3.] If $f\geq 4$ and $L=\{p_1\}$, then
$h(\{3^2, 13^2, 61^2, 97, 7^4, 2801^f\}\cup C(p_2))>2801h(\{97, 7^4\})>1$.
\item[B4.] If $f=4, 2801^4\not\in B(p_2)$, then
$h(\{3^2, 13^2, 61^2, 97, 7^4, 2801^4\}\cup C(p_2))>h(\{97, 7^4, 2801^4\})>1$.
\item[B5.] If $f=4, L=\{p_1, p_2\}$ and $2801^4\in B(p_2)$, then $q\in N(p_2), q=5, 195611, 6294091$.
\item[B5a.] If $p_2=5$, then $3^3\mid\sigma(13^2\times 61^2\times p_2)$.
\item[B5b.] If $5^2\in N(p_2)$, then $5^2\rightarrow 31^2$ but $3^3\mid\sigma(13^2\times 61^2\times 31^2)$.
\item[B5c.] We cannot have $6294091^2\in N(p_2)$ since $3^3\mid\sigma(13^2\times 61^2\times 6294091^2)$.
\item[B5d.] If $195611^2\in N(p_2)$, then
$\sigma(195611^2)=211\times 181345303$ and $195611^2\rightarrow p_3^2$ with $p_3=211$ or $181345303$.
However, $3^3\mid \sigma(13^2\times 61^2\times p_3^2)$.
\item[B6.] If $f=2$, then $\sigma(2801^2)=37\times 43\times 4933$.
\item[B6a.] We cannot have $2801^2\rightarrow 43^2$ since $3^3\mid\sigma(13^2\times 61^2\times 43^2)$.
\item[B6b.] If $2801^2\rightarrow 43^{e_3}, e_3\geq 6$,
then $h(n)>h(\{97, 7^4, 43^{e_3}\}\cup C(p_2))>43 h(\{97, 7^4\})>1$.
\item[B6c.] If $2801^2\rightarrow 43^4$ and $43^4\not\in B(p_2)$,
then $h(n)>h(\{97, 7^4, 43^4\}\cup C(p_2))>h(\{97, 7^4, 43^4\})>1$.
\item[B6d.] If $2801^2\rightarrow 43^4$ and $43^4 \in B(p_2)$, then $43^4\rightarrow 3500201^2$,
$\sigma(3500201^2)=13\times 139\times 28411\times 238639$.
Since $q\equiv 3\pmod{4}$ for $q=139, 28411, 238639$, $q^2\in N(q_2)$ and
$3^3\mid \sigma(13^2\times 61^2\times q^2)$.
\end{itemize}
Thus we have a contradiction in any case.
This yields that $3^2\rightarrow 13^2\rightarrow 61^2\rightarrow 97$ is impossible.
Hence, we conclude that $M=M(L)$ cannot contain a cycle of length $\geq 3$, as stated in the lemma.
\end{proof}
Now a cycle in $M(L)$ must be of the form $p_i^2\leftrightarrow p_j^2$.
We may assume that $p_r^2\leftrightarrow p_{r+1}^2$ for some $r$.
In other words, we must have $p_r\mid\sigma(p_{r+1}^2)$ and $p_{r+1}\mid\sigma(p_r^2)$
for some primes $p_r, p_{r+1}\in M(L)$.
Lemma 2.6 of \cite{CT} shows that such $p_r, p_{r+1}$ must be two consecutive terms
of the binary recurrent sequence described in A101368 of OEIS.
This had already been proved by Mills \cite{Mil} and Chao \cite{Cha}.
However, this fact is not needed in our argument.
We only use the fact that, if $p_{r+1}>p_r>3$ and $p_r\leftrightarrow p_{r+1}$,
then $p_r\equiv p_{r+1}\equiv 1\pmod{3}$ by Lemma \ref{lm32}.
We begin by proving that, we cannot have $p_r\leftrightarrow p_{r+1}$ if $p_{r+1}>p_r>3$.
\begin{lem}\label{lm52}
Assume that for there exists no arc $p_i\rightarrow p_j$ from $p_i\in L$ to $p_j\in N(L)$.
If $M=M(L)$ contains a cycle $p_r^2\leftrightarrow p_{r+1}^2$ of length two with $p_{r+1}>p_r$,
then $(p_r, p_{r+1})=(3, 13)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We may assume that $p_r, p_{r+1}\in N(p_1)$.
Hence, there exists a vertex $q\in N(p_1)$ such that $p_r\rightarrow q$ or $p_{r+1}\rightarrow q$.
However, if $q\in M$, then, since $q\equiv p_{r+1}\equiv p_{r+1}\equiv 1\pmod{3}$,
we must have $3^3\mid \sigma(q^2 p_r^2 p_{r+1}^2)\mid \sigma(n)$, which is a contradiction.
Thus, we must have $q\in L$.
Now we obtain a directed multigraph $F$ by eliminating the arcs
$p_r\leftrightarrow p_{r+1}$ and $p_r$ or $p_{r+1}\rightarrow p_i$ with $p_i\in L$ from $C=C(L)$.
Then $F$ has two more sinks $p_r, p_{r+1}$ as well as sinks in $C(L)$.
Proceeding as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lm40}, we have
\begin{equation}
\prod_{p_i\in B=B(L)} \sigma(p_i^{e_i})=\left(\prod_{p_i\in B}\kappa_i\right)\prod_{p_j\in M, j\neq r, r+1}\lm_j^{s_j}
\prod_{p_i\in L\cup \{p_r, p_{r+1}\}}p_j^{2s_j},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
s_j=\sum_{\substack{q_0\rightarrow q_1\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow q_k=p_j, \\
q_0\in B, q_1, \ldots, q_{k-1}\in N}} \frac{1}{2^k}.
\end{equation}
Let $f_i$ be the exponent $p_i^{f_i}\mid\mid \sigma(p_r^2 p_{r+1}^2)$ for $p_i\in L$.
We observe that $d_F^-(p_i)=2-f_i$ for $p_i\in L$, $d_F^-(p_r)=d_F^-(p_{r+1})=1$ and
$d_F^-(p_j)=2$ for any other vertex $p_j$ in $N$.
Hence,
\begin{equation}
s_j=t_j\sum_{\substack{q_0\rightarrow q_1\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow q_k=p_j, \\
q_0\in B, q_1, \ldots, q_{k-1}\in N}} \frac{1}{\prod_{l=1}^k d_F^-(q_l)},
\end{equation}
where $t_j=(2-f_i)/2$ for $p_j\in L$, $1/2$ for $j=r, r+1$ and
$t_j=1$ for any other $j$ such that $p_j\in N$.
By Lemma \ref{lm21}, we have $s_j=t_j$ for any $j$ such that $p_j\in N$ and, as in Lemma \ref{lm40},
\begin{equation}
h(C)>\prod_{p_i\in B}\kappa_i^\frac{1}{2} p_i^{\frac{e_i}{2}-2}
\prod_{p_j\in M, j\neq r, r+1}\frac{\sqrt{\sigma(p_j^2)}}{p_j} \frac{p_r^\frac{1}{2}p_{r+1}^\frac{1}{2}}{p_1^\frac{f_1}{2} p_2^\frac{f_2}{2}}
>\sqrt{\frac{p_r p_{r+1}}{p_1^{f_1} p_2^{f_2}}}.
\end{equation}
If $p_r>3$, then we have $p_r\equiv p_{r+1}\equiv 1\pmod{3}$
and $p_1^{f_1} p_2^{f_2}\leq$ \\ $\sigma(p_r^2 p_{r+1}^2)/(9p_r p_{r+1})$.
Hence, we must have
\begin{equation}
h(n)>h(C)>\frac{3p_r p_{r+1}}{\sigma(p_r^2 p_{r+1}^2)}>1,
\end{equation}
which is a contradiction.
Thus, we must have $(p_r, p_{r+1})=(3, 13)$.
\end{proof}
Now the only remaining case is $3^2\leftrightarrow 13^2 \rightarrow 61$.
\begin{lem}\label{lm53}
Assume that there exists no arc $p_i\rightarrow p_j$ from $p_i\in L$ to $p_j\in N=N(L)$.
Then, $3^2\leftrightarrow 13^2 \rightarrow 61$ is impossible.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $3^2\leftrightarrow 13^2 \rightarrow 61$.
Then we immediately have $L=\{61\}$ or $L=\{61, p_2\}$ with $p_2\equiv 1\pmod{4}$.
It is also clear that $61\rightarrow 31^{e_3}$.
If $e_3\geq 8$, then Lemma \ref{lm40} gives
\[h(n)\geq h(\{2, 3^2, 13^2, 61\}) h(C(p_2)\cup \{31^{e_3}\})>31^2 h(\{2, 61\})>1.\]
If $e_3\geq 4$ and $L=\{p_1\}$, then Lemma \ref{lm40} gives
\[h(n)\geq h(\{2, 3^2, 13^2, 61, 31^{e_3}\})\geq h(\{2, 61, 31^4\})>1.\]
If $e_3\geq 4$, $L=\{p_1, p_2\}$ and $31^{e_3}\not\in B(p_2)$, then Lemma \ref{lm40} gives
\[h(n)\geq h(\{2, 3^2, 13^2, 61, 31^{e_3}\}) h(C(p_2))>h(\{2, 61, 31^4\})>1.\]
Thus, in these three cases, we are led to $h(n)>1$, which is a contradiction.
Hence, we must have (I) $L=\{p_1, p_2\}$, $e_3\in \{4, 6\}$ and $31^{e_3}\in B(p_2)$ or (II) $e_3=2$.
In both cases (I) and (II), we have a contradiction that $p^3\mid\sigma(n)=(\gamma(n))^2$ for some prime $p$
or $h(n)>1$ as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[I. A.] If $31^6\in B(p_2)$, then $p_2=917087137$ or $917087137^2\in N(p_2)$.
\item[I. A1.] In the case $p_2=917087137$, we observe that $p_4^{e_4}\rightarrow p_2$ for a prime $p_4\neq 31$.
\item[I. A1a.] If $e_4=2$, then $p_4\geq 20612597323$ and, since
$3^2, 13^2, 61^1, 31^6, p_2^1\not\in C(p_4)$
(we observe that $p_2^1\in C(p_4)$ implies that $N(p_2)$ must contain a cycle
$p_2\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow p_4^2\rightarrow p_2$),
Lemma \ref{lm40} yields that
\[h(n)>h(\{2, 61, 31^6, p_2\})h(C(p_4))>p_4 h(\{2, 61, 31^6, p_2\})>1.\]
\item[I. A1b.] If $e_4>2$, then $h(C(p_2))>31p_4>31^2$ by Lemma \ref{lm40} and therefore
\[h(n)>h(\{2, 61\})h(C(p_2))>31^2h(\{2, 61\})>1.\]
\item[I. A. 2.] If $917087137^2\in N(p_2)$, then, since any prime factor of $\sigma(p_4^2)$
is $\equiv 3\pmod{4}$, we must have $p_4^2\rightarrow p_5^2$ with $p_5=43, 4447, 38647$ or $38533987$,
which is impossible since $3^3\mid \sigma(13^2 p_4^2 p_5^2)$.
\item[I. B.] If $31^4\in B(p_2)$, then one of $5, 5^2, 11^2, 17351^2$ must belong to $N(p_2)$.
\item[I. B1.] If $p_2=5$, then $h(n)>h(\{2, 61, 31^4, 5\})>1$, a contradiction.
\item[I. B2.] We cannot have $5^2\in N(p_2)$ since $\sigma(5^2)=31\in B(p_2)$.
\item[I. B3.] If $11^2\in N(p_2)$, then $7^2\in N(p_2)$ or $19^2\in N(p_2)$.
Since $\sigma(7^2)=3\times 19$, we have $19^2\in N(p_2)$ in any case.
Now we must have $19^2\rightarrow 127^2\in N(p_2)$.
Thus, $3^3\mid\sigma(13^2\times 19^2\times 127^2)\mid\sigma(n)$, a contradiction.
\item[I. B4.] If $17351^2\in N(p_2)$, then $1063^2\in N(p_2)$ or $21787^2\in N(p_2)$.
\item[I. B4a.] If $1063^2\in N(p_2)$, then we must have $1063^2\rightarrow 377011^2\in N(p_2)$
and $3^3\mid\sigma(13^2\times 1063^2\times 377011^2)$, which is a contradiction.
\item[I. B4b.] If $21787^2\in N(p_2)$, then $p_2=5104249$ or $5104249^2\in N(p_2)$.
Neither of them is possible since $5^3\mid (5104249+1)$ and $3^3\mid\sigma(13^2\times 21787^2\times 5104249^2)$.
\item[II.] If $61\rightarrow 31^2$, then we must have $31^2\rightarrow 331^{e_3}$ for some $e_3$.
Since $331\equiv 3\pmod{4}$, $p_2\neq 331$ and $e_3$ must be even.
\item[II. 1.] $e_3=2$ is impossible since $3^3\mid\sigma(13^2\times 31^2\times 331^2)$.
\item[II. 2.] If $e_3\geq 6$ and $31^{e_3}\in B(p_2)$, then Lemma \ref{lm40} gives
\[h(n)\geq h(\{2, 61\}) h(C(p_2)\cup \{331^{e_3}\})>331 h(\{2, 61\})>1.\]
\item[II. 3.] If $e_3\geq 4$ and $L=\{p_1\}$, then Lemma \ref{lm40} gives
\[h(n)\geq h(\{2, 61, 331^{e_3}\})\geq h(\{2, 61, 331^4\})>1.\]
\item[II. 4.] If $e_3\geq 4$, $L=\{p_1, p_2\}$ and $331^{e_3}\not\in B(p_2)$, then Lemma \ref{lm40} gives
\[h(n)\geq h(\{2, 61, 331^{e_3}\}) h(C(p_2))>h(\{2, 61, 331^4\})>1.\]
\item[II. 5.] If $e_3=4$, $L=\{p_1, p_2\}$ and $331^4\in B(p_2)$,
then $p_2=5, 37861, 62601$ or $331^4\rightarrow p_4^2\in N(p_2)$
with $p_4=37861$ or $63601$ (we see that since $\sigma(5^2)=31$, we cannot have $5^2\in N(p_2)$).
\item[II. 5a.] $331^4\rightarrow p_4^2\in N(p_2)$ is impossible since $3^3\mid\sigma(13^2\times 31^2 p_4^2)$.
\item[II. 5b.] If $p_2=5, 37861$ or $63601$, then,
observing that $p_5^{e_5}\rightarrow 37861$ with $e_5\geq 10$, Lemma \ref{lm40} gives,
\[h(n)\geq h(\{2, 61, 331^4, p_5^{e_5}, p_2\})>37861^{4/5} h(\{2, 61, 331^4, p_2\})>1,\]
which is a contradiction.
\end{itemize}
Thus we have a contradiction in any case.
This shows that $3^2\leftrightarrow 13^2 \rightarrow 61$ is impossible, as desired.
\end{proof}
Now we can easily prove Theorem \ref{th11}.
Let $n$ be an integer of the form \eqref{eq11} satisfying \eqref{eq10}
and $L$ be the set of odd primes $p_i$ such that $p_i\mid\mid n$.
If there exists no path between two vertices in $L$,
then, by Lemmas \ref{lm41}, \ref{lm42} and \ref{lm43}, $N(L)$ must have a cycle
but, by Lemmas \ref{lm51}, \ref{lm52} and \ref{lm53}, $M(L)$ cannot have a cycle.
Hence, $G(n)$ must have a path between two vertices in $L$ or a cycle in $N(L)$ containing a vertex in $L$.
This proves iii) of Theorem \ref{th12} and therefore Theorem \ref{th11}.
The remaining statements of Theorem \ref{th12} can be easily deduced from Lemma \ref{lm32}.
Let $g_1$ and $g_2$ be the number of primes $\equiv 1\pmod{3}$ and $\nequiv 1\pmod{3}$ in $M$
respectively.
i) and the former statement of ii) immediately follow from Lemma \ref{lm32}
and the fact that $3^3\nmid (\gamma(n))^2=\sigma(n)$.
Thus, $g_1\leq 2$.
If $p_i$ is a prime $\nequiv 1\pmod{3}$ in $M$,
then $p_i^2\rightarrow p_j^2$ for some prime $p_j\equiv 1\pmod{3}$ in $M$
or $p_i^2\rightarrow p_l$ for some prime $p_l\in L$.
Hence, we obtain $g_2+g_1\leq 2(g_1+\# L)$ and $g_2\leq g_1+2\# L\leq 2(1+\# L)$.
Now the latter statement of ii) follows.
This completes the proof of our theorems.
|
\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@
{-3.5ex \@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex
{2.3ex \@plus.2ex
{\sffamily\Large\bfseries\raggedright}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@
{-3.25ex\@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex
{1.5ex \@plus .2ex
{\sffamily\Large\bfseries\raggedright}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@
{-3.25ex\@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex
{1.5ex \@plus .2ex
{\sffamily\Large\bfseries\raggedright}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@
{-3.25ex \@plus-1ex \@minus-.2ex
{1.5ex \@plus .2ex
{\sffamily\large\bfseries\raggedright}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\z@
{3.25ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex
{-1em
{\sffamily\normalsize\bfseries}}
\setlength\leftmargini \parindent
\setlength\leftmarginii {1.2em}
\setlength\leftmarginiii{1.2em}
\setlength\leftmarginiv {1.2em}
\setlength\leftmarginv {1.2em}
\setlength\leftmarginvi {1.2em}
\makeatother
\sffamily
\usepackage{helvet}
\sffamily
\DeclareFontShape{T1}{lmss}{bx}{sc} { <-> ssub * phv/bx/sc }{}
\DeclareFontShape{T1}{lmss}{m}{sc} { <-> ssub * phv/m/sc }{}
\renewcommand{\rmdefault}{lmr}
\renewcommand{\sfdefault}{lmss}
\renewcommand{\ttdefault}{lmtt}
\makeatletter
\g@addto@macro\bfseries{\boldmath}
\makeatother
\RequirePackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage[top=2cm,bottom=3cm,left=2cm,right=2cm]{geometry}
\usepackage[amsthm]{ntheorem}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage[labelsep=period,labelfont={footnotesize,bf},font={footnotesize},skip=2mm]{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{xspace}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algorithmicx}
\usepackage[noend]{algpseudocode}
\usepackage{refcount}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{dsfont}
\usepackage[colorlinks,linkcolor=blue,citecolor=blue,urlcolor=blue,hypertexnames=false]{hyperref}
\usepackage[nameinlink]{cleveref}
\pagestyle{plain}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{theoremduplicate}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemmaduplicate}{Lemma}
\algrenewcommand\algorithmicindent{2.4em}
\renewcommand{\setminus}{-}
\newcommand{\add}{\cup}
\newcommand{\e}{\vspace*{-1em}}
\newcommand{\clause}{C}
\newcommand{\formula}{\Phi}
\allowdisplaybreaks
\newcommand{\N}{\ensuremath{\mathds{N}}}
\newcommand{\CNF}{\ensuremath{\textsc{CNF}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ThreeCNF}{\ensuremath{\textsc{3}\textsc{-}\textsc{CNF}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\EThreeCNF}{\ensuremath{\textsc{3}\textsc{-}\textsc{CNF}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\TwoOrThreeCNF}{\ensuremath{\textsc{2or3}\textsc{-}\textsc{CNF}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\OneToThreeCNF}{\ensuremath{\textsc{1to3}\textsc{-}\textsc{CNF}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ThreeOccTwoOrThreeCNF}{\ensuremath{\textsc{3Occurrences}\textsc{-}\textsc{2or3}\textsc{-}\textsc{CNF}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\MinimalThreeOccTwoOrThreeCNF}{\ensuremath{\textsc{Minimal}\textsc{-}\allowbreak{}\textsc{3Occurrences}\textsc{-}\textsc{2or3}\textsc{-}\textsc{CNF}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\Sat}{\ensuremath{\textsc{Sat}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ThreeSat}{\ensuremath{\textsc{3}\textsc{-}\textsc{Sat}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\EThreeSat}{\ensuremath{\textsc{3}\textsc{-}\textsc{Sat}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\TwoOrThreeSat}{\ensuremath{\textsc{2or3}\textsc{-}\textsc{Sat}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\OneToThreeSat}{\ensuremath{\textsc{1to3}\textsc{-}\textsc{Sat}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ThreeUnSat}{\ensuremath{3\textsc{-}\textsc{UnSat}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\MinimalUnSat}{\ensuremath{\textsc{Minimal}\textsc{-}\allowbreak{}\textsc{Un}\-\textsc{Sat}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\MinimalThreeUnSat}{\ensuremath{\textsc{Minimal}\textsc{-}\allowbreak{}3\textsc{-}\textsc{UnSat}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\DecVC}{\ensuremath{\textsc{Vertex}\-\textsc{Cover}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ThreeCol}{\ensuremath{\textsc{3}\textsc{-}\textsc{Color}\-\textsc{ability}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\DecCol}{\ensuremath{\textsc{Color}\-\textsc{ability}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\OptVC}{\ensuremath{\textsc{Optimal}\-\textsc{Vertex}\-\textsc{Cover}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\OptCol}{\ensuremath{\textsc{Optimal}\-\textsc{Coloring}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\MinimalNonVC}{\ensuremath{\textsc{Minimal}\textsc{-}\allowbreak{}k\textsc{-}\textsc{No}\-\textsc{Vertex}\-\textsc{Cover}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\MinimalUnCol}{\ensuremath{\textsc{Minimal}\textsc{-}\allowbreak{}\textsc{Un}\-\textsc{Color}\-\textsc{ability}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\VertexMinimalThreeUnCol}{\ensuremath{\textsc{Vertex}\-\textsc{Minimal}\textsc{-}\allowbreak{}3\textsc{-}\textsc{Un}\-\textsc{Color}\-\textsc{ability}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\EdgeMinimalThreeUnCol}{\ensuremath{\textsc{Minimal}\textsc{-}\allowbreak{}3\textsc{-}\textsc{Un}\-\textsc{Color}\-\textsc{ability}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\VertexMinimalKayUnCol}{\ensuremath{\textsc{Vertex}\-\textsc{Minimal}\textsc{-}\allowbreak{}k\textsc{-}\textsc{Un}\-\textsc{Color}\-\textsc{ability}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\EdgeMinimalKayUnCol}{\ensuremath{\textsc{}\-\textsc{Minimal}\textsc{-}\allowbreak{}k\textsc{-}\textsc{Un}\-\textsc{Color}\-\textsc{ability}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\TriangleMinimalThreeUnCol}{\ensuremath{\textsc{TriangleMinimal}\textsc{-}3\textsc{-}\textsc{Un}\-\textsc{Color}\-\textsc{ability}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\TriangleMinimalKayUnCol}{\ensuremath{\textsc{TriangleMinimal}\textsc{-}k\textsc{-}\textsc{Un}\-\textsc{Color}\-\textsc{ability}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\OptProb}{\ensuremath{\textsc{Opt}\-\textsc{Prob}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\opt}{\mbox{\textnormal{opt}}}
\newcommand{\sat}{\ensuremath{s}}
\newcommand{\C}{\ensuremath{\textnormal{C}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\F}{\ensuremath{\textnormal{F}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\T}{\ensuremath{\textnormal{T}}\xspace}
\renewcommand{\P}{\ensuremath{\textnormal{P}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\NP}{\ensuremath{\textnormal{NP}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\coNP}{\ensuremath{\textnormal{coNP}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\DP}{\ensuremath{\textnormal{DP}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\coDP}{\ensuremath{\textnormal{coDP}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ihat}{{\hat\imath}}
\newcommand{\jhat}{{\hat\jmath}}
\newcommand{\alg}{\ensuremath{A}\xspace}
\crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsection}{Subsection}{Subsections}
\crefname{lemma}{Lemma}{Lemmas}
\crefname{figure}{Figure}{Figures}
\crefname{table}{Table}{Tables}
\crefname{theorem}{Theorem}{Theorems}
\crefname{definition}{Definition}{Definitions}
\crefname{corollary}{Corollary}{Corollaries}
\crefname{equation}{Equation}{Equations}
\crefname{algorithm}{Algorithm}{Algorithms}
\crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\let\leftold\left
\let\rightold\right
\renewcommand{\left}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\leftold}
\renewcommand{\right}{\aftergroup\egroup\rightold}
\bibliographystyle{plainurl}
\title{\bfseries Finding Optimal Solutions With Neighborly Help}
\author{
Elisabet Burjons\\
\small Department of Computer Science, ETH Zürich\\
\small \url{<EMAIL>}\\[2mm]
Fabian Frei\\
\small Department of Computer Science, ETH Zürich\\
\small \url{<EMAIL>}\\[2mm]
Edith Hemaspaandra\\
\small Department of Computer Science, Rochester Institute of Technology\\
\small \url{<EMAIL>}\\[2mm]
Dennis Komm \\
\small Department of Computer Science, ETH Zürich\\
\small \url{<EMAIL>}\\[2mm]
David Wehner \\
\small Department of Computer Science, ETH Zürich\\
\small \url{<EMAIL>}}
\date{}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{quote}\small
\textbf{Abstract.}
Can we efficiently compute optimal solutions to instances of a hard problem from optimal
solutions to neighboring (i.e., locally modified) instances?
For example, can we efficiently compute an optimal coloring for a graph
from optimal colorings for all one-edge-deleted subgraphs?
Studying such questions not only gives detailed insight into the structure of
the problem itself, but also into the complexity of related problems;
most notably graph theory's core notion of critical graphs
(e.g., graphs whose chromatic number decreases under deletion of an arbitrary edge)
and the complexity-theoretic notion of minimality problems
(also called criticality problems, e.g., recognizing graphs that become $3$-colorable when an arbitrary edge is deleted).
We focus on two prototypical graph problems,
Colorability and Vertex Cover.
For example, we show that it is \NP-hard
to compute an optimal coloring for a graph from optimal colorings
for \emph{all} its one-vertex-deleted subgraphs,
and that this remains true even when optimal solutions for \emph{all} one-edge-deleted subgraphs are given.
In contrast, computing an optimal coloring from all (or even just two) one-edge-added
supergraphs is in \P.
We observe that Vertex Cover exhibits a remarkably different behavior, demonstrating the power of our model to delineate problems from each other more precisely on a structural level.
Moreover, we provide a number of new complexity results for minimality and criticality problems. For example, we prove that \EdgeMinimalThreeUnCol
is complete for \DP (differences of \NP sets),
which was previously known only for the more amenable
case of deleting vertices rather than edges.
For Vertex Cover, we show that recognizing $\beta$-vertex-critical graphs
is complete for $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$
(parallel access to \NP), obtaining the first completeness result
for a criticality problem for this class.
\end{quote}
\begin{quote}\small
\textbf{Keywords.}
Critical Graphs, Computational Complexity, Structural Self-Reducibility, Minimality Problems,
Colorability, Vertex Cover, Satisfiability, Reoptimization, Advice
\end{quote}
\begin{quote}\small
\textbf{Funding.}
\emph{Edith Hemaspaandra:} Research done in part while on sabbatical at ETH Zürich.
\end{quote}
\newpage
\section{Introduction and Related Work}\label{sec:introduction}
In \cref{sec:model}, we introduce and motivate our new model, which we then compare and contrast to related notions in \cref{sec:related-concepts}. Finally, we present in \cref{sec:results} an overview of our most interesting results and place them into the context of the wider literature.
\subsection{Our Model}\label{sec:model}
In view of the almost complete absence of progress in the question of $\P$ versus $\NP$,
it is natural to wonder just how far and in what way these sets may differ.
For example, how much additional information enables us to design an algorithm that solves an otherwise \NP-hard problem in polynomial time?
We are specifically interested in the case where this additional information takes the form of
optimal solutions to neighboring (i.e., locally modified) instances.
This models situations such as that of
a newcomer
who
may ask
experienced
peers for advice on how to solve a difficult problem,
for instance finding an optimal work route.
Similar circumstances arise when new servers join a computer network.
Formally, we consider the following oracle model:
An algorithm may, on any given input, repeatedly select an arbitrary instance neighboring the given one
and query the oracle for an optimal solution to it.
Occasionally, it will be interesting to limit the number of queries that we grant the algorithm. In general, we do not impose such a restriction, however.
What precisely constitutes a local modification and thus a neighbor depends on the specific problem, of course.
We examine the prototypical graph problems Colorability and Vertex Cover, considering the following four local modifications, which are arguably the most natural choices:
deleting an edge,
adding an edge,
deleting a vertex (including adjacent edges), and
adding a vertex (including an arbitrary, possibly empty, set of edges from the added vertex to the existing ones).
For example, we ask whether there is a polynomial-time algorithm that computes a minimum vertex cover for an input graph $G$ if it has access to minimum vertex covers for all one-edge-deleted subgraphs of $G$.
We will show that questions of this sort are closely connected to and yet clearly distinct from
research in other areas, in particular the study of critical graphs, minimality problems, self-reducibility, and reoptimization.
\subsection{Related Concepts}\label{sec:related-concepts}
\subparagraph*{Criticality.}
The notion of criticality was introduced into the field of graph theory by Dirac~\cite{dir:theorems-abstract-graphs}
in 1952
in the context of Colorability with respect to vertex deletion.
Thirty years later, Wessel~\cite{wes:criticality-graph-theory}
generalized the concept to arbitrary graph properties
and modification operations.
Nevertheless, Colorability has remained a central focus of the extensive research on critical graphs.
Indeed, a graph $G$ is called \emph{critical} without any further specification if it is $\chi$-critical under edge deletion, that is, if its chromatic number $\chi(G)$
(the number of colors used in
an optimal coloring of $G$)
changes when an arbitrary edge is deleted.
Besides Colorability, one other problem has received a comparable amount of attention and thorough analysis in
three different manifestations: Independent Set, Vertex Cover, and Clique.
The corresponding notions are $\alpha$-criticality, $\beta$-criticality, and $\omega$-criticality,
where $\alpha$ is the \emph{independence number} (size of a maximum independent set),
$\beta$ is the \emph{vertex cover number} (size of a minimum vertex cover), and
$\omega$ is the \emph{clique number} (size of a maximum clique).
Note that these graph numbers are all monotone---either nondecreasing or nonincreasing---with respect to each of the local modifications examined in this paper.\e
\subparagraph*{Minimality.}
Another strongly related notion is that of minimality problems.
An instance is called \emph{minimal} with respect to a property if
only the instance itself but none of its neighbors has this property;
that is, it inevitably loses the property under the considered local modification.
The corresponding minimality problem is to decide whether an instance is minimal in the described sense.
For example, a graph $G$ is minimally 3-uncolorable (with respect to edge deletion) if it is not 3-colorable, yet all its one-edge-deleted neighbors are. The minimality problem \EdgeMinimalThreeUnCol is the set of all minimally 3-uncolorable graphs.
Note that a graph is critical exactly if it is minimally $k$-uncolorable for some $k$.
While minimality problems tend to be in \DP
(i.e., differences of two \NP sets, the second level of the Boolean hierarchy),
\DP-hardness is so difficult to prove for them that only a few have been shown
to be \DP-complete so far; see for instance Papadimitriou and Wolfe~\cite{pap-wol:j:facets}.
Note that the notion of minimality is not restricted to graph problems. Indeed, minimally unsatisfiable formulas
figure prominently
in many of our proofs.\e
\subparagraph*{Auto-Reducibility.}
Our model provides a refinement of the notion of functional
auto-reducibility; see Faliszewski and Ogihara~\cite{fal-ogi:j:func-autored}.
An algorithm solves a function problem $R\subseteq\Sigma_1^\ast\times\Sigma_2^\ast$
if on input $x\in\Sigma_1^\ast$ it outputs some $y\in\Sigma_2^\ast$ with $(x,y)\in R$.
The problem $R$ is \emph{auto-reducible} if there is a polynomial-time algorithm
with unrestricted access to an oracle that provides solutions to all instances except $x$ itself.
The task of finding an optimal solution to a given instance
is a special kind of function problem.
Defining all instances to be neighbors (local modifications) of each other
lets the two concepts coincide.\e
\subparagraph*{Self-Reducibility.}
Self-reducibility is auto-reducibility with the additional restriction
that the algorithm may query the oracle only on instances that are smaller in a certain way.
There are a multitude of definitions of self-reducibility that differ in what exactly is considered to be ``smaller,''
the two seminal ones stemming from Schnorr~\cite{sch:c:self-reducible}
and from Meyer and Paterson~\cite{mey-pat:t:int}.
For Schnorr, an instance is smaller than another one if its encoding input string is strictly shorter.
While his definition does allow for functional problems (i.e., more than mere decision problems, in particular the problem of finding an optimal solution),
it is too restrictive for self-reducibility to encompass our model since not all neighboring graphs have shorter strings under natural encodings.
Meyer and Paterson are less rigid and allow instead any partial order having short downward chains to determine which instances are considered smaller than the given one.\footnote{Formally, a partial order is said to \emph{have short downward chains} if the following condition is satisfied: There is a polynomial $p$ such that every chain decreasing
with respect to the considered partial order and starting with some string $x$ is shorter than
$p(|x|)$ and such that all strings
preceding $x$ in that order are bounded in length by $p(|x|)$.}
The partial orders induced by deleting vertices, by deleting edges, and by adding edges all have short downward chains. The definition by Meyer and Paterson is thus sufficient for
our model to become part of functional self-reducibility
for all local modifications considered in this paper but one, namely, the case of adding a vertex, which is too generous a modification to display any particularly interesting behavior.
As an example, consider the graph decision problem
$\DecCol=\{(G,k)\mid\chi(G)\le k\}$, which is self-reducible
by the following
observation.
Any graph $G$ with at least two vertices that is not a clique is $k$-colorable
exactly if at least one of the polynomially many graphs that result from
merging two non-adjacent vertices in $G$ is $k$-colorable.
This works for the optimization variant of the problem as well.
Any optimal coloring of $G$ assigns at least two vertices the same
color,
except in the trivial case of $G$ being a clique. An optimal coloring for the graph
that has
two such vertices merged then
yields an optimal coloring for $G$.
This
contrasts well with
the findings
for Colorability's behavior under our new model discussed
below.\e
\subparagraph*{Reoptimization.}
Reoptimization examines optimization problems under a model that is tightly connected to ours.
The notion of reoptimization was coined by Schäffter \cite{sch:forbidden}
and first applied by Archetti et al.~\cite{arc-ber-spe:reoptimizing-tsp}.
The reoptimization model sets the following task for an optimization problem:
\begin{quote
\hspace*{-0.4ex}\emph{Given an instance, an optimal solution to it, and a local modification of this instance, compute an optimal solution to the modified instance.}
\end{quote
The proximity to our model becomes clearer after a change of perspective.
We reformulate the reoptimization task by
reversing the roles of the given and the modified instance.
\begin{quote
\hspace*{-0.4ex}\emph{Given an instance, a local modification of it, and an optimal solution to the modified instance, compute an optimal solution to the original instance.}
\end{quote
Note that this perspective switch flips the definition of local modification; for example, edge deletion turns into edge addition.
Aside from this, the task now reads almost identical to that demanded in our model.
The sole but crucial difference is that in reoptimization, the neighboring instance and the optimal solution to it are given as part of the input, whereas in our model, the algorithm may select any number of neighboring instances and query the oracle for optimal solutions to them.
Even if we limit the number of queries to just one, our model is still more generous since the algorithm is choosing (instead of being given) the neighboring instance to which the oracle will supply an optimal solution.
Thus, hardness in our model always implies hardness for reoptimization, but not vice versa.
In fact, all problems examined under the reoptimization model so far remain NP-hard. Only for some of them could an improvement of the approximation ratio be achieved after extensive studies, the first discovered examples being \textsc{tsp} under edge-weight changes \cite{boe-for-etal:reusing-optimal-solutions} and addition or deletion of vertices \cite{aus-esc-etal:reoptimization-tsp}. This stands in stark contrast to the results for our model, as outlined in the next section.
\subsection{Results}\label{sec:results}
We shed a new light on two of the most prominent and well-examined graph problems,
Colorability and Vertex Cover.
Our results come in two different types.
The first type concerns the hardness of the two problems
in our model for the most common local modifications;
\cref{tab:resultoverview} summarizes the main results of this type.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{An overview of our results regarding the hardness of Colorability and Vertex Cover in our model for the most common definitions of a local modification. The $v$ stands for a vertex and the $e$ stands for an edge. The question mark indicates an interesting open problem. The results in the vertex-addition columns are trivial; see \cref{thm:addvertextheorem} in \cref{app:addvertextheorem}. The NP-hardness results for the 1-query case all follow from rather simple Turing reductions; see \cref{thm:onequerylemma} in \cref{app:onequerylemma}.}
\label{tab:resultoverview}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}[-1ex]
{\shortstack[1]{No.\ of\\Queries}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Colorability}
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{Vertex Cover} \\ \cmidrule(lr){2-5}\cmidrule(lr){6-9}
& Add $v$
& Delete $v$
&Add $e$
& Delete $e$
& Add $v$
& Delete $v$
&Add $e$
& Delete $e$ \\ \midrule
1
& $\P$
& $\NP\text{-hard}$
& $\NP\text{-hard}$
& $\NP\text{-hard}$
& $\P$
& $\NP\text{-hard}$
& $\NP\text{-hard}$
& $\NP\text{-hard}$\\ \midrule
\multirow{2}{*}[0ex]{\shortstack[1]{2 or\\more}}
&$\P$
& $\NP\text{-hard}$
& $\P$
&$\NP\text{-hard}$
& $\P$
& $\P$
& $\P$
&?\\
&[Thm.~\ref{thm:addvertextheorem}]
&[Thm.~\ref{thm:color-v}]
&[Thm.~\ref{thm:colorer}]
&[Thm.~\ref{thm:color-e}]
&[Thm.~\ref{thm:addvertextheorem}]
&[Thm.~\ref{thm:removevPoly}]
&[Thm.~\ref{thm:addePoly}]
&\\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
In addition, \cref{cor:SATisNPhardInOurModel,cor:removeTrianglePoly}
show that Satisfiability and Vertex Cover remain \NP-hard for any number of queries if the local modification is the deletion of a clause or a triangle, respectively.
The results for the vertex-addition columns are trivial since we can just query an optimal solution for the graph with an added isolated vertex; see \cref{thm:addvertextheorem}.
The hardness results for the one-query case all follow from the same simple \cref{thm:onequerylemma}, variations of which appear in the study of self-reducibility and many other fields; see \cref{app:onequerylemma}.
The findings of \cref{thm:colorer,thm:removevPoly,thm:addePoly} clearly delineate our model from that in reoptimization, where the \NP-hard problems examined in the literature remain \NP-hard despite the significant amount of advice in form of the provided optimal solution; see Böckenhauer et al.~\cite{handbook-reoptimization}.
The results of the second type locate criticality problems in relation to the complexity classes \DP and $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$.
The class $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$ was introduced by Wagner~\cite{wag:j:bounded} and represents the languages that can be decided in polynomial time by an algorithm that has access to an \NP oracle under the restriction that all queries are submitted at the same time. The definitions of the classes immediately yield the inclusions $\NP\cup\coNP\subseteq \DP\subseteq\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$.
Papadimitriou and Wolfe~\cite{pap-wol:j:facets} have shown that \MinimalUnSat
(the set of unsatisfiable formulas that become satisfiable when an arbitrary clause is deleted) is \DP-complete.
Cai and Meyer~\cite{cai-mey:j:dp} built upon this to prove \DP-completeness of
\VertexMinimalKayUnCol (the
set of graphs that are not $k$-colorable but become $k$-colorable
when an arbitrary vertex is deleted),
for all $k \geq 3$.
With \cref{thm:MU-DP-complete,thm:EdgeMinimalKayUnCol}, we
were able to extend this result to classes that are analogously defined for the much smaller local modification of edge deletion, which is considered the default setting;
namely, we prove \DP-completeness of
\EdgeMinimalKayUnCol, for all $k \geq 3$.
In \cref{thm:criticalityandstability}, we show that recognizing criticality and vertex-criticality are in $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$ and \DP-hard.
As Joret~\cite
{jor:thesis:entropy-and-stability} points out,
a construction by
Papadimitriou and Wolfe~\cite{pap-wol:j:facets}
proves the \DP-hardness of recognizing $\beta$-critical graphs.
This problem also lies in $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$,
but no finer classification has been achieved so far.
In \cref{thm:VertexCriticalThetaComplete}, we show that this problem is in fact $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$-hard,
yielding the first known
$\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$-completeness result for a criticality problem.
\section{Preprocessing \EThreeSat}\label{sec:sat}
Our main technique for proving the nontrivial hardness results in our model is the following:
We build in polynomial-time computable solutions
for each locally modified problem instance. That way, the solutions
to the locally modified problem instances do not give away any information
about the instance to be solved. A similar approach is taken in some proofs of
\DP-completeness for minimality
problems.
Indeed, we can occasionally combine the proof of
\DP-hardness with that of the \NP-hardness of
computing an optimal solution from optimal solutions to locally
modified instances.
Denote by \EThreeCNF the set of nonempty \CNF-formulas with exactly three distinct literals per clause.\footnote{This set is often denoted $\textsc{E3-CNF}$ in the literature.}
We begin by showing in \cref{thm:3sat} that there is a reduction
from \EThreeSat (the set of satisfiable \EThreeCNF-formulas) to \EThreeSat
that builds in polynomial-time computable solutions for
all one-clause-deleted subformulas of the resulting \EThreeCNF-formula. At first glance, this very surprising result may seem dangerously close to proving $\P=\NP$; \cref{cor:SATisNPhardInOurModel} will make explicit where the hardness remains.
We will then use the reduction of \cref{thm:3sat}
as a preprocessing step in reductions from \EThreeSat to other problems.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:3sat}
There is a polynomial-time many-one reduction $f$ from \EThreeSat to \EThreeSat
and a polynomial-time computable function $\sat$
such that, for every \EThreeCNF-formula $\formula$ and
for every clause ${\clause}$ in $f(\formula)$,
$\sat(f(\formula) - {\clause})$ is a satisfying assignment for $f(\formula) - {\clause}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Papadimitriou and Wolfe~\cite[Lemma 1]{pap-wol:j:facets}
give a reduction from \ThreeUnSat to \MinimalUnSat (the set of \CNF-formulas
that are unsatisfiable but that become satisfiable with the removal of an arbitrary clause).
In \cref{sec:satselfreduction}, we show how to enhance this reduction such that it has all properties of our theorem.
First, we carefully prove that there is a function
$\sat$
that together with the original reduction satisfies all properties of our theorem, except that we may output a formula that is not in \ThreeCNF.
In order to rectify this, we show that the standard reduction from \Sat to \Sat that decreases the number of literals per clause to at most three maintains all the required properties.
The same is then shown for the standard reduction that transforms \CNF-formulas with at most
three literals per clause into \EThreeCNF-formulas
that have exactly three distinct literals per clause.
Combining these three reductions, we can therefore satisfy all requirements of our theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:SATisNPhardInOurModel}
Computing a satisfying assignment for a \EThreeCNF-formula whose
one-clause-deleted
subformulas all have a satisfying assignment from these assignments is \NP-hard.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Given a \EThreeCNF-formula $\formula$, compute $f(\formula)$, where $f$ is the reduction
from \cref{thm:3sat}.
Now compute $\sat(f(\formula) - {\clause})$ for every clause ${\clause}$ in $f(\formula)$
and compute a satisfying assignment for $f(\formula)$ from these
solutions. Use this assignment to determine
whether $\formula$ is satisfiable.
\end{proof}
\section{Colorability}\label{sec:COL}
As mentioned in the previous section,
the constructions of some \DP-completeness results for minimality problems
can be adapted to obtain \NP-hardness for computing optimal solutions
from optimal solutions to locally modified instances.
There are remarkably few complexity results for minimality problems;
fortunately, however,
\VertexMinimalThreeUnCol (the
graphs that are not 3-colorable but that are 3-colorable after
deleting any vertex)\footnote{It
should be noted that \VertexMinimalThreeUnCol
is denoted by
$\textsc{Minimal}\textsc{-}\allowbreak{}\textsc{3}\textsc{-}\textsc{Un}\-\textsc{Color}\-\textsc{ability}$ by Cai and Meyer~\cite{cai-mey:j:dp}
despite the fact that
minimality problems usually refer to the case of edge deletion.} is \DP-complete by reduction from \MinimalThreeUnSat~\cite{cai-mey:j:dp}.
We will show how to extract from said reduction a proof of the fact that
computing an optimal coloring for a graph from optimal colorings
for its one-vertex-deleted subgraphs is \NP-hard (\cref{thm:color-v}).
However, the standard notion of criticality is $\chi$-criticality under
edge deletion,
and the construction by Cai and Meyer~\cite{cai-mey:j:dp} does
unfortunately not yield the analogous result for deleting edges. This was to be expected, since working with edge deletion is much harder. Surprisingly, however, a targeted modification of the constructed graph allows us to establish, through a far more elaborate case distinction, that
computing an optimal coloring for a graph from optimal colorings
for its one-edge-deleted subgraphs is \NP-hard (\cref{thm:color-e})
as well as that the related minimality problem
\EdgeMinimalThreeUnCol is \DP-complete (\cref{thm:MU-DP-complete}).
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:color-v}
There is a polynomial-time many-one reduction $g$ from \EThreeSat to \ThreeCol
and a polynomial-time computable function $\opt$ such that, for every \EThreeCNF-formula
$\formula$ and for every vertex $v$ in $g(\formula)$,
$\opt(g(\formula) - v)$ is an optimal coloring for $g(\formula) - v$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Given a \EThreeCNF-formula $\formula$, let $g(\formula) = h(f(\formula))$, where $f$ is the reduction
from \cref{thm:3sat} and $h$ is the reduction from \MinimalThreeUnSat
to \VertexMinimalThreeUnCol by Cai and Meyer~\cite{cai-mey:j:dp}.
Since $h$ also reduces
\EThreeSat to \ThreeCol~\cite[Lemma 2.2]{cai-mey:j:dp}, so does $g$.
A careful inspection of the reduction $g$ reveals that there is a polynomial-time computable function
$\opt$ such that, for every vertex $v$ in $g(\formula)$, $\opt(g(\formula) - v)$ is a
3-coloring of $g(\formula) - v$. We can also verify that
$g(\formula) - v$ does not have a 2-coloring, hence
$\opt(g(\formula) - v)$ is an optimal coloring.
We do not dive into the details as this lemma immediately follows
from the proof of the analogous result for edge deletion
(\cref{oldlem:color-e}), as explained in \cref{app:oldlem-color-e}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:color-v}
Computing an optimal coloring for a graph from optimal colorings
for its one-vertex-deleted subgraphs is \NP-hard.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Given a \EThreeCNF-formula $\formula$, compute $g(\formula)$, where $g$ is the reduction
from \cref{lem:color-v}, compute $\opt(g(\formula) - v)$ for every vertex $v$ in $g(\formula)$,
and from these optimal solutions compute one for $g(\formula)$.
This determines whether $g(\formula)$ is 3-colorable and
thus whether $\formula$ is satisfiable.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{oldlem:color-e}
There is a polynomial-time many-one reduction $g$ from \EThreeSat to \ThreeCol
and a polynomial-time computable function $\opt$ such that, for every \EThreeCNF-formula
$\formula$ and for every edge $e$ in $g(\formula)$,
$\opt(g(\formula) - e)$ is an optimal coloring of $g(\formula) - e$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Given a \EThreeCNF-formula $\formula$, let $g(\formula) = h(f(\formula)) - e$,
where $f$ is the reduction
from \cref{thm:3sat}, $h$ is the reduction
to \VertexMinimalThreeUnCol by Cai and Meyer~\cite{cai-mey:j:dp}, and $e$ is the edge $\{v_\textnormal{c},v_\textnormal{s}\}$, with $v_\textnormal{c}$ being the unique vertex adjacent to all variable-setting vertices and $v_\textnormal{s}$ being the only remaining neighbor vertex of $v_\textnormal{c}$.
We prove in detail that $g$ has all the desired properties in \cref{app:oldlem-color-e}. See \cref{fig:caimeyertotal} for an example of the construction.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:color-e}
Computing an optimal coloring for a graph from optimal colorings
for its one-edge-deleted subgraphs is \NP-hard.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The same argument as for \cref{thm:color-v} can be applied here.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:MU-DP-complete}
\EdgeMinimalThreeUnCol is \DP-complete.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Membership in \DP is immediate, since
given a graph $G = (V,E)$, determining whether $G - e$
is $3$-colorable for every $e\in E$ is in \NP
and so is determining whether $G$ is $3$-colorable.
As for \DP-hardness, the argument from the proof of \cref{oldlem:color-e}
shows that mapping $\formula$ to $h(\formula) - \{v_\textnormal{c},v_\textnormal{s}\}$, where $h$
is the reduction from \MinimalThreeUnSat to \VertexMinimalThreeUnCol
by Cai and Meyer~\cite{cai-mey:j:dp}, gives a reduction from
\MinimalThreeUnSat to \EdgeMinimalThreeUnCol (and to \VertexMinimalThreeUnCol as well).
Recall that \MinimalThreeUnSat is \DP-hard~\cite{pap-wol:j:facets}.
\end{proof}
Cai and Meyer~\cite{cai-mey:j:dp} show \DP-completeness for \VertexMinimalKayUnCol,
for all $k \geq 3$. We now prove that the analogous result for deletion of edges holds as well.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:EdgeMinimalKayUnCol}
\EdgeMinimalKayUnCol is \DP-complete, for every $k \geq 3$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Membership in \DP is again immediate. To show hardness for $k \geq 4$, we
reduce \EdgeMinimalThreeUnCol to \EdgeMinimalKayUnCol.
We use
the construction for deleting vertices~\cite[Theorem 3.1]{cai-mey:j:dp} and map
graph $G$ to $G+K_{k-3}$.\footnote{For two graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$, the \emph{graph join} $G_1+G_2$ is the disjoint union $G_1\cup G_2$ plus a \emph{join edge} added from every vertex of $G_1$ to every vertex of $G_2$; see, e.g., Harary's textbook on graph theory \cite[p. 21]{har:graph-theory}.}
Note that~$\chi(K_{k-3}) = k - 3$ and $\chi(H+H') = \chi(H) + \chi(H')$ for any two graphs $H$ and $H'$.
First suppose $G + K_{k-3}$ is in \EdgeMinimalKayUnCol.
Then $G + K_{k-3}$ is not $k$-colorable, and so $G$ is not 3-colorable.
Let $e$ be an edge in $G$.
Then $(G - e) + K_{k-3} = (G+K_{k-3}) - e$ is $k$-colorable,
and thus $G - e$ is 3-colorable.
It follows that $G$ is in \EdgeMinimalThreeUnCol.
Now suppose $G$ is in \EdgeMinimalThreeUnCol.
Then $G + K_{k-3}$ is not $k$-colorable.
Let $e$ be an edge in
$G + K_{k-3}$. If $e$ is an edge in $G$, then
$G - e$ is 3-colorable and so
$(G + K_{k-3}) - e = (G - e) + K_{k-3}$ is $k$-colorable.
If $e$ is an edge in $K_{k-3}$, then
$K_{k-3} - e$ is $(k-4)$-colorable and
$G$ is 4-colorable (let $\hat{e}$ be any edge in $G$, take a 3-coloring of $G - \hat{e}$,
and change the color of one of the vertices incident to $\hat{e}$ to the remaining
color), so
$(G + K_{k-3}) - e = G + (K_{k-3} - e)$ is $k$-colorable.
Finally, if $e=\{v,w\}$ for a vertex $v$ in $G$ and a vertex $w$ in
$K_{k-3}$, let $\hat{e}$ be an edge in $G$ incident to $v$, take a
3-coloring of $G - \hat{e}$, take a disjoint $(k - 3)$-coloring
of $K_{k-3}$, and change the color of $v$ to the color of $w$.
As a result, for all edges $e$ in $G + K_{k-3}$,
$(G + K_{k-3}) - e$ is $k$-colorable.
It follows that $G + K_{k-3}$ is in \EdgeMinimalKayUnCol.
\end{proof}
The construction above does not prove the
analogues of \cref{lem:color-v,oldlem:color-e}:
Note that $G$ is $3$-colorable if and only if
$(G + K_{k-3}) - v$ and $(G + K_{k-3}) - e$ are both $(k-1)$-colorable for every vertex $v$ in $K_{k-3}$
and for every edge $e$ in $K_{k-3}$, and so we can certainly determine
whether a graph is 3-colorable from the optimal solutions to the one-vertex-deleted subgraphs and one-edge-deleted subgraphs of $G+K_{k-3}$ in polynomial time.
Turning to criticality and vertex-criticality,
we can bound their complexity as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:criticalityandstability}
The two problems of determining whether a graph is critical and whether it is vertex-critical are both in $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$ and \DP-hard.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For the $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$-membership of the two problems, we observe that the relevant chromatic numbers of a graph $G = (V,E)$ and its neighbors can be computed by querying the \NP oracle $\DecCol=\{(G,k)\,\mid\,\chi(G) \leq k\}$
for every $(G,k)$, $(G - e, k)$, and $(G - v, k)$ for every $e\in E$, $v\in V$,
and $k \leq \|V(G)\|$ in parallel.
For the \DP-hardness of the two problems, we prove that $h(\formula)-\{v_\textnormal{c},v_\textnormal{s}\}$ is a reduction from \MinimalThreeUnSat to both of them.
We have already seen that it reduces \MinimalThreeUnSat to \EdgeMinimalThreeUnCol.
Hence, for every $\formula\in\MinimalThreeUnSat$, the graph $h(\formula)-\{v_\textnormal{c},v_\textnormal{s}\}$ is in $\EdgeMinimalThreeUnCol\subseteq\VertexMinimalThreeUnCol$ and thus both critical and vertex-critical.
For the converse it suffices to note that, for every $\formula\in\CNF$ with clauses of size at most 3, $h(\formula)-\{v_\textnormal{c},v_\textnormal{s}\}$ is 4-colorable and thus in \EdgeMinimalThreeUnCol (in \VertexMinimalThreeUnCol, respectively) if and only if it is critical (vertex-critical, respectively).
\end{proof}
The exact complexity of these problems remains open, however.
In particular, it is unknown whether they are
$\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$-hard.
This contrasts with the case of Vertex Cover,
for which we prove in \cref{thm:VertexCriticalThetaComplete} that
recognizing $\beta$-vertex-criticality is indeed $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$-complete.
Before that, however, we return to our model and consider Colorability under the local modification of adding an edge. If we allow only one query, the problem stays NP-hard via a simple Turing reduction: Iteratively adding edges to the given instance eventually leads to a clique as a trivial instance, see \cref{thm:onequerylemma} in \cref{app:onequerylemma}.
Note that the restriction to one query is crucial for this reduction to work; without it, the branching may lead to an exponential blowup in the number of instances that need to be considered. The following theorem shows that this breakdown of the hardness proof is
inevitable
unless $\P=\NP$
since the problem becomes in fact polynomial-time solvable if just one more oracle call is granted.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:colorer}
There is a polynomial-time algorithm
that computes an optimal coloring for a graph from optimal colorings of all
its one-edge-added supergraphs; in fact, two optimal colorings, one for each of two specific one-edge-added supergraphs, suffice.
\end{theorem}
For the proof of this theorem, we naturally extend the notion of universal vertices as follows.
\begin{definition}
An edge $\{u,v\}\in E$ of a graph $G=(V,E)$ is called \emph{universal} if, for every vertex $x\in V\setminus\{u,v\}$, we have $\{x,u\}\in E$ or $\{x,v\}\in E$.
A graph is called \emph{universal-edged} if all its edges are universal.
\end{definition}
Additionally, we denote, for any given graph $G = (V,E)$ and any vertex $x\in V$, the \emph{open neighborhood} of $x$ in $G$ by $N(x)\coloneqq\{y\mid\{x,y\}\in E\}$ and the \emph{closed neighborhood} of $x$ in $G$ by $N[x]\coloneqq N(x)\cup\{x\}$.
We are now ready to give the proof of \cref{thm:colorer}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{thm:colorer}]
We show that {}\textsc{Colorer} (\cref{alg:maincolorer}), which uses
the oracle of our model
and {}\textsc{Subcol} (\cref{alg:subcolorer}) as subroutines, has the desired properties.
\begin{algorithm}[htbp]
\caption{{}\textsc{Colorer}}
\label{alg:maincolorer}
\textbf{Input:} An undirected graph $G=(V,E)$.\\
\textbf{Output:} An optimal coloring for $G$.\\
\textbf{Description:} Optimizes universal-edged graphs with two queries to {}\textsc{Oracle}, which provides optimal solutions to one-edge-added supergraphs; other graphs are optimized via {}\textsc{Subcol}.
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\For{every edge $\{u,v\}\in E$}
\For{every vertex $x\in V\setminus\{u,v\}$}
\If{$\{u,x\}\notin E\,\wedge\,\{v,x\}\notin E$}
\State $f_1\gets{}\textsc{Oracle}(G\cup\{u,x\})$
\State $f_2\gets{}\textsc{Oracle}(G\cup\{v,x\})$
\If{$f_1$ uses fewer colors on $G$ than $f_2$}
\State \textbf{return} $f_1$ \label{line:returnFirst}
\Else
\State \textbf{return} $f_2$ \label{line:returnSecond}
\EndIf
\EndIf
\EndFor
\EndFor
\State $k\gets 1$
\While{${}\textsc{Subcol}(G,k)=\text{NO}$}
\State $k\gets k+1$
\EndWhile\vspace*{-.5ex}
\State \textbf{return} ${}\textsc{Subcol}(G,k)$ \label{line:returnThird}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace*{-3ex}\begin{algorithm}[htbp]
\caption{{}\textsc{Subcol}}
\label{alg:subcolorer}
\textbf{Input:} An undirected, universal-edged graph $G=(V,E)$ and a positive integer $k$.\\
\textbf{Output:} A $k$-coloring $f$ for $G$ if there is one; NO if there is none.\\
\textbf{Description:} Works by recursion on $k$, with $k=1$ and $k=2$ serving as the base cases. \begin{algorithmic}[1]
\If{$G$ has no edge}
\State \textbf{return} the constant 1-coloring with $f(x)=1$ for all $x\in V$. \label{line:returnOne}
\ElsIf{$k=1$}
\State \textbf{return} NO. \label{line:returnTwo}
\EndIf
\If{$G$ has bipartition $\{A,B\}$}\vspace*{-2ex}
\State \textbf{return} the 2-coloring $f(x)=\begin{cases}1&\text{ for }x\in A\text{ and}\\2&\text{ for }x\in B.\end{cases}$\label{line:returnThree}\vspace*{-2ex}
\ElsIf{k=2}
\State \textbf{return} NO. \label{line:returnFour}
\EndIf
\State Choose an arbitrary edge $\{\ell,r\}\in E$.
\newlength{\maxwidth}
\settowidth{\maxwidth}{$L$}
\State $\makebox[\maxwidth][r]{$L$}\gets N(\ell)\setminus N[r]$;\quad $\makebox[\maxwidth][r]{$R$}\gets N(r)\setminus N[\ell]$;\quad $\makebox[\maxwidth][r]{$M$}\gets N(\ell)\cap N(r)$
\State $\makebox[\maxwidth][r]{$g$}\gets \mathop{{}\textsc{Subcol}}(G[M],k-2)$
\If{$g=\text{NO}$}
\State \textbf{return} NO \label{line:returnFive}\vspace*{-3.5ex}
\EndIf
\State \textbf{return} the $k$-coloring $f(x)=
\begin{cases}
g(x)&\text{for $x\in M$,}\\
k-1&\text{for $x\in L\cup\{r\}$, and}\\
k&\text{for $x\in R\cup\{\ell\}$.}
\end{cases}$ \label{line:returnSix}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\bigskip
We begin by proving that {}\textsc{Colorer} is correct.
Assume first that the input graph $G=(V,E)$ is not universal-edged.
Then {}\textsc{Colorer} can find an edge $\{u,v\}\in E$ with a non-neighboring vertex $x\in V$ and query the oracle on $G\cup\{u,x\}$ and $G\cup\{v,x\}$ for optimal colorings $f_1$ and $f_2$. We argue that at least one of them is also optimal for $G$.
Let $f$ be any optimal coloring of $G$. Since $u$ and $v$ are connected by an edge, we have $f(u)\neq f(v)$ and hence $f(x)\neq f(u)$ or $f(x)\neq f(v)$; see \cref{fig:easyfigure} in \cref{app:moreaboutcolorer}. Thus, $f$ is also an optimal coloring of $G\add\{x,u\}$ or $G\add\{x,v\}$, and so we have $\chi(G)=\chi(G\add\{x,u\})$ or $\chi(G)=\chi(G\add\{x,v\})$.
Therefore, $f_1$ or $f_2$ is an optimal coloring for $G$ as well and returned on \cref{line:returnFirst} or \ref{line:returnSecond}, respectively.
The while loop can be entered only if the graph $G$ is universal-edged. This allows us to compute an optimal solution to $G$ with no queries at all by using ${}\textsc{Subcol}$ (\cref{alg:subcolorer}).
We will show that ${}\textsc{Subcol}$ is a polynomial-time algorithm that computes, for any universal-edged graph $G$ and any positive integer $k$, a $k$-coloring of $G$ if there is one, and outputs NO otherwise.
The while loop of ${}\textsc{Colorer}$ thus searches the smallest integer $k$ such that $G$ has a $k$-coloring, that is, $k=\chi(G)$.
Hence, an optimal coloring of $G$ is returned on \cref{line:returnThird}.
Due to $k=\chi(G)\le\|V\|$, {}\textsc{Colorer} has polynomial time complexity.
It remains to prove the correctness and polynomial time complexity of {}\textsc{Subcol}.
This can be done by bounding its recursion depth and verifying the correctness for each of the six return statements;
this is hardest for the last two. The proof relies on the properties of the
partition
$M\cup L\cup R\cup \{\ell\}\cup \{r\}$
as illustrated in \cref{fig:constructionexample};
see \cref{app:moreaboutcolorer} for all details.
\end{proof}
In this section, we have proven that \EdgeMinimalKayUnCol is complete for \DP for every $k \geq 3$ and demonstrated that Colorability remains \NP-hard in our model for deletion of vertices or edges, whereas it becomes polynomial-time solvable when the local modification is considered to be the addition of an edge.
In the next section, we turn our attention to Vertex Cover.
\section{Vertex Cover}\label{sec:VC}
This section will show that the behavior of Vertex Cover in our model
is distinctly different from the one that we demonstrated for Colorability
in the previous section.
In particular, \cref{thm:removevPoly} proves that computing an optimal
vertex cover from optimal solutions of one-vertex-deleted subgraphs can be done
in polynomial time, which is impossible for optimal colorings according to \cref{thm:color-v}
unless $\P=\NP$.
First, we note that the \NP-hardness proof for our most restricted case
with only one query still works (i.e., \cref{thm:onequerylemma} in \cref{app:onequerylemma} is
applicable): Deleting vertices, adding edges, or
deleting edges repeatedly will always lead to the null graph,
an edgeless graph, or a clique through polynomially many instances.
As we have seen for Colorability in the previous section, hardness proofs of this type may fail due to exponential branching as soon as multiple queries are allowed. We can show that, unless $\P=\NP$, this is necessarily the case for edge addition and vertex deletion since
two granted queries suffice to obtain a polynomial-time algorithm.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:removevPoly}
There is a polynomial-time algorithm
that computes an optimal vertex cover for a graph from two optimal vertex covers for some one-vertex-deleted subgraphs.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Observe what can happen when a vertex $v$ is removed from a graph $G$ with an optimal vertex cover of size $k$. If $v$ is part of any optimal vertex cover of $G$, then the size of
an optimal vertex cover for $G-v$ is $k-1$.
Given any graph $G$, pick any two adjacent vertices $v_1$ and $v_2$. Since there is an edge between them, one of them is always part of an optimal vertex cover,
thus either $G-v_1$ or $G-v_2$ or both will have an optimal vertex cover of size $k-1$. Two queries to the oracle return optimal vertex covers for $G-v_1$ and $G-v_2$. The algorithm chooses the smaller of these two covers (or any, if they are the same size) and adds the corresponding $v_i$. The resulting vertex cover has size $k$ and is thus optimal for $G$.
\end{proof}
\Cref{thm:addePoly} in \cref{app:addePoly} proves that the analogous result for adding an edge holds as well.
At this point, we would like to prove either an analogue to
\cref{thm:color-e}, showing that computing an optimal vertex cover
is $\NP$-hard even if we get access to a solution for every one-edge-deleted
subgraph, or an analogue to \cref{thm:addePoly}, showing that the
problem is in $\P$ if we have access to a solution for more than one
one-edge-deleted subgraph.
We were unable to prove either, however. The latter is easy to do for many
restricted graph classes (e.g., graphs with bridges),
yet we suspect that the problem is \NP-hard in general.
We will detail a few reasons for the apparent difficulty of proving this
statement after the following theorem and corollary, which look at deleting a
triangle as the local modification.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:TriangleReduction}
There is a reduction $g$ from \ThreeSat to \DecVC such that, for every \ThreeCNF-formula $\formula$ and
for every triangle $T$ in $g(\formula)$, there is a polynomial-time computable
optimal vertex cover of $g(\formula) - T$.
\end{theorem}
The proof of \cref{thm:TriangleReduction} relies on the standard reduction from
\EThreeSat to \DecVC; see~\cite{gar-joh:b:int}, where clauses correspond to triangles; see \cref{app:TriangleReduction} for the details.
Applying the same argument as in the proof of \cref{thm:color-v} yields the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:removeTrianglePoly}
Computing an optimal vertex cover for a graph from optimal vertex covers
for the one-triangle-deleted subgraphs is \NP-hard.
\end{corollary}
What can we say about optimal vertex covers for one-edge-deleted graphs?
Papadimitriou and Wolfe show~\cite[Theorem 4]{pap-wol:j:facets} that there is a reduction $g$ from
\MinimalThreeUnSat to \MinimalNonVC (called $\textsc{Critical}\textsc{-}\textsc{Vertex}\-\textsc{Cover}$ in \cite{pap-wol:j:facets}; asking,
given a graph $G$ and an
integer $k$, whether $G$ does not have a vertex cover of size
$k$ but all one-edge-deleted subgraphs do).
The reduction builds in a polynomial-time computable vertex
cover of size $k$ for every one-edge-deleted subgraph. And so
$g$ is a reduction from \EThreeSat to \DecVC such that there
exists a polynomial-time computable function $\opt$ such that
for every \EThreeCNF-formula $\formula$
and $g(\formula) = (G,k)$, it holds, for every edge $e$ in $G$, that $\opt(G - e)$
is a vertex cover of size $k$.
Unfortunately, it may happen that
an optimal vertex cover of $G - e$ has size $k-1$;
namely, if $e$ is an edge connecting two triangles,
an edge between two variable-setting vertices, or
any edge of the clause triangles.
The function $\opt$ does thus not give us an optimal vertex cover,
thwarting the proof attempt.
This shows that we cannot always get results for our model
from the constructions for criticality problems.
The following would be one approach to design a polynomial-time algorithm that computes an optimal vertex cover from optimal vertex covers for all one-edge-deleted subgraphs:
It is clear that deleting an edge does not increase the size of an optimal vertex cover and decreases it by at most one.
If, for any two neighbor graphs, the provided vertex covers differ in size, then we can take the smaller one, restore the deleted edge, and add any one of the two incident vertices to the vertex cover; this gives us the desired optimal vertex cover.
If the optimal vertex cover size decreases for all deletions of a single edge, we can do the same with any of them.
Thus, it is sufficient to design a polynomial-time algorithm that solves the problem on graphs whose one-edge-deleted subgraphs all have optimal vertex covers of the same size as an optimal vertex cover of the original graph.
One might suspect that only very few and simple graphs can be of this kind. However, we obtain infinitely many such graphs by the removal of any edge from different cliques, as already mentioned in the introduction.
In fact, there is a far larger class of graphs with this property and no apparent communality to be exploited for the efficient construction of an optimal vertex cover.
We now turn to our complexity results of $\beta$-(vertex-)criticality.
The reduction from
\MinimalThreeUnSat to \MinimalNonVC by Papadimitriou and Wolfe~\cite{pap-wol:j:facets}
establishes the \DP-hardness of deciding whether a graph
is $\beta$-critical.
However, it seems unlikely that $\beta$-criticality is
in \DP. The obvious upper bound is $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$, since a polynomial
number of queries to a \DecVC oracle, namely $(G,k)$ and $(G-e,k)$ for all
edges $e$ in $G$ and all $k \leq \| V(G) \|$,
in parallel allows us to determine $\beta(G)$ and $\beta(G - e)$ for all
edges $e$ in polynomial time, and thus allows us to determine
whether $G$ is $\beta$-critical. While we have not succeeded in proving
a matching lower bound, or even any lower bound beyond
\DP-hardness, we do get this lower bound for
$\beta$-vertex-criticality, thereby obtaining the first
$\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$-completeness result for a criticality problem.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:VertexCriticalThetaComplete}
Determining whether a graph is $\beta$-vertex-critical
is $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$-complete.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Membership follows with the same argument as above, this time
querying the oracle \DecVC in parallel for all
$(G,k)$ and $(G-v,k)$ for all vertices $v$ in $G$ and all
$k \leq \| V(G) \|$.
To show that this problem is $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$-hard, we use a similar
reduction as the one by Hemaspaandra et al.~\cite[Lemma 4.12]{hem-spa-vog:j:kemeny}
to
prove that it is $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$-hard to determine whether a given vertex is
a member of a minimum vertex cover.
We reduce from
the $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$-complete problem
$\textsc{VC}_= = \{(G,H)\,\mid\,\beta(G) = \beta(H)\}$~\cite{wag:j:more-on-bh}.
Let $n = \max(\|V(G)\|,\|V(H)\|)$,
let $G'$ consist of $n+1-\|V(G)\|$ isolated vertices,
let $H'$ consist of $n+1-\|V(H)\|$ isolated vertices, and
let $F = (G \cup G') + (H \cup H')$.
Note that $\beta(F) =
(n+1) + \min(\beta(G),\beta(H))$.
If $\beta(G) = \beta(H)$,
then $\beta(F) = (n+1) + \beta(G) = (n+1) + \beta(H)$ and for every vertex $v$
in $F$, $\beta(F - v) = n + \beta(G)$.
Thus, $F$ is critical.
If $\beta(G) \neq \beta(H)$, assume without loss of generality that
$\beta(G) < \beta(H)$. Then $\beta(F) = n + 1 + \beta(G)$.
Let $v$ be a vertex in $G'$.
Then $\beta(F - v) = \min(n + 1 + \beta(G),
n + \beta(H)) = n + 1 + \beta(G)$, and therefore $F$ is not critical.
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion and Future Research} \label{sec:conclusion}
We defined a natural model
that provides new insights into the structural properties of \NP-hard problems.
Specifically, we revealed interesting differences
in the behavior of Colorability and Vertex Cover
under different types of local modifications.
While Colorability remains \NP-hard when the local modification is the deletion of either a vertex or an edge,
there is an algorithm that finds an optimal coloring by querying the oracle on at most two edge-added supergraphs.
Vertex Cover, in contrast, becomes easy in our model for both deleting vertices and adding edges, as soon as two queries are granted.
The question of what happens for the local modification of deleting an edge remains as an intriguing open problem that defies any simple approach, as briefly outlined above.
Moreover, examples of problems where one can prove a jump from membership in \P to \NP-hardness at a given number of queries greater than $2$ might be especially instructive.
With its close connections to many distinct research areas,
most notably the study of self-reducibility and critical graphs,
our model can serve as a tool for new discoveries.
In particular, we were able to exploit the tight relations to
criticality in the proof that recognizing
$\beta$-vertex-critical graphs
is $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$-hard, yielding the first
completeness result for $\Theta_2^\textnormal{p}$ in the field.
\section*{Acknowledgments} \label{sec:acknowlegdements}
We thank the anonymous referees and Hans-Joachim Böckenhauer, Rodrigo R.\ Gumucio Escobar, Lane Hemaspaandra, Juraj Hromkovi\v{c}, Rastislav Kr\/{a}lovi\v{c}, Richard Kr\/{a}lovi\v{c},
Xavier Muñoz, Martin Raszyk, Peter Rossmanith, Walter Unger, and Koichi Wada for helpful comments and discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
Superthin galaxies are low surface brightness (LSB), flat or bulgeless disc galaxies with strikingly high values of planar-to-vertical axes ratio $b/a \sim 10 - 20$,
also referred to as ultra-flat or very thin galaxies (Goad \& Roberts 1981, Karachentsev 1989; Matthews, van Driel \& Gallagher 1999, Karachentsev et al. 2016, Bizyaev et al. 2017). They are gas-rich and dark matter-dominated with low metallicities and star formation rates (See Kautsch 2009 for a review). Superthins therefore serve as proxies of a very late-type galaxy population and are therefore ideal laboratories for testing models of galaxy evolution in the local universe.
A superthin stellar vertical structure implies an ultra-cold stellar disc i.e., a stellar disc with distinctly low values of stellar dispersion in the vertical
direction. The existence of ultra-cold stellar discs is a mystery, given the hierarchical structure formation scenario of the current cosmological paradigm.
Besides, galaxy mergers are known to be common in group environments, which results in the heating and subsequent thickening of the stellar discs (Walker, Mihos \& Hernquist 1996;
Velazquez \& White 1999; Qu et al. 2011). LSBs are however favourably located at the outskirts of voids, which, therefore, complies with the quiescent nature of their stellar discs (Rosenbaum et al. 2009).
However, galactic discs may also be heated by internal mechanisms via the growth of non-axisymmetric instabilities like bars, spiral arms and other mediators of
secular evolution (Barbanis \& Woltjer 1967, Grand et al. 2016). This possibly implies that superthins are devoid of strong bars and spiral arms, which is characteristic of any very late-type, under-evolved
systems. Observational confirmation of the absence or near-absence of bars and spiral arms in highly edge-on systems like the superthins is tricky (But see, Bureau
\& Athanoussoula 2005). However, Zasov, Makarov \& Mikailhova (1991) showed that superthin galaxies are stabilised against vertical bending instabilities by a massive dark matter halos (See, also, Khoperskov et al. (2010)).
Analytical calculations by Ghosh \& Jog (2014) also indicated that the growth of both axi-symmetric and non-axisymmetric instabilities in the superthin galaxy UGC7321 are suppressed by its dark matter halo.
Garg \& Banerjee (2017) and Narayanan \& Banerjee (2019, in preparation) demonstrated that the dark matter suppresses the growth of both axi-symmetric and
non axi-symmetric instabilities for a sample of LSBs in general (Also, see, Banerjee \& Jog 2013, Narayanan \& Banerjee 2018). Therefore, the heating of the stellar disc via secular evolution
is possibly inhibited by the dark matter halo in superthin galaxies, which is a viable reason for the survival of their razor-thin stellar discs.
Alternatively, a higher value of the stellar specific angular momentum in a given radial gravitational field should favour the formation of a larger stellar disc, which may possibly get reflected in a larger planar-to-vertical axes ratio of the same. In fact, from an empirical study of the size-mass data from the SDSS, Shen et al. (2013) found that late-type galaxies, on an average, have larger characteristic size compared to their early-type counterparts.
The structure and morphology of a disc galaxy is primarily regulated by a counterbalance between the inward radial gravitational field and the outward centrifugal force, in contrast to ellipticals or spheroidals in which the dynamics is predominantly driven by the velocity dispersion of the stars. In fact, as a physical rationale behind the galaxy classification scheme, Fall (1983) proposed the
\emph{j$_s$ - M$_s$} where j$_s$ is the specific angular momentum of the stars and M$_s$ the stellar mass, often referred to as the Fall relation, according to which, galaxies with M$_s$ $\ge$ 9 obey the
j$_s$ - M${_s}^{2/3}$ scaling relation (Also see Romanowsky \& Fall 2012). Interestingly, the specific angular momentum of the dark matter halo also scales as their mass to the power 2/3 according to the
tidal torque theory, which assumes that the dark matter halos acquire their angular momenta via gravitational torques during the early phases of formation and evolution (Peebles 1969; White 1984; Barnes \& Efstathiou
1987). According to the modern theory of galaxy formation and evolution, galaxies form via the cooling and condensation of baryons in the potential wells of their host dark matter halos (Rees \& White 1979) and therefore the
Fall relation indicates the intrinsic connection between the galactic disc and its host dark matter halo. In fact, numerical simulations have indicated that gas and dark matter within virialized systems have comparable values of angular momenta (See, for example, Sharma \& Steinmetz 2005), and the assumption that the stellar disc originating from star formation in the cold gas disc acquires the same angular momentum as the parent gas disc is in agreement with the Fall relation. However, the connection is primarily interceded by two fundamental parameters, namely the global star-formation efficiency defined as the ratio of the stellar mass to halo mass, and the retained fraction of the specific angular momentum which is the ratio of the specific angular momentum of the stars to that of the dark matter halo, which, in turn, are governed by complex process of galaxy formation and evolution including stellar feedback,
gas dissipation and exchange of angular momentum among the different baryonic components.
In this paper, we study the specific angular momenta of a sample of six superthin galaxies to understand the origin of their characteristic razor-thin stellar discs i.e., stellar discs with unusually high planar-to-vertical axes ratios,
for which stellar photometry, HI surface density and high resolution HI rotation curves were already available in the literature. However, the angular momenta of their discs were not studied earlier.
In addition, we also consider a sample of nine general low surface brightness galaxies (LSBs) for which again all the necessary input parameters were already available in the literature as well.
None of our sample LSBs are edge-on and hence we have no notion if their stellar discs are superthin or not. However, they were part of the sample of galaxies considered for obtaining the fundamental
angular momentum-mass relation encompassing all galaxy morphological types from dwarf-irregulars to massive spirals (Posti et al. 2018). We primarily check if our sample superthins and LSBs have statistically higher values of specific angular momenta of their stellar discs j$_{\rm{s}}$ for a given value of (i) the radial gravitational field as indicated by their asymptotic rotational velocity $v_{\rm{rot}}$ and (ii) the stellar mass M$_s$, as compared to ordinary bulgeless disc galaxies chosen from the sample of Obreschkow \& Glazebrook (2014). Since the gas discs are progenitors of the stellar discs, we repeat the same study for the gas as well as the total (stars + gas) baryonic disc to gain possible insights into the formation and evolution processes of superthin galaxies. In addition,
we study the dependence of $R_D$ on the properties of its host dark matter halo as was of late investigated in hydrodynamical cosmological simulation studies. Finally, we also study the dependence of j$_{\rm{star}}$ on the gas mass fraction M$_{\rm{g}}$/{M$_{\rm{b}}$} where M$_{\rm{g}}$ and {M$_{\rm{b}}$} are the gas mass and total baryonic mass respectively as predicted by recent semi-analytical studies of galaxy formation and evolution.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In \S 2, we discuss the theory and numerical calculations, in \S 3 the sample, in \S 4 the input parameters followed by results and discussion in \S 5 and conclusions in \S 6.
\section{Data Analysis}
\subsection{Theory \& Numerical Calculations}
The angular momentum of the $i^{\rm{th}}$ component of the disc for axis-symmetric discs is given by
$$ J_i = 2 \pi \int_{0}^{\infty} {\Sigma}_i (\rm{R}) v(\rm{R}) \rm{R} \rm{dR} \eqno(1) $$
where $\Sigma (\rm{R})$ is the radial surface density profile of the $i^{\rm{th}}$ component and $v(\rm{R})$ rotational velocity. The mass of
the $i^{\rm{th}}$ component is given by
$$ M_i = 2 \pi \int_{0}^{\infty} {\Sigma}_i (\rm{R}) \rm{R} \rm{dR} \eqno(2) $$
Therefore, the specific angular momentum is given by
$$ j_i = \frac{J_i}{M_i} \eqno(3) $$
Earlier studies have shown that in the optical i.e., B-band or R-band, the surface brightness profile is well-fitted with an exponential (See, for example, de Blok et al. 2001), whereas in the mid infra-red, the same is fitted well with a double exponential (See, for example, Salo et al. 2015). The same trend holds good for our sample of superthins and LSBs. Therefore, for our sample stellar discs, ${\Sigma}_i (\rm{R})$ is either an exponential
$${\Sigma}_s (R) = {\Sigma}_s (0) \rm {exp} (-R/R_D) \eqno(4a)$$
where ${\Sigma}_s (0)$ is the central stellar surface density and $R_D$ the exponential stellar disc scalelength.
or, a double exponential given by
$${\Sigma}_s (R) = {\Sigma}_s (0,1) \rm{exp} (-R/R_D(1)) + {\Sigma}_s (0,2) exp(-R/R_D(2)) \eqno(4b)$$
where ${\Sigma}_s (0,1)$ is the central stellar surface density and $R_D(1)$ the exponential stellar disc scalelength of stellar disc 1 and so on.\\ \\
Similarly, earlier work indicated that the radial profiles of HI surface density could be well-fitted with double-gaussians profiles (See, for example, Begum \& Chengalur 2004, Patra et al. 2014), possibly signifying the presence of two HI discs. Also, galaxies with the HI surface density peaking away from the centre are common, which indicates the presence of an HI hole at the centre. Our sample HI surface density profiles could therefore be fitted well with off-centred double Gaussians given by
$$ {\Sigma}_g (R) = {\Sigma}_g (0,1) \rm{exp} [-{\frac{{(r-a_1)}^2}{2 {r_{0,1}}^2}}] + {\Sigma}_g (0,2) \rm{exp} [-{\frac{{(r-a_2)}^2}{2 {r_{0,2}}^2}}] \eqno(5)$$
where ${\Sigma}_g (0, 1)$ is the central gas surface density, $a_1$ the centre and $r_{0,1}$ the scalelength of gas disc 1 and so on. For the gas disc, we consiser the atomic hydrogen (HI) surface density only as the presence of molecular gas in LSBs is known to be negligible (See, for example, Banerjee \& Bapat for a discussion).\\ \\
Finally, the rotation curves of galaxies in general are commonly well-fitted either by a Brand-profile (See, for example, Banerjee \& Bapat 2014) given by
$$ v(R) = \frac{ V_{\rm{rot}} R/R_{\rm{max}}}{ {(1/3 + 2/3 {(R/R_{\rm{max}})}^n)}^{3/2}} \eqno(6a)$$
where $V_{\rm{max}} $, $R_{\rm{max}}$ and $n$ are the free parameters, with $V_{\rm{rot}} $ the asymptotic rotational velocity. \\
or, with an exponential profile given by
$$ v(R) = \alpha (1 - {\rm{exp}}(-R/\beta) ) \eqno(6b)$$
where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are free parameters (See, for example, Obreschkow \& Glazebrook 2014). \\
\noindent \textbf{Error bars:} The error bars on the total angular momentum ($J_s$, $J_g$, $J_b$), total mass ($M_s$, $M_g$, $M_b$) and the total specific angular momentum ($j_s$, $j_g$, $j_b$) were calculated by propagating the fitting errors on the input parameters.
\subsection{Sample} Our sample consists of six superthin galaxies for which high resolution rotation curves and gas surface density profiles from
HI 21cm radio-synthesis observations were available in the literature: UGC7321, IC5249, IC2233, UGC711, NGC4244 and FGC1540. We may note here that two of our sample superthin galaxies, UGC7321 and IC2233, are from the original sample of classic superthin galaxies, studied by Goad \& Roberts (1981) although IC2233 has a major-to-minor axes ratio $b/a$ $<$ 10. Our sample superthins are moderately inclined to perfectly edge-on with angles of inclination $i$ ranging between 65$^o$ - 90$^o$, with unusually high values of $b/a$
$\sim$ 9 - 16, $B$ band central surface brightness $\sim$ 22.4 -24.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ and low-to-intermediate values of the asymptotic rotational velocities v$_{\rm{max}}$ $\sim$ 85-112 kms$^{-1}$. \\
\noindent The basic properties of our sample superthins in the $B$-band and 3.6 $\mu$ band are summarized in Table 1 and 2 respectively. $B$-band
photometry for FGC1540 was not available in the literature and hence has not been presented in the table. The $B$-band, the stellar disc appears to be superthin, however, traces the young stellar population only. The major mass fraction of the stellar disc is however trace
by the mid infra-red band of 3.6$mu$. Unlike in the $B$-band, in the 3.6$mu$ band, for four out of our six superthins, the stars are distributed in two exponential discs with different radial scalelengths and vertical scaleheights, with one of the discs (Disc 1) several times more massive than the other (Disc 2) in general. We also note that Disc 1 is fainter i.e., with a lower surface brightness and with a larger disc size. \\
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{150mm}
\caption{Basic properties of our sample of superthin galaxies}
\label{tab:example_table}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\hline
Name\footnote{All the quantities except for Distance and Central B-band \\ surface brightness have been quoted from NED/Hyperleda}& D\footnote{Distance from Tully et al. (2013)} & ${{\mu}_B}(0)$\footnote{B-band central surface brightness} & $b/a$\footnote{Major-to-minor axes ratio} & $i$\footnote{Inclination} & $V_{\rm{rot}}$\footnote{Maximum Velocity} & $R_{\rm{d}}$\footnote{Radial disc scale length}\\
&(Mpc) & (mag arcsec$^{-2}$) & (kpc)& $^o$ & (kms$^{-1}$) & (kPc) \\
\hline
UGC7321 & 22.18 & 23.5 & 15.7 & 90 & 103 & 4.6\\
IC5249 & 31.77 & 24.5 & 10.2 & 90 &108 & 7.0\\
IC2233 & 12.59& 22.6 & 8.9& 90 &110 & 1.5\\
UGC711 & 20.61& 23.6 &15.5 &74.7 &105& 3.2 \\
NGC4244 &4.62 & 22.4 &9.1& 65.4 & 97 & 2.0\\
FGC1540 & 20.32& & 12.25& 78.7& 83& \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{150mm}
\caption{GALFIT structural decompositions of the superthin galaxies in the 3.6 $\micron$ band}
\label{tab:example_table}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline
Name\footnote{Adapted from Salo et al. (2015)} & ${{\mu}_0}(1)$\footnote{Central surface brightness of outer disc} & ${{R}_{d}}(1)$\footnote{Radial scale length of outer disk} & ${{\mu}_0}(2)$\footnote{Central surface brightness of inner disc} & ${{R}_{d}}(2)$\footnote{Radial scale length of inner disk} \\
& (mag arcsec$^{-2}$)& (kpc) & (mag arcsec$^{-2}$) & (kpc)\\
\hline
UGC7321 & 21.73 & 5.26 & 19.94 & 2.2 \\
IC5249 & 21.70 & 5.24 & 20.53 & 1.23 \\
IC2233 & 21.67 & 2.16 & 20.82 & 0.81\\
UGC711 & 21.189 & 2.14 & - & - \\
NGC4244 & 20.27 & 1.62 & - & - \\
FGC1540 & 22.23 & 1.87 & 21.39 & 0.54 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\noindent In addition, we choose a sample of nine bulgeless LSBs for which $B$-band stellar photometry, HI surface density and high resolution HI rotation curves were already available
(de Blok et al. 2001). Our sample LSBs are nearly to moderately face-on with angles of inclination $i$ ranging between 25$^o$ - 65$^o$, and therefore we cannot assess if they are superthin. Their $B$ band central surface brightness ${\Sigma}_{s}$(0) $\sim$ 22.10 -24.03 mag arcsec$^{-2}$, asymptotic rotational velocities v$_{\rm{max}}$ $\sim$ 70-142 kms$^{-1}$ and therefore have almost comparable photometric and dynamical properties as the superthins. The basic properties of our sample LSBs in the B-band are given in Table 3. The rotation curves of our sample superthins are found to be well-fitted by a Brandt profile whereas the LSBs with an exponential profile (See \S 2).
GALFIT 2-D structural decompositions in the 3.6$mu$ band were not available for our sample of LSBs. \\
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{150mm}
\caption{Basic properties of our sample of LSBs}
\label{tab:example_table}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\hline
Name\footnote{All values quoted from de Blok et al. (2001)} & D\footnote{Distance} & ${{\mu}_B}(0)$\footnote{B-band central surface brightness} & $R_D$\footnote{Exponential disc scalelength} & i\footnote{Inclination} & $V_{\rm{max}}$\footnote{Maximum Velocity}\\
&(Mpc) & (mag arcsec$^{-2}$) & (kpc)& ($^o$) & (kms$^{-1}$) \\
\hline
$F563-V2 $&$46 $&$22.10 $&$ 2.1 $&$29^a $&$118$ \\
$F574-1 $&$72 $&$23.31 $&$ 4.3 $&$65 $&$100$ \\
$F583-1 $&$24 $&$24.03 $&$ 1.6 $&$63 $&$87 $ \\
$F583-4 $&$37 $&$23.76 $&$ 2.7 $&$55 $&$70 $ \\
$F563-1 $&$45 $&$23.6 $&$ 2.8 $&$25 $&$112$ \\
$F568-V1 $&$80 $&$23.3 $&$ 3.2 $&$40 $&$118$ \\
$F568-1 $&$85 $&$23.8 $&$ 5.3 $&$26 $&$142$ \\
$F568-3 $&$77 $&$23.1 $&$ 4.0 $&$40 $&$105$ \\
$F579-V1 $&$85 $&$22.8 $&$ 5.1 $&$26 $&$114$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\noindent As discussed, we compare our angular momentum study of superthins and LSBs with that of a sample of six ordinary bulgeless disc galaxies and a sample of six bulgeless dwarf irregulars. The ordinary bulgeless disc galaxies are chosen from the sample of Obreschkow \& Glazebrook (2014) such that their bulge mass fraction is less than 0.05: NGC628, NGC2403, NGC2976, NGC3184, NGC3198 and NGC7793. They have $B$ band ${\Sigma}_{s}$(0) $\sim$ 21.49 - 22.56 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ and asymptotic rotational velocities v$_{\rm{max}}$ $\sim$ 70-142 kms$^{-1}$. \\
\subsection{Input Parameters}
GALFIT 2-D structural decompositions of the stellar surface density profiles of our sample superthins in the Spitzer 3.6 $\micron$ band were available from Salo et al (2015).
B-band photometry, HI rotation curves and HI surface density were taken from the literature as indicated within brackets for each of our galaxies: UGC7321 (Uson \& Matthews 2003), IC5249 (O'Brien et al. 2010), IC2233 (Matthews \& Uson 2008), UGC711 (Mendelowitz et al. 2000), NGC4244 (Zschaechner et al. 2011) and FGC1540 (Kurapati et al. 2018).
In Table 4, we present the best-fitting parameters when the rotation curves of our superthin galaxies were fitted with a Brandt profile (See \S 2.1). In Table 5, we present the best-fitting parameters when the radial HI surface density profile is fitted with a double gaussian (See \S 2.1). For the LSBs, $B$-band photometry, HI rotation curves and HI surface density profiles were all available from de Blok et al (2001). In Table 6, we present the best-fitting parameters when the rotation curves of our LSBs were fitted with a exponential profile (See \S 2.1), and in Table 7, the best-fitting parameters when the radial HI surface density profile is fitted with a double gaussian (See \S 2.1). A mass-to-light ratio constant with radius was assumed for the above studies which is reasonable for under-evolved late-type systems such as these which exhibit little or no colour variation with radius. \\
\noindent For comparison, we used the stellar angular momentum J$_s$, stellar mass M$_s$ and specific angular momentum j$_s$ as well as gas angular momentum J$_g$, gas mass M$_g$ and gas specific angular momentum j$_g$ values for the ordinary discs and dwarf irregulars as given in Obreschkow \& Glazebrook (2014) and Chowdhury \& Chengalur (2017) respectively. We may note here the J$_g$, M$_g$ and j$_g$ values for the ordinary discs included the contribution of the molecular gas. \\
\noindent
\begin{table}
\begin{minipage}{150mm}
\caption{Best-fitting rotation curves: Superthins}
\label{}
\begin{tabular}{lccr}
\hline
Name & V$_{\rm{rot}}$ & R$_{\rm{max}}$ & n \\
& kms$^{-1}$ & kPc & \\
\hline
UGC 7321 & 103.31 $\pm{2.32}$ & 19.58 $\pm{0.74}$ & 0.983 $\pm{0.02}$ \\ \\
IC 5249 & 108.26 $\pm{2.49}$ & 24.54 $\pm{3.87}$ & 0.835 $\pm{0.11}$ \\ \\
IC 2233 & 109.86 $\pm{13.93}$ & 27.52 $\pm{13.34}$ & 0.678 $\pm{0.13}$ \\ \\
UGC 711 & 104.287 $\pm{2.12}$ & 18.42 $\pm{1.45}$ & 1.83 $\pm{0.17}$ \\ \\
NGC 4244 & 96.59 $\pm{1.24}$ & 11.69 $\pm{2.70}$ & 0.487 $\pm{0.15}$ \\ \\
FGC 1540 & 83.36 $\pm{1.78}$ & 25.67 $\pm{6.32}$ & 0.449 $\pm{0.08}$ \\ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Best-fitting HI surface density profiles: Superthins}
\label{}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccr}
\hline
Name & ${\Sigma}_g (0, 1)$ & $a_1$ & $r_{0,1}$ & ${\Sigma}_g (0, 2)$ & $a_2$ & $r_{0,2}$ \\
& M$_{\odot}$Pc$^{-2}$ & kPc & kPc & M$_{\odot}$Pc$^{-2}$ & kPc & kPc \\
\hline
UGC 7321 & 4.91 $\pm{0.22}$ & 8.48 $\pm{0.66}$ & 6.27 $\pm{0.26}$ & 2.51 $\pm{0.52}$ & 1.07 $\pm{0.14}$ & 3.33 $\pm{0.47}$ \\ \\
IC 5249 & 8.05 $\pm{0.56}$ & 0.0 $\pm{0}$ & 0.25 $\pm{0.02}$ & - & - & - \\ \\
IC 2233 & 2.24 $\pm{0.13}$ & 2.53 $\pm{0.18}$ & 1.80 $\pm{0.12}$ & 2.45 $\pm{0.14}$ & 6.15 $\pm{0.19}$ & 1.70 $\pm{0.08}$ \\ \\
UGC 711 & 30.49 $\pm{1.5}$ & 0.0 $\pm{0}$ & 3.74 $\pm{0.22}$ & - & - & - \\ \\
NGC 4244 & 3.93 $\pm{0.85}$ & 7.15 $\pm{0.36}$ & 1.26 $\pm{0.48}$ & 4.11 $\pm{0.43}$ & 5.01 $\pm{0.34}$ & 4.61 $\pm{0.22}$ \\ \\
FGC 1540 & 4.09 $\pm{0.30}$ & 2.48 $\pm{0.87}$ & 5.73 $\pm{0.83}$ & 1.30 $\pm{0.39}$ & 5.08 $\pm{0.10}$ & 1.20 $\pm{0.26}$ \\ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}
\begin{minipage}{150 mm}
\caption{Best-fitting rotation curves: LSBs}
\label{}
\begin{tabular}{lcr}
\hline
Name & $\alpha$ & $\beta$ \\
& kms$^{-1}$ & kPc \\
\hline
F563-V2 & 118.13 $\pm{2.7}$ & 1.9 $\pm{0.14}$ \\ \\
F574-1 & 99.10 $\pm{0.79}$ & 2.62 $\pm{0.08}$ \\ \\
F583-1 & 88.84 $\pm{1.04}$ & 3.29 $\pm{0.09}$ \\ \\
F583-4 & 66.19 $\pm{2.16}$ & 1.61 $\pm{0.21}$ \\ \\
F568-V1 & 117.32 $\pm{1.10}$ & 2.19 $\pm{0.08}$ \\ \\
F563-1 & 109.59 $\pm{2.56}$ & 2.62 $\pm{0.30}$ \\ \\
F579-V1 & 110.65 $\pm{1.28}$ & 1.05 $\pm{0.07}$ \\ \\
F568-1 & 139.23 $\pm{2.26}$ & 2.29 $\pm{0.14}$ \\ \\
F568-3 & 107.01 $\pm{4.99}$ & 3.54 $\pm{0.40}$ \\ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Best-fitting HI surface density profiles: LSBs}
\label{}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccr}
\hline
Name & ${\Sigma}_g (0, 1)$ & $a_1$ & $r_{0,1}$ & ${\Sigma}_g (0, 2)$ & $a_2$ & $r_{0,2}$ \\
& M$_{\odot}$Pc$^{-2}$ & kPc & kPc & M$_{\odot}$Pc$^{-2}$ & kPc & kPc \\
\hline
F563-V2 & 6.89 $\pm{0.11}$ & 4.57 $\pm{0.11}$ & 2.53 $\pm{0.07}$ & 5.21 $\pm{0.25}$ &0.0 $\pm{0.09}$ & 1.74 $\pm{0.15}$ \\ \\
F574-1 & 2.31 $\pm{0.08}$ & 0.51 $\pm{0.98}$ & 6.18 $\pm{0.32}$ & 1.60 $\pm{0.24}$ & 7.70 $\pm{0.18}$ & 3.17 $\pm{0.22}$ \\ \\
F583-1 & 0.35 $\pm{0.12}$ & 4.66 $\pm{0.24}$ & 0.96 $\pm{0.37}$ & 4.37 $\pm{0.11}$ & 3.94 $\pm{0.08}$ & 4.14 $\pm{0.11}$ \\ \\
F583-4 & 1.09 $\pm{0.28}$ & -0.27 $\pm{0.33}$ & 1.49 $\pm{0.37}$ & 1.41 $\pm{0.10}$ & 3.23 $\pm{0.44}$ & 2.84 $\pm{0.22}$ \\ \\
F568-V1 & 1.76 $\pm{0.32}$ & 7.90 $\pm{0.12}$ & 2.28 $\pm{0.21}$ & 3.56 $\pm{0.14}$ & 2.97 $\pm{0.37}$ & 4.36 $\pm{0.22}$ \\ \\
F563-1 & 4.61 $\pm{0.45}$ & -3.74 $\pm{3.20}$ & 11.40 $\pm{1.70}$ & 0.76 $\pm{0.24}$ & 4.75 $\pm{0.49}$ & 2.06 $\pm{0.70}$ \\ \\
F579-V1 & 3.56 $\pm{0.05}$ & 4.11 $\pm{0.13}$ & 5.14 $\pm{0.14}$ & - & - & - \\ \\
F568-1 & 7.94 $\pm{0.15}$ & 4.41 $\pm{0.01}$ & 4.06 $\pm{0.11}$ & - & - & - \\ \\
F568-3 & 4.63 $\pm{0.13}$ & 3.95 $\pm{0.23}$ & 4.98 $\pm{0.25}$ & - & - & - \\ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\section{Results}
In Table 8, we present our calculated values of the mass M$_{\rm{stars}}$, the angular momentum J$_{\rm{stars}}$ and the specific angular momentum j$_{\rm{stars}}$ of our sample galaxies in the 3.6 $\micron$ band. Our results indicate that IC5249 has the highest value of j$_{\rm{stars}}$ among our superthins followed by FGC1540, UGC7321, UGC711, NGC4244 and IC2233. j$_{\rm{stars}}$ values for our sample superthins range between 10$^{5.44}$ - 10$^{5.95}$ comparable to 10$^{5.03}$ - 10$^{6.03}$ (both in j/kms$^{-1}$ pc units) found for a sample of 5 bulgeless ordinary spirals in Obreschkow \& Glazebrook (2014). We stress here that the 3.6$\micron$ band traces the old stellar population which also constitutes the main mass component of the galactic stellar disc. However, the attribute \emph{superthin} for our sample galaxies originated from their razor-thin appearance in the optical or B-band, and they may not appear to be be quite \emph{superthin} in the 3.6$\micron$ band. However, the optical or the $B$-band, which traces the young stellar population, may be highly obscured by dust and therefore may not be the ideal choice to estimate the mass or angular momentum of stellar discs. However, this effect is expected to be less severe in case of low surface brightness galaxies like the superthins due to their low dust content (de Blok et al. 2001). We therefore repeat the above study using structural decompositions in the $B$-band for all our sample galaxies, barring FGC1540 for which no optical data were available. In Table 9, we summarize the M$_{\rm{stars}}$, J$_{\rm{stars}}$ and j$_{\rm{stars}}$ values of our sample galaxies in the $B-$ band. We find that the specific angular momenta of our superthin stellar discs in the $B$-band are less than a factor of 2 higher than those in the 3.6 $\micron$ band, except for IC2233 which has comparable j$_{\rm{stars}}$ values in both the bands. Besides our sample galaxies follow the same trend in the magnitude of their j$_{\rm{stars}}$ values as in the 3.6 $\micron$ band. In Table 10, we present our calculated values for our LSB sample in the $B$ band. j$_{\rm{stars}}$ values for our sample LSBs range between 10$^{5.3}$ - 10$^{6.2}$ and is comparable to those of the superthins. \\
\noindent The calculated stellar mass M$_s$ varies between 10$^{8.3}$ - 10$^{9.4}$ M$\odot$, 10$^{8.5}$ - 10$^{9.9}$ M$\odot$ and 10$^{9.5}$ - 10$^{10.3}$ M$\odot$ for the superthins, LSBs, and ordinary discs respectively.
All the mass estimates correspond to the 3.6$\mu$ band except for the LSBs for which the calculated stellar masses correspond to the $B$-band.
Therefore, our superthins and LSBs have M$_s$ about an order of magnitude higher than those of the ordinary discs. Further, in the $B$-band, M$_s$ for our sample superthins are found to be a few times higher than those in the 3.6$mu$ band. \\
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Angular momenta of the stellar discs of the superthins: 3.6$\mu$ band}
\label{tab:example_table}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccr}
\hline
Name & &M$_{\rm{stars}}$\tnote{1} & & &J$_{\rm{stars}}$\tnote{2} & & & j$_{\rm{stars}}$\tnote{3} & \\
\hline
& Disc 1 & Disc 2 & Total & Disc 1 & Disc 2 & Total& Disc 1& Disc 2& Total \\
\hline
UGC7321 &9.10 &9.05 &9.38 &15.09$^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ &14.58$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ &15.21$^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ &6.00$^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ &5.53$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ &5.83$^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$\\ \\
IC5249 &8.97&8.18&9.04&14.98$^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ &13.34$^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ &15.00$^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ &6.01$^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ &5.16$^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ &5.95$^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$\\ \\
IC2233 &8.21&7.70&8.33&13.75$^{+0.14}_{-0.19}$&12.61$^{+0.15}_{-0.24}$&13.78$^{+0.13}_{-0.18}$ &5.53$^{+0.14}_{0.19}$ &4.91$^{+0.15}_{-0.24}$ &5.45$^{+0.13}_{-0.18}$\\\\
UGC711 &8.62&&8.62&14.07$^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$&&14.07$^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ &5.45$^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ & &5.45$^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$\\ \\
NGC4244 &8.57&&8.57&14.02$^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$&&14.02$^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$ & 5.44$^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$ & &5.44$^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$\\ \\
FGC1540 &8.38&7.64&8.46&14.09$^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$&12.68$^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$&14.11$^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ &5.71$^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ &5.03$^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ &5.65$^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$\\ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}\footnotesize
\item[1] in Log(M/M$_{\odot}$)
\item[2] in Log(J/(M$_{\odot}$kms$^{-1}$ pc))
\item[3] in Log(j/(kms$^{-1}$ pc)
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Angular momenta of the stellar discs of the superthins: $B$-band}
\label{tab:example_table}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{lccr}
\hline
Name &M$_{\rm{stars}}$\tnote{1} & J$_{\rm{stars}}$\tnote{2} & j$_{\rm{stars}}$\tnote{3} \\
\hline
UGC7321 & 9.67 & 15.60$^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$ & 5.94$^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$\\ \\
IC5249 & 9.34 & 15.50$^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & 6.15$^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$\\ \\
IC2233 & 8.74 & 14.05$^{+0.14}_{-0.21}$ & 5.31$^{+0.14}_{-0.21}$ \\ \\
UGC711 & 9.31 & 15.02$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & 5.70$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$\\ \\
NGC4244 & 9.61 & 14.71$^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & 5.55$^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$\\ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}\footnotesize
\item[1] in Log(M/M$_{\odot}$)
\item[2] in Log(J/(M$_{\odot}$kms$^{-1}$ pc))
\item[3] in Log(j/(kms$^{-1}$ pc)
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Angular momenta of the stellar discs of the LSBs: $B$-band}
\label{tab:example_table}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{lccr}
\hline
Name &M$_{\rm{stars}}$\tnote{1} & J$_{\rm{stars}}$\tnote{2} & j$_{\rm{stars}}$\tnote{3} \\
\hline
F563-V2 & 9.46 &15.10 $\pm$ 0.01 & 2.65 $\pm$ 0.01 \\ \\
F574-1 & 9.60 & 15.51 $\pm$ 0.00 & 2.91 $\pm$ 0.00 \\ \\
F583-1 & 8.45 &13.74 $\pm$ 0.01 & 2.29 $\pm$ 0.01 \\ \\
F583-IV & 9.01 &14.54 $\pm$ 0.02 & 2.53 $\pm$ 0.02 \\ \\
F563-1 & 9.11 & 14.84 $\pm$ 0.01 & 2.74 $\pm$ 0.01 \\ \\
F568-V1 & 9.34 &15.19 $\pm$ 0.00 & 2.84 $\pm$ 0.00 \\ \\
F568-1 & 9.58 & 15.74 $\pm$ 0.01 & 3.16 $\pm$ 0.01 \\ \\
F568-3 & 9.62 & 15.50 $\pm$ 0.02 & 2.88 $\pm$ 0.02 \\ \\
F579-V1 & 9.95 & 16.00 $\pm$ 0.01 & 3.05 $\pm$ 0.01 \\ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}\footnotesize
\item[1] in Log(M/M$_{\odot}$)
\item[2] in Log(J/(M$_{\odot}$kms$^{-1}$ pc))
\item[3] in Log(j/(kms$^{-1}$ pc)
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
We next study if a higher value of the stellar specific angular momentum j$_{\rm{stars}}$ leads to a larger disc size irrespective of the depth of the potential well as indicated by $V_{\rm{rot}}$. In Figure 1, we present the regression line fitted to the 1.68 $R_D$ versus j$_{\rm{s}}$ values of the ordinary bulgeless disc galaxies along with its 95.4$\%$ confidence interval, and superpose the data for the LSB (solid squares) and superthin (solid triangles) samples on it. 1.68 $R_D$ could be taken to be the half-stellar mass radius of the galaxy (Jiang et al. 2018).
We find that four out of the six superthins and most of the LSBs have systematically larger $R_D$ values compared to ordinary bulgeless disc galaxies for a given value of j$_{\rm{s}}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{rd_js.eps}
\caption{Plot of the characteristic radius of an exponential stellar disc $\sim$ 1.68 $R_D$, $R_D$ being the exponential stellar disc scale length versus specific angular momentum of the stellar disc j$_{\rm{s}}$. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4$\%$ confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by $0.49\pm{0.103}$ and $-0.82\pm{0.277}$ respectively. Superposed on the plot are the data for the superthins (solid triangles), LSBs (solid squares). The stellar photometry corresponds to the 3.6 $\mu$ band for all the galaxy types except for the LSBs for which it is the B-band. Also, for galaxies
with two exponential stellar discs, $R_D$ corresponds to the disc scale length of the larger disc.}
\label{fig:nfw_5249}
\end{figure}
\noindent As discussed earlier, the size of the stellar disc is primarily regulated by a balance between its the specific angular momenta and its radial gravitational field; a stellar disc with a given specific angular momentum is expected to have a larger disc size in a shallower gravitational potential well and vice-versa. In Figure 2, we fit a regression line to the $j_{\rm{s}}$ versus $V_{\rm{rot}}$ data for the ordinary spirals along with the 95.4$\%$ confidence band, $V_{\rm{rot}}$ being the asymptotic rotational velocity. We also superpose the $j_{\rm{s}}$ versus $v_{\rm{rot}}$ data for the superthins (solid triangles) and LSBs (solid squares) on this plot. We find that for three out of our six superthins and seven out of our nine LSBs, the $j_{\rm{s}}$ values lie above the 95.4 $\%$ confidence band of the $j_{\rm{s}}$ - $V_{\rm{rot}}$ regression line for ordinary bulgeless disc galaxies. We note that although the rest of the data points for the superthins lie within the 95.4$\%$ confidence band for the ordinary spirals, superthins and LSBs have systematically higher values of $j_{\rm{s}}$ momenta as compared to the ordinary spirals for a given value of the asymptotic rotational velocity $v_{\rm{rot}}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{js_vrot.eps}
\caption{Plot of the specific angular momenta of the stellar discs j$_{\rm{s}}$ versus the asymptotic rotational velocities V$_{\rm{rot}}$. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4$\%$ confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by $2.51\pm{0.72}$ and $-2.76\pm{1.55}$ respectively. Superposed on the plot are the $j_{\rm{s}}$ versus $V_{\rm{rot}}$ data for the superthins (filled triangles), LSBs (filled squares)}
\label{fig:nfw_5249}
\end{figure}
\noindent However, $V_{\rm{rot}}$ indicates the depth of the gravitational potential well of the galaxy. However, the actual radial gravitational field and hence the rotational velocity $V_{\rm{rot}}$ at any intermediate galacto-centric radius $R$ depends on the slope of the rotation curve. For a steeply rising rotation curve, the mean rotational velocity for the disc is close to $V_{\rm{rot}}$ whereas for a slowly rising rotation curve, the mean rotational velocity may be quite smaller than $V_{\rm{rot}}$. In fact,
we checked that even within each of the different galaxy types like the superthins, LSBs and the ordinary discs, there are steeply-rising to slowly-rising rotation curves.
Among our superthins, for example, UGC7321 has the most steeply-rising rotation curve, followed by IC5249, NGC4244, FGC1540, IC2233 and UGC 711.
In order to determine how $V_{\rm{rot}}$ compares with the mean rotational velocity, in Figure 3, we present a linear fit to the 2 R$_D$ $V_{\rm{rot}}$ versus $j_{\rm{stars}}$ data for all different galaxy samples taken together: LSBs, superthins and ordinary disc galaxies; 2 R$_D$ $v_{\rm{rot}}$ is representative of the stellar specific angular momentum according to Mo, Mao \& White (1998). Interestingly, the slope and intercept of the regression line fit for all the galaxies taken together are 0.97 $\pm$ 0.03 and 72.78 $\pm$ 23.33, respectively. This plot and the fit parameters together indicate that the mean rotational velocity is roughly the same for all galaxy types, except for a couple of superthins, which seem to have a smaller mean velocity and hence a larger disc size for a given value of $j_{\rm{s}}$. Therefore, we may conclude that some superthins and LSBs may have higher values of $j_{\rm{stars}}$ for a given values of $V_{\rm{rot}}$ and hence larger disc sizes compared to an ordinary disc galaxy. This, in turn, may lead to a larger value of the planar-to-vertical axes ratio as compared an ordinary bulgeless spiral with the same value of $v_{\rm{rot}}$.Therefore, a high value of the specific angular momentum may possibly drive the existence of superthin stellar discs in some LSBs.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{2vr_j_2.eps}
\caption{Plot of 2$V_{\rm{rot}}$$R_D$ versus the stellar specific angular momentum j$_{\rm{s}}$ for superthins(triangles), LSBs (squares) , and ordinary discs (diamonds). The stellar photometry corresponds to that of the $B$-band.}
\label{fig:nfw_5249}
\end{figure}
We next study the specific angular momenta of the gas discs to check for correlation, if any, between the specific angular momenta of the stellar and the gas discs in our sample superthins as the gas discs constitutes the progenitors of the stellar discs.
In Table 11, we present the mass M$_{\rm{g}}$, the angular momentum J$_{\rm{g}}$ and the specific angular momentum j$_{\rm{g}}$ of our
sample superthin galaxies as obtained from HI 21cm radio-synthesis observations, including corrections for the presence of Helium, and In Table 12, we present our corresponding values for the LSB sample. The gas mass M$_g$ varies between 10$^{6.5}$ - 10$^{10.0}$ M$\odot$, 10$^{8.4}$ - 10$^{9.4}$ M$\odot$ for the superthins and the LSBs respepctively. In comparison, it varies between 10$^{8.4}$ - 10$^{10.1}$ M$\odot$ for the ordinary discs. Besides, the respective median M$_g$ values for the superthins, LSBs and ordinary discs are 10$^{9.2}$ M$\odot$, 10$^{9.1}$ M$\odot$ and 10$^{9.5}$ M$\odot$. Therefore the superthins and LSBs have M$_g$ values comparable with those of the ordinary discs. We further note j$_{\rm{gas}}$ is in general higher than j$_{\rm{s}}$ for all our sample superthins. In fact,this is the reflection of the fact that the gas disc larger in size than that of the stars. Following the stellar case, in Figure 4, we present a regression line fit to the $j_{\rm{gas}}$ versus $V_{\rm{rot}}$ data for the ordinary bulgeless spirals (black line) using the data of Obreschkow \& Glazebrook (2014) along with its 95.4$\%$ confidence band (short-dashed line). We also superpose the $j_{\rm{g}}$ versus $V_{\rm{rot}}$ data for the superthins (filled triangles) and LSBs (solid spheres) on this plot. Interestingly, we note that unlike the stellar component, superthins are consistent with the $j_{\rm{g}}$ - $V_{\rm{rot}}$ relation of the ordinary spirals. However, we may note here that several of our sample galaxies have HI holes which indicates that the low angular momentum gas has been removed from them by supernovae explosions or other feedback effects. Therefore our calculated values of $j_{\rm{g}}$ may not be representative of the primordial or original$j_{\rm{gas}}$ of these galaxies, and hence it is not trivial to link the $j_{\rm{g}}$ to $j_{\rm{s}}$ without careful modelling of feedback effects.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Angular momenta of the gas discs of the superthins}
\label{tab:example_table}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccr}
\hline
Name & &M$_{\rm{gas}}$\tnote{1} & & &J$_{\rm{gas}}$ \tnote{2} & & & j$_{\rm{gas}}$\tnote{3} & \\
& Disc 1 & Disc 2 & Total & Disc 1 & Disc 2 & Total& Disc 1& Disc 2& Total \\
\hline
UGC7321 & 9.63$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & 8.40$^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$ & 9.65$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & 15.72$^{+0.}_{-0.}$ &13.95$^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$ & 15.73$^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ & 6.10$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & 5.55$^{+0.12}_{-0.16}$ & 6.10$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ \\ \\
IC5249 & 6.51$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & & 6.51$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & 10.06$^{+0.13}_{-0.19}$ & & 10.36$^{+0.13}_{-0.19}$ & 3.55$^{+0.13}_{-0.19}$ & & 3.55$^{+0.13}_{-0.19}$ \\ \\
IC2233 & 8.21$^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & 8.61$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & 8.75$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$& 13.62$^{+0.12}_{-0.17}$ & 14.36$^{+0.10}_{-0.12}$ & 14.44$^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$ & 5.41$^{+0.13}_{-0.18}$ & 5.76$^{+0.10}_{-0.13}$ & 5.68$^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$ \\ \\
UGC711 & 10.02$^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ & & 10.02$^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ & 15.94$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & & 15.94$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ &5.92$^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ & & 5.92$^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$\\ \\
NGC4244 & 8.75$^{+0.16}_{-0.25}$ & 9.20$^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & 9.33$^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$& 14.59$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$&15.11$^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & 15.22$^{0.05}_{-0.06}$ & 5.85$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & 5.91$^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & 5.89$^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ \\ \\
FGC1540 & 9.14$^{+0.14}_{-0.20}$ & 8.10$^{+0.09}_{-0.20}$ & 9.18$^{+0.07}_{-0.11}$ & 14.95$^{+0.16}_{-0.25}$ & 13.66$^{+0.15}_{-0.23}$ & 14.97$^{+0.15}_{-0.23}$ & 5.81$^{+0.17}_{-0.30}$ & 5.57$^{+0.19}_{-0.30}$ & 5.80$^{+0.17}_{-0.27}$ \\ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}\footnotesize
\item[1] In Log(M/M$_{\odot}$)
\item[2] In Log(J/(M$_{\odot}$kms$^{-1}$ pc))
\item[3] In Log(j/(kms$^{-1}$ pc))
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Angular momenta of the gas discs of the LSBs}
\label{tab:example_table}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{lccr}
\hline
Name &M$_{\rm{g}}$\tnote{1} & J$_{\rm{g}}$\tnote{2} & j$_{\rm{g}}$\tnote{3} \\
\hline
F563-V2 & 9.13 $\pm$ 0.02 &14.93 & 2.80 $\pm$ 0.03 \\ \\
F574-1 & 9.10 $\pm$ 0.05 & 15.0 & 2.90$^{-0.11}_{+0.08}$\\ \\
F583-1 & 9.10 $\pm$ 0.02 & 14.85 & 2.75 $\pm$ 0.03 \\ \\
F583-IV & 8.36$^{-0.07}_{+0.06}$ &13.87 & 2.51$^{-0.14}_{+0.11}$ \\ \\
F563-1 & 9.40$^{+0.18}_{-0.33}$ & 15.53$^{+0.24}_{-0.58}$ & 3.12$^{+0.28}_{-1.0}$ \\ \\
F568-V1 & 9.14$^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ & 15.07$^{0.05}_{-0.06}$ & 2.93$^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ \\ \\
F568-1 & 9.37 $\pm$ 0.02 & 15.37 $\pm$ 0.03 & 2.99 $\pm$ 0.03 \\ \\
F568-3 & 9.22 $^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ & 15.12 $\pm$ 0.06 & 2.90 $^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$ \\ \\
F579-V1 & 9.13 $\pm$ 0.02 & 15.11 $\pm$ 0.03 & 2.97 $^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ \\ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}\footnotesize
\item[1] In Log(M/M$_{\odot}$)
\item[2] In Log(J/(M$_{\odot}$kms$^{-1}$ pc))
\item[3] In Log(j/(kms$^{-1}$ pc))
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{jg_vrot.eps}
\caption{Plot of the specific angular momenta of the gas discs j$_{\rm{g}}$ versus the asymptotic rotational velocities V$_{\rm{rot}}$. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4$\%$ confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by $2.82\pm{1.36}$ and $-3.15\pm{2.95}$ respectively . Superposed on the plot are the $j_{\rm{g}}$ versus $V_{\rm{rot}}$ data for the superthins (solid triangles), LSBs (solid squares).}
\end{figure}
Finally, in Tables 13 and 14, we present the total baryonic mass M$_{\rm{b}}$, the baryonic angular momentum J$_{\rm{b}}$ and the baryonic specific angular momentum
j$_{\rm{b}}$ of our sample superthin galaxies and LSBs respectively. In case of the superthins, both j$_{\rm{b}}$ and M$_{\rm{b}}$ closely reflect
j$_{\rm{g}}$ and M$_{\rm{g}}$ respectively. In contrast, the j$_{\rm{b}}$ and M$_{\rm{b}}$ for LSBs and ordinary spirals are not indicative of the values of any single disc component i.e., stars or gas. In fact, for ordinary spirals, M$_{\rm{b}}$ is significantly higher than M$_{\rm{g}}$, and j$_{\rm{b}}$ is
quite less than j$_{\rm{g}}$ (Obreschkow \& Glazebrook 2014). In Figure 5, we present a regression line fit to the $j_{\rm{b}}$ versus $V_{\rm{rot}}$ data for the ordinary bulgeless spirals using the data of Obreschkow \& Glazebrook (2014) along with its 95.4$\%$ confidence band. We also superpose the $j_{\rm{b}}$ versus $V_{\rm{rot}}$ data for the superthins (solid triangles)and LSBs (solid squares) on this plot. As in the gas disc case, for a given value of V$_{\rm{rot}}$,
all of superthins and LSBs have j$_{\rm{b}}$ comparable with the ordinary discs.
(See Appendix for a similar study involving the correlation of the
j$_{\rm{s}}$ - M$_{\rm{s}}$, j$_{\rm{g}}$ - M$_{\rm{g}}$ and
j$_{\rm{b}}$ - M$_{\rm{b}}$ values i.e., the Fall Relation.) \\
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Total angular momenta of the baryonic discs of the superthins}
\label{tab:example_table}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{lccr}
\hline
Name & M$_{\rm{baryons}}$\tnote{1}& J$_{\rm{baryons}}$\tnote{2} & j$_{\rm{baryons}}$\tnote{3} \\
\hline
UGC7321 & 9.84$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ &15.84$^{0.00}_{-0.00}$ & 6.01$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ \\
IC5249 & 9.04$^{+0.00}_{-0.00}$ & 15.00$^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ &5.95$^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ \\
IC2233& 8.89$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & 14.52$^{+0.07}_{-0.09}$ &5.63$^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ \\
UGC711& 10.04$^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ & 15.95$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ &5.91$^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ \\
NGC4244& 9.40$^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ & 15.25$^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ &5.85$^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ \\
FGC1540 & 9.25$^{+0.07}_{-0.09}$ & 15.03$^{+0.13}_{-0.20}$ &5.77$^{+0.15}_{-0.23}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}\footnotesize
\item[1] In Log(M/M$_{\odot}$)
\item[2] In Log(J/(M$_{\odot}$kms$^{-1}$ pc))
\item[3] In Log(j/(kms$^{-1}$ pc))
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Angular momenta of the baryonic discs of the LSBs}
\label{tab:example_table}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{lccr}
\hline
Name &M$_{\rm{stars}}$\tnote{1}&J$_{\rm{stars}}$\tnote{2} & j$_{\rm{stars}}$\tnote{3} \\
\hline
F563-V2 & 9.62 $\pm$ 0.01& 15.32 &2.70 $\pm$ 0.01 \\ \\
F574-1 & 9.72 $\pm$ 0.01 & 15.63 &2.91 $\pm$ 0.02\\ \\
F583-1 & 9.19 $\pm$ 0.02 & 14.88 &2.69$^{-0.03}_{+0.02}$\\ \\
F583-IV & 9.10 $\pm$ 0.01 &14.62 & 2.52 $\pm$ 0.02\\ \\
F563-1 &9.58 $^{+0.13}_{-0.19}$ & 15.61$^{+0.21}_{-0.41}$ & 3.03$^{+0.23}_{-0.53}$ \\ \\
F568-V1 & 9.55 $\pm$ 0.02 & 15.43 $\pm$ 0.02 & 2.88 $\pm$ 0.03 \\ \\
F568-1 & 9.79 $\pm$ 0.01 & 15.89 $\pm$ 0.01 & 3.10 $\pm$ 0.01 \\ \\
F568-3 & 9.76 $\pm$ 0.01 & 15.65 $\pm$ 0.02 & 2.88$^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ \\ \\
F579-V1 &10.01 $\pm$ 0.002 & 16.05 $\pm$ 0.005 & 3.04 $\pm$ 0.01 \\ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}\footnotesize
\item[1] In Log(M/M$_{\odot}$)
\item[2] In Log(J/(M$_{\odot}$kms$^{-1}$ pc))
\item[3] In Log(j/(kms$^{-1}$ pc))
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{jb_vrot.eps}
\caption{Plot of the specific angular momenta of the baryonic discs j$_{\rm{b}}$ versus the asymptotic rotational velocities V$_{\rm{rot}}$. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4$\%$ confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by $2.60\pm{1.16}$ and $-2.83\pm{2.52}$ respectively. Superposed on the plot are the $j_{\rm{b}}$ versus $V_{\rm{rot}}$ data for the superthins (solid triangles), LSBs (soild squares). }
\label{fig:nfw_5249}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Size-Mass Relation:} We also study the size-mass relation in our superthin and LSB samples following earlier studies in the literature, which showed the afore-mentioned scaling relation strongly depends on the galaxy morphology, with late-types having characteristically larger disc sizes compared to early-type galaxies (See, for example, Shen et al. 2003). In Figure 6, we present the regression line fit to 1.68 R$_D$, which is the half stellar mass radius and hence a proxy for the stellar disc size versus the stellar mass M$_{\rm{s}}$ to the data for the ordinary spirals. Superposed on it are the data points for the superthins (solid triangles), LSBs (solid squares). We observe that the superthins and LSBs all lie outside the 95.4$\%$ band of the ordinary spirals, implying that they have larger disc size for a given stellar mass as compared to the ordinary spirals. We observe that all the LSBs and the superthins lie outside the 95.4$\%$ confidence band of the of the ordinary spirals. This indicates that they have significantly larger disc size compared to ordinary spirals with the same stellar mass, which is in line with the $j_{\rm{s}}$ - $M_{\rm{s}}$ Fall relation. \\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{rd_ms.eps}
\caption{Plot of the characteristic radius of an exponential stellar disc $\sim$1.68 $R_D$, $R_D$ being the exponential stellar disc scale length versus the stellar mass M$_{\rm{s}}$. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4$\%$ confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by $0.42\pm{0.11}$ and $-3.63\pm{1.05}$ respectively. Superposed on the plot are the $j_{\rm{s}}$ versus $V_{\rm{rot}}$ data for the superthins (solid triangles), LSBs (solid squares). The stellar photometry corresponds to the 3.6 $\mu$ band for all the galaxy types except for the LSBs for which it is the B-band. Also, for galaxies
with two exponential stellar discs, $R_D$ corresponds to the disc scale length of the larger disc.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
\subsubsection*{Possible origin of discs with high specific angular momenta:}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{High spin parameter:} During the early phases of their formation and evolution, galaxies acquire their angular momentum by the action of the tidal torque generated by the gravitational field of their global environment (White 1974). The angular momentum thus acquired can be characterized by a dimensionless parameter referred to as the spin parameter $\lambda$, which may be given by $\lambda$ = $\frac{j}{ \sqrt{2} V_{\rm{vir}} R_{\rm{vir}} }$ where $j$ is the specific angular momentum of the disc or the dark matter halo, and R$_{\rm{vir}}$ and V$_{\rm{vir}}$ are the virial radius of the dark matter halo, and its velocity at R$_{\rm{vir}}$ respectively (Bullock et al. 2001). In Table 15, we summarize the
$\lambda$ parameters for our stellar (${\lambda}_{\rm{s}}$), gas (${\lambda}_{\rm{g}}$) and baryonic discs ${\lambda}_{\rm{b}}$ respectively. We further note here that we have not given the $\lambda$ parameters of several galaxies in this table as we did not have reliable parameters of mass models with an NFW dark matter halo.
Interestingly, we find that both the ${\lambda}_{\rm{s}}$ and ${\lambda}_{\rm{b}}$ values of the superthins are almost an order of magnitude higher than those of the ordinary discs and most of the LSBs. Investigating the origin of the high values of ${\lambda}_{\rm{s}}$ in superthin galaxy, and its implications for a superthin disc can be a possible future study.\\
Besides, earlier studies considered the spin parameters of the disc and the dark matter halo to be equal assuming the conservation of the specific angular momentum of the gas (Fall \& Efstathiou 1980, for example). Therefore, in semi-analytical studies of galaxy formation, the spin parameter of the dark matter halo ${{\lambda}}_{\rm{halo}}$ is often used to predict the size of the stellar disc of the galaxy using the relation R$_e$ = ${\lambda}_{\rm{halo}}$ R$_{\rm{vir}}$ where $R_e$ is the half-mass radius of the galaxy, also assuming the asymptotic rotational velocity V$_{\rm{rot}}$ to be equal to the virial velocity V$_{\rm{vir}}$.
In Figure 7, we plot of the characteristic radius of an exponential stellar disc 1.68 R$_D$ versus ${\lambda}_{\rm{s}}$ R$_{\rm{vir}}$ for the superthins (solid triangles), LSBs (solid squares) and ordinary discs (solid rhombuses). The large error bars on the LSB data points are due to the uncertainties in the NFW model of their dark matter halos. We find that there is no clear correlation between 1.68 R$_D$ and ${\lambda}_{\rm{s}}$ R$_{\rm{vir}}$, which indicates that the stellar disc size is not strongly governed by their dark matter halo properties. \\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{rd_lambdarv_r1.eps}
\caption{Plot of the characteristic radius of an exponential stellar disc 1.68 $R_D$ versus $\lambda$ R$_{\rm{vir}}$ for the superthins (solid triangles), LSBs (solid squares) and ordinary discs (solid rhombuses) where $\lambda$ is the dimensionless spin parameter of the stellar disc given by $\frac{ j_{\rm{stars}} } { {\sqrt(2) V_{\rm{vir}} R_{\rm{vir}} } }$, $V_{\rm{vir}}$ and $R_{\rm{vir}}$ being the virial velocity and virial radius of the galaxy respectively. The stellar photometry corresponds to the 3.6 $\mu$ band for all the galaxy types except for the LSBs for which it is the B-band. Also, for galaxies
with two exponential stellar discs, $R_D$ corresponds to the disc scale length of the larger disc.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{150mm}
\caption{Dimensionless spin parameter $\lambda$}
\label{tab:example_table}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
Name & ${\lambda}_{s}$ & ${\lambda}_{g}$ & ${\lambda}_{b}$\\
\hline
Superthins& & & \\
\hline
UGC 7321 & 0.15 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.27 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.22 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
IC 5249 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.0005 $\pm$ 0.0002 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
IC 2233 & 0.002$\pm$ 0.001 & 0.003 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.003 $\pm$ 0.001 \\
FGC 1540 & 0.18 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.25 $\pm$ 0.12 & 0.23 $\pm$ 0.09 \\
\hline
LSB& & & \\
\hline
F563-1 & 0.04 $\pm$ 0.00 & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.05 \\
F568-3 & 0.008 $\pm$ 0.031 & 0.008 $\pm$ 0.032 & 0.008 $\pm$ 0.032 \\
F579-V1 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.11 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.12 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
F583-1 & 0.01 $\pm$ 0.00 & 0.04 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
F583-4 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
F563-V2 & 0.01 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.01 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
F574-1 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
F568-V1 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
F568-1 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
\hline
Spirals& & & \\
\hline
NGC 2403 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.00 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.00 & 0.04 $\pm$ 0.00 \\
NGC 3198 & 0.04 $\pm$ 0.00 & 0.12 $\pm$ 0.00 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.00 \\
NGC 7793 & 0.01 $\pm$ 0.00 & 0.01 $\pm$ 0.00 & 0.01 $\pm$ 0.00 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\item \textbf{Galaxy size versus dark matter halo concentration parameter:} Zoom-in cosmological simulation studies by Jiang et al. (2018) have lately revealed that galaxy size is in fact strongly regulated by the concentration parameter $c$ of its dark matter halo according to the equation R$_e$ = $A$ R$_{\rm{vir}}$ where $A$ = 0.02 (c/10)$^{-0.7}$. This implies galaxies with smaller disc size reside in smaller halos and vice-vera. We plotted the characteristic radius of an exponential stellar disc $R_e$ as predicted from cosmological hydrodynamical simulations of Jiang et al. (2018) versus $R_D$, the exponential stellar disc scale length as determined from observations. We obtained the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4$\%$ confidence interval of the same. Superposed on the plot were the $j_{\rm{s}}$ versus $v_{\rm{rot}}$ data for the superthins (solid triangles) and LSBs (solid squares). However, our results showed that the disc scale length R$_D$ is not driven by the the concentration parameter $c$ of its dark matter halo, and therefore not quite in agreement with the simulation results. \\
\item \textbf{Stellar specific angular momentum versus gas mass fraction:} Recent semi-analytical modelling studies of the inter-relation between the size and the angular momentum of galaxies by Zoldan et al. (2017) have indicated the existence of a strong correlation between the stellar specific angular momentum j$_{\rm{g}}$ and gas mass fraction M$_{\rm{g}}$/{M$_{\rm{b}}$} of galaxies. This could be explained on the basis of the fact that gas-poor galaxies i.e., galaxies with low values of M$_{\rm{g}}$/{M$_{\rm{b}}$} are hosted in larger or more massive halos, and therefore undergo a phase of rapid star formation at early phases of its evolution when the angular momentum acquired by the galaxy is quite low. Gas-rich galaxies, on the other hand, are hosted in smaller halos, and hence undergo star formation at a relatively slower pace until the present epoch when the angular momentum content of the halo is higher.
In Figure 8, we plot the regression line fit to the $j_s$ versus M$_{\rm{g}}$/{M$_{\rm{b}}$} for the data for the ordinary spirals with its 95.4$\%$ confidence interval. Superposed on it are the data points for the superthins (solid triangles) and LSBs (solid squares).
We may also note here that the gas mass fraction considered in the above study was M$_{\rm{g}}$/{M$_{\rm{b}}$} > 0.15, which matches the range of our sample galaxies.
We observe that the positive slope of the regression line complies with the trend predicted by the simulations, and the data for the LSBs are roughly in agreement with it. Interestingly, however, the superthins seem to be indicating a trend opposite to that predicted by the above study, which is puzzling. \\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.5\textwidth]{j_mfrac.eps}
\caption{Plot of the stellar specific angular momentum $j_{\rm{s}}$ versus the gas mass fraction M$_{\rm{g}}$/{M$_{\rm{b}}$}. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4$\%$ confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by $1.01\pm{1.37}$ and $3.21\pm{0.76}$ respectively. Superposed on the plot are the data for the superthins (solid triangles) and LSBs (solid squares).}
\label{fig:nfw_5249}
\end{figure}
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Specific angular momenta of superthins versus those of dwarf-irregulars:}
Recent studies have focused on the comparison of the specific angular momenta of dwarf-irregular galaxies
with those of ordinary disc galaxies (Chowdhury \& Chengalur 2017, Kurapati, Chengalur \& Pustilnik 2018).
Both dwarf-irregulars and low surface brightness galaxies including superthins constitute the (very) late-type galaxy population.
However, dwarf-irregulars are characterized by a lower dynamical mass as indicated by asymptotic rotational velocity V$_{\rm{rot}}$ values
between 10 - 50 kms$^{-1}$ whereas LSBs have the same between 80 - 120 kms$^{-1}$. In Figure 9 , we present the plot of the specific angular momenta of the stellar discs j$_{\rm{s}}$ versus the asymptotic rotational velocities V$_{\rm{rot}}$. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4$\%$ confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by $2.51\pm{0.72}$ and $-2.76\pm{1.55}$ respectively. Superposed on the plot are the $j_{\rm{s}}$ versus $V_{\rm{rot}}$ data for the superthins (filled triangles), LSBs (filled squares) and dwarf-irregulars (filled circles). It clearly shows that unlike most of the LSBs and the superthins, the j$_{\rm{s}}$ values of the dwarf-irregulars lie within the 95.4$\%$ confidence band for that of the ordinary spirals, implying the dwarf-irregulars do not have characteristically higher j$_{\rm{s}}$ values than those of the ordinary spirals. Interestingly, our calculated values of the $\lambda$ parameters of the dwarf-irregulars also came out to be an order of magnitude smaller than those of the superthins and LSBs.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.5\textwidth]{js_vrot+dwarves.eps}
\caption{Plot of the specific angular momenta of the stellar discs j$_{\rm{s}}$ versus the asymptotic rotational velocities V$_{\rm{rot}}$. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4$\%$ confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by $2.51\pm{0.72}$ and $-2.76\pm{1.55}$ respectively}. Superposed on the plot are the $j_{\rm{s}}$ versus $V_{\rm{rot}}$ data for the superthins (filled triangles), LSBs (filled squares) and dwarf-irregulars(filled circles).
\label{fig:nfw_5249}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
Superthin galaxies are edge-on or nearly edge-on low surface brightness galaxies (LSBs) with strikingly high values of planar-to-vertical axes ratio $b/a$ $\sim$ 10 - 20 with little or no discernable bulge component.
We primarily investigate if the high values of planar-to-vertical axes ratio in superthin galaxies is the reflection of a larger stellar disc size $R_D$ due to a higher value of their stellar specific angular momentum $j_{\rm{s}}$
for a given value of the gravitational potential well, the depth of which may be represented by its aymptotic rotational velocity V$_{\rm{rot}}$ as compared to bulgeless ordinary disc galaxies, as well as to a given stellar mass M$_{\rm{s}}$. Our sample consists of six superthin galaxies for which stellar photometry, atomic hydrogen (HI) surface density and high resolution HI rotation curves were already available in the literature. However the angular momenta of our sample superthin galaxies were not studied earlier. In addition, we also study a sample of nine general LSBs for which all the necessary input parameters were available as well.
We find that the characteristic sizes of the stellar discs, which is defined as 1.68 R$_D$ where R$_D$ is the exponential stellar disc scale length, for several of the superthins and LSBs and are higher for a given value of $j_{\rm{s}}$ as compared to ordinary bulgeless disc galaxies at high levels of statistical significance. This already hints at the fact that the depth of the gravitational potential wells in which some of the low surface brightness galaxies are hosted are possibly shallower compared to ordinary disc galaxies. In fact, we find that the $j_{\rm{s}}$ values of \emph{only} three out of our six superthins and \emph{only} seven out of our nine LSBs lie above the 95.4 $\%$ confidence band of the $j_{\rm{s}}$ - $V_{\rm{rot}}$ regression line for ordinary bulgeless disc galaxies, $V_{\rm{rot}}$ being the asymptotic rotational velocity while the rest lie within it, although systematically higher than those of the ordinary bulgeless spirals with the same $V_{\rm{rot}}$. \emph{indicating superthin galaxies and LSBs in general may have higher values of $j_{\rm{s}}$ and hence larger disc size R$_D$ compared to ordinary spirals with the same $V_{\rm{rot}}$, which may drive the large planar-to-vertical axes ratios of the stellar discs in superthin galaxies.}
Interestingly, however, we find that the gas specific angular momenta $j_{\rm{g}}$ values of our superthins and LSBs lie within the 95.4 $\%$ confidence band of the $j_{\rm{g}}$ - $V_{\rm{rot}}$ regression line for ordinary bulgeless disc galaxies. \emph{Since the gas discs are the progenitors of the stellar discs, lack of agreement with the $j_{\rm{s}}$ - $V_{\rm{rot}}$ relations inspite of compliance with the $j_{\rm{g}}$ - $V_{\rm{rot}}$ relation is a possible reflection of the characteristically different routes of evolution followed by the ordinary spirals versus the low luminosity galaxies.}
Finally, we also obtain the $j_{\rm{b}}$ - $V_{\rm{rot}}$ for the ordinary spirals and compare them with the data for the superthins and LSBs .
We find that the total baryonic specific angular momenta $j_{\rm{b}}$ values of our superthins and LSBs lie within the 95.4 $\%$ confidence band of the $j_{\rm{b}}$ - $V_{\rm{rot}}$ regression line for ordinary bulgeless disc galaxies, indicating that the gas discs in superthins and LSBs have specific angular momentum $j_{\rm{g}}$ comparable with those of the ordinary bulgeless disc galaxies for a given
$V_{\rm{rot}}$ or depth of the gravitational potential well. However, in this case, the $j_{\rm{b}}$ values of the superthins and LSBs were found to be systematically higher than those of the ordinary bulgeless disc galaxies. Therefore, the $j_{\rm{b}}$ - $V_{\rm{rot}}$ relation is a reflection of the $j_{\rm{g}}$ - $V_{\rm{rot}}$ in the galaxies. \\
In addition, we investigate the possible origin of a stellar disc with high $j_{\rm{s}}$ values in the superthins and LSBs.
We find that the median spin parameter $\lambda = \frac{ j_{\rm{stars}} } { {\sqrt(2) V_{\rm{vir}} R_{\rm{vir}} } }$, $V_{\rm{vir}}$ and $R_{\rm{vir}}$ being the virial velocity and virial radius of the galaxy respectively, is 0.13 $\pm$ 0.01 for superthin galaxies which is an order of magnitude higher than those of LSBs and ordinary spirals, which may have important implications for the existence of superthin stellar discs in these low surface
brightness galaxies. We also find that the the stellar specific angular momentum $j_{\rm{s}}$ moderately correlates with the gas mass fraction $M_{\rm{g}}$ /$M_{\rm{b}}$ for the ordinary disc galaxies as well as most of the LSBs in agreement with the results of recent numerical studies. Finally, we compare the specific angular momenta of the stellar discs of superthins and LSBs with those of the dwarf-irregulars, another class of gas-rich and dark matter-dominated late-type galaxies but not characterized by superthin discs. We find that for a given value of $V_{\rm{rot}}$, the dwarf irregulars have $j_{\rm{s}}$ values comparable to those of the ordinary discs in contrast to superthins or LSBs.
\section*{Acknowledgements} The authors would like to thank Ms. Sushma Kurapati for providing the data for FGC1540 and also acknowledge DST-INSPIRE Faculty Fellowship (IFA14/PH-101) for supporting this research. We would also like to thank the anonymous referee for the detailed comments which have helped to improve the quality of the paper.
\section*{References}
Banerjee, A. \& Jog, C. J. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 582 \\
Banerjee A., Matthews L. D., Jog C. J., 2010, NewA, 15, 89 \\
Barbanis, B., Woltjer, L. 1967, ApJ, 150, 461 \\
Begum, A. , Chengalur, J.N. 2004, A\&A, 424, 509 \\
Bizyaev, D. V., Kautsch, S. J., Sotnikova, N. Ya., Reshetnikov, V. P., Mosenkov, A. V., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3784 \\
Brandt, J.C. 1960, ApJ, 131, 293 \\
Bureau, M., Athanassoula, E. 2005, ApJ, 626, 59 \\
Chowdhury, A., Chengalur, J. N. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3856 \\
Dalcanton, J., Spergel, D. N., Gunn, J. E., Schmidt, M., Schneider, D. P. 1997, AJ, 114, 2178 \\
Efstathiou G., Lake G., Negroponte J., 1982, MNRAS, 199, 1069 \\
Garg, P. \& Banerjee, A. 2017, MNRAS,
Ghosh S., Jog, C. J. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 929 \\
Grand, R. J. J., Springel, V., Gomez, F. A., Marinacci, F., Pakmor, R., Campbell, D. J. R., Jenkins, A. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 199 \\
Karachentsev I., 1989, AJ, 97, 1566 \\
Karachentseva, V. E., Kudrya, Yu. N., Karachentsev, I. D., Makarov, D. I., Melnyk, O. V. 2016, AstBu, 71, 1 \\
Kautsch S. J., 2009, PASP, 121, 1297 \\
Khoperskov A., Bizyaev D., Tiurina N., Butenko M., 2010, Astron. Nachr., 331, 731 \\
Kurapati, S., Chengalur, J.N., \& Pustilnik, S. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 228 \\
Matthews, L. D., Uson, Juan M. 2008, ApJ, 688, 237 \\
Mendelowitz, C. M., Matthews, L. D., Hibbard, J. E., Wilcots, E. M. 2000, BAAS, 32, 1459 \\
Obreschkow, D., Glazebrook, K. 2014, ApJ, 784, 26 \\
O'Brien J. C., Freeman, K. C., van der Kruit, P. C. 2010c, A\&A, 515, 62 \\
Patra, N. N., Banerjee, A., Chengalur, J.N. \& Begum, A. 2014, MNRAS, 479, 5686 \\
Peebles P. J. E., 1969, ApJ, 155, 393 \\
Posti, L., Pezzulli, G., Fraternali, F., Di Teodoro, E. M. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 232 \\
Posti, L., Fraternali, F., di Teodoro, E., Pezzulli, G. 2018, arXiv180404663 \\
Qu, Y., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., van Driel, W. 2011, A\&A, 399, 879 \\
Rosenbaum, S. D., Krusch, E., Bomans, D. J., Dettmar, R.-J. 2009, A\&A, 504, 807 \\
Uson, Juan M., Matthews, L. D. 2003, AJ, 125, 2455 \\
Velazquez, H., White, S. D. M. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 254 \\
Walker, I. R., Mihos, J. C., Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 460, 121 \\
White S. D. M., 1984, ApJ, 286, 38 \\
Zoldan, A., De Lucia, G., Xie, L., Fontanot, F., Hirschmann, M. 2018, arXiv180308056 \\
Zschaechner, L. K., Rand, R. J., Heald, G. H., Gentile, G., Kamphuis, P. 2011, ApJ, 740, 35 \\
\section*{Appendix}
We study the Fall relation (1983) i.e. the correlation between specific angular momentum and disc mass in the stellar, gas and baryonic discs in our superthin and LSB samples. In Figure 10, we plot the regression line fit to the $j_{\rm{s}}$ - $M_{\rm{s}}$ data along with the 2-$\sigma$ or 95.4 $\%$ confidence band for the ordinary discs,
and superpose the data for the superthins and LSBs and on the same. It clearly shows that for a given stellar mass M$_{\rm{s}}$, superthin (solid triangles) and LSBs (solid triangles) have distinctly higher values of specific angular momenta $j_{\rm{s}}$ compared to ordinary bulgeless spiral galaxies, lying outside the 2-$\sigma$ or 95.4 $\%$ confidence band of the $j_{\rm{s}}$ - $M_{\rm{s}}$ scaling relation for bulgeless disc galaxies. This anomaly with respect to bulgeless disc galaxies may be possibly understood from the origin of the above scaling relation i.e., disc galaxies are rotationally-supported in the plane against
collapse due to the net gravitational field due to the mass of the stars (M$_{\rm{s}}$), gas (M$_{\rm{g}}$) and the dark matter halo (M$_{\rm{DM}}$) (Obreschkow \& Glazebrook 2014). Therefore $V_{\rm{rot}}$ is equivalent to the total dynamical mass of the galaxy i.e., M$_{\rm{dyn}}$ = M$_{\rm{s}}$ + M$_{\rm{g}}$+ M$_{\rm{DM}}$, and mass of the stars M$_{\rm{s}}$ represents a fraction of M$_{\rm{dyn}}$.
Therefore, the deviation of the data points corresponding to the superthins and LSBs from the $j_{\rm{s}}$ - $M_{\rm{s}}$ scaling relation obeyed by the ordinary spirals reflects that the stellar mass fraction in the total dynamical mass is significantly smaller than that in ordinary spirals. This is evident given the low star formation rates in the galaxies as is indicated by their low luminosity or low surface brightness nature, as the case may be.
In fact, we find that late-type galaxies comprising a sample of superthins and LSBs obey a different scaling
relation, given by a regression line of slope of 0.41 $\pm$ 0.082, and an intercept of -1.02 $\pm$ 0.749; this is distinct from the regression
line corresponding to the ordinary spirals, characterized by a slope of 0.87 $\pm$ 0.076 and intercept of -5.85 $\pm$ 0.753. Interestingly, the slope of the regression line obtained for the late-types alone closely matches those for the fundamental angular momentum-mass relation encompassing all galaxy morphologies from dwarf-irregulars to massive spirals (Posti et al. 2018).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{jsms.eps}
\caption{Plot of the specific angular momenta of the stellar discs j$_{\rm{s}}$ versus the stellar mass M$_{\rm{s}}$. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4$\%$ confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by $0.87\pm{0.76}$ and $-5.86\pm{0.75}$ respectively. } Superposed on the plot are the $j_{\rm{s}}$ versus M$_{\rm{s}}$ data for the superthins (solid triangles), LSBs (solid squares)
\label{fig:nfw_5249}
\end{figure}
In Figure 11, we plot the specific angular momenta of gas discs versus gas masses of superthins (solid triangles), LSBs (solid squares) as
obtained in this paper and compare them with the j$_{\rm{g}}$ - M$_{\rm{g}}$ scaling relation of bulgeless ordinary spirals with its 95.4$\%$ confidence band.
Interestingly, unlike the stellar case, the j$_{\rm{g}}$ values of our sample superthins fall within the 2-$\sigma$ band of the j$_{\rm{g}}$ - M$_{\rm{g}}$
scaling relation as the ordinary spirals, and therefore could be said to obey the same scaling relation as the ordinary spirals.
Arguing along the same lines as in the stellar case, we may say that the gas mass fraction in the total dynamical mass of the galaxy is
the same in the superthins, LSBs as in the ordinary bulgeless spirals. This is further reflected by the fact that regression lines
fitted to the respective data sets of the the superthins, the LSBs taken together, and the ordinary bulgeless spirals overlap with each other within error bars; the former has a best-fitting slope of 0.74 $\pm$ 0.077 and an intercept of -3.99 $\pm$ 0.705, whereas, for the latter, the values are 0.83 $\pm$ 0.090 and -4.86 $\pm$ 0.89 respectively. This further confirms that the gas mass fraction in the total dynamical mass of the galaxy is roughly constant irrespective of the morphological type of the late-type galaxies.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{jgmg.eps}
\caption{Plot of the specific angular momenta of the gas discs j$_{\rm{g}}$ versus the stellar mass M$_{\rm{g}}$. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4$\%$ confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by $0.83\pm{0.09}$ and $-4.86\pm{0.89}$ respectively. } Superposed on the plot are the $j_{\rm{g}}$ versus M$_{\rm{g}}$ data for the superthins (solid triangles), LSBs (solid squares).
\label{fig:figure5}
\end{figure}
In Figure 12, we present a regression line fit to the $j_{\rm{b}}$ versus M$_{\rm{b}}$ data for the ordinary bulgeless spirals using the data of Obreschkow \& Glazebrook (2014) along with its 95.4$\%$ confidence band. We also superpose the $j_{\rm{b}}$ versus M$_{\rm{b}}$ data for the superthins (solid triangles) and LSBs (solid squares) on this plot. As in the stellar case disc case, for a given value of M$_{\rm{b}}$,
all of superthins, LSBs have j$_{\rm{b}}$ values much greater than those of the ordinary discs with the same M$_{\rm{b}}$ value.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{jbmb.eps}
\caption{Plot of the specific angular momenta of the baryonic discs j$_{\rm{b}}$ versus the baryonic mass M$_{\rm{b}}$. The solid line represents the regression line fit to the ordinary bulgeless spirals and the dotted line the 95.4$\%$ confidence interval of the same.The slope and intercept of the line is given by $0.91\pm{0.11}$ and $-6.30\pm{1.09}$ respectively. } Superposed on the plot are the $j_{\rm{b}}$ versus M$_{\rm{b}}$ data for the superthins (solid triangles), LSBs (solid squares).
\label{fig:figure4}
\end{figure}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
In the world, there is a prevalence of schizophrenia (SZ) that ranges between four and seven per 1000 individuals (between three and five million people) \cite{saha2005systematic} and a prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) that ranges between six and 16 per 1000 children (between 1 of 150 and 1 of 59 children) \cite{baio2018prevalence}. SZ and ASD have in common that they both cause deficits in social interaction and are characterized by perceptual peculiarities. While ASD has its onset in early childhood, SZ is typically diagnosed in adults, although in very rare cases, appears during development \cite{rapoport2009autism}.
Similar neural bases have been observed for both disorders \cite{pinkham2008neural}, which has even led to the suggestion that some SZ cases might be part of the autism spectrum \cite{king2011schizophrenia}.
In fact, there are similarities such that both pathologies show atypical sensorimotor integration and perceptual interpretation.
However, there are also striking differences between these disorders. A common symptom of SZ is the occurrence of hallucinations or delusions, in contrast to ASD which is characterized by atypical non-verbal communication and emotional reciprocity. Furthermore, a few savant syndrome cases were reported in ASD individuals with extraordinary skills like painting \cite{treffert2009savant}.
\fig{painting} depicts, in an artistic way, the reality perceived by two individuals in the spectrum of these disorders.
\begin{figure}[hbpt!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth, height=90px]{hunted1-975x500}
\label{fig:painting:schizo}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth, height=90px]{nadia_drawing.jpg}
\label{fig:painting:asd}}
\caption{Artistic pieces representing different perceptions of the world. (a) Hunted, \textcopyright 2019 Henry Cockburn, a SZ diagnosed artist. (b) Drawing by Nadia Chomyn at the age of 5, a gifted ASD diagnosed child, reprinted from~\cite{selfe2012nadia}, \textcopyright 2012 Lorna Selfe.}
\label{fig:painting}
\end{figure}
For both disorders, neurological, genetic and environmental factors have been suggested, but to date the actual causes and underlying cognitive processes remain unclear.
A major challenge in diagnosis is their heterogeneity and non-specificity.
Heterogeneity means that symptoms, prognosis and treatment responses vary significantly between different subjects.
Non-specificity expresses that a single biological basis can be underlying different phenotypes (multifinality) and different biological bases can result in a single phenotype (equifinality). Non-specificity, as a biological abnormality related to a psychiatric disorder, can be found in many other neurological disorders \cite{cross2013identification,redish2016computational}.
Computational modeling of psychopathologies or \textit{Computational Psychiatry} is one of the potential key players \cite{wang2014computational, montague2012computational,redish2016computational} to tackle heterogeneity and non-specificity, and to better understand the cognitive processes underlying these disorders.
Eventually, computational models might help to obtain a deeper understanding of theoretical models, generate new hypothesis or even suggest new treatments.
There are different levels of descriptions or units of analysis to study these disorders, which encompass from genes to molecules, to cells, to circuits, to physiology, and then to behaviour. \textit{``Computational Psychiatry provides some of the tools to link these levels"} \cite{adams2016computational}.
In particular, neural network models serve, due to their analogy to biological neurons, as a tool to test and generate hypotheses on possible neurological causes \cite{huys2011computational}. Artificial neural networks cannot only be useful from the data-driven point of view (e.g., fitting a model to fMRI\footnote{fMRI: functional magnetic resonance imaging} data), but can also be used as a simplified model of the human brain to replicate and predict human behavior and to investigate which modifications in the connectionist models cause a specific alteration in the behavior.
\subsection{Artificial neural network modeling of psychopathologies}
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs or NNs) were first introduced in the 1950's as an attempt to provide a computational model of the inner processes of the human brain \cite{rosenblatt1958perceptron}. Nevertheless, their potential was not fully unraveled until the last decades because of limited computational power and data shortage \cite{schmidhuber2015deep}.
Due to the inspiration from biological processes of our brain and their connectionist nature, these technologies have also opened a door to new research fields that combine disciplines, such as neuroscience and psychology with artificial intelligence and robotics. Within the field of cognitive neuroscience, neural networks are already used as a tool for getting insights into the complex structures of our brain and gaining a better understanding of how learning, memory or visual perception might work on a neural level \cite{crick1983function, spitzer1995neurocomputational}.
In the late 80's and early 90's, neural networks were used for the first time related to psychiatry, trying to imitate psychological disorders \cite{hoffman1987computer, cohen1992context}. Early efforts in compiling ANN models for cognitive disorders can be found in \cite{reggia1996neural} and in \cite{gustafsson2004neural}, in particular, for autism. Due to immense advances in computational power, 20 years later, computational modeling using ANNs and deep learning is becoming a powerful asset to aid the investigation of this type of disorders.
The challenge is to translate findings from behavioral or neurological studies at different levels of description in a coherent way into a mathematical connectionist model.
ANN models can process a vast amount of information, cope with non-linearities in the data, and the structure of ANNs makes it possible to systematically test which parameter modifications cause effects similar to the symptoms of psychiatric disorders. Furthermore, these ANN models and their alterations may be directly implemented in artificial agents (e.g., robots) filling the last level: comparing the behavior of such agents with behaviors observed in patients \cite{pfeifer2006body,cheng2007cb}. In this way, existing hypotheses from neuroscience and psychology could be tested, and new hypotheses on potential causes could be formulated.
\subsection{Purpose and content overview}
This historical review aims at serving as a reference for computational neuroscience, robotics, psychology and psychiatry researchers interested in modeling psychopathologies with neural networks. This work extends general computational modeling reviews \cite{reggia1996neural, gustafsson2004neural, anticevic2015bridging, valton2017comprehensive, moustafa2017neurocomputational} by focusing on neural network models for SZ and ASD with detailed explanation of the alterations on a neural level and their associated symptoms, including their technical architectures as well as their mathematical formulation. For completeness, we also included Bayesian and predictive processing models due to their similarities to ANNs and their relevance inside the neuroscience community. Actually, conceptually, ANN and Bayesian models often take similar approaches to model psychiatric disorders (see \refsec{bayesianSchizo} and \refsec{bayesianASD}).
We start in \refsec{pathologies} with an introduction to the mentioned disorders, listing their main characteristics and symptoms based on the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) descriptions.
For readability and due to the heterogeneity of the reviewed methods, in \refsec{discussion}, we first summarize and discuss the main modeling approaches and hypotheses which are referenced in the literature. Afterwards, \refsec{modelsschizo} and \refsec{modelsasd} present a comprehensive review of models of SZ and ASD, respectively, organized by the type of modeling approach. To help the reader, we summarized the content of \refsec{modelsschizo} and \refsec{modelsasd} into two tables: \tab{schizophrenia} (page~\pageref{table:schizophrenia}) for SZ and \tab{autism} (page~\pageref{table:autism}) for ASD.
Finally, in \refsec{new} we discuss the reviewed works and compile recommendations for future research on ANNs for computational psychiatry, in particular for ASD and SZ.
\section{Pathologies and their symptoms}
\label{sec:pathologies}
SZ and ASD are disorders that change the way we perceive and act in the world. Atypicalities in perception and in cognitive process cause difficulties in connecting with the world, in particular for social interaction.
Since the first reports of autistic symptoms \cite{kanner1943autistic}, both conditions have been closely related. Before ASD was recognized as a separate disorder, subjects with ASD were often diagnosed as schizophrenic instead \cite{kanner1943autistic}. Also nowadays, these two pathologies remain strongly connected as both are associated with atypicalities in sensory processing and information processing, and due to their strong heritability \cite{daniels2008parental, aukes2008finding, sandin2017heritability}.
\subsection{Schizophrenia}
SZ is a serious psychiatric disorder that affects a person's feelings, social behavior and perception of reality. Its biological causes are still unknown, but genetic and environmental factors, i.e., prenatal stress, traumatic experiences or drug use, can be key factors for the development of this disorder. Its symptoms are usually divided into positive symptoms and negative symptoms \cite{sims1988symptoms}. \annotation{Positive symptoms correspond to the presence of abnormal functions, for instance, hallucinations and delusions.} Negative symptoms, corresponding to decreased function, are a lack of the normal function such as diminished emotional expression. Positive symptoms are more apparent and generally respond better to medication. Negative symptoms are more subtle and less responsive to pharmacological treatment. Below some of the most characteristic symptoms of SZ taken from the DSM-5 \cite{american2013diagnostic} are listed.
\bigskip
\noindent Positive symptoms:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Delusions}: have convinced beliefs that are not real, and cannot be changed despite clear evidence.
\item \textit{Hallucinations}: perceive things that do not exist as real, without an external stimulus.
\item \textit{Disorganized thinking}: difficulty to keep track of thoughts, drift between unrelated ideas during speech.
\item \textit{Disorganized or abnormal movements}: difficulties to perform goal-directed tasks, catatonic (stopping movement in unconventional posture) or stereotyped (repetitive) movements.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent Negative symptoms:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Diminished emotional expression}: reduced expression of emotions through speech, facial expressions or movements.
\item \textit{Avolition}: lack of interests, inaction.
\item \textit{Alogia}: diminished speech output.
\item \textit{Anhedonia}: diminished ability to experience pleasure.
\item \textit{Asociality}: lack of interest in social interaction.
\end{enumerate}
Multiple reports have also associated \textit{self-other disturbances} to SZ. This means that schizophrenic patients can perceive own and external actions or feelings, but may have problems differentiating them. This could be part of the explanation for auditory hallucinations and struggles during social interaction. Van der Weiden and colleagues published an extensive review \cite{van2015self} on possible causes for this disorder. Finally, in more severe cases, motor disorders have been reported \cite{morrens2006stereotypy}, such as stereotypical and catatonic behavior.
SZ is investigated by many researchers because of its prevalence and its devastating effects on patients, which can have life-changing consequences on the patient's relationships and social situation. Moreover, its close relation with the inner workings of self-perception and self-other distinction, raises the interest of researchers from multiple areas such as psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science and even developmental robotics.
\subsection{Autism spectrum disorder}
ASD is a prevalent developmental disorder that has a behavior-based diagnosis due to its still unclear biological causes. It was first introduced in the 1940s by Kanner \cite{kanner1943autistic}, who presented the cases of eleven children ``whose condition [differed] so markedly and uniquely from anything reported so far'', some of them being previously diagnosed as schizophrenic. Actually, the term \textit{autistic} was originally used for describing symptoms in schizophrenic patients. This kind of disorder mainly affects individual's social interaction, communication, interests and motor abilities. It is often referred to as a heterogeneous group (spectrum) of disorders, as individuals typically show distinct combinations of symptoms with varying severity. Nevertheless, there are some characteristic attributes that are commonly associated with ASD, which we have listed from the DSM-5 \cite{american2013diagnostic}.
\bigskip
\noindent Deficits in social communication and interaction:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Impairment in socio-emotional reciprocity}: struggle to share common interests and emotions, reduced response or interest in social interaction,
\item \textit{Deficits in non-verbal communication}: problems integrating verbal and nonverbal communication, and using and understanding gestures or facial expressions,
\item \textit{Problems to maintain relationships}: problems or absence of interest in understanding relationships and adjusting behavior.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent Abnormal behavior patterns, interests or activities:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Stereotyped movements or behavior}: repetitive motor movements or speech,
\item \textit{Attention to sameness}: adherence to routines, distress because of small changes,
\item \textit{Fixated and restricted interests}: strong attachment to certain objects, activities or topics,
\item \textit{Hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input}: indifference to pain, repulsive response to certain sounds or textures, visual fascination.
\end{enumerate}
\iffalse
\noindent Common Symptoms:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Impaired social interaction}: desire to self-isolate, avoidance of eye-contact, failure to understand social context
\item \textit{Reduced motor abilities}: repetitive movements, reduced coordination, impaired gait
\item \textit{Impaired communication}: limited early language, stereotypical speech
\item \textit{Atypical perception}: fascination with objects or concrete activities, more resistant to optical illusions, hypersensitivity to certain stimuli
\end{enumerate}
\fi
\annotation{Deficits in social interaction are often the most obvious symptoms of ASD. Hence, for a long time, ASD was mainly considered as a disorder of \textit{theory of mind}, suggesting that individuals with ASD are characterized by absence or weakening of their ability to reason about the beliefs and mental states of others in social contexts \cite{baron1997mindblindness}. Actually, early identification of individuals with ASD has focused on non-verbal communication interaction, mainly observing attention and gaze behaviours using standardized tests, such as the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) \cite{lord2012autism}. Whereas this explanation could account for a vast amount of symptoms that become obvious in development and socialization of children with ASD, it was mainly criticized due to its failure to explain similarly prominent non-social symptoms such as restricted interests, desire for sameness or excellent performance in specific areas.}
An alternative was suggested in the 90's with the \textit{weak central coherence} theory \cite{frith1994autism, happe2006weak}. It sees the underlying causes of ASD in the perceptual domain, namely in difficulties to integrate low-level information with higher-level constructs. This ``inability to integrate pieces of information into coherent wholes (central coherence)'', stated in \cite{frith2003autism}, could offer explanations for the aforementioned deficits and also be extended to an explanation of social deficits.
An even broader view is provided by the Bayesian brain hypothesis which suggests general deficits in the processing of predictions and sensory information, and can be applied to non-visual perception as well as motor abilities.
ASD is thought to be caused by genetic disorders and environmental factors and evidence points at high heritability \cite{sandin2017heritability}. Furthermore, recent studies, using a computer model of the human fetus, have also highlighted the importance of intrauterine embodied interaction on the development of the human brain and in particular cortical representation of body parts \cite{yamada2016embodied}. Some authors have suggested that preterm infants might have a higher risk of enduring such developmental disorders.
\section{Modeling approaches and hypotheses}
\label{sec:discussion}
ASD and SZ are among the psychiatric disorders which are most commonly investigated using computational modeling. A reason might be the unclear underlying cognitive mechanisms of these disorders which computational models might help to unravel. The studies we discuss in this review often take similar approaches for modeling ASD and SZ. In fact, these two disorders share certain symptoms, such as deficits in social communication and motor impairments manifesting as decreased response or repetitive and stereotyped movements. \annotation{Although, perceptual atypicalities in both disorders are usually differentiated in that SZ involves perceptual experiences that occur without an external stimulus (e.g., hallucinations) whereas ASD is more typically characterized by hypersensitivity to certain stimuli from the environment, there is some overlap. For instance, hypersensitivity can be also found in SZ patients \cite{robbins1993experiences}. Furthermore, both disorders present less sensitivity to some visual illusions \cite{happe1996studying, notredame2014visual}. Despite of all these similarities, it is still under debate how these two disorders relate to each other \cite{wood2017autism}}.
In computational modeling, similarities between modeling approaches are not primarily motivated by the similarities in symptoms. In fact, studies modeling SZ focused mainly on delusions and hallucinations which are not predominant in ASD. Similarities, instead, can be found in the suggested biological causes and in the type of altered neural network parameters.
There are three main biological causes that are commonly employed in computational models: neural dysconnections\footnote{Note that \textit{dis}connection usually refers to a lack of connection whereas \textit{dys}connection describes atypical connectivity which might include decreased as well as increased connectivity.}, imbalance of excitation and inhibition, and alterations of the precision of predictions or sensory information.
\subsection{Dysconnection hypotheses}
Especially for SZ, one of the most discussed theories is the idea of functional disconnections \cite{friston1998disconnection, lynall2010functional}. The main motivation is that SZ cannot be explained by an impairment of a single brain region, but only by a (decreased) interaction between multiple brain regions \cite{friston1998disconnection}.
Disconnections or underconnectivity are also discussed as a potentional cause of ASD \cite{frith2004autism, just2004cortical, anderson2010decreased}, but more recent evidence also points at increased connectivity \cite{keown2013local, supekar2013brain} or a distortion of patterns of functional connectivity \cite{hahamy2015idiosyncratic}.
In the discussed studies for SZ, dysconnection is primarily implemented by an increased pruning of synapses \cite{hoffman1989cortical, hoffman1997synaptic, hoffman2011using}.
Such a pruning is a normal developmental process between adolescence and early adulthood \cite{huttenlocher1979synaptic}.
Computational models using Hopfield networks \cite{hoffman1989cortical} or feed-forward networks \cite{hoffman1997synaptic, hoffman2011using} demonstrate that too strong pruning can cause fragmented recall or the recall of new patterns, which can be related to the symptom of hallucinations in SZ.
Notably, the SZ symptoms replicated with connection pruning focus solely on hallucinations or delusions and might not be appropriate for modeling ASD.
In fact, in a biological context, it might be more appropriate to disturb connections between neurons instead of simply cutting them.
This idea was followed by Yamashita and Tani \cite{yamashita2012spontaneous} who induced noise between different hierarchies of neurons (suggested by \cite{friston1995schizophrenia}).
They demonstrated in a robotic experiment that this leads to the emergence of inflexible, repetitive motor behavior similar to catatonic symptoms in SZ. This motor behaviour could also be present in ASD.
Just a single study focused on dysconnection in ASD. Park and colleagues \cite{park2019macroscopic, ichinose2017local} showed, using a spiking neural network, that local over-connectivity, especially locally in the prefrontal cortex \cite{courchesne2005frontal}, can account for the emergence of aberrant frequency patterns of neural connections in patients with ASD.
\subsection{Excitation/inhibition imbalance}
An excitation/inhibition (E/I) imbalance is among the most commonly referenced biological evidence for SZ as well as for ASD \cite{rubenstein2003model, sun2012impaired, snijders2013atypical, canitano2017autism}.
E/I imbalance was found in many neurobiological studies on SZ and ASD.
Although it is not clear how exactly E/I imbalance translates to changes in cognition and behavior \cite{canitano2017autism}, it seems to be linked to core symptoms of both disorders such as hallucinations \cite{jardri2016hallucinations} and social interaction deficits \cite{yizhar2011neocortical}.
An unanswered question is also of which quality this imbalance is. A recent review of studies regarding ASD found evidence for increased inhibition as well as for increased excitation \cite{dickinson2016measuring}.
Conflicting results in various brain regions might arise by differences in measurements and their reliability. The most commonly used mechanisms are magnetic resonance spectroscopy which allows to measure the cortical levels of glutamate or GABA, measurements of gamma-band activity (which is hypothesized to be connected to inhibition) or the analysis of the number of glutamate or GABA receptors in post-mortem studies \cite{dickinson2016measuring}.
Another possible interpretation of these conflicting results is that both, increases and decreases, in inhibition and excitation are present in ASD.
This hypothesis was put forward by Nagai et al. \cite{nagai2015influence}, suggesting that both impairments share a common underlying mechanism. Their model could show that increased inhibition and increased excitation can simulate the local or global processing bias of ASD, respectively.
Furthermore, Gustafsson \cite{gustafsson1997inadequate} also connected E/I imbalance to the local processing style of ASD. He implemented increased inhibition in a self-organizing map, in particular, stronger inhibition in the surrounding of receptive fields which led to over-discrimination.
For SZ, although E/I imbalance is commonly associated to SZ in the literature, only the approach from Jardri et al. \cite{jardri2013circular} explored E/I imbalance as a modeling mechanism.
In their model, a stronger excitation or insufficient inhibition caused circular belief propagation: bottom-up and top-down information \annotation{are confused with each other which might cause hallucinations and delusions (see page~\pageref{sec:circinf})}.
This model was recently supported by some experimental evidence \cite{jardri2017experimental}.
\subsection{Hypo-prior theory and aberrant precision account}
The increasing popularity of the Bayesian view on the brain in recent years resulted in a trend of explaining psychiatric disorders as a cause of the failure of correctly integrating perceived low-level sensory information (bottom-up information) with high-level prior expectations (top-down information). These approaches are inspired by diminished susceptibility of subjects with psychiatric disorders to visual illusions \cite{notredame2014visual} and the well-known symptom of hypersensitivity to certain stimuli (e.g., \cite{lucker2013auditory}).
Problems in the integration of top-down and bottom-up information can be explained by an inadequate estimation of the precision of these signals. A decreased precision of the prior causes a weaker reliance on predictions and, hence, a relatively stronger reliance on sensory input. This so-called hypo-prior theory was first suggested by Pellicano and Burr for ASD in 2012 \cite{pellicano2012world}. Similarly, an increased precision of the bottom-up signal can account for the same consequences \cite{lawson2014aberrant}. Despite some initial evidence in favor of an overrating of sensory information \cite{karvelis2018autistic}, it cannot be decided to date which of these theories is more compelling than the other. Possibly, both contribute to the observed phenomena.
For both, ASD and SZ, typically a weaker influence of predictions and a higher influence of sensory information is suggested \cite{pellicano2012world, lawson2014aberrant, karvelis2018autistic}. Lawson and colleagues substantiated aberrant precision for ASD by basing it on hierarchical predictive coding. \annotation{They argued that both hypo-priors and increased sensory noise might influence the perception on different levels of the cortical hierarchy}, leaving open both hypotheses.
In an endeavor to clarify how such theories differ for ASD and SZ, Karvelis et al. \cite{karvelis2018autistic} recently investigated how healthy individuals, scored for traits of ASD and SZ, use prior information in a visual motion perception task. \annotation{ASD traits were associated with increased sensory precision, whereas SZ traits did not correlate}.
However, it might be intuitively plausible that also an overrating of top-down information can account for the occurrence of hallucinations \cite{powers2016hallucinations}.
In a recent review, Sterzer et al. \cite{sterzer2018predictive} noticed that too strong as well as too weak priors explain psychosis. They suggested that the way that priors are processed might differ depending on the sensory modality or the hierarchical level of processing, yielding inconsistent theories and findings.
In line with this idea, computational models for ASD often suggest that an impairment might be present in both extremes \cite{idei2017reduced, philippsen2018understanding}. In \cite{idei2017reduced}, repetitive movement could be replicated by an aberrant estimation of sensory precision, leading to inflexible behavior, either due to sameness of intentional states (increased sensory variance) or due to high error signals and misrecognition (decreased sensory variance). Similarly, \cite{philippsen2018understanding} suggests that too strong as well as too weak reliance on the sensory signal may impair the internal representation of recurrent neural networks. Thus, for SZ as well as for ASD, too strong as well as too weak reliance on priors or sensory information seem to be valid modeling approaches.
\subsection{Alternative modeling approaches}
There are alternative theories used in the discussed computational models.
Synaptic gain, for instance, has been evaluated for SZ \cite{cohen1992context} as well as for ASD \cite{dovgopoly2013connectionist}. In fact, a reduction of synaptic gain might be related to reduced precision of prior beliefs as discussed in \cite{adams2018bayesian}.
\annotation{Less biologically inspired approaches can also be found in the literature and focus more on replicating behavioural data using known engineering techniques in ANN. For instance, deficits in generalization capabilities are modeled in neural networks by modifying the number of neurons \cite{cohen1994artificial}, changing the training time \cite{dovgopoly2013connectionist} or introducing regularization factors \cite{dovgopoly2013connectionist, ahmadi2017bridging}.}
\section{ANN models of schizophrenia}
\label{sec:modelsschizo}
\begin{table*}[!hbtp]
\caption{Overview of neural network models of schizophrenia}
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{ | l | p{4cm} | p{5cm} | p{5cm} | p{5cm} |}
\hline
\textbf{Model type} & \textbf{Paper} & \textbf{Disorder Characteristic} & \textbf{Biological Evidence} & \textbf{Approach} \\ \hline
Hopfield Networks & R. E. Hoffman, T. H. McGlashan (1987)\cite{hoffman1987computer} & Delusions, sense of mind being controlled by outside force & - & Storing of an excessive number of memories (memory overload)\\ \hline
& R. E. Hoffman, T. H. McGlashan (1989)\cite{hoffman1989cortical} & Hallucinations, delusions, sense of mind being controlled by outside force & Reduced connectivity in prefrontal cortex and other regions & Excessive connection pruning\\\hline
& D. Horn, E. Ruppin (1995) \cite{horn1995compensatory} & Delusions and hallucinations & Reactive synaptic regeneration in frontal cortex & Weakening of external input projections, increase of internal projections and noise levels, additional Hebbian component\\\hline
Feed-forward NNs & J. D. Cohen, D. Servan-Schreiber (1992) \cite{cohen1992context} & Disturbances of attention, representation of context & Abnormal dopamine activity in prefrontal cortex & Reduction of activation function gain in context-neurons\\ \hline
& R. E. Hoffman, T. H. McGlashan (1997) \cite{hoffman1997synaptic} & Auditory hallucinations & Reduced connectivity in prefrontal cortex and other regions & Excessive connection pruning\\ \hline
& R. E. Hoffman et al. (2011) \cite{hoffman2011using} & Delusionary story reconstuction & Abnormal dopamine activity, cortical disconnections & Increased BP learning rates, excessive connection pruning in working memory\\ \hline
Predictive processing & Adams et al. (2013) \cite{adams2013computational} & Delusions and hallucinations, abnormal smooth pursuit eye movement & Abnormal neuromodulation of superficial pyramidal cells in high hierarchical levels & Abnormal precision computation in the free energy minimization scheme\\\hline
Circular inference & Jardri and Denéve (2013) \cite{jardri2013circular} & Hallucinations and delusions & Disruption in the neural excitatory to inhibitory balance & Increased excitation / reduced inhibition in belief propagation \\\hline
Recurrent NNs & Y. Yamashita, J. Tani (2012) \cite{yamashita2012spontaneous} & Disturbance of self, feeling of being controlled by outside force, disorganized movements & Disconnectivities in hierachical networks of prefrontal and posterior brain regions & Noise between context neuron hierarchies in MTRNN\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table:schizophrenia}
\end{table*}
In the following section, we present a comprehensive description of the most important ANN models of SZ. The majority of approaches focuses on positive symptoms of SZ, such as hallucinations and delusional behavior, e.g., \cite{horn1995compensatory} and \cite{hoffman1997synaptic}. Nevertheless, there have been also approaches targeting other symptoms, for instance attention characteristics \cite{cohen1992context} and movement disorders \cite{yamashita2012spontaneous}.
An overview of the most important models is presented in \tab{schizophrenia}.
\subsection{Hopfield networks: memory }
\subsubsection{Memory overload}
\label{SchizoHoffman87}
In 1987, Ralph E. Hoffman, professor of psychiatry from Yale, presented the earliest neural network model of SZ \cite{hoffman1987computer}, inspired by the suggestions of \cite{crick1983function}, who explored the function of dreams using a neural network model. Hoffman tried to explain the causes of schizophrenic and maniac disorders with simulations using a Hopfield Network, an associative memory ANN that is usually employed to simulate the inner functioning of human memory \cite{hopfield1982neural} and to store binary memory patterns. It is a recurrent neural network that converges to fixed-point attractors. As a learning mechanism, the famous Hebbian rule, ``cells that fire together wire together'', is applied. In other words, connections between neurons that get activated with temporal causality are increased \cite{hebb1949organization}. In order to model SZ, the author inspected the behavior of the network attractors after storing an increasing number of binary memories.
Results showed that by \textbf{increasing the number of binary memory patterns stored}, the network reaches ``parasitic'' states that do not correspond to previously stored memories. With higher numbers of memories or decreased storage capacity, the network's internal energy minima, that correspond to the stored memories, might influence each other and create additional deep minima (attractors) that do not correspond to any previously learned pattern. These minima might influence either only the information processing course (mind being controlled by outside force) or lead to convergence to ``parasitic states'', which are compared to hallucinations and delusional thoughts. This study did not use biological evidence to support its main thesis that SZ might be caused by memory overload and only compared behavioral observations.
However, this model served as a stepping stone for a successor model (see \refsec{SchizoHoffmanHop}).
\subsubsection{Memory model with disconnections}
\label{sec:SchizoHoffmanHop}
Observations that show diminished metabolism in the prefrontal cortex (hypofrontality) of individuals with SZ led to the theory that excessive synaptic pruning might be the reason for the appearance of SZ between adolescence and early adulthood \cite{feinberg1982schizophrenia, keshavan1994schizophrenia}.
A decline in synaptic density is a normal developmental process \cite{huttenlocher1979synaptic, huttenlocher1982synaptogenesis} which might have gone too far in the case of SZ. In 1989, Hoffman and Dobscha used a Hopfield network, \annotation{arranged as a 2D grid}, as a content-addressable memory to retrieve previously stored memories giving a similar input \cite{hoffman1989cortical}. A ``neural Darwinism'' principle was applied, which is a \textbf{pruning rule that erases connections depending on their weights and length \annotation{(proximity of neurons in the grid)}}. The concrete pruning rule is shown in \eq{PruningRule}, with $|T_{xy}|$ being the weight of the connection between neurons in coordinates $(x,y)$ and $(i,j)$, and $\hat{p}$ the pruning coefficient. The pruning coefficient determines the number of connections which are discarded. \fig{HoffmanHopfieldPruning} illustrates a possible scenario for this pruning process.
\begin{equation}
|T_{xy}| = \boldsymbol{\hat{p}} \cdot [(i-x)^2 + (j-y)^2]^{0.5}
\label{eq:PruningRule}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{HopfieldPruningcrop}
\caption{Pruning rule used for the Hopfield Network in \cite{hoffman1989cortical}. The connections are pruned depending on the connection weight and the distance between the connected neurons. A: Connections before pruning. B: Connections after pruning. Reprinted from \cite{hoffman1989cortical}.}
\label{fig:HoffmanHopfieldPruning}
\end{figure}
For a moderate level of pruning, the network is still able to perform the memory-retrieval task, but for connection reductions of 80\% the network shows fragmented retrieval. This fragmentation was compared to thought disorders observed in SZ, which lead to incoherence, attention deficits or the feeling that one's mind is being controlled by an outside force. Furthermore, sometimes over-pruned areas converged to patterns not included in any of the stored memories. These were denominated as ``parasitic foci''. The authors compared these to hallucinations in SZ because they contained decodable information that does not belong to any stored memory. Occasionally, these parasitic regions extended on a larger area and persisted independently of the input, which was compared to delusional thoughts observed in patients.
\subsubsection{Memory model hippocampal region}
\label{sec:SchizoRuppin}
In 1995, Horn and Ruppin \cite{horn1995compensatory, ruppin1996pathogenesis} also introduced a Hopfield-based network to replicate the positive symptoms of SZ. This model was based on the hypothesis by J. R. Stevens \cite{stevens1992abnormal} that schizophrenic symptoms might be caused by ``reactive anomalous sprouting and synaptic reorganization taking place at the frontal lobes, subsequent to the degeneration of
temporal neurons projecting at these areas''. The hypothesis takes into account observations that showed atrophic changes in the temporal lobe, and at the same time increased dendritic branching in the frontal lobe of a significant number of schizophrenic patients. Essentially, the idea is that degenerations in temporal lobe regions that are connected to the frontal lobe regions might produce a compensatory reaction in that area, namely increased receptor bindings (frontal lobe connections) and anomalous dendritic sprouting (increased influence from other cortical areas).
\annotation{The work by Hoffman explained in the previous section suggested that hallucinations should always appear in combination with memory problems in patients because pruning clearly affects the network's memory retrieval performance. However, this is not always the case in patients.}
Following the hypothesis from Stevens, the model described in \cite{horn1995compensatory} would make hallucinations and intact memory capabilities compatible.
The model used in this paper was a Hopfield network taken from \cite{tsodyks1988associative, tsodyks1988enhanced}, which is more appropriate for the storage of correlated patterns. This network is used for a pattern retrieval and recovery task, which means that in its original functionality, it receives an external input pattern and outputs the previously learned pattern that corresponds to it, given that a similar one was learned before.
Defining the connection strength (weight) between neuron $i$ and $j$ as $W_{ij}$, the learning rule is:
\begin{align}
W_{ij_{\:new}} &= \boldsymbol{c} \; W_{ij_{\:old}} \; , \; (c > 1) \\
W_{ij} &= \frac{c_0}{N}\sum_{\mu=1}^{M}(\xi_i^\mu - p)(\xi_j^\mu - p)
\label{eq:InWeight}
\end{align}
where $\boldsymbol{c}$ is the internal projection parameter with value always $>1$. \eq{InWeight} describes the initial configuration of the network weights, with $c_0 = 1$, $p$ being the probability that a memory pattern is chosen to be 1, and $\xi_i^\mu$ one of the $M = \alpha N$ memory patterns.
The input of each neuron $i$ at time step $t$ is expressed as:
\begin{equation}
h_i(t) = \sum_{j}W_{ij}S_j(t-1)+ \boldsymbol{e} \cdot \xi_i^1
\label{eq:Presyn}
\end{equation}
where $e$ is the network input parameter with value $1$ in normal conditions, which weights the incoming memory pattern, and $S_j$ is the neuron output defined by a sigmoid function with noise level $T$ and a fixed uniform threshold of all $N$ neurons $\theta$:
\begin{equation}
\centering
S_i(t) =
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{with probability } \frac{1}{1 + \exp(-(h_i(t) - \theta)/\boldsymbol{T})} \\
0, & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:State}
\end{equation}
In order to simulate degenerated temporal lobe projections to the frontal lobe, the input is scaled down by decreasing parameter $e<1$ in \eq{Presyn}. In order to model increased receptor bindings and dendritic sprouting the parameter $\boldsymbol{c}$ in \eq{InWeight} and noise level $\boldsymbol{T}$ in \eq{State} are increased. The parameter $c$ scales the internal weights of the network and $T$ influences the neuron activation.
After performing these modifications, the network is still able to retrieve previously stored memories, but spontaneously converges to certain memories without a specific input stimulus.
\annotation{
An additional Hebbian learning rule during pattern retrieval on a lower time scale is used to account for increased dopamine levels observed in patients with SZ:}
\begin{equation}
W_{ij}(t) = W_{ij}(t-1) + \frac{\gamma}{N}(\bar{S}_i - p)(\bar{S}_j - p)
\label{eq:Hebbian}
\end{equation}
\annotation{where $\bar{S}_i$ is a variable that only becomes $1$ if the neuron in question has been active during the last $\tau$ iterations. There are studies that have observed that dopamine activity increases may enhance Hebbian-like activity-dependent synaptic changes in the brain, and a high synaptic modification rate $\gamma$ is used to replicate this effect, as this parameter influences how much the network's weights are changed during learning. This modification is used to imitate high dopamine levels observed in schizophrenia.}
\begin{figure}[hbtp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{RuppinSchizo.png}
\caption{Schematic illustration of the proposed model: An ANN models the frontal module, receiving input from internal connections c, external connections from the medial temporal lobe e and connections T from distant cortical modules modeled as external noise.
Highlighted in red are the modifications made on the Hopfield network to imitate schizophrenic behavior: Decrease of external input projections, and increase of internal projections and external noise. Adapted from \cite{horn1995compensatory}}.
\label{fig:RuppinSchizo}
\end{figure}
In total, four network modifications were tested on the presented architecture (\fig{RuppinSchizo}):
(1) \textbf{weakening of the network input parameter $\boldsymbol{e}$}, (2) \textbf{increase of internal projections $\boldsymbol{c}$}, (3) \textbf{increase of noise levels $\boldsymbol{T}$}, and (4) \textbf{additional Hebbian learning rule} (\eq{Hebbian}).
Combining the reactive modifications to a decrease of $e$ (internal connections and external noise) with the described Hebbian rule (even with a small $\gamma$ of 0.0025), the spontaneous retrievals are enhanced and get continuously triggered without a concrete retrieval input. This behavior is compared to long-term hallucinations or delusional beliefs characteristic of schizophrenic patients. This results would also fit with the effect of dopaminergic blocking agents (equivalent to reducing the effect of the Hebbian learning rule), which are used to reduce hallucinations in patients.
\subsection{Feed-forward networks: context and language}
\subsubsection{Attention and context representation}
In 1992 the first model based on feed-forward neural networks was introduced. The psychology professor Jonathan D. Cohen and neuroscientist David Servan-Schreiber \cite{cohen1992context} presented an extensive analysis of a possible explanation for negative symptoms in SZ. More concretely, they focused on disturbances of attention and contextualization problems in schizophrenics, which were for instance reported in \cite{garmezy1977psychology} and \cite{lang1965psychological}. Their main hypothesis was that schizophrenics fail to make an internal representation of context and that an abnormal amount of dopamine in the prefrontal cortex is the main cause (cf. \refsec{SchizoRuppin} as a comparison). The authors refer to previous studies suggesting that the prefrontal cortex is the brain region responsible for maintaining an internal representations of context, and that patients with SZ show dysfunctions and abnormal dopamine levels in this area. In order to test the dopamine-theory of SZ, three experimental tasks were compared to three neural network models, obtaining similar results to empirical observations. They simulated reduced dopamine activity by decreasing the gain of the activation function (the activation function's slope), described by \eq{GainEq}, in the neurons responsible for context representations. In this equation, we used the same nomenclature as in the original paper, where $net$ is the added activation of all incoming connections, $bias$ the neuron bias and $gain$ the parameter that is modified. The mentioned idea of modifying the activation function's gain was based on studies that suggest that high dopamine levels potentiate the neurons' activation (inhibitory and excitatory) in the prefrontal cortex. The modification of the gain has a similar effect because higher gain values increase the activation function's slope, which means that even small neuron input values produce either very low neuron activations (equivalent to inhibitory signals) or high activations (equivalent to excitatory signals).
\begin{equation}
f(net) = \frac{1}{1 + \exp(\boldsymbol{gain} \cdot net + bias)}
\label{eq:GainEq}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[hbpt!]
\centering
\subfigure[Stroop test]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth, height=100px]{StroopCardTest.png}
\label{fig:stroop:test}}
\subfigure[Network model]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth, height=110px]{JDCohenNN}
\label{fig:stroop:model}}
\caption{Attention and context. (a) Stroop card test used for SZ, reprinted from \cite{henik2004schizophrenia} (b) Neural network model used for the \textit{Stroop} task in \cite{cohen1992context}. Highlighted in red are the neurons with modified gain.}
\label{fig:stroop}
\end{figure}
The first experiment, depicted in \fig{stroop}, was the \textit{Stroop} task \cite{stroop1935studies}, which consists of color words printed in different color inks that are presented to the participants. These words have either congruent stimuli (color and word are the same), conflicting stimuli (color and word contradict each other) or control stimuli (color words printed in black ink or the letters \textit{``XXX"} printed in a certain color). The subjects must then either always name the letter's ink color or the written word. This exercise is used to test the participant's attention capacities, and schizophrenic subjects show overall slower reaction times and perform even worse when conflicting stimuli are shown \cite{henik2004schizophrenia}.
In order to feed the information in the network, the printed word's ink color and meaning were numerically coded. By reducing the gain on the \textit{color naming} and \textit{word reading} units from $1.0$ (normal gain) to $0.6$ they observed a delay in the response time of the network to properly produce a correct answer, similar to what it was observed in schizophrenic diagnosed individuals.
The second experiment, shown in \fig{CPT}, implemented the \textit{Continuous Performance Test (CPT)} \cite{rosvold1956continuous} identical pair version \cite{cornblatt1989continuous}. It measures participant's ability to detect repeated pattern of symbols in a longer sequence. Symbols are presented sequentially and the volunteers must detect when the pattern appears consecutively, words or numbers, e.g., ``9903''. In this experiment, schizophrenics usually struggle with the detection of longer patterns where previous symbols need to be taken into account. \textit{Prior stimulus module} neurons were used to save the information about previous sequence symbols. To simulate schizophrenic behavior, the authors \textbf{reduced the gain of the activation-function} of the task context yielding to a higher miss-rate in concordance with schizophrenic empirical observations.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\subfigure[CPT test]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\columnwidth, height=100px]{CPT-double.png}
\label{fig:CPT:test}}
\subfigure[Network model]{\includegraphics[width=0.44\columnwidth, height=110px]{JDCohenNN2}
\label{fig:CPT:model}}
\caption{Continuous performance test. (a) Simplified CPT Identical Pair test used (b) Neural network model for the \textit{CPT} adapted from \cite{cohen1992context}. Highlighted in red are the neurons whose gain was decreased to model disturbed processing in the prior stimulus module.}
\label{fig:CPT}
\end{figure}
Finally, a lexical disambiguation task depending on context was modeled based on the original work from Chapman et al. \cite{chapman1964theory} (see \fig{lexical}). Participants had to solve homonym conflicts (words with more than one meaning), taking into account the context of the sentence. In this case, schizophrenics show worse performances when the needed context to resolve ambiguity comes before the word in question. A similar approach than in the CPT experiment was taken: context neurons gain was manually reduced to $0.6$ like in the previous experiments. It resulted in low performance for the schizophrenic model when the sentence context that was needed to interpret the ambiguous word was located at the beginning of the sentence.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[Task]{\includegraphics[width=0.43\columnwidth, height=110px]{lexical.png}
\label{fig:lexical:test}}
\subfigure[Network model]{\includegraphics[width=0.43\columnwidth, height=120px]{JDCohenNN3}
\label{fig:lexical:model}}
\caption{Lexical disambiguation. (a) Task with context dependent meaning word. (b) Neural network model reprinted from \cite{cohen1992context}. Highlighted in red are the (context) neurons whose gain was reduced to $0.6$.}
\label{fig:lexical}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Auditory processing}
\label{SchizoHoffmanFF}
During a person's life, the number of neurons in the brain peaks during childhood and then decreases by a 30\% to 40\% in adolescence, which is also the period of time where SZ appears most frequently (adolescence/early adulthood) \cite{huttenlocher1979synaptic}. Based on this observation and post-mortem findings which suggest neural deficits in the schizophrenic's cerebral cortex \cite{keshavan1994schizophrenia,margolis1994programmed}, Hoffman and McGlashan designed a feed-forward neural network capable of translating phonetic inputs into words \cite{hoffman1997synaptic}. This model was inspired by Elman's (1990) model \cite{elman1990finding}. As illustrated in \fig{HoffmanResults:model} it consists of one hidden layer and a \textit{temporal storage layer} that saves a copy of the hidden layer from the previous processing step.
A \textbf{pruning rule} was used to set the value of \textbf{all connections below a certain threshold to zero}. After pruning approximately 30\% of the connections, the word detection capabilities of the used network improved\footnote{Pruning is a bioinspired standard technique for improving generalization of the network. However, nowadays, dropout approaches have gained popularity over pruning.}. However, with excessive pruning the network starts to struggle with detection tasks and shows spontaneous responses during periods without input (shown in \fig{HoffmanResults:results}). This last observation was associated to auditory hallucinations reported in patients with severe SZ. Furthermore, it supported the common theory that auditory hallucinations might be caused by false identification of own inner speech as externally generated.
\begin{figure}[hbtp!]
\centering
\subfigure[Network model]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\columnwidth, height=100px]{HoffmanRNN}
\label{fig:HoffmanResults:model}}
\subfigure[Word detection results]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\columnwidth, height=100px]{HoffmanResultsRNN}
\label{fig:HoffmanResults:results}}
\caption{Auditory hallucinations (a) Neural network model used in \cite{hoffman2001book}. Input of the network are simulated phonetic codes, output are semantic features of the input word. Highlighted in red are the connections the pruning rule was applied on to imitate schizophrenic symptoms. (b) Word detection results depending on connection pruning. Spontaneous detections are observed for excessive pruning. Reprinted from \cite{hoffman2001book} with permission.}
\label{fig:HoffmanResults}
\end{figure}
In posterior tests with healthy patients, schizophrenics with auditory hallucinations showed reduced word detection capabilities compared to schizophrenics without such hallucinations, which fits with the previous simulations. Furthermore, a later review of this paper \cite{hoffman2001book} highlighted that by applying active repetitive transcranial magnetic simulation (active rTMS) on the left temporoparietal cortex, a brain region usually associated to speech perception, hallucinations seem to be reduced. This further supports the hypothesis of a possible correlation between speech-processing disorders and auditory hallucinations.
\subsubsection{Language processing}
\label{SchizoHoffmanDISCERN}
Another feed-forward model of SZ introduced by R. E. Hoffman and collaborators \cite{hoffman2011using} uses a network called DISCERN \cite{miikkulainen1991natural, miikkulainen1993subsymbolic, grasemann2007subsymbolic} that is able to learn narrative language and reproduce learned content, e.g., learn a story and reproduce it after feeding it with a fraction of the story
Based on previous studies about SZ, eight different network modifications were tested: (1) \textit{Working Memory (WM) disconnections} by pruning of connections with a weight below a certain threshold, (2) \textit{Noise addition in working memory} by adding of Gaussian noise to WM neuron outputs, (3) \textit{WM network gain reduction} by reducing the activation function's gain, (4) \textit{WM neuron bias shifts} by increasing neuron bias and inducing an increased overall activation, (5) \textit{Semantic network distortions} by adding noise to word representations in semantic memory, (6) \textit{Excessive activation semantic networks} by increasing neuron outputs in semantic network, (7) \textit{Increased semantic priming} by blurring semantic network outputs, (8) \textit{Exaggerated prediction-error signaling (hyperlearning)} by increasing back-propagation learning rates.
The resulting network behaviors were compared to empirical results using a goodness-of-fit measure (GOF), which compared factors such as story recall success (successfully retelling story), agent confusions (switching of certain story characters), lexical errors and derailed clauses (false interpretation of certain sentences). The authors concluded that \textbf{(1) WM disconnections} with pruning and \textbf{(8) hyperlearning} best explain real-world data. These results for WM disconnections further reinforce the previously presented theory by Hoffman and McGlashan in \cite{hoffman1997synaptic} that excessive connection pruning during human's adolescence might be one of the causes for this disorder. Moreover, the authors also suggested that over-learning in schizophrenic brains might cause modifications in previously stored memories, which might lead to delusional or erroneous convictions.
\subsection{Bayesian approaches}
\label{sec:bayesianSchizo}
Several important models of psychiatric disorders are based on the idea that the brain uses Bayesian inference as a basic principle. The Bayesian brain hypothesis describes the human brain as a generative model of the world that makes predictions about its environment and adapts its internal model depending on the observation provided by the senses.
For SZ as well as for ASD it is suggested that patients might differ in the way they combine sensory inputs with prior information. The idea was highly influenced by Hermann Helmholtz's work in experimental psychology \cite{von1867handbuch} that dealt with the brain's capacity to process ambiguous sensory information. \annotation{In his words: \textit{``Visual perception is mediated by unconscious inferences"}. }
\begin{figure*}[hbtp!]
\centering
\subfigure[Arcimboldo's painting] {\includegraphics[width=0.23\columnwidth, height=80px]{Arcimboldo.jpg}
\label{fig:visualillusions:arcimbolo}}
\subfigure[Tacher's illusion]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\columnwidth, height=80px]{tacher_illusion2.jpg}
\label{fig:visualillusions:tacher}}
\subfigure[Ocampo's painting]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\columnwidth, height=80px]{octavio_ocampo.jpg}
\label{fig:visualillusions:ocampo}}
\subfigure[Dallenbach's illusion]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\columnwidth, height=80px]{cow.jpg}
\label{fig:visualillusions:dallenbach}}
\caption{Visual illusions where the brain infers different interpretations depending on the prior information or context. (a) Ortaggi in una ciotola o l'Ortolano. G. \textcopyright Arcimboldo 1590. (b) Tacher illusion \cite{thompson1980margaret}. (c) Forever Allways, \textcopyright Octavio Ocampo 1976. (d) Dallenbach's illusion 1952~\cite{kmd1951puzzle}.}
\label{fig:visualillusions}
\end{figure*}
\fig{visualillusions} shows puzzle images that stress that perception depends on prior knowledge as well as sensory input. For instance, if we rotate Arcimboldo's painting by 180~degree instead of vegetables we will see a human face with a hat. Tacher's illusion can be broken by also rotating the upside down images, and we will see that both faces are different. In particular, mouth and eyes are inverted. In Ocampo's painting, we can see two old people from a larger distance but two mariachis when viewing the picture from close range. Finally, Dallenbach's illusion shows that even if you know that there is an animal looking at you in the picture, it is impossible to see it until the shape of the cow is highlighted. Afterwards you cannot stop seeing it. In essence, what we perceive not only depends on the raw sensory information, but also on our prior knowledge and predictions we have about the world.
\annotation{The classical concept} of Bayesian inference presents perception as computing the posterior belief from the sensory input (likelihood) and from the model prediction (prior belief) depending on their relevance. For instance, in the case of a very imprecise (highly variable) prior, the perception would shift more strongly to the direction of the sensory input. \annotation{\fig{BayInf} illustrates these concepts assuming that the world is one-dimensional and can be described via Gaussian distributions}.
\begin{figure}[hbtp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth, height=100px]{Bayes_inference_own.png}
\caption{Illustration of Bayesian inference: The posterior belief is generated by inference of prior belief and sensory evidence. Depending on the variance (precision) of prior and sensory evidence, the posterior belief will be influenced more by one of the previous. Adapted from \cite{adams2013computational}.}
\label{fig:BayInf}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Free-energy model of schizophrenia}
\label{SchizoFriston}
Friston's free-energy model \cite{friston2010free} describes the brain functionality as a dynamical inference network.
It combined the Helmholtz machine ideas \cite{dayan1995helmholtz} with the hierarchical prediction error message passing \cite{rao1999predictive} and the Bayesian mathematical framework.
Despite not being implemented as an ANN model, we included it in this review because it is considered one of the most relevant models in the computational neuroscience community. \annotation{Furthermore, it serves for comparative purposes with predictive coding neural network implementations of psychiatric disorders \cite{yamashita2008emergence, yamashita2012spontaneous, philippsen2018understanding}.}
Under the free-energy principle, the brain is seen as a prediction machine that progressively constructs an internal model of the world which is constantly improved, based on the received sensory feedback and the resulting prediction error.
Perception (posterior belief) then results from combining the brain's predictions (prior) with the sensory evidence (likelihood) as shown in \fig{BayInf}. If the prior's precision is relatively higher than the precision of sensory evidence, the posterior will be more similar to the prior. In the opposite case, the posterior will be more close to sensory input. Therefore, precision weights the influence of prior and sensory evidence on the posterior belief.
Mathematically, the internal model is updated by minimizing the negative \textit{free energy} $F$ a lower bound on the KL-divergence that quantifies the difference between the internal belief about the world and reality.
Assuming that $\vec{\mu}$ are the dynamical internal states of the brain, perception is then described as the adaption of $\vec{\mu}$ given the sensory observations by minimizing the free energy using the gradient descent method described in \eq{equationInternalStates}:
\begin{align}
\dot{\vec{\mu}}(t) = D \vec{\mu}(t) - \frac{\partial F(\vec{s},\vec{\mu})}{\partial\vec{\mu}} = D\vec{\mu}(t) -\frac{\partial \epsilon}{\partial \vec{\mu}} \Pi \epsilon
\label{eq:equationInternalStates}
\end{align}
where $D$ is a differential matrix operator that computes the currently expected hidden state, $\epsilon$ is the error between the predicted (sensory) input from the higher layer and the real input (observation) and $\Pi$ \annotation{is the inverse variance (precision) of the information}. For instance, in humans, visual information would typically have higher precision than proprioceptive sensing for body localization \cite{hinz2018drifting}.
Based on these concepts, Adams et al. \cite{adams2013computational} built a computational model of SZ and analysed in three different experiments: \annotation{auditory pattern recognition (using the example of a bird recognizing its own song)}, a object eye-tracking task and a simulation of force-matching illusion. \annotation{One of the core ideas was that a reduction of the precision at higher levels of the cortical hierarchy (i.e., reduced precision of prior beliefs) influenced the responses of the model.}
More concretely, decreases in prior precision (or, for the force-matching illusion, failure to reduce sensory precision) led to struggles in auditory pattern recognition, problems with eye-tracking with occlusion and attribution of agency.
Furthermore, with an additional compensatory decrease of sensory precision (for the force-matching illusion, increase of prior precision), the model showed hallucination-like behavior during the auditory pattern recognition task and difficulties to distinguish self-touch and touch from others in the force-matching illusion.
\begin{figure}[hbtp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth, height=200px]{FristonBirdsong}
\caption{Prediction sonograms of the auditory signal of a birdsong (left), prediction error with respect to stimulus (middle) and used model (right), when last three chirps are omitted. Top row: Unmodified model generates prediction error increases with the first missing chirp, which corresponds to normal behavior. Middle row: With reduced precision at second level the model is unable to predict the third chirp, and the prediction error for missing chirps is reduced. Bottom row: With compensatory sensory precision reduction in first level, there is a complete failure of perceptual inference. Despite the wrong predictions, almost no prediction error is generated due to missing precise sensory information. This behavior is compared to auditory hallucinations. Reprinted from \cite{adams2013computational} with kind permission.}
\label{fig:FristonBirdsong}
\end{figure}
\annotation{\fig{FristonBirdsong} shows the experiment of auditory pattern recognition of a birdsong, showing how the precision in different cortical levels changes the response to surprising events. The first row describes a normal behavior to surprising events (the belief precision is high). In this case, when a chirp of the bird is omitted, the posterior perception contains an illusory (weakened) response at the point in the signal where sensory input is missing (white arrow at left plot). This effect might correspond to omission-related responses found in electrophysiological recordings of the brain \cite{nordby1994erps}. The middle and bottom rows correspond to abnormal behaviours in line with SZ findings, such as attenuation of omission-related responses and auditory hallucinations respectively.}
\subsubsection{\annotation{Circular inference in} Bayesian graphical models}
\label{sec:circinf}
\annotation{In \cite{jardri2013circular}, Jardri and Den\'eve investigated how excitatory to inhibitory imbalance may relate to psychotic symptoms in schizophrenia, using belief propagation in a hierarchical Bayesian graphical model.
In particular, it is shown that \textbf{a dominance of excitation causes circular belief propagation}: bottom-up sensory information and top-down predictions are reverberated, and therefore, may be confused with each other or taken into account multiple times.
The model can account for the occurrance of erroneous percepts (hallucinations) and fixed false beliefs (delusions) in SZ.}
\annotation{In the graphical model, low hierarchical levels correspond to sensory experience and high levels to top-down predictions.
Messages are passed between nodes in different hierarchical levels from lower to higher levels (bottom-up processing) and from higher to lower levels (top-down processing).
The fact that connections exist in both directions raises an important challenge: to differentiate between \textit{real} sensory information and sensory information which were simply \textit{inferred} from top-down expectations.
The authors suggest that such circular belief propagation in the Bayesian network is avoided if a careful balance between excitation and inhibition is maintained. A disruption of this balance can account for the appearance of schizophrenic symptoms.}
\annotation{Concretely, information between higher and lower levels are exchanged in the form of messages.
For belief propagation, messages are passed recursively until convergence:}
\begin{equation}
M_{ji}^{n+1} =
\begin{cases}
W_{ij}(B_i^n - \alpha_d M_{ij}^n) & \quad \text{if } i \text{ is above } j\\
W_{ij}(B_i^n - \alpha_c M_{ij}^n) & \quad \text{if } j \text{ is above } i,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where the term \textit{above} means that the node $i$ is in a higher hierarchical level than $j$.
$M_{ij}^n$ is the message sent from $i$ to $j$ at step $n$.
$W_{ij}$ is the connection strength, and $\alpha_d$ and $\alpha_c$ are the parameters that scale the inhibitory loops in upward and downward direction, respectively.
\annotation{$B_i^n$ is the computed belief expressed as a log-odd ratio\footnote{Log-odd ratio: computed as the log of the ration between the probability that a cause is present and that the cause is absent, thus, values around $0$ describe uncertain states, positive values correspond to belief in presence, negative values to belief in absence.} and updated as:}
\begin{equation}
B_i^{n+1} = \sum_i{M_{ji}^{n+1}}.
\end{equation}
The authors experimented with the two $\alpha$ parameters in this framework, adjusting them between 1 (normal level of inhibition) and 0 (no inhibition). Simulated results show that equally impaired loops (same $\alpha$ below 1) are still able to arrive at a proper inference. Conversely, with unbalanced impaired upward loops ($\alpha_u < 1$) ``over-estimation of the strength of sensory evidence and an underweighting of the prior" is produced. This is compatible with over-interpretation of sensory evidence and the reduced influence to illusions observed in schizophrenic patients.
The authors recently demonstrated in \cite{jardri2017experimental} that the circular inference model nicely fits decisions of SZ diagnosed patients using the Fisher task as the experimental paradigm. The Fisher task permits the manipulation of the prior and the likelihood allowing comparisons with the Bayesian model predictions. Participants have to decide whether the fish captured comes from the left or the right lake. First, two boxes (left, right) with fish and different sizes are presented (prior): bigger box express higher probability. Secondly, the two lakes (left, right) are presented with fishes inside with two colors (red and black). The proportion of red fishes represent the likelihood of the observation. Finally, participants have to decide if the red fish comes from the left or the right. According to the participant's data and their proposed model, descending and ascending loops correlated with negative and positive SZ symptoms respectively.
\subsection{Recurrent neural networks}
\label{SchizoTani}
In 2012, Yamashita and Tani presented a model of SZ using a recurrent neural network (RNN) \cite{yamashita2008emergence} such as they are commonly used for the recognition and generation of time series. Specifically, in this study, the RNN is applied to the task of sensorimotor sequence learning in a humanoid robot: the robot learns to predict visual information and own motor movements in a scenario where it moves a cube on a surface.
The type of RNN they used is the Multiple Timescale Recurrent Neural Network (MTRNN), a special type of RNN that mimics the hierarchical structure of biological motor control systems. Human and animal motor movements are commonly suggested to be segmented into so-called ``primitives" \cite{schaal2000nonlinear}. These primitives can then be reused and combined to more complex motor sequences.
The MTRNN contains neurons working at different timescales: fast context neurons (corresponding to the lower level of the hierarchy) learn the motion primitives and slow context units (corresponding to higher, more abstract levels) control the sequence of the primitives (see \fig{TaniSchizo}).
This network is trained to perform prediction error minimization, i.e., to build an internal model of the world following the Bayesian brain idea.
Training the network using the Backpropagation Through Time algorithm (BPTT), the robot learns multiple motions (grasping and moving an object) adapting to different object positions. It is also able to combine these actions into new action sequences by only training the slow context units. The trained network works as a predictor where the sensory input modulates the changes on the slow context units (goals) depending on the error\footnote{There is a strong parallelism between Multiple Timescale RNNs and the hierarchical model proposed by Friston.}.
Equation \ref{MTRNNUpdate} describes the dynamics of each neuron at each layer:
\begin{equation}
\tau \dot{u}_{i,t} = -u_{i,j} + \sum_{j}w_{i,j} \cdot x_{j,t}.
\label{MTRNNUpdate}
\end{equation}
In this formula, the membrane potential $u_{i,t}$ of neuron $i$ at time step $t$ is updated with the neural state $x_{j,t}$ of neuron $j$ scaled with the (learnable) connection weights $w_{i,j}$.
The time constant $\tau$ determines the update frequency of the neuron.
A small time constant is used for fast context units, and a large time constant for slow context units.
Schizophrenics can have trouble to distinguish self-generated actions from others' actions and, in severe cases of SZ, patients can even have problems performing movements, and show repetitive or stereotypical behavior \cite{van2015self}.
Based on observations that suggest that SZ may be caused by disconnections in hierarchical brain regions, mainly between prefrontal and posterior regions \cite{friston1995schizophrenia,banyai2011model}, \textbf{uniformly distributed random noise was added in the connections between fast and slow context units} highlighted with the red circle in \fig{TaniSchizo}.
For the evaluation of the model a humanoid robot was used. It had the task of locating an object on a table in front of it and performed different actions depending on the object's position: if the object was located to the right, the robot was supposed to grab the object and move it back and forth three times. Otherwise, if the object was located to the left, the robot had to grab the object and move it up and down three times.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth, height=180px]{TaniSchizo}
\caption{(A) Tasks to be performed by the robot: when the object is on the Right move the object backward and forward, when the object is on the Left move the object up and down. (B) MTRNN network architecture. Highlighted with a red ellipse are the connections between fast and slow context units that are degraded with noise to imitate schizophrenic behavior. Adapted from \cite{yamashita2012spontaneous}.}
\label{fig:TaniSchizo}
\end{figure}
They showed that for a small degree of disconnection (small noise addition) the robot had no problems to perform the mentioned task. Nevertheless, increases of spontaneous prediction error were observed and abnormal state switching appeared in the intention-network (slow units). The authors compared these prediction errors to patient's problems in attribution of agency (when own movements are perceived as being executed by someone else). Schizophrenics might want to perform an action and have an internal prediction of the upcoming proprioceptive and external states. The increases of prediction error could be seen as incongruences between the intended actions and the results, which can give a person the feeling of not being able to control the consequences of its own actions or it may have problems to perceive these actions as self-generated. For more severe disconnections, the humanoid robot clearly struggled to perform the given task and showed disorganized sequences of movements. These observations were compared to more severe cases of SZ, where cataleptic (stopping) and stereotypical (repetitive) behaviors have been observed.
\section{ANN models of autistic spectrum disorder}
\label{sec:modelsasd}
This section describes the most important ANN models of ASD. They focused on the atypical processing style suggested by the weak central coherence theory which could be summarized as excessive attention to detail. They replicated deficits in perception \cite{cohen1994artificial, dovgopoly2013connectionist, gustafsson1997inadequate, nagai2015influence}. Some also addressed atypicalities in memory structure and internal representations \cite{mcclelland2000basis, philippsen2018understanding} and inflexibility in motor behavior \cite{idei2017reduced}. Although most studies suggested connections to social deficits in an indirect way, only one of the models made a direct connection to theory of mind, by modeling weak central coherence on the level of logical reasoning \cite{o2000autism}.
An overview of the reviewed approaches is given in \tab{autism}.
\begin{table*}[!hbtp]
\caption{Overview of neural network models of ASD}
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{ | l | p{4cm} | p{5cm} | p{5cm} | p{5cm} |}
\hline
\textbf{Model type} & \textbf{Paper} & \textbf{Disorder Characteristic} & \textbf{Biological Evidence} & \textbf{Approach} \\ \hline
Feed-forward and simple recurrent NNs & I. L. Cohen \cite{cohen1994artificial, cohen1998neural} (1994, 1998) & Generalization deficits due to excessive attention to detail & Abnormal neural density in various brain regions & Excessive or reduced number of neurons, increased training duration\\ \hline
& J. L. McClelland (2000) \cite{mcclelland2000basis} & Hyperspecificity of memory concepts & -- & Excessive conjunctive coding\\\hline
& Dovgopoly \& Mercado \cite{dovgopoly2013connectionist} (2013) & Deficits in visual categorization and generalization & Abnormalities in synaptic plasticity & Reduced learning rate, negative weight decay (anti-regularization) \\ \hline
Self-Organizing Maps & L. Gustafsson (1997) \cite{gustafsson1997inadequate} & Excessive attention to detail & Lateral inhibition enhances sensory perception & Excessive inhibitory lateral feedback\\\hline
& L. Gustafsson et al. (2004) \cite{gustafsson2004self} & Avoidance of novelty & -- & Familiarity preference, higher weighting of close data points\\\hline
& G. Noriega (2007) \cite{noriega2007self} & Domain-based hypersensitivity & Early brain overgrowth in children with ASD & Variable (increasing) number of neurons, stronger/weaker attention to stimuli \\\hline
& G. Noriega (2008) \cite{noriega2008modeling} & Domain-based hypersensitivity & Early brain overgrowth in children with ASD & Propagation delays in neural weight updates \\\hline
Convolutional NN & Y. Nagai et al. (2015) \cite{nagai2015influence} & Local/global processing bias & Excitation/inhibition imbalance & Excitation/inhibition imbalance in visual processing\\\hline
Spiking NNs & J. Park et al. (2019) \cite{park2019macroscopic} & Atypical neural activity: High power in higher frequency bands and decreased signal complexity & Increased short-range connectivity in frontal cortex and atypicalities in resting-state EEG & Local over-connectivity \\\hline
Predictive coding & Pellicano \& Burr (2012) \cite{pellicano2012world} & Excessive attention to detail & -- & Hypo-prior: lower precision of prior, stronger focus on sensory input \\\hline
& Lawson et al. (2014) \cite{lawson2014aberrant} & Excessive attention to detail & Stronger activation in visual cortex than in prefrontal cortex in ASD & Hypo-prior or hyper sensory input: Precision imbalance that leads to excessive reliance on input \\\hline
Recurrent NNs & H. Idei et al. (2017) \cite{idei2017reduced} & Stereotypical behaviors & -- & Modification of variance estimation (sensory precision)\\\hline
& Philippsen \& Nagai (2018) \cite{philippsen2018understanding} & Reduced generalization capability, heterogeneity among subjects & -- & Modification of reliance on external signal and of variance estimation (sensory precision) \\\hline
& Ahmadi \& Tani (2017) \cite{ahmadi2017bridging} & Generalization deficits & -- & Regularization \\\hline
Other approaches & O'Loughlin and Thagard (2000) \cite{o2000autism} & Weak coherence, Theory of Mind impairment & -- & Impairment of coherence optimization in logical reasoning due to strong inhibition \\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table:autism}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Feed-forward and simple recurrent neural networks}
First, we describe approaches using simple connectionist models, typically feed-forward networks for classification tasks. Recurrent connections might be included at a structural level, but networks are not supposed to learn temporal sequences, which is why we refer to them as simple recurrent NN. These approaches mainly explored parameters of the network such as number of neurons or learning rate.
\subsubsection{Generalization deficits through overfitting}
\label{AutismCohen}
The first neural network model of ASD to our knowledge was proposed by Ira L. Cohen in 1994 \cite{cohen1994artificial}. It was a feed-forward neural network trained with back-propagation and investigated basic properties of neural networks. Based on studies that suggested that individuals with autism have either too few or too many neurons and neuronal connections (e.g., \cite{bauman1991microscopic}), the influence of increased or reduced number of hidden neurons was analyzed. The evaluated task was to classify children with ASD and children with mental retardation into two groups, using features obtained via a diagnostic interview \cite{cohen1993neural}. Note that although the considered task was related to ASD, the chosen task is just taken as an example and is not crucial for the findings of this paper.
A training and a test set were used to analyze the network's accuracy and generalization abilities. The results were compared for an increasing number of hidden units and through different number of trials. The results showed that a small number of hidden neurons translates into low accuracy (high training error) and bad generalization (high testing error) and an increased number of hidden neurons improved the network's learning accuracy and generalization. When the \textbf{number of hidden neurons was largely increased}, its generalization ability decreased: the network learned too much details of the input data and was not able to adapt to new input data.
An \textbf{increased number of training trials (longer training duration)} had a similar effect. For the training set, the network accuracy increased with longer training duration. However, with the test set, the network again showed signs of overfitting, as the accuracy decreased significantly.
Cohen compared these results qualitatively to the learning and behavioral characteristics of children with ASD.
In particular, many individuals with ASD show great discrimination capabilities and have no problems with already learned routines, but have problems when trying to abstract information or when confronted with new situations.
Cohen extended this approach in 1998 \cite{cohen1998neural} to the generalization capability in the presence of extraneous inputs to the network (set to random values). In the task of classifying happy and sad expressions of a simplified cartoon face, generalization was strongly impaired in the presence of extraneous inputs. This might suggest that networks trained for too long tend to attend more to non-relevant input information, instead of focusing on the more informative input neurons.
\annotation{Note that although increased number of hidden neurons may replicate autistic traits as shown in \cite{cohen1994artificial}, this parameter did not cause generalization deficits neither in Cohen's follow-up work \cite{cohen1998neural} nor in a similar modeling study \cite{dovgopoly2013connectionist} (see discussion on p.~\pageref{dovgopolyOverfitting}).}
\subsubsection{Precision of memory representations}
\label{AutismMcClelland}
In \cite{mcclelland2000basis}, James L. McClelland addressed the tendency of children with ASD to represent concepts in a too specific way, which results in difficulties to recognize two different instances of an object as the same category.
He suggested that in neural networks, this could be explained with the concept of excessive conjunctive coding. Typically, similar inputs to a neural network lead to similar neuron activation patterns. Such pattern overlaps can be useful for sharing existing knowledge and establishing associations. However, too strong associations can also cause interference. Conjunctive coding describes the reduction of such overlap by recoding the input patterns with neurons which only become active for particular combinations of elements. Assuming that what characterizes healthy human learning is a balance between generalization and discrimination, the representation of concepts in subjects with ASD could be characterized by \textbf{excessive conjunctive coding}. This would make a neural network loose the ability to generalize, as activation pattern overlaps cannot be exploited.
This idea was not tested experimentally, but the author used the neural network shown in \fig{McClellandFeedForward} to explain his reasoning.
McClelland presented the example of a semantic network used in \cite{mcclelland1995there}, as a model of organization of knowledge in memory (see \fig{McClellandFeedForward}). This model was used to associate words with their meaning, e.g., ``robin" and ``can" trigger the outputs ``grow", ``move" and ``fly" because these are the actions a ``robin" can perform. The internal layer of the network (highlighted in red in \fig{McClellandFeedForward}) progressively learns to code the meaning of input words during learning. This means that ``robin" and ``canary" should cause a very similar activation pattern because a robin has much more in common with a canary than, for instance, a tree. The author suggests that hyperspecificity in perception and memory representations of ASD children might be caused by an abnormality during this process. Namely, excessive conjunctive coding in the internal layer is proposed as a mechanism: an excessive reduction of overlap between representations of similar concept might cause the reported hyperspecificity which would result in generalization deficits.
No concrete network parameters are proposed, but it can be imagined that such an effect might be achieved by increasing the number of neurons in the internal layer. In this regard, the approach is similar to Cohen's suggestion \cite{cohen1994artificial}, but extended to learning of representations.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{McClellandFeedForward}
\caption{Semantic network used to explain the conjunctive coding hypothesis. In the hidden layers, the feed-forward neural network generates internal representations of the inputs (highlighted in red). Words describing similar concepts should produce similar internal representations that overlap with each other. The author suggests that excessive conjunctive coding to avoid these overlaps could produce excessive discrimination, such as in autistic perception. Adapted from \cite{mcclelland2000basis}.}
\label{fig:McClellandFeedForward}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Generalization and categorization abilities in visual perception}
Dovgopoly and Mercado \cite{dovgopoly2013connectionist} used an existing model of visual object perception \cite{henderson2011pdp} to replicate deficits in classification and generalization in ASD. The neural network was a feed-forward network, which modeled visual input processing via two pathways: the ventral cortical pathway (for object identification, including recurrent connections), and the dorsal cortical pathway (for processing of location-relevant information).
The authors replicated behavioral data from \cite{church2010atypical} and \cite{vladusich2010prototypical}, separately on both visual pathways, which show deficits in generalization and prototoype formation in children with high-functioning ASD. The experiment was the classification of random dot patterns as category or non-category stimuli \cite{church2010atypical}, or as category A or category B stimuli \cite{vladusich2010prototypical}. After adjusting the parameters for replicating typical behavior, four different parameter modifications were tested individually to replicate the data from ASD children. Following evidence for abnormalities in synaptic plasticity in individuals with ASD (e.g., \cite{bourgeron2009synaptic, auerbach2011mutations}), the first two parameters modified how weights in the network were updated.
First, the \textbf{learning rate was decreased}, which corresponds to reduced synaptic plasticity in biological neurons. As a result, network training takes longer and is more prone to lead to exhibit overfitting. Second, \textbf{generalization of the network was impaired by suppressing regularization} using negative weight decay. Weight decay is a method for regularizing neural networks and improving their generalization abilities by keeping the connection weights small \cite{krogh1992simple}. Typically, weight decay punishes large weights by adding a term $\lambda \vec{w}'\vec{w}$ to the error function. With a negative weight decay factor $\lambda$ instead, anti-regularization is performed, encouraging the increase of weight magnitudes, and thus, over-complex classification rules. Third, they tested the influence of \textbf{increasing and decreasing the number of hidden neurons} similar to \cite{cohen1994artificial, cohen1998neural}, based on neurological evidence of an increased number of cortical minicolumns in the brain of individuals with ASD \cite{casanova2006minicolumnar}. Finally, the authors adjusted the \textbf{gain of the neuron's activation function, to model the increased level of noise} that is hypothesized to underlie the relative increase in cortical excitation observed in ASD subjects \cite{rubenstein2003model, yizhar2011neocortical}.
The gain $G$ of the activation function, as displayed in \eq{gain}, manipulates the slope of the activation function. A smaller gain reduces the slope, and makes the network more prone to pass noise instead of signal information to the next processing layers:
\begin{equation}
s(x) = \frac{1}{1 + \exp(-(G \cdot x + b))}
\label{eq:gain}
\end{equation}
where $x$ represents the input to the activation function and $b$ is a bias term.
\label{dovgopolyOverfitting}
Good replications of the behavioral data were achieved with a decrease of learning rate and a negative weight decay. A negative weight decay also caused a high variability of generalization abilities, depending on the initial network weights, providing a potential explanation for the heterogeneity of findings between different studies.
The gain of the activation function could not fully account for the generalization deficit.
Also an increased number of neurons did not replicate the generalization deficit in ASD children, which contradicts previous findings from \cite{cohen1994artificial}.
\annotation{In fact, an increased number of hidden units seems to lead to generalization problems only under certain training circumstances \cite{caruana2001overfitting}, indicating that it is not a good candidate for explaining generalization difficulties in general.}
\subsection{Self-organizing maps}
Self-organizing maps (SOMs) are ANNs that are usually used for unsupervised learning and clustering tasks. They model the functionality of cortical feature maps, which are spatially organized neurons that respond to stimuli and self-organize according to the features in stimuli. They are able to learn the relation of different input data such as different sensory inputs. Approaches for modeling ASD with SOMs typically investigate the formation of higher-level representations from sensory input.
\subsubsection{Increased lateral feedback inhibition}
\label{AutismGustafsson1}
Lennart Gustafsson presented two models of ASD using SOMs in \cite{gustafsson1997inadequate} and \cite{gustafsson2004self}. Inspired by findings on weak central coherence in subjects with ASD and an enhanced ability to discriminate sensory stimuli \cite{frith1994autism}, he suggested that alterations in the lateral feedback weights between the SOM neurons could result in atypicalities in perception \cite{mountcastle1957modality}.
In a SOM, each neuron typically has excitatory connections to close neighbors and inhibitory connections to more distant neighbors. They tuned the Mexican-hat curve (\fig{Gustafsson1997}) to induce stronger lateral feedback inhibition. Such activation patterns are similar to receptive fields in biological cortices and have been used to model center-surround operators in the visual cortex. Manipulating the lateral connections to achieve a stronger inhibition (such that the integral of the function in \fig{Gustafsson1997} becomes negative), the sensory discrimination ability of the network is increased. Neural columns focus on more narrow features during learning which slows down convergence and might lead to a fragmented feature map. However, excessive lateral inhibition will degrade discriminatory power and cause instabilities in information processing. This behavior is compared to autistic over-discrimination and may also explain fascination or fright of moving objects, due to the instability of its cortical feature maps.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Gustafsson1997_part.png}
\caption{Mexican-hat function of the SOM. It defines the strength of lateral connections depending on distance to current neuron. The red arrows point to the part that is modified to simulate autistic perception (excessive lateral feedback inhibition). Adapted from \cite{gustafsson1997inadequate}.}
\label{fig:Gustafsson1997}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Familiarity preference}
\label{AutismGustafsson2}
In \cite{gustafsson2004self}, Gustafsson and Papli{\'n}ski evaluated the effect of attention-shift impairment and avoidance of novelty on the formation of cortical feature maps. The used SOM received input stimuli from two sources (compared to two ``dialects of a language''), each of which produces 30 different stimuli (``speech sounds'') grouped in three clusters (``phonemes'').
The computational model was run in four different modes. In the first mode, attention was always shifted to the source producing novel input (considered as normal learning). In the second mode, an attention-shift impairment was modeled by shifting attention to novel sources with a very low probability. The third mode implements familiarity preference: attention is shifted to novel sources only if the map is familiar with that source (measured as mean distance of the current stimulus to the map nodes). This map develops a preference over learning to the more familiar source. Finally, a model with both familiarity preference and attention-shift impairment was applied.
The simulation results showed that \textbf{familiarity preference} leads to precise learning of the stimuli from one of the sources (the source with lower variability) in expense of the other source. This might remind of ASD individuals' characteristic of learning in great detail a narrow field, which leads to increased discrimination and poor generalization. The authors also showed that this impairment can be counteracted by modifying the probabilities of stimuli presentation in response to the system, similar to early intervention in children's learning process. Maps learned with attention-shift were not impaired, whereas a combination of both mechanisms only sometimes led to an impairment. The authors concluded that, in contrast to speculations in previous work \cite{courchesne1994impairment}, familiarity preference, rather than attention-shift is a more likely cause for ASD.
\subsubsection{Unfolding of feature maps and stimuli coverage}
In 2007, Gerardo Noriega \cite{noriega2007self} modeled abnormalities in the feature coverage and the unfolding of feature maps in SOMs. Neurological evidence suggests abnormal brain development in children with ASD \cite{bauman2005neuroanatomic}, typically reporting larger growth in young children, which gets reduced later in life \cite{courchesne2001unusual, aylward2002effects}. These abnormalities were modeled by manipulating the number of network nodes during the training of the SOM where the structure emerges. Thus, the network dimension is temporarily increased.
Results showed that such disturbance in the physical structure of a SOM does not affect stimuli coverage, but impairs the unfolding of feature maps which might result in sub-optimal representations. Furthermore, the author models hyper- and hyposensitivity to stimuli in a similar way like \cite{gustafsson1997inadequate} using lateral interactions between neurons. \textbf{Hyper- or hyposensitivity} was modeled by adjusting the neuron weights toward the winner neuron, either with a positive factor (attraction, or hypersensitivity) or with a negative factor (repulsion, or hyposensitivity). This factor converges exponentially toward zero (normal sensitivity) during map formation. The authors showed that hypersensitivity to one of the input domains (stronger attention to this domain, i.e., restricted interests), improves the coverage of stimuli in this domain, but too strong hypersensitivity or a hyposensitivity to stimuli reduces coverage \footnote{Hypersensitivity in \cite{gustafsson1997inadequate} was implemented as increased inhibition in the neighborhood of neurons (higher specificity of perception), whereas this approach interprets hypersensitivity as a stronger attraction of neighboring signals to signals from a specific domain.}.
One year later, Noriega extended his approach in \cite{noriega2008modeling}, investigating \textbf{propagation delays between neurons}.
Unlike in normal SOMs where all neurons propagate the information instantaneously to all neighboring neurons, Noriega presented a biologically more realistic approach by introducing delays in the update.
He shows that decreased propagation speed has a negative effect on stimuli coverage.
As the delayed propagation causes the arrival of competing stimuli at the same time at a neuron, he also altered the way in which these competing stimuli are handled. In his experiments, a high \textit{dilution factor}, meaning that incoming stimuli are averaged instead of being handled separately, decreased the stimuli coverage and also impaired the topological structure of the map.
\subsection{Convolutional neural networks and inhibition imbalance}
In 2015, Y. Nagai and colleagues presented an ANN network based on Fukushima's neocognitron (\cite{fukushima1982neocognitron}, \cite{fukushima1988neocognitron}, \cite{fukushima2003neocognitron}), seen as the basis for convolutional neural networks, to model visual processing in ASD \cite{nagai2015influence}. The hypothesis considered was that there is an excitation/inhibition imbalance in ASD \cite{sun2012impaired,snijders2013atypical,yizhar2011neocortical}.
The structure of the neocognitron for visual processing is illustrated in \fig{NagaiAutism}.
The network is trained to recognize patterns by adjusting the weights between $U_C$ and $U_S$ layers.
The S-cells in the $U_S$ layers perform feature extraction. They receive excitatory input from the C-cells in the preceding layer, and inhibitory connections from the V-cells in the same layer. During training, the excitatory connections $a_{Sl}$ are updated and the inhibitory connections $b_{Sl}$ are calculated accordingly.
The network was trained for the recognition of numbers ``0'' to ``9'' in large or small size at different positions.
After training, the model was tested with compound numbers (cf. \fig{NagaiAutism2} left) where a larger number is created from multiple smaller numbers.
The trained network is able to detect both global (large number, here ``2'') and local (small numbers, here ``3'') patterns for $\alpha = 1$ and $0.9$, but shows a preference for the global pattern, characteristics that correspond to observations with healthy individuals \cite{behrmann2006configural}.
\begin{figure}[hbtp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{NagaiAutism}
\caption{Left: Overview of the neocognitron's structure. Right: Detailed view of the connections between C-cell layers $U_C$ and S-cell layers $U_S$. Highlighted in red are the inhibitory connections that are modified to influence the ratio between inhibition and excitation. Adapted from \cite{nagai2015influence}.}
\label{fig:NagaiAutism}
\end{figure}
It is known that people with ASD perform differently in such a task, primarily focusing their attention on the details (i.e., the smaller number instead of the larger one).
In order to simulate this local processing bias, an imbalance of excitatory and inhibitory connections was simulated by scaling the \textbf{inhibitory weight $\bm{b_{Sl}}$ with a factor $\bm{\alpha}$}.
The results show that a moderate increase of $\alpha$, which corresponds to increasing inhibition, causes the network to rather detect local patterns, replicating the local processing bias in ASD.
When reducing $\alpha$ (increasing excitation), the network does not show any processing bias, rather it looses its ability to differentiate patterns.
These results fit with ASD symptoms of hyperesthesia (increased focus on detail) and hypoesthesia (no bias and general difficulty in pattern recognition) and suggest that excitation/inhibition imbalance could account for these symptoms.
\begin{figure}[hbtp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{NagaiAutism2}
\caption{The neocognitron is fed with a visual stimulus consisting of local patterns (here \textit{3}) and global patterns (here \textit{2}), which are incongruent. In normal conditions the network should be able to detect both local and global patterns.}
\label{fig:NagaiAutism2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Spiking neural networks and local over-connectivity}
In \cite{ichinose2017local} and a follow-up study in \cite{park2019macroscopic}, it was proposed to use spiking neural network as computational models to investigate the consequences of local over-connectivity, which was found in the prefrontal cortex of ASD brains \cite{courchesne2005frontal}. The hypothesis considered was that local over-connectivity affects frequency patterns of neural activations.
A spiking neural network is more closely inspired by natural neural networks \cite{izhikevich2003simple}. Whereas in standard artificial neural networks each neuron fires at every time step, neurons in a spiking network only fire if their potential (similar to the membrane potential of biological neurons) exceeds a certain threshold. Therefore, more complex firing patterns can occur ranging over various frequency bands, comparable to patterns visible in EEG\footnote{EEG: Electroencephalography}.
\annotation{A number of studies found evidence that EEG signals of ASD brains tend to exhibit higher power in low-frequency and high-frequency bands of EEG \cite{wang2013resting} and that EEG resting-state activity has lower complexity \cite{bosl2011eeg}.
The authors suggest that these atypical EEG data might be explained by differences in how ASD brains, as opposed to TD brains, are connected. In particular, it has been found that the brains of people with ASD have an increased local connectivity, especially in the frontal cortex \cite{courchesne2005frontal}.}
The authors investigated this hypothesis with a spiking neural network by modifying the network's connection patterns and observing how the connectivity affected the emerged activation patterns.
To manipulate the \textbf{degree of local over-connectivity in the network}, a parameter based on the small-world paradigm from \cite{watts1998collective} was used. By default, neurons are connected to six neighboring neurons in a ring lattice as displayed in \fig{AsadaAutism} (left). A parameter $p_{WS}$ expresses the probability for each of the connections to rewire to other neurons. Thus, $p_{WS}$ determines the randomness of the network (\fig{AsadaAutism}), ranging from regular lattice structure ($p_{WS} = 0$) to random wiring ($p_{WS} = 1$). Medium values of $p_{WS}$ around $0.2$ describe ``typically developed networks'' with local clusters and some short-range connections between the clusters.
Notably, the parameter from \cite{watts1998collective} keeps the overall number of connections in the network intact, such that differences emerge only due to differences in the network structure, not by the total number of neurons or neural connections.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{park2019.pdf}
\caption{Three different networks with different degrees of randomness. (a) is a locally over-connected network (corresponding to ASD individuals), (b) is a small-world network with many local clusters and a few longer connections (corresponding to typically developed individuals), (c) is a random network including many wide-range connections. (d) shows the structure of each single neuron group with excitatory (red) and inhibitory (blue) connections. Note that the number of nodes and edges in (a), (b) and (c) remains the same. Reprinted with permission from \cite{park2019macroscopic}, originally based on \cite{watts1998collective}.}
\label{fig:AsadaAutism}
\end{figure}
Networks are formed by generating 100 groups of neurons, corresponding to the black nodes in \fig{AsadaAutism}. Each group contains 1000 spiking neurons: 800 excitatory and 200 inhibitory neurons, which have an increasing or decreasing effect on the firing probability of postsynaptic neurons, respectively. Neurons are mainly connected to neurons of the same neuron group (intra-group connections), and have connections to six neighboring groups according to \fig{AsadaAutism} (inter-group connections). Different rewiring probabilities $p_{WS}$ between $0$ and $1$ are used to determine the initial inter-group connectivity of the network.
After initialization, the network updates its connections according to the rules of spike-time-dependent plasticity \cite{izhikevich2003relating}: the update of connection weights occurs depending on the timing of firing of the pre- and postsynaptic neurons. If the postsynaptic neuron fires within a certain time window \textit{after the presynaptic neuron}, the weight of the connection is increased (corresponding to the biological process of \textit{long term potentiation}). If the presynaptic neuron fires within a time window \textit{after the postsynaptic neuron}, the connection weight is weakened (\textit{long term depression}).
During this learning period the connection weights self-organize. Tonic random input is presented to the network. After learning, the spontaneous activity of the neurons was recorded (in the absence of input), and compared to the graph-theoretical properties of the network.
The activation patterns were evaluated according to their frequency spectrum and the complexity of the time series, as measured by the multiscale entropy \cite{costa2005multiscale}. This measure rates the informative content of time series at different temporal scales. High complexity corresponds to the presence of long-range correlations on multiple scales in space and time, low complexity is computed for time-series with perfect regularity or randomness. The evaluation suggested that networks exhibiting local over-connectivity generate more oscillations in high-frequency bands and exhibit lower complexity in the signals than small-world networks. Findings of atypical resting-state EEG for people with ASD, thus, might be explained by local over-connectivity in their brains.
\subsection{Bayesian approaches}
\label{sec:bayesianASD}
There are promising models in the literature interpreting ASD on the basis of the Bayesian framework (for an introduction see Schizophrenia section, p.~\pageref{sec:bayesianSchizo}). However, most of these approaches are only conceptual and still lack an implementation. Nevertheless, these approaches are able to explain a wide range of different symptoms which might be caused by an atypical integration of prediction and sensory information \cite{lawson2014aberrant, pellicano2012world}.
The first approach utilizing the Bayesian brain hypothesis for explaining the non-social symptoms of ASD was proposed by Pellicano and Burr in 2012 \cite{pellicano2012world}.
Their \textbf{hypo-prior hypothesis}\footnote{In this article, we stick to the original definition of hypo-priors as a belief in low precision of priors and hyper-priors as a belief in high precision of priors. Note, however, that due to the hierarchical structure of the brain and the role of precision as a hyperparameter for the inference process it might be more appropriate to talk of hypo-priors as attenuated hyperpriors as argued in \cite{friston2013hyperpriors}.} suggests that broader or less precise priors cause people with ASD to rely less on their predictions and stronger on sensory input which could explain the hypersensitivity of people with ASD.
J. Brock broadened this idea \cite{brock2012alternative} by proposing that hypersensitivity cannot only be caused by a reduced precision of the prior, but also by an increased precision of sensory input.
Lawson et al. \cite{lawson2014aberrant} summarized these ideas, arguing that both modifications \textbf{reduced prior precision or increased sensory precision}, can cause the same functional consequences.
They suggest that the cause could be aberrant precision in general:
Expected precision of a signal is an important source of information that helps us to decide whether to rely on this signal or not. Aberrant precision of sensory input or prior predictions, thus, would alter the way in which we integrate these signals.
The precision of the signals also can be considered as a weighting term of the prediction error: For a signal that is expected to be imprecise, a prediction error does not need to be corrected while a prediction error arising between signals that are expected to be very precise would need correction.
People with ASD might have problems to accurately estimate this precision. Thus, they might, at the one extreme, try to minimize the prediction error too strongly, or, at the other extreme, fail to minimize the prediction error.
\annotation{Finally, in \cite{lawson2017adults}, Lawson and colleagues suggested that subjects with ASD overestimate the volatility of the environment.
They conducted a behavioral experiment which demonstrated that ASD subjects are less surprised when encountering environmental changes.
Using Hierarchical Gaussian Filters, they modeled the experimental findings computationally. The model parameter that best accounts for the differences found in ASD and neurotypical subjects was a meta-parameter which controlled learning about volatility of the environment.
These results suggest that ASD subjects overestimate the probability of a change in the environmental conditions, and build less stable expectations. As a result, they might misinterpret an event with low probability which occurred by chance as an event that signifies a change in environmental conditions. Therefore, instead of being surprised in the case of an extraordinary event, they would be mildly surprised at all times.}
\subsection{Recurrent neural networks}
The studies presented here follow the idea of predictive coding which can be seen as an implementation of the Bayesian brain idea: an RNN is used as an internal model of the world and its learning corresponds to the process of adapting network weights in order to perform prediction error minimization.
The role of the network is to learn to predict sensory consequences, and integrates these predictions with the perceived sensory information.
\subsubsection{Freezing and repetitive behavior in a robotics experiment}
\label{AutismTani}
Idei and colleagues \cite{idei2017reduced, idei2018neurorobotics} used the stochastic continuous-time recurrent neural network (S-CTRNN) \cite{murata2013learning} model with parametric bias (PB) \cite{tani2003learning} to teach a robot to interact with a human in a ball-playing game (similar to the schizophrenia model \cite{yamashita2012spontaneous}).
The S-CTRNN with PB learns to predict a time series of proprioceptive (joint angles) and vision features. From the current input, the network estimates the next time step (output) and its predicted precision (variance) as shown in \fig{TaniAutism}.
The state of the PB units reflect the intention of the network, i.e., the ball-playing pattern that the robot believes that they are currently engaged in.
The S-CTRNN was trained offline to perform certain tasks depending on a yellow ball's position, as depicted in \fig{TaniAutism} (left). Synaptic weights and biases of the network, as well as the internal states of the PB units are updated via the backpropagation through time (BPTT) algorithm in order to maximize the likelihood in \eq{LikelihoodFunction}.
This equation describes that at time step $t$ of training sequence $s$, the network output of the $i$-th neuron (a normal distribution defined by the estimated mean (output) $y$ and estimated variance $v$) properly reflects the desired input data $\hat{y}$.
\begin{equation}
L_{t,i}^{(s)} = -\frac{\ln{(2\pi v_{t,i}^{(s)}})}{2} - \frac{(\hat{y}_{t,i}^{(s)}-y_{t,i}^{(s)})^2}{2v_{t,i}^{(s)}}
\label{eq:LikelihoodFunction}
\end{equation}
After training, a recognition mechanism (via adaptation of the PB units, while keeping weights and biases fixed) enables the network to switch its behavior depending on the current situation.
To model ASD behavior, the \textbf{estimated variance (sensory precision) is modified} in the activation function of the variance units with the constant $K$ in \eq{VarianceModification}, where $\epsilon$ is the minimum value and $u_{t,i}^{(s)}$ is the output of the $i$-th context unit time step $t$ for movement sequence $s$.
\begin{equation}
v_{t,i}^{(s)} = \exp(u_{t,i}^{(s)} + K) + \epsilon
\label{eq:VarianceModification}
\end{equation}
Experimental results with a humanoid NAO robot showed that for $K = 0$ the robot behaved normally. For increased variance (reduced precision), the robot seemed to ignore prediction error and performed stopping and stereotypic movements. For decreased variance (increased precision), the robot performed incorrect movement changes or concentrated on certain movements, which also led to sudden freezing and repetitive movements. These results fit with the disordered motor system reported in ASD \cite{gowen2013motor}, but add the surprising insight that increased and decreased sensory precision may cause the same consequences.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{TaniAutism}
\caption{Left: Overview of the interactive tasks the robot must perform. Right: Overview of the ANN model used for the experiments. Highlighted in red are the variance units where a constant $K$ is added to increase or decrease the sensory precision in order to imitate autistic behavior. Adapted from \cite{idei2017reduced}.}
\label{fig:TaniAutism}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Impairment in internal network representations}
Another study using the S-CTRNN to model ASD characteristics is \cite{philippsen2018understanding}.
Using an S-CTRNN \cite{murata2013learning}, the authors modify two parameters which control how the network makes predictions.
In contrast to the other RNN model which concentrates on replicating behavioral patterns, this study investigates ``invisible'' features characterizing the network's learning process.
More specifically, the authors evaluate \textbf{how attention to sensory input and deficits in the prediction of trajectory noise influence the internal representation} that a network acquires during learning.
\annotation{Internal representations are informative as they reflect the network's generalization capabilities \cite{boden2002guide, yamashita2008emergence}: similar input pattern should cause an overlap in the corresponding context neuron activations (attractors in the RNN), whereas different patterns should be differentiated.}
The network as displayed in \fig{philippsenAutism} is trained to recognize and draw ellipses and ``eight'' shapes, located at four different (overlapping) positions of the input space (cf. \fig{philippsenAutism2:chi}).
Inputs and outputs are two-dimensional trajectories and the recurrent context layer comprises $70$ neurons.
Learning is modified in two ways: The parameter $\chi$ determines how much the network relies on external input, as opposed to its own prediction, i.e., $\chi$ gradually switches between open-loop ($\chi = 1$) and near-closed-loop ($\chi \approx 0$) control.
The second parameter $K$ is defined analogous to \cite{idei2017reduced} (see \eq{VarianceModification}) and manipulates the estimated variance such that networks with $K \neq 0$ over- or underestimate noisy variations in the signal. Unlike its usage in \cite{idei2017reduced}, this manipulation is not performed after training, but already \textit{during} the training process, to account for the developmental nature of ASD.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{philippsenAutism.pdf}
\caption{The S-CTRNN used in \cite{philippsen2018understanding} with two parameter modifications. Adapted from \cite{philippsen2018understanding}.}
\label{fig:philippsenAutism}
\end{figure}
After training, the network's behavior is evaluated as the network's ability to reproduce the trained trajectories.
The internal representations are evaluated by collecting the time course of activations of the context layer neurons while generating the trajectories.
A visualization of how the high-dimensional space (time steps $\times$ number of context neurons) is structured can be achieved by principal component analysis (PCA). The results indicated that networks tend to reuse internal representation structure for patterns located at the same position in the input space.
\annotation{Such an overlap is advantageous as similarities between patterns are coded. However, too strong overlap of the context activations indicates missing differentiation between the patterns which might lead to worse differentiation in a recognition task.}
Thus, the authors define ``good'' internal network representations as representations which strongly reflect the characteristics of the input data.
\fig{philippsenAutism2:chi} shows an example of how task performance (top) and internal representation quality (bottom) change depending on the external contribution parameter.
The best internal representation quality is achieved with $\chi = 0.5$ \annotation{(moderately integrating input and predictions), as the internal representation reuses activations but clearly differentiates trajectories at different input space positions.}
\annotation{However, the performance in reproducing the trained behavior is comparable between $\chi = 0.5$ and $\chi = 1$ (relying stronger on input).}
These qualitative observations were also quantitatively verified in the high-dimensional space of neurons.
\annotation{How well the network is able to reproduce the learned patterns, thus, is not always reflected in the internal representation quality.}
Interestingly, for the parameter $\chi$, both extremes lead to an ASD-like impairment, as schematically depicted in \fig{philippsenAutism2:hypo}. Typical development could correspond to the middle. Whereas the right-hand side would express high-functioning ASD where \annotation{the performance in specific tasks might be intact, but representations might be too specific (overfitting)}. The left-hand side describes ASD with severe impairments also at a behavioral level.
\annotation{It can be, thus, imagined that heterogeneity in the ASD population, comprising opposite symptoms such as hyper- and hyposensitivity, does not necessarily be caused by different underlying mechanisms, but that a continuous modification of parameters could account for the variability.}
\begin{figure}[hbpt!]
\centering
\subfigure[Hypothesis]{
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{philippsenAutismHypothesis.png}
\label{fig:philippsenAutism2:hypo}
}\\
\subfigure[Experimental results]{
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{philippsenAutism_chi_behavior-and-repr.pdf}
\label{fig:philippsenAutism2:chi}
}
\caption{Effect of changing the external contribution parameter of the S-CTRNN from \fig{philippsenAutism} on behavioral output (top) and on internal representation quality, evaluated in the two-dimenisonal principal components (PC) space (bottom). Adapted from \cite{philippsen2018understanding}.}
\label{fig:philippsenAutism2}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Generalization ability in a variational Bayes recurrent neural network}
In \cite{ahmadi2017bridging}, a novel recurrent network type is introduced, the variational Bayes predictive coding RNN (VBP-RNN).
It differs from the S-CTRNN in that variance is not only coded on the output level, but also in the network's context neurons to enhance the network's ability to represent uncertainty in the data.
We do not discuss it in detail here, as this study is not focusing on modeling ASD, but on representing deterministic as well as probabilistic behavior in an RNN in a coherent way. The analogy to ASD is made in terms of the \textbf{meta-parameter $W$ that performs a trade-off between reconstruction and regularization in the optimization (loss) function}. $W$ switches between the typically minimized reconstruction error term ($W=0$) and a regularization term that keeps the posterior distribution of the latent variables (i.e., the context units) similar to its prior.
If the network is trained with $W=0$, it develops deterministic dynamics and exhibits poor generalization capabilities. Values of $W>0$ lead to more randomness in the network and improve generalization, but too high values result in a performance drop.
$W$ could therefore model the spectrum of ASD: $W=0$ is one extreme where the network solely relies on its top-down intentionality and fails to generalize, whereas too high values of $W$ reflect performance impairment due to excessive randomness in the network.
As this parameter controls how much regularization is performed, the approach is similar to \cite{dovgopoly2013connectionist} where regularization was intentionally impaired.
\subsection{Other approaches}
In 2000, O'Loughlin and Thagard \cite{o2000autism} used a connectionist model to simulate weak coherence, and to demonstrate how a failure of maximizing global coherence can cause deficits in theory of mind \cite{baron1997mindblindness}. Their network model, a so-called constraint network, is hand-designed according to the task and does not strictly fit into an existing network category.
The network performs logical reasoning and consists of a set of neurons, each of which corresponds to a logical element such as a belief (expressed as a sentence).
Connections between them are set as excitatory and inhibitory, depending on whether two arguments support each other or are contradicting.
Weights remain fixed, but the activations of neurons get updated depending on the connections to neighboring cells which can be excitatory (positive) on inhibitory (negative).
A decaying factor lets the network's activation converge to a state after a certain amount of time. Positive activations are then interpreted as an acceptance of this belief, negative activations as a denial.
The authors showed that \textbf{a high level of inhibition, compared to excitation}, causes early activated association nodes in the network to suppress concurring hypotheses. The network, therefore, prefers more direct solutions, and makes wrong predictions. The overall \textit{coherence} of the network, defined as the satisfaction of most constraints in the complete network, is not optimized, which can be considered as weak coherence.
\section{Discussion and future directions}
\label{sec:new}
Artificial neural network models of SZ and ASD have been presented as a useful tool to fill the gap between theoretical models and biological evidence. Early works were biased by technical restrictions, but recent models are able to capture the same complexity as conceptual models, such as hierarchical Bayesian models. \annotation{However, designing ANN architectures that are able to predict novel findings and through computational simulations contribute to clinical applications (e.g., diagnosis or therapy) remains a challenging task.}
\annotation{In this sense, the model should i) reproduce empirical behavioural findings, preferably in more than one domain, ii) be supported by a process theory in which the abnormality used to reproduce empirical findings is realistic from the point of view of known neuropathology, and iii) predict novel findings. Furthermore, addressing heterogeneity and non-specificity is still one of the most important challenges of these two psychiatric disorders.}
\annotation{Due to the large overlap in SZ and ASD regarding biological evidence (e.g., E/I imbalance), similar hypotheses were discussed as a potential cause for both disorders.
Computational models, however, still tend to focus on specific impairments of a specific disorder.
To help the community, it is crucial that overarching neural network models are developed which connect ideas and results across different contexts (ASD, SZ or even other mental disorders).}
\annotation{In this section, we first discuss the quality of the discussed models in terms of how well they fit and predict empirical findings (\refsec{discussion:quality}).
Secondly, we discuss the approaches from the point of view of multifinality and equifinality (\refsec{discussion:multifinality}).
Thirdly, we emphasize the importance of testing the models in an embodied system (\refsec{discussion:realworld}).
Finally, we describe new promising directions to address with ANN models: developmental factors (\refsec{discussion:developmental}); disorders of the self (\refsec{discussion:self}); and state-of-the-art ANN architectures for future models of psychopathologies (\refsec{discussion:ANN}).}
\subsection{Models quality: Empirical findings and predictability}
\label{sec:discussion:quality}
\annotation{Early SZ modelling works from \cite{hoffman1989cortical, ruppin1995neural} on Hopfield networks as well as the feed-forward approaches from \cite{cohen1992context} and \cite{hoffman1997synaptic} lack the capabilities to generalize to a broader context: every experiment required a different ANN architecture. Hence, in terms of predictability of other symptoms, these approaches are not powerful enough. In particular, the work on auditory hallucinations \cite{hoffman1997synaptic} is far from replicating the brain mechanism and does not account for deficits in distinguishing self-produced sounds observed in SZ patients. However, the underlying discussion presented in those papers still provides valuable insights. They highlighted the connectivity factor between different cortical areas of the brain (either by gain reduction or pruning) specially in the context ones. Later works on RNN, such as \cite{yamashita2012spontaneous}, revisited this idea with hierarchical networks, with the same capability to generate parasitic states due to dynamic attractors. Pruning was substituted by noise injection. Interestingly, there are conceptual similarities between noise injection and precision reduction used in Bayesian approaches. Due to the more general architecture regarding sensorimotor integration, this RNN might be able to replicate other findings in earlier works such as hallucinations or performance in the Stroop task, however, this has not been experimentally demonstrated yet.}
\annotation{Bayesian approaches, such as predictive processing \cite{adams2013computational} and circular inference \cite{jardri2013circular} have shown better quality in terms of predictability of new empirical findings. Their mathematical abstraction is more powerful and may be applicable to different types of experiments. For instance, within the free-energy optimization framework, eye-tracking deficits with occlusion and agency attribution disorders were investigated. The circular inference model with E/I imbalance predicted findings in decision-making tasks involving likelihoods (e.g., Fisher task).
However, due to the conceptual design, their scalability is really poor for handling real sensory information. Here we find that ANNs, such as convolutional network approaches \cite{nagai2015influence} or Variational-Bayes RNN \cite{ahmadi2017bridging} could better account for real sensory data input.}
\annotation{Just as Hopfield networks were applied for modeling SZ, some early models of ASD focused on SOM approaches. These models \cite{gustafsson1997inadequate, gustafsson2004self, noriega2007self, noriega2008modeling} could account for strong specificity in cortical representations or novelty avoidance. Despite of that, they were highly linked to the specific network architecture, and thus, it is difficult to use these mechanisms to predict performance in other types of tasks.
More general approaches were suggested using simple parameter modifications of feed-forward neural networks \cite{cohen1994artificial, cohen1998neural, dovgopoly2013connectionist}. These parameters rather utilize general engineering mechanisms of neural networks and, thus, are also applicable to different architectures (e.g., regularization was also used in a recent approach using RNNs \cite{ahmadi2017bridging}). These studies mostly focused on replicating the specific symptom of generalization deficits, but may not be applicable to explaining a broader range of symptoms.}
\annotation{The reviewed models of SZ only addressed positive symptoms mainly hallucinations, delusions and abnormal movements. Self-other disturbances have been only discussed in the free-energy models and negative symptoms have been set aside. Within the ASD models only repetitive motor movements and hyper/hyporeactivity to sensory input were properly discussed. Furthermore, social communication and interaction deficits have been minimally addressed.}
\annotation{Interestingly, for ASD \cite{pellicano2012world, idei2017reduced, philippsen2018understanding, ahmadi2017bridging} as well as for SZ \cite{adams2013computational, jardri2013circular, yamashita2012spontaneous}, the majority of recent approaches incorporate the idea of predictive coding \cite{rao1999predictive}.
In particular, Pellicano and Burr's paper \cite{pellicano2012world} and novel hypotheses based on their theory \cite{lawson2014aberrant, lawson2017adults} significantly influence the recent developments.
In terms of finding a general account for cognition, predictive coding and related approaches are the most promising candidates right now.
Therefore, predictive coding based approaches can be considered a useful abstraction in developing a broader model that is able to integrate typical and atypical development in a coherent whole.}
\subsection{Multifinality, equifinality and heterogenity}
\label{sec:discussion:multifinality}
\annotation{A challenge in modeling psychopathologies is the non-specificity of these disorders. Different biological bases may lead to the same symptom (equifinality). Therefore, many modeling mechanisms might be valid for modeling a single symptom. Accordingly, the studies reviewed here cover a wide range of approaches, using various pieces of biological evidence.
This variety has its drawback: even if a model can explain some symptoms, we can not judge whether this mechanism actually is comparable to what happens in the human brain or not.}
\annotation{The non-specificity of psychopathologies also means that a single biological basis can cause different symptoms (multifinality). Thus, instead of targeting single symptoms, it is important to develop models which explain several symptoms of a disorder. A good starting point is to first model typical behavior. One possible basis could be ANN models of sensorimotor integration. According to the majority of the computational models discussed in this manuscript, SZ and ASD are presented as disorders of sensory information fusion or interpretation. Thus, general ANN sensorimotor integration models that are able to fit human-like data (control and patient data) in different experimental paradigms such as body perceptual tests or decision making task could be extended to model psychopathologies.}
\annotation{Additionally, modeling mechanisms should not only cover various symptoms of a single disorder, but they may also be used for modeling similar symptoms in different disorders. For instance, hallucinations are present in several disorders but researchers used different ANN approaches to model them. Hallucinations produced by a loss of sensory input, like in the Charles Bonnet syndrome, were studied by modeling homeostasis in a Deep Boltzmann machine (DBM) for visual \cite{series2010hallucinations} and tactile inputs \cite{deistler2019tactileHallucinations}. However, homeostasis or DBMs were never studied for hallucinations in SZ, or discussed within circular inference or free-energy approaches \cite{adams2013computational}.}
\annotation{Regarding heterogeneity, recent studies modeling ASD already acknowledge the nature of ASD as a spectrum. Instead of distinguishing between impaired and intact behavior as two categories, a continuous change in symptoms is suggested, leading to impairments of different severeness \cite{nagai2019predictive, idei2017reduced} or even opposite types of impairments \cite{philippsen2018understanding}. This offers a potentially more sophisticated view on heterogeneity in ASD.}
\subsection{Models validation on real robotic systems}
\label{sec:discussion:realworld}
We presented some works that employ robotics systems' validation as a useful servant for the behaviour unit/level of analysis \cite{yamashita2012spontaneous}. The relevant aspect of these approaches is that the internal mechanism of the behaviour is visible \cite{cheng2007cb}.
\annotation{Furthermore, a connection can be made from rather perceptual or mechanistic impairments inside the system to difficulties in real interaction scenarios.} For instance, \cite{murata2013learning} replicated freezing and repetitive behaviors on a robot.
Most of the discussed models, however, are solely data models. Closing the gap to real world embodied models could, therefore, help to validate how these models extend to other tasks.
ANN approaches can also focus on solving scalability to raw stimuli in other brain-inspired mathematical abstractions. For instance, \cite{lanillos2018adaptive} and \cite{oliver2019active} presented free-energy-based perception and action algorithms working on humanoid robots. They can be used to evaluate atypical behaviours related to body perception in SZ and ASD.
\subsection{New directions}
\label{sec:discussion:newdirections}
\annotation{We identified the following three research directions that are still underrepresented in the discussed studies.}
\subsubsection{Developmental factors}
\label{sec:discussion:developmental}
Developmental factors are especially relevant for ASD as a developmental disorder, but also for SZ. Specially, to explain why many cases of SZ emerge during adolescence and early adulthood \cite{huttenlocher1979synaptic, feinberg1982schizophrenia, keshavan1994schizophrenia} and to investigate developmental factors which might contribute to the onset of SZ \cite{cannon2015schizophrenia}.
Current models only partially take the developmental process into account and focus more on modeling existing deficits in adult subjects with ASD.
For instance, existing models assume an aberrant number of neurons \cite{cohen1994artificial, noriega2007self} or differences in the neural connections \cite{ichinose2017local, park2019macroscopic} during the development, or they change the way that learning proceeds by altering network regularization \cite{dovgopoly2013connectionist, ahmadi2017bridging} or how information are integrated during learning \cite{philippsen2018understanding}.
However, these studies still cannot answer the question of which initial causes promote the appearance of ASD during the development.
It might be beneficial to take even one step more back in development, back to the development of the human fetus.
For instance, a recent study \cite{yamada2016embodied} suggests that disordered intrauterine embodied interaction during fetal period is a possible factor for neuro-developmental disorders like ASD.
\subsubsection{SZ and ASD as disorders of the self}
\label{sec:discussion:self}
One of the aspects not properly addressed in ANN computational modeling, neither for SZ nor for ASD, is how diagnosed individuals experience their body and self in comparison with control subjects. For instance, SZ patients have troubles differentiating self-produced actions. In fact, modeling the spectrum of differences in body experience could make several psychopathologies comparable. In addition to already described visual illusions, also body illusions can be investigated. Recently, Noel et al. \cite{noel2017spatial} discussed how body perception differs between ASD and SZ individuals, suggesting a sharper boundary between self and other in ASD and a weaker boundary in SZ. This suggestion is based on experimental findings, for example, on peripersonal space in body illusions where ``opposite" results were found: whereas individuals with SZ were more prone to have body illusions \cite{thakkar2011disturbances}, individuals with ASD showed a reduced illusionary effect \cite{cascio2012rubber}.
Hence, the causes of these psychopathologies have a direct impact on the perception of our body and the self. In the case of patients diagnosed with SZ, this relation has been more intensively studied \cite{stanghellini2009embodiment} and some treatments include embodiment therapies. Hence, models of the bodily or sensorimotor self \cite{lanillos2017enactive, hinz2018drifting} that are able to explain body illusions would help to validate the hypothesis in a common framework. Behavioural measures like the proprioceptive drift or peripersonal space should be also predicted by the model. For instance, in \cite{hinz2018drifting}, they used the perceptual drift as a measure to evaluate the validity of a predictive coding model for typical individuals.
\subsubsection{ANN novel architectures for psychopathologies}
\label{sec:discussion:ANN}
In terms of neural network architectures, there is a further need of transferring the knowledge from state-of-the-art recurrent neural networks and deep learning to neurological disorders as it was performed, for instance, with the Neocognitron model of ASD \cite{nagai2015influence} or the MTRNN model of SZ \cite{yamashita2012spontaneous}. Theoretical ANN studies, computational psychiatry and neuroscience should be always be in contact to boost the feedback of those disciplines.
In opposition to Bayesian models that are implemented on a high abstraction level of the task, modern ANN approaches \cite{schmidhuber2015deep} are able to cope with real sensor data such as visual information. For instance, cross-modal learning architectures combined with hierarchical representation learning provide an interesting follow-up to early ANN studies on SZ and ASD. Furthermore, ANN models of Bayesian brain such as predictive coding \cite{yamashita2008emergence} and circular inference are a basis for uniting both communities. In fact, recent advances in probabilistic NNs like Variational Autoencoders \cite{kingma2013auto} and Variational-RNN \cite{fabius2014variational,ahmadi2017bridging}, provide the mathematical framework to deploy ANN versions of prominent plausible models of the brain such as the free-energy principle \cite{friston2010free}.
\annotation{In this review, we showed the power of ANNs for modeling symptoms of neurological disorders. However, these techniques need to be further developed and refined in the future to play a key role in computational psychiatry and to contribute in clinical applications.}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work was supported by SELFCEPTION project (www.selfception.eu) European Union Horizon 2020 Programme (MSCA-IF-2016) under grant agreement no. 741941, JST CREST Cognitive Mirroring (grant no. JPMJCR16E2), and by JSPS KAKENHI grant no. JP17H06039, JP18K07597 and JP18KT0021.
\iffalse
\subsubsection{ASD possible combined theory}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Underlying neural disorder leads to prior-input imbalance (e.g. inhibitory/excitatory imbalance \cite{nagai2015influence})
\item Hyperprecise sensory input leads to internal representations/classes that are too detailed (compare abnormal feature maps Gustafsson \cite{gustafsson1997inadequate} or \cite{mcclelland2000basis}) and being overwhelmed with rapidly changing inputs.
\item Behavioral level: excessive reliance on input, generalization problems, isolation due to abnormal perception, familiarity preference (\cite{gustafsson2004self})
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{SZ possible combined theory}
\begin{enumerate}
\item During childhood prior-input precision imbalance does not influence behavior excessively because prior is not fully developed
\item Hyperprior, leads to hallucinations/delusions
\item ...
\end{enumerate}
\fi
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Motivation}
Free probability initiated a fruitful exchange between random matrix theory and operator algebras. In many situations, tuples of $N \times N$ random matrices $(X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_m^{(N)})$ can be described in the large $N$ limit by non-commutative random variables $X_1$, \dots, $X_m$ which are operators in a tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra. Conversely, many properties of non-commutative random variables (and the $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebras that they generate) are easier to understand when they can be simulated by finite-dimensional random matrix models. For instance, Voiculescu used free entropy, defined in terms of matricial microstates, to prove the absence of Cartan subalgebras for free group $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebras $L(\mathbb{F}_n)$ \cite{VoiculescuFE3}; similar techniques were used to give sufficient conditions for a von Neumann algebra to be non-prime and non-Gamma (a convenient list of results and references can be found in \cite{CN2019}). Further applications of random matrices to the properties of $\mathrm{C}^*$- and $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebras can be found for instance in \cite{HT2005} and \cite[\S 4]{GS2009}.
Free Gibbs laws are a prototypical example of the connection between random matrices and $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebras. Free Gibbs laws describe the large $N$ behavior of self-adjoint tuples of random matrices $X^{(N)} = (X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_m^{(N)})$ given by a probability measure $\mu^{(N)}$ of the form
\[
d\mu^{(N)}(x) = \frac{1}{Z^{(N)}} e^{-N^2 V^{(N)}(x)}\,dx,
\]
where $x \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ is a self-adjoint tuple, $dx$ denotes Lebesgue measure, $V^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ is a function (known as a potential) chosen so that $e^{-N^2 V^{(N)}(x)}$ is integrable, and $Z^{(N)}$ is normalizing constant to make $\mu^{(N)}$ a probability measure. Here $V^{(N)}(x)$ could be given by $V^{(N)}(x) = \tau_N(p(x_1,\dots,x_m))$, where $\tau_N = (1/N) \Tr$ and $p$ is a non-commutative polynomial; for instance, taking
\[
V^{(N)}(x) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^m \tau_N(x_j^2)
\]
produces the Gaussian unitary ensemble (GUE). Under certain assumptions on $V$ (e.g.\ convexity and good asymptotic behavior as $N \to \infty$), there will be non-commutative random variables $X_1$, \dots, $X_m$ in a tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra $(\mathcal{M},\tau)$ such that
\[
\tau_N(p(X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_m^{(N)})) \to \tau(p(X_1,\dots,X_m)) \text{ in probability for every non-commutative polynomial } p;
\]
see \cite[Theorems 3.3 and 3.4]{GMS2006}, \cite[Proposition 50 and Theorem 51]{DGS2016}, \cite[Theorem 4.1]{Jekel2018}. The random matrix models satisfy the relation, derived from integration by parts, that
\[
E[\tau_N(D_{x_j} V^{(N)}(X^{(N)}) p(X^{(N)}))] = E[\tau_N \otimes \tau_N(\partial_{x_j}p(X^{(N)}))],
\]
where $D_{x_j} V$ is a normalized gradient with respect to the coordinates of $x_j$ and $\partial_{x_j}$ denotes the free difference quotient, and hence the non-commutative tuple $X = (X_1,\dots,X_m)$ satisfies
\[
\tau(D_{x_j} V(X) p(X)) = \tau \otimes \tau(\partial_{x_j}p(X));
\]
see \cite[\S 2.2 - 2.3]{GMS2006}. The non-commutative law of a tuple $X$ satisfying such an equation is known as a \emph{free Gibbs law} for the potential $V$.
Given sufficient assumptions on $V^{(N)}$ (for instance, Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM}), many of the classical quantities associated to $X^{(N)}$ will converge in the large $N$ limit to their free counterparts, besides obviously the convergence of the non-commutative moments $\tau_N(p(X^{(N)}))$. For instance, the normalized classical entropy will converge to the microstates free entropy (see \cite[\S 2]{VoiculescuFE1}, \cite[Theorem 5.1]{GS2009}, \cite[\S 5.2]{Jekel2018}), and the normalized classical Fisher information will converge to the free Fisher information (see \cite[\S 5.3]{Jekel2018}). The monotone transport maps of Guionnet and Shlyakhtenko are well-approximated by classical transport maps for the random matrix models \cite[Theorem 4.7]{GS2014}. The solutions of classical SDE associated to the random matrix models approximate the solutions of free SDE; see for instance \cite{BCG2003}, \cite[\S 2]{GS2009}, \cite[\S 4]{Dabrowski2017}.
\subsection{Summary of Main Results}
This paper will further develop the connection between classical and free probability for convex free Gibbs laws, by studying conditional expectation (\S \ref{sec:conditionalexpectation}), conditional entropy and Fisher information (\S \ref{sec:entropy}), and conditional transport (\S \ref{sec:transport}). This is an extension of our previous work \cite{Jekel2018}.
We consider a sequence of random matrix tuples $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)}) = (X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_m^{(N)}, Y_1^{(N)}, \dots, Y_n^{(N)})$ given by a uniformly convex and semi-concave sequence of potentials $V^{(N)}$ such that the normalized gradient $DV^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials (a notion of good asymptotic behavior as $N \to \infty$ defined in \S \ref{subsec:AATP}). Then the following results hold:
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item The non-commutative moments $\tau_N(p(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)}))$ converge in probability to $\tau(p(X,Y))$ for some tuple $(X,Y)$ of non-commutative random variables in a tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra. See Theorem \ref{thm:freeGibbslaw}.
\item The classical conditional expectation $E[f^{(N)}(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})| Y^{(N)}]$ behaves asymptotically like the non-commutative conditional expectation $E_{\mathrm{W}^*(Y)}[f(X,Y)]$ where $f$ comes from an appropriate non-commutative function space and $f^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \to M_N(\C)$ is a sequence of uniformly Lipschitz functions that ``behaves like $f$ in the large $N$ limit'' in the sense of \S \ref{sec:TP}. See Theorem \ref{thm:conditionalexpectation}.
\item The classical conditional entropy $N^{-2} h(X^{(N)} | Y^{(N)}) + (m/2) \log N$ converges to the conditional free entropy $\chi^*(X: \mathrm{W}^*(Y))$. This is a similar to a conditional version of $\chi = \chi^*$. See Theorem \ref{thm:convergenceofentropy}.
\item There exists a function $f(X,Y)$ such that $(f(X,Y),Y) \sim (S,Y)$ in non-commutative law, where $S$ is a free semicircular $m$-tuple freely independent of $Y$, and this function also arises from functions $f^{(N)}$ such that $(f^{(N)}(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)}),Y^{(N)}) \sim (S^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$, where $S^{(N)}$ is an independent GUE $m$-tuple. This is the conditional version of transport to the Gaussian/semicircular law. See Theorems \ref{thm:transport3}.
\item This transport map also witnesses the conditional entropy-cost inequality for the law of $X$ relative to semicircular conditioned on $Y$. See Theorem \ref{thm:transport3}.
\item This transport map furnishes an isomorphism $\mathrm{W}^*(X,Y) \cong \mathrm{W}^*(S,Y) \cong \mathrm{W}^*(S) * \mathrm{W}^*(Y)$, which shows that $\mathrm{W}^*(Y)$ is freely complemented in $\mathrm{W}^*(X,Y)$.
\item Actually, a second application of transport shows that $\mathrm{W}^*(Y)$ is isomorphic to the $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra generated by a semicircular $n$-tuple, or in other words $L(\mathbb{F}_n)$. So altogether there is an isomorphism $\mathrm{W}^*(X,Y) \to L(\mathbb{F}_{m+n})$ that maps $\mathrm{W}^*(Y)$ to the canonical copy of $L(\mathbb{F}_n)$ inside $L(\mathbb{F}_{m+n})$.
\end{enumerate}
Furthermore, the results about transport can be iterated to produce a ``lower-triangular transport'' as shown in Theorem \ref{thm:transport4} and discussed further in \S \ref{subsec:transportintro}. This is analogous to the classical results on triangular transport of measure such as \cite{BKM2005}.
In the rest of the introduction, we will review notation and then motivate and explain the main results in more detail. In the course of the paper, it will become clear that not only are our main results proved all by the similar techniques, but in fact their statements and proofs are tightly interrelated.
\subsection{Notation and Background}
We will continue to use the same notation and background as in \cite{Jekel2018}. The one major change is that we will write superscript $(N)$ rather than subscript $N$ for measures and functions defined on $N \times N$ matrices. Moreover, we will use the original notation $\partial$ for Voiculescu's free difference quotient, even though \cite{Jekel2018} used $\mathcal{D}$.
We assume familiarity with the basic properties of tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebras (or tracial von Neumann algebras); see for instance \cite{AP2017}. In particular, a tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra is a finite $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra $\mathcal{M}$ with a specified trace $\tau: \mathcal{M} \to \C$. If $\mathcal{N} \subseteq \mathcal{M}$ is a $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra, then there is a unique trace-preserving conditional expectation $E_{\mathcal{N}}: \mathcal{M} \to \mathcal{N}$. If $x = (x_1,\dots,x_m)$ is a tuple of operators in $\mathcal{M}$, then we denote by $\mathrm{W}^*(x)$ the $\mathrm{W}^*$-subalgebra which they generate.
There is an inner product on $\mathcal{M}$ defined by $\ip{x,y}_2 = \tau(x^*y)$, and the completion of $\mathcal{M}$ in this inner product is a Hilbert space known as $L^2(\mathcal{M},\tau)$. We denote the self-adjoint elements of $\mathcal{M}$ by $\mathcal{M}_{sa}$ and recall that if $x$ and $y$ are self-adjoint, then $\ip{x,y}_2$ is real. If $x = (x_1,\dots,x_m)$ and $y = (y_1,\dots,y_m)$ are tuples, we denote $\ip{x,y}_2 = \sum_{j=1}^m \ip{x_j,y_j}_2$. We define $\norm{x}_\infty = \max_j \norm{x_j}_\infty$, that is, the maximum of the operator norms of $x_j$.
We denote by $\NCP_m = \C\ip{X_1,\dots,X_m}$ the $*$-algebra of non-commutative polynomials in $m$ self-adjoint variables. A \emph{non-commutative law} is a linear map $\lambda: \C\ip{X_1,\dots,X_m} \to \C$ satisfying
\begin{enumerate}[(A)]
\item $\lambda(1) = 1$.
\item $\lambda(p^*p) \geq 0$ for all $p \in \NCP_m$.
\item $\lambda(pq) = \lambda(qp)$ for all $p, q \in \NCP_m$.
\item $|\lambda(X_{i_1} \dots X_{i_k})| \leq R^k$ for some constant $R$.
\end{enumerate}
The set of non-commutative laws that satisfy (D) for a fixed value of $R$ is denoted $\Sigma_{m,R}$, and it is equipped with the topology of pointwise convergence on $\NCP_m$. Likewise, the space of all laws, equipped with the topology of pointwise convergence, will be denoted by $\Sigma_m$.
If $x = (x_1,\dots,x_m)$ is a tuple of self-adjoint elements of $(\mathcal{M},\tau)$, then we may define a non-commutative law $\lambda_x$ by $\lambda_x(p) = \tau(p(x))$. Conversely, every non-commutative law can be realized in this way through the GNS construction. In particular, a free Gibbs law can be realized by a tuple $(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ of self-adjoint operators, and thus the free Gibbs law has a corresponding $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra $\mathrm{W}^*(x)$, that is unique up to isomorphism.
We always consider $M_N(\C)$ as a tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra with the normalized trace $\tau_N = (1/N) \Tr$, and in particular, we use the notation $\norm{x}_2$, $\norm{x}_\infty$, and $\lambda_x$ as defined above when $x$ is an $m$-tuple of matrices. The notation $\norm{\cdot}_2$ and $\norm{\cdot}_\infty$ will never be used for the $L^2$ or $L^\infty$ norms of \emph{functions} on matrices, but if we write an $L^p$ norm it will be expressed $\norm{\cdot}_{L^p}$.
For a smooth function $u: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$, we denote by $Du$ and $Hu$ the gradient and Hessian with respect to the normalized inner product $\ip{\cdot,\cdot}_2$. In other words, $Du(x_0)$ is the vector in $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ and $Hu(x_0)$ is the $\R$-linear transformation of $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ satisfying
\[
u(x) = u(x_0) + \ip{Du(x_0), x - x_0}_2 + \frac{1}{2} \ip{Hu(x_0)(x - x_0), x - x_0}_2 + o(\norm*{x - x_0}_2^2).
\]
For functions $f: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ or $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)$, we denote $\norm{f}_{\Lip}$ the Lipschitz (semi)norm with respect to using $\norm{\cdot}_2$ on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ and $M_N(\C)$.
Note that $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ can also be equipped with the real inner product $\ip{x,y}_{\Tr} = \sum_{j=1}^m \Tr(x_jy_j) = N \ip{x,y}_2$. Being a real inner-product space, $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ may be identified with $\R^{mN^2}$ by choosing an orthonormal basis in $\ip{\cdot,\cdot}_{\Tr}$. Lebesgue measure on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ should be understood with respect to this identification. Moreover, the gradient $\nabla$, Jacobian matrix $J$, divergence $\Div$, and Laplacian $\Delta$ for functions on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ should also be understood with respect to this identification. Beware that this is \emph{not} equivalent to using entrywise coordinates for $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ since the off-diagonal entries are complex and conjugate-symmetric, while the diagonal entries are real, and that the normalized gradient above satisfies $Df = N \nabla f$. For further discussion see \cite[\S 2.1]{Jekel2018}.
\subsection{Main Results on Conditional Expectation}
Consider a tuple
\[
(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)}) = (X_1^{(N)},\dots,X_m^{(N)},Y_1^{(N)},\dots,Y_n^{(N)})
\]
of random self-adjoint matrices given by a probability density $(1/Z^{(N)}) e^{-N^2 V^{(N)}(x,y)}\,dx\,dy$. We assume that $V^{(N)}$ is uniformly convex and semi-concave and that the normalized gradient $DV^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials (a certain notion of good asymptotic behavior as $N \to \infty$, explained below). The precise hypotheses are listed in Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM}. We showed in \cite[Theorem 4.1]{Jekel2018} that in this case, there exists an $(m+n)$-tuple $(X,Y)$ of non-commutative random variables such that $\tau_N(p(X,Y)) \to \tau(p(X,Y))$ in probability.
Our first main result (Theorem \ref{thm:conditionalexpectation}) says roughly that the classical conditional expectation given $Y^{(N)}$ well approximates the $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebraic conditional expectation $E_{\mathrm{W}^*(Y)}: \mathrm{W}^*(X,Y) \to \mathrm{W}^*(Y)$. This is motivated in general by the importance of conditional expectation in free probability, e.g.\ its relationship to free independence with amalgamation and to free score functions. See \cite[\S 4]{BCG2003} for a study of the large $N$ limits of conditional expectations related to matrix SDE. The relationship between classical and free conditional expectation also has implications for the study of relative matricial microstate spaces, such as the ``external averaging property'' introduced in the upcoming work with Hayes, Nelson, and Sinclair \cite{HJNS2019}.
Applications of conditional expectation within this paper include our results on free Fisher information and entropy (see Theorem \ref{thm:convergenceofentropy} and Remark \ref{rem:simplifiedentropyproof}), as well as our proof that Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} is preserved under marginals (see Proposition \ref{prop:marginals}).
The statement and proof of Theorem \ref{thm:conditionalexpectation} rely on a notion of asymptotic approximation for functions on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ explained in \S \ref{sec:TP}. We define a class of non-commutative functions $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$ as a certain Fr{\'e}chet space completion of trace polynomials, such that if $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ and $x_1$, \dots, $x_m$ are self-adjoint elements in an $\mathcal{R}^\omega$-embeddable tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra $(\mathcal{M},\tau)$, then $f(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ is a well-defined element of $L^2(\mathcal{M})$. In particular, every $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ can be evaluated on a tuple of self-adjoint matrices. Now if $f^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)$, we say that $f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f$ if for every $R > 0$,
\[
\lim_{N \to \infty} \sup_{\substack{x \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \\ \norm{x}_\infty \leq R}} \norm*{f^{(N)}(x) - f(x)}_2 = 0,
\]
Moreover, if such an $f$ exists, then we say that $f^{(N)}$ is \emph{asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials}.
Consider the random matrices $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$ and non-commutative random variables $(X,Y)$ as above, and suppose that $f^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \to M_N(\C)$ is uniformly Lipschitz in $\norm{\cdot}_2$ and that $f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f \in \overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1$. Then we show that $E[f^{(N)}(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)}) | Y^{(N)}]$ is given by a function $g^{(N)}(Y^{(N)})$ such that $g^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow g \in \overline{\TrP}_n^1$, and moreover $E_{\mathrm{W}^*(Y)}[f(X,Y)] = g(Y)$.
A curious feature of this result is that the function $g$ is defined for all self-adjoint $n$-tuples of non-commutative random variables, not only for the specific $n$-tuple $Y$ that we are concerned with. Similarly, the claim that $g^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow g$ describes the asymptotic behavior of $g^{(N)}(y)$ for all $y \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^n$, even though the distribution of the random matrix $Y^{(N)}$ is highly concentrated as $N \to \infty$ on much smaller sets, namely the ``matricial microstate spaces'' consisting of tuples $y \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^n$ with non-commutative moments close to those of $Y$. Thus, the statement we prove about the functions $g^{(N)}$ is stronger than an asymptotic result about $L^2$ approximation such as \cite[Theorem 4.7]{GS2014}.
\subsection{Main Results on Entropy}
Voiculescu defined two types of free entropy (see \cite{VoiculescuFE2}, \cite{VoiculescuFE5}, \cite{Voiculescu2002}). The first, called $\chi(X)$, is based on measuring the size of matricial microstate spaces, which is closely related to the classical entropy of the random matrix models (see \cite[\S 5.2]{Jekel2018}). The second, called $\chi^*(X)$, is defined in terms of free Fisher information, which is based on classical Fisher information. Either one should heuristically be the large $N$ limit of the classical entropy of random matrix models, but there were many technical obstacles to proving this. The inequality $\chi \leq \chi^*$ is known in general thanks to \cite{BCG2003}. However, even for non-commutative laws as well-behaved and explicit as free Gibbs states given by convex potentials, the equality of $\chi$ and $\chi^*$ when $m > 1$ was not proved until Dabrowski's paper \cite{Dabrowski2017}, and the problem is still open for non-convex Gibbs states.
Our previous work \cite{Jekel2018} gave a proof of this equality in the convex case based on the asymptotic analysis of functions and PDE related to the random matrix models. Here we will use similar techniques for the conditional setting. We will show (Theorem \ref{thm:convergenceofentropy}) that for a random tuple of matrices $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$ given by a convex potential as above, the classical conditional entropy $N^{-2} h(X^{(N)} | Y^{(N)}) + (m/2) \log N$ converges to the conditional free entropy $\chi^*(X: \mathrm{W}^*(Y))$. Actually, the proof here is shorter than those of \cite{Dabrowski2017} and \cite{Jekel2018} (see Remark \ref{rem:simplifiedentropyproof}), even considering the results we used from \cite{Jekel2018}.
We focus here only on the non-microstates entropy (defined using Fisher information). It is not yet resolved in the literature what the correct definition of conditional microstates free entropy should be. In light of \cite[\S 5.2]{Jekel2018}, the conditional classical entropy for the random matrix models seems to be a reasonable substitute for microstates entropy, and in the convex setting we expect this to agree with any plausible definition of conditional microstates entropy due to the exponential concentration of measure.
\subsection{Main Results on Transport} \label{subsec:transportintro}
A \emph{transport map} from a probability measure $\mu$ and to another probability measure $\nu$ is a function $f$ such that $f_* \mu = \nu$. In probabilistic language, if $X \sim \mu$ and $Y \sim \nu$ are random variables, then $f_* \mu = \nu$ means that $f(X) \sim Y$ in distribution. The theory of transport (and in particular optimal transport) has numerous and significant applications in the classical setting.
For instance, if we have a function $f$ such that $f(X) \sim Y$ and we can numerically simulate the random variable $X$, then we can also simulate $Y$.
In the non-commutative world, transport is even more significant. As remarked in \cite[\S 1.1]{GS2014}, there is no known analogue of a probability density in free probability. However, the existence of transport maps that would express our given random variables as functions of a free semicircular family (for instance) would serve a similar purpose to a density, namely to provide a fairly explicit and analytically tractable model for a large class of non-commutative laws.
Moreover, in contrast to the classical setting, the very existence of transport maps is a nontrivial condition. Being able to express a non-commutative tuple $Y$ as a function of another non-commutative tuple $X$ implies that $\mathrm{W}^*(Y)$ embeds into $\mathrm{W}^*(X)$, and having a transport map in the other direction as well implies that $\mathrm{W}^*(Y) \cong \mathrm{W}^*(X)$. In the classical setting, any two diffuse (non-atomic) standard Borel probability spaces are isomorphic. On the other hand, there are many non-isomorphic diffuse tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebras, even after restricting our attention to factors (those which cannot be decomposed as direct sums); see \cite{McDuff1969}. Moreover, Ozawa \cite{Ozawa2004} showed that there is no separable tracial factor that contains an isomorphic copy of all the others. Thus, there are many instances where it is not even possible to transport one given non-commutative law to another.
The papers \cite{GS2009} and \cite{DGS2016} showed the existence of monotone transport maps between certain free Gibbs laws given by convex potentials and the law of a free semicircular family, and thus concluded that each of the corresponding $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebras was isomorphic to a free group factor $L(\mathbb{F}_n)$. In particular, this result applies to the $q$-Gaussian variables for sufficiently small $q$. These transport techniques have been extended to type III von Neumann algebras \cite{Nelson2015a}, to planar algebras \cite{Nelson2015b}, and to interpolated free group factors \cite{HN2018}. We will focus on ``conditional transport'' in the tracial setting.
Our first main result about transport is contained in Theorems \ref{thm:transport1} and \ref{thm:transport2}. Let $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$ be an $(m+n)$-tuple of random matrices arising from a sequence of convex potentials satisfying Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM}. Let $(X,Y)$ be an $(m+n)$-tuple of non-commutative self-adjoint variables realizing the limiting free Gibbs law. Then we construct functions $F^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ such that $(F^{(N)}(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}), Y^{(N)}) \sim (S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$ in distribution, where $S^{(N)}$ is a GUE $m$-tuple independent of $Y^{(N)}$. We think of this as a conditional transport, which transports the law of $X^{(N)}$ to the law of $S^{(N)}$ \emph{conditioned on $Y^{(N)}$}.
Moreover, we show that the transport maps satisfy $F^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow F \in (\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1)_{sa}^m$. In the large $N$ limit, we obtain $(F(X,Y), Y) \sim (S,Y)$ in non-commutative law, where $S$ is a free semicircular $m$-tuple freely independent of $Y$. In particular, this means that $\mathrm{W}^*(X,Y) \cong \mathrm{W}^*(S,Y) = \mathrm{W}^*(S) * \mathrm{W}^*(Y)$ (where $*$ denotes free product). In other words, $\mathrm{W}^*(Y)$ is freely complemented in $\mathrm{W}^*(X,Y)$.
By iterating this result, we can show that if $X = (X_1,\dots,X_m)$ is a tuple of non-commutative random variables given by a convex free Gibbs state as above, then there is an isomorphism $\mathrm{W}^*(X) \to \mathrm{W}^*(S)$ such that $\mathrm{W}^*(X_1,\dots,X_k)$ is mapped onto $\mathrm{W}^*(S_1,\dots,S_k)$ for each $k = 1$, \dots, $m$. In other words, there is a ``lower-triangular transport.'' See Theorem \ref{thm:transport4}. This is a (partial) free analogue of \cite[Corollary 3.10]{BKM2005}.
This result implies in particular that $\mathrm{W}^*(X_1)$ is a maximal abelian subalgebra and in fact maximal amenable (since the subalgebra $\mathrm{W}^*(S_1)$ is known to be maximal amenable thanks to Popa \cite{Popa1983}), and the same holds for each $\mathrm{W}^*(X_j)$ by symmetry. For context on maximal amenable subalgebras, see for instance \cite{Popa1983} \cite{BC2015} \cite{BH2018}. More generally, \emph{any von Neumann algebraic properties} of the sequence of inclusions $\mathrm{W}^*(X_1) \subseteq \mathrm{W}^*(X_1,X_2) \subseteq \dots \subseteq \mathrm{W}^*(X_1,\dots,X_m)$ are the same as for the case of free semicirculars, that is, for the standard inclusions $L(\Z) \subseteq L(\F_2) \subseteq \dots \subseteq L(\F_m)$.
Denote by $F$ the transport map from the law of $X$ to the law of $S$ in our construction, so that $F(X) \sim S$. We can also arrange that $F$ witnesses the Talagrand entropy-cost inequality relative to the semicircular law, that is,
\[
\norm{F(X) - X}_2^2 \leq \norm{X}_2^2 + m \log 2\pi - 2 \chi^*(X),
\]
where the left hand side is twice the entropy relative to semicircular (see \S \ref{subsec:entropycost}). This is not surprising because it was already known in the classical case that the Talagrand inequality can be witnessed by some triangular transport \cite[Corollary 3.10]{BKM2005}. Moreover, our construction of the transport maps is a direct application of the same method that Otto and Villani used to prove the Talagrand entropy-cost inequality under the assumption of the log-Sobolev inequality \cite[\S 4]{OV2000}. Thus, our main contribution is to study the large $N$ limit of the transport maps using asymptotic approximation by trace polynomials. We also show that $F$ is $\norm{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz, and we estimate $\norm{F(X) - X}_\infty$ in terms of the constants $c$ and $C$ specifying the uniform convexity and semi-concavity of $V^{(N)}$. These estimates will in fact go to zero as $c, C \to 1$.
Unfortunately, the maps constructed here are not optimal triangular transport maps with respect to the $L^2$-Wasserstein distance, since Otto and Villani's proof of \cite[Theorem 1]{OV2000} uses a diffusion-semigroup interpolation between the two measures, not the displacement interpolation from optimal transport theory. In that sense, the results of this paper do not fully prove an analogue of \cite[Corollary 3.10]{BKM2005}. Even in the work of Guionnet and Shlyakhtenko \cite{GS2009}, which constructed monotone transport maps in the free setting, the question of whether these maps furnish an optimal coupling between $X$ and $S$ inside a tracial von Neumann algebra was left unresolved. Future research should study optimal transport in the free setting, and determine whether the classical optimal transport (or more generally optimal triangular transport) maps for the random matrix models converge in the large $N$ limit in the sense of this paper.
\subsection{Outline}
The paper is organized as follows. We remark that \S \ref{sec:RMbackground} and \S \ref{sec:diffeqtools} are mostly technical background, and the reader may treat them like appendices if desired. In other words, it is feasible to read through the other sections in order and only refer to \S \ref{sec:RMbackground} and \S \ref{sec:diffeqtools} as needed to verify technical details of the main results.
\S \ref{sec:RMbackground} gives standard background on convex and semi-concave functions and on log-concave random matrix models.
\S \ref{sec:TP} sets up the algebra of trace polynomials, and the spaces $\overline{\TrP}_m^0$ and $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$ of functions that can be approximated by trace polynomials. These spaces provide a framework for functional calculus in multiple self-adjoint variables $X_1$, \dots, $X_m$ that can realize every element of $L^2(\mathrm{W}^*(X_1,\dots,X_m))$. They are a convenient tool to describe the large $N$ behavior of functions of several matrices, and thus will be used in the statements of our main theorems.
\S \ref{sec:diffeqtools} describes solving ODE's and the heat equation over $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$. These are the technical lemmas used in the rest of the paper to show that the solutions of certain PDE's have well-defined large $N$ limits.
\S \ref{sec:conditionalexpectation} explains the setup of our random matrix models given by convex potentials, and then proves our main result on conditional expectation (Theorem \ref{thm:conditionalexpectation}).
\S \ref{sec:entropy} shows that the conditional entropy for random matrix models converges to the conditional non-microstates entropy (Theorem \ref{thm:convergenceofentropy}).
\S \ref{sec:transport} proves the existence of transport maps from a free Gibbs law to the law of a free semicircular $m$-tuple which arise as the large $N$ limit of transport maps for the random matrix models (Theorem \ref{thm:transport1} and \ref{thm:transport2}).
\S \ref{sec:applications} discusses applications of our results. We show that our standard set of assumptions for log-concave random matrix models is preserved under marginals, independent joins, linear change of variables, and convolution (\S \ref{subsec:operations}). We show that the transport maps constructed above witness (the conditional version of) Talagrand's entropy-cost inequality relative to Gaussian measure (Theorem \ref{thm:transport3}). Then by iterating our conditional transport results, we show the existence of triangular transport (Theorem \ref{thm:transport4}).
\section{Multi-matrix Models from Convex Potentials} \label{sec:RMbackground}
This section is a review and reference for basic results we will use throughout the paper.
We will be concerned with probability measures on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ of the form
\[
d\mu(x) = \frac{1}{Z} e^{-N^2 V(x)}\,dx,
\]
where $x = (x_1,\dots,x_m)$ is a tuple of self-adjoint matrices, $V: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ such that $e^{N^2 V}$ is integrable, and $Z = \int e^{-N^2 V(x)}\,dx$ is the normalizing constant. Here $dx$ denotes Lebesgue measure where we identify $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ with $\R^{mN^2}$ using the inner product associated to the trace (the normalization of Lebesgue measure is irrelevant here because if we multiply it by a constant, the normalizing constant $Z$ for $\mu$ will change to compensate). In this case, we will say that \emph{$\mu$ is the measure given by the potential $V$}. We will often assume $V$ is convex. Note that $\mu$ only determines $V$ up to an additive constant, but we will still say that ``$V$ is the potential corresponding to $\mu$'' with a slight abuse of terminology.
A primary motivating example is $V(x) = \tau_N(f(x))$, where $\tau_N = (1/N) \Tr$ is the normalized trace and $f$ is a non-commutative polynomial in $x_1$, \dots, $x_m$. Unlike the notation in many random matrix papers, we prefer to write $N^2 \tau_N(f)$ rather than $N \Tr(f)$. This seems natural because $\tau_N(f)$ is a function with dimension-independent normalization and it would make sense for self-adjoint elements of a tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra. Meanwhile, $N^2$ is the dimension of $M_N(\C)_{sa}^N$ and also the scale (in the sense of large deviations) for the standard concentration estimates that hold when $V$ is uniformly convex (see for instance \cite{BCG2003} or \S \ref{subsec:concentration} below).
\subsection{Semi-convex and Semi-concave Functions}
\begin{definition} \label{def:convexityHnotation}
Let $A: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ be a self-adjoint linear transformation and let $u: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$. We say that $Hu \leq A$ if $u(x) - (1/2) \ip{Ax,x}_2$ is concave. We say that $Hu \geq A$ if $u(x) - (1/2) \ip{Ax,x}_2$ is convex.
\end{definition}
We will also regularly use the following observation:
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:convexgradient}
Suppose that $u: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$, and let $A$ and $B$ be self-adjoint linear transformations. The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item $A \leq Hu \leq B$.
\item For each $x \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$, there exists $y \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ such that
\[
\frac{1}{2} \ip{A(x' - x), x' - x} \leq u(x') - u(x) - \ip{y, x' - x}_2 \leq \frac{1}{2} \ip{B(x' - x), x' - x}_2
\]
for all $x' \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$.
\item $u$ is continuously differentiable and we have
\[
\ip{A(x'-x), x'-x}_2 \leq \ip{Du(x') - Du(x),x' - x}_2 \leq \ip{B(x'-x), x' - x}_2
\]
for all $x, x' \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, in this case, $Du$ is $\max(\norm{A}, \norm{B})$-Lipschitz with respect to $\norm{\cdot}_2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Sketch of proof]
(1) $\implies$ (3). Suppose (1) holds. If $C = \max(\norm{A},\norm{B})$, then for each $x$ there exists $y$ such that
\[
-\frac{C}{2} \norm{x' - x}_2^2 \leq u(x') - u(x) - \ip{y, x' - x}_2 \leq \frac{C}{2} \norm{x' - x}_2^2.
\]
Hence, it follows from \cite[Proposition 2.13]{Jekel2018} that $u$ must be continuously differentiable and $Du$ is $C$-Lipschitz (which proves the last claim of our lemma as well). To prove the inequality asserted by (3), we can reduce to the case when $u$ is smooth using a similar argument as in \cite[Proposition 2.13]{Jekel2018}). But in the smooth case, the claim follows by estimating from above and below the formula
\[
\ip{Du(x') - Du(x), x' - x}_2 = \int_0^1 \ip{Hu(x + t(x' - x))(x' - x), x' - x}_2\,dt,
\]
where $Hu$ is the Hessian defined in the standard pointwise sense.
(3) $\implies$ (2). Recall the formula
\[
u(x') - u(x) = \int_0^1 \ip{Du(x + t(x' - x)), x' - x}\,dt.
\]
This implies that
\begin{align*}
u(x') - u(x) - \ip{Du(x), x' - x}_2 &= \int_0^1 \ip{Du(x + t(x' - x)) - Du(x), x' - x}_2\,dt \\
&= \int_0^1 \frac{1}{t} \ip{Du(x + t(x' - x)) - Du(x), [x + t (x' - x)] - x}_2\,dt \\
&\leq \int_0^1 \frac{1}{t} \ip{B[t(x' - x)], t(x' - x)}_2\,dt \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \ip{B(x' - x), x' - x}_2.
\end{align*}
This proves the upper bound, and the lower bound is symmetrical.
(2) $\implies$ (1). This follows from the characterization of convex functions by supporting hyperplanes. Indeed, $u(x) - (1/2) \ip{Ax,x}$ is convex if and only if for every $x$, there exists $y$ satisfying
\[
u(x') - u(x) + \frac{1}{2} \ip{Ax', x'}_2 - \frac{1}{2} \ip{Ax,x}_2 \geq \ip{y, x - x'}_2.
\]
which is equivalent to the right inequality of (2), and the concavity of $u(x) - (1/2) \ip{Bx,x}$ follows similarly.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:convexgradientestimate}
Suppose that $0 \leq Hu \leq A$ for some linear transformation $A$. Then $u$ is differentiable and we have
\[
|\ip{Du(x) - Du(x'),y}_2| \leq \ip{A(x-x'),x-x'}_2^{1/2} \ip{Ay,Ay}_2^{1/2},
\]
so that in particular, $\norm{Du(x) - Du(x')}_2 \leq \norm{A} \norm{x - x'}_2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As in \cite[Proposition 2.13]{Jekel2018}, we obtain differentiability; and moreover to prove the asserted estimate, it suffices to prove the claim for smooth functions $u$. In this case,
\begin{align*}
\ip{Du(x) - Du(x'),y} &= \int_0^1 \ip{Hu(tx + (1 - t) x')(x - x'),y}_2 \,dt \\
&\leq \int_0^1 \ip{Hu(tx + (1-t)x')(x-x'),x-x'}_2^{1/2} \ip{Hu(tx + (1-t)x')y,y}_2^{1/2}\,dt \\
&\leq \int_0^1 \ip{A(x-x'), x-x'}^{1/2} \ip{Ay,y}_2^{1/2}\,dt \\
&= \ip{A(x-x'),x-x'}_2^{1/2} \ip{Ay,y}_2^{1/2}. \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Some Basic Lemmas}
Let $V: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ satisfy $HV \geq c$. Then one can check that $e^{-N^2 V(x)}$ is integrable; indeed, $V$ must achieve a minimum at some $x_0$ and we have $V(x) \geq V(x_0) + (c/2) \norm{x - x_0}_2^2$ and clearly $e^{-N^2 c \norm{x - x_0}_2^2}$ is integrable. Therefore, the probability measure $\mu$ given by $(1 / Z^{(N)}) e^{-N^2 V(x)}\,dx$ is well-defined.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:conjugatevariablebasics}
Let $V: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ satisfy $c \leq HV \leq C$ for some scalars $0 < c \leq C$. Let $\mu$ be the probability measure given by $d\mu(x) = (1/ Z^{(N)}) e^{-N^2 V(x)}\,dx$ and let $X$ be a random variables whose distribution is $\mu$. Then
\[
E[DV(X)] = 0
\]
and
\[
\frac{m}{C} \leq E \norm*{X - E(X)}_2^2 \leq \frac{m}{c}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We remark that $V$ is continuously differentiable by Lemma \ref{lem:convexgradient} $V$ is differentiable and $DV$ is Lipschitz. It follows by some straightforward estimation that $\norm{DV}_2$ is integrable with respect to $\mu$, so that $E[DV(X)]$ is well-defined. Then $E[DV(X)] = 0$ follows from integration by parts (see \S \ref{subsec:matrixentropy} for further context on this integration by parts).
Next, let $D_j V$ denote the normalized gradient with respect to the matrix variable $x_j$. Using integration by parts again, we get $E \ip{D_j V(X), X_j - E(X_j)}_2 = 1$, so that
\[
E \ip{DV(X) - DV(E(X)), X - E(X)}_2 = E \ip{DV(X), X - E(X)}_2 = m.
\]
On the other hand, by Lemma \ref{lem:convexgradientestimate},
\[
c E \norm*{X - E(X)}_2^2 \leq E \ip{DV(X) - DV(E(X)), X - E(X)}_2 \leq C E \norm*{X - E(X)}_2^2.
\]
Since the middle term evaluates to $m$, the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:RVboundedness}
Let $X$ be a random variable in $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ and let $G: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^n$ be Lipschitz with respect to $\norm{\cdot}_2$ in both the domain and target space, and let $\norm{G}_{\Lip}$ denote the corresponding Lipschitz (semi)norm. Then
\[
\norm*{G(x)}_2 \leq \norm*{E(G(X))}_2 + \norm*{G}_{\Lip} \left( \norm*{x - E(X)}_2 + (E\norm*{X - E(X)}_2^2)^{1/2} \right).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that
\begin{align*}
\norm*{G(x) - E(G(X))}_2 &\leq \norm*{G}_{\Lip} E \norm*{x - X}_2 \\
&\leq \norm*{G}_{\Lip} \left( \norm*{x - E(X)}_2 + E \norm*{X - E(X)}_2 \right) \\
&\leq \norm*{G}_{\Lip} \left( \norm*{x - E(X)}_2 + (E \norm*{X - E(X)}_2^2)^{1/2} \right). \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:DVestimate}
Let $V: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ satisfies $c \leq HV \leq C$, let $\mu$ be the corresponding measure, and let $X \sim \mu$. Then
\[
\norm*{DV(x)}_2 \leq C \left( \norm*{x - E(X)}_2 + \frac{m^{1/2}}{c^{1/2}} \right).
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We apply Lemma \ref{lem:RVboundedness} to $DV(X)$. Also, $DV$ is $C$-Lipschitz by Lemma \ref{lem:convexgradient}. By Lemma \ref{lem:conjugatevariablebasics} $E(DV(X)) = 0$ and $E \norm*{X - E(X)}_2^2 \leq m / c$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:limitoflogconcave}
Let $A$ and $B$ be positive definite linear transformations $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$. Let $\{V_k\}_{k \in \N}$ be a sequence of functions such that $A \leq HV_k \leq B$. Let $d\mu_k(x) = (1/Z_k) e^{-N^2 V_k(x)}\,dx$ be the associated probability measure. Let $\mu$ be another measure with finite mean. Suppose $\mu_k$ converges weakly to $\mu$ and the mean of $\mu_k$ is bounded in $\norm*{\cdot}_2$ as $k \to \infty$. Then there exists $V$ such that $d\mu(x) = (1/Z) e^{-N^2 V(x)}\,dx$ and $A \leq HV \leq B$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since adding a constant to $V_k$ does not change $\mu_k$, we can assume without loss of generality that $V_k(0) = 0$. Now $DV_k$ is $C$-Lipschitz where $C = \max(\norm{A}, \norm{B})$, hence the sequence is equicontinuous. It is also pointwise bounded in light of the previous lemma, since we assumed the mean of $\mu_k$ is bounded as $k \to \infty$. Thus, by the Arzel{\`a}-Ascoli theorem, by passing to a subsequence, we can assume that $DV_k$ converges locally uniformly to some $F$ as $k \to \infty$. Since $V_k(0) = 0$, this also implies that $V_k$ converges locally uniformly to some $V$, which must satisfy $A \leq HV \leq B$ since the family of such functions is closed under pointwise limits (which follows from the family of convex functions being closed under pointwise limits; compare \cite[Proposition 2.13(1)]{Jekel2018}). Moreover, $DV = F$.
Let $\nu$ be the probability measure given by $d\nu(x) = (1/Z) e^{-N^2 V(x)}\,dx$. Since $A$ is positive definite, we have $A \geq c$ for some scalar $c > 0$. Because $DV_k(0)$ is bounded in $\norm*{\cdot}_2$ as $k \to \infty$ and $V_k(x) \geq \ip{x, DV_k(0)}_2 + c \norm*{x}_2^2$, we can see using the dominated convergence theorem that $Z_k \to Z$ as $k \to \infty$. It follows again from dominated convergence that $\int \phi\,d\mu_k \to \int \phi\,d\nu$ for every continuous compactly supported $\phi$. Hence, $\nu = \mu$, so $\mu$ is given by the potential $V$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Log-Sobolev Inequality and Concentration} \label{subsec:concentration}
Log-concave matrix models exhibit concentration of measure as $N \to \infty$ as a consequence of the following classical inequalities.
\begin{definition}
We say that a measure $\mu$ on $\R^m$ satisfies the \emph{log-Sobolev inequality with constant $c$} if for all sufficiently smooth $f$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:LSI}
\int f^2 \log \frac{f^2}{\int f^2 \,d\mu} \,d\mu \leq 2c \int |\nabla f|^2\,d\mu.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
We say that a measure $\mu$ on $\R^m$ satisfies \emph{Herbst's concentration inequality with constant $c$} if for all Lipschitz functions $f: \R^m \to \R$ and $\delta > 0$, we have $E |f(X)| < +\infty$ and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Herbst1}
P(f(X) - E[f(X)] \geq \delta) \leq e^{-c \delta^2 / 2 \norm{f}_{\Lip}^2}
\end{equation}
where $X$ is a random variable distributed according to $\mu$. Note that by symmetry this implies
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Herbst2}
P(|f(X) - E[f(X)]| \geq \delta) \leq 2 e^{-c \delta^2 / 2 \norm{f}_{\Lip}^2}.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
The following theorem is now standard. See for instance \cite[\S 2.3.3 and 4.4.2]{AGZ2009} and \cite{BL2000}. To summarize the history, the log-Sobolev inequality was introduced by Gross \cite{Gross1975}. In the theorem below, (1) is due to Bakry and Emery and (2) is due to unpublished work of Herbst. The application to random matrices was introduced by Guionnet and Zeitouni \cite{GZ2000}.
\begin{theorem} ~
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose that $\mu$ is a probability measure on $\R^m$ satisfying $d\mu(x) = (1/Z)e^{-V(x)}\,dx$ and suppose that $V(x) - (c/2) |x|^2$ is convex. Then $\mu$ satisfies the log-Sobolev inequality with constant $1/c$.
\item If $\mu$ satisfies the log-Sobolev inequality with constant $1/c$, then it satisfies Herbst's concentration inequality with constant $c$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
In particular, we have the following consequences for random matrices. Here we use the gradient $Df$ and Hessian $Hf$ with respect to the normalized inner product $\ip{\cdot,\cdot}_2$.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:matrixLSI}
Suppose that $V: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ satisfies $HV \geq c > 0$ and let $d\mu(x) = (1/Z) e^{-N^2 V(x)}\,dx$. Then $\mu$ satisfies the normalized log-Sobolev inequality
\begin{equation} \label{eq:normalizedLSI}
\int f^2 \log \frac{f^2}{\int f^2 \,d\mu} \,d\mu \leq \frac{2}{N^2 c} \int \norm{Df}_2^2\,d\mu,
\end{equation}
and hence also satisfies the normalized Herbst concentration inequality
\begin{equation} \label{eq:normalizedHerbst}
P(f(X) - E[f(X)] \geq \delta) \leq e^{-cN^2 \delta^2 / 2 \norm{f}_{\Lip}^2},
\end{equation}
where $f: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ is Lipschitz and $\norm{f}_{\Lip}$ denotes the Lipschitz norm with respect to $\norm{\cdot}_2$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:epsilonnet}
Suppose that $\mu$ is a probability measure on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ satisfying \eqref{eq:normalizedHerbst} for some constant $c$. Let $f: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)_{sa}$ be Lipschitz with respect to $\norm*{\cdot}_2$. Then we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:epsilonnet}
P\Bigl( \norm*{f(X) - E[f(X)]}_\infty \geq c^{-1/2} \norm*{f}_{\Lip} (\Theta + \delta) \Bigr) \leq e^{-N \delta^2 / 2}.
\end{equation}
where $X \sim \mu$ and where $\Theta$ is a universal constant (independent of $N$ and $c$).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, observe that $\norm{x}_\infty \leq N^{1/2} \norm{x}_2$ for $x \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$. In particular, $g(x) = \norm{f(x) - E[f(X)]}_\infty$ is $N^{1/2} \norm{f}_{\Lip}$-Lipschitz with respect to $\norm{\cdot}_2$, and thus
\[
P (g(X) \geq E[g(X)] + \delta) \leq e^{-cN \delta^2 / 2 \norm{f}_{\Lip}^2},
\]
which implies after a change of variables for $\delta$ that
\[
P(g(X) \geq E[g(X)] + c^{-1/2} \norm{f}_{\Lip} \delta) \leq e^{-N \delta^2 / 2}.
\]
Therefore, it suffices to show that for some constant $\Theta$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:expectationofnorm}
E[g(X)] = E[ \norm{f(X) - E[f(X)]}_\infty] \leq \Theta c^{-1/2} \norm{f}_{\Lip}.
\end{equation}
We may assume without loss of generality that $f$ is self-adjoint since in the general case, $f = (1/2)(f + f^*) + i(1/2i)(f - f^*)$, and each of the terms on the right hand side is Lipschitz. Thus, the self-adjoint case would imply the non-self-adjoint case at the cost of doubling the constant $\Theta$. Now to prove self-adjoint case, we use an ``$\epsilon$-net argument'' that is well-known in random matrix theory (see \cite[\S 2.3.1]{Tao2012}). Fix $N$. Let $\{\eta_j\}_{j=1}^J$ be a maximal collection of unit vectors in $\C^N$ such that $|\eta_i - \eta_j| \geq 1/3$ for all $i \neq j$. Since this collection is maximal, for every unit vector $\eta$, there exists some $\eta_j$ with $|\eta - \eta_i| < 1/3$. Now if $a \in M_N(\C)_{sa}$, then there is a unit vector with $\norm*{a}_\infty = \ip{\eta, a \eta}$. We may then choose $\eta_j$ with $|\eta - \eta_j| < 1/3$
\begin{align*}
\norm*{a}_\infty &= \ip{\eta, a \eta} \\
&= \ip{\eta_j, a \eta_j} + \ip{\eta_j, a(\eta - \eta_j)}_2 + \ip{\eta - \eta_j, a \eta} \\
&\leq \ip{\eta_j, a \eta_j} + \frac{1}{3} \norm*{a}_\infty + \frac{1}{3} \norm*{a}_\infty,
\end{align*}
so that
\[
\norm*{a}_\infty \leq 3 \max_j \ip{\eta_j, a \eta_j}.
\]
Note that the balls $\{B(\eta_j,1/6)\}_{j=1}^J$ in $\C^N$ are disjoint and contained in $B(0,7/6)$. Hence, we can estimate the number of vectors by
\[
J \leq \frac{|B(0,7/6)|}{|B(0,1/6)|} = 7^{2N}.
\]
Let $K = \norm{f}_{\Lip}$. For a matrix $a \in M_N(\C)_{sa}$, we have
\[
|\ip{\eta_i, a \eta_j}| \leq \norm*{a}_\infty \leq N^{1/2} \norm*{a}_2.
\]
This implies that $x \mapsto \ip{\eta_j, f(x) \eta_j}$ is $KN^{1/2}$-Lipschitz with respect to $\norm*{\cdot}_2$ and hence
\[
P\Bigl( \ip{\eta_j, (f(X) - E[f(X)]) \eta_j} \geq \delta \Bigr) \leq e^{-cN \delta^2 / 2K^2}
\]
Since $\norm*{a}_\infty \leq 3 \max_{j} \ip{\eta_j, a \eta_j}$, we have
\begin{align*}
P \Bigl(\norm*{f(X) - E[f(X)]}_\infty \geq 3 \delta \Bigr) &\leq J e^{-cN \delta^2 / 2} \\
&\leq 7^{2N} e^{-cN \delta^2 / 2K^2}.
\end{align*}
Thus, for any $t_0 > 0$, we have
\begin{align*}
E[\norm*{f(X) - E[f(X)]}_\infty] &= \int_0^\infty P(\norm{f(X) - E[f(X)]}_\infty \geq t)\,dt \\
&\leq \int_0^{t_0} 1 \,dt + \int_{t_0}^\infty 7^{2N} e^{-cNt^2 / 18 K^2}\,dt \\
&\leq t_0 + \int_{t_0}^\infty 7^{2N} \frac{t}{t_0} e^{-cNt^2 / 18 K^2}\,dt \\
&= t_0 + 7^{2N} \frac{9K^2}{cNt_0} e^{-cNt_0^2 / 18 K^2}.
\end{align*}
Now substitute $t_0 = 6c^{-1/2} K (\log 7)^{1/2}$ and obtain \eqref{eq:expectationofnorm} with
\[
\Theta = 6(\log 7)^{1/2} + \frac{9}{6 (\log 7)^{1/2}}.
\]
(In fact, for a fixed $N$, we may use $\Theta_N = 6(\log 7)^{1/2} + 9 / 6N(\log 7)^{1/2}$ in the self-adjoint case.)
\end{proof}
\section{Functional Calculus and Asymptotic Approximation} \label{sec:TP}
In this section, we review the algebra $\TrP_m^1$ of trace polynomials in self-adjoint variables $X_1$, \dots, $X_m$, as well as a certain completed quotient $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$ of this algebra. The elements of $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$ represent functions that can be applied to \emph{any} tuple of self-adjoint non-commutative random variables $(X_1,\dots,X_m)$ in an $\mathcal{R}^\omega$-embeddable tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra, and application of these functions will produce every element of $L^2(\mathrm{W}^*(X_1,\dots,X_m))$ (see Proposition \ref{prop:realizationofoperators}). These functions are closed under certain algebraic and composition operations. Moreover, they are a natural tool to describe the large $N$ limit of functions on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$, which we will apply in the rest of the paper.
\subsection{The Algebra of Trace Polynomials}
Trace polynomials have been used by several previous authors in the study of deterministic and random matrices; a brief list is \cite{Razmyslov1974}, \cite{Razmyslov1987}, \cite{Rains1997}, \cite{Sengupta2008}, \cite{Cebron2013}, \cite{DHK2013} (which coined the term ``trace polynomial''), \cite{Kemp2016}, \cite{Kemp2017}, \cite{DGS2016} but they are also used implicitly in many other works. We use the same notation as in our previous paper \cite{Jekel2018}.
We denote by $\NCP_m = \C\ip{X_1,\dots,X_m}$ the $*$-algebra of polynomials in $m$ self-adjoint non-commuting variables $X_1$, \dots, $X_m$.
We denote by $\TrP_m^0$ the $*$-algebra of \emph{scalar-valued trace polynomials}. A formal definition is given in \cite{Jekel2018}; in short, it is the tensor algebra of the vector space of non-commutative polynomials modulo cyclic symmetry. Informally, this is the commutative $*$-algebra generated by functions of the form $\tau(p(X_1,\dots,X_m))$, where $p$ is a non-commutative polynomial in $X = (X_1,\dots,X_m)$ and $\tau$ is a formal symbol (which stands in for a normalized trace on a von Neumann algebra), where $\tau(p(X))^* = \tau(p(X)^*)$, and where we identify $\tau(p(X) q(X))$ with $\tau(q(X) p(X))$ for all polynomials $p$ and $q$. Thus, $\TrP_m^0$ is spanned as a vector space by elements of the form $\tau(p_1(X)) \dots \tau(p_n(X))$ where $p_1$, \dots, $p_n \in \NCP_m$.
We denote by $\TrP_m^1$ the $*$-algebra of \emph{operator-valued trace polynomials}. This is the $*$-algebra given formally as $\TrP_m^0 \otimes \NCP_m$. As a vector space, it is spanned by elements of the form $\tau(p_1(X)) \dots \tau(p_n(X)) q(X)$, where $p_1$, \dots, $p_n$ and $q$ are in $\NCP_m$. More generally, we would denote $\TrP_m^k = \TrP_m^0 \otimes (\NCP_m)^{\otimes k}$, but these spaces will not be needed in this paper.
The \emph{degree} of a trace polynomial is defined as one would expect; see \cite[\S 3.1]{Jekel2018} for precise explanation.
Suppose that $x_1$, \dots, $x_m$ are self-adjoint elements of a tracial von Neumann algebra $(\mathcal{M},\tau_0)$. Then elements of $\NCP_m$, $\TrP_m^0$, and $\TrP_m^1$ can be evaluated on $(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ and $\tau_0$ by substituting the operator $x_j$ and the trace $\tau_0$ in place of the formal symbols $X_j$ and $\tau$. More precisely, the evaluation map $\varepsilon_{(x_1,\dots,x_m)}: \NCP_m \to \mathcal{M}$ is the unique $*$-algebra homomorphism that sends $X_j$ to $x_j$. Similarly, the evaluation map $\varepsilon_{(x_1,\dots,x_m)}^0: \TrP_m^0 \to \C$ is the unique $*$-algebra homomorphism that sends $\tau(p(X))$ to $\tau_0(\varepsilon_{(x_1,\dots,x_m)}(p))$. Finally, the evaluation map $\varepsilon_{(x_1,\dots,x_m)}^1: \TrP_m^1 \to \mathcal{M}$ is $\varepsilon_{(x_1,\dots,x_m)}^0 \otimes \varepsilon_{(x_1,\dots,x_m)}$, that is,
\[
\tau(p_1(X)) \dots \tau(p_n(X)) q(X) \mapsto \tau_0(\varepsilon_{(x_1,\dots,x_m)}^0(p_1)) \dots \tau_0(\varepsilon_{(x_1,\dots,x_m)}^0(p_n)) \varepsilon_{(x_1,\dots,x_m)}(q).
\]
For the most part, we will abuse notation and denote $f(x) = \varepsilon_{(x_1,\dots,x_m)}(f)$ when $f \in \NCP_m$, and similarly for $f \in \TrP_m^0$ or $f \in \TrP_m^1$. Note in particular that we can consider $(\mathcal{M},\tau_0) = (M_N(\C)_{sa}, \tau_N)$ and thus $f(x)$ is defined for $x \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ and $f \in \TrP_m^0$ or $\TrP_m^1$.
These evaluation maps thus allow us to view $f \in \TrP_m^0$ as a function (or rather a family of functions) $\mathcal{M}_{sa}^m \to \C$ for every tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra $(\mathcal{M},\tau)$ and in particular $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \C$ for every $m$. Similarly, every $f \in \TrP_m^1$ defines a function $\mathcal{M}_{sa}^m \to \mathcal{M}$ for every tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra and in particular a function $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)$ for every $N$.
\subsection{Functions Approximable by Trace Polynomials}
From an analytic viewpoint, we prefer to work with certain separation-completions of $\TrP_m^0$ and $\TrP_m^1$. In \cite[\S 8.1]{Jekel2018}, we sketched several equivalent ways of defining these separation-completions. Here we emphasize their description as functions that can be evaluated on any self-adjoint tuple in $\mathcal{R}^\omega$ (or, as we will see, any $\mathcal{R}^\omega$-embeddable $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra).
Let $\mathcal{R}$ denote the hyperfinite $\II_1$ factor (tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra with trivial center) and let $\mathcal{R}^\omega$ be its (tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra) ultrapower with respect to some fixed free ultrafilter $\omega \in \beta \N \setminus \N$.
Consider the case of $\TrP_m^0$ first. Let $\mathcal{F}_m^0$ denote the space of functions $(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m \to \C$ that are bounded on operator norm balls, equipped with the family of semi-norms
\[
\norm*{\phi}_{u,R} = \sup \{|\phi(x)|: \norm*{x}_\infty \leq R\}.
\]
(Here ``$u$'' stands for uniform.) This is clearly a Fr{\'e}chet space since the topology is given by the countable family of semi-norms given by taking $R \in \N$ (for background on Fr{\'e}chet spaces, see e.g.\ \cite[\S 5.4]{Folland1999}). Every $f \in \TrP_m^0$ defines a function $(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m \to \C$ that is a bounded an operator norm balls. In other words, evaluation produces a map $\TrP_m^0 \to \mathcal{F}_m^0$. We denote by $\overline{\TrP}_m^0$ the closure of the image of this map in $\mathcal{F}_m$. In other words, $\overline{\TrP}_m^0$ is the space of functions $(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m \to \C$ that can be approximated uniformly on operator-norm balls by trace polynomials.
\begin{remark}
This space was denoted as $\mathcal{T}_m^0$ in our earlier paper \cite{Jekel2018}. The notation $\overline{\TrP}_m^0$ is slightly abusive since we have not shown that the map $\TrP_m^0 \to \mathcal{F}_m^0$ is injective (and perhaps it is not). However, we will still use the notation $\overline{\TrP}_m^0$ since it indicates the connection with trace polynomials.
\end{remark}
Earlier, we saw that it makes sense to evaluate a trace polynomial $f$ on any self-adjoint tuple $(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ in a tracial von Neumann algebra. In fact, $f(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ makes sense for every $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^0$ when $x_1$, \dots, $x_m$ come from a tracial von Neumann algebra that embeds into $\mathcal{R}^\omega$. To see this, suppose $(\mathcal{M},\tau)$ admits a normal trace-preserving embedding $\iota: \mathcal{M} \to \mathcal{R}^\omega$. Then we define $f(x_1,\dots,x_m) = f(\iota(x_1),\dots,\iota(x_m))$. This is independent of the choice of trace-preserving embedding if $f$ is a trace polynomial, and hence it must also be independent of the choice of embedding when $f$ is in $\overline{\TrP}_m^0$.
A similar separation-completion can be defined for $\TrP_m^1$. Indeed, let $\mathcal{F}_m^1$ be the set of functions $\phi: (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m \to L^2(\mathcal{R}^\omega)$ such that
\[
\norm*{\phi}_{u,R} := \sup \{\norm*{\phi(x)}_2: \norm*{x}_\infty \leq R\}
\]
is finite for each $R$. Again, this is a Fr{\'e}chet space. Through the evaluation map, every trace polynomial defines an element of $\mathcal{F}_m^1$ and hence there is a linear map $\TrP_m^1 \to \mathcal{F}_m^1$. We define $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$ to be the closure of the image of this map in $\mathcal{F}_m^1$.
Similar to the scalar-valued case, we can define evaluation of $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ for tuples in an $\mathcal{R}^\omega$-embeddable tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra $(\mathcal{M},\tau)$ by using any trace preserving embedding $\iota: \mathcal{M} \to \mathcal{R}^\omega$. Indeed, let $x_1,\dots,x_m \in \mathcal{M}_{sa}$. Clearly, for $f \in \TrP_m^1$, we have $f(\iota(x_1),\dots,\iota(x_m)) \in \iota(\mathcal{M}) \subseteq \iota(L^2(\mathcal{M}))$ where the latter is defined by extending $\iota$ to a map $L^2(\mathcal{M}) \to L^2(\mathcal{R}^\omega)$. Since this holds for $f \in \TrP_m^1$, then by taking limits, we have $f(\iota(x_1),\dots,\iota(x_m)) \in \iota(L^2(\mathcal{M}))$ for all $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$. Therefore, we may define $f(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ by $\iota(f(x_1,\dots,x_m)) = f(\iota(x_1),\dots,\iota(x_m))$. Then one can check this is independent of the choice of embedding similarly as we did in the case of $\overline{\TrP}_m^0$.
\begin{remark}
Because the spaces $\overline{\TrP}_m^j$ used here are non-standard, let us briefly describe their relationship to other more familiar ideas. Recall that $\Sigma_{m,R}$ denotes the space of non-commutative laws of $m$-tuples with operator norms bounded by $R$. We denote by $\Sigma_{m,R}^{\app}$ the subspace of laws that can be realized by $m$-tuples in $\mathcal{R}^\omega$, and $\Sigma_m^{\app} = \bigcup_{R > 0} \Sigma_{m,R}^{\app}$. Then we showed in \cite[Lemma 8.2]{Jekel2018} that $\overline{\TrP}_m^0$ consists of functions $\Sigma_m^{\app} \to \C$ such that the restriction to $\Sigma_{m,R}^{\app}$ is continuous for each $R$. One could think of this alternatively as an inverse limit of $C(\Sigma_{m,R}^{\app})$ over the directed system of restriction maps $C(\Sigma_{m,R'}^{\app}) \to C(\Sigma_{m,R}^{\app})$ for $R' > R$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The spaces $\TrP_m^0$ and $\overline{\TrP}_m^0$ also arise naturally in the study of model theory of tracial von Neumann algebras introduced in \cite{FHS2013,FHS2014,FHS2014b}. To avoid some of the technical complexities of sorts, we follow the definitions in \cite{FHS2014} where the language has multiple domains of quantification for each sort (and thus we can get away with fewer sorts), and in which formulas are obtained by applying continuous functions $\R^n \to \R$ to atomic formulas (rather than functions defined on some compact set). For tracial von Neumann algebra $(M,\tau)$, the language includes (though this list is not exhaustive) a sort representing $M$ with domains of quantification for each operator norm ball of radius $n \in \N$, a special relation-like symbol $d(x,y)$ for the distance $\norm{x - y}_2$, a relation symbol for the trace $\tau(x)$, and function symbols for the adjoint, addition, and multiplication.
Now $\tau(p(x_1,\dots,x_m))$ is an example of a atomic formula (or strictly speaking, its real and imaginary parts are basic formulas). Similarly, $\tau(p(\re(x_1),\dots, \re(x_m))$ is an atomic formula, where $\re(x_j) = (x_j + x_j^*) / 2$. Since the elements of $\TrP_m^0$ is obtained by multiplying formulas such as $\tau(p)$, we see that $f(\re(x_1),\dots,\re(x_m))$ is a quantifier-free formula for every $f \in \TrP_m^0$. Moreover, the supremum of $|f(\re(x_1),\dots,\re(x_m))$ over $\{x: \norm{x_j} \leq R_j\}$ is the same as the supremum of $f$ over $\{x: x_j = x_j^*, \norm{x_j} \leq R_j\}$. The limiting objects $\overline{\TrP}_m^0$ (evaluated on the real parts of operators) are thus uniform limits of quantifier-free formulas on each domain of quantification for every $\mathcal{R}^\omega$-embeddable tracial von Neumann algebra, that is, they are ``quantifier-free definable predicates'' relative to the theory of $\mathcal{R}^\omega$-embeddable tracial von Neumann algebras. Conversely, since $\overline{\TrP}_m^0$ is closed under the operation $(f_1,\dots,f_n) \mapsto \phi(f_1,\dots,f_n)$ for $\phi: \C^n \to \C$ continuous, every quantifier-free definable predicate $f$ satisfying $f(x_1,\dots,x_m) = f(\re(x_1),\dots,\re(x_m))$ is an element of $\overline{\TrP}_m^0$.
The elements of $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$, evaluated on the real parts of operators, may be viewed similarly as certain ``quantifier-free definable functions'' relative to the theory of $\mathcal{R}^\omega$-embeddable tracial von Neumann algebras, meaning that $\norm{f(x) - y}_2^2$ is a quantifier-free definable predicate | actually, for technical reasons a definable function is required to map an operator norm ball into an operator norm ball, so the last statement only applies if we assume our function $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ has this property (but it turns out that such functions exist in abundance in $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$; see Proposition \ref{prop:realizationofoperators} and Proposition \ref{prop:operatornormestimate}). Alternatively, in order to deal with functions with codomain $L^2$, we must first modify the language by adding another sort for $L^2(M)$, with domains of quantification corresponding to $L^2$-balls, which will act as the target space of the functions in $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$.
The quantifier-free nature of these formulas is a model-theoretic heuristic for why they behave well under limits in non-commutative law (hence describing the large $N$ limits of random matrix models). In fact,\cite[Proposition 6.28]{Jekel2018} re-expresses a formula given by quantifiers in a quantifier-free way in order to get behavior under limits. There, we studied the inf-convolution $(Q_t V)(x) = \inf_y [V(y) - (1/2t) \norm{x - y}_2^2]$ for self-adjoint tuples $x$ and $y$. If $V \in \TrP_m^0$, then for each $ > 0$,
\[
W_{t,R}(\re(x_1),\dots, \re(x_m)) := \inf_{\norm{y} \leq R} \left[V(\re(y_1),\dots,\re(y_m)) + \frac{1}{2t} \norm{\re(x) - \re(y)}_2^2 \right]
\]
is a formula in the language of tracial von Neumann algebras whose definition involves the quantifier $\inf$. But if $V$ is convex and semi-concave and $DV \in (\overline{\TrP}_m^1)_{sa}^m$, then the self-adjoint tuple $y$ where the infimum
\[
W_t(\re(x_1),\dots, \re(x_m)) := \inf_{\norm{y} \leq R} \left[V(\re(y_1),\dots,\re(y_m)) + \frac{1}{2t} \norm{\re(x) - \re(y)}_2^2 \right]
\]
is achieved can be evaluated as the limit of a fixed-point iteration using functions from $(\overline{\TrP}_m^1)_{sa}^m$, and hence $y = \phi(\re(x))$ for some $\phi \in (\overline{\TrP}_m^1)_{sa}^m$ (see \cite[Proposition 6.28]{Jekel2018}). Moreover, it follows from the results in \cite{Jekel2018} that $\phi$ is Lipschitz in $\norm{\cdot}_2$, and thus in light of Proposition \ref{prop:operatornormestimate} below, $\phi$ is bounded in operator norm on operator norm balls. So $\phi(\re(x))$ is quantifier-free definable function. We can also conclude that $W_{t,R} \to W_t$ as $R \to \infty$ uniformly on operator norm balls, so $W_t$ is a definable formula (allowing quantifiers). But then because
\[
W_{t,R}(x) =V(\phi(x)) - \frac{1}{2t} \norm{\re(x) - \phi(x)}_2^2,
\]
we conclude that $W_t$ is in fact a \emph{quantifier-free} definable predicate.
On the other hand, without the ability to eliminate the quantifier like this, we could not hope for $Q_t V$ to behave so well for the large $N$ limit of random matrix models. Indeed, for $Q_tV(x)$ to depend continuously on the non-commutative law $\lambda_x$ for $x$ in each operator norm ball, it must be in $\TrP_m^0$ by the last remark, and hence it is a quantifier-free definable predicate.
Many of the properties shown in the next section about operations on $\TrP_m^0$ and $\TrP_m^1$ are natural from the model theoretic viewpoint, but we sketch self-contained justifications nonetheless.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Asymptotic Approximation for Functions of Matrices} \label{subsec:AATP}
Our earlier work introduced asymptotic approximability by trace polynomials for a sequence of functions on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$, which is a precise description of good asymptotic behavior as $N \to \infty$ suitable for free probabilistic analysis in the limit.
\begin{definition} \label{def:AATP}
Let $\phi^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \C$. We say that $\{\phi^{(N)}\}$ is \emph{asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials} if for every $R > 0$ and $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $f \in \TrP_m^0$ such that
\[
\limsup_{N \to \infty} \sup_{\substack{x \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \\ \norm*{x}_\infty \leq R}} |\phi^{(N)}(x) - f(x)| \leq \epsilon.
\]
Similarly, for matrix-valued functions $\phi^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)$, we say that $\{\phi^{(N)}\}$ is \emph{asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials} if for every $R > 0$ and $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $f \in \TrP_m^1$ such that
\[
\limsup_{N \to \infty} \sup_{\substack{x \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \\ \norm*{x}_\infty \leq R}} \norm*{\phi^{(N)}(x) - f(x)}_2 \leq \epsilon.
\]
\end{definition}
It will be convenient to denote
\[
\norm*{\phi^{(N)}}_{u,R}^{(N)} = \sup_{\substack{x \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \\ \norm*{x}_\infty \leq R}} |\phi(x)|
\]
in the scalar-valued case and similarly for the matrix-valued case with $\norm*{\phi(x)}_2$ rather than $|\phi(x)|$. Thus, for instance, the preceding definition says that there exists a trace polynomial $f$ with
\[
\limsup_{N \to \infty} \norm*{\phi^{(N)} - f}_{u,R}^{(N)} < \epsilon.
\]
Moreover, it is implicit from our discussion in \cite[\S 8.1]{Jekel2018} that if $\phi^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, then it will be \emph{asymptotic to} some $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^0$ or $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$ in the following sense.
\begin{definition} \label{def:AA}
Let $\phi^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \C$ or $M_N(\C)$ respectively, and let $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^0$ or $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$ respectively. Then we say that $\{\phi^{(N)}\}$ is \emph{asymptotic to $f$}, or $\phi^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f$ if for every $R > 0$,
\[
\lim_{N \to \infty} \norm*{\phi^{(N)} - f}_{u,R}^{(N)} = 0.
\]
Similarly, if $\phi^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)$ and $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$, we make the same definitions with $|\phi^{(N)}(x) - f(x)|$ replaced by $\norm*{\phi^{(N)}(x) - f(x)}_2$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:AATP}
Let $\phi^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \C$ (respectively, $\to M_N(\C)$). Then $\phi^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials if and only if there exists $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^0$ (respectively, $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$) such that $\phi^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f$. Moreover, $\norm*{f}_{u,R} = \lim_{N \to \infty} \norm*{\phi^{(N)}}_{u,R}^{(N)}$ for each $R$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We record the proof only for the case of scalar-valued functions, since the proof for operator-valued case is identical with minor changes of notation. Suppose that $\{\phi^{(N)}\}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials. Then there exists a sequence $\{f_k\}$ of trace polynomials such that for every $R > 0$,
\[
\lim_{k \to \infty} \limsup_{N \to \infty} \sup_{\substack{x \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \\ \norm*{x}_\infty \leq R}} |\phi^{(N)}(x) - f_k(x)| = 0.
\]
As in \cite[Lemma 8.1]{Jekel2018}, if $g \in \TrP_m^0$, then
\[
\sup_{\substack{x \in (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m \\ \norm*{x}_\infty \leq R}} |g(x)| = \sup_{N \in \N} \sup_{\substack{x \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \\ \norm*{x}_\infty \leq R}} |g(x)| = \limsup_{N \to \infty} \sup_{\substack{x \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \\ \norm*{x}_\infty \leq R}} |g(x)|
\]
which implies that
\[
\norm*{g}_{u,R} = \limsup_{N \to \infty} \norm*{g}_{u,R}^{(N)}.
\]
Applying this to $g = f_j - f_k$, we obtain from the triangle inequality
\[
\norm*{f_j - f_k}_{u,R} \leq \limsup_{N \to \infty} \norm*{f_j(x) - \phi^{(N)}}_{u,R}^{(N)} + \limsup_{N \to \infty} \norm*{\phi^{(N)} - f_k}_{u,R}^{(N)},
\]
and hence $f_k$ is Cauchy with respect to $\norm*{\cdot}_{u,R}$ for each $R > 0$. Hence, $f_k$ converges to some $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^0$. By similar use of the triangle inequality,
\[
\limsup_{N \to \infty} \norm*{\phi^{(N)} - f}_{u,R}^{(N)} \leq \norm*{f - f_k}_{u,R} + \limsup_{N \to \infty} \norm*{\phi^{(N)} - f_k}_{u,R}^{(N)}.
\]
Hence, $\phi^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f$.
Conversely, suppose that $\phi^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^0$. Choose $f_k \in \TrP_m^0$ such that $\norm*{f_k - f}_{u,R} \to 0$ for every $R$. Then
\[
\limsup_{N \to \infty} \norm*{\phi^{(N)}(x) - f_k}_{u,R}^{(N)} \leq \norm*{f - f_k}_{u,R} + \limsup_{N \to \infty} \norm*{\phi^{(N)} - f}_{u,R}^{(N)} = \norm*{f - f_k}_{u,R}.
\]
Hence, it follows that $\{\phi^{(N)}\}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, namely the polynomials $\{f_k\}$.
We leave the proof of the last claim that $\norm*{f}_{u,R} = \lim_{N \to \infty} \norm*{\phi^{(N)}}_{u,R}^{(N)}$ to the reader.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
If $\phi^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)_{sa}$ and $\{\phi^{(N)}\}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, then we can asymptotically approximate it using \emph{self-adjoint} trace polynomials. Indeed, if
\[
\limsup_{N \to \infty} \norm*{\phi^{(N)} - f}_{u,R}^{(N)} \leq \epsilon,
\]
then the same holds with $f$ replaced by $(1/2)(f + f^*)$. Similarly, if $\phi^{(N)}(x)$ is self-adjoint and $\phi^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$, then $f$ must be self-adjoint.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Definitions \ref{def:AATP} and \ref{def:AA} and Lemma \ref{lem:AATP} extend naturally to tuples $f = (f_1,\dots,f_n) \in (\overline{\TrP}_m^1)^n$ and $\phi^{(N)} = (\phi_1^{(N)}, \dots, \phi_n^{(N)}): M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)^n$. We shall apply them to tuples without further comment in the rest of the paper.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Algebra, Composition, and Limits}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:algebra}
$\overline{\TrP}_m^0$ is an algebra and $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$ is a module over $\overline{\TrP}_m^0$. Also, if $f, g \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$, then $\tau(fg) \in \overline{\TrP}_m^0$. Moreover, suppose that $\phi^{(N)}, \phi^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \C$ and $f^{(N)}, g^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)$ are asymptotically approximable, and $\phi^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow \phi$, $\psi^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow \psi$, $f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f$, and $g^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow g$. Then we have
\begin{align*}
\phi^{(N)} + \psi^{(N)} &\rightsquigarrow \phi + \psi \\
\phi^{(N)} \psi^{(N)} & \rightsquigarrow \phi \psi \\
f^{(N)} + g^{(N)} &\rightsquigarrow f + g \\
\phi^{(N)} f^{(N)} &\rightsquigarrow \phi f \\
\tau_N(f^{(N)} g^{(N)}) & \rightsquigarrow \tau(fg).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since the proofs of all the statements are straightforward and similar to each other, we will only explain how to show that if $\phi \in \overline{\TrP}_m^0$ and $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$, then $\phi f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ and that if $\phi^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow \phi$ and $f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f$, then $\phi^{(N)} f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow \phi f$.
First, note that $\phi f$ is well-defined as a function on $(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$ by multiplying the scalar $\phi(x)$ times the vector $f(x)$ for each $x \in (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$, and also clearly $\norm*{\phi f}_{u,R} \leq \norm*{\phi}_{u,R} \norm*{f}_{u,R}$. To show that $\phi f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$, it suffices to show that for every $\epsilon > 0$ and $R > 0$, the function $\phi f$ can be approximated by an element of $\TrP_m^1$ with respect to $\norm*{\cdot}_{u,R}$ with error less than $\epsilon$. We first choose $h \in \TrP_m^1$ such that
\[
\norm*{h - f}_{u,R} \norm*{\phi}_{u,R} < \frac{\epsilon}{2}.
\]
Then we choose $\theta \in \TrP_m^0$ such that
\[
\norm*{\theta - \phi}_{u,R} \norm*{h}_{u,R} < \frac{\epsilon}{2},
\]
and we conclude with the routine observation that
\begin{align*}
\norm*{\theta h - \phi f}_{u,R} &\leq \norm*{(\theta - \phi) \cdot h}_{u,R} + \norm*{\phi \cdot (h - f)}_{u,R} \\
&\leq \norm*{\theta - \phi}_{u,R} \norm*{h}_{u,R} + \norm*{\phi}_{u,R} \norm*{h - f}_{u,R} < \epsilon.
\end{align*}
Next, to show $\phi^{(N)} f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow \phi f$, first observe that
\[
M := \sup_N \norm*{\phi^{(N)}}_{u,R}^{(N)} < +\infty.
\]
Then
\begin{align*}
\norm*{\phi^{(N)} f^{(N)} - \phi f}_{u,R}^{(N)} &\leq \norm*{\phi^{(N)} \cdot (f^{(N)} - f)}_{u,R}^{(N)} + \norm*{(\phi^{(N)} - \phi) \cdot f}_{u,R}^{(N)} \\
&\leq M \norm*{f^{(N)} - f}_{u,R}^{(N)} + \norm*{\phi^{(N)} - \phi}_{u,R}^{(N)} \norm*{f}_{u,R},
\end{align*}
which implies that $\norm*{\phi^{(N)} f^{(N)} - \phi f}_{u,R}^{(N)} \to 0$.
\end{proof}
In addition to their algebraic structure, functions $(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m \to (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^n$ given by trace polynomials are closed under composition. It turns out that self-adjoint tuples from $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$ are closed under composition under the assumption of $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-uniform continuity of the ``outside'' function (Lemma \ref{lem:composition} below).
We say that $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ is \emph{$\norm*{\cdot}_2$-uniformly continuous} if for every $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that
\[
\forall x, y \in (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m, \quad \norm*{x - y}_2 < \delta \implies \norm*{f(x) - f(y)}_2 < \epsilon.
\]
Furthermore, we say $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ is \emph{$\norm*{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz} if $\norm*{f(x) - f(y)}_2 \leq K \norm*{x - y}$ for some constant $K$, which is an important special case of uniform continuity. We denote the minimum such constant by $\norm*{f}_{\Lip}$. We make the analogous definitions for $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^0$.
\begin{observation} \label{obs:continuousextension}
If $f$ is a function from $(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$ to $\mathcal{R}^\omega$ or $\C$ that is $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-uniformly continuous, then it has a unique continuous extension to $L^2(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$, which is also $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-uniformly continuous. Similarly, if $f$ is Lipschitz on $(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$, then the extension is also Lipschitz.
\end{observation}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:limituniformlycontinuous}
Suppose that $f^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \C$ or $M_N(\C)$ and that $f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f$. If $f^{(N)}$ is $\norm{\cdot}_2$-uniformly continuous with respect to some modulus of continuity independent of $N$, then $f$ is $\norm{\cdot}_2$-uniformly continuous on $(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$ with the same modulus of continuity.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let us only explain the operator-valued case where $f^{(N)}$ is $M_N(\C)$-valued and $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$, since the scalar-valued case is easier. We define scalar-valued functions of $2m$ variables by $F^{(N)}(x,y) = \norm{f^{(N)}(x) - g^{(N)}(y)}_2^2$ and $F(x,y) = \norm{f(x) - f(y)}_2^2$. By Lemma \ref{lem:algebra}, we have $F^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow F \in \overline{\TrP}_{2m}^0$.
Let $\epsilon(\delta)$ be a common modulus of continuity for $f^{(N)}$. Let $x$ and $y \in (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$. Then we may embed $\mathrm{W}^*(x,y)$ into $(\mathcal{M},\tau) := \prod_{N \to \omega} (M_N(\C),\tau_N)$, that is the tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-ultraproduct of matrices. There exist tuples $x^{(N)}$ and $y^{(N)}$ of $N \times N$ matrices such that $x = \{x^{(N)}\}_{N \in \N}$ and $y = \{y^{(N)}\}_{N \in \N}$ in the ultraproduct and also $\norm{x^{(N)}}_\infty \leq \norm{x}_\infty$ and $\norm{y^{(N)}}_\infty \leq \norm{y}_\infty$. Observe that
\[
F(x,y) = \lim_{N \to \omega} F(x^{(N)},y^{(N)}).
\]
(This equality holds for trace polynomials and hence holds for all functions in $\overline{\TrP}_{2m}^0$ by approximation.) On the other hand, we also have for $R > \max(\norm{x}_\infty, \norm{y}_\infty)$ that
\[
|F^{(N)}(x^{(N)}, y^{(N)}) - F(x^{(N)},y^{(N)})| \leq \norm{F - F^{(N)}}_{u,R}^{(N)} \to 0.
\]
Therefore,
\[
\norm{f(x) - f(y)}_2 = \lim_{N \to \omega} \norm{f^{(N)}(x^{(N)}) - f^{(N)}(y^{(N)})}_2 \leq \lim_{N \to \omega} \epsilon( \norm{x^{(N)} - y^{(N)}}_2 ) \leq \epsilon (\norm{x - y}_2),
\]
since $\norm{x^{(N)} - y^{(N)}}_2 \to \norm{x - y}_2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:composition}
Let $j = 0$ or $1$. Let $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^j$ be $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-uniformly continuous and let $g = (g_1,\dots,g_m) \in (\overline{\TrP}_n^1)_{sa}^m$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Then $f \circ g$ is a well-defined function on $(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^n$, and it is in $\overline{\TrP}_n^j$.
\item If $g$ is also $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-uniformly continuous, then so is $f \circ g$.
\item Suppose $f^{(N)}$ is a function on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ and $g^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^n \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ such that $f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f$ and $g^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow g$. Also, suppose that $f^{(N)}$ is $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-uniformly continuous with the modulus of continuity also uniform in $N$. Then $f^{(N)} \circ g^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f \circ g$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(1) Because $f$ extends to a function on $L^2(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$, we can define $f \circ g$. Now let us show $f \circ g \in \overline{\TrP}_m^j$. Choose $\epsilon > 0$ and $R > 0$. By uniform continuity of $f$, there exists a $\delta > 0$ such that $\norm*{x - y}_2 < \delta$ implies $|f(x) - f(y)|$ or $\norm*{f(x) - f(y)}_2 < \epsilon/2$ (for $j = 0$ or $1$ respectively). Now choose $\tilde{g} \in (\TrP_n^1)_{sa}^m$ such that $\norm*{\tilde{g} - g}_{u,R} < \delta$, and hence
\[
\norm*{f \circ g - f \circ \tilde{g}}_{u,R} < \frac{\epsilon}{2}.
\]
Because $\tilde{g}$ is a trace polynomial, there is some $R'$ such that $\norm*{x}_\infty \leq R$ implies $\norm*{\tilde{g}}_\infty \leq R'$. Choose $\tilde{f} \in \overline{\TrP}_m^j$ with $\norm*{\tilde{f} - f}_{u,R'} < \epsilon / 2$, and hence
\[
\norm*{f \circ \tilde{g} - \tilde{f} \circ \tilde{g}}_{u,R} < \frac{\epsilon}{2}.
\]
Then altogether we have $\norm*{f \circ g - \tilde{f} \circ \tilde{g}}_{u,R} < \epsilon$.
(2) This is immediate.
(3) This is similar to the proof of (1). Fix $R > 0$ and $\epsilon > 0$. Choose $\delta > 0$ such that $\norm*{x - y}_2 < \delta$ implies $|f(x) - f(y)|$ or $\norm*{f(x) - f(y)}_2 < \epsilon / 2$ and such that the same holds for $f^{(N)}$ as well. Let $\tilde{g} \in (\TrP_n^1)_{sa}^m$ such that $\norm*{\tilde{g} - g}_{u,R} < \delta$. Note that for sufficiently large $N$, we have $\norm*{g^{(N)} - \tilde{g}}_{u,R}^{(N)} < \delta$ and hence
\[
\norm*{f^{(N)} \circ g^{(N)} - f^{(N)} \circ \tilde{g}}_{u,R}^{(N)} < \epsilon /2.
\]
Then let $R'$ and $\tilde{f}$ be as in (1). Then for sufficiently large $N$, we have
\[
\norm*{f^{(N)} \circ \tilde{g} - \tilde{f} \circ \tilde{g}}_{u,R}^{(N)} < \frac{\epsilon}{2},
\]
so overall
\[
\norm*{f^{(N)} \circ g^{(N)} - \tilde{f} \circ \tilde{g}}_{u,R}^{(N)} < \epsilon, \qquad \norm*{f \circ g - \tilde{f} \circ \tilde{g}}_{u,R} < \epsilon,
\]
so that$\norm*{f^{(N)} \circ g^{(N)} - f \circ g}_{u,R}^{(N)} < 2 \epsilon$ for large enough $N$.
\end{proof}
Moreover, asymptotically approximable sequences are closed under limits in an appropriate sense.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:limits}
Let $f_k^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \C$ or to $M_N(\C)$ for $k$ and $N \in \N$. Suppose that $f_k^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f_k$ in $\overline{\TrP}_m^j$ for each $k$, and that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:limithypothesis}
\lim_{k \to \infty} \limsup_{N \to \infty} \norm*{f_k^{(N)} - f^{(N)}}_{u,R} = 0 \text{ for all } R.
\end{equation}
Then $f_k$ converges in $\overline{\TrP}_m^j$ to some $f$, and we have $f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that
\[
\norm*{f_k - f_j}_{u,R} = \lim_{N \to \infty} \norm*{f_k^{(N)} - f_j^{(N)}}_{u,R}^{(N)}
\]
Then because of our assumption \eqref{eq:limithypothesis}, we see that $\{f_k\}_{k \in \N}$ is Cauchy with respect to $\norm*{\cdot}_{u,R}$ for each $R$. Thus, $f_k$ converges to some $f$. Then to show that $f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f$ is a routine argument.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Functional Calculus and Operator Norm Bounds}
Now we will show that every element of $L^2(\mathrm{W}^*(x_1,\dots,x_m))$ can be expressed as $f(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ for some $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$. In fact, we can arrange that $f$ can be approximated uniformly by Lipschitz functions. It will be convenient to define the uniform norm
\[
\norm*{f}_u = \sup_{R > 0} \norm*{f}_{u,R} = \sup_{x \in (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m} \norm*{f(x)}_2,
\]
and we make the same definition for $\norm*{f}_u^{(N)}$ where the supremum is instead taken over $x \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:realizationofoperators}
Let $x_1$, \dots, $x_m$ be self-adjoint variables which generate a tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra $(\mathcal{M},\tau)$ that is embeddable into $\mathcal{R}^\omega$. Let $z \in L^2(\mathcal{M},\tau)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-uniformly continuous $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ such that $Z = f(x_1, \dots, x_m)$.
\item The $f$ in (1) can be chosen so that there are $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz functions $f_k \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ such that $\norm*{f_k - f}_u \to 0$.
\item If $z \in \C\ip{x_1,\dots,x_m}$, then $f$ can be chosen to be $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
We use the following auxiliary observation. Here $\Sigma_{m,R}$ will denote the space of non-commutative laws for an $m$-tuple of operators with operator norm $\leq R$. We equip $\Sigma_{m,R}$ with the topology of convergence in moments. Recall that $\Sigma_{m,R}$ is compact, separable, and metrizable. In \cite[Lemma 8.2]{Jekel2018}, we noted the relationship between $\overline{\TrP}_m^0$ and continuous functions on $\Sigma_{m,R}$ for each $R$. This same idea motivates the proof of the next lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let $\mu \in \Sigma_{m,R}$ and let $\mathcal{U}$ be a neighborhood of $\mu$, and let $\epsilon > 0$. Then there exists a trace polynomial $f$ such that
\[
\mu(f) = 1 \qquad
0 \leq \nu(f) \leq \mathbf{1}_{\nu \in \mathcal{U}} + \epsilon \text{ for } \nu \in \Sigma_{m,R}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Urysohn's lemma, there exists a continuous function $F: \Sigma_{m,R} \to [0,1]$ such that $F(\mu) = 1$ and $F(\nu) = 0$ for $\nu \not \in \mathcal{U}$. The functions $\Sigma_{m,R} \to \C$ of the form $\mu \mapsto \mu(f)$ for $f \in \TrP_m^0$ form a self-adjoint algebra in $C(\Sigma_{m,R})$, and they separate points because by definition two laws are the same if they agree on every non-commutative polynomial. So by the Stone-Weierstrass theorem, this algebra is dense in $C(\Sigma_{m,R})$. In particular, there exists a trace polynomial $g$ such that $|\nu(g) - F(\nu)| < \epsilon / 2$ for all $\nu \in \Sigma_{m,R}$. Then let $f = (g + \epsilon/2) / (g(\mu) + \epsilon / 2)$.
\end{proof}
We will also use the following smooth cut-off trick.
\begin{lemma}
Let $0 < R' \leq R$. Let $\phi \in C_c^\infty(\R;\R)$ such that $\phi(t) = t$ for $t \leq R'$ and $|\phi(t)| \leq R$. For $y \in (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}$, define $\Phi(y) = \phi(y)$ where $\phi$ is applied through functional calculus. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Phi(y) = y$ if $\norm*{y}_\infty \leq R'$.
\item $\norm*{\Phi(y)}_\infty \leq R$ for all $y$.
\item $\Phi \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$.
\item $\Phi$ is globally $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(1) and (2) follow from the properties of functional calculus. To prove (3), note by the Weierstrass approximation theorem that for every $r > 0$, there is a polynomial $p$ such that $|p(t) - \phi(t)| < \epsilon$ for $|t| \leq r$. This implies as with (1) that $|p(y) - \phi(y)| < \epsilon$ for all $y$ with $\norm*{y}_\infty \leq r$. Claim (4) follows from the results of \cite{Peller2006}; the argument is explained in \cite[(8.9) and Proposition 8.8]{Jekel2018}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:realizationofoperators}]
Let $\mu$ be the law of $x = (x_1,\dots,x_m)$, and let $R > \norm*{X}_\infty$. Since $z \in L^2(\mathcal{M},\tau)$, there exist non-commutative polynomials $\{p_k\}_{k=1}^\infty$ such that $\norm*{p_k(x) - z}_2 < 1 / 2^{k+1}$ and hence for $k \geq 1$,
\[
\norm*{p_{k+1}(x) - p_k(x)}_2 = \mu[(p_{k+1} - p_k)^2]^{1/2} \leq \frac{1}{2^{k+1}} + \frac{1}{2^{k+2}} < \frac{1}{2^k}.
\]
By scaling, we may assume without loss of generality that $\norm*{z}_2 < 1$ and set $p_0 = 0$, and then the above statement also holds for $k = 0$. Now let
\[
\mathcal{U}_k = \{\nu \in \Sigma_{m,R}: \nu((p_{k+1} - p_k)^2)^{1/2} < 1/2^k\},
\]
which is a neighborhood of $\mu$ in $\Sigma_{m,R}$. By the previous lemma, there exists a scalar-valued trace polynomial $u_k$ such that $\mu(u_k) = 1$ and
\[
0 \leq \nu(u_k) \leq \mathbf{1}_{\nu \in \mathcal{U}_k} + \frac{1}{2^k \norm*{p_{k+1} - p_k}_{u,R}}.
\]
(We can assume without loss of generality that $\norm*{p_{k+1} - p_k}_{u,R} \neq 0$.) Now the function $u_k(p_{k+1} - p_k)$ will evaluate at the point $X$ to $p_{k+1}(x) - p_k(x)$. If $y \in (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$ with $\norm*{y}_\infty \leq R$ and if the law of $y$ is in $\mathcal{U}_k$, then we will have
\[
\norm*{u_k(y)(p_{k+1}(Y) - p_k(y))}_2 \leq \norm*{p_{k+1}(y) - p_k(y)}_2 + \frac{1}{2^k \norm*{p_{k+1} - p_k}_{u,R}} \norm*{p_{k+1}(y) - p_k(y)}_2 \leq \frac{1}{2^k} + \frac{1}{2^k}.
\]
On the other hand, if the law of $y$ is not in $\mathcal{U}_k$, then $\norm*{u_k(Y)(p_{k+1}(y) - p_k(y))}_2 \leq 1/2^k$. Overall, we have
\[
\norm*{u_k \cdot (p_{k+1} - p_k)}_{u,R} \leq \frac{2}{2^k}.
\]
This implies that $\sum_{k=0}^\infty u_k \cdot (p_{k+1} - p_k)$ converges with respect to $\norm*{\cdot}_{u,R}$ for our given choice of $R$, and of course evaluating this function on $X$ it produces the desired operator $Z$ since $u_k(x) = 1$.
To extend the function to be be globally defined on $(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$, we use the smooth cut-off trick. Let $\phi \in C_c^\infty(\R;\R)$ such that $\phi(t) = t$ for $|t| \leq \norm*{X}_\infty$ and $|\phi| \leq R$. For $y = (y_1,\dots,y_m) \in (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$, let $\Phi(y) = (\phi(y_1),\dots,\phi(y_m))$. Then $[u_k \cdot (p_{k+1} - p_k)] \circ \Phi \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ because it is the composition of a trace polynomial with a function $\Phi \in (\overline{\TrP}_m^1)_{sa}^m$ that is uniformly bounded in operator norm.
Also, since $\Phi$ is globally $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz and since $u_k \cdot (p_{k+1} - p_k)$ is $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz on the operator norm ball of radius $R$, we see that $[u_k \cdot (p_{k+1} - p_k)] \circ \Phi$ is globally Lipschitz in $\norm*{\cdot}_2$. For all $y \in (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$,
\[
\norm*{u_k(\Phi(y))(p_{k+1}(\Phi(y)) - p_k(\Phi(y)))}_2 \leq \frac{2}{2^k}.
\]
Therefore,
\[
f(y) := \sum_{k=0}^\infty u_k(\Phi(y))(p_{k+1}(\Phi(y)) - p_k(\Phi(y)))
\]
converges, and clearly $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ since each of the individual terms is. Furthermore, $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-uniform continuity of each term and the uniform convergence of the series implies uniform continuity of $f$. Since $\norm*{x}_\infty \leq R$, we have $\Phi(x) = x$ and $u_k(x) = 1$, so that
\[
f(x) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty [p_{k+1}(x) - p_k(x)] = \lim_{k \to \infty} p_{k+1}(x) = z.
\]
This concludes the proof of (1).
To verify (2), we take $f_n$ to be the $n$th partial sum of the series defining $f$; we have shown that the individual terms are $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz, hence so are the partial sums. Finally, to prove (3), note that if $z = p(x_1,\dots,x_m)$, then $z$ also equals $f(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ where $f = p \circ \Phi$, and by the same reasoning as above $p \circ \Phi$ is globally $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz.
\end{proof}
We have shown that every element of $L^2(\mathrm{W}^*(x_1,\dots,x_m))$ has the form $f(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ for some $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$. On the other hand, we will prove that if $f$ is Lipschitz, then $f(x)$ is actually bounded in operator norm. We state our estimate in terms of unitarily invariant random matrix models which satisfy concentration \eqref{eq:normalizedHerbst}, but as explained in Remark \ref{rem:concentrationmodels} such models exist whenever $L^2(\mathrm{W}^*(x_1,\dots,x_m))$ is embeddable into $\mathcal{R}^\omega$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:operatornormestimate}
Let $x = (x_1, \dots, x_m)$ be a tuple of self-adjoint variables in a $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra $(\mathcal{M},\tau)$ whose non-commutative law is $\lambda$. Suppose there is a sequence $\{\mu^{(N)}\}$ of probability measures on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$, invariant under unitary conjugation, that satisfies the concentration estimate \eqref{eq:normalizedHerbst} for some constant $c$, and such that the corresponding random variables $X^{(N)} = (X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_m^{(N)})$ satisfy $\lambda_{X^{(N)}} \to \lambda$ in probability. Then $\mathrm{W}^*(x)$ is embeddable into $\mathcal{R}^\omega$. Moreover, if $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ is $\norm{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz, then $f(x)$ is a bounded operator and
\[
\norm*{f(x) - \tau(f(x))}_\infty \leq \Theta c^{-1/2} \norm*{f}_{\Lip},
\]
where $\Theta$ is a universal constant.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
In light of Lemma \ref{lem:epsilonnet},
\[
P\left(\norm*{X^{(N)} - E(X^{(N)})}_\infty \leq c^{-1/2} (\Theta + N^{-1/3}) \right) \to 1
\]
and
\[
P\left(\norm*{f(X^{(N)}) - E(f(X^{(N)}))}_\infty \leq c^{-1/2} \norm{f}_{\Lip} (\Theta + N^{-1/3}) \right) \to 1.
\]
Also, the non-commutative law of $X^{(N)}$ converges in probability to that of $x$ and finally $\tau_N(f(X^{(N)})) - E[\tau_N(f(X^{(N)}))] \to 0$ in probability as a consequence of concentration. Therefore, we may choose a sequence of elements $y^{(N)} \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ such that
\begin{align*}
\limsup_{N \to \infty} \norm*{y_j^{(N)} - E(X_j^{(N)})}_\infty &\leq c^{-1/2} \Theta, \\
\limsup_{N \to \infty} \norm*{f(y^{(N)}) - E(f(X^{(N)}))}_\infty &\leq c^{-1/2} \norm{f}_{\Lip} \Theta, \\
\left| \tau_N(f(y^{(N)})) - E[\tau_N(f(X^{(N)}))] \right| &\to 0, \\
\lambda_{y^{(N)}} &\to \lambda_x.
\end{align*}
Because $E(X_j^{(N)}) = E(\tau_N(X_j^{(N)}))$ by unitary invariance and because of concentration, $E(\tau_N(X_j^{(N)}))$ must converge to $\tau(x_j)$ since $\tau_N(X_j^{(N)})$ converges to the $\tau(x_j)$ in probability. So overall $E(X_j^{(N)}) - \tau_N(x_j) \to 0$ in operator norm. In particular,
\[
\limsup_{N \to \infty} \norm*{y_j^{(N)} - \tau(x_j)}_\infty \leq c^{-1/2} \Theta,
\]
and hence $\norm{y^{(N)}}_\infty$ is bounded as $N \to \infty$. Moreover, our choice of $y^{(N)}$ also satisfies
\[
\limsup_{N \to \infty} \norm*{f(y^{(N)}) - \tau_N(f(y^{(N)}))}_\infty \leq c^{-1/2} \norm{f}_{\Lip} \Theta,
\]
since $E[f(X^{(N)})] = E[\tau_N(f(X^{(N)})]$ again by unitary invariance.
Fix a free ultrafilter $\omega$ and let $(\mathcal{M},\tau) = \prod_{N \to \omega} (M_N(\C), \tau_N)$ be the tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-ultraproduct of the sequence of matrix algebras. Since $\{y^{(N)}\}$ is bounded in operator norm, $y = \{y^{(N)}\}_{N \in \N}$ defines an element of $(\mathcal{M},\tau)$. By definition of ultraproducts, $\tau(p(y)) = \lim_{N \to \omega} \tau_N(p(y^{(N)}))$ for every non-commutative polynomial $p$ and therefore the non-commutative law of $y$ is $\lambda$ (which is the same as that of $x$). In particular, $\mathrm{W}^*(x) \cong \mathrm{W}^*(y)$ embeds into $(\mathcal{M},\tau)$ and hence also into $\mathcal{R}^\omega$. (Compare \cite[Theorem 4.4]{GS2009}.)
Since $\mathrm{W}^*(x)$ is $\mathcal{R}^\omega$-embeddable, $f(x)$ is well-defined, and clearly $\norm{f(x) - \tau(f(x))}_\infty = \norm{f(y) - \tau(f(y))}_\infty$. Now we claim that $f(y)$ is given by the sequence $\{f(y^{(N)})\}_{N \in \N}$ as an element of $(\mathcal{M},\tau)$ (that is, application of $f$ commutes with ultralimits). It is easy to check that $g(y) = \{g(y^{(N)})\}_{N \in \N}$ when $g \in \TrP_m^1$. But for any $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $g \in \TrP_m^1$ with $\norm{f - g}_{c^{-1/2} \Theta + 1} < \epsilon$. Thus, $\norm{f(y) - g(y)}_2 < \epsilon$ and also $\norm{f(y^{(N)}) - g(y^{(N)})}_2 < \epsilon$ for sufficiently large $N$. This implies that $\norm{f(y) - \{f(y^{(N)})\}_{N \in \N}}_2 < 2 \epsilon$. Thus, $f(y) = \{f(y^{(N)})\}_{N \in \N}$ as claimed. The same holds with $f$ replaced by $f - \tau(f)$. This implies
\[
\norm{f(y) - \tau(f(y))}_\infty \leq \limsup_{N \to \infty} \norm{f(y^{(N)}) - \tau(f(y^{(N)}))}_\infty \leq c^{-1/2} \norm{f}_{\Lip} \Theta. \qedhere
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{rem:concentrationmodels}
Suppose that $\mathrm{W}^*(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ is embeddable into $\mathcal{R}^\omega$. Then there exist tuples $x^{(N)} = (x_1^{(N)},\dots,x_m^{(N)})$ in $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ such that $\norm{x^{(N)}}_\infty \leq \norm{x}_\infty$ and $\lambda_{x^{(N)}} \to \lambda_x$. Let $U^{(N)}$ be an $N \times N$ random Haar unitary matrix and let $X^{(N)} = U^{(N)} x^{(N)} (U^{(N)})^*$. Clearly, the probability distribution of $X^{(N)}$ is unitarily invariant and also $\lambda_{X^{(N)}} \to \lambda_x$ in probability.
To check concentration, observe that $u \mapsto u x^{(N)}u^*$ is a $2 m^{1/2} \norm{x}_\infty$-Lipschitz function from the unitary group to $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ with respect to $\norm{\cdot}_2$. Therefore, if $f: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ is Lipschitz, then $u \mapsto f(ux^{(N)}u^*)$ is also Lipschitz, with the Lipschitz constant $2 m^{1/2} \norm{x}_\infty \norm{f}_{\Lip}$. It was proved in \cite[Theorem 15]{Meckes2013}, \cite[Theorem 5.16]{Meckes2019} that the Haar measure on the unitary group satisfies the (non-normalized) log-Sobolev inequality with constant $6/N$ and the corresponding concentration of measure for Lipschitz functions with respect to the Hilbert-Schmidt metric $N^{1/2} \norm{\cdot}_2$. After renormalization this implies that the Haar measure on the unitary group satisfies \eqref{eq:normalizedHerbst} with $c = 1/6$. Hence, $X^{(N)}$ satisfies \eqref{eq:normalizedHerbst} with $c = 1 / 12 m \norm{x}_\infty^2$.
\end{remark}
\section{Tools for Differential Equations in $\overline{\TrP}_m^j$} \label{sec:diffeqtools}
This section describes two analytic operations | solution of ODE and convolution with the Gaussian law | that can be performed on tuples in $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$ and on asymptotically approximable sequences of functions on $N \times N$ matrices. These operations were applied in \cite{Jekel2018}, and will be applied in the remainder of this paper, to analyze the large $N$ limit of certain PDE associated to random matrix models, and hence to understand the behavior of convex matrix models in the large $N$ limit.
\subsection{Flows Along Vector Fields} \label{subsec:vectorfields}
Several times in our study of partial differential equations, we will use flows along vector fields given by functions in $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$ and by asymptotically approximable sequences of functions on matrices. For instance, this idea was used in \cite[Lemma 4.10]{Jekel2018}, and in this paper, it will be used in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:diffusionAATP} and Theorem \ref{thm:transport1}.
The setup is roughly speaking as follows. Consider a time interval $[0,T] \subseteq \R$. Let $H: (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m \times [0,T] \to L^2(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$ be a function such that $H(\cdot,t)$ is a tuple of functions in $\overline{\TrP}_m^1$ for each $t$ (satisfying certain uniform continuity assumptions). Also, let $F_0: (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m \to L^2(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$. Then we would like to construct $F: (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m \times [0,T] \to (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$ such that
\begin{align*}
F(x,0) &= F_0(x) \\
\partial_t F(x,t) &= H(F(x,t),t).
\end{align*}
Moreover, we would like to show that if $H^{(N)}$ is a function on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times [0,T]$ that is asymptotic to $H$ and $F_0^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow F_0$, then the solutions $F^{(N)}$ are asymptotic to the solution $F$.
Such a proof was essentially carried out in \cite[Lemma 4.10]{Jekel2018}, but now we introduce the added complexity that $H$ will depend on $x$, $t$, and an auxiliary parameter $y \in (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$, and we must solve the initial value problem
\begin{align} \label{eq:IVP}
F(x,y,0) &= F_0(x,y) \\
\partial_t F(x,y,t) &= H(F(x,y,t), y, t). \nonumber
\end{align}
The added parameter $y$ arises naturally in our analysis of \emph{conditional} expectation, entropy, and transport since it represents the variables we are conditioning upon (see for instance \S \ref{subsec:conditionalexpectationstrategy}).
For the sake of future reference, let us state the set of assumptions we make about the vector field $H(x,y,t)$. These assumptions are framed for a convenient and applicable level of generality rather than maximum generality.
\begin{assumption} \label{ass:vectorfield}
We are given $T > 0$ and a function $H: (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m \times (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^n \times [0,T] \to L^2(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$ satisfying:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each $t$, we have $H(\cdot,\cdot,t) \in (\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1)_{sa}^m$.
\item $H$ is $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz in $(x,y)$, that is, for some constant $K$ independent of $t$, we have
\[
\norm*{H(x,y,t) - H(x',y',t)}_2 \leq K \norm*{(x,y) - (x',y')}_2.
\]
\item The map $t \mapsto H(\cdot,\cdot,t)$ is a continuous function $[0,T] \to (\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1)_{sa}^m$ with respect to the Fr{\'e}chet topology on $\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1$. This implies that for every $R > 0$ and for every $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $\delta > 0$, such that
\[
|t - t'| < \delta \implies \norm*{H(\cdot,\cdot,t) - H(\cdot,\cdot,t')}_{u,R} < \epsilon \text{ for all } t, t' \in [0,T].
\]
(where we have upgraded from continuity to uniform continuity because of compactness of $[0,T]$).
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
\begin{observation}
Under this assumption, as in Observation \ref{obs:continuousextension}, we see that $H(\cdot,\cdot,t)$ has a unique continuous extension to $L^2(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^{m+n}$. Furthermore, for each $(x,y) \in L^2(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^{m+n}$, the function $t \mapsto H(x,y,t)$ is continuous (though the modulus of continuity cannot be chosen independent of $(x,y)$). Continuity follows because there exists a sequence $(x_n,y_n) \in (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^{m+n}$ such that $(x_n,y_n) \to (x,y)$ in $\norm*{\cdot}_2$. Now $H(x_n,y_n,\cdot)$ is continuous by assumption (3), but assumption (2) implies that $H(x_n,y_n,\cdot) \to H(x,y,\cdot)$ uniformly on $[0,T]$.
\end{observation}
Under these assumptions, \eqref{eq:IVP} can be solved by the standard method of Picard iteration. We first verify that Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield} is preserved under the composition and integration operations used to define Picard iterates.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:vectorfieldintegration}
Suppose that $H(x,y,t)$ satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield} and suppose that $G_0 \in (\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1)_{sa}^m$ is globally $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz. Then the function
\[
G(x,y,t) = G_0(x,y) + \int_0^t H(x,y,s)\,ds
\]
is well-defined by Riemann integration and it also satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The Riemann integral is defined because $t \mapsto H(x,y,t)$ is continuous with respect to $\norm*{\cdot}_2$ for each $(x,y) \in (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^{m+n}$ (and in fact, each $(x,y) \in L^2(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^{m+n}$). Now let us check that $G$ satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield}.
(1) Fix $R > 0$ and $\epsilon > 0$. By assumption (2) for $H$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that
\[
|t - t'| < \delta \implies \norm*{H(\cdot,\cdot,t) - H(\cdot,\cdot,t')}_{u,R} < \frac{\epsilon}{2T}.
\]
Fix $t$, then choose a partition $0 = t_0$, \dots, $t_n = t$ of $[0,t]$ such that $|t_j - t_{j-1}| < \delta$. Then let $h_j \in (\TrP_{m+n}^1)_{sa}^m$ such that
\[
\norm*{h_j - H(\cdot,\cdot,t_j)}_{u,R} < \frac{\epsilon}{2T}.
\]
Then
\[
\norm*{h_j - H(\cdot,\cdot,s)}_{u,R} < \frac{\epsilon}{T} \text{ for all } s \in [t_{j-1},t_j].
\]
Therefore,
\[
\norm*{ \int_0^t H(\cdot,\cdot,s)\,ds - \sum_{j=1}^n (t_j - t_{j-1}) h_j }_{u,R} < \sum_{j=1}^n (t_j - t_{j-1}) \frac{\epsilon}{T} = \frac{\epsilon t}{T} \leq \epsilon.
\]
This shows that $\int_0^t H(\cdot,\cdot,s)\,ds$ is in $(\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1)_{sa}^m$. Because $G_0$ is in this space as well, this implies that $G(\cdot,\cdot,t)$ is in $(\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1)_{sa}^m$ as desired.
(2) If $H(\cdot,\cdot,t)$ is $K$-Lipschitz for all $t$, then $\norm*{G(\cdot,t)}_{\Lip} \leq \norm*{G_0}_{\Lip} + tK$.
(3) Since $t \mapsto H(\cdot,\cdot,t)$ is continuous with respect to $\norm*{\cdot}_{u,R}$, we must have $\norm*{H(\cdot,\cdot,t)}_{u,R} \leq M$ for some constant $M$. Then $\norm*{G(\cdot,\cdot,t) - G(\cdot,\cdot,t')}_{u,R} \leq M |t - t'|$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:vectorfieldcomposition}
Suppose that $H(x,y,t)$ and $G(x,y,t)$ satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield}. Then $H(G(x,y,t),y,t)$ also satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The composition makes sense because $H(x,y,t)$ extends to be defined for $(x,y) \in L^2(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^{m+n}$. It follows from Lemma \ref{lem:composition} that $H(G(x,y,t),y,t)$ satisfies (1). The Lipschitz estimate (2) is straightforward and left to the reader. To prove (3), let $K$ be a Lipschitz constant for $H$ as a function of $(x,y)$ that works for all $t$. Fix $\epsilon > 0$. Proceeding as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:vectorfieldintegration}, we can choose a partition $\{t_0,\dots,t_n\}$ of $[0,T]$ and $g_j \in (\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1)_{sa}^m$ such that
\[
\norm*{g_j - G(\cdot,\cdot,t)}_{u,R} < \frac{\epsilon}{4K} \text{ for } t \in [t_{j-1},t_j].
\]
Then there exists some $R'$ such that $\norm*{(x,y)}_\infty \leq R$ implies $\norm*{(g_j(x,y),y)}_\infty \leq R'$ for all $j$. Then by applying assumption (3) to $H$, there exists $\delta$ such that
\[
|t - t'| < \delta \implies \norm*{H(\cdot,\cdot,t) - H(\cdot,\cdot,t')}_{u,R'} < \frac{\epsilon}{4}.
\]
We also choose $\delta'$ such that
\[
|t - t'| < \delta' \implies \norm*{G(\cdot,\cdot,t) - G(\cdot,\cdot,t')}_{u,R} < \frac{\epsilon}{4K}.
\]
Supposing that $\norm*{(x,y)}_\infty \leq R$ and $|t - t'| < \min(\delta,\delta')$, we have
\begin{align*}
&\norm*{H(G(x,y,t),y,t) - H(G(x,y,t'),y,t')}_2 \\
&\leq \norm*{H(G(x,y,t),y,t) - H(G(x,y,t'),y,t)}_2 + \norm*{H(G(x,y,t'),y,t) - H(G(x,y,t'),y,t')}_2 \\
&\leq K \norm*{G(x,y,t) - G(x,y,t')}_2 + \norm*{H(G(x,y,t'),y,t) - H(G(x,y,t'),y,t')}_2 \\
&\leq \frac{\epsilon}{4} + \norm*{H(G(x,y,t'),y,t) - H(G(x,y,t'),y,t')}_2.
\end{align*}
Meanwhile, after we pick $j$ such that $t' \in [t_{j-1},t_j]$, then
\begin{align*}
\norm*{H(G(x,y,t'),y,t) - H(G(x,y,t'),y,t')}_2 &\leq \norm*{H(G(x,y,t'),y,t) - H(g_j(x,y),y,t)}_2 \\
& \quad + \norm*{H(g_j(x,y),y,t) - H(g_j(x,y),y,t')}_2 \\
& \quad + \norm*{H(g_j(x,y),y,t) - H(G(x,y,t'),y,t')}_2.
\end{align*}
The middle term can be estimated by $\epsilon / 4$ because $\norm*{g_j(x,y),y)}_\infty \leq R'$. Meanwhile, the first and third terms can each be estimated by $K (\epsilon / 4K) = \epsilon / 4$ using the Lipschitz property of $H$ and our choice of $g_j$. Altogether, $|t - t'| < \min(\delta,\delta')$ implies that $\norm*{H(G(x,y,t),y,t) - H(G(x,y,t'),y,t')}_2 < \epsilon$ whenever $\norm*{(x,y)}_\infty \leq R$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:ODE}
Let $H(x,y,t)$ satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield} and let $G_0 \in (\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1)_{sa}^m$. Then there exists a unique continuous $F: L^2(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^{m+n} \times [0,T] \to L^2(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$ satisfying
\[
F(x,y,t) = G_0(x,y) + \int_0^t H(F(x,y,s),y,s)\,ds.
\]
Moreover, $F(x,y,t)$ also satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We define the Picard iterates $F_\ell$ inductively by
\begin{align*}
F_0(x,y,t) &= G_0(x,y) \\
F_{\ell+1}(x,y,t) &= G_0(x,y) + \int_0^t H(F_\ell(x,y,s),y,s)\,ds.
\end{align*}
The previous two lemmas imply that $F_k$ is well-defined and satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield}. Convergence of the Picard iterates follows from the standard proof of Picard-Lindel{\"o}f. Briefly, given that $H$ is $K$-Lipschitz in $(x,y)$ with respect to $\norm*{\cdot}_2$, we have
\[
\norm*{F_{\ell+1}(x,y,t) - F_\ell(x,y,t)}_2 \leq K \int_0^t \norm*{F_\ell(x,y,s) - F_{\ell-1}(x,y,s)}_2\,ds.
\]
Also, we have
\[
\norm*{F_1(x,y,t) - F_0(x,y,t)}_2 \leq t M(x,y).
\]
where $M(x,y) = \sup_{s \in [0,T]} \norm*{H(G_0(x,y),y,s)}_2$, which is finite because of continuity of $H(G_0(x,y),y,t)$ in $t$. From here a straightforward induction on $\ell$ shows that for $\ell \geq 1$,
\[
\norm*{F_{\ell}(x,y,t) - F_{\ell-1}(x,y,t)}_2 \leq \frac{K^{\ell-1} t^\ell}{\ell !}
\]
because $K \int_0^t K^{\ell-1} s^\ell / \ell!\,ds = K^\ell s^{\ell+1} / (\ell + 1)!$. Now because $\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty K^{\ell - 1} s^\ell / \ell!$ converges, we know that
\[
F(x,y,t) := \lim_{\ell \to \infty} F_\ell(x,y,t) \text{ exists,}
\]
and
\[
\norm*{F_\ell(x,y,t) - F(x,y,t)}_2 \leq M(x,y) \sum_{j=\ell+1}^\infty \frac{K^{j-1} t^j}{j!}.
\]
The fact that $F(x,y,t)$ satisfies the integral equation is straightforward, and the proof of the uniqueness of this $F$ is also standard.
It remains to show that $F$ satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield}. First, recall that $H(G_0(x,y),y,t)$ is Lipschitz in $(x,y)$ uniformly for all $t$. If $K'$ is a Lipschitz constant for this function, then
\[
M(x,y) \leq M(0,0) + K' \norm*{(x,y)}_2.
\]
In particular,
\[
\norm*{F_\ell(x,y,t) - F(x,y,t)}_2 \leq (M(0,0) + K' \norm*{(x,y)}_2) \sum_{j=\ell+1}^\infty \frac{K^{j-1} t^j}{j!}.
\]
This implies that the convergence of $F_\ell$ to $F$ occurs uniformly for $(x,y)$ with $\norm*{(x,y)}_\infty \leq R$ and all $t \in [0,T]$. Then because $F_\ell(\cdot,\cdot,t)$ can be approximated in $\norm*{\cdot}_{u,R}$ by trace polynomials, the same must be true for $F(\cdot,\cdot,t)$ for each $t$, which shows that $F$ satisfies (1). Similarly, because of the uniform convergence of $F_\ell$ to $F$ for $\norm*{(x,y)}_\infty \leq R$ and $t \in [0,T]$, the uniform continuity property (3) for $F$ follows from property (3) for $F_\ell$.
Finally, we must show (2) that $F$ is Lipschitz in $(x,y)$. More precisely, we claim that
\[
\norm*{F(x,y,t) - F(x',y',t)}_2 \leq e^{Kt} \norm*{G_0(x,y) - G_0(x',y')}_2 + (e^{Kt} - 1) \norm*{y - y'}_2.
\]
Now it suffices to check that each Picard iterate $F_\ell$ satisfies this estimate. This can be verified by induction on $\ell$. The base case $F_0(x,y,t) = G_0(x,y)$ is immediate. For the induction step, we observe that
\begin{align*}
& \norm*{F_{\ell+1}(x,y,t) - F_\ell(x',y',t)}_2 \\
&\leq \norm*{G_0(x,y) - G_0(x',y')}_2 + \int \norm*{H(F_\ell(x,y,s),y,s) - H(F_\ell(x',y',s),y',s)}_2\,ds \\
&\leq \norm*{G_0(x,y) - G_0(x',y')}_2 + \int K \left( \norm*{F_\ell(x,y,s) - F_\ell(x',y',s)}_2 + \norm*{y - y'}_2 \right) \,ds,
\end{align*}
using the fact that $H$ is $K$-Lipschitz. Then we plug in our induction hypothesis that $\norm*{F_\ell(x,y,s) - F_\ell(x',y',s)}_2$ is bounded by $e^{Kt} \norm*{G_0(x,y) - G_0(x',y')}_2 + (e^{Kt} - 1) \norm*{y - y'}_2$, and then directly evaluate the integral to close the induction.
\end{proof}
We have now shown that it makes sense to solve ODE for tuples in $(\overline{\TrP}_m^1)_{sa}$. There is a parallel list of results which instead deal with functions on $N \times N$ matrices that are asymptotically approximable as $N \to \infty$. We use the following assumptions.
\begin{assumption} \label{ass:vectorfield2}
We are given $T > 0$ and for each $N \in \N$ a function $H^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times M_N(\C)_{sa}^n \times [0,T] \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each $t$, there exists $H(\cdot,\cdot,t) \in (\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1)_{sa}^m$ such that $H^{(N)}(\cdot,\cdot,t) \rightsquigarrow H(\cdot,\cdot,t)$.
\item $H^{(N)}$ is $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz in $(x,y)$ with some Lipschitz constant $K$ independent of $t$ and $N$.
\item For every $R > 0$ and for every $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $\delta > 0$, such that
\[
|t - t'| < \delta \implies \norm*{H^{(N)}(\cdot,\cdot,t) - H^{(N)}(\cdot,\cdot,t')}_{u,R}^{(N)} < \epsilon \text{ for all } t, t' \in [0,T] \text{ for all } N.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:ODE2}
Let $\{H^{(N)}\}$ satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield2}, and let $G_0^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ be asymptotically approximable such that $G_0^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow G_0$ and $G_0^{(N)}$ is $\norm*{\cdot}_2$ Lipschitz uniformly in $N$. Then for each $N$ there is a unique $F^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \times [0,T] \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ satisfying
\[
F^{(N)}(x,y,t) = G_0^{(N)}(x,y) + \int_0^t H^{(N)}(F^{(N)}(x,y,s),y,s)\,ds.
\]
Moreover, $\{F^{(N)}\}$ also satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield}. Furthermore, the vector field $H$ such that $H^{(N)}(\cdot, \cdot, t) \rightsquigarrow H(\cdot,\cdot,t)$ satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield}, and we have $F^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow F$ where $F$ is the solution given by Proposition \ref{prop:ODE}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof of existence and uniqueness of the solution is almost identical to that of Proposition \ref{prop:ODE}. First, one shows that Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield2} is preserved under integration and composition (analogous to Lemma \ref{lem:vectorfieldintegration} and \ref{lem:vectorfieldcomposition}). Then exactly as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:ODE}, one defines Picard iterates, proves they converge, establishes Lipschitz bounds, and checks they satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield2}. The one additional feature in these proofs is to make all the estimates uniform in $N$. For instance, the quantity $M(x,y)$ in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:ODE} is replaced by
\[
M^{(N)}(x,y) = \sup_{s \in [0,T]} \norm*{H^{(N)}(G_0^{(N)}(x,y),y,s)}_2.
\]
Then $H^{(N)}(G_0^{(N)}(x,y),y,t)$ has some Lipschitz constant $K'$ independent of $N$, and
\[
M^{(N)}(x,y) \leq M^{(N)}(0,0) + K' \norm*{(x,y)}_2.
\]
But then we can show that $\sup_N M^{(N)}(0,0)$ is finite. This is because if $\Phi^{(N)}(x,y,t) = H^{(N)}(G_0^{(N)}(x,y),y,t)$, then $\sup_N \sup_t \norm*{\Phi^{(N)}(\cdot,\cdot,t)}_{u,R}^{(N)}$ is finite because of Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield} (3) and the fact that $\Phi^{(N)}(x,y,0)$ is asymptotically approximable and hence bounded in $\norm*{\cdot}_{u,R}^{(N)}$ as $N \to \infty$.
Now the fact that $H$ satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield} is a straightforward limiting argument. The key ingredient is that if $f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f$, then $\norm*{f}_{u,R} = \lim_{N \to \infty} \norm*{f^{(N)}}_{u,R}^{(N)}$.
Finally, to show that $F^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow F$, it suffices to show that for each of the Picard iterates $F_\ell^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow F_\ell$ because of the uniform convergence of $F_\ell^{(N)} \to F^{(N)}$ as $\ell \to \infty$ for $\norm*{(x,y)}_\infty \leq R$, where the rate of convergence is also independent of $N$. Furthermore, since the Picard iterates are defined inductively by composition and integration, it suffices to show that the asymptotic approximation relation $\rightsquigarrow$ is preserved by these operations. Preservation under integration follows because the integrals can be approximated by Riemann sums and this approximation is uniformly good for $\norm*{(x,y)}_\infty \leq R$ and for all $N$ because of the uniform continuity Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield2} (3). Preservation under composition follows from Lemma \ref{lem:composition}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The Heat Semigroup} \label{subsec:heatsemigroup}
Recall that the solution to the classical heat equation is given by convolution the heat kernel (which is given by a Gaussian probability density). In particular, let $\sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}$ be the probability distribution of an $m$-tuple of independent GUE matrices $(S_1^{(N)}, \dots, S_m^{(N)})$ such that $E[\tau_N[(S_j^{(N)})^2]] = t$, which is given by density $(1/Z^{(N)}) e^{-\norm*{x}_2^2 / 2t}\,dx$. If $u_0: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \C$, then $u_t := u_0 * \sigma_t^{(N)}$ solves the normalized heat equation
\[
\partial_t u_t = \frac{1}{2N} \Delta u_t.
\]
Here $u_0 * \sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}$ is meant in the sense of convolving a function with a measure, and this is the same as convolving of $u_0$ with the density function for $\sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}$. The meaning of $\Delta$ is to be interpreted using coordinates with respect to some orthonormal basis of $M_N(\C)_{sa}$ in the inner product $\ip{x,y} = \Tr(xy)$; this is \emph{not} the same as differentiating entrywise since some of the entries are real and some are complex.
Our goal is to describe the large $N$ behavior of $u^{(N)} * \sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}$ when $\{u^{(N)}\}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, and to define ``$u \boxplus \sigma_{m,t}$'' when $u \in \overline{\TrP}_m^j$.
In \cite[\S 3.2 and 3.3]{Jekel2018}, using similar methods to \cite{Cebron2013}, we explained the computation of $(1/N) \Delta f$ as a function on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ when $f \in \TrP_m^0$ or $\TrP_m^1$. More precisely, let $\Delta_j f(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ denote the Laplacian with respect to the coordinates of the matrix $x_j$. We found that for $j = 1, \dots, m$ there are linear maps $L_j^{(N)}, L_j: \TrP_m^0 \to \TrP_m^0$ defined purely algebraically, such that $(1/N) \Delta_j f = L_j^{(N)} f$ when $f$ is viewed as a function on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$, $L_j^{(N)}$ and $L_j$ do not increase the degree of a trace polynomial, and $\lim_{N \to \infty} L_j^{(N)} f = L_j f$ coefficient-wise.
A similar analysis holds for the Laplacian of $f \in \TrP_m^1$ viewed as a function $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)$. Here we follow the standard convention of using the same symbol $\Delta$ for the Laplacians of vector-valued functions as for the Laplacians of scalar-valued functions; thus, the reader must be careful to distinguish scalar-valued and vector-valued functions based on context. We saw that there were linear transformations $L_j^{(N)}, L_j: \TrP_m^1 \to \TrP_m^1$ such that $(1/N) \Delta_j f = L_j^{(N)}f$ as a function on matrices, $L_j^{(N)}$ and $L_j$ do not increase degree, and $L_j^{(N)} f \to L_j f$ coefficient-wise.
We deduced as a consequence that $e^{L^{(N)}t/2} f = f * \sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}$ has a well-defined large $N$ limit if $f$ is a trace polynomial \cite[Lemma 3.21]{Jekel2018}, and that if $\{u^{(N)}\}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, then so is $\{u^{(N)} * \sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}\}$ \cite[Lemma 3.28]{Jekel2018}.
In order to establish ``conditional versions'' of our earlier results, we must consider trace polynomials $f(x_1,\dots,x_m, y_1, \dots, y_n)$ in $m + n$ variables and take the Laplacian with respect to $x = (x_1,\dots,x_m)$ while treating $y = (y_1,\dots,y_n)$ as an auxiliary parameter. We denote by $\Delta_x = \sum_{j=1}^m \Delta_{x_j}$, $L_x^{(N)} = \sum_{j=1}^m L_{x_j}^{(N)}$, and $L_x = \sum_{j=1}^m L_{x_j}$ the various Laplacian operators with respect to $x$.
Because $L_x^{(N)}$ and $L_x$ map the finite-dimensional vector space trace polynomials of degree $\leq d$ into itself, there are well-defined linear operators $e^{tL_x^{(N)} / 2}$ and $e^{tL_x / 2}$ on the space of trace polynomials in $\TrP_{m+n}^j$ of degree $\leq d$ for each $j = 0, 1$ each $d \in \N$, and each real $t \geq 0$. Since trace polynomials are the union of the subspaces of trace polynomials with degree $\leq d$, there are linear operators $e^{tL_x^{(N)}/2}, e^{tL_x / 2}: \TrP_{m+n}^j \to \TrP_{m+n}^j$. Moreover, these operators form a semigroup, and they satisfy the following property, which is an extension of \cite[Theorem 2.4]{Cebron2013} to the spaces $\overline{\TrP}_m^j$.
\begin{lemma}
Let $(X,Y)$ be a random variable in $M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n}$ with finite moments, and let $S \sim \sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}$ be an independent GUE random variable in $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$. Then we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Gaussianconditionalexpectation}
E[f(X+S,Y) | (X,Y)] = [e^{tL_x^{(N)}/2} f](X,Y) \text{ for } f \in \TrP_{m+n}^0 \text{ or } f \in \TrP_{m+n}^1.
\end{equation}
Similarly, suppose that $(X,Y)$ is a tuple of self-adjoint non-commutative random variables, and let $S$ be a freely independent tuple with non-commutative law $\sigma_{m,t}$. Then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Gaussianconditionalexpectation2}
f(X+S,Y) = [e^{tL_x/2} f](X,Y) \text{ for } f \in \TrP_m^0,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Gaussianconditionalexpectation3}
E_{\mathrm{W}^*(X,Y)}[f(X+S,Y)] = [e^{tL_x/2} f](X,Y) \text{ for } f \in \TrP_m^1,
\end{equation}
where $E_{\mathrm{W}^*(X,Y)}: \mathrm{W}^*(X,Y,S) \to \mathrm{W}^*(X,Y)$ is the unique trace-preserving conditional expectation.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $S$ is independent and distributed according to $\sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}$, we have
\[
E[f(X+S,Y) | (X,Y)] = \int f(X + z,Y)\,d\sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}(z).
\]
On the other hand, for $(x,y) \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n}$,
\[
\int f(x + z,y)\,d\sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}(z) = e^{tL_x^{(N)}/2} f(x,y),
\]
because both sides are the solution to the heat equation on the space of coordinate-wise polynomials on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n}$ of degree $\leq d$. This shows \eqref{eq:Gaussianconditionalexpectation}.
To prove the free versions, we assume familiarity with the results of free probability (see e.g.\ \cite{VDN1992}, \cite{NS2006}, \cite[Chapter 5]{AGZ2009}). Suppose that $(X,Y)$ are non-commutative random variables and $S_t$ is a freely independent free semicircular $m$-tuple with law $\sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}$. We may assume that $(S_t)_{t \geq 0}$ is a free Brownian motion, so that $S_t - S_s \sim S_{t - s}$ for $0 \leq s \leq t$ and $S_t \sim t^{1/2} S_1$. Note that $e^{-tL_x/2}$ is a well-defined operator on trace polynomials. To prove \eqref{eq:Gaussianconditionalexpectation2}, it suffices to show that $[e^{tL_x/2}f](X+S_t,Y) = f(X,Y)$ for $f \in \TrP_m^0$. This will follow if we check that
\[
\frac{d}{dt} \left( [e^{-tL_x/2} f](X+S_t,Y) \right) = 0.
\]
From a free probabilistic computation sketched in \cite[Lemma 3.23]{Jekel2018}, we have
\[
\frac{d}{dt} f(X+S_t,Y) = \frac{1}{2} [L_x f](X+S_t,Y),
\]
and hence
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt} \left( [e^{-tL_x/2} f](X+S_t,Y) \right) &= \frac{d}{dt_1} [e^{-t_1 L_x/2} f](X+S_{t_2},Y)|_{t_1=t_2=t} + \frac{d}{dt_2} [e^{-t_1 L_x/2} f](X+S_{t_2},Y)|_{t_1=t_2=t} \\
&= \left[ \frac{-L_x}{2} e^{-tL_x/2} f \right](X+S_t,Y) + \left[ \frac{L_x}{2} e^{-tL_x/2} f \right](X+S_t,Y) \\
&= 0.
\end{align*}
Next, to prove \eqref{eq:Gaussianconditionalexpectation3}, it suffices to show that for $g \in \TrP_{m+n}^1$, we have
\[
\tau(f(X+S_t,Y) g(X,Y)) = \tau([e^{tL_x/2}f](X,Y) g(X,Y)),
\]
since functions of the form $g(X,Y)$ for $g \in \TrP_m^1$ are dense in $L^2(\mathrm{W}^*(X,Y))$. Consider the function $F \in \TrP_{m+n+m}$ given by $F(x,y,x') = \tau(f(x,y) g(x',y))$. Notice that
\[
L_x F(x,y,x') = \tau(L_x[f(x,y) g(x',y)]) = \tau([L_x f(x,y)] g(x',y)).
\]
Here the first equality is checked directly from the definition of the Laplacian \cite[see Def.\ 3.13 and 3.16, proof of Lemma 3.18]{Jekel2018}. The equality $L_x[f(x,y) g(x',y)] = L_x[f(x,y)] g(x',y)$ again is checked from the definition of the Laplacian; this equality is intuitive since $g(x',y)$ is independent of $x$. Since the same reasoning may be applied to compute the Laplacian $L_x$ of $\tau([e^{tL_x/2}f](x,y) g(x,y))$, we have
\[
e^{tL_x/2} F(x,y,x') = \tau([e^{tL_x/2}f](x,y) g(x',y)).
\]
We can view $F(x,y,x')$ as a function of the $m$-tuple $x$ and the $(n+m)$-tuple $(y,x')$, that is, an element of $\TrP_{m+(n+m)}^1$. We apply \eqref{eq:Gaussianconditionalexpectation2} to $f$ and the pair $(X, (Y,X))$ and obtain
\[
F(X+S_t,Y,X) = e^{tL_x/2}F(X,Y,X)
\]
which means precisely that
\[
\tau(f(X+S_t,Y) g(X,Y)) = \tau([e^{tL_x/2}f](X,Y) g(X,Y)),
\]
which completes the proof of \eqref{eq:Gaussianconditionalexpectation3}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The free conditional expectation formulas \eqref{eq:Gaussianconditionalexpectation2} and \eqref{eq:Gaussianconditionalexpectation3} could also be proved using random matrices provided that $\mathrm{W}^*(X,Y)$ is $\mathcal{R}^\omega$-embeddable. Indeed, let $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$ be (deterministic) tuples of matrices with non-commutative laws converging to the law of $(X,Y)$ and let $S^{(N)} \sim \sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}$. Then to prove \eqref{eq:Gaussianconditionalexpectation2} for instance, we could use the fact that $E[f(X^{(N)}+S^{(N)},Y^{(N)}) = [e^{tL_x^{(N)}/2}f](X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$ and take the limit as $N \to \infty$ using Voiculescu's theorem on asymptotic freeness \cite[Theorem 2.2]{Voiculescu1998}. A similar proof could be done for \eqref{eq:Gaussianconditionalexpectation3}.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}
If $f \in \TrP_{m+n}^j$ for $j = 0, 1$, then we have $\norm*{e^{tL_x/2} f}_{u,R} \leq \norm*{f}_{u,R+2t^{1/2}}$ for $t \geq 0$. In particular, $f \mapsto e^{tL_x/2} f$ extends to a unique continuous linear operator $\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^j \to \overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^j$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $(X,Y) \in (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^{m+n}$ with $\norm*{(X,Y)}_\infty \leq R$. Let $S \sim \sigma_{m,t}$ be a freely independent semicircular tuple. If $f \in \TrP_{m+n}^0$, then
\[
[e^{tL_x/2} f](X,Y) = f(X+S,Y).
\]
Since $\norm*{S}_\infty = 2t^{1/2}$, we have $\norm*{(X+S,Y)}_\infty \leq R + 2t^{1/2}$. Therefore, $\norm*{e^{-tL_x/2} f}_{u,R} \leq \norm*{f}_{u,R+2t^{1/2}}$ as desired. Similarly, if $f \in \TrP_{m+n}^1$, then we check $\norm*{e^{-tL_x/2} f}_{u,R} \leq \norm*{f}_{u,R+2t^{1/2}}$ using the conditional expectation formula \eqref{eq:Gaussianconditionalexpectation3}. Now the continuous extension of $e^{tL_x/2}$ to $\overline{\TrP}_m^j$ is immediate.
\end{proof}
The semigroup $e^{tL_x/2}$ acting on $\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1$ describes the large $N$ limit of the Gaussian convolution semigroup on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^N$ defined as follows.
\begin{definition}
For $f: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \to \C$ or $M_N(\C)$, we denote
\[
P_t^{(N)} f(x,y) = \int f(x+z,y)\,d\sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}(z).
\]
Moreover, we denote by $P_t^{\TrP}: \overline{\TrP}_m^j \to \overline{\TrP}_m^j$ the continuous extension of $e^{tL_x/2}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:Gaussianconvolution}
Suppose that $f^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \to \C$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials and $f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^0$. Furthermore, assume that for some $A, B > 0$ and $k \in \N$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:growthbound}
\norm*{f}_{u,R} \leq A + B R^k \\
\sup_{\substack{x \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \\ \norm*{x}_\infty \leq R}} |f^{(N)}(x)| \leq A + BR^k.
\end{equation}
Then $P_t^{(N)} f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow P_t^{\TrP} f$. The same holds for $f^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \to M_N(\C)$ and $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ with $|f^{(N)}(x)|$ replaced by $\norm*{f^{(N)}(x)}_2$.
\end{lemma}
The proof of this lemma is the same as in \cite[Lemma 3.28]{Jekel2018}.
\begin{remark} \label{rem:UCgrowthbound}
In both the scalar-valued and matrix-valued cases, the assumption \eqref{eq:growthbound} holds automatically with $k = 1$ provided that $f^{(N)}$ and $f$ are $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-uniformly continuous (with modulus of continuity independent of $N$). Let us focus on the matrix-valued case of $\TrP_m^1$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that
\[
\norm*{x-y}_2 < \delta \implies \norm*{f(x) - f(y)}_2 \leq 1.
\]
In particular, given $x \in (\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$, we can choose an integer $j$ such that $j \delta < \norm*{x}_2 \leq 2 j \delta$. Then we have
\[
\norm*{f(x) - f(0)}_2 \leq \sum_{i=1}^{2j} \norm*{f(ix/2k) - f((i-1)x/2k)}_2 \leq 2j \leq 2 \norm*{x}_2 / \delta.
\]
Thus,
\[
\norm*{f(x)}_2 \leq \norm*{f(0)}_2 + \frac{2}{\delta} \norm*{x}_2 \leq \norm*{f(0)}_2 + \frac{2m^{1/2}}{\delta} \norm*{x}_\infty,
\]
which implies the first estimate of \eqref{eq:growthbound}. The case for $f^{(N)}$ is handled similarly, and we note that $\norm*{f^{(N)}(0)}_2$ is bounded as $N \to \infty$ because of our assumption that $f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f$. The same argument works in the case of scalar-valued functions and $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^0$.
\end{remark}
\section{Conditional Expectation for Free Gibbs States} \label{sec:conditionalexpectation}
\subsection{Free Gibbs States from Convex Potentials} \label{subsec:CEmotivation}
In \cite{Jekel2018} and in the present work, we focus on the following situation:
\begin{assumption} \label{ass:convexRMM}
We are given $0 < c \leq C$ and $V^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $HV^{(N)} \geq c$, that is, $V^{(N)}(x) - \frac{1}{2} c \norm*{x}_2^2$ is convex.
\item $HV^{(N)} \leq C$, that is, $V^{(N)}(x) - \frac{1}{2} C \norm*{x}_2^2$ is concave.
\item $\{DV^{(N)}\}_{N \in \N}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials.
\end{enumerate}
We denote by $\mu^{(N)}$ the probability measure on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ given by
\[
d\mu^{(N)}(x) = e^{-N^2 V^{(N)}(x)}\,dx.
\]
Furthermore, we assume that the mean $\int x_j \,d\mu^{(N)}(x)$ is a scalar multiple of the identity matrix.
\end{assumption}
The following was proved in \cite[Theorem 4.1]{Jekel2018}.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:freeGibbslaw}
Let $V^{(N)}$ and $\mu^{(N)}$ be as in Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM}. Then there exists a non-commutative law $\lambda$ such that for every non-commutative polynomial $p$, we have
\[
\lambda(p) = \lim_{N \to \infty} \int \tau_N(p(x))\,d\mu^{(N)}(x).
\]
Moreover, we have for every $R > 0$ and $\epsilon > 0$ that
\[
\lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N^2} \log \mu_N\left(\left\{x \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m: \norm*{x}_\infty \leq R, |\tau(p(x)) - \lambda(p)| > \epsilon \right\}\right) < 0
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:convergenceofexpectation}
Let $\mu^{(N)}$ and $\lambda$ be as in Theorem \ref{thm:freeGibbslaw}. Let $X^{(N)}$ be a random $m$-tuple of matrices distributed according to $\mu^{(N)}$ and let $X$ be a non-commutative random $m$-tuple distributed according to $\lambda$. Let $f^{(N)}, g^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)$. Suppose there are constants $A$ and $B > 0$ and $k \in \N$ such that
\[
\max(\norm*{f^{(N)}(x)}_2, \norm*{g^{(N)}(x)}_2) \leq A + B \norm*{x}_\infty^k
\]
Suppose that $f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f$ and $g^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow g$ where $f, g \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$. Then
\[
\lim_{N \to \infty} E[\tau_N(f^{(N)}(X^{(N)}) g^{(N)}(X^{(N)}))] = \tau(f(X) g(X)).
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $a_j^{(N)} = E[X_j^{(N)}]$ which we assumed to be a scalar multiple of the identity, and which we know has a limit as $N \to \infty$. By Lemma \ref{lem:epsilonnet}, we have
\[
P(\norm*{X_j^{(N)} - a_j^{(N)}}_\infty \geq c^{-1/2} \Theta + \delta) \leq e^{-cN \delta^2 / 2}.
\]
In particular, letting $R > \sup_{N,j} |a_j^{(N)}| + c^{-1/2} \Theta$, we have
\[
P(\norm*{X^{(N)}}_\infty \geq R) \to 0
\]
and
\[
E[\mathbf{1}_{\norm*{X^{(N)}}_\infty \geq R} \tau_N(f^{(N)}(X^{(N)}) g^{(N)}(X^{(N)}))] \to 0.
\]
Therefore, in order to prove convergence of the expectation, it suffices to check that $\tau_N(f^{(N)}(X^{(N)}) g^{(N)}(X^{(N)}))$ converges in probability to $\tau(f(X) g(X))$.
We already know that $\tau_N(p(X^{(N)}))$ converges to $\tau(p(X))$ in probability for every non-commutative polynomial $p$. It follows that if $u$ is a scalar-valued trace polynomial, then $u(X^{(N)}) \to u(X)$ in probability. This also holds for $u \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$; indeed, we know that $\norm*{X^{(N)}}_\infty \leq R$ with probability tending to $1$ and $\norm*{X}_\infty \leq R$, whereas $u$ can be approximated in $\norm*{\cdot}_{u,R}$ by trace polynomials. Finally, if $u^{(N)}$ is a sequence of scalar-valued function such that $u^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow u \in \overline{\TrP}_m^0$, then $u^{(N)}(X^{(N)}) - u(X^{(N)})$ converges to $0$ in probability, and hence $u^{(N)}(X^{(N)})$ converges in probability to $u(X)$. By Lemma \ref{lem:algebra}, we can apply this statement to $u^{(N)} = \tau_N(f^{(N)} g^{(N)})$ and $u = \tau(fg)$, which completes the argument.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
Let $V \in \overline{\TrP}_m^0$ and suppose $V$ extends to a function $L^2(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m \to \R$ such that $V(x) - (c/2) \norm*{x}_2^2$ is convex and $V(x) - (C/2) \norm*{x}_2^2$ is concave. In this case, $V$ is differentiable as a function on the real Hilbert space $L^2(\mathcal{R}^\omega)_{sa}^m$, as a consequence of the existence of supporting hyperplanes for convex functions on a Hilbert space. If we assume also that $DV \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$, then we say that $V \in \mathcal{E}_m^{\TrP}(c,C)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
We did not prove or assume that the trace polynomials which approximate $DV$ are the gradients of the \emph{same} trace polynomials that approximate $V$. Thus, this definition is technically different from that of \cite[\S 8.2]{Jekel2018}.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
If $V \in \mathcal{E}_m^{\TrP}(c,C)$, then we may define $V^{(N)} = V|_{M_N(\C)_{sa}^m}$, and in this case $DV^{(N)} = DV|_{M_N(\C)_{sa}^m}$. Clearly, $DV^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, and so by Theorem \ref{thm:freeGibbslaw}, there exists a non-commutative law $\lambda_V$ that arises as the large $N$ limit of the associated random matrix models. Furthermore, the limiting free Gibbs law $\lambda_V$ only depends on $V$, that is, every approximating sequence of functions $V^{(N)} \in \mathcal{E}_m^{(N)}(c,C)$ will produce the same free Gibbs law (see \cite[\S 8.2]{Jekel2018}). We call $\lambda_V$ the \emph{free Gibbs state given by potential $V$}.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
One can check that if $V^{(N)}$ is as in Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM}, then there exists a $V \in \mathcal{E}_m^{\TrP}(c,C)$ such that $V^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow V$ and $DV^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow DV$. Thus, the non-commutative laws that arise from these random matrix models are precisely $\lambda_V$ for $V \in \mathcal{E}_m^{\TrP}(c,C)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} \label{rem:unitaryinvariance}
Since $\lambda_V$ is independent of the choice of approximating sequence $V^{(N)}$, we can in particular take $V^{(N)} = V|_{M_N(\C)_{sa}^m}$, which produces a canonical unitarily invariant sequence of random matrices models.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Main Result on Conditional Expectation}
Our main result in this section is in some sense a generalization of \cite[Theorem 4.1]{Jekel2018}, which deals with conditional expectations rather than expectations. The proof of the earlier theorem was reduced to the following statement: Suppose $V^{(N)}$ satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} and that $u^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \C$ is $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz (uniformly in $N$) and asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials. Then
\[
\lim_{N \to \infty} \int u^{(N)}\,d\mu^{(N)} \text{ exists.}
\]
Now, our goal is to prove the following.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:conditionalexpectation}
Consider functions $V^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \to \R$, denoted as $V^{(N)}(x,y)$, which satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} as functions of $(x,y)$. Let $\mu^{(N)}$ be the associated probability measure on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n}$. Let $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$ be an $(m+n)$-tuple of random matrices distributed according to $\mu^{(N)}$, and let $(X,Y)$ be a $(m+n)$-tuple of non-commutative random variables distributed according to the limiting free Gibbs law $\lambda$ given by Theorem \ref{thm:freeGibbslaw}
Let $f^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \to M_N(\C)$ be $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz (uniformly in $N$) and suppose $f^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow f \in \overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1$. Let $g^{(N)}$ be the function given by
\[
g^{(N)}(Y^{(N)}) = E[f^{(N)}(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}) | Y^{(N)}],
\]
which is well-defined function $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ because $\mu^{(N)}$ has positive density everywhere. Then $g^{(N)}$ is Lipschitz with
\[
\norm*{g^{(N)}}_{\Lip} \leq (1 + C/c) \norm*{f^{(N)}}_{\Lip}.
\]
Moreover, there exists $g \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ such that $g^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow g$ and hence
\[
g(Y) = E_{\mathrm{W}^*(Y)}[f(X,Y)].
\]
\end{theorem}
The gist of the theorem is that the conditional expectation $E[ \cdot | Y^{(N)}]$ behaves in the large $N$ limit like the $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebraic expectation $\mathrm{W}^*(X,Y) \to \mathrm{W}^*(Y)$. For instance, if $f \in \overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1$ is globally Lipschitz in $\norm*{\cdot}_2$, then the $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebraic conditional expectation of $f(X,Y)$ can be approximated by the classical conditional expectation $E[f(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}) | Y^{(N)}]$.
In fact, we can approximate $E_{\mathrm{W}^*}(Z)$ for every $Z \in L^2(\mathrm{W}^*(X,Y))$ using classical conditional expectations in the same sense. Indeed, we showed in Proposition \ref{prop:realizationofoperators} that every $Z$ can be expressed as $f(X,Y)$ where $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ is $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-uniformly continuous, and there exist $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-Lipschitz functions $f_k \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ such that $f_k \to f$ with respect to the uniform norm $\norm*{\cdot}_u$. Let $g_k^{(N)}$ and $g^{(N)}$ be given by
\[
g_k^{(N)}(Y^{(N)}) = E[f_k(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}) | Y^{(N)}],
\]
and the analogous relation for $g^{(N)}$ and $f$. Because conditional expectation is a contraction in $L^\infty(\mu^{(N)})$ (for functions taking values in $M_N(\C)$ with $\norm*{\cdot}_2$), we have
\[
\norm*{g_k^{(N)} - g^{(N)}}_u^{(N)} = \norm*{g_k^{(N)} - g^{(N)}}_{L^\infty(\mu^{(N)})} \leq \norm*{f_k - f}_u
\]
By the theorem, there exists $g_k \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ such that $g_k^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow g_k$. Given that $\norm*{g_k^{(N)} - g^{(N)}}_u^{(N)} \leq \norm*{f_k - f}_u \to 0$, a routine argument (``exchange of limits and uniform limits'') shows that there exists $g \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ such that $g^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow g$. In other words, the conclusion of Theorem \ref{thm:conditionalexpectation} holds also for $f$ and thus $E_{\mathrm{W}^*(Y)}[Z] = E_{\mathrm{W}^*(Y)}[f(X,Y)]$ can be viewed as the large $N$ limit of $E[f(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)}) | Y^{(N)}]$.
\subsection{Strategy} \label{subsec:conditionalexpectationstrategy}
Our proof will follow the same strategy as the special case in \cite[\S 4]{Jekel2018}. In that paper, we showed that if $V^{(N)}$ and $\mu^{(N)}$ on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ are as in Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} and if $u^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \C$ is uniformly Lipschitz and asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, then $\lim_{N \to \infty} \int u^{(N)}\,d\mu^{(N)}$ exists.
We considered the diffusion semigroup $T_t^{(N)} = T_t^{V^{(N)}}$ that solves the equation
\[
\partial_t (T_t^{(N)} u^{(N)}) = \frac{1}{2N} \Delta (T_t^{(N)} u^{(N)}) - \frac{1}{2} \ip{DV^{(N)}, D(T_t^{(N)} u^{(N)})}_2.
\]
As mentioned in \cite[\S 4]{Jekel2018}, this diffusion semigroup has an equivalent SDE formulation, and is a standard tool in proving the log-Sobolev inequality and concentration estimates (see for instance, \cite{Ledoux1992}, \cite[\S 4.4.2]{AGZ2009}, \cite{DGS2016}).
Now $\int T_t^{(N)} u^{(N)}\,d\mu^{(N)} = \int u^{(N)}\,d\mu^{(N)}$ and $\norm*{T_t^{(N)} u^{(N)}}_{\Lip} \leq e^{-ct/2} \norm*{u^{(N)}}_{\Lip}$. As $t \to \infty$, the function $T_t^{(N)} u^{(N)}$ converges to the constant function $\int u^{(N)}\,d\mu^{(N)}$ at a rate independent of $N$. On the other hand, we showed in \cite[Lemma 4.10]{Jekel2018} that if $\{u^{(N)}\}_{N \in \N}$ and $\{DV^{(N)}\}_{N \in \N}$ are asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, then so is $\{T_t^{(N)} u^{(N)}\}_{N \in \N}$. Hence, we concluded that the sequence of constant functions $\{ \int u^{(N)}\,d\mu^{(N)}\}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, which means that the limit as $N \to \infty$ exists.
Now we apply the same method in the conditional setting to prove Theorem \ref{thm:conditionalexpectation}. Let $V^{(N)}(x,y)$ be a function satisfying Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM}. If we fix $y$, then $V^{(N)}(\cdot,y)$ is uniformly convex and semi-concave function of $x$, so it defines a log-concave probability measure on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$. This produces a well-behaved conditional distribution of $X^{(N)}$ given $Y^{(N)}$, where $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)}) \sim \mu^{(N)}$. Explicitly, for $f \in L^1(\mu^{(N)}, M_N(\C))$, we have
\[
E[f(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)}) | Y^{(N)}] = \frac{\int f(x,Y^{(N)}) e^{-N^2 V^{(N)}(x,Y^{(N)})}\,dx}{\int e^{-N^2 V^{(N)}(x,Y^{(N)})}\,dx}.
\]
We will evaluate this conditional expectation as the limit as $t \to \infty$ of $T_t^{(N)} f$, where $T_t^{(N)} = T_t^{V^{(N)}}$ is the semigroup, acting on Lipschitz functions of $(x,y)$, that solves
\[
\partial_t (T_t^{(N)} f) = \frac{1}{2N} \Delta_x (T_t^{(N)} f) - \frac{1}{2} J_x(T_t^{(N)} f)^* D_x V^{(N)},
\]
where $J_x(T_t^{(N)} f)$ denotes the differential (Jacobian) of $T_t^{(N)} f$ as a function $x$ from $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ to $M_N(\C)$ and $*$ denotes the adjoint. In \S \ref{subsec:relativediffusion}, we will analyze how $T_t^{(N)}$ affects the Lipschitz norms with respect to $x$ and $y$ separately and hence show that the conditional expectation is given by a Lipschitz function of $y$. In \S \ref{subsec:relativediffusion2}, we will show that $T_t^{(N)}$ preserves asymptotic approximability by trace polynomials of $(x,y)$ and conclude our argument. The new aspect compared to \cite{Jekel2018} is that the functions are matrix-valued and depend on an extra parameter $y$.
\subsection{Conditional Diffusion Semigroup} \label{subsec:relativediffusion}
To simplify notation, let us fix $N$ and fix $V: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times M_N(\C)_{sa}^n \to \R$ for the remainder of \S \ref{subsec:relativediffusion}. We will denote
\[
d\mu(x | y) = \frac{1}{\int e^{-N^2 V(x,y)}\,dx} e^{-N^2 V(x,y)}\,dx,
\]
which is a measure on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ depending on the parameter $y$. The associated semigroup $T_t$ will be approximated by alternating two other operators $P_t$ and $S_t$ on short time intervals. Let $P_t$ denote the semigroup of convolution with Gaussian with respect to $x$, that is,
\[
P_t f(x,y) = \int f(x+z,y)\,d\sigma_{t,m}^{(N)}(z).
\]
The semigroup $S_t$ is given by
\[
S_t f(x,y) = f(W_t(x,y),y),
\]
where $W_t: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times M_N(\C)_{sa}^n \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^n$ is the solution to the initial value problem
\begin{align*}
W_0(x,y) &= x \\
\partial_t W_t(x,y) &= -\frac{1}{2} D_x V(W_t(x,y),y).
\end{align*}
This solution is defined for all $t \geq 0$ by the Picard-Lindel\"of theorem because $D_x V(x,y)$ is globally Lipschitz in $x$ (compare \S \ref{subsec:vectorfields}).
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:diffusionsemigroup}
There exists a semigroup $T_t$ acting on Lipschitz functions $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times M_N(\C)_{sa}^n$ such that the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $t = n / 2^\ell$ is a dyadic rational, let $T_{t,\ell} f = (P_{2^{-\ell}} S_{2^{-\ell}})^n$. Then $T_{t,\ell} f \to T_t f$ as $\ell \to \infty$ and more precisely
\[
\norm*{T_{t,\ell} f(\cdot,y) - T_t f(\cdot,y)}_{L^\infty} \leq \frac{Cm^{1/2}}{c(2 - 2^{1/2})} 2^{-\ell/2} \norm*{f(\cdot,y)}_{\Lip}.
\]
\item If $0 \leq s \leq t$, we have
\[
\norm*{T_t f(x,y) - T_s f(x,y)}_2 \leq e^{-cs/2} \left( \frac{C}{c} (6 + 5 \sqrt{2})(t - s)^{1/2} + \norm*{D_x V(x,y)}_2 \right) \norm*{f(\cdot,y)}_{\Lip}.
\]
\item $\norm*{T_t f(\cdot,y)}_{\Lip} \leq e^{-ct/2} \norm*{f(\cdot,y)}_{\Lip}$.
\item $\int T_t f(x,y)\,d\mu(x|y) = \int f(x,y)\,d\mu(x|y)$.
\item We have $T_t f(x,y) \to \int f(x',y)\,d\mu(x'|y)$ as $t \to \infty$ and specifically
\[
\norm*{T_t f(x,y) - \int f(x',y)\,d\mu(x'|y)}_2 \leq e^{-ct/2} \left( 4\frac{C}{c^2} (6 + 5 \sqrt{2}) t^{-1/2} + \frac{2}{c} \norm*{D_x V(x,y)}_2 \right) \norm*{f(\cdot,y)}_{\Lip}.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
These results follow by freezing the variable $y$ and applying the results from our previous paper, specifically,
\begin{enumerate}
\item see \cite[Lemma 4.5]{Jekel2018},
\item see \cite[Lemma 4.6]{Jekel2018},
\item see \cite[Lemma 4.6]{Jekel2018},
\item see \cite[Lemma 4.8]{Jekel2018},
\item see \cite[Lemma 4.9]{Jekel2018}.
\end{enumerate}
The results of \cite[\S 4]{Jekel2018} were stated only for scalar-valued functions. However, the arguments hold for functions from $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ to any finite-dimensional normed vector space. The result (4) that $T_t$ is expectation-preserving follows immediately by applying the scalar-valued result to each coordinate of the vector-valued function in some basis. To verify the estimates, one simply replaces the ``$|\cdot|$'' in the arguments by the appropriate norm, which in our case would be $\norm*{\cdot}_2$ on $M_N(\C)$.
\end{proof}
We will next show that $W_t(x,y)$ and $T_t f(x,y)$ depend in a Lipschitz manner upon $y$. Let us denote
\begin{align*}
\norm*{f}_{\Lip(dx)} &= \sup_y \norm*{f(\cdot,y)}_{\Lip} \\
\norm*{f}_{\Lip(dy)} &= \sup_x \norm*{f(x,\cdot)}_{\Lip}.
\end{align*}
\begin{lemma}
With the setup above, we have for Lipschitz $f: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times M_N(\C)_{sa}^n \to M_N(\C)$
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\norm*{W_t}_{\Lip,dx} \leq e^{-ct/2}$ and $\norm*{W_t}_{\Lip,dy} \leq (C/c)(1 - e^{-ct/2})$.
\item $\norm*{S_t f}_{\Lip,dx} \leq e^{-ct/2} \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dx}$.
\item $\norm*{S_t f}_{\Lip,dy} \leq \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dy} + (C/c)(1 - e^{-ct/2}) \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dx}$.
\item $\norm*{P_t f}_{\Lip,dy} \leq \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dy}$ and $\norm*{P_t f}_{\Lip,dx} \leq \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dx}$.
\item $\norm*{T_t f}_{\Lip,dx} \leq e^{-ct/2} \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dx}$.
\item $\norm*{T_t f}_{\Lip,dy} \leq \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dy} + (C/c)(1 - e^{-ct/2}) \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dx}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(1) Fix $x, x' \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ and $y, y' \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^n$. Define
\[
\phi(t) = \norm*{W_t(x,y) - W_t(x',y')}_2.
\]
Note that $\phi$ is locally Lipschitz in $t$ and hence absolutely continuous. Moreover, $\phi(t)^2$ is $C^1$ with
\begin{align*}
\partial_t [\phi(t)^2] &= 2 \ip{\partial_t W_t(x,y) - \partial_t W_t(x',y'), W_t(x,y) - W_t(x',y')}_2 \\
&= -\ip{D_x V(W_t(x,y),y) - D_x V(W_t(x',y'),y'), W_t(x,y) - W_t(x',y')}_2 \\
&= -\ip{D_x V(W_t(x,y),y) - D_x V(W_t(x',y'),y), W_t(x,y) - W_t(x',y')}_2 \\
& \quad - \ip{D_x V(W_t(x',y'),y) - D_x V(W_t(x',y'),y'), W_t(x,y) - W_t(x',y')}_2 \\
&\leq -c \norm*{W_t(x,y) - W_t(x',y')}_2^2 \\
& \quad + \norm*{D_x V(W_t(x',y'),y) - D_x V(W_t(x',y'),y)}_2 \norm*{W_t(x,y) - W_t(x',y')}_2 \\
&\leq -c \norm*{W_t(x,y) - W_t(x',y')}_2^2 + C \norm*{y - y'}_2 \norm*{W_t(x,y) - W_t(x',y')}_2.
\end{align*}
Here we have employed the inequality $\ip{D_xV(z,w) - D_x V(z',w), z - z'}_2 \geq c \norm{z - z'}_2^2$ coming from the uniform convexity of $V$ as well as the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. This implies that
\[
2 \phi'(t) \phi(t) = \partial_t [\phi(t)^2] \leq -c \phi(t)^2 + C \norm*{y - y'} \phi(t).
\]
Thus, $\phi'(t) \leq -(c/2) \phi(t) + (C/2) \norm*{y - y'}$, so that $\partial_t[e^{ct/2} \phi(t)] \leq (C/2) e^{ct/2} \norm*{y - y'}_2$. This implies that
\[
e^{ct/2} \phi(t) - \phi(0) \leq \frac{C}{c} (e^{ct/2} - 1) \norm*{y - y'}_2.
\]
But $\phi(t) = \norm*{W_t(x,y) - W_t(x',y')}_2$ and $\phi(0) = \norm*{x - x'}_2$. Hence,
\[
\norm*{W_t(x,y) - W_t(x',y')}_2 \leq e^{-ct/2} \norm*{x - x'}_2 + \frac{C}{c}(1 - e^{-ct/2}) \norm*{y - y'}_2.
\]
This proves both estimates of (1).
(2) This is immediate since $S_t f(x,y) = f(W_t(x,y),y)$, as in \cite[Lemma 4.4 (5)]{Jekel2018}.
(3) Note that
\begin{align*}
\norm*{S_t f(x,y) - S_t f(x,y')}_2 &= \norm*{f(W_t(x,y),y) - f(W_t(x,y'),y')}_2 \\
&\leq \norm*{f(W_t(x,y),y) - f(W_t(x,y),y')}_2 + \norm*{f(W_t(x,y),y') - f(W_t(x,y'),y')}_2 \\
&\leq \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dy} \norm*{y - y'}_2 + \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dx} \norm*{W_t(x,y) - W_t(x,y')}_2 \\
&\leq \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dy} \norm*{y - y'}_2 + \frac{C}{c}(1 - e^{-ct/2}) \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dx} \norm*{y - y'}_2.
\end{align*}
(4) This follows from basic properties of convolution of a function with a probability measure.
(5) By iterating the estimates (2) and (4), we obtain $\norm*{T_{t,\ell} f}_{\Lip,dx} \leq e^{-ct/2} \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dx}$. Then by Proposition \ref{prop:diffusionsemigroup} (2) and (3) we may take $\ell \to \infty$ and then extend to all real values of $t \geq 0$.
(6) First, consider $T_{t,\ell}$ for a dyadic rational $t = n / 2^\ell$. Denote $\delta = 2^{-\ell}$. For $j = 0$, \dots, $n-1$, we have
\begin{align*}
\norm*{T_{(j+1)\delta,\ell}f}_{\Lip,dy} &= \norm*{P_\delta S_\delta T_{j \delta,\ell} f}_{\Lip,dy} \\
&\leq \norm*{S_\delta T_{j \delta,\ell} f}_{\Lip,dy} \\
&\leq \norm*{T_{j \delta,\ell} f}_{\Lip,dy} + \frac{C}{c}(1 - e^{-c\delta/2}) \norm*{T_{j \delta, \ell} f}_{\Lip,dx},
\end{align*}
where the last inequality follows from (3). Therefore, by induction
\begin{align*}
\norm*{T_{t,\ell} f}_{\Lip,dy} &= \norm*{T_{n\delta,\ell} f}_{\Lip,dy} \\
&\leq \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dy} + \frac{C}{c}(1 - e^{-c\delta/2}) \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \norm*{T_{j\delta,\ell} f}_{\Lip,dx} \\
&\leq \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dy} + \frac{C}{c}(1 - e^{-c \delta/2}) \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} e^{-c\delta j / 2} \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dx} \\
&= \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dy} + \frac{C}{c}(1 - e^{-ct/2}) \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dx}.
\end{align*}
In light of Proposition \ref{prop:diffusionsemigroup} (1), we can take $\ell \to \infty$ and conclude that $\norm*{T_t f}_{\Lip,dy} \leq \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dy} + (C/c)(1 - e^{-ct/2}) \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dx}$ for dyadic rational $t$. This inequality can then be extended to all real $t \geq 0$ by Proposition \ref{prop:diffusionsemigroup} (2).
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:conditionalexpectationLipschitz}
Let $f: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times M_N(\C)_{sa}^n \to M_N(\C)$ be Lipschitz with respect to $\norm*{\cdot}_2$. Let $g(y) = \int f(x,y)\,d\mu(x|y)$. Then $g$ is Lipschitz with
\[
\norm*{g}_{\Lip} \leq (1 + C/c) \norm*{f}_{\Lip}.
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By the previous lemma,
\begin{align*}
\norm*{T_t f}_{\Lip,dy} &\leq \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dy} + \frac{C}{c}(1 - e^{-ct/2}) \norm*{f}_{\Lip,dx} \\
&\leq \norm*{f}_{\Lip} + \frac{C}{c} \norm*{f}_{\Lip}.
\end{align*}
As $t \to \infty$, we have $T_t f(x,y) \to g(y)$ by Proposition \ref{prop:diffusionsemigroup} (5). Hence, $\norm*{g}_{\Lip} \leq (1 + C/c) \norm*{f}_{\Lip}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Asymptotic Approximation and Convergence} \label{subsec:relativediffusion2}
Let $V^{(N)}$ and $\mu^{(N)}$ be as in Theorem \ref{thm:conditionalexpectation}, let $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$ be a random variable with distribution $\mu^{(N)}$. Let $\mu^{(N)}(x|y)$ denote the conditional distribution of $X^{(N)}$ given $Y^{(N)}$.
Let $P_t^{(N)}$, $S_t^{(N)}$, and $T_t^{(N)}$ be the semigroups acting on Lipschitz functions defined as in \S \ref{subsec:relativediffusion} with respect to the potential $V^{(N)}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:diffusionAATP}
With the notation above, suppose that $f^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)$, that $f^{(N)}$ is $K$-Lipschitz for every $N$, and that $f^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\{P_t^{(N)} f^{(N)}\}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials.
\item $\{S_t^{(N)} f^{(N)}\}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials.
\item $\{T_t^{(N)} f^{(N)}\}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(1) We proved in Lemma \ref{lem:Gaussianconvolution} that $P_t^{(N)}$ preserves asymptotic approximability by trace polynomials.
(2) Recall that $S_t^{(N)} f^{(N)}(x,y) = f^{(N)}(W_t^{(N)}(x,y),y)$, where
\begin{align*}
W_0^{(N)}(x,y) &= x \\
\partial_t W_t^{(N)}(x,y) &= -\frac{1}{2} D_x V^{(N)}(W_t(x,y),y).
\end{align*}
Now $D_xV^{(N)}(x,y)$ is $C$-Lipschitz in $(x,y)$, asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, and independent of $t$, and thus it satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield2}, so by Proposition \ref{prop:ODE2}, $W_t^{(N)}(x,y)$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials (here we rely on Lemma \ref{lem:AATP} that asymptotic approximability is equivalent to being asymptotic to some element of $\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1$). Then because $f^{(N)}$ is $K$-Lipschitz in $(x,y)$, Lemma \ref{lem:composition} implies asymptotic approximability of $f^{(N)}(W_t^{(N)}(x,y),y)$.
(3) Let $T_{t,\ell}^{(N)} = (P_{2^{-\ell}}^{(N)} S_{2^{-\ell}}^{(N)})^n$ whenever $t = n 2^{-\ell}$. From (1) and (2), it follows that $T_{t,\ell}^{(N)} f^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials. Now for each dyadic $t$, Proposition \ref{prop:diffusionsemigroup} (1) shows that $T_{t,\ell}^{(N)} f^{(N)} \to T_t^{(N)} f^{(N)}$ uniformly on $\norm*{\cdot}_2$-balls (and hence on $\norm*{\cdot}_\infty$). Therefore, by Lemma \ref{lem:limits}, $T_t^{(N)} f^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials. Then we extend this property from dyadic $t$ to all real $t$ using Proposition \ref{prop:diffusionsemigroup} (2) and Lemma \ref{lem:limits}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:conditionalexpectation}]
Let $f^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \to M_N(\C)$ be $K$-Lipschitz and asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials. Let
\[
g^{(N)}(y) = \int f^{(N)}(x,y) \,d\mu^{(N)}(x|y)
\]
We showed in Corollary \ref{cor:conditionalexpectationLipschitz} that $g^{(N)}$ is Lipschitz with $\norm*{g^{(N)}}_{\Lip} \leq (1 + C/c) \norm*{f^{(N)}}_{\Lip}$. We know that $T_t^{(N)} f^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials in $(x,y)$. By Proposition \ref{prop:diffusionsemigroup} (5), we have $T_t^{(N)} f^{(N)}(x,y) \to g^{(N)}(x,y)$ as $t \to \infty$, with the error bounded by
\[
e^{-ct/2} \left( 4\frac{C}{c^2} (6 + 5 \sqrt{2}) t^{-1/2} + \frac{2}{c} \norm*{D_x V(x,y)}_2 \right) \norm{f^{(N)}}_{\Lip}.
\]
Given that $\{DV^{(N)}\}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, $\norm*{D_x V}_{u,R}^{(N)}$ is bounded as $N \to \infty$. This implies that the rate of convergence of $T_t^{(N)} f^{(N)}(x,y) \to g^{(N)}(x,y)$ as $t \to \infty$ is uniform on $\norm*{(x,y)}_\infty \leq R$ and independent of $N$. So by Lemma \ref{lem:limits}, $g^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials of $(x,y)$. Yet $g^{(N)}$ is independent of $x$, and so we may approximate $g^{(N)}(y)$ by evaluating these trace polynomials at $(0,y)$, which reduces them to trace polynomials of $y$.
Since $g^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, let $g \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ such that $g^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow g$. Then it remains to show that $g(Y) = E_{\mathrm{W}^*(Y)}[f(X,Y)]$, where $(X,Y)$ are non-commutative random variables for the free Gibbs law $\lambda$ as in the theorem statement. It suffices to check that
\[
\tau(\phi(Y) g(Y)) = \tau(\phi(Y) f(X,Y))
\]
whenever $\phi$ is a non-commutative polynomial. But using Corollary \ref{cor:convergenceofexpectation},
\begin{align*}
\tau(\phi(Y) g(Y)) &= \lim_{N \to \infty} E[\tau_N(\phi(Y^{(N)}) g^{(N)}(Y))] \\
&= \lim_{N \to \infty} E[\tau_N(\phi(Y^{(N)}) f^{(N)}(X^{(N)}Y^{(N)}))] \\
&= \tau(\phi(Y) f(X,Y)). \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
We showed in \S \ref{subsec:heatsemigroup} that $P_t^{(N)}$ has a large $N$ limit $P_t^{\TrP}$ acting on $\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1$. Similarly, the results of \S \ref{subsec:vectorfields} imply that $S_t^{(N)}$ has a large $N$ limit $S_t^{\TrP}$ acting on $\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1$. This implies that the semigroup $T_t^{(N)}$ also has a large $N$ limit $T_t^{\TrP}$ in light of Proposition \ref{prop:diffusionsemigroup} (1) and (2) and Lemma \ref{lem:limits}. Future research should investigate in what sense $F(x,t) = T_t^{\TrP}f(x)$ would solve the differential equation
\[
\partial_t F = \frac{1}{2} L_x F - \frac{1}{2} (J_xF)^* (D_x V),
\]
where $V$ is the large $N$ limit of $\{V^{(N)}\}$ and $J_xF$ is the Jacobian matrix of $F$ with respect to the variable $x$.
\end{remark}
\section{Conditional Entropy and Fisher's Information} \label{sec:entropy}
In this section, we show that for random matrix models satisfying Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM}, the conditional (classical) entropy $h(X^{(N)} | Y^{(N)})$ converges to the conditional non-microstates free entropy $\chi^*(X | Y)$ (also known as $\chi^*(X: \mathrm{W}^*(Y))$).
\subsection{Conditional Entropy and Fisher's Information in the Classical Setting}
We refer to \cite[\S 3]{Voiculescu2002} and \cite[\S 5]{Jekel2018} for background on classical entropy and Fisher's information and motivation for the free case. The conditional setting is more technical, and we will state several standard results without proof, since the proofs in the non-conditional case were repeated in some detail in \cite{Jekel2018}.
Recall that the classical entropy of a random variable $X$ in $\R^m$ with probability density $\rho$ is $h(X) = -\int \rho \log \rho$. Similarly, if $(X,Y)$ is a random variable in $\R^m \times \R^n$ with density $\rho_{X,Y}(x,y)$, then the \emph{conditional entropy} $h(X|Y)$ is defined by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:classicalentropy}
h(X | Y) = \int_{\R^n} \int_{\R^m} \rho_{X|Y}(x|y) \log \rho_{X|Y}(x|y)\,dx \rho_Y(y)\,dy = \int_{\R^n \times \R^m} (\log \rho_{X|Y}(x|y)) \rho(x,y)\,dx\,dy,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_Y$ is the marginal density
\[
\rho_Y(y) = \int_{\R^m} \rho_{X,Y}(x,y)\,dx
\]
and $\rho_{X|Y}$ is the conditional density
\[
\rho_{X|Y}(x|y) = \frac{\rho_{X,Y}(x,y)}{\rho_Y(y)} \text{ defined when } \rho_Y(y) > 0.
\]
It is a standard fact that if $X$ has finite variance, then $h(X|Y)$ is well-defined. The proof for the non-conditional entropy $h(X)$ was reviewed in \cite[Lemma 5.1]{Jekel2018}, and the conditional case can be handled similarly.
The \emph{conditional Fisher information} given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:classicalFisherinfo}
\mathcal{I}(X|Y) = \int_{\R^m \times \R^n} \left| \frac{\nabla_x \rho_{X|Y}(x|y)}{\rho_{X|Y}(x|y)} \right|^2 \rho_{X,Y}(x,y)\,dx\,dy,
\end{equation}
whenever the right hand side makes sense and $\infty$ otherwise. It describes the rate of change of $h(X+t^{1/2}S | Y)$, where $S$ is a Gaussian random variable in $\R^m$ with covariance matrix $I$ independent of $(X,Y)$. Knowing that the density $\rho_{X+t^{1/2}S,Y}$ satisfies the heat equation
\[
\partial_t \rho_{X+t^{1/2}S,Y} = \frac{1}{2} \Delta_x \rho_{X+t^{1/2}S,Y},
\]
one can show that $\mathcal{I}(X + t^{1/2}S | Y)$ is well-defined and finite for $t > 0$ and that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:classicalentropyrateofchange}
\frac{d}{dt} h(X + t^{1/2} S | Y) = \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{I}(X + t^{1/2} S | Y).
\end{equation}
The Fisher information is the $L^2$ norm of the ($\R^m$-valued) random variable $\Xi$ given by evaluating the \emph{score function} $-\nabla_x \rho_{X|Y} / \rho_{X|Y}$ on the random variable $(X,Y)$, provided that this random variable is in $L^2$. In this case, the random variable $\Xi$ is known as the \emph{score function} for $X$ given $Y$, and it is the unique element of $L^2$ satisfying the integration-by-parts relation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:integrationbyparts}
E[\Xi f(X,Y)] = E[ \nabla_x f(X,Y) ] \text{ for all } f \in C_c^\infty(\R^m \times \R^n).
\end{equation}
More generally, if there exists a random variable $\Xi$ in $L^2$ satisfying this integration-by-parts formula, then we define the conditional Fisher information to be $\mathcal{I}(X|Y) = E |\Xi|^2$ (and this extends our previous definition of $\mathcal{I}(X|Y)$). Otherwise, $\mathcal{I}(X|Y)$ is defined to be $\infty$.
In light of the integration-by-parts characterization, score functions behave well under conditionally independent sums. The following lemma is proved in the same way as the non-conditional case (see \cite[Lemma 5.6]{Jekel2018}) and the free case (see \cite[Proposition 3.7]{VoiculescuFE5}).
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:xiconditionalexpectation}
Let $Y$ be a random variable in $\R^n$ and let $X_1$ and $X_2$ be random variables in $\R^m$ that are conditionally independent given $Y$. Suppose that $\Xi$ is a score function for $X_1$ given $Y$. Then $E[\Xi| X_1 + X_2, Y]$ is a score function for $X_1 + X_2$ given $Y$. Hence,
\[
\mathcal{I}(X_1+X_2|Y) \leq \mathcal{I}(X_1 | Y).
\]
In particular, this holds if $X_2$ is independent from $(X_1,Y)$ or $X_1$ is independent of $(X_2,Y)$.
\end{lemma}
Score functions also scale in the following way. The proof is straightforward from the integration-by-parts relation.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:xiscaling}
If $\Xi$ is a score function for $X$ given $Y$ and $t > 0$, then $(1/t) \Xi$ is a score function for $tX$ given $Y$, and hence $\mathcal{I}(tX | Y) = t^{-2} \mathcal{I}(X|Y)$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Random Matrix Renormalization} \label{subsec:matrixentropy}
Suppose that $(X,Y)$ is a random variable in $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times M_N(\C)_{sa}^n$ with density $\rho_{X,Y}$. The trace on $M_N(\C)_{sa}$ produces a real inner product. But to study the large $N$ limit, we use the normalized trace $\tau_N = (1/N) \Tr$. The corresponding normalized Gaussian is the GUE ensemble $S = (S_1,\dots,S_m)$ where $S_j$ has variance $1$ with respect to $\tau_N$. We use the following renormalized entropy, which is motivated by computation of the Gaussian case and by \eqref{eq:normalizedentropyrateofchange} below,
\[
h^{(N)}(X|Y) = \frac{1}{N^2} h(X|Y) + \frac{m}{2} \log N.
\]
Due to the normalization of Gaussian, the evolution of the density for $(X + t^{1/2} S, Y)$ is given by the renormalized heat equation
\[
\partial_t \rho_{X+t^{1/2}S, Y} = \frac{1}{2N} \Delta \rho_{X+t^{1/2}S,Y}.
\]
This results in
\begin{equation} \label{eq:normalizedentropyrateofchange}
\partial_t h^{(N)}(X + t^{1/2} S | Y) = \frac{1}{2N^3} \mathcal{I}(X + t^{1/2}S | Y) =: \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X+t^{1/2}S | Y),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X|Y) := N^{-3} \mathcal{I}(X|Y)$, assuming that $X$ has finite variance and $t > 0$.
Another heuristic for the normalization $\mathcal{I}^{(N)} = N^{-3} \mathcal{I}$ comes from analyzing the case where $(X,Y)$ have density $(1/Z) e^{-N^2 V(x,y)}\,dx\,dy$ where $V$ is uniformly convex and semi-concave. Indeed, in this case, the classical score function for $X$ given $Y$ is $-N^2 \nabla_x V(X,Y)$. Recall that $D_x V = N \nabla_x V$ is the gradient of $V$ with respect to the normalized inner product $\ip{\cdot,\cdot}_2$. Thus,
\[
\frac{1}{N^3} \mathcal{I}(X|Y) = \frac{1}{N} E \norm{N \nabla_x V(X,Y)}_{\Tr}^2 = E \norm{D_x V(X,Y)}_2^2
\]
is a dimension-independent normalization. Furthermore, the normalized score function $\xi = (1/N) \Xi$ (which would be $D_x V(X,Y)$ in the case where the law is given by a potential $V$) satisfies the integration-by-parts relation
\[
E \ip{\xi_j, f(X,Y)}_2 = E \frac{1}{N^2} \Div_{x_j} f(X,Y),
\]
where $\xi = (\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m)$ and where $\Div$ is the divergence with respect to the classical coordinates (not normalized). But if $f$ is a non-commutative polynomial, then
\[
\frac{1}{N^2} \Div_{x_j} f(x,y) = \frac{1}{N^2} \Tr \otimes \Tr (\partial_{x_j} f(x,y)) = \tau_N \otimes \tau_N(\partial_{x_j} f(x,y)),
\]
where $\partial_{x_j}$ denotes the non-commutative derivative or free difference quotient with respect to $x_j$. Thus, applying the integration-by-parts relation to non-commutative polynomials results in the dimension-independent relation
\[
E \ip{\xi_j, f(X,Y)}_2 = \sum_{j=1}^m E[\tau_N \otimes \tau_N(\partial_{x_j} f(x,y))]
\]
that characterizes the normalized score function.
As a consequence of \eqref{eq:normalizedentropyrateofchange}, $h^{(N)}(X|Y)$ can be recovered by integrating $\mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X+t^{1/2}S | Y)$ and modifying the integral to converge at $\infty$. This results in
\begin{equation} \label{eq:normalizedentropyformula}
h^{(N)}(X|Y) = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \left( \frac{m}{1 + t} - \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X + t^{1/2}S | Y) \right)\,dt + \frac{m}{2} \log 2\pi e
\end{equation}
provided that $(X,Y)$ has a density $\rho_{X,Y}$ and that $X$ has finite variance. The proof is similar to \cite[Lemma 5.7]{Jekel2018}. Convergence of the integral at $\infty$ can be deduced from the following estimate, and it also shows convergence of the integral at $0$ if $\mathcal{I}(X|Y)$ is finite. Compare \cite[Corollary 6.14 and Remark 6.15]{VoiculescuFE5} and \cite[Lemma 5.7]{Jekel2018}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:Fisherestimates}
Let $(X,Y)$ be a random variable in $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times M_N(\C)_{sa}^n$ such that $a = (1/m) \sum_{j=1}^m E[\tau_N(X_j^2)] < \infty$, and let $S$ be an independent GUE $m$-tuple. Then
\[
\frac{m}{a + t} \leq \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X + t^{1/2} S | Y) \leq \min \left( \frac{m}{t}, \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X|Y) \right).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We observe that $\xi_t = E[t^{-1/2} S | X + t^{1/2} S, Y]$ is a normalized score function for $X + t^{1/2} S$ given $Y$ by Lemma \ref{lem:xiconditionalexpectation}. This yields $\mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X + t^{1/2} S | Y) \leq m / t$. On the other hand, if $\xi$ is a normalized score function for $X$ given $Y$, we also have $\xi_t = E[\xi | X + t^{1/2} S, Y]$, which yields the upper bound $\mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X|Y)$. The lower bound follows from observing $(E \norm{\xi_t}_2^2)^{1/2} (E \norm{X + t^{1/2}S}_2^2)^{1/2} \geq E \ip{\xi_t, X + t^{1/2} S}_2$ and evaluating the right hand side using integration by parts.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Convergence to Conditional Free Entropy}
Motivated by the normalized entropy and Fisher's information in the previous section, Voiculescu defined the free versions as follows. Let $(X,Y)$ be an $(m+n)$-tuple of self-adjoint non-commutative random variables in a tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra $(\mathcal{M},\tau)$. We say that $\xi = (\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m) \in L^2(\mathcal{M},\tau)_{sa}^m$ is a \emph{free score function for $X$ given $Y$} (also known as a \emph{conjugate variable}) if for every non-commutative polynomial $f(X,Y)$, we have
\[
\tau(\xi_j f(X,Y)) = \tau \otimes \tau(\partial_{x_j} f(X,Y)).
\]
The \emph{free Fisher information} $\Phi^*(X|Y)$ is defined to be $\norm{\xi}_2^2$ if such a $\xi$ exists, and $\infty$ otherwise. The \emph{non-microstates free entropy} $\chi^*(X|Y)$ is defined to be
\begin{equation} \label{eq:definechi*}
\chi^*(X|Y) = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \left( \frac{m}{1 + t} - \Phi^*(X + t^{1/2}S | Y) \right)\,dt + \frac{m}{2} \log 2\pi e.
\end{equation}
Convergence of the integral at $\infty$ follows from the free analogue of Lemma \ref{lem:Fisherestimates}, so that $\chi^*(X | Y)$ is well-defined in $[-\infty,\infty)$ whenever $X$ has finite variance.
\begin{remark}
Voiculescu's original notation in \cite[\S 7]{VoiculescuFE5} was $\chi^*(X: \mathrm{W}^*(Y))$ rather than $\chi^*(X | Y)$, since the definition of the free score function can be rephrased so as to depend only on $\mathrm{W}^*(Y)$ rather than $Y$.
However, we prefer to write $\chi^*(X | Y)$ instead by analogy with the classical case, using the vertical bar to denote ``conditioning.'' This avoids potential confusion with the notation $\chi(X:Y)$ for microstates entropy of $X$ in the presence of $Y$ used in \cite[\S 1]{VoiculescuFE3}.
\end{remark}
The following lemma gives sufficient conditions for classical Fisher information for random matrix models to converge to free Fisher information. The main hypotheses are that the non-commutative laws converge, the score functions $D_x V^{(N)}$ for the $N \times N$ matrix models are asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, and some mild growth conditions on score functions and probability measures as $\norm{(x,y)}_\infty \to \infty$. We omit the proof since it is a direct adaptation of the proof of \cite[Proposition 5.10]{Jekel2018}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:convergenceofFisherinfo}
Let $V^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \to \R$ be a potential with $\int_{M_N(\C)^{m+n}} e^{-N^2 V^{(N)}(x,y)}\,dx\,dy < +\infty$, let $\mu^{(N)}$ be the associated probability density, and let $(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$ be a random variable distributed according to $\mu^{(N)}$. Let $(X,Y)$ be an $(m+n)$-tuple of self-adjoint non-commutative random variables in the tracial $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra $(\mathcal{M},\tau)$. Assume that:
\begin{enumerate}[(A)]
\item The non-commutative law of $(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$ with respect to $\tau_N$ converges in probability to the non-commutative law of $(X,Y)$.
\item $D_x V^{(N)}$ is defined and continuous, and the sequence $\{D_x V^{(N)}\}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, and hence $D_x V^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow g \in (\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1)_{sa}^m$.
\item For some $k \geq 0$ and $a, b > 0$, we have
\[
\norm{D_x V^{(N)}(x,y)}_2^2 \leq a + b \norm{(x,y)}_\infty^k
\]
\item There exists $R_0 > 0$ such that
\[
\lim_{N \to \infty} E \left[ \mathbf{1}_{\norm{(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})}_\infty \geq R_0} \left(1 + \norm{(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})}_\infty^k \right) \right] = 0.
\]
\end{enumerate}
Then $\mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X|Y)$ is finite. Moreover, $g(X,Y)$ is in $L^2(\mathcal{M},\tau)$ and it is the free score function for $X$ given $Y$, and we have
\[
\mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X|Y) = E[\norm{D_x V^{(N)}(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})}_2^2] \to \norm{g(X,Y)}_2^2 = \Phi^*(X|Y).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:convergenceofentropy}
Let $V^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times M_N(\C)_{sa}^n \to \R$ satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} for some $0 < c \leq C$. Let $\mu^{(N)}$ be the corresponding measure, let $X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}$ be random variables chosen according to $\mu^{(N)}$, and let $S^{(N)}$ be an independent $m$-tuple of GUE matrices.
Let $X = (X_1,\dots,X_m)$ and $Y = (Y_1,\dots,Y_n)$ be non-commutative random variables with non-commutative law $\mu = \mu_V$, and let $S$ be a freely independent free semicircular $m$-tuple. Then for every $t \geq 0$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:convergenceofFisherinfo}
\Phi^*(X + t^{1/2} S | Y) = \lim_{N \to \infty} \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)} | Y^{(N)})
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:convergenceofentropy}
\chi^*(X + t^{1/2} S | Y) = \lim_{N \to \infty} h^{(N)}(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)} | Y^{(N)}).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We want to show that the law of $(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$ satisfies the assumptions of Lemma \ref{lem:convergenceofFisherinfo} for each $t \geq 0$. The joint law of $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)},S^{(N)})$ is given by the convex potential $U^{(N)}(x,y,s) = V(x,y) + (1/2) \norm{s}_2^2$. Now $U^{(N)}$ satisfies $\min(c,1) \leq HU^{(N)} \leq \max(C,1)$ and $DU^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials. Thus, the law of $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)},S^{(N)})$ has a large $N$ limit given by Theorem \ref{thm:freeGibbslaw}. In fact, the large $N$ limit must be non-commutative law of $(X,Y,S)$ because of Voiculescu's asymptotic freeness theorem \cite{Voiculescu1998} and because the non-commutative law of $S^{(N)}$ converges to the non-commutative law of $S$. (Alternatively, this could be proved the same way as \cite[Lemma 7.4]{Jekel2018}.)
Since the non-commutative law of $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)},S^{(N)})$ converges in probability to that of $(X,Y,S)$, the non-commutative law of $(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$ converges in probability to that of $(X + t^{1/2}S,Y)$, and thus (A) of Lemma \ref{lem:convergenceofFisherinfo} holds. Moreover, Lemma \ref{lem:epsilonnet} shows that
\[
P(\norm{(X^{(N)} - E(X^{(N)}),Y^{(N)} - E(Y^{(N)}),S^{(N)})}_\infty \geq \min(1,c)^{-1/2} (\Theta + \delta)) \leq e^{-N \delta^2/2}.
\]
From this it is not hard to show that $(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$ satisfies (D).
It remains to check (B) and (C). The potential for $(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$ is given by
\[
W_t^{(N)}(\tilde{x},y,s) = U^{(N)}(\tilde{x} - t^{1/2} s, y, s),
\]
which follows by applying the change of variables formula for the density. Here we write $\tilde{x}$ to emphasize that this variable corresponds to $X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)}$ rather than $X^{(N)}$. Note that $W_t^{(N)}$ is uniformly convex and semi-concave since it is the composition of $U^{(N)}$ with an invertible linear transformation. Also,
\[
DW_t^{(N)}(\tilde{x},y,s) = (DV^{(N)}(\tilde{x}-t^{1/2}s,y), s - t^{1/2} D_xV^{(N)}(\tilde{x}-t^{1/2}s,y))
\]
is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials. The potential corresponding to $(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$ is
\[
V_t^{(N)}(\tilde{x},y) = -\frac{1}{N^2} \log \int e^{-N^2 W_t^{(N)}(\tilde{x},y,s)}\,ds.
\]
Since $W_t^{(N)}$ is uniformly convex, the integrand vanishes rapidly at $\infty$, and thus it is straightforward to differentiate under the integral by dominated convergence, and deduce that $V_t^{(N)}$ is continuously differentiable. Furthermore,
\[
DV_t^{(N)}(\tilde{x},y) e^{-N^2 V_t^{(N)}(\tilde{x},y)} = \int DW_t^{(N)}(\tilde{x},y,s) e^{-N^2W_t^{(N)}(\tilde{x},y,s)} \,ds,
\]
so that
\[
DV_t^{(N)}(\tilde{x},y) = \frac{\int DW_t^{(N)}(\tilde{x},y,s) e^{-N^2W_t^{(N)}(\tilde{x},y,s)} \,ds}{\int e^{-N^2W_t^{(N)}(\tilde{x},y,s)} \,ds},
\]
or in other words $DV_t^{(N)}$ is given by the conditional expectation
\begin{align} \label{eq:xiconditionalexpectation2}
DV_t^{(N)}(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)},Y^{(N)}) &= E\left[D_{(x,y)} W_t^{(N)}(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)},Y^{(N)},S^{(N)}) \bigl| X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)} \right] \\
&= E\left[DV^{(N)}(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}) \bigl| X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)} \right]. \nonumber
\end{align}
Now we apply Theorem \ref{thm:conditionalexpectation} using the potential $W_t^{(N)}$ and conditioning on $(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$ to conclude conclude that $DV_t^{(N)}(\tilde{x},y)$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, which establishes (B).
Furthermore, Theorem \ref{thm:conditionalexpectation} implies that
\[
\norm{DV_t^{(N)}}_{\Lip} \leq (1 + C/c) \norm{D_{(x,y)}W_t^{(N)}}_{\Lip} \leq (1 + C/c)(1 + t^{1/2}) \norm{DV^{(N)}}_{\Lip} \leq (1 + C/c)(1 + t^{1/2}) C.
\]
This implies that (C) of Lemma \ref{lem:convergenceofFisherinfo} holds with $k = 1$, using Remark \ref{rem:UCgrowthbound}.
Therefore, we may apply Lemma \ref{lem:convergenceofFisherinfo} to $(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$ to obtain that \eqref{eq:convergenceofFisherinfo} holds for every $t \geq 0$, that is,
\[
\lim_{N \to \infty} \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)} | Y^{(N)}) \to \Phi^*(X+t^{1/2}S | Y).
\]
For the second claim \eqref{eq:convergenceofentropy} regarding $h^{(N)}$ and $\chi^*$, it remains to show that
\[
\lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \left( \frac{m}{1 + t} - \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X + t^{1/2}S | Y) \right)\,dt = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \left( \frac{m}{1 + t} - \Phi^*(X + t^{1/2}S | Y) \right)\,dt.
\]
We just showed the integrand converges pointwise. But we can take the limit inside the integral by the dominated convergence theorem, because by Lemma \ref{lem:Fisherestimates}, we have
\[
\frac{m}{a + t} \leq \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)} | Y^{(N)}) \leq \min \left( \frac{m}{t}, \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X^{(N)}|Y^{(N)}) \right),
\]
and we also know that $\mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X^{(N)} | Y^{(N)})$ is bounded as $N \to \infty$ because it converges to $\Phi^*(X|Y)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Of course, \eqref{eq:xiconditionalexpectation2} leads to the same conclusion as Lemma \ref{lem:xiconditionalexpectation}. Indeed, $\xi_t = D_x V_t^{(N)}(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2}S^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$ is the score function for $X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)}$, and Lemma \ref{lem:xiconditionalexpectation} says that $\xi_t$ is the conditional expectation of $\xi_0 = D_x V^{(N)}(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$ given $X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)}$ and $Y^{(N)}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} \label{rem:simplifiedentropyproof}
In \cite[\S 7]{Jekel2018}, we did not use the conditional expectation method to prove $DV_t^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, but rather we analyzed the evolution of $DV_t^{(N)}$ directly using PDE semigroups. The proof given here for convergence of entropy is thus considerably shorter. However, our results on the evolution of $DV_t^{(N)}$ will come in handy for our construction of transport in the next section.
\end{remark}
\section{Conditional Transport to Gaussian} \label{sec:transport}
In this section, we prove our main results about transport (Theorems \ref{thm:transport1} and \ref{thm:transport2}). Suppose that $V^{(N)}(x,y)$ is a potential as in Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM}, $\mu^{(N)}$ is the corresponding probability distribution and that $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$ is a random variable with this law. Let $S^{(N)}$ be an independent $m$-tuple of GUE matrices. Let $\mu_t^{(N)}$ be the law of $(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$.
The evolution of the potential $V_t^{(N)}$ corresponding to $\mu_t^{(N)}$ was studied in \cite{Jekel2018}, and in particular, we established a dimension-independent way to obtain $DV_t^{(N)}$ from $DV^{(N)}$ using operations that preserve asymptotic approximability by trace polynomials. By solving an ODE in terms of $DV_t^{(N)}$, we will obtain transport maps $F_{s,t}^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ such that
\[
(F_{s,t}^{(N)}(X^{(N)} + t^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}), Y^{(N)}) \sim (X^{(N)} + s^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}).
\]
Upon renormalizing and taking the limit as $s$ or $t$ goes to $\infty$, we obtain transport to the law of $(S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$.
To make each part of the proof more computationally tractable, we proceed in stages. Up until \S \ref{subsec:largeNtransport}, we fix $N$ (and thus suppress it in the notation). First, in \S \ref{subsec:basictransport}, we describe the basic construction of transport for functions of $x$ alone (imagining that we have frozen the variable $y$). In \S \ref{subsec:conditionalHJB}, we describe the properties of $V_t^{(N)}(x,y)$. Next, \S \ref{subsec:Lipschitztransport} proves Lipschitz estimates for the transport maps $F_{s,t}^{(N)}(x,y)$.
In \S \ref{subsec:largeTtransport}, we introduce renormalized transport maps $\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}$ that transport $\tilde{\mu}_t$ to $\tilde{\mu}_s$, where $\tilde{\mu}_t$ is the law of $(e^{-t/2} X^{(N)} + e^{-t/2}(e^t - 1)^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$. The renormalized transport map $\tilde{F}_{s,t}$ is the same one used by Otto and Villani in their proof of the Talagrand transportation-entropy inequality \cite[\S 4, proof of Lemma 2]{OV2000}, in the special case where the target measure is Gaussian (and generalized to the conditional setting). We will explain this inequality further in \S \ref{subsec:entropycost}.
The new element in our paper is the analysis of the large $t$ and large $N$ limits of the transport maps. In \S \ref{subsec:largeTtransport}, we show that the limit as $s$ or $t$ tends to $\infty$ exists. Then in \S \ref{subsec:largeNtransport}, we use the machinery of asymptotic approximation by trace polynomials to study the large $N$ limit of $\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}$. In order to get dimension-independent estimates for convergence as $s$ or $t$ tends to $\infty$, we conduct a finer analysis of convexity properties of $V_t$ and Lipschitz properties of $\tilde{F}_{s,t}$. It is convenient to carry out the earlier stages of this analysis in \S \ref{subsec:conditionalHJB} and \S \ref{subsec:Lipschitztransport} for $F_{s,t}$ rather than $\tilde{F}_{s,t}$.
\subsection{Basic Construction of Transport} \label{subsec:basictransport}
In this section, we will fix $N$ and fix a function $V: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ in $\mathcal{E}_{c,C}$ for some $0 < c < C$. Later, we will allow $V$ to depend on $N$ and to depend on another self-adjoint tuple $y$, but we prefer to simplify notation for the sake of carrying out the basic computation.
Let $\mu$ be the probability measure with density $(1/Z) e^{-N^2 V}$ where $Z = \int_{M_N(\C)_{sa}^m} e^{-N^2 V}$. We showed in \cite{Jekel2018} that the density of $\mu_t := \mu * \sigma_{t,N}$ is $(1/Z) e^{-N^2 V_t}$, where $V_t$ solves the equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:simpleHJB}
\partial_t V_t = \frac{1}{2N} \Delta V_t - \norm*{DV_t}_2^2.
\end{equation}
Because $(1/Z) e^{-N^2 V_t}$ solves the heat equation, we know that $V_t$ is a smooth function of $(x,t)$ for $t > 0$ and a continuous function of $(x,t)$ for $t \geq 0$. Moreover, $V_t \in \mathcal{E}(c(1+ct)^{-1},C(1+Ct)^{-1})$ for each $t$ as proved in Theorem 6.1 (1) of \cite{Jekel2018}.
Now we can describe explicit transport functions $F_{s,t}$ such that $(F_{s,t})_* \mu_s = \mu_t$ for all $s, t \in [0,+\infty)$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:basictransport1}
Let $V$, $\mu$, $V_t$, and $\mu_t$ be as above.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a unique family of functions $F_{s,t}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ for $0 \leq s \leq t < +\infty$ such that
\begin{align}
F_{t,t}(x) &= x \text{ for } t \in [0,+\infty) \label{eq:transportODE} \\
\partial_s F_{s,t}(x) &= \frac{1}{2} DV_s(F_{s,t}(x)) \text{ for } s, t \in [0,+\infty). \nonumber
\end{align}
\item $F_{t_1,t_2} \circ F_{t_2,t_3} = F_{t_1,t_3}$ and in particular $F_{t,s} = F_{s,t}^{-1}$.
\item $(F_{s,t})_* \mu_t = \mu_s$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(1) Because $V_s \in \mathcal{E}(c(1+cs)^{-1},C(t+Cs)^{-1})$, we know that $DV_s(x)$ is $C$-Lipschitz with respect to $\norm*{\cdot}_2$. Hence, given $t \in [0,+\infty)$, by the Picard-Lindel\"of theorem, the initial value problem \eqref{eq:transportODE} has a solution defined for all $s \in [0,+\infty)$.
(2) Fix $t_1$, $t_2$, and $t_3$ and fix $x \in M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$. Let $G(t)$ be the function defined by $G(t_3) = x$ and $\partial_t G(t) = DV_t(G(t))$. By definition of the functions $F_{s,t}$, we have $G(t_1) = F_{t_1,t_3}(x)$ and $G(t_2) = F_{t_2,t_3}(x)$. So $G$ also satisfies the initial value problem $\partial_t G(t) = DV_t(G(t))$ and $G(t_2) = F_{t_2,t_3}(x)$. Therefore, $G(t_1) = F_{t_1,t_2}(F_{t_2,t_3}(x))$, so that $F_{t_1,t_2}(F_{t_2,t_3}(x)) = F_{t_1,t_3}(x)$.
(3) We first prove the claim for $s, t > 0$. Because $V_s$ is smooth, it follows that $F_{s,t}$ is smooth for $s, t > 0$ by standard theory of smooth dependence for ODE. Let $JF_{s,t}$ denote the Jacobian linear transformation (differential) of $F_{s,t}$. Let $\rho_t = (1/Z)e^{-V_t}$ is the density of $\mu_t$. As a consequence of the change-of-variables formula for multivariable integrals, we see that the density of $(F_{s,t})_* \mu_t = (F_{t,s}^{-1})_* \mu_t$ is
\[
(\rho_t \circ F_{t,s}) |\det JF_{t,s}| = \frac{1}{Z} \exp\left[ -N^2\left(V_t \circ F_{t,s} - \frac{1}{N^2} \log |\det JF_{t,s}| \right) \right].
\]
Fix $s$. If $t = s$, then clearly this reduces to $\rho_s$. Therefore, it suffices to show that $(\rho_t \circ F_{t,s}) |\det JF_{t,s}|$ is a constant function of $t$, or equivalently that
\[
\partial_t \left[ V_t \circ F_{t,s} - \frac{1}{N^2} \log |\det JF_{t,s}| \right] = 0.
\]
Recalling smoothness $V_t$ and $F_{t,s}$ for $s, t > 0$ and using the differential equations \eqref{eq:simpleHJB} for $V_t$ and \eqref{eq:transportODE} for $F_{t,s}$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\partial_t[V_t \circ F_{t,s}] &= (\partial_t V_t) \circ F_{t,s} + \ip{DV_t(F_{t,s}), \partial_t F_{t,s}}_2 \\
&= \frac{1}{2N} \Delta V_t \circ F_{t,s} - \frac{1}{2} \norm*{DV_t(F_{t,s})}_2^2 + \frac{1}{2} \ip{DV_t(F_{t,s}), DV_t(F_{t,s})}_2 \\
&= \frac{1}{2N} \Delta V_t.
\end{align*}
Meanwhile, to compute $\partial_t \log |\det JF_{t,s}|$, note that for small $\epsilon \in \R$,
\[
JF_{t+\epsilon,s} = J(F_{t+\epsilon,t} \circ F_{t,s}) = JF_{t+\epsilon,t}(F_{t,s}) JF_{t,s},
\]
so that
\[
\log |\det JF_{t+\epsilon,s}| = \log |\det JF_{t,s}| + \log |\det JF_{t+\epsilon,t}(F_{t,s})|.
\]
Using smoothness,
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{d\epsilon} \bigr|_{\epsilon = 0} JF_{t+\epsilon,t} &= J \left( \frac{d}{d\epsilon} \bigr|_{\epsilon = 0} F_{t+\epsilon,t} \right) \\
&= \frac{1}{2} J(DV_t) = \frac{1}{2} N J(\nabla V_t),
\end{align*}
Since $JF_{t+\epsilon,t}$ becomes the identity when $\epsilon = 0$, we know that for small enough $\epsilon$, the linear transformation $JF_{t+\epsilon,t}$ has positive determinant and $\log JF_{t+\epsilon,t}$ is well-defined by power series, so that
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{d\epsilon} \Bigr|_{\epsilon = 0} \log |\det JF_{t+\epsilon,t} &= \frac{d}{d\epsilon} \bigr|_{\epsilon = 0} \Tr \log JF_{t+\epsilon,t} \\
&= \Tr \left( \frac{d}{d\epsilon} \Bigr|_{\epsilon = 0} JF_{t+\epsilon,t} \right) \\
&= \Tr( N(J \nabla V_t)) = \frac{1}{2} N \Delta V_t.
\end{align*}
Hence, $\partial_t \log |\det JF_{t,s}| = \frac{N}{2} \Delta V_t \circ F_{t,s}$. This implies that
\[
\partial_t \left[ V_t \circ F_{t,s} - \frac{1}{N^2} \log |\det JF_{t,s}| \right] = \frac{1}{2N} \Delta V_t - \frac{1}{N^2} \cdot \frac{N}{2} \Delta V_t \circ F_{t,s} = 0,
\]
completing the proof of the claim for $s, t > 0$. The equality $(F_{s,t})_* \mu_t = \mu_s$ extends to the case where $s$ or $t$ is zero because both sides depend continuously on $s$ and $t$ with respect to the weak topology on measures.
\end{proof}
In particular, the map $F_{0,t}$ transports $\mu_t = \mu * \sigma_{t,N}$ to the original law $\mu$. In other words, if $X \sim \mu$ and $S \sim \sigma_{1,N}$, then $F_{0,t}(X + t^{1/2}S) \sim X$ and $F_{t,0}(X) \sim X + t^{1/2} S$. This implies that $(1 + t)^{-1/2} F_{t,0}(X) \sim (1 + t)^{-1/2}(X + t^{1/2} S)$. This suggests that we can find a transport map from the law of $X$ to the law of $S$ as the large $t$ limit of $(1 + t)^{-1/2} F_{t,0}$. In the interest of efficiency, we postpone the details of this argument until after we introduce the dependence on the other set of parameters $y$.
\subsection{Conditional Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman Equation and Semigroups} \label{subsec:conditionalHJB}
Let us now fix $N$ and fix a potential $V: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times M_N(\C)_{sa}^n \to \R$ in $\mathcal{E}_{m+n}^{(N)}(c,C)$ for some $0 \leq c \leq C$. Let $\mu$ be the corresponding law and let $(X,Y)$ be a random variable in $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times M_N(\C)_{sa}^n$ distributed according to $\mu$. Let $\mu_t$ be the law of $(X + t^{1/2}S,Y)$, where $S$ is an independent tuple of independent GUE.
Our goal is to transport the law $\mu_s$ to the law $\mu_t$. Upon freezing the variable $y$, the methods of the previous section will produce a transport map $F_{s,t}(x,y)$ such that $F_{s,t}(\cdot,y)$ pushes forward the conditional distribution of $X + s^{1/2} S$ given $Y$ to the conditional distribution of $X + t^{1/2} S$ given $Y$. Specifically, $F_{s,t}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times M_N(\C)_{sa}^n \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ is the solution to the initial value problem
\begin{align*}
F_{t,t}(x,y) &= x, \\
\partial_s F_{s,t}(x,y) &= D_x V_s(F_{s,t}(x,y),y).
\end{align*}
Then $(F_{s,t}(X + t^{1/2} S, Y),Y) \sim (X+s^{1/2} S, Y)$.
We seek to understand the large $t$ and large $N$ behavior of $F_{s,t}(x,y)$ as a function of $(x,y)$ rather than simply as a function of $x$ for a fixed $y$. To achieve this, we must understand the behavior of $V(x,y)$ and $D_x V(x,y)$ as a functions of $(x,y)$. We will first import the results of \cite[\S 6]{Jekel2018} regarding $D_x V(x,y)$ as a function of $x$, then we will extend them to handle the dependence on $y$.
The potential $V_t$ satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{eq:conditionalHJB}
\partial_t V_t = \frac{1}{2N} \Delta_x V_t - \frac{1}{2} \norm*{D_x V_t}_2^2.
\end{equation}
We express $V_t = R_t V$, where $R_t$ is a semigroup acting on convex and semi-concave functions defined as follows. Let
\begin{align*}
P_t u(x,y) &= \int_{M_N(\C)_{sa}^m} u(x+z,y)\,d\sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}(z) \\
Q_t u(x,y) &= \inf_{z} \left[u(z,y) + \frac{1}{2t} \norm*{z - x}_2^2 \right].
\end{align*}
Then as suggested by Trotter's formula, we want to express $R_t u = \lim_{n \to \infty} (P_{t/n} Q_{t/n})^n u$, but for technical convenience we only apply this to dyadic rationals $t$ and values of $n$ that are powers of $2$. The following is a direct application of \cite[Theorems 6.1 and 6.17]{Jekel2018} to $V(\cdot,y)$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:Rtsemigroup}
There exists a semigroup of nonlinear operators $R_t: \bigcup_{C > 0} \mathcal{E}_{m+n}^{(N)}(0,C) \to \bigcup_{C > 0} \mathcal{E}_{m+n}^{(N)}(0,C)$ with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item {\bf Change in Convexity:} If $u(\cdot,y) \in \mathcal{E}_m^{(N)}(c,C)$, then $R_t u(\cdot,y) \in \mathcal{E}_m^{(N)}(c(1+ct)^{-1}, C(1+Ct)^{-1})$.
\item {\bf Approximation by Iteration:} For $\ell \in \Z$ and $t \in 2^{-\ell} \N_0$, denote $R_{t,\ell}u = (P_{2^{-\ell}} Q_{2^{-\ell}})^{2^\ell t} u$. Suppose $t \in \Q_2^+$ and $u \in \mathcal{E}_{m+n}^{(N)}(0,C)$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item If $2^{-\ell-1} C \leq 1$, then
\[
|R_t u - R_{t,\ell} u| \leq \left( \frac{3}{2} \frac{C^2mt}{1+Ct} + \log(1 + Ct) (m + Cm + \norm*{D_x u}_2^2) \right) 2^{-\ell}.
\]
\item $\displaystyle \norm*{D_x(R_{t,\ell} u) - D_x(R_t u)}_{L^\infty} \leq [t/2 + C(t/2)^2] C^2 m^{1/2}(2 \cdot 2^{-\ell/2} + 2^{-3\ell/2}C)$.
\end{enumerate}
\item {\bf Continuity in Time:} Suppose $s \leq t \in \R_+$ and $u \in \mathcal{E}_{m+n}^{(N)}(0,C)$. Then
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $R_t u \leq R_s u + \frac{m}{2} [\log(1 + Ct) - \log(1 + Cs)]$.
\item $R_t u \geq R_s u - \frac{1}{2} (t - s)(Cm + \norm*{D_x u}_2^2)$.
\item If $C(t - s) \leq 1$, then $\norm*{D_x(R_t u) - D_x(R_s u)}_2 \leq 5Cm^{1/2} 2^{1/2}(t - s)^{1/2} + C(t - s) \norm*{D_x u}_2$.
\end{enumerate}
\item {\bf Differential Equation:} $R_t u(x)$ is continuous as a function of $(x,t)$ on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times [0,+\infty)$ and smooth on $M_N(|C)_{sa}^m \times (0,+\infty)$, and it satisfies \eqref{eq:conditionalHJB}, and we have $P_t[\exp(-N^2u)] = \exp(-N^2 R_t u)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Result (1) regarding convexity and semi-concavity only applies to $R_t u$ as a function of $x$ for a fixed $y$. We now extend this result to control the dependence on $y$, using the same techniques as in \cite[Lemma 6.6]{Jekel2018}. As remarked in that paper, this type of analysis of $Q_t$ is standard in the PDE literature on viscosity solutions.
We use the following notation, as in Definition \ref{def:convexityHnotation}: Consider a function $u(x,y)$ on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times M_N(\C)_{sa}^n$. Let us write $Hu \geq c I_m \oplus c' I_n$ to mean that
\[
u(x,y) - \frac{c}{2} \norm*{x}_2^2 - \frac{c'}{2} \norm*{y}_2^2 \text{ is convex}
\]
and similarly let us write $Hu \leq C I_m \oplus C' I_n$ to mean that
\[
u(x,y) - \frac{C}{2} \norm*{x}_2^2 - \frac{C'}{2} \norm*{y}_2^2 \text{ is concave.}
\]
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:Qt}
Suppose that $u: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times M_N(\C)_{sa}^n \to \R$ and that
\[
c I_m \oplus c' I_n \leq Hu \leq C I_m \oplus C' I_n.
\]
Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $c I_m \oplus c' I_n \leq H(P_t u) \leq C I_m \oplus C' I_n$.
\item $D(Q_t u)(x,y) = Du(x - t D_x(Q_t u)(x,y), y)$.
\item $c(1 + ct)^{-1} I_m \oplus c' I_n \leq H(Q_t u) \leq C(1 + Ct)^{-1} I_m \oplus C' I_n$.
\item $c(1 + ct)^{-1} I_m \oplus c' I_n \leq H(R_t u) \leq C(1 + Ct)^{-1} I_m \oplus C' I_n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(1) This is left as an exercise.
(2) The proof is a modification of that of \cite[Lemma 6.6]{Jekel2018}, which proves an analogous result in the simpler case of functions of $x$ without the extra variable $y$. Fix $x_0$ and $y_0$. Because the function $u(z,y_0) + \frac{1}{2t} \norm*{z - x_0}_2^2$ is uniformly convex with respect to $z$, it has a unique minimizer $z_0$. This minimizer must be a critical point with respect to the first variable, and hence
\[
D_x u(z_0,y_0) + \frac{1}{t}(z_0 - x_0),
\]
that is,
\[
z_0 = x_0 - t D_x u(z_0,y_0).
\]
Let $p = D_x u(z_0,y_0)$ and $q = D_y u(z_0,y_0)$, so that $Du(z_0,y_0) = (p,q)$. Our assumption $c I_m \oplus c' I_n\leq Hu \leq C I_m \oplus C' I_n$ implies that
\[
\underline{v}(x,y) \leq u(x,y) \leq \overline{v}(x,y),
\]
where
\begin{align*}
\underline{v}(x,y) &= u(z_0,y_0) + \ip{p, x - z_0} + \ip{q, y - y_0} + \frac{c}{2} \norm*{x - z_0}_2^2 + \frac{c'}{2} \norm*{y - y_0}_2^2 \\
\overline{v}(x,y) &= u(z_0,y_0) + \ip{p, x - z_0} + \ip{q, y - y_0} + \frac{C}{2} \norm*{x - z_0}_2^2 + \frac{C'}{2} \norm*{y - y_0}_2^2.
\end{align*}
Note that $\underline{v} \leq u \leq v$ implies $Q_t \underline{v} \leq Q_t u \leq Q_t \overline{v}$ since monotonicity of $Q_t$ is immediate from the definition. One can compute $Q_t \underline{v}$ and $Q_t \overline{v}$ directly as in Lemma 6.4 (2) and the proof of Lemma 6.6 in \cite{Jekel2018} and obtain
\begin{align*}
Q_t \underline{v}(x,y) &= u(z_0,y_0) - \frac{t}{2} \norm*{p}_2^2 + \ip{p, x - z_0} + \ip{q, y - y_0} + \frac{c}{2(1 + ct)} \norm*{x - tp - z_0}_2^2 + \frac{c'}{2} \norm*{y - y_0}_2^2 \\
&= u(z_0,y_0) + \frac{1}{2t} \norm*{z_0 - x_0}_2^2 + \ip{p, x - x_0} + \ip{q, y - y_0} + \frac{c}{2(1 + ct)} \norm*{x - tp - z_0}_2^2 + \frac{c'}{2} \norm*{y - y_0}_2^2 \\
&= Q_t u(x_0,y_0) + \ip{p, x - x_0} + \ip{q, y - y_0} + \frac{c}{2(1 + ct)} \norm*{x - x_0}_2^2 + \frac{c'}{2} \norm*{y - y_0}_2^2,
\end{align*}
where the last two lines following from substituting $z_0 = x_0 - tp$ and that the infimum defining $Q_t u$ is achieved at $z_0$. The analogous formula for $Q_t \overline{v}(x,t)$ holds as well. The functions $Q_t \underline{v}$ and $Q_t \overline{v}$ thus provide second-order Taylor expansions from above and below for the function $Q_t u$ with respect to $(x,y)$ at the point $(x_0,y_0)$. Looking at the first-order terms in the expansions shows that $Q_t u$ is differentiable at $(x_0,y_0)$ with
\[
D(Q_t u)(x_0,y_0) = (p,q) = Du(z_0,x_0) = Du(x_0 - tp, y_0) = Du(x_0 - t D_x(Q_t u)(x_0,y_0),y_0),
\]
which proves (2).
(3) We examine the second-order terms of upper and lower Taylor expansions $Q_t \underline{v}$ and $Q_t \overline{v}$ and apply the claim (2) $\implies$ (1) from Lemma \ref{lem:convexgradient}. This is the same argument as in the proof of \cite[Proposition 2.13 (2)]{Jekel2018}.
(4) Recall that if $A \leq Hu \leq B$, then $A \leq H(P_tu) \leq B$. Using this fact together with (3) iteratively, we see that if $t$ is a dyadic rational and $t = 2^{-\ell} k$, then
\[
c(1 + ct)^{-1} I_m \oplus c' I_n \leq H(R_{t,\ell} u) \leq C(1 + Ct)^{-1} I_m \oplus C' I_n.
\]
In light of Theorem \ref{thm:Rtsemigroup} (2), this will also hold in the limit as $\ell \to \infty$, since for any two self-adjoint matrices $A$ and $B$, the family of functions with $A \leq Hu \leq B$ is closed under pointwise limits. Similarly, using Theorem \ref{thm:Rtsemigroup} (3), we extend this to all real $t \geq 0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The convexity conditions of Lemma \ref{lem:Qt} (4) can alternatively be deduced from \cite[Theorem 4.3]{BL1976}. However, it is convenient for us to use Theorem \ref{thm:Rtsemigroup} here because we want the dimension-independent time-continuity estimates Theorem \ref{thm:Rtsemigroup} (3) in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:transport1} below.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Lipschitz Estimates for Conditional Transport} \label{subsec:Lipschitztransport}
This subsection proves the technical estimate Lemma \ref{lem:transportLipschitzestimate} on the Lipschitz seminorm of $F_{s,t}$. This depends crucially on the convexity properties of $V_t(x,y)$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:twotermgradientestimate}
\begin{align*}
\ip{D_x V_t(x,y) - D_x V_t(x',y'), x - x'}_2 &\leq \frac{C}{1+Ct} \norm*{x - x'}_2^2 + \frac{C-c}{(1+Ct)^{1/2}(1+ct)^{1/2}} \norm*{x - x'}_2 \norm*{y - y'}_2 \\
\ip{D_x V_t(x,y) - D_x V_t(x',y'), x - x'}_2 &\geq \frac{c}{1+ct} \norm*{x - x'}_2^2 - \frac{C-c}{(1+Ct)^{1/2}(1+ct)^{1/2}} \norm*{x - x'}_2 \norm*{y - y'}_2.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, note that
\begin{multline} \label{eq:twoterms}
\ip{D_x V_t(x,y) - D_x V_t(x',y'), x - x'}_2 \\
= \ip{D_x V_t(x,y) - D_x V_t(x',y), x - x'}_2 + \ip{D_x V_t(x',y) - D_x V_t(x',y'), x - x'}_2
\end{multline}
By Lemma \ref{lem:convexgradient}, the first term on the right hand side of \eqref{eq:twoterms} can be estimated by
\[
\frac{c}{1+ct} \norm*{x - x'}_2^2 \leq \ip{D_x V_t(x,y) - D_x V_t(x',y), x - x'}_2 \leq \frac{C}{1+Ct} \norm*{x - x'}_2^2.
\]
To handle the second term on the right hand side of \eqref{eq:twoterms}, define
\begin{align*}
\overline{V}_t(x,y) &= V_t(x,y) - \frac{c}{2(1+ct)} \norm*{x}_2^2 - \frac{c}{2} \norm*{y}_2^2 \\
\underline{V}_t(x,y) &= V_t(x,y) - \frac{C}{2(1+Ct)} \norm*{x}_2^2 - \frac{C}{2} \norm*{y}_2^2
\end{align*}
and recall that $\overline{V}_t$ is convex and $\underline{V}_t$ is concave and in particular
\begin{align*}
0 \leq H\overline{V}_t &\leq \left( \frac{C}{1+Ct} - \frac{c}{1+ct} \right) I_m \oplus (C - c) I_n \\
&= \frac{C-c}{(1+Ct)(1+ct)} I_m \oplus (C - c) I_n.
\end{align*}
Note that
\begin{align*}
D_x V_t(x',y) - D_x V_t(x',y') &= \left(D_x V_t(x',y) - \frac{c}{1+ct} x' \right) - \left( D_x V_t(x',y) - \frac{c}{1+ct} x' \right) \\
&= D_x \overline{V}_t(x',y) - D_x \overline{V}_t(x',y').
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\ip{D_x V_t(x',y) - D_x V_t(x',y'), x - x'}_2 &= \ip{D_x \overline{V}_t(x',y) - D_x \overline{V}_t(x',y'), x - x'}_2 \\
&= \ip{D \overline{V}_t(x',y) - D\overline{V}_t(x',y'), (x - x', 0)}_2.
\end{align*}
Now we apply Lemma \ref{lem:convexgradientestimate} to $\overline{V}_t$ with the matrix $A = \frac{C-c}{(1+Ct)(1+ct)} I_m \oplus (C - c) I_n$ and conclude that
\begin{align*}
|\ip{D \overline{V}_t(x',y) - D\overline{V}_t(x',y'), (x - x', 0)}_2| &\leq \left( (C-c) \norm*{y-y'}_2^2 \right)^{1/2} \left( \frac{C - c}{(1+Ct)(1+ct)} \norm*{x - x'}_2^2 \right)^{1/2} \\
&\leq \frac{C-c}{(1+Ct)^{1/2}(1+ct)^{1/2}} \norm*{x - x'} \norm*{y - y'}.
\end{align*}
Combining this estimate for the second term of \eqref{eq:twoterms} with our earlier estimate for the first term completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:transportLipschitzestimate}
We have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:transportLipdx}
\norm*{F_{s,t}}_{\Lip,dx} \leq \begin{cases}
\frac{(1+Cs)^{1/2}}{(1+Ct)^{1/2}}, & s \geq t \\
\frac{(1+cs)^{1/2}}{(1 + ct)^{1/2}} & s \leq t. \end{cases}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:transportLipdy}
\norm*{F_{s,t}}_{\Lip,dy} \leq \begin{cases}
(C/c - 1)(1 + Cs)^{1/2}\left( \frac{1}{(1+Ct)^{1/2}} - \frac{1}{(1+Cs)^{1/2}} \right), & s \geq t, \\
(C/c - 1)(1 + cs)^{1/2} \left( \frac{1}{(1+Cs)^{1/2}} - \frac{1}{(1+Ct)^{1/2}} \right) & s \leq t.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix $t \geq 0$ and $(x,y)$ and $(x',y')$ in $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \times M_N(\C)_{sa}^n$ and define
\[
\phi(s) = \norm*{F_{s,t}(x,y) - F_{s,t}(x',y')}_2.
\]
Note that $\phi$ is locally Lipschitz, hence absolutely continuous. Also,
\begin{align*}
2 \phi(s) \phi'(s) &= \partial_s [\phi(s)^2] \\
&= 2 \ip{\partial_s F_{s,t}(x,y) - \partial_s F_{s,t}(x',y'), F_{s,t}(x,y) - F_{s,t}(x',y')}_2 \\
&= \ip{DV_s(F_{s,t}(x,y),y) - DV_s(F_{s,t}(x',y'),y'), F_{s,t}(x,y) - F_{s,t}(x',y')}_2 \\
&\leq \frac{C}{1+Ct} \norm*{F_{s,t}(x,y) - F_{s,t}(x',y')}_2^2 \\
& \quad + \frac{C-c}{(1+Ct)^{1/2}(1+ct)^{1/2}} \norm*{F_{s,t}(x,y) - F_{s,t}(x',y')}_2 \norm*{y - y'}_2 \\
&= \frac{C}{1+Cs} \phi(s)^2 + \frac{C-c}{(1+Cs)^{1/2}(1+cs)^{1/2}} \phi(s) \norm*{y - y'}_2,
\end{align*}
where we have applied Lemma \ref{lem:twotermgradientestimate}. It follows that whenever $\phi(s) > 0$,
\[
\phi'(s) \leq \frac{C}{2(1+Cs)} \phi(s) + \frac{C-c}{2(1+Cs)^{1/2}(1+cs)^{1/2}} \norm*{y - y'}_2.
\]
On the other hand, since $\phi(s) \geq 0$, any point where $\phi$ is zero and $\phi$ is differentiable must be a critical point, so when $\phi(s) = 0$ the estimate is vacuously true. This inequality implies
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{ds} \left[ \frac{1}{(1 + Cs)^{1/2}} \phi(s) \right] &\leq \frac{C-c}{2(1+Cs)(1+cs)^{1/2}} \norm*{y - y'}_2 \\
&\leq \frac{C(C-c)}{2c(1+Cs)^{3/2}} \norm*{y - y'}_2,
\end{align*}
where in the last line we have observed that $(1 + cs)^{1/2} \geq (c/C)^{1/2} (1 + Cs)^{1/2} \geq (c/C)(1 + Cs)^{1/2}$. Hence for $s \geq t$
\[
\frac{1}{(1+Cs)^{1/2}} \phi(s) - \frac{1}{(1+Ct)^{1/2}} \phi(t) \leq \frac{C-c}{c} \left( \frac{1}{(1+Ct)^{1/2}} - \frac{1}{(1+Cs)^{1/2}} \right) \norm*{y - y'}_2
\]
Now we substitute $\phi(s) = \norm*{F_{s,t}(x,y) - F_{s,t}(x',y')}_2$ and $\phi(t) = \norm*{x - x'}_2$ and rearrange to obtain
\[
\frac{1}{(1+Cs)^{1/2}} \norm*{F_{s,t}(x,y) - F_{s,t}(x',y')}_2 \leq \frac{1}{(1+Ct)^{1/2}} \norm*{x - x'}_2 + \frac{C-c}{c} \left( \frac{1}{(1+Ct)^{1/2}} - \frac{1}{(1+Cs)^{1/2}} \right) \norm*{y - y'}_2.
\]
This proves the asserted estimates in the case where $s \geq t$. The argument for the case $s \leq t$ is similar. Here we use the lower bound rather than the upper bound in Lemma \ref{lem:twotermgradientestimate} and get
\[
\phi'(s) \geq \frac{c}{2(1+cs)} \phi(s) - \frac{C-c}{2(1+Cs)^{1/2}(1+cs)^{1/2}} \norm*{y - y'}_2
\]
so that
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{ds} \left[ \frac{1}{(1+cs)^{1/2}} \phi(s) \right] &\geq -\frac{C-c}{2(1+Cs)^{1/2}(1+cs)} \norm*{y - y'}_2 \\
&\geq -\frac{C(C-c)}{2c(1+Cs)^{3/2}} \norm*{y - y'}_2.
\end{align*}
Now we take $s \leq t$ and obtain
\begin{multline*}
\frac{1}{(1+ct)^{1/2}} \norm*{x - x'}_2 - \frac{1}{(1+cs)^{1/2}} \norm*{F_{s,t}(x,y) - F_{s,t}(x',y')}_2 \\
\geq - \frac{C-c}{c} \left( \frac{1}{(1+Cs)^{1/2}} - \frac{1}{(1+Ct)^{1/2}} \right) \norm*{y - y'}_2,
\end{multline*}
which yields the desired estimates.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Transport in the Large $t$ Limit} \label{subsec:largeTtransport}
We remind the reader here that we are still working in the finite-dimensional setting for a fixed value of $N$ which is suppressed in the notation. To understand the large $t$ limit of our transport maps, consider the renormalized law
\begin{equation} \label{eq:renormalizedlaw}
\tilde{\mu}_t := \text{law of } (\tilde{X}_t, Y) := \left( e^{-t/2} X + (1 - e^{-t})^{1/2} S, Y \right).
\end{equation}
A brief computation shows that the corresponding potential is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:renormalizedpotential}
\tilde{V}_t(x,y) := V_{e^t - 1}(e^{t/2} x, y),
\end{equation}
(here the potential is only well-defined up to an additive constant because the probability measure $\tilde{\mu}_t$ includes a normalizing constant $1/\tilde{Z}_t$ anyway, so we made a convenient choice of the additive constant). This potential satisfies the equation
\[
\partial_t \tilde{V}_t = \frac{1}{2N} \Delta_x \tilde{V}_t - \frac{1}{2} \norm*{D_x \tilde{V}_t}_2^2 + \frac{1}{2} \ip{D_x \tilde{V}_t, x}_2.
\]
We remark that if $\tilde{\rho}_t = (1/Z_t) e^{-N^2 \tilde{V}_t}$ is the density at time $t$ and $r(x,y) = \text{const} e^{-\norm{(x,y)}_2^2/2}$ is the Gaussian density, then
\begin{align*}
\partial_t \tilde{\rho}_t &= \frac{1}{2N} \Delta_x \tilde{\rho}_t + \frac{1}{2} \ip{\nabla_x \tilde{\rho}_t, x}_{\Tr} + \frac{Nm}{2} \tilde{\rho}_t \\
&= \frac{1}{2N} \Div_x \left( \tilde{\rho}_t \nabla_x \left( \log \frac{\tilde{\rho}_t}{r} \right) \right).
\end{align*}
In other words, $\tilde{\rho}_t$ evolves according to the diffusion semigroup with respect to Gaussian measure (compare equation (33) of \cite{OV2000}), while the heat equation represents diffusion with respect to Lebesgue measure.
The transport functions are renormalized as follows. Because $(F_{s,t}(x,y),y)$ pushes forward $\mu_t$ to $\mu_s$, we may compute that $(\tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y),y)$ pushes forward $\tilde{\mu}_t = \tilde{\mu}_s$, where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:renormalizedtransport}
\tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y) := e^{-s/2} F_{e^s-1,e^t-1}(e^{t/2}x,y).
\end{equation}
Moreover, from the differential equation \eqref{eq:transportODE}, we deduce that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:renormalizedtransportODE}
\partial_s \tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y) = \frac{1}{2} \left( D_x \tilde{V}_s(\tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y),y) - \tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y) \right).
\end{equation}
As $t \to \infty$, the law $\tilde{\mu}_t$ converges to the law of $(S,Y)$, which we denote $\tilde{\mu}_\infty$. Thus, if we show that $\tilde{F}_{s,t}$ has a limit as $s \to +\infty$ or $t \to +\infty$, we will be able to transport our given law $\mu = \tilde{\mu}_0$ of $(X,Y)$ to the law of $(S,Y)$. As the first step, we deduce from Lemma \ref{lem:transportLipschitzestimate} the following Lipschitz estimates on $\tilde{F}_{s,t}$ which are uniform in $s$ and $t$. Note also that the coefficient of $\norm*{y - y'}_2$ goes to zero as $s, t \to \infty$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:transportLipschitzestimate2}
We have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:transportLipdx2}
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}}_{\Lip,dx} \leq \max(C,1/c)^{1/2}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:transportLipdy2}
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}}_{\Lip,dy} \leq (C/c - 1) \max(C,1/C)^{3/2} |e^{-s/2} - e^{-t/2}|.
\end{equation}
In particular,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:transportLip2}
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}}_{\Lip} \leq \max(C,1/c)^{7/2}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For the first estimate, for the case where $s \geq t$, direct substitution of \eqref{eq:renormalizedtransport} into \eqref{eq:transportLipdx} of Lemma \ref{lem:transportLipschitzestimate} shows that
\[
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}}_{\Lip,dx} \leq e^{-s/2} \frac{(1 + C(e^s - 1))^{1/2}}{(1 + C(e^t - 1))^{1/2}} e^{t/2} = \frac{(C + (1 - C)e^{-s})^{1/2}}{(C + (1 - C)e^{-t})^{1/2}}.
\]
The function $C + (1 - C) e^{-s}$ is clearly monotone on $[0,+\infty)$ and achieves the values $1$ and $C$ at $0$ and $+\infty$ respectively, and hence is between $\min(1,C)$ and $\max(1,C)$. Hence,
\[
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}}_{\Lip,dx} \leq \frac{\max(1,C)^{1/2}}{\min(1,C)^{1/2}} = \max(C,1/C)^{1/2} \leq \max(C,1/c)^{1/2}.
\]
The case where $s \leq t$ follows by the same argument, where the bound this time is $\max(c,1/c)^{1/2} \leq \max(C,1/c)^{1/2}$.
For the second estimate, we apply \eqref{eq:transportLipdy}. Note in \eqref{eq:transportLipdy}, in the case $s \leq t$, we may use $(1 + cs)^{1/2} \leq (1 + Cs)^{1/2}$ and thus in both cases $s \geq t$ or $s \leq t$,
\begin{align*}
\norm{F_{s,t}}_{\Lip,dy} &\leq (C/c - 1) (1 + Cs)^{1/2} \left| \frac{1}{(1 + Cs)^{1/2}} - \frac{1}{(1 + Ct)^{1/2}} \right| \\
&= (C/c - 1)(1 + Cs)^{1/2} \left| \int_s^t \frac{C}{2(1 + Cu)^{3/2}}\,du \right|
\end{align*}
This implies that
\begin{align*}
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}}_{\Lip,dy} &\leq e^{-s/2} (C/c - 1)(1 + C(e^s - 1))^{1/2} \left| \int_{e^s-1}^{e^t-1} \frac{C}{2(1 + Cu)^{3/2}}\,du \right| \\
&= (C/c - 1)e^{-s/2}(1 + C(e^s - 1))^{1/2} \left| \int_s^t \frac{Ce^w}{2(1 + C(e^w - 1))^{3/2}}\,dw \right| \\
&\leq (C/c - 1) \max(1,C)^{1/2} \left| \int_s^t \frac{Ce^w}{2 \min(1,C)^{3/2} e^{3w/2}}\,dw \right| \\
&\leq (C/c - 1) \frac{\max(1,C)^{1/2} C}{\min(1,C)^{3/2}} |e^{-t/2} - e^{-s/2}| \\
&\leq (C/c - 1) \max(C,1/C)^{3/2} |e^{-t/2} - e^{-s/2}|.
\end{align*}
where we have again applied $\min(1,C) e^s \leq 1 + C(e^s - 1) \leq \max(1,C) e^s$.
For the last estimate \eqref{eq:transportLip2}, observe that
\begin{align*}
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}}_{\Lip} &\leq \norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}}_{\Lip,dx} + \norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}}_{\Lip,dy} \\
&\leq \max(C,1/c)^{1/2} + (C/c - 1) \max(C,1/C)^{3/2} |e^{-s/2} - e^{-t/2}| \\
&\leq \max(C,1/c)^{3/2} + (\max(C,1/c)^2 - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{3/2} \\
&= \max(C,1/c)^{7/2}. \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:transportLipschitzestimate3}
Let $\pi_1$ denote the function $\pi_1(x,y) = x$. Then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:transportLipdx3}
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t} - \pi_1}_{\Lip,dx} \leq \frac{1}{2} (\max(C,1/c) - 1) \max(C,1/C)^{1/2} |e^{-s} - e^{-t}|
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:transportLip3}
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t} - \pi_1}_{\Lip} \leq (\max(C,1/c)^3 - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2} |e^{-s/2} - e^{-t/2}|.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $U_s(x,y) = \tilde{V}_s(x,y) - (1/2) \norm*{x}_2^2$. Then \eqref{eq:renormalizedtransportODE} says that
\[
\partial_s \tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y) = \frac{1}{2} D_x U_s(\tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y),y).
\]
Moreover, we have
\[
\frac{ce^s}{1 + c(e^s - 1)} \leq H_x \tilde{V}_s \leq \frac{Ce^s}{1 + C(e^s - 1)}.
\]
We can bound $H_x U_s$ above and below by subtracting $1$ from both sides, which after some computation reduces to
\[
\frac{c - 1}{1 + c(e^s - 1)} \leq H_x U_s \leq \frac{C - 1}{1 + C(e^s - 1)}.
\]
Therefore, we have $-L \leq H_x U_s \leq L$ where
\[
L = \max \left( -\frac{c - 1}{1 + c(e^s - 1)}, \frac{C - 1}{1 + C(e^s - 1)} \right).
\]
We claim that $L \leq L' := (\max(C,1/c) - 1) e^{-s}$. If the first term $(1 - c) / (1 + c(e^s - 1))$ is negative, then it is $\leq L'$ automatically, but if it is positive, then $c \leq 1$ and hence
\[
\frac{1 - c}{1 + c(e^s - 1)} \leq \frac{1 - c}{c + c(e^s - 1)} = (1/c - 1)e^{-s} \leq (\max(C,1/c) - 1)e^{-s}.
\]
Similarly, if $(C - 1) / (1 + C(e^s - 1))$ is negative, there is nothing to prove, but otherwise $C \geq 1$, and hence
\[
\frac{C - 1}{1 + C(e^s - 1)} \leq \frac{C - 1}{1 + (e^s - 1)} = (C - 1) e^{-s} \leq (\max(C,1/c) - 1) e^{-s}.
\]
But $-L' \leq H_x U_s \leq L'$ implies that $D_x U_s$ is $L'$-Lipschitz in $x$. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\norm*{\partial_s \tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y) - \partial_s \tilde{F}_{s,t}(x',y)}_2 &= \frac{1}{2} \norm*{DU_s(\tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y),y) - DU_s(\tilde{F}_{s,t}(x',y))}_2 \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2}(\max(C,1/c) - 1) e^{-s} \norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y) - \tilde{F}_{s,t}(x',y)}_2.
\end{align*}
Applying \eqref{eq:transportLipdx2} in the case where $s \geq t$, we get
\[
\norm*{\partial_s \tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y) - \partial_s \tilde{F}_{s,t}(x',y)}_2 \leq \frac{1}{2} (\max(C,1/c) - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2} e^{-s} \norm*{x - x'}_2.
\]
Hence,
\begin{align*}
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y) - \tilde{F}_{s,t}(x',y) - (x - x')}_2 &\leq \left| \int_t^s \norm*{\partial_u \tilde{F}_{u,t}(x,y) - \partial_u \tilde{F}_{u,t}(x',y)}_2\,du \right| \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2} (\max(C,1/c) - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2} |e^{-s} - e^{-t}| \norm*{x - x'}_2.
\end{align*}
which proves the desired estimate \eqref{eq:transportLipdx3}.
To check the second estimate \eqref{eq:transportLip3}, first observe
\[
\frac{1}{2} |e^{-s} - e^{-t}| = \int_{\min(s,t)}^{\max(s,t)} \frac{1}{2} e^{-u}\,du \leq \int_{\min(s,t)}^{\max(s,t)} \frac{1}{2} e^{-u/2}\,du = |e^{-s/2} - e^{-t/2}|,
\]
Moreover, $\norm{\tilde{F}_{s,t} - \pi_1}_{\Lip,dy} = \norm{\tilde{F}_{s,t}}_{\Lip,dy}$. Therefore, using \eqref{eq:transportLipdy2} and \eqref{eq:transportLipdx3},
\begin{align*}
\norm{\tilde{F}_{s,t} - \pi_1}_{\Lip} &\leq \norm{\tilde{F}_{s,t} - \pi_1}_{\Lip,dx} + \norm{\tilde{F}_{s,t} - \pi_1}_{\Lip,dy} \\
&\leq (\max(C,1/c) - 1) \max(C,1/C)^{1/2} \frac{1}{2} |e^{-s} - e^{-t}| + (C/c - 1) \max(C,1/C)^{3/2} |e^{-s/2} - e^{-t/2}| \\
&\leq [(\max(C,1/c) - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2} + (\max(C,1/c)^2 - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{3/2}] |e^{-s/2} - e^{-t/2}| \\
&= (\max(C,1/c)^3 - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2} |e^{-s/2} - e^{-t/2}|. \qedhere.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:largeTtransport}
The limits $\tilde{F}_{s,\infty} := \lim_{t \to \infty} \tilde{F}_{s,t}$ and $\tilde{F}_{\infty,t} = \lim_{s \to \infty} \tilde{F}_{s,t}$ exist for $s, t \geq 0$. More precisely, let $(X,Y)$ and $(\tilde{X}_t,Y)$ be a pair of random variables with the laws $\mu$ and $\tilde{\mu}_t$ as above. Then
\begin{multline} \label{eq:transportconvergenceestimate}
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,\infty}(x,y) - \tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y)}_2 \leq \max(C,1/c)^{1/2} e^{-t/2} \norm*{E(X)}_2 \\ + e^{-t/2}(\max(C,1/c)^3 - 1) \max(C,1/c) \left( \norm{(x, y - E(Y))}_2 + (m + \Var(Y))^{1/2} \right)
\end{multline}
and
\begin{multline}
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y) - \tilde{F}_{\infty,t}(x,y)}_2 \leq \frac{1}{2} (\max(C,1/c) - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2} e^{-s} \biggl( e^{-s/2} \norm{E(X)}_2 \\ + \max(C,1/c)^{7/2} \left( \norm{(x - e^{-t/2}E(X), y - E(Y))}_2 + (e^{-t} \Var(X) + (1 - e^{-t})m + \Var(Y))^{1/2} \right) \biggr)
\end{multline}
The estimates of Lemmas \ref{lem:transportLipschitzestimate2} and \ref{lem:transportLipschitzestimate3} extend to the cases where $s$ or $t$ is infinite, where we define $\tilde{F}_{\infty,\infty}(x,y) = x$. Moreover, if $(\tilde{X}_t,Y) \sim \tilde{\mu}_t$, then we have the relation $(\tilde{F}_{s,t}(\tilde{X}_t,Y),Y) \sim (\tilde{X}_s,Y)$ when $s, t \in [0,\infty]$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
We have written the explicit form of the estimates here in order to emphasize that the bounds are dimension-independent; they only depend on the parameters $m$, $n$, $c$, $C$, $\norm{E(X)}_2$, $\norm{E(Y)}_2$, $\Var(X)$, and $\Var(Y)$. The estimates also become sharper when $c$ and $C$ are close to $1$, which would include the situation where $V(x,y)$ is a perturbation of the quadratic potential $(1/2)[\norm*{x}_2^2 + \norm*{y}_2^2]$. This perturbative setting was studied first in the literature, for instance in \cite{GMS2006} and \cite{GS2014}; see \cite[\S 8.3]{Jekel2018} for further discussion.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
We first consider the case where $s$ is fixed and $t \to +\infty$. Note that by \eqref{eq:transportLipdx2},
\begin{align} \label{eq:convergenceproof1}
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t'}(x,y) - \tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y)}_2 &= \norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t'}(\tilde{F}_{t',t}(x,y),y) - \tilde{F}_{s,t'}(x,y)}_2 \\
&\leq \norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t'}}_{\Lip,dx} \norm*{\tilde{F}_{t,t'}(x,y) - x}_2 \nonumber \\
&\leq \max(C,1/c)^{1/2} \norm*{\tilde{F}_{t,t'}(x,y) - x}_2. \nonumber
\end{align}
By Lemma \ref{lem:transportLipschitzestimate3},
\[
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{t,t'} - \pi_1}_{\Lip} \leq L |e^{-t/2} - e^{t'/2}|,
\]
where $L = \max(C,1/c)^3 - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2}$. Then we apply Lemma \ref{lem:RVboundedness} to $G(x,y) = \tilde{F}_{t,t'}(x,y) - x$ with the random variable $(\tilde{X}_{t'},Y)$. Note that $(\tilde{X}_{t'},Y)$ has mean $(e^{-t'/2} E(X), E(Y))$ and variance $e^{-t'} \Var(X) + (1 - e^{-t'})m + \Var(Y)$. Moreover,
\[
E[G(\tilde{X}_{t'},Y)] = E[\tilde{X}_t] - E[\tilde{X}_{t'}] = (e^{-t/2} - e^{-t'/2}) E(X).
\]
Thus, by Lemma \ref{lem:RVboundedness},
\begin{multline} \label{eq:transportCauchyestimate1}
\norm{\tilde{F}_{t,t'}(x,y) - x}_2 \leq |e^{-t/2} - e^{-t'/2}| \norm{E(X)}_2 \\ + L |e^{-t/2} - e^{t'/2}| \left( \norm{(x - e^{-t'/2} E(X), y - E(Y))}_2 + (e^{-t'} \Var(X) + (1 - e^{-t'})m + \Var(Y))^{1/2} \right).
\end{multline}
Plugging this into \eqref{eq:convergenceproof1}, we see that $\tilde{F}_{s,t}$ is Cauchy in $t$ as $t \to +\infty$. Moreover, we obtain the estimate \eqref{eq:transportconvergenceestimate} by taking $t' \to \infty$ in \eqref{eq:transportCauchyestimate1} and multiplying by $\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}}_{\Lip,dx} \leq \max(c,1/c)^{1/2}$.
Now let us fix $t$ and consider when $s'$ and $s$ approach $\infty$. The argument for this case is similar but antisymmetrical. We estimate
\begin{align*}
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s',t}(x,y) - \tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y)}_2 &= \norm*{\tilde{F}_{s',s}(\tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y),y) - \tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y)}_2 \\
&\leq \norm*{\tilde{F}_{s',s} - \pi_1}_{\Lip,dx} \norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y)}_2 \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2} (\max(C,1/c) - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2} |e^{-s} - e^{-s'}| \norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y)}_2,
\end{align*}
where the last line follows from \eqref{eq:transportLipdx3}. Then by applying Lemma \ref{lem:RVboundedness} to the function $\tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y)$ and the random variable $(\tilde{X}_t,Y)$, together with \eqref{eq:transportLip2}, we obtain
\begin{multline*}
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y)}_2 \leq e^{-s/2} \norm{E(X)}_2 \\
+ \max(C,1/c)^{7/2} \left( \norm{(x - e^{-t/2}E(X), y - E(Y))}_2 + (e^{-t} \Var(X) + (1 - e^{-t})m + \Var(Y))^{1/2} \right)
\end{multline*}
This produces an estimate on $\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s',t} - \tilde{F}_{s,t}}_2$ which shows that $\tilde{F}_{s,t}$ is Cauchy as $s \to \infty$, so that $\tilde{F}_{\infty,t}$ is well-defined. The explicit bound on the rate of convergence follows fixing $s$ and $t$, combining the above estimates, and taking $s' \to \infty$.
Finally, since we have established convergence of $\tilde{F}_{s,t}$ as $s$ or $t$ approaches $\infty$, a routine argument with limits will extend the estimates of Lemmas \ref{lem:transportLipschitzestimate2} and \ref{lem:transportLipschitzestimate3}, and the transport relations, to the cases where $s$ or $t$ is $+\infty$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Transport in the Large $N$ Limit} \label{subsec:largeNtransport}
If $V^{(N)} \in \mathcal{E}_{m+n}^{(N)}(c,C)$ and $\{DV^{(N)}\}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, then we must show that the associated sequence of transport maps is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, and hence conclude that they define transport for the non-commutative random variables in the large $N$ limit.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:transport1}
For $N \in \N$, let $V^{(N)}(x,y)$ be a potential on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n}$ satisfying Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} for some $0 < c \leq C$, and let $\mu^{(N)}$ be the corresponding probability measures on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n}$. Let $(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$ be a random variable given by $\mu^{(N)}$ and let $S^{(N)}$ be an independent GUE $m$-tuple. Let
\[
\tilde{\mu}_t^{(N)} \text{ be the law of } (\tilde{X}_t, Y) = (e^{-t/2} X^{(N)} + (1 - e^{-t})^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}),
\]
and let $\tilde{V}_t^{(N)}(x,y) = R_{e^t-1}^{(N)} V^{(N)}(e^{t/2} x, y)$ be the corresponding potential. Similarly, let $\mu_\infty^{(N)}$ be the law of $(S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$. For $s, t \in [0,\infty)$, let $\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ be the solution of the initial value problem
\begin{align*}
\tilde{F}_{t,t}^{(N)}(x,y) &= x \\
\partial_s \tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}(x,y) &= \frac{1}{2} \left( D_x \tilde{V}_s(\tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y), y) - \tilde{F}_{s,t}(x,y) \right).
\end{align*}
Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item The family $\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}$ extends continuously to $(s,t) \in [0,\infty]^2$.
\item $\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)} \circ \tilde{F}_{t,u}^{(N)} = \tilde{F}_{s,u}^{(N)}$.
\item $(\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}(\tilde{X}_t^{(N)},Y^{(N)}), Y^{(N)}) \sim (\tilde{X}_s^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$.
\item For $s, t \in [0,\infty]$, the sequence $\{\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}\}_{N \in \N}$ is $(C/c) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2}$-Lipschitz for all $s$, $t$, and $N$, and it is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials as $N \to \infty$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Recall in \S \ref{subsec:largeTtransport} we defined $\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}$ by renormalizing $F_{s,t}^{(N)}$. However, that definition is equivalent to the definition of $\tilde{F}_{s,t}$ given in this theorem because both definitions produce a solution to the ODE \eqref{eq:renormalizedtransportODE}. Of course, global uniqueness of the solution holds because the vector field $D_x \tilde{V}_t^{(N)}(x,y) - x$ is uniformly Lipschitz in $(x,y)$ on any compact time interval (as we discuss in more detail below).
So claims (1), (2), and (3) follow immediately from Proposition \ref{prop:largeTtransport}. The estimate for the Lipschitz norm of $\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}$ was shown in \eqref{eq:transportLip2}.
We finish by showing asymptotic approximability using the results of \S \ref{subsec:vectorfields}. Let $V_t^{(N)} = R_t^{(N)} V^{(N)}$. By Theorem \ref{thm:Rtsemigroup} (3c), $D_x V_t^{(N)}$ is uniformly continuous in $t$ on $[0,\infty)$. Since $D_x \tilde{V}_t^{(N)}(x,y) = e^{t/2} D_x V_{e^t - 1}^{(N)}(e^{t/2}x,y)$, it follows that $D_x \tilde{V}_t^{(N)}$ is uniformly continuous in $t$ on $[0,T]$ for every $T > 0$, with modulus of continuity independent of $N$, and recall it is also uniformly Lipschitz in $(x,y)$, since $0 \leq H\tilde{V}_t^{(N)} \leq \max(C, Ce^t / (1 + C(e^t - 1))$.
Consequently, $(1/2)(D_x \tilde{V}_t^{(N)}(x,y) - x)$ is uniformly continuous in $t$ on $[0,T]$ and uniformly Lipschitz in $(x,y)$. Also, we showed that $D_x V_t^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:convergenceofentropy}, and hence so is $D_x \tilde{V}_t^{(N)}$. Thus, $(1/2)(D_x \tilde{V}_t^{(N)}(x,y) - x)$ satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:vectorfield2}, so we may apply Proposition \ref{prop:ODE2} to deduce that $\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials for $s, t \in [0,\infty)$. This property extends to the case where $s$ or $t$ is infinite using Lemma \ref{lem:limits} and Proposition \ref{prop:largeTtransport}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Rather than citing the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:convergenceofentropy}, one could also argue that $D_x V_t^{(N)}$ is asymtotically approximable directly from the construction of the semigroup $R_t^{(N)}$ using the same reasoning as \cite[Proposition 6.8]{Jekel2018}. Moreover, this method would also show that $D(R_t^{(N)} V^{(N)})$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials provided we can prove analogues of Theorem \ref{thm:Rtsemigroup} (2) and (3) for $D(R_t^{(N)} V^{(N)})$ rather than only $D_x(R_t^{(N)} V^{(N)})$. However, all this is unnecessary work for our present purpose.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:transport2}
With all the notation of the previous theorem, let $(X,Y)$ be a non-commutative random variable distributed according to the limiting free Gibbs law $\lambda$, let $S$ be a freely independent free semicircular $m$-tuple, and let $\tilde{X}_t = e^{-t/2} X + (1 - e^{-t})^{1/2} S$. Define $\tilde{F}_{s,t}$ by $\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow \tilde{F}_{s,t}$. For $s,t,u \in [0,+\infty]$, we have
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\tilde{F}_{s,t}$ is $(C/c) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2}$-Lipschitz with respect to $\norm{\cdot}_2$.
\item $\tilde{F}_{s,t} \circ \tilde{F}_{t,u} = \tilde{F}_{s,u}$.
\item $(\tilde{F}_{s,t}(\tilde{X}_t,Y), Y) \sim (\tilde{X}_s,Y)$ in non-commutative law.
\item We have
\begin{multline*}
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,t}(\tilde{X}_t,Y) - \tilde{F}_{s',t}(\tilde{X}_t,Y) - (e^{-s/2} - e^{-s'/2})\tau(X)}_\infty \\
\leq (\max(C,1/c)^3 - 1) \max(C,1/c) |e^{-s/2} - e^{-s'/2}| \Theta.
\end{multline*}
where $\Theta$ is the universal constant from Proposition \ref{prop:operatornormestimate}.
\end{enumerate}
In particular, $\mathrm{W}^*(X,Y)$ is isomorphic to $\mathrm{W}^*(S,Y)$, which is the free product $\mathrm{W}^*(S) * \mathrm{W}^*(Y)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We know that there exists $\tilde{F}_{s,t}$ such that $\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow \tilde{F}_{s,t}$ because of Lemma \ref{lem:AATP}. Then (1) and (2) follow from the corresponding properties of $\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}$ by straightforward limit arguments.
As remarked in the last proof $D\tilde{V}_t^{(N)}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials. We also know $D\tilde{V}_t^{(N)}$ is uniformly convex and semi-concave, and thus by Theorem \ref{thm:freeGibbslaw}, the non-commutative law of $(\tilde{X}_t^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$ converges in probability to some non-commutative law. Of course, the limiting non-commutative law must be the non-commutative law of $(\tilde{X}_t,Y)$ because the joint non-commutative law of $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)},S^{(N)})$ converges in probability to that $(X,Y,S)$ (as in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:convergenceofentropy}).
With this relation between the laws of $(\tilde{X}_t^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$ and $(\tilde{X}_t,Y)$ in hand, we can prove (3) by taking the large $N$ limit using Corollary \ref{cor:convergenceofexpectation}. Indeed, if $f \in \overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1$ is $\norm{\cdot}_2$-uniformly continuous, then $f(\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}(x,y),y)$ is also $\norm{\cdot}_2$-uniformly continuous and asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials by Lemma \ref{lem:composition}. Thus, applying Corollary \ref{cor:convergenceofexpectation} to this function and the function $1$, we get
\begin{align*}
\tau\left( f(\tilde{F}_{s,t}(\tilde{X}_t,Y), Y) \right) &= \lim_{N \to \infty} E[\tau_N (f(\tilde{F}_{s,t}(\tilde{X}_t^{(N)},Y^{(N)}), Y^{(N)}))] \\
&= \lim_{N \to \infty} E[\tau_N(f(\tilde{X}_s^{(N)},Y^{(N)}))] \\
&= \tau(f(\tilde{X}_s,Y)).
\end{align*}
Hence, $\tau\left( f(\tilde{F}_{s,t}(\tilde{X}_t,Y), Y) \right) = \tau(f(\tilde{X}_s,Y))$ for all $f \in \overline{\TrP}_m^1$ that are uniformly continuous in $\norm{\cdot}_2$. But by Proposition \ref{prop:realizationofoperators} such functions $f$ can realize every element in the $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebra generated by $(\tilde{X}_s,Y)$, and in particular all the non-commutative polynomials in $(\tilde{X}_s,Y)$. Hence, $(\tilde{F}_{s,t}(\tilde{X}_t,Y), Y) \sim (\tilde{X}_s,Y)$ in non-commutative law as desired.
(4) Note that
\[
\tilde{F}_{s,t}(\tilde{X}_t,Y) - \tilde{F}_{s',t}(\tilde{X}_t,Y) = (\pi_1 - \tilde{F}_{s,s'}) \circ (\tilde{F}_{s',t}(\tilde{X}_t,Y),Y),
\]
but $(\tilde{F}_{s',t}(\tilde{X}_t,Y),Y) \sim (\tilde{X}_{s'}, Y)$ in non-commutative law. Hence, it suffices to prove the desired estimate for $\tilde{F}_{s,s'}(\tilde{X}_{s'},Y) - \tilde{X}_{s'}$ rather than $\tilde{F}_{s,t}(\tilde{X}_t,Y) - \tilde{F}_{s',t}(\tilde{X}_t,Y)$. Now $(\tilde{X}_{s'}, Y)$ arises as the large $N$ limit of the matrix models given by potential $\tilde{V}_{s'}^{(N)}$. By Lemma \ref{lem:Qt} (4), we have $HV_t^{(N)} \geq c(1+ct)^{-1} I_m \oplus c I_n$, so that
\[
H \tilde{V}_{s'}^{(N)} \geq \frac{ce^{s'}}{1 + c(e^{s'} - 1)} I_m \oplus c I_n \geq \min(1,c) I_{m+n} \geq \frac{1}{\max(C,1/c)} I_{m+n}.
\]
By Remark \ref{rem:unitaryinvariance}, there exists a sequence of random matrix models for $(\tilde{X}_{s'},Y)$ given by uniformly convex potentials which are also unitarily invariant (even if this is not true of our original model), with the same lower bound $1 / \max(C,1/c)$ for the Hessian of the potential. Therefore, by Proposition \ref{prop:operatornormestimate},
\[
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,s'}(\tilde{X}_{s'},Y) - \tilde{X}_{s'} - \tau[\tilde{F}_{s,s'}(\tilde{X}_{s'},Y) - \tilde{X}_{s'}]}_\infty \leq \max(C,1/c)^{1/2} \Theta \norm*{\tilde{F}_{s,s'} - \pi_1}_{\Lip}.
\]
We finish by substituting the estimate
\[
\norm{\tilde{F}_{s,s'} - \pi_1}_{\Lip} \leq (\max(C,1/c)^3 - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2} |e^{-s/2} - e^{-s'/2}|
\]
which follows from \eqref{eq:transportLip3} and Lemma \ref{lem:limituniformlycontinuous} (the latter lemma is needed since the original statement of \eqref{eq:transportLip3} is for the finite-dimensional setting for a fixed $N$).
The last claim regarding $\mathrm{W}^*$-algebras follows from (3) by examining the case with $s = 0$ and $t = \infty$ or vice versa.
\end{proof}
\section{Applications} \label{sec:applications}
We show that Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} is preserved under independent joins, marginals, convolution, and linear changes of variables. We conclude that for the convex free Gibbs laws considered here, $\chi^*$ satisfies additivity under conditioning. Moreover, by iterating our conditional transport results, we obtain ``lower-triangular'' transport maps from a convex free Gibbs law to the law of a free semicircular family, which also satisfy the entropy-cost inequality relative to the semicircular law, analogous to the triangular transport achieved in the classical case by \cite[Corollary 3.10]{BKM2005}.
\subsection{Operations on Convex Gibbs Laws} \label{subsec:operations}
Recall that Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} for a sequence $\{V^{(N)}\}$ of potentials $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ states that $c \leq HV^{(N)} \leq C$ for some constants $c$ and $C$, the sequence $\{DV^{(N)}\}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials, and $\int x_j \,d\mu^{(N)}(x)$ is a scalar matrix for each $j$, where $\mu^{(N)}$ is the measure associated to $DV^{(N)}$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:independentjoins}
Suppose that $V_1^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ and $V_2^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^n \to \R$ satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} for some $0 < c \leq C$. Then $V^{(N)}(x,y) := V_1^{(N)}(x) + V_2^{(N)}(y)$ also satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} for the same $c$ and $C$.
Moreover, let $\mu_1^{(N)}$, $\mu_2^{(N)}$, and $\mu^{(N)}$ be the measures associated to $V_1^{(N)}$, $V_2^{(N)}$, and $V^{(N)}$ respectively, and let $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, and $\lambda$ be the respective limiting free Gibbs laws given by Theorem \ref{thm:freeGibbslaw}. Then $\mu^{(N)}$ is the independent join of $\mu_1^{(N)}$ and $\mu_2^{(N)}$ and $\lambda$ is the freely independent join of $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The claim $c \leq HV^{(N)} \leq C$ follows because $HV^{(N)}(x,y) = HV_1^{(N)}(x) \oplus HV_2^{(N)}(y)$. The claim about asymptotic approximation by trace polynomials follows because $DV^{(N)}(x,y) = (DV_1^{(N)}(x), DV_2^{(N)}(y))$ and each component is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials.
The probability density for $\mu^{(N)}$ is the tensor product of the probability densities for $\mu_1^{(N)}$ and $\mu_2^{(N)}$ and hence $\mu^{(N)}$ is the independent join of these two marginal laws. It follows that $\int x_j \,d\mu^{(N)}(x)$ and $\int y_j \,d\mu^{(N)}(y)$ are scalar matrices, hence Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} holds for $V^{(N)}$.
Let $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)}) \sim \mu^{(N)}$ be random variables and let $(X,Y) \sim \lambda$ be non-commutative random variables. Then by Theorem \ref{thm:convergenceofentropy},
\begin{align*}
\Phi^*(X,Y) &= \lim_{N \to \infty} E\left[ \norm{DV^{(N)}(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})}_2^2 \right] \\
&= \lim_{N \to \infty} E\left[ \norm{DV_1^{(N)}(X^{(N)})}_2^2 \right] + \lim_{N \to \infty} E\left[ \norm{DV_2^{(N)}(Y^{(N)})}_2^2 \right] \\
&= \Phi^*(X) + \Phi^*(Y).
\end{align*}
It was shown in \cite[Proposition 5.18(c)]{VoiculescuFE6} that $\Phi^*(X,Y) = \Phi^*(X) + \Phi^*(Y)$ implies that $X$ and $Y$ are freely independent.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:marginals}
Suppose that $V^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \to \R$ satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM}. Let $\mu^{(N)}$ be the corresponding law, let $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)}) \sim \mu^{(N)}$ and let $\mu_1^{(N)}$ and $\mu_2^{(N)}$ be the laws of $X^{(N)}$ and $Y^{(N)}$. Then $\mu_1^{(N)}$ and $\mu_2^{(N)}$ are given by a potentials $W_1^{(N)}$ and $W_2^{(N)}$ that also satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} for the same values of $c$ and $C$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By symmetry, it suffices to prove the claims for $\mu_2^{(N)}$. First, it is immediate that the mean of $y_j$ under $\mu_2^{(N)}$ is a scalar, since it is $E[Y_j^{(N)}]$. Moreover, if we define
\[
V_2^{(N)}(x) = -\frac{1}{N^2} \int e^{-N^2 V^{(N)}(x,y)}\,dx,
\]
then (as in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:convergenceofentropy}) we may compute $DV_2^{(N)}$ by differentiating under the integral and obtain
\[
DV_2^{(N)}(Y^{(N)}) = E[D_y V(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}) | Y^{(N)}].
\]
It follows by Theorem \ref{thm:conditionalexpectation} that $\{DV_2^{(N)}\}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials.
Finally, the fact that $c \leq HV_2^{(N)} \leq C$ follows from \cite[Theorem 4.3]{BL1976}, or alternatively by the following reasoning. Let $\mu_t^{(N)}$ be the law of $(e^{-t/2} X^{(N)} + (1 - e^{-t})^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$, where $S^{(N)}$ is an independent GUE tuple. The corresponding potential $\tilde{V}_t^{(N)}$ is given by \eqref{eq:renormalizedpotential} and it satisfies
\[
\frac{ce^t}{1 + c(e^t - 1)} I_m \oplus c I_n \leq H\tilde{V}_t^{(N)} \leq \frac{Ce^t}{1 + C(e^t - 1)} I_m \oplus C I_n
\]
by direct substitution of \eqref{eq:renormalizedpotential} into Lemma \ref{lem:Qt} (4) and hence
\[
\min(c,1) I_m \oplus c I_n \leq H\tilde{V}_t^{(N)} \leq \max(C,1) I_m \oplus C I_n
\]
Now as $t \to \infty$, the law $\tilde{\mu}_t$ converges to the law $\tilde{\mu}_\infty$ of $(S^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$. By applying Lemma \ref{lem:limitoflogconcave}, $\tilde{\mu}_\infty$ is given by some potential $W_2^{(N)}(x,y)$ satisfying
\[
\min(c,1) I_m \oplus c I_n \leq HW_2^{(N)} \leq \max(C,1) I_m \oplus C I_n.
\]
However, we know that $W_2^{(N)}(x,y) = (1/2) \norm{x}_2^2 + V_2^{(N)}(y) + \text{constant}$ because the potential corresponding to a law is unique up to an additive constant. This implies that $c \leq HV_2^{(N)} \leq C$ as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:lineartransformations}
Let $V^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} for some $0 < c \leq C$, and let $X^{(N)}$ be the corresponding random variable. Let $A$ be an invertible $m \times m$ matrix with real entries and let $A^{(N)}$ denote the linear transformation $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ given by
\[
(A^{(N)}x)_i = \sum_{j=1}^m A_{i,j}x.
\]
Then $\widehat{V}^{(N)} = V^{(N)}((A^{-1})^{(N)})$ is the potential corresponding to $A^{(N)} X^{(N)}$, and $\widehat{V}^{(N)}$ satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} with constants $c / \norm{A}$ and $C \norm{A^{-1}}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The fact that $\widehat{V}^{(N)}$ is the potential corresponding to $A^{(N)} X^{(N)}$ follows from change of variables. Now it is immediate that the expectation of $(A^{(N)} X^{(N)})_i$ is a scalar multiple of identity for each $i$. Next, by the chain rule
\[
D\widehat{V}^{(N)}(x) = ((A^{-1})^{(N)})^T DV^{(N)}((A^{-1})^{(N)}x) = ((A^{-1})^T)^{(N)} DV^{(N)}((A^{-1})^{(N)} x),
\]
and from this it follows that $\{D\widehat{V}^{(N)}\}$ is asymptotically approximable by trace polynomials. Similarly, by the chain rule,
\[
H\widehat{V}^{(N)}(x) = ((A^{-1})^T)^{(N)} HV^{(N)}((A^{-1})^{(N)}x) (A^{-1})^{(N)}.
\]
The maximum and minimum singular values of $(A^{-1})^{(N)}$ are the same as those of $A^{-1}$, which are $\norm{A^{-1}}$ and $1 / \norm{A}$ respectively. By a basic linear algebra argument, it follows that $c / \norm{A} \leq H\widehat{V}^{(N)} \leq C \norm{A^{-1}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:convolutions}
Let $V_1^{(N)}$ and $V_2^{(N)}$ be two potentials $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ satisfying Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} with constants $c$ and $C$. Let $X^{(N)}$ and $Y^{(N)}$ be the corresponding random tuples of matrices. Then the law of $X^{(N)} + Y^{(N)}$ is given by another potential $\widehat{V}^{(N)}$ satisfying Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} with constants $\sqrt{2} c$ and $\sqrt{2} C$. Moreover, the free Gibbs state corresponding to $\{\widehat{V}^{(N)}\}$ is the free convolution of those corresponding to $\{V_1^{(N)}\}$ and $\{V_2^{(N)}\}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $V^{(N)}(x,y) = V_1^{(N)}(x) + V_2^{(N)}(y)$, which satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} (with the same constants) by Proposition \ref{prop:independentjoins}. Now let $A$ be the $2m \times 2m$ matrix
\[
A = \begin{pmatrix} I & I \\ -I & I \end{pmatrix}.
\]
Since $A / \sqrt{2}$ is an isometry, we have $\norm{A} = \sqrt{2}$ and $\norm{A^{-1}} = 1/\sqrt{2}$. Therefore, by Proposition \ref{prop:lineartransformations}, the law of $(X^{(N)} + Y^{(N)}, -X^{(N)} + Y^{(N)})$ is given by a potential satisfying Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} with constants $\sqrt{2} c$ and $\sqrt{2} C$. Then by Proposition \ref{prop:marginals}, the law of $X^{(N)} + Y^{(N)}$ is given by such a potential with the same constants $\sqrt{2} c$ and $\sqrt{2} C$.
We showed in Proposition \ref{prop:independentjoins} that the large $N$ limit of the law of $(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$ given a freely independent join of the corresponding marginals. Hence, the large $N$ limit of the law of $X^{(N)} + Y^{(N)}$ is given by the free convolution.
\end{proof}
As a consequence, we have additivity of entropy under conditioning.
\begin{corollary}
Let $V^{(N)}(x,y)$ be a potential satisfying Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} as in the setup of Theorem \ref{thm:convergenceofentropy}. Let $(X,Y)$ be a tuple of non-commutative random variables distributed according to the limiting free Gibbs law associated to $V^{(N)}$. Then
\[
\chi^*(X,Y) = \chi^*(X | Y) + \chi^*(Y).
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
From standard classical results, we have
\[
h(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}) = h(X^{(N)} | Y^{(N)}) + h(Y^{(N)}).
\]
Dividing by $N^2$ and adding $\frac{1}{2} (m+n) \log N$ to both sides, we obtain the normalized version
\[
h^{(N)}(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}) = h^{(N)}(X^{(N)} | Y^{(N)}) + h^{(N)}(Y^{(N)}).
\]
By the previous theorem, we obtain the desired relation for $\chi^*$ in the limit as $N \to \infty$. More precisely, we apply the theorem as stated to $h^{(N)}(X^{(N)} | Y^{(N)})$. Meanwhile, for $h^{(N)}(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$ and $h^{(N)}(Y^{(N)})$ we apply the special case of the theorem where we condition on $0$ variables.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Entropy and Fisher Information Relative to Gaussian}
As background for our discussion of the entropy-cost inequality in \S \ref{subsec:entropycost}, we review the entropy of one probability measure relative to another. If $\nu$ is a measure on $\R^m$, then the \emph{entropy of $\mu$ relative to $\nu$} is
\[
h(\mu | \nu) := -\int \rho \log \rho\,d\mu, \text{ where } \rho = \frac{d\mu}{d\nu}
\]
whenever the integral is well-defined. The standard entropy $h(\mu) = -\int \rho \log \rho$ corresponds to the choice of Lebesgue measure for $\nu$.
\begin{remark}
The reader should be careful to distinguish between the relative entropy $h(\mu | \nu)$ and the conditional entropy $h(X | Y)$. The first changes the ambient measure while the second describes conditioning on $Y$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
If $\mu$ and $\nu$ are both probability measures, then $h(\mu | \nu) \leq 0$. For this reason, many authors choose to change the sign. We will keep the sign convention given above to be consistent with our convention for $h(\mu)$ relative to Lebesgue measure, but we will write absolute value signs around relative entropy when it is natural to use the positive version.
\end{remark}
For probability measures on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$, we may study entropy relative to the Gaussian measure $\sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}$ on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$. A direct computation shows that if $X \sim \mu$ is a random variable in $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$, then we have
\[
h(\mu | \sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}) = h(\mu) - \frac{N^2}{2} E \norm{X}_2^2 + \frac{mN^2}{2} \log \frac{N}{2\pi} .
\]
We denote the normalized version by
\[
h_g^{(N)}(\mu) := h_g^{(N)}(X) := \frac{1}{N^2} h(\mu | \sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}) = h^{(N)}(X) - \frac{1}{2} E \norm{X}_2^2 - \frac{m}{2} \log 2\pi.
\]
Similarly, if $\mu$ is a measure on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n}$ which absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure and $(X,Y)$ is the corresponding random variable, we define
\[
h_g^{(N)}(X | Y) = h^{(N)}(X | Y) - \frac{1}{2} E \norm{X}_2^2 - \frac{m}{2} \log 2\pi,
\]
which is equivalent to
\[
h_g^{(N)}(X | Y) = \int h_g^{(N)}(\mu_{X|Y=y})\,d\mu_Y(y),
\]
where $\mu_{X|Y=y}$ is the conditional distribution of $X$ given $Y = y$, and $\mu_Y$ is the marginal law of $Y$. Similarly, if $(X,Y)$ is an $(m+n)$-tuple of non-commutative random variables, we define the free entropy $\chi^*$ relative to Gaussian by
\[
\chi_g^*(X | Y) = \chi^*(X | Y) - \frac{1}{2} \norm{X}_2^2 - \frac{m}{2} \log 2\pi.
\]
We define the \emph{normalized conditional Fisher information relative to Gaussian} by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:definenormalizedFisher}
\mathcal{I}_g^{(N)}(X | Y) = \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X | Y) - 2m + E \norm{X}_2^2.
\end{equation}
Note that if this Fisher information is finite and if $\xi$ is the normalized score function for $X$ given $Y$ as in \S \ref{subsec:matrixentropy}, then
\[
\mathcal{I}_g^{(N)}(X | Y) = E \norm{\xi - X}_2^2
\]
because
\begin{align*}
E \norm{\xi - X}_2^2 &= E \norm{\xi}_2^2 - 2 E \ip{\xi,X}_2 + E \norm{X}_2^2 \\
&= \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X | Y) - 2m + E \norm{X}_2^2,
\end{align*}
where we have evaluated the middle term on the right hand side using integration by parts. Similarly, for an $(m+n)$-tuple $(X,Y)$ of non-commutative random variables, we define
\begin{equation} \label{eq:definenormalizedFisher2}
\Phi_g^*(X | Y) = \Phi^*(X | Y) - 2m + \norm{X}_2^2 = \norm{\xi - X}_2^2,
\end{equation}
where the second equality holds provided that $\Phi^*$ is finite and $\xi$ is the free score function. We have the following version of \eqref{eq:normalizedentropyformula} and Lemma \ref{lem:Fisherestimates} for entropy and Fisher information relative to Gaussian.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:GaussianFisherinfo}
Let $(X,Y)$ be a random variable in $M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n}$ with a density and with finite variance and let $S$ be an independent GUE $m$-tuple. Then
\[
|h_g^{(N)}(X | Y)| = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \mathcal{I}_g^{(N)}(e^{-t/2}X + (1 - e^{-t})^{1/2}S | Y)\,dt.
\]
Similarly, suppose that $(X,Y)$ is an $(m+n)$-tuple of non-commutative random variables and let $S$ be a freely independent free semicircular $m$-tuple. Then
\[
|\chi_g^*(X | Y)| = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \Phi_g^*(e^{-t/2} X + (1 - e^{-t})^{1/2} S | Y)\,dt.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first formula follows from \cite[\S 4, Lemma 1]{OV2000} after renormalization. However, we will give an argument by a change of variables in \eqref{eq:normalizedentropyformula} that will apply to both $h_g^{(N)}$ and $\chi_g^*$. Note that by \eqref{eq:normalizedentropyformula}
\begin{align*}
h_g^{(N)}(X|Y) &= h^{(N)}(X|Y) - \frac{1}{2} E \norm{X}_2^2 - \frac{m}{2} \log 2\pi \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \left( \frac{m}{1 + t} - \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X + t^{1/2}S | Y) \right)\,dt + \frac{m}{2} - \frac{1}{2} E \norm{X}_2^2,
\end{align*}
and in particular, we know that the integral is well-defined in $[-\infty,+\infty)$. Now we do a change of variables in the integral $t = e^u - 1$, $dt = e^u \,du$ and obtain
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \left( \frac{m}{1 + t} - \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X + t^{1/2}S | Y) \right)\,dt &= \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \left( \frac{m}{e^u} - \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(X + (e^u - 1)^{1/2}S| Y) \right) e^u\,du \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \left( m - \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(e^{-u/2} X + (1 - e^{-u})^{1/2}S| Y) \right) \,du,
\end{align*}
where we have applied the scaling relation Lemma \ref{lem:xiscaling} for Fisher information. On the other hand,
\begin{align*}
\frac{m}{2} - \frac{1}{2} E \norm{X}_2^2 &= \frac{1}{2} \left( E \norm{S}_2^2 - E \norm{X}_2^2 \right) \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty e^{-u} \left( E \norm{S}_2^2 - E \norm{X}_2^2 \right)\,du \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \left( m - E \norm{e^{-u/2} X + (1 - e^{-u})^{1/2} S}_2^2 \right)\,du.
\end{align*}
Therefore, altogether
\begin{align*}
h_g^{(N)}(X|Y) &= \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \left( 2m - \mathcal{I}^{(N)}(e^{-u/2} X + (1 - e^{-u})^{1/2}S| Y) - E \norm{e^{-u/2} X + (1 - e^{-u})^{1/2} S}_2^2 \right) \,du \\
&= -\frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \mathcal{I}_g^{(N)}(e^{-u/2}X + (1 - e^{-u})^{1/2}S | Y)\,du,
\end{align*}
which is the desired formula. The statement for $\chi^*$ can be proved by exactly the same computation, since the definition of $\chi^*$ in \eqref{eq:definechi*} is completely analogous to \eqref{eq:normalizedentropyformula}.
\end{proof}
Furthermore, the log-Sobolev inequality for the Gaussian measure has the following interpretation for entropy and Fisher's information. This in fact generalizes to entropy and Fisher's information relative to any measure $\nu$ satisfying LSI, see \cite[Definition 1]{OV2000}, but we only use the case where $\nu$ is Gaussian and $\mu$ is sufficiently regular.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:informationLSI}
Let $X$ be a random variable in $M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ that has a $C^1$ density with respect to Lebesgue measure. Then
\[
|h_g^{(N)}(X | Y)| \leq \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{I}_g^{(N)}(X | Y).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, it suffices to check the non-conditional version $h_g^{(N)}(X) \leq \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{I}_g^{(N)}(X)$. Indeed, in the conditional case, the left hand side is $\int h_g^{(N)}(\mu_{X|Y=y})\,d\mu_Y(y)$ and the right hand side is $\int \mathcal{I}_g^{(N)}(\mu_{X|Y=y})\,d\mu_Y(y)$, and solving the non-conditional case would allow us to compare the integrands pointwise.
Now suppose that $X$ has density $\rho$ with respect to Lebesgue measure and let $\tilde{\rho}$ be the density with respect to Gaussian, so that
\[
\rho(x) = \tilde{\rho}(x) \frac{1}{(2\pi / N)^{N^2/2}} e^{-N^2 \norm{x}_2^2 / 2}\,dx.
\]
By Corollary \ref{cor:matrixLSI}, the measure $\sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}$ satisfies the normalized log-Sobolev inequality \eqref{eq:normalizedLSI} with $c = 1$, so that
\[
\frac{1}{N^2} \int f^2 \log \frac{f^2}{\int f^2 \,d\sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}} \,d\sigma_{m,t}^{(N)} \leq \frac{2}{N^4} \int \norm{Df}_2^2\,d\sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}.
\]
Let $f = \tilde{\rho}^{1/2}$. Then $\int f^2\,d\sigma_{m,t}^{(N)}$ reduces to $1$, so the right hand side is $|h_g^{(N)}(X)|$. On the other hand, letting $V(x) = -(1/N^2) \log \rho$, we get
\[
f(x) = \tilde{\rho}(x)^{1/2} = (\text{constant}) e^{-N^2V(x)/2 - N^2 \norm{x}_2^2 / 4},
\]
and hence on the support of $f$, we have
\[
Df(x) = -\frac{N^2}{2} (DV(x) - x) \tilde{\rho}(x)^{1/2}.
\]
Thus,
\[
\frac{2}{N^4} \int \norm{Df}_2^2\,d\sigma_{m,t}^{(N)} = \frac{1}{2} \int \norm{DV(x) - x}_2^2\,d\mu(x) = \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{I}_g^{(N)}(X).
\]
Hence, the log-Sobolev inequality implies the desired inequality.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Conditional Transport and the Entropy-Cost Inequality} \label{subsec:entropycost}
Now we will show that the transport maps constructed in \S \ref{subsec:largeNtransport} satisfy the Talagrand entropy-cost inequality. It was shown in \cite[Theorem 1]{OV2000} that if a measure $\nu$ satisfies the log-Sobolev inequality \eqref{eq:LSI} with some constant $c$ (and some regularity conditions), then it satisfies the Talagrand inequality
\[
W_2(\mu,\nu)^2 \leq \frac{2 h(\mu|\nu)}{\rho} \text{ for all } \mu,
\]
where $W_2$ is the $L^2$-Wasserstein distance, which is equivalent to the infimum of $\norm{X - Y}_{L^2}$ over all coupled random variables $X$ and $Y$ with $X \sim \mu$ and $Y \sim \nu$.
Adapting Otto and Villani's argument, we will show that the transport maps constructed in \S \ref{subsec:largeNtransport} witness the (conditional) entropy-cost inequality relative to the GUE law for the $N \times N$ matrix models and the corresponding free entropy-cost inequality for the non-commutative random variables. This is claim (5) below, while the other claims in Theorem \ref{thm:transport3} summarize the results of our earlier construction.
We remark that the free Talagrand inequality for self-adjoint tuples was studied in greater generality in \cite{HU2006} and \cite[\S 3.3]{Dabrowski2010}. Although we restricted ourselves to the case where the target measure is Gaussian/semicircular, our goal in this paper was not merely to estimate the Wasserstein distance using some coupling, but rather to exhibit a coupling that arises from a transport map, and to show Lipschitzness of this transport map.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:transport3}
As in Theorem \ref{thm:transport1}, let $V^{(N)}(x,y)$ be a potential on $M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n}$ satisfying Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM} for some $0 < c \leq C$, and let $\mu^{(N)}$ and $(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$ be the corresponding probability measures and random variables. Let $S^{(N)}$ be an independent GUE $m$-tuple. Let $(X,Y)$ be a tuple of non-commutative random variables given by the limiting free Gibbs law $\lambda$ and let $S$ be a freely independent free semicircular $m$-tuple. Let $\pi_1(x,y) = x$ and $\pi_2(x,y) = y$. Then there exist functions $F^{(N)}$, $G^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m+n} \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ and $F, G \in (\overline{\TrP}_{m+n}^1)^m$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item We have $(F^{(N)}(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)}),Y^{(N)}) \sim (S^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$ and $(G^{(N)}(S^{(N)},Y^{(N)}),Y^{(N)}) \sim (X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})$ in law, and $(F(X,Y),Y) \sim (S,Y)$ and $(G(S,Y),Y) \sim (X,Y)$ in non-commutative law.
\item $(F^{(N)},\pi_2) \circ (G^{(N)},\pi_2) = \id = (G^{(N)},\pi_2) \circ (F^{(N)},\pi_2)$ and the same holds for $F$ and $G$.
\item $F^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow F$ and $G^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow G$.
\item We have $\norm{F^{(N)} - \pi_1}_{\Lip}$ and $\norm{G^{(N)} - \pi_1}_{\Lip} \leq (\max(C,1/c)^3 - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2}$, and the same holds for $F$ and $G$.
\item We have
\[
\norm{F^{(N)}(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}) - X^{(N)}}_{L^2}^2 = \norm{G^{(N)}(S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}) - S^{(N)}}_{L^2}^2 \leq 2 h_g^{(N)}(X^{(N)} | Y^{(N)}).
\]
and
\[
\norm{F(X,Y) - X}_2^2 = \norm{G(S,Y) - S}_2^2 \leq 2 \chi_g^*(X | Y).
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}$ and $\tilde{F}_{s,t}$ be as in Theorems \ref{thm:transport1} and \ref{thm:transport2}. Then let
\begin{align*}
F^{(N)} &= \tilde{F}_{\infty,0}^{(N)} \\
G^{(N)} &= \tilde{F}_{0,\infty}^{(N)} \\
F &= \tilde{F}_{\infty,0} \\
G &= \tilde{F}_{0,\infty}.
\end{align*}
The only property that was not shown in the earlier theorems is (5). First, note that as a consequence of (1),
\[
\norm{F^{(N)}(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}) - X^{(N)}}_{L^2} = \norm{S^{(N)} - G^{(N)}(S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})}_{L^2}.
\]
The rest of the proof of (5) proceeds as in \cite[\S 4]{OV2000}. As in \S \ref{subsec:largeNtransport}, let $\tilde{V}_t^{(N)}$ denote the potential corresponding to $(\tilde{X}_t^{(N)},Y^{(N)}) = (e^{-t/2}X^{(N)} + (1 - e^{-t})^{1/2} S^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$ and recall that
\[
\partial_s \tilde{F}_{s,0}^{(N)}(x,y) = \frac{1}{2} \left( D_x \tilde{V}_s^{(N)}(\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}(x,y),y) - \tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}(x,y) \right),
\]
and hence
\[
\norm*{\tilde{F}_{\infty,0}^{(N)}(x,y) - x}_2 \leq \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \norm*{D_x \tilde{V}_s(\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}(x,y),y) - \tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}(x,y)}_2\,ds.
\]
Then we apply Minkowski's inequality with respect to integration $d\mu^{(N)}(x,y)$ to obtain
\[
\left( \int \norm*{\tilde{F}_{\infty,0}^{(N)}(x,y) - x}_2^2 \,d\mu^{(N)}(x,y) \right)^{1/2} \leq \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \left( \int \norm*{D_x \tilde{V}_s(\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}(x,y),y) - \tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}(x,y)}_2^2 \,d\mu^{(N)}(x,y) \right)^{1/2} \,ds
\]
which can be rewritten as
\begin{align*}
\norm*{F^{(N)}(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}) - X^{(N)}}_{L^2} &\leq \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \norm*{D_x \tilde{V}_s(\tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)}),Y^{(N)}) - \tilde{F}_{s,t}^{(N)}(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)})}_{L^2}\,ds \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \norm*{D_x \tilde{V}_s^{(N)}(\tilde{X}_s^{(N)},Y^{(N)}) - \tilde{X}_s^{(N)}}_{L^2}\,ds \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \mathcal{I}_g^{(N)}(\tilde{X}_s^{(N)} | Y^{(N)})^{1/2}\,ds,
\end{align*}
where we have applied the fact that $(\tilde{F}_{s,0}^{(N)}(X^{(N)},Y^{(N)}), Y^{(N)}) \sim (\tilde{X}_s^{(N)}, Y^{(N)})$. It follows from Lemma \ref{lem:GaussianFisherinfo} and a change of variables that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:integrateentropy}
|h_g^{(N)}(\tilde{X}_t^{(N)} | Y^{(N)})| = \int_t^\infty \mathcal{I}_g^{(N)}(\tilde{X}_s^{(N)} | Y^{(N)})\,ds.
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that $s \mapsto \mathcal{I}_g^{(N)}(\tilde{X}_s^{(N)} | Y^{(N)})$ is bounded on compact sets because of Lemma \ref{lem:Fisherestimates} and \eqref{eq:definenormalizedFisher}. Therefore, we have for almost every $t$,
\[
\frac{d}{dt} |h_g^{(N)}(\tilde{X}_t^{(N)} | Y^{(N)})| = \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{I}_g^{(N)}(\tilde{X}_t^{(N)} | Y^{(N)}).
\]
Hence, for almost every $t$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt} |h_g^{(N)}(\tilde{X}_t^{(N)} | Y^{(N)})|^{1/2} &= \frac{1}{4} \mathcal{I}_g^{(N)}(\tilde{X}_t^{(N)} | Y^{(N)}) |h_g^{(N)}(\tilde{X}_t^{(N)} | Y^{(N)})|^{-1/2} \\
&\geq \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{2}} \mathcal{I}_g^{(N)}(\tilde{X}_t^{(N)} | Y_t^{(N)})^{1/2},
\end{align*}
where the last line follows from Lemma \ref{lem:informationLSI}. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\norm*{F^{(N)}(X^{(N)}, Y^{(N)}) - X^{(N)}}_{L^2} &\leq \sqrt{2} \int_0^\infty \frac{d}{dt} |h_g^{(N)}(\tilde{X}_t^{(N)} | Y^{(N)})|^{1/2} \,dt \\
&= \sqrt{2} |h_g^{(N)}(X^{(N)} | Y^{(N)})|^{1/2},
\end{align*}
where we have employed the fact that $\lim_{t \to \infty} |h_g^{(N)}(\tilde{X}_t^{(N)} | Y^{(N)})| = 0$ by \eqref{eq:integrateentropy}. This establishes the first claim of (5).
The second claim of (5) follows by taking the large $N$ limit using Corollary \ref{cor:convergenceofexpectation} and Theorem \ref{thm:convergenceofentropy}. More precisely, for the left hand side, we take the limit using Corollary \ref{cor:convergenceofexpectation}. Meanwhile, for the right hand side, note that $h_g^{(N)}(X^{(N)} | Y^{(N)}) \to \chi_g^*(X | Y)$ because $h^{(N)}(X^{(N)} | Y^{(N)}) \to \chi^*(X | Y)$ and $E \norm{X^{(N)}}_2^2 \to \norm{X}_2^2$ by Corollary \ref{cor:convergenceofexpectation}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Construction of Triangular Transport}
Finally, by iterating Theorem \ref{thm:transport3}, we obtain the following result concerning ``lower-triangular transport.'' This is analogous to the classical result \cite[Corollary 3.10]{BKM2005}. Of course, the challenge in our situation was to understand the large $N$ behavior of the transport maps in a dimension-independent way. Unfortunately, the transport constructed here is not optimal among triangular mappings, since indeed Otto and Villani's construction does not produce the optimal transport map.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:transport4}
Let $V^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to \R$ be a potential satisfying Assumption \ref{ass:convexRMM}. Let $\mu^{(N)}$ and $X^{(N)}$ be the corresponding law and random variable. Let $\lambda$ be the limiting free Gibbs law, and let $X \sim \mu$ be an $m$-tuple of non-commutative random variables. Let $S^{(N)}$ be an independent GUE $m$-tuple and let $S$ be a freely independent free semicircular family. Then there exist functions $\Phi^{(N)}$, $\Psi^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^m \to M_N(\C)_{sa}^m$ and $\Phi, \Psi \in (\overline{\TrP}_m^1)^m$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Phi^{(N)}(X^{(N)}) \sim S^{(N)}$ and $\Psi^{(N)}(S^{(N)}) \sim X^{(N)}$ in law, and similarly, $\Phi(X) \sim S$ and $\Psi(S) \sim X$ in non-commutative law.
\item $\Phi^{(N)}$ and $\Psi^{(N)}$ are inverse functions of each other, and the same holds for $\Phi$ and $\Psi$.
\item $\Phi^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow \Phi$ and $\Psi^{(N)} \rightsquigarrow \Psi$.
\item $\Phi^{(N)}$ is upper triangular in the sense that
\[
\Phi^{(N)}(x_1,\dots,x_m) = (\Phi_1^{(N)}(x_1), \Phi_2^{(N)}(x_1,x_2), \dots, \Phi_m^{(N)}(x_1,\dots,x_m))
\]
and the same holds for $\Psi^{(N)}$, $\Phi$, and $\Psi$. In particular, the isomorphism $\mathrm{W}^*(X) \to \mathrm{W}^*(S)$ induced by $\Phi$ maps $\mathrm{W}^*(X_1,\dots,X_k)$ onto $\mathrm{W}^*(S_1,\dots,S_k)$ for each $k = 1$, \dots, $m$.
\item We have $\norm{\Phi^{(N)} - \id}_{\Lip} \leq m^{1/2} (\max(C,1/c)^3 - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2}$ and $\norm{\Psi^{(N)} - \id}_{\Lip}$ is bounded by some constant $L(c,C,m)$ which goes to zero as $c, C \to 1$.
\item We have
\[
\norm{\Phi^{(N)}(X^{(N)}) - X^{(N)}}_{L^2}^2 = \norm{\Psi^{(N)}(S^{(N)}) - S^{(N)}}_{L^2}^2 \leq 2 h_g^{(N)}(X^{(N)}).
\]
and
\[
\norm{\Phi(X) - X}_2^2 = \norm{\Psi(S) - S}_2^2 \leq 2 \chi_g^*(X).
\]
\item We have
\begin{align*}
\norm{\Phi_j(X_1,\dots,X_j) - (X_j - \tau(X_j))}_\infty &= \norm{(\Psi_j(S_1,\dots,S_j) - \tau(\Psi_j(S_1,\dots,S_j))) - S_j}_\infty \\
&\leq (\max(C,1/c)^3 - 1) \max(C,1/c) \Theta,
\end{align*}
where $\Theta$ is the universal constant from Proposition \ref{prop:operatornormestimate}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First, by Proposition \ref{prop:marginals}, the marginal law of $(X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_j^{(N)})$ is given by a convex potential satisfying the same assumptions.
For each $j$, we apply Theorem \ref{thm:transport3} with $X_j^{(N)}$ as the first variable and $(X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_{j-1}^{(N)})$ as the second variable. We thus obtain maps $\Phi_j^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^j \to M_N(\C)_{sa}$ such that
\[
(X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_{j-1}^{(N)}, \Phi_j^{(N)}(X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_j^{(N)})) \sim (X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_{j-1}^{(N)}, S_j^{(N)}).
\]
Let
\[
\Phi^{(N)}(x_1,\dots,x_m) = (\Phi_1^{(N)}(x_1), \Phi_2^{(N)}(x_1,x_2), \dots \Phi_m^{(N)}(x_1,\dots,x_m)).
\]
Let $Y^{(N)} = \Phi^{(N)}(X^{(N)})$. Then we can check by backwards induction on $j$ that
\[
(X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_j^{(N)}, Y_{j+1}^{(N)}, \dots, Y_m^{(N)}) \sim (X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_j^{(N)}, S_{j+1}^{(N)}, \dots, S_m^{(N)}).
\]
Indeed, the base case $j = m$ is trivial. For the induction step, suppose the claim holds for $j$. Since $Y_{j+1}^{(N)}$ is a function of $X_1^{(N)}$, \dots, $X_j^{(N)}$, then the induction hypothesis implies that
\begin{align*}
(X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_{j-1}^{(N)}, Y_j^{(N)}, Y_{j+1}^{(N)}, \dots, Y_m^{(N)}) &\sim (X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_{j-1}^{(N)}, Y_j^{(N)}, S_{j+1}^{(N)}, \dots, S_m^{(N)}) \\
&\sim(X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_{j-1}^{(N)}, S_j^{(N)}, S_{j+1}^{(N)}, \dots, S_m^{(N)}),
\end{align*}
where the last line follows because $(X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_{j-1}^{(N)}, Y_j^{(N)}) \sim (X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_{j-1}^{(N)}, S_j^{(N)})$ and because $S_{j+1}^{(N)}$, \dots, $S_m^{(N)}$ are independent of the other variables. By Theorem \ref{thm:transport3}, $\Phi_j^{(N)}$ is asymptotic to some $\Phi_j \in (\overline{\TrP}_j^1)_{sa}$, and the objects $\Phi$, $X$, and $S$ satisfy the analogous transport relations in the non-commutative setting. Now because each $\Phi_j^{(N)} - \pi_{x_j}$ is $(\max(C,1/c)^3 - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2}$-Lipschitz, we see that $\Phi^{(N)} - \id$ is $m^{1/2} (\max(C,1/c)^3 - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2}$-Lipschitz.
By Theorem \ref{thm:transport3}, there is a map $G_j^{(N)}: M_N(\C)_{sa}^{m-j+1} \to M_N(\C)_{sa}$ such that $(x_1,\dots,x_{j-1},G_j^{(N)}(x_1,\dots,x_j))$ is the inverse of $(x_1,\dots,x_{j-1},\Phi_j(x_1,\dots,x_j))$. Define $\Psi_j^{(N)}$ by induction by
\[
\Psi_j^{(N)}(x_j,\dots,x_m) = G_j^{(N)}(\Psi_1(x_1),\dots,\Psi_{j-1}(x_1,\dots,x_{j-1}),x_j).
\]
Then $\Psi^{(N)} = (\Psi_1^{(N)},\dots,\Psi_m^{(N)})$ is the inverse of $\Phi^{(N)}$. Since $G_j^{(N)} - \id$ is $(\max(C,1/c)^3 - 1) \max(C,1/c)^{1/2}$-Lipschitz, we can show by induction that $\norm{\Psi_j^{(N)}}_{\Lip}$ is bounded by a constant depending only on $c$, $C$, and $m - j$, and which goes to zero as $c, C \to 1$. Moreover, by Lemma \ref{lem:composition}, $\Psi^{(N)}$ is asymptotic to some $\Psi \in (\overline{\TrP}_m^1)_{sa}^m$.
This concludes the verification of (1) - (5). Now to prove (6), we apply Theorem \ref{thm:transport3} (5) and get
\begin{align*}
\norm{\Phi^{(N)}(X^{(N)}) - X^{(N)}}_{L^2}^2 &= \sum_{j=1}^m \norm*{\Phi_j^{(N)}(X_j^{(N)},\dots,X_m^{(N)}) - X_j^{(N)}}_{L^2}^2 \\
&\leq \sum_{j=1}^m 2 h_g^{(N)}(X_j^{(N)} | X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_{j-1}^{(N)}) \\
&= 2 \sum_{j=1}^m \left( h^{(N)}(X_j^{(N)} | X_1^{(N)}, \dots, X_{j-1}^{(N)}) - \frac{1}{2} E \norm{X_j^{(N)}}_2^2 - \frac{1}{2} \log 2 \pi \right) \\
&= 2 \left( h^{(N)}(X^{(N)}) - \frac{1}{2} E \norm{X^{(N)}}_2^2 - \frac{m}{2} \log 2 \pi \right) \\
&= 2 h_g^{(N)}(X^{(N)}),
\end{align*}
where we have applied the definition of $h_g^{(N)}$ and the classical fact that $h^{(N)}$ is additive under conditioning. As before, because $\Phi^{(N)}(X^{(N)}) \sim S^{(N)}$, we see that $\norm{S^{(N)} - \Psi^{(N)}(S^{(N)})}_{L^2} = \norm{\Phi^{(N)}(X^{(N)}) - X^{(N)}}_{L^2}$. Finally, the second claim of (6) regarding the free case follows by taking the limit as $N \to \infty$.
Finally, to prove (7), recall that the map $\Phi_j$ is a special case of the map $\tilde{F}_{0,\infty}$ in Theorem \ref{thm:transport2}. Thus, by applying Theorem \ref{thm:transport2} (4) in the case where $s = \infty$ and $s' = t = 0$, we obtain $\norm{\Phi_j(X_1,\dots,X_j) - (X_j - \tau(X_j))}_\infty \leq (\max(C,1/c)^3 - 1) \max(C,1/c) \Theta$. Moreover, the middle quantity in claim (7) equals the left hand side because $\Phi(X) \sim S$.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Funding}
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation [grant DMS-1762360] and the UCLA graduate division.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
I thank Dima Shlyakhtenko, Ben Hayes, Brent Nelson, Yoann Dabrowski, Yoshimichi Ueda, and Todd Kemp for various useful conversations and comments on drafts of this paper. The results of this paper were motivated in part by discussions with Ben Hayes regarding free entropy and maximal amenable subalgebras. Dima Shlyakhtenko suggested the name ``triangular transport.'' The anonymous referees suggested several references and improvements to the exposition, including the connection with model theory.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
\input{sections/introduction.tex}
\section{PISA-NMC}
\label{sec:backgrounds}
\input{sections/back_pisa.tex}
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec:methodology}
\input{sections/methodology.tex}
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\input{sections/results.tex}
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:relatedworks}
\input{sections/relatedworks.tex}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusions}
\input{sections/conclusions.tex}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\input{sections/acks}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\subsection{Memory metrics}
We add memory entropy, which measures the randomness of the memory addresses accessed using an entropy formula adapted to the memory accesses. If the memory entropy is high, which means a higher cache miss ratio, the application may benefit from 3D-stacked memory bandwith because of the volume of data moved from the main memory to the caches.
Data reuse distance or data temporal reuse (DTR) is a helpful metric to detect cache inefficiencies. The DTR of an address is the number of unique addresses accessed since the last reference of the requested data. We integrate this metric into PISA for different cache line sizes in order to compute the spatial locality metric.
Spatial locality measures the probability of accessing nearby memory locations.
The key idea behind this spatial locality score is to detect a reduction in DTR when doubling the cache line size. Usually, application with low spatial locality perform very bad on traditional systems with cache hierarchies because a small portion of data is utilized compared to the data loaded from the main memory to the caches
\subsection{Parallelism metrics}
Data-level parallelism (DLP) measures the average length of vector instructions that are used to optimize a program. DLP could be interesting for NMC when employing specific SIMD processing units in the logic layer of the 3D-stacked memory. We specialize the instruction-level parallelism (ILP) per opcode in order to estimate the DLP.
A basic-block is the smallest component in the LLVM's IR that can be considered as a potential parallelizable task. Basic-block level parallelism (BBLP) is a potential metric for NMC because it can estimate the task level parallelism in the application. The parallel tasks can be offloaded to multiple compute units located on the logic layer of a 3D-stacked memory. We develop metrics similar to ILP considering the basic block as a set of instruction that can be run only sequentially.
We also aim to estimate the presence of data parallel loops. Data parallel loops consist of basic-blocks that are repeated without any dependencies among their instances. We develop a metric, PBBLP (potential basic-block-level parallelism) that tries in a fast and straightforward manner to estimate the basic-block level parallelism in data-parallel loops.
\subsection{LLVM Framework}
The LLVM framework is a collection of modular and reusable compiler and toolchain technologies \cite{Lattner:2004:LCF:977395.977673}. The LLVM core uses an intermediate representation (IR) to represent the application code in a generic way. LLVM's IR is generated through a front-end from the application source code. Then, it can be used to perform analyses or optimizations using the \emph{opt} tool. LLVM's IR can be executed through an interpreter or can be translated into a target-specific executable binary.
Fundamental properties of LLVM's IR are: 1) it is independent of the source language and the target architecture; 2) it is a low-level and RISC-like instruction set allowing to have an unlimited number of virtual registers in static single assignment (SSA) form. These features are essential to simulate an ideal machine \cite{bookCA} that consists of a Von-Neumann system with unlimited resources, such as cores, registers, or in other words when the goal is a perfect machine without the traditional hardware limitations.
LLVM's IR has a hierarchical structure: a \emph{module} that represents the application and contains functions and global variables; a \emph{function} that is a set of basic-blocks; a \emph{basic-block} that consists of \emph{instructions} and represents a single entry and single exit section of code.
\subsection{Tool Architecture}
Our goal is to dynamically analyze a wide range of applications to extract helpful metrics relevant for NMC. We extend PISA that uses an instrumented approach. PISA instruments the code with function calls to an external run-time analysis library.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{images/pisa}
\caption{Overview of the Platform-Independent Software Analysis Tool \cite{Anghel2016}.
\label{fig:pisa}}
\end{figure}
PISA's architecture is shown in \emph{Figure \ref{fig:pisa}}. Initially, application's source code, e.g. C/C++ code, is translated into the LLVM's IR. Then, \emph{mem2reg} optimization is used to obtain the SSA format. This is done by removing \emph{alloca} instructions for non-aliased scalar variables. In this way, these variables are put in virtual registers. PISA exploits the \emph{opt} tool to perform LLVM's IR optimizations and to perform the instrumentation process using an LLVM pass. This process is done by inserting calls to the external analysis library throughout the application's IR.
The last step consists of a linking process that generates a native executable. On running this executable, we can obtain analysis results for specified metrics in JSON format. PISA can extract metrics such as instruction-level parallelism, data reuse distance, instruction mix, etc.
The analysis reconstructs and analyzes the program's instruction flow. This is possible because the analysis library is aware of the single entry and exit point for each basic-block. All the instructions contained in the basic-block are analyzed using the external library methods. Only when a load/store or a call is encountered the execution is interrupted in order to allow a dynamic analysis. In the case of load/store, the analysis is restarted by an instrumentation function after the load/store instruction. Instead in the case of a call, the current state of the basic-block is saved and then PISA continues analyzing the basic-blocks pointed by the call.
A useful feature of PISA is the support of the MPI and OpenMP standards allowing the analysis of multi-threaded and multi-process applications. In multi-threaded applications, PISA analyzes each thread individually, allocating different data structures for each of them and distinguishing them by the thread ID because the address space is shared. For multi-process applications, this is not needed because each process has its private space for data.
The overhead of this tool depends on the analysis performed. On average the execution-time of the instrumented code is increased by two to three orders of magnitude in comparison to the non-instrumented code. On the other hand, since the analysis is target-independent, this has to be performed only once per application and dataset.
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{PISA's metrics}
\label{tab:pisametrics}
\centering
\scalebox{0.90}{
\begin{tabular}{c|l}
\hline
\bfseries Metric & \bfseries Description\\
\hline
Instruction Mix & Instruction count for each instruction category\\
\hline
Instruction-level parallelism & Number of instructions that be can run in parallel\\
\hline
Branch entropy & The measure of randomness of branch outcomes\\
\hline
Data temporal reuse & Number of unique memory accesses between two\\
& accesses to the same location\\
\hline
MPI communications & Data volume exchanged by MPI pairs\\% during the application run\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{PISA's Metrics}
\label{tab:pisametrics}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|l}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Metric}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Description}} \\ \hline
Instruction Mix & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Instruction count for each instruction \\ category\end{tabular} \\ \hline
Instruction-level parallelism & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Number of instructions that be can \\ run in parallel\end{tabular} \\ \hline
Branch entropy & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}The measure of randomness of branch \\ outcomes\end{tabular} \\ \hline
Data temporal reuse & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Number of unique memory accesses \\ between two accesses to the same \\ location\end{tabular} \\ \hline
MPI communications & Data volume exchanged by MPI pairs \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
\subsection{LLVM Framework}
PISA is based on the LLVM Compiler framework.
It uses an intermediate representation (IR), which is generated from the application source code using a clang front-end, to represent the application code in a generic way. This IR is independent of the target architecture and has RISC-like instruction set. Therefore, these features can be used to perform application analysis or optimization using the opt tool.
LLVM's IR has a hierarchical structure: a \emph{basic-block} that consists of \emph{instructions} and represents a single entry and single exit section of code; a \emph{function} that is a set of basic-blocks; and a \emph{module} that represents the application and contains functions and global variables.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{images/pisa}
\caption{Overview of the Platform-Independent Software Analysis Tool \cite{Anghel2015AnIA}.
\label{fig:pisa}}
\end{figure}
PISA's architecture is shown in \emph{Figure \ref{fig:pisa}}. Initially, the application source code, e.g. C/C++ code, is translated into the LLVM's IR.
PISA exploits the \emph{opt} tool to perform LLVM's IR optimizations and to perform the instrumentation process using an LLVM pass. This process is done by inserting calls to the external analysis library throughout the application's IR.
The last step consists of a linking process that generates a native executable. On running this executable, we can obtain analysis results for specified metrics in JSON format. PISA can extract metrics such as instruction mix, branch entropy, data reuse distance, etc.
The analysis reconstructs and analyzes the program's instruction flow. This is possible because the analysis library is aware of the single entry and exit point for each basic-block. All the instructions contained in the basic-block are analyzed using the external library methods.
Moreover, PISA supports the MPI and OpenMP standards allowing the analysis of multi-threaded and multi-process applications.
The tool's overhead depends on the analysis performed. On average the execution-time increases by two to three orders of magnitude in comparison to the non-instrumented code. However, since the analysis is target-independent, this has to be performed only once per application and dataset.
\subsection{Host and NMC system}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{systemNMC5.eps}
\caption{Our NMC System
\label{fig:systemNMC}}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:systemNMC} depicts the reference computing platform that we consider in this work. We run the applications both on a traditional Von-Neumann Architecture using the latest \emph{IBM Power 9}~\cite{power9} and on an NMC system based on hybrid memory cube (HMC). HMC memory is divided into several vertical DRAM partitions, called vaults, each with its own DRAM controller in the logic layer. In this work, we model NMC PEs as in-order, single-issue cores {with a private cache} as proposed in previous work~\cite{tesseract,7429299}. \emph{Table \ref{tab:systemchar}} lists the details of the host and NMC system used in our experiments. We extract the power consumption with AMESTER\footnote{https://github.com/open-power/amester} tool on Power 9. We simulate the NMC system on an extended version of the memory simulator \emph{Ramulator}~\cite{7063219} including the processing units.
Each processing unit is assigned to a vault and operates on the data assigned to that vault. We collect dynamic execution traces of the instrumented code with a Pin tool. We feed the acquired traces to Ramulator.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Host and NMC System Characteristics}
\label{tab:systemchar}
\centering
\scalebox{0.98}{
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Architecture}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{CPU Used}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Cache per core}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Memory}} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}IBM\\ Power9\\ (Host)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}4 cores \\ (SMT4)\\ @ 2.3 GHz\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}L1 32 KB\\ L2 256 KB\\ L3 10 MB\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}DDR4, 32 GB \\ RDIMM @\\ 2.7 GHz\end{tabular} \\ \hline
NMC & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}32 single-\\ issue in-order \\ cores @ \\ 1.25 GHz\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}L1-I/D 2-way\\ 2 cache lines \\ 64B per cache \\ line\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}HMC, 4GB\\ 8 stacked-layers,\\ 32 vaults, 16-bit\\ full duplex and \\ SerDes I/O link \\ @ 15 Gbps\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\subsection{Benchmarks}
Existing literature is devoid of proper benchmarks to evaluate NMC systems and explore the design space. Most of the studies instead design NMC systems tailored to improve the performance of specific workloads~\cite{overviewpaper}. We select a set of applications from two benchmark suites that are representative of the most common kernels and have been used previously in other related studies: Rodinia~\cite{zhang2014top,7551394,7756764} and Polybench~\cite{7756764}. Rodinia~\cite{5306797} is a benchmark suite for heterogeneous computing. Rodinia workloads cover a wide range of different behaviors which help a developer in building new systems. Polybench~\cite{pouchet2012polybench} is a collection of a large number of common kernels like matrix multiplication, stencil, covariance, correlation, etc. Each kernel is in a single file, tunable at compile-time. This makes instrumentation easier.
\subsection{Memory entropy}
The first metric related to memory behavior that we added is the memory entropy. The memory entropy measures the randomness of the memory addresses accessed. If the memory entropy is high, which means a higher miss ratio, the application may benefit from 3D-stacked memory \gaganCheck{because of the volume of data moved from the main memory to the caches(EXPLAINATION IS NOT GOOD)}. In information theory, Shannon's formula \cite{6773263} is used to capture entropy \gaganCheck{(ENTROPY OF WHAT)}. We embed in PISA, the formula defined by Yen et al.~\cite{Yen:2008:NHT:1521747.1521793}. They applied Shannon's definition to memory addresses as shown below:
\begin{equation}
\textrm{Memory-entropy} = - \sum^{2^n}_{i=1}\hat{p}(x_i)log_2\hat{p}(x_i)
\label{eq:entropy1}
\end{equation}
In \emph{Equation \ref{eq:entropy1}}, $x_i$ is a n-bit random variable, $\hat{p}(x_i)$ is the occurrence probability for the value $x_i$ and $2^n$ is the number of values that $x_i$ can take. $\hat{p}(x_i)$ is defined by:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hat{p}(x_i)=\frac{1}{d}\sum^{d}_{j=1}I(a_j=x_i) \\
\textrm{where} \; I(a_j=x_i)=1 \; if \; (a_j=x_i), \\
0 \; \textrm{otherwise} \; \textrm{and} \; 0log0=0
\end{split}
\label{eq:entropy2}
\end{equation}
In \emph{Equation \ref{eq:entropy2}}, $d$ memory addresses are accessed during the execution and they are represented as $\{a_j\}^d_{j=1}$. Each address is in the range $[0,2^{n-1}]$, where $n$ is the length of the address in bits. If every address has the same occurrence probability the entropy is $n$; if only one address is accessed the entropy is $0$. Otherwise, the entropy is within $0$ and $n$.
The memory entropy metrics does not distinguish whether the accesses contain sequential patterns or random accesses. Therefore we need additional metrics, like spatial locality.
\subsection{Data reuse distance for multiple cache-line size and spatial locality}
Data reuse distance or data temporal reuse (DTR) is a helpful metric to detect cache inefficiencies. The DTR of an address is the number of unique addresses accessed since the last reference of the requested data.
This metric is present in the default framework. However, the tool can compute it only for a fixed cache line size, which represents the address granularity e.g. if the cache line is 16Bytes the 4 least significant bits (LSB) are discarded to compute unique address in the DTR computation. We modify the tool in order to compute the DTR for different cache line sizes. This extends the available analysis opportunities. For instance, we employed the DTR to compute the spatial locality.
We extend PISA with the spatial locality score inspired by Gu et al. \cite{Gu:2009:CMS:1542431.1542446}. The key idea behind this spatial locality score is to detect a reduction in DTR when doubling the cache line size. To estimate the spatial locality in a program two elements are fundamental: 1) histograms of data reuse distance for different cache line sizes, 2) distribution maps to keep track of changes in DTR for each access doubling the cache line size.
Histograms are used to compute the DTR distribution for different cache-line sizes. In \cite{Gu:2009:CMS:1542431.1542446} the reuse signature has been defined as a pair $<R,P>$, where $R$ is a series of consecutive DTR ranges of bins, represented as: $r_i=[d_i,d_{i+1})$. These bins are a logarithmic progression defined as: $d_{i+1} = 2d_i (i \geq 0)$. $P$ is the distribution probabilities $p_i$ of the bin $r_i$. This reuse signature is used later to normalize the results.
The next step consists of building a distribution map. This map keeps track of each change in the DTR for every access. The distribution map has $i$ rows representing the bins using a cache line size $b$ and $j$ columns representing the bins using a doubled cache line size $2b$. Each cell is the probability $p_{ij}$ of the bin $i$ using a cache line size $b$ to change in a bin $j$ using a cache line size $2b$. Differently from \cite{Gu:2009:CMS:1542431.1542446} we compute the sum of the cells in a row where $i<j$, as shown in \emph{Equation \ref{eq:slq}}. We do that because we want to express all the changes in data reuse distance. The spatial locality score for the bin $i$ is:
\begin{equation}
SLQ(i)=\sum_{j=0}^{j<i}p_{ij}
\label{eq:slq}
\end{equation}
To compute the spatial locality score related to a pair of cache line sizes $<b,2b>$ we first compute the absolute values of the weighted sum that uses the probabilities $p_i$ included in the reuse signature and then use the formula proposed by \cite{Gu:2009:CMS:1542431.1542446} to calculate the total score, which is the logarithmic weighted sum of absolute values:
\begin{equation}
SLQ=\frac{\sum_{\textrm{all} \; b}|\sum_{\textrm{all} \; i}SLQ^b(i)p_i^b|2^{-b}}{\sum_{\textrm{all} \; b}2^{-b}}
\label{eq:slqtotal}
\end{equation}
The weighted score gives more importance to lower cache line sizes pairs.
Nevertheless, this can be interpreted as higher relevance of these lower pairs because bigger cache line sizes bring massive data transfers.
Applications with low spatial locality perform very bad on traditional systems with cache hierarchies because a small portion of data is utilized compared to the data loaded from the main memory to the caches. Thus these applications could benefit from NMC
\subsection{Data-level parallelism}
Data-level parallelism (DLP) measures the average length of vector instructions that is used to optimize a program. DLP could be interesting for NMC when employing specific SIMD processing units in the logic layer of the 3D-stacked memory.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.8cm,trim ={0 0.5cm 0 1.8cm},clip]{images/ilp_spec.eps}
\caption{The control flow graph (CFG) is commonly used to compute the ILP (as shown on the left). Also, CFG can be used to analyze ILP per type of instruction (as shown for memory instructions in the center). We further specialized this CFG to compute ILP per opcode (as shown for load instructions on the right). The ILP computed in this way represents how many instructions of the same opcode could run in parallel, which is referred to as data-level parallelism or DLP per instruction.\label{fig:ilpspecialized}}
\end{figure}
PISA can extract the instruction-level parallelism for all the instructions (see \emph{Figure \ref{fig:ilpspecialized}}, CFG on the left) and additionally per instruction category such as control, memory, etc. (see \emph{Figure \ref{fig:ilpspecialized}}, CFG in the center). As shown in the CFG on the right in \emph{Figure \ref{fig:ilpspecialized}}, we extract the ILP score per opcode and call it as $ ILP_{\textrm{specialized}, \textrm{opcode}}$ where opcode can be load, store, add, etc. This metric represents the number of instructions with the same opcode that could run in parallel. Next, we compute the weighted average (\emph{Equation \ref{eq:dlp}}) value for DLP using the weighted sum over all opcodes of $ ILP_{\textrm{specialized}, \textrm{opcode}}$.The weights are the frequency of the opcodes calculated by dividing the number of instructions per code with the number of instructions.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
DLP_{avg}=\sum_{\textrm{opcode}} ILP_{\textrm{specialized}, \textrm{opcode}} \frac{\#\textrm{instructions}_{\textrm{opcode}}}{\#\textrm{instructions}}
\end{split}
\label{eq:dlp}
\end{equation}
As the register allocation step is not performed at the level of intermediate representation, it is not possible to take into account the register consecutiveness in this score.
However, we want to show the optimization opportunities for compilers distinguishing between consecutiveness of load/store instruction addresses. We represent this with two scores: $DLP_1$ without address consecutiveness; $DLP_2$ with addresses consecutiveness into account. To compute them we use \emph{Equation \ref{eq:dlp}} changing the $ILP_{\textrm{specialized}, \textrm{opcode}}$ value for loads and stores.
\subsection{Basic-block level parallelism}
A basic-block is the smallest component in the LLVM's IR that can be considered as a potential parallelizable task. Basic-block level parallelism (BBLP) is an important metric for NMC because if it is high, then it is possible to exploit many processing units in the 3D-stacked memory logic layer.
To estimate BBLP in a workload, we developed a metric similar to ILP and DLP. The first assumption we made is to consider a basic-block as a set of instructions that can only be executed sequentially. Since loop index count could put an artificially tight constraint on the parallelism, we assume two different basic-block scheduling approaches (see \emph{Figure \ref{fig:bblpscheduling}}): 1) all the dependencies between basic-block are considered; 2) we consider a smart scheduling, assuming a compiler that can optimize loop index update dependencies. The difference between the two approaches can give an idea, as in the DLP case, of the optimization opportunities for compilers. We compute the two scores derived from the two scheduling options using the following formula (see \emph{Figure \ref{fig:bblpscheduling}}):
\begin{equation}
BBLP_{avg}=\frac{\# \textrm{instructions}}{\textrm{MaxIssueCycle}_{BBLP}}
\label{eq:bblp}
\end{equation}
Where $MaxIssueCycle_{BBLP}$ represents the cycle of the last executed instruction using the proposed scheduling approaches (red numbers in \emph{Figure \ref{fig:bblpscheduling}(b,c)}). $\#instructions$ represent the total number of instructions (see \emph{Figure \ref{fig:bblpscheduling}.a}).
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,trim ={0 10.3cm 12.9cm 3.1cm},clip]{images/bblpscheduling.pdf}
\caption{BBLP/PBBLP methodology: a) example of LLVM dynamic trace; b) real scheduling for BBLP computation taking in account all dependencies; c) simplified scheduling for BBLP computation not taking in account dependencies such as loop index update (dependency between instruction 15-icmp and 17-getelementptr, see the numbers in a)); d) PBBLP values for each basic block (second and third block are a repeated basic block, since there is only a loop index dependecy, the PBBLP is equal to 2).
\label{fig:bblpscheduling}}
\end{figure}
We also aim to estimate the presence of data parallel loops. Data parallel loops consists of basic-blocks that are repeated without any dependencies among their instances. A fast and straightforward estimation can be done by assigning a value to each basic-block between $1$ and the number of instances. When a basic-block has only one instance or all its instances have dependencies among them the score is $1$. Instead, when all its instances don't have dependencies among them the value is maximal and equal to the number of instances.\gagan{However} \gaganRemove{Contrariwise}, the score is within the range described above.
Other assumptions we made are: skip index update dependencies and omit basic-blocks that are used only for index update.
After assigning a score to each basic-block ($PBBLP_{BB}$), we compute the weighted average value for PBBLP using the weighted sum (\emph{Equation \ref{eq:pbblp}}) over all scores ($PBBLP_{BB}$). The weights are the frequency of the basic-block instanes calculated by dividing the number of instances per basic-block with the number of total instances.
\begin{equation}
PBBLP_{avg}=\sum_{BB}PBBLP_{BB}\frac{\#\textrm{instances}_{BB}}{\#\textrm{instances}_{\textrm{total}}}
\label{eq:pbblp}
\end{equation}
However, this score is only a speculative estimation that can show potential BBLP and consequently DLP, thus being less precise than the previously presented metrics.
\subsection{Memory metrics}
We add memory entropy, which measures the randomness of the memory addresses accessed using an entropy formula adapted to the memory accesses. If the memory entropy is high, which means a higher cache miss ratio, the application may benefit from 3D-stacked memory because of the volume of data moved from the main memory to the caches.
Data reuse distance or data temporal reuse (DTR) is a helpful metric to detect cache inefficiencies. The DTR of an address is the number of unique addresses accessed since the last reference of the requested data. We integrate this metric into PISA for different cache line sizes in order to compute the Spatial locality metric.
Spatial locality measures the probability of accessing nearby memory locations.
The key idea behind this spatial locality score is to detect a reduction in DTR when doubling the cache line size. Usually, application with low spatial locality perform very bad on traditional systems with cache hierarchies because a small portion of data is utilized compared to the data loaded from the main memory to the caches
\subsection{Parallelism metrics}
Data-level parallelism (DLP) measures the average length of vector instructions that is used to optimize a program. DLP could be interesting for NMC when employing specific SIMD processing units in the logic layer of the 3D-stacked memory. We specialize the instruction-level parallelism (ILP) per opcode in order to estimate the DLP.
A basic-block is the smallest component in the LLVM's IR that can be considered as a potential parallelizable task. Basic-block level parallelism (BBLP) is a potential metric for NMC because it can estimate the task level parallelism in the application. The parallel tasks can be offloaded to multiple compute units located on the logic layer of a 3D-stacked memory. We develop a metrics similar to ILP considering the basic block as a set of instruction that can be run only sequentially.
We also aim to estimate the presence of data parallel loops. Data parallel loops consist of basic-blocks that are repeated without any dependencies among their instances. We develop a metric, PBBLP (Potential basic-block-level parallelism) that tries in a fast and straightforward manner to estimate the basic-block level parallelism in data parallel loops.
\subsection{Memory entropy}
The first metric related to memory behavior that we added is the memory entropy. The memory entropy measures the randomness of the memory addresses accessed. If the memory entropy is high, which means a higher cache miss ratio, the application may benefit from 3D-stacked memory because of the volume of data moved from the main memory to the caches. In information theory, Shannon's formula \cite{6773263} is used to capture entropy.
We embed in PISA, the formula defined by Yen et al. \cite{Yen:2008:NHT:1521747.1521793}. They applied Shannon's definition to memory addresses: $\textrm{Memory\_entropy} = - \sum^{2^n}_{i=1}\hat{p}(x_i)log_2\hat{p}(x_i)$, where $x_i$ is a n-bit random variable, $\hat{p}(x_i)$ is the occurrence probability for the value $x_i$ and $2^n$ is the number of values that $x_i$ can take. $\hat{p}(x_i)$ is defined by: $\hat{p}(x_i)=\frac{1}{d}\sum^{d}_{j=1}I(a_j=x_i)$ where $ I(a_j=x_i)=1 \; if \; (a_j=x_i), \; 0 \; \textrm{otherwise} \; \textrm{and} \; 0log0=0$.
In the last formula the addresses are represented as $\{a_j\}^d_{j=1}$, where $d$ is the number of different addresses accessed during the execution. Each address is in the range $[0,2^{n-1}]$, where $n$ is the length of the address in bits. If every address has the same occurrence probability the entropy is $n$; if only one address is accessed the entropy is $0$. Otherwise the entropy is within $0$ and $n$. The memory entropy metric does not distinguish whether the accesses contain sequential patterns or random accesses. Therefore we need additional metrics, like spatial locality.
\subsection{Data reuse distance for multiple cache-line size and spatial locality}
Data reuse distance or data temporal reuse (DTR) is a helpful metric to detect cache inefficiencies. The DTR of an address is the number of unique addresses accessed since the last reference of the requested data.
This metric is present in the default framework. However, the tool could compute it only for a fixed cache line size, which represents the address granularity. We extend the DTR computation and compute it starting from the word size to the value selected by the user. This extends the available analysis opportunities e.g. we use it to compute the spatial locality metric.
Spatial locality, which measures the probability of accessing nearby memory locations, can be derived from DTR. We extend PISA with the spatial locality score inspired by Gu et al. \cite{Gu:2009:CMS:1542431.1542446}. The key idea behind this spatial locality score is to detect a reduction in DTR when doubling the cache line size. To estimate the spatial locality in a program two elements are fundamental: 1) histograms of data reuse distance for different cache line sizes, 2) distribution maps to keep track of changes in DTR for each access doubling the cache line size.
Histograms are used to compute the DTR distribution probability for different cache-line sizes. In \cite{Gu:2009:CMS:1542431.1542446} the reuse signature has been defined as a pair $<R,P>$, where $R$ is a series of consecutive DTR ranges of bins, represented as: $r_i=[d_i,d_{i+1})$. These bins are a logarithmic progression defined as: $d_{i+1} = 2d_i (i \geq 0)$. $P$ is the distribution probabilities $p_i$ of the bin $r_i$. This reuse signature is used later to normalize the results.
The next step consists of building a distribution map. This map keeps track of each change in the DTR for every access. The distribution map has $i$ rows representing the bins using a cache line size $b$ and $j$ columns representing the bins using a doubled cache line size $2b$. Each cell is the probability $p_{ij}$ of the bin $i$ using a cache line size $b$ to change in a bin $j$ using a cache line size $2b$. Differently from \cite{Gu:2009:CMS:1542431.1542446} we compute the sum of the cells in a row where $i<j.\;
We do that because we want to express all the changes in data reuse distance. The spatial locality score for the bin $i$ is: $SLQ(i)=\sum_{j=0}^{j<i}p_{ij}$.
To compute the spatial locality score related to a pair of cache line sizes $<b,2b>$ we first compute the absolute values of the weighted sum that uses the probabilities $p_i$ included in the reuse signature and then use the formula proposed by \cite{Gu:2009:CMS:1542431.1542446} to calculate the total score, which is the logarithmic weighted sum of absolute values: $SLQ=\frac{\sum_{\textrm{all} \; b}|\sum_{\textrm{all} \; i}SLQ^b(i)p_i^b|2^{-b}}{\sum_{\textrm{all} \; b}2^{-b}}$.
The weighted score gives more importance to lower cache line sizes pairs.
Nevertheless, this can be interpreted as higher relevance of these lower pairs because bigger cache line sizes bring massive data transfers.
Usually, application with low spatial locality perform very bad on traditional systems with cache hierarchies because a small portion of data is utilized compared to the data loaded from the main memory to the caches.
\subsection{Data-level parallelism}
Data-level parallelism (DLP) measures the average length of vector instructions that is used to optimize a program. DLP could be interesting for NMC when employing specific SIMD processing units in the logic layer of the 3D-stacked memory. PISA can extract the instruction-level parallelism for all the instructions (see \emph{Figure \ref{fig:ilpspecialized}}, CFG on the left) and additionally per instruction category such as control, memory, etc. (see \emph{Figure \ref{fig:ilpspecialized}}, CFG in the center). As shown in the CFG on the right in \emph{Figure \ref{fig:ilpspecialized}}, we extract the ILP score per opcode and call it as $ ILP_{\textrm{specialized}, \textrm{opcode}}$ where opcode can be load, store, add, etc. This metric represents the number of instructions with the same opcode that could run in parallel. Next, we compute the weighted average value for DLP using the weighted sum over all opcodes of $ ILP_{\textrm{specialized}, \textrm{opcode}}$. The weights are the frequency of the opcodes calculated by dividing the number of instructions per code with the number of instructions.
$DLP_{avg}=\sum_{\textrm{opcode}} ILP_{\textrm{specialized}, \textrm{opcode}} \frac{\#\textrm{instructions}_{\textrm{opcode}}}{\#\textrm{instructions}}$
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.8cm,trim ={0 0.5cm 0 1.8cm},clip]{images/ilp_spec.eps}
\caption
Usually to compute ILP it has been used the control flow graph (CFG), left side.
The CFG in the center is used to compute the ILP per type of instructions. On the right our per opcode specialized CFG.\ahsan{try to reduce it to single line}\label{fig:ilpspecialized}}
\end{figure}
As the register allocation step is not performed at the level of intermediate representation, it is not possible to take into account the register consecutiveness in this score.
However, we want to show the optimization opportunities for compilers distinguishing between consecutiveness of load/store instruction addresses. We represent this with two scores: $DLP_1$ without address consecutiveness; $DLP_2$ with addresses consecutiveness into account. To compute them we use the previous formula changing the $ILP_{\textrm{specialized}, \textrm{opcode}}$ value for loads and stores.
\subsection{Basic-block level parallelism}
A basic-block is the smallest component in the LLVM's IR that can be considered as a potential parallelizable task. Basic-block level parallelism (BBLP) is a potential metric for NMC because it can estimate the task level parallelism in the application. The parallel tasks can be offloaded to multiple compute units located on the logic layer of a 3D-stacked memory.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,trim ={0 10.3cm 12.9cm 3.1cm},clip]{images/bblpscheduling.pdf}
\caption{BBLP/PBBLP methodology: a) example of LLVM dynamic trace; b) real scheduling for BBLP computation taking in account all dependencies; c) simplified scheduling for BBLP computation not taking in account dependencies such as loop index update (in a) dependency between instruction 15 and 17); d) PBBLP values for each basic block (second and third block are a repeated basic block, since there is only a loop index dependecy, the PBBLP is equal to 2).\ahsan{try to reduce it to single line}
\label{fig:bblpscheduling}}
\end{figure}
To estimate BBLP in a workload, we develop a metric similar to ILP and DLP. It is based on the assumption that a basic-block, which is a set of instructions, can only be executed sequentially. Since loop index count could put an artificially tight constraint on the parallelism, we assume two different basic-block scheduling approaches (see \emph{Figure \ref{fig:bblpscheduling}}): 1) all the dependencies between basic-block are considered; 2) we consider a smart scheduling, assuming a compiler that can optimize loop index update dependencies. The difference between the two approaches can give an idea, as in the DLP case, of the optimization opportunities for compilers. We compute the two scores derived from the two scheduling options using the following formula: $BBLP_{avg}=\frac{\# \textrm{instructions}}{\textrm{MaxIssueCycle}_{BBLP}}$, where $MaxIssueCycle_{BBLP}$ represents the cycle of the last executed instruction using the proposed scheduling approaches (red numbers in \emph{Figure \ref{fig:bblpscheduling}.b,.c}). $\#instructions$ represent the total number of instructions (see \emph{Figure \ref{fig:bblpscheduling}.a}).
We also aim to estimate the presence of data parallel loops. Data parallel loops consist of basic-blocks that are repeated without any dependencies among their instances. A fast and straightforward estimation can be done by assigning a value to each basic-block between $1$ and the number of instances. When a basic-block has only one instance or all its instances have dependencies among them the score is $1$. Instead, when all its instances don't have dependencies among them the value is maximal and equal to the number of instances. Contrariwise, the score is within the range described above.
Other assumptions we made are: skip index update dependencies and omit basic-blocks that are used only for index update.
After assigning a score to each basic-block ($PBBLP_{BB}$), we compute the weighted average value for PBBLP using the weighted sum over all scores ($PBBLP_{BB}$). The weights are the frequency of the basic-block instances calculated by dividing the number of instances per basic-block with the number of total instances. $PBBLP_{avg}=\sum_{BB}PBBLP_{BB}\frac{\#\textrm{instances}_{BB}}{\#\textrm{instances}_{\textrm{total}}}$. Since this metric is an estimation we call it as potential basic-block level parallelism (PBBLP).
\subsection{Application characterization}
In \cite{corda2019scopes} we characterize a set of applications from Polybench and Rodinia for the added metrics (see \emph{Figure \ref{fig:analysis}}). Memory entropy, in \emph{Figure \ref{fig:analysis}.a}, and spatial locality, in \emph{Figure \ref{fig:analysis}.b}, show respectively high and low values for applications such as \texttt{bp} and \texttt{gramschmidt} that could benefit from NMC because of their poor memory performance. \emph{Figure \ref{fig:analysis}.c} show the parallelism characterization of these kernels. In particular a group of applications shows good level of DLP, lowest level of BBLP and highest level of PBBLP. They could benefit from NMC architecture that exploit data-level parallel processing element.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,trim={3cm 1cm 3cm 1cm},clip]{entropy.eps}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,trim={3cm 1cm 3cm 1cm},clip]{spatial.eps}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,trim={3cm 1cm 3cm 1cm},clip]{parallelism.eps}
\caption{Application characterization results:(a) Memory Entropy; (b) Spatial Locality; (c) Parallelism.} \label{fig:analysis}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Applications evaluation on NMC system}
We compare our metrics to the performance achieved by running the applications on an NMC system. We perform a single-thread analysis to estimate our metrics and then evaluate the execution time on the considered architectures. Table~\ref{tab:results} lists the parameter levels for the evaluated applications on the Power 9 and NMC system. We consider only single-thread analysis here to avoid the side effects of a multi-threaded analysis in metrics such as memory entropy and spatial locality, e.g., averaging the numbers from multiple threads tend to mask the true behavior of applications. Since the analysis trend is similar for different dataset sizes and the memory analysis is highly time-consuming we use smaller dataset than the one simulated for the NMC system in line with similar work on application characterization~\cite{Anghel2016, Gu:2009:CMS:1542431.1542446}. \emph{Figure \ref{fig:edp}} shows the energy-delay product (EDP) ratio between the IBM Power 9 and the NMC system we simulated. We use EDP as our major metric of reference in this analysis because both energy and performance are critical criteria for evaluating NMC suitability. Applications with EDP reduction less than 1 are not suitable for NMC.
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Benchmarks Parameters}
\label{tab:results}
\centering
\scalebox{0.98}{
\begin{tabular}{l|l|ll}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Applications}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Parameters}} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Benchmarks}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Kernels}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Param.}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Values}} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Polybench} & atax, gemver, gesummv & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{dimensions} & 8000 \\ \cline{2-4}
& \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}cholesky, gramschmidt, \\ lu, mvt, syrk, trmm\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{dimensions} & 2000 \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Rodinia} & bfs & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{nodes} & 1.0m \\ \cline{2-4}
& bp & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{layer size} & 1.1m \\ \cline{2-4}
& kmeans & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{data size} & 819k \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\subsection{Correlation between NMC Metrics and NMC Performance}
Spatial locality in \emph{Figure \ref{fig:analysis}.b} provides insights on which application could be better for the NMC system we considered. Applications that show the lowest spatial locality such as \texttt{gramschmidt}, \texttt{bp}, \texttt{bfs} show a considerable EDP improvement (see \emph{Figure \ref{fig:edp}}) using the NMC system. Contrariwise also \texttt{cholesky}, that has the highest spatial locality among the chosen applications, benefits from the NMC architecture.
Memory entropy in \emph{Figure \ref{fig:analysis}.a} gives similar insights. For instance, applications with the highest entropy such as \texttt{gramschmidth} and \texttt{bp} shows benefit executing on an NMC system. However, also applications with low entropy seem to benefit from NMC.
Parallelism analysis in \emph{Figure \ref{fig:analysis}.c} highlights that most of the applications that benefit from NMC have the lowest values for $BBLP_1$ and a good level of DLP. However, there are some exceptions such as \texttt{lu}, that has the lowest BBLP values, and \texttt{bfs} that has the lowest DLP values.
The above shows that a single metric can not explain NMC appropriateness. To get more insights into what combinations of metrics can predict NMC applicability, we apply PCA to our metric results.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{edp.eps}
\caption{EDP improvement
\label{fig:edp}}
\end{figure}
For this, we derive another metric from the memory entropy exploiting the granularity. For each application, we first compute the difference between each couple of consecutive memory entropy values with different granularities (see \emph{Figure \ref{fig:analysis}.a}, larger granularity represents larger cache line size). Then, we compute the average of these values that represents a spatial locality variation increasing the cache line size. \emph{Figure \ref{fig:entropydiff}} shows this metric. This metric compared to the EDP values shows that the major part of the applications not suitable for NMC has the highest values.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{memdiff.eps}
\caption{Metric derived from memory entropy.
\label{fig:entropydiff}}
\end{figure}
\emph{Figure \ref{fig:pca}} shows the PCA applied to the most promising subset of presented metrics. We use 4 input features for the PCA: $BBLP_1$, $PBBLP$, $entropy\_diff\_mem$ (the value proposed above) and $spat\_8B\_16B$ (spatial locality doubling the cache line size from 8B to 16B).
We highlight that all the applications that benefit from Power9 are in the II quadrant (top-left) except for \texttt{lu} that is in the III quadrant. In its code diagonal matrix accesses are present and they should be critical for traditional CPUs. It could be an NMC application candidate employing a larger dataset size.
The applications that benefits from NMC are in the other quadrants. In particular \texttt{bfs} and \texttt{bp} seem having similar characteristic and are located in the I quadrant. Similarly \texttt{gramschmidt} and \texttt{kmeans} located in the IV quadrant.
These metrics show good potential in discriminating NMC applications.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{pca.eps}
\caption{PCA using the added metrics. Blue arrows quantify the contribution and direction to the PCs
\label{fig:pca}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Dataset size and multi-threading}
Few apps to show proportionality incresing dataset
Rodinia apps to show similar values/behavior using single/multi-threading
\subsection{Characterization}
Entropy, locality parallelism
\subsection{Correlation with NMC performance}
PCA for added metrics for automatic extraction of the NMC kernels
\subsection{Other tools}
Vtune/perf characterization -> still issues in detecting good candidates
\color{blue}
We present a full characterization of the PolyBench suite for the added metrics and we show the multi-threaded capabilities of the tool with an example from the Rodinia benchmark.
\subsection{PolyBench}
Our primary goal is to show the suitability of the added metrics for NMC and highlight those applications that can benefit from these kinds of systems. We did not include \emph{nussinov} and \emph{floyd-wharshall} into the memory characterization because they are the only two integer applications. This is a problem in the spatial locality computation because otherwise, the smallest location accessed by the programs will be different: 4Bytes for integer applications whereas 8Bytes for the floating point ones.
\emph{Figure \ref{fig:entropypolybench}} presents the memory-entropy analysis. This metric is strictly related to the dimension of the address space accessed by the workload. We also plot memory-entropy changes at different granularity cutting the least-significant bits (LSBs) of the address to represent larger data access granularity. This score is quite similar for all the analyzed application using similar data-sets. Only few of them as \emph{durbin} and \emph{jacobi-1d} have a lower value. Moreover, these two applications don't show changes of entropy when cutting the higher LSBs. We also highlight how only a few applications have a lower level of entropy than the others. Hence, these applications can benefit less from NMC architectures than the others.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{images/entropypollyhalf}
\caption{Memory entropy analysis for PolyBench.
\label{fig:entropypolybench}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=17.05cm]{images/spatiallocalitypolybench}
\caption{Spatial locality analysis for PolyBench.
\label{fig:spatiallocalitypolybench}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=17.3cm]{images/parallelismpolybench}
\caption{PolyBench parallelism characterization.
\label{fig:parallelismpolybench}}
\end{figure*}
Related to memory behavior, we show in \emph{Figure \ref{fig:spatiallocalitypolybench}} the spatial locality characterization for these workloads. As expected, we can distinguish different behaviors among the benchmarks. \emph{Durbin} shows an interesting behavior with low entropy and high spatial locality. This application is probably not a good candidate for NMC because it uses a small address space with high locality. The total score for spatial locality adopted is not easy to utilize to quantify the spatial locality for each application. This is due to the normalization in \emph{Equation \ref{eq:slqtotal}}. For instance, the \emph{gramschmidt} total score is very low. On the other hand, it has high spatial locality when doubling the cache-line size from $256B$ to $512B$. This can be interpreted as cost-ineffective when doubling large cache line size. Matrix multiplication and stencil algorithms show, as expected, higher levels of spatial locality. On the other hand algorithms such as \emph{deriche} and \emph{correlation} show a lower level of spatial locality, in this case, it is also possible to notice that \emph{deriche} has a considerable space of addresses, from the memory-entropy characterization.
Since the spatial locality results for most of the applications are far from the maximum, that is 1, then many of them could benefit from new 3D stacking memory technologies used in NMC systems.
However, applications with high spatial locality could also benefit from NMC mostly when increasing the data-set and consequently moving more data off-chip.\\
Results collected for the parallelism characterization in PolyBench are presented in \emph{Figure \ref{fig:parallelismpolybench}}. As expected for the data-level parallelism analysis matrix multiplications based algorithms show the highest values. Moreover, the difference between the two DLP scores proposed seems to be very limited. Only small variation can be noticed, for instance between \emph{trmm} and \emph{syrk}. Here, the difference is due to load/store with non-sequential accesses and could be improved by compiler exploiting data mapping techniques. Instead the BBLP scores shows significant differences for few application such as \emph{deriche}, \emph{nussinov}, \emph{symm} and \emph{floyd-warshall}. These results highlight possible parallelism optimizations that can be performed by compilers.
It can be seen that the basic-block level parallelism is, as expected in the Berkeley dwarf \cite{Asanović:EECS-2006-183}, high for the matrix-based algorithm and low, for instance, in the \emph{fdtd-2d} workload.
Finally, the $PBBLP$ score tries to highlight the presence of the data parallel loop and can give an estimation of how much parallelism can be achieved using vectorization or loop unrolling strategies.
High level of parallelism could help in NMC exploiting the logic layer interfaced with parallel and SIMD architectures on top of the 3D stacked memory.
\subsection{Rodinia}
We characterize a set of Rodinia applications using the added metrics to show the multi-threaded capabilities of PISA.
For instance, \emph{Figure \ref{fig:localityrodinia}} shows the spatial locality analysis for the selected workloads from Rodinia. In particular, it can be noticed that the average values of this metric are quite constant when increasing the number of threads. The variability per-thread, represented by the standard deviation from the mean value, is low, except for \emph{nn}. This low variability is due to the master thread that has a higher overhead from other threads.
Briefly, as for spatial locality, we analyzed the master-thread variability for the other metrics.
We must mention that, similar to Polybench results, the parallelism level for these applications is high, except for \emph{lud}. This result shows possible opportunities for compiler-level optimization and, as previously mentioned, benefits from NMC approach. However, as expected the level of parallelism decreases with an increase in the number of threads.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{images/spatiallocalityrodinia}
\caption{Spatial locality analysis for Rodinia.
\label{fig:localityrodinia}}
\end{figure}
\color{black} |
\section{Introduction}
Rod shaped solid intruders moving through granular matter immersed in a liquid can be found widely in our environment and in engineering applications ranging from the food and consumer goods industry to mechanized transportation, and biolocomotion in the sedimentary beds of water bodies. The drag acting on a rod moving through a medium is also a fundamental probe of the nature of the medium. In spite of this importance, a quantitative understanding of the drag encountered by an intruder in a granular bed immersed in a viscous fluid, and the rheology of the medium experienced by such a probe, is still lacking.
In the case of Newtonian fluids, the drag $F_d$ experienced by a rod moving perpendicular to its axis is derived ~\cite{lamb11,kaplun57,cox70} as:
\begin{equation}
F_d = \frac{4 \pi \eta_f L U}{\frac{1}{2}-\log(\frac{L}{D})-\log(4)}\,,
\label{eq:cyldragapprox}
\end{equation}
where, $\eta_f$ is the viscosity of the fluid with density $\rho_f$, $L$ is the rod length, $D$ is the rod diameter, and $U$ is the rod speed.
This form is considered valid for $L/D > 1$, and when the Reynolds number $Re = \frac{\rho_f U D}{\eta_f} \ll 1$ \cite{tritton59}. In the higher $Re$ inertia dominated regime, the drag becomes nonlinear and quadratic with speed. However, the rheology of granular materials immersed in a Newtonian fluid is quite different from the fluid alone, and thus the drag experienced can be quite different as well.
The drag of a rod moving at low speeds through grains sedimented in fluids with various $\rho_f$ has been experimentally investigated~\cite{constantino11} and found to be described by
\begin{equation}
F_d = \mu (\rho_g - \rho_f) g D z^2,
\label{eq:schiffer}
\end{equation}
where, $\mu$ is a material dependent constant, $\rho_g$ is the density of the grains, $g$ is the gravitational acceleration, and $z$ is the penetration depth of the rod into the bed. It was reported that $\mu$ was constant at low speeds, independent of the properties of the fluid, and the effect of the fluid was to simply reduce gravity. In complementary experiments, measuring the effective friction of a flat plate moving over a fluid saturated granular bed at low speeds, it was found that the friction coefficient was the same as in the case of dry grains~\cite{siavoshi06}. The constant drag observed at low speeds in these different drag geometries show that a fluid-saturated granular medium displays a yield stress similar to that in dry granular materials~\cite{wieghardt75,vazquez10,hosoi15,faug15,maladen10,bergmann17,jslonaker17}, making it quite different from the vanishing drag experienced in a Newtonian fluid with decreasing speeds.
In the case of dry granular beds, drag of extended objects is known to increase rapidly from the slow logarithmically increasing creep regime~\cite{reddy11}, to a more rapidly increasing drag regime with increasing speeds because of inertial effects~\cite{faug15}. Further, studies on rod drag through air moderated granular beds have reported systematic variation of drag with rod speed depending on the air speed which changes the packing and fluidization of the bed~\cite{brzinski10}.
However, the presence of the fluid can introduce rate-dependent viscous dissipation and lubrication between the grains which can further impact the encountered drag~\cite{happel83,brady85,stevens05}. Indeed, studies on spherical intruders moving through granular-hydrogels immersed in water found that the effective friction $\mu_e$, given by the ratio of the drag and the overburden pressure acting on the intruder, varied from being nearly constant at vanishing speeds to increasing rapidly with increasing speed~\cite{panaitescu17}. It has been also found that the granular component of the medium is essentially fluidized over the scale of the sphere diameter and the decay of the medium speed is much faster compared with a viscous Newtonian fluid~\cite{jewel18}. The granular medium used in those experiments were almost neutrally buoyant, nearly frictionless, and limited to the inertia dominated regime. Thus, systematic investigations are still necessary to measure drag over a wide range of intruder shapes and medium properties, and to identify the appropriate parameters which describe the drag experienced.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=16 cm]{Figure1.pdf}
\caption{(a) A top and side view of the experimental apparatus used to measure the drag acting on a rod inserted to a depth $z$ into a granular bed immersed in a Newtonian fluid. The apparatus is drawn to scale ($R_c = 9$\,cm). (b) The force $F$ measured as a function of time $t$ increases linearly initially, and then begins to decrease after reaching a maximum value ($U = 4.0$\,mm\,s$^{-1}$). The shaded region corresponds to the experimental error. Inset: Schematic of the rod and granular medium system of interest. (c) $F$ as function of $t$ plotted in log scale. One revolution corresponds to 100 seconds at this speed. $F$ reaches a steady value after about one revolution, and we measure the drag $F_d$ after 3 revolutions under steady state conditions.}
\label{fig:apparartus}
\end{figure*}
In this paper, we discuss an experimental investigation of the drag experienced by a rod in a fluid-saturated granular medium as a function of the speed of the rod, its dimensions, and the material properties of the medium. We examine the drag experienced beyond the quasi-static regime, into the rate-dependent regime, where the drag is far greater than that required to overcome the yield stress of the medium. We achieve this by varying the rod speed over six orders of magnitude, and the fluid viscosity over four orders of magnitude, along with the grain and rod size. This allows us to vary the relative importance of inertia and viscosity towards identifying the appropriate non-dimensional parameters which describe the drag of the rod in fluid-saturated granular mediums. In particular, we analyze the drag in terms of an effective friction $\mu_e$ and an effective drag $\eta_e$ from the perspective of a granular medium and a viscous fluid, respectively, to understand the observed dependence with rod size $D$ and depth $z$, and fluid viscosity $\eta_f$ and grain diameter $d$.
\section{Experimental System}
A schematic of the experimental apparatus is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:apparartus}(a). A granular bed consisting of spherical glass beads with diameter $d$ listed in Table~\ref{tab:grains} and density $\rho_g=2.502$\,g\,cm$^{-3}$ is filled in a cylindrical container with radius $R_{c}=9$\,cm to a height $H_c = 10 \pm 0.2$\,cm. Besides experiments with the grains in ambient air, experiments are performed with grains immersed in various Newtonian fluids filled to a height $h=1.5$\,cm above the bed surface to avoid any capillary forces between the grains from developing. Further, $h$ is sufficiently small that the drag due to the fluid layer at the top is negligible compared to the drag due to the granular medium. The properties of the fluids used are listed in Table~\ref{tab:fluids}. A circular rod with diameter $D$ is then inserted to a prescribed depth $z$ into the bed. Typically grains $d_2 \sim 150 \pm 50\, \mu$m and a rod with $D = 2.6$\,mm and $z = 3.5$\,cm are used in the discussions, unless mentioned otherwise. Thus, we are in a regime where $z \gg D \gg d$.
The rod is moved in a periodic circular motion around the container at a distance $R$ from the center with the help of an arm attached to a stepper motor which rotates with a prescribed angular speed $\omega$ giving rise to linear rod speed $U = \omega R$. The circular nature of the system enables us to probe the drag over long times, independent of the initial preparation of the fluid saturated granular bed and initiation of motion. The range of $R$ chosen is such that $R/D \gg 1$ and $(R_c -R)/D \ll 1$ (see Appendix~\ref{sec:side}), where the system of interest is effectively represented as a rod moving linearly through a semi-infinite bed as shown in the inset to Fig.~\ref{fig:apparartus}(b).
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
Grains & $d$ ($\mu $m) & $d$-distribution ($\mu $m) & $\rho_g$ (g\,cm$^{-1}$)\\
\hline
$d_1$ & $88$ & $75-100$ & 2.502 \\
$d_2$ & $150$ & $100-200$ & 2.502 \\
$d_3$ & $375$ & $250-500$ & 2.502 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The glass beads used in the experiments.}
\label{tab:grains}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Fluid & $\rho_f$ (g\,cm$^{-3}$) & $\eta$ (mPa\,s) & & \\
\hline
Air & $0.0012$ & $0.018$ & & \\
Water & 0.998 & 1 & & \\
Silicone oil & 0.935 & 10 & & \\
Silicone oil & 0.950 & 20 & & \\
Silicone oil & 0.950 & 34 & & \\
Silicone oil & 0.965 & 100 & &\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Fluids used and their physical properties at 24$^o$C.}
\label{tab:fluids}
\end{table}
Figure~\ref{fig:apparartus}(b) shows an example of the measured force as a function of time $t$. Initially, the measured force increases as the system loads up till a maximum force is reached, after which time the force decreases slowly. Then, the measured force slowly approaches a nearly constant value as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:apparartus}(c). This response is typical for a Coulomb frictional material which shows a higher static friction compared to a dynamic friction~\cite{nasuno98}. We focus on the steady state regime, after the initial transients have subsided, for simplicity of analysis. In order to reduce the effect of the initial bed preparation, we move the rod thrice around in a circle before taking measurements. The drag $F_d$ is then obtained by averaging the recorded force over a 50~second time interval to average over the fluctuations which occur due to the granularity of the medium.
\section{Drag Measurements}
\subsection{Rate Dependence}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{Figure2.pdf}
\caption{(a) The drag of a rod measured as a function of its speed when the grains are in ambient air and when they are fully immersed in water ($z/D = 13.5$). In the case of air, the drag increases logarithmically as shown by the line fit corresponding to Eq.~\ref{eq:mue}. While drag is overall lower in case of water, a more rapid increase is observed as $U$ is increased. (b) The drag measured in fluids with similar density but different fluid viscosity $\eta_f$. (c) The same data plotted over linear scale to illustrate the sub-linear increase with speed at higher viscosities and speeds.}
\label{fig:behavior}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:behavior}(a) shows the measured drag $F_d$ as a function of rod speed $U$ in the granular bed when air is the interstitial fluid, and when the bed is fully immersed in water. In the case of air, we observe that the drag increases logarithmically as $U$ is increased over four orders of magnitude. {\color{black} Increase in friction have been reported in previous experiments on rod drag through a dry granular bed~\cite{reddy11}, and may be consistent with logarithmic increase in static friction observed with loading rate~\cite{rice83,heslot94,marone98,nasuno98,baumberger99}}. Thus, one may expect
\begin{equation}
F_d = F_d (U_o) + A \log(\frac{U}{U_o}),
\label{eq:log}
\end{equation}
where, $U_o$ is a reference velocity. From the fit in Fig.~\ref{fig:behavior}(a), we observe that the data is indeed captured by Eq.~\ref{eq:log} with $A = 0.164$, consistent with previous reports on friction~\cite{marone98,baumberger99}.
Thus, it is possible that the slow increase in drag encountered at low speeds may be because of the solid grain-level frictional contacts in air. Whereas, the measured drag is lower in the water saturated case, and increases more rapidly as $U$ is increased.
To understand this rate-dependence introduced by the presence of the fluid at higher speeds, we further investigate the effect of the fluid viscosity $\eta_f$ while holding the fluid density $\rho_f$ approximately constant. To highlight different aspects of the data, Fig.~\ref{fig:behavior}(b) and Fig.~\ref{fig:behavior}(c) show a plot of $F_d$ as a function of $U$ in linear-log and in linear-linear formats, respectively. We observe from Fig.~\ref{fig:behavior}(b) that $F_d$ is essentially constant and similar in value at low speeds, irrespective of the viscosity of the fluid. Whereas, $F_d$ can be observed to increase systematically faster as $\eta_f$ is increased in Fig.~\ref{fig:behavior}(c). {\color{black} It can be also observed that $F_d$ does not increase linearly with speed, and thus the drag cannot be viewed simply as a linear superposition due to viscous and frictional contributions given by Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively.}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{Figure3.pdf}
\caption{(a) The effective friction $\mu_e$ versus $U$ is observed to converge to the same value at sufficiently low speeds, irrespective of the interstitial fluid. (b) $\mu_e$ versus inertial number $I$ varies systematically, but does not collapse due to the viscosity of the immersing fluid. (c) $\mu_e$ versus viscous number $J$ for the various liquids is observed to collapse onto a curve for sufficiently large $\eta_f$ or low $U$. The dashed line is given by Eq.~\ref{eq:mue} with $\mu_o = 2.8 \pm 0.5,, k = 2.8 \times 10^{4}$, and $n = 0.55 \pm 0.06$. }
\label{fig:nondimensional}
\end{figure}
We use the effective friction $\mu_e$ as in previous studies~\cite{constantino11,panaitescu17} to analyze the measured drag scaled by the other relevant force in the system which corresponds to the average weight of the grains acting on the rod,
\begin{equation}
\mu_e = \frac{F_d}{\pi \phi_g (\rho_g - \rho_f) g z^2 D/2}.
\label{eq:mue}
\end{equation}
We plot $\mu_e$ as a function of $U$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:nondimensional}(a), and observe that $\mu_e$ approaches the same value at the lowest speeds in all the cases, irrespective of the density of the fluid. Then, we observe that $\mu_e$ increases rapidly at progressively lower $U$ as $\eta_f$ is increased. Thus, we understand the lower drag measured at the lowest speeds in Fig.~\ref{fig:behavior}(a) to be due to the reduction of the normal stress acting on the rod due to the buoyancy of the grains in the fluid, similar to the conclusions reached by previous work~\cite{constantino11}. Otherwise, the role of the saturating fluid appears to be to increase the drag experienced by the rod when the speed is increased.
To understand the increase of $\mu_e$, we examine the inertial and viscous time scales in the system in relation to the time scale over which the rod advances. In case of time-independent uniformly sheared dry granular materials, the inertial number was given by~\cite{dacruz05} $I = \dot{\gamma} d/\sqrt{P/\rho_g}$, where $\dot{\gamma}$ is the shear rate corresponding to a uniform shear applied between two planes, and $P$ is the normal pressure applied on the granular medium across those planes. {\color{black} However, the flow of the medium around an advancing rod is non-uniform and time-dependent. The grains in front of the rod are accelerated from rest as they move around the advancing intruder, before slowing down and coming to rest as the intruder moves past, creating a non-homogeneous and non-steady state dynamic.} Nonetheless, this proposed definition was extended to spherical intruder dynamics by assuming that the $\dot{\gamma}$ was given by the velocity of the sphere which decayed over a grain diameter~\cite{panaitescu17}, or intruder diameter~\cite{jewel18}. The pressure $P$ was considered to correspond to the average overburden pressure due to the weight of the grains above the location of the intruder. Then, it can be noted that $I$ is complementary to the Froude number $Fr$, which has been used to characterize drag encountered in granular suspensions~\cite{graf70} and dry granular materials~\cite{faug15,takada16}.
Applying the same approach to rods, assuming that the shear rate $\dot{\gamma} = U/D$, we have
\begin{equation}
I = \frac{U d}{D\sqrt{P/\rho_g}}.
\label{eq:I}
\end{equation}
Here, the average pressure acting on the rod over its length due to the weight of the granular medium is given by
\begin{equation}
P = \phi_g (\rho_g - \rho_f) g z/2.
\label{eq:P}
\end{equation}
To capture the effective friction in uniformly sheared suspensions under normal pressure $P$ with shear rate $\dot{\gamma}$, a viscous number $J = {\eta_f \dot{\gamma}}/{P}$ has been proposed when viscous forces become important~\cite{boyer11}. Then, substituting $\dot{\gamma}=U/D$, we have
\begin{equation}
J = \frac{\eta_f U}{D P}.
\label{eq:J}
\end{equation}
We plot $\mu_e$ versus $I$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:nondimensional}(b) and $\mu_e$ versus $J$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:nondimensional}(c). Clearly the data does not collapse with $I$ showing that viscous effects need to be included in analyzing the data. However, excellent collapse of the data is observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:nondimensional}(c), in the case of liquid-saturated granular beds over the entire range of $J$. Deviations can be observed in the case of $\mu_e$ measured with air as the interstitial fluid, as can be expected since $\eta_f$ is small and viscous forces can be expected to be negligible.
In mixed grain-fluid systems under uniform shear, a combination of $I$ and $J$ have been proposed to describe regimes where both inertial and viscous forces may be important~\cite{trulsson12}. However, we do not observe any significant improvement using that hybrid dimensionless number beyond the data collapse shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nondimensional}(c) with $J$.
Now, given $\mu_e$ goes to a constant non-zero value $\mu_o$ for vanishing $J$, and $\mu_e$ increases rapidly with at higher $J$, we use a form:
\begin{equation}
\mu_e = \mu_o + k J^n,
\label{eq:fit}
\end{equation}
where, $k$ and $n$ are constants to describe the data. {\color{black} This form corresponds to the addition of a granular quasi-static yield-stress $\mu_0$ and a rate dependent term as a function of $J$. By fitting to the data,} we find $\mu_0 = 2.4 \pm 0.5$, $k=206 \pm 11 $, and $n=0.53 \pm 0.04$. {\color{black}
The observed value of $\mu_o$ in the frictional limit is greater than the coefficient of friction around $0.5$ typically encountered for glass-on-glass or glass-on-metal motion. Such high values using similar definations of $\mu_e$ given by Eq.~\ref{eq:mue} have been reported previously~\cite{constantino11,panaitescu17}, and occur as a result of the geometry of the flow generated by the moving rod and dilatancy effects. Because the flow of the medium wraps around the advancing rod, the weight of the granular medium important to determining drag not only increases with depth but also is not normal to the direction of motion. These factors, besides the contribution of sliding friction tangential to the surface contribute to the larger value observed compared to sliding friction while considering solid-on-solid friction. If the medium was to behave as a Newtonian fluid when well fluidized, one may expect the exponent $n$ to approach one or even exceed it, as inertial effects become important. We observe $n < 1$ which corresponds to shear thinning because $J \propto \dot{\gamma}$, and thus the medium behaves similarly to a shear thinning fluid over the strongly rate-dependent regime accessed in our system. }
\subsection{Particle size dependence}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{Figure4.pdf}
\caption{(a) $F_d$ as a function of $U$ for different $d$ listed in Table~\ref{tab:grains} ($D=2.6$\,mm and $\eta_f=20$ mPa\,s). (b) Corresponding $\mu_e$ versus $I$. (c) Corresponding $\mu_e$ versus $J$.}
\label{fig:diameter}
\end{figure}
To determine the influence of the particle size on the effective friction, we examine the various grain sizes listed in Table~\ref{tab:grains} while using a rod with $D=2.6$\,mm which still satisfies the condition $d/D \ll 1$, and a viscous fluid with $\eta_f=20$\,mPa\,s. The measured drag versus $U$, and corresponding $\mu_e$ versus $I$ and $J$ are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:diameter}. Because Eq.~\ref{eq:mue} and Eq.~\ref{eq:J} do not feature the grain size, the plots $F_d$ versus $U$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:diameter}(a) and $\mu_e$ versus $J$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:diameter}(c), look similar. At small $I$ and $J$ corresponding to low rod speeds, we observe that $\mu_e$ are similar in magnitude, and independent of the grain size.
However, we observe that $\mu_e$ does not fully collapse either in terms of $I$ or $J$ with increasing speed. This may be related to the fact that we have used the diameter of the rod as the scale in defining the shear rate $\dot{\gamma}$ in $I$ and $J$, when in fact other length scales, including $d$ and $z$ are also present in the system. $I$ is a better collapse due to a particle dependence in the definition, whereas $J$ has no dependence on particle size and thus Fig.~\ref{fig:diameter}(a) and Fig.~\ref{fig:diameter}(c) are essentially the same graph. Thus, further work is required to identify an appropriate length scale in the rod system as speed is increased.
\subsection{Rod diameter dependence}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{Figure5.pdf}
\caption{(a) The drag as a function of $U$ for different rod diameter $D$ ($\eta_f = 100$\,mPa\,s). (b) $\mu_e$ as a function of $I$. (c) $\mu_e$ as a function of $J$. The curve given by Eq.~\ref{eq:fit} with the same fit shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nondimensional}(c) is also plotted to guide the eye.}
\label{fig:RodD}
\end{figure}
To test the effect of the diameter of the rod, we performed drag measurements with three different rod sizes $D=2.6$\,mm, $4.5$\,mm, and $8$\,mm corresponding to $D/d=13,23,40$ respectively. These sizes were chosen so that $D/d \gg 1$, and $D/R \ll 1$ to limit unsteady motion and system size effects. Figure~\ref{fig:RodD}(a) shows $F_d$ as a function of $U$. In each case, $F_d$ is observed to increase with $U$, and $F_d$ is also observed to increase systematically with $D$. We plot the same data in terms of $\mu_e$ as a function of $I$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:RodD}(b) and Fig.~\ref{fig:RodD}(c). We observe a similar collapse of the data in terms of $I$ and $J$ because both are proportional to $U/D$ which are the two quantities being varied here. In the low speed limit, $\mu_e$ is observed to approach the same value $\mu_o$ irrespective of the size of the rod. However, systematic variations are observed with increasing diameter, and the collapse of the data over the entire range of speeds is not particularly good.
Further, Eq.~\ref{eq:fit} is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:RodD}(c) with the same fitting constants $k$ and $n$ obtained in describing the data while varying viscosity alone in Fig.~\ref{fig:nondimensional}(c). We observe that the $\mu_e$ versus $J$ is observed to collapse on the same curve. Thus, we demonstrate that the form of $\mu_e$, and the constants $\mu_o$, $k$ and $n$ are independent of the rod diameter when $D \gg d$, as well as the fluid viscosity.
\subsection{Depth dependence}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{Figure6.pdf}
\caption{ (a-d) Drag measured as a function of rod depth $z_r/D$ at different speeds ($\eta_f = 34$\,mPa\,s). The dashed line is a power law fit to the function $F(z) = F_o z^m$. (e) $\mu_e$ versus $I$ corresponding to the data plotted in (a-d). (f) $\mu_e$ versus $J$ corresponding to the data plotted in (a-d). The curve given by Eq.~\ref{eq:fit} with the same fit shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nondimensional}(c) is also plotted to guide the eye.}
\label{fig:depth}
\end{figure}
We next examine the observed drag as a function of the depth $z$ to which the rod is inserted into the bed. Fig.~\ref{fig:depth}(a-d) shows the measured drag as a function of depth at various speeds. As $U$ increases, the increase in drag with depth is observed to become more linear. According to Eq.~\ref{eq:cyldragapprox}, the drag would increase approximately linearly with increased length inside the medium, with additional logarithmic corrections due to the denominator. But, according to Eq.~\ref{eq:schiffer}, the drag should be quadratic. Thus, we fit the data to a function $F(z) = F_o z^m$, with $F_o$ and $m$ as fitting constants to find the appropriate scaling with depth. At low $U$, we find $m \approx 2$ and thus recover the quadratic increase with depth described by Eq.\,\ref{eq:schiffer}. We then find that $m$ decreases to 1.4 over the range of $U$ measured. Thus, the observed response of the bed seems to transition from appearing granular-like to fluid-like, while not quite reaching the linear dependence which may be expected for a Newtonian fluid in the viscous regime.
We analyze the effect of the rod depth on the drag in terms of $\mu_e$ versus $I$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:depth}(e), and $\mu_e$ versus $J$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:depth}(f). While both $\mu_e$ versus $I$ and $J$ increase with depth because both increase with $U$, a smoother dependence is observed with respect to $J$ where $J\propto P^{-1}$ and $I\propto P^{-1/2}$ . Further, we observe that corresponding $\mu_e$ increases with $J$ according to Eq.~\ref{eq:fit} with the same fitting constants $k$ and $m$. Thus, we observe that the effective friction encountered by a rod as its depth in the granular material is increased can be captured by $J$ at least in the case of sufficiently large $\eta_f$.
\section{Effective viscosity}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{Figure7.pdf}
\caption{(a) The effective viscosity $\eta_e$ versus $J$ for fluids with various $\eta_f$ collapses ($D = 2.6$\,mm). The dashed line corresponds to Eq.~\ref{eq:etamue}. (b) $\eta_e$ versus $J$ for various $D$ is also observed to be described by the same curve. (c) $\eta_e/\eta_f$ as a function of $J$ for various $d$ roughly follows the same trend in all cases. However, small but systematic deviations can be also observed at the higher $J$.
}\label{fig:etae}
\end{figure}
To analyze the observed drag from the perspective of rheology of the medium probed by the rod, one can define an effective viscosity by rearranging Eq.~\ref{eq:cyldragapprox}. We have, after substituting $z$ for $L$,
\begin{equation}
\eta_e = \frac{F_d}{4 \pi z U} {[\frac{1}{2}-\log(\frac{z}{D})-\log(4)]}\,.
\label{eq:etae}
\end{equation}
Now, $\eta_e$ can be related to $\mu_e$ by using Eq.~\ref{eq:etae} and Eq.~\ref{eq:J}. Then,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\eta_e}{\eta_f} = \frac{\mu_e}{8 J} {[\frac{1}{2}-\log(\frac{z}{D})-\log(4)]}\,.
\label{eq:etamue}
\end{equation}
Accordingly, we have plotted the measured $\eta_e/\eta_f$ versus $J$ for various viscosities in Fig.~\ref{fig:etae}(a). Here, the functional form obtained after substituting Eq.~\ref{eq:mue} is also shown by the dashed line.
Thus, in a regime where $\mu_e$ is constant, we can expect $\eta_e$ to essentially decrease inversely as $J$. But, as $\mu_e$ increases, $\eta_e$ can be expected to level-off. We observe that $\eta_f$ decreases with $J$ and collapses onto the dashed line over many orders of magnitude, both over the regime where $\eta_e$ appears to decrease inversely as $J$, and where it decreases sublinearly. It should be noted here that the data even in the case of air is observed to collapse onto the same curve.
Further, we have plotted $\eta_e/\eta_f$ versus $J$ measured by varying $D$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:etae}(b). The dashed line corresponding to $D = 2.6$\,mm is only drawn here because the lines corresponding to the other two measured $D$ essentially coincide because the terms in the numerator and denominator in terms of $D$ cancel out approximately over the range of $z/D$ studied. Here again we observe good collapse, in the case of all three data sets, on to the same curve. Finally, we have also plotted $\eta_e/\eta_f$ for various $d$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:etae}(c). Except for some small but systematic deviations in the case of $d$ at large $U$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:etae}(c), the data is observed to again follow the same curve.
To emphasize the good collapse of the data with many experimental parameters in terms of $J$, we have not only plotted all the data gathered by varying $\eta_f$ and $D$, but also $z$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:Jall}(a). The data is observed to be described by the line given by the same form as in Fig~\ref{fig:etae}. Thus here, as in the case of $\mu_e$, we find that overall trends in $\eta_f$ can be captured by the single parameter $J$, while changing $U$, $D$, and $z$. The data corresponding to a single $d$ is shown because systematic deviations can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:etae}(c). The observed deviation with $d$ may be related to the fact that we have greatly simplified the estimate of $\dot{\gamma}$ when calculating $J$, and ignored other length scales such as $d$ and $z$ in the estimation of $\dot{\gamma}$.
Now, examining the overall trend of $\mu_e$ with $J$, the medium can be interpreted to be shear thinning over the entire range of speeds. This is consistent with the physical picture that the advancing intruder shears the athermal granular bed which leads to dilation
with speed.
To arrive at an estimate of the corresponding decrease in volume fraction of the grains around the intruder, we use the Krieger-Dougherty empirical formula for the effective viscosity of a granular suspension as a function granular volume fraction $\phi$~\cite{krieger59},
\begin{equation}
\frac{\eta_e}{\eta_f} = \left(1 - \frac{\phi}{\phi_c}\right)^{-2.5\phi_c},
\label{eq:kriegerdougherty}
\end{equation}
where, $\phi_c$ is the critical volume fraction where the viscosity diverges. Then, inverting this relation to obtain the implied variation of $\phi/\phi_c$, we plot the estimated $\phi/\phi_c$ versus $J$ from the measured $\eta_e/\eta_f$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:Jall}(b). The observed variation in $\phi/\phi_c$ is systematic and about 2\% over the range of speeds explored. Such small variations of packing fraction around the intruder are not possible for us to measure directly, but well within the variations observed in sedimented beds composed of frictional spherical grains~\cite{panaitescu12}. {\color{black} While the maximum random close packing volume fraction for spheres is $\approx 0.63$, typically a lower value $\approx 0.59$ is observed when the glass beads used in our experiments are sedimented to form a fresh bed [31]. When agitated, the packing fraction can compact by a few percent under very modest amount of applied shear. Thus, we can expect $\phi_c \approx 0.6$ after the bed is pre-sheared, and $\phi$ to decrease to 0.58 over the range of $J$ investigated based on Fig.~\ref{fig:Jall}(b).}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{Figure8.pdf}
\caption{(a) The effective drag $\eta_e$ versus $J$ collapses over the entire range of $z$, $\eta_f$, and $D$ investigated. This does not include $d$. (b) The packing fraction $\phi/\phi_c$ around the rod with the assumption of the Krieger-Dougherty relation shown in Eq.~\ref{eq:kriegerdougherty} between packing fraction $\phi$ and effective viscosity $\eta_e$. {\color{black} The gray shaded area indicates the error in the calculation of $\phi_c$ because of the uncertainty in calculating $\eta_e$ using Eq.~\ref{eq:etamue}, and variation of the drag force $F_d$ with speed.}}\label{fig:Jall}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In conclusion, we report a systematic study of the drag of a rod measured as a function of its speed, size and depth in a fluid saturated granular bed. The study is focused on conditions where viscous effects of the fluid can be important, and where the side walls can be considered to have negligible effect on the measured variations with experimental parameters. At low speeds, we recover the drag relations reported previously in Ref.~\cite{constantino11} where it was reported that the drag is constant and increases quadratically with depth. As the speed is increased, we find that drag increases rapidly and to many-folds higher value than that found at vanishing speeds. The drag is then analyzed in terms of the effective friction which measures drag in relation to the average force acting on the rod due to the weight of the grains.
We find that the observed variation of the effective friction with intruder speed, size, depth and fluid viscosity can be described to a large extent by the viscous number $J$. But some systematic variations are also observed especially while considering the grain size which points to a need to consider other length scales in the system besides the rod diameter considered here to obtain simple estimates. Further, we describe the observed effective friction as a function of $J$ in terms of an empirical formula which interpolates between the constant friction found at vanishing speeds and sub-linear increase found with increasing speeds.
We also recast the measured drag in terms of the effective viscosity encountered by the rod to understand the response of the system from the perspective of a viscous fluid. Here, the effective viscosity probed by the rod is observed to be described essentially by the empirical effective friction function, the viscosity of the saturating fluid, and the viscous number. Finally, we show that only a small decrease of volume fraction of the granular component is needed to account for the significant shear thinning observed in the system.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We thank Rausan Jewel for helping with experimental measurements, and National Science Foundation for support under Grant CBET-1805398.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{}
The generalized linear model, GLM, is a generalization of the ordinary linear regression which allows continuous or discrete observations from one-parameter exponential family distributions to be combined with explanatory variables (factors) via proper link functions (\citet{10.2307/2344614}). In GLM framework logistic, probit, Poisson and gamma models are included besides others (\citet{mccullagh1989generalized} and \citet{dobson2018introduction}). Therefore, wide applications deal with GLMs such as social and educational sciences, clinical trials, insurance and industry. \par
The information matrix for a GLM depends on the model parameters. Locally optimal designs under GLMs are derived at a certain value of the parameters (\citet{khuri2006}, \citet{atkinson2015designs}). A possible procedure to overcome the complexity in deriving a locally optimal design for GLMs without intercept is to make use of an available locally optimal design for GLMs with intercept and vice versa. This procedure was suggested in \cite{10.2307/24307120} to investigate the relation between optimal designs for mixture and for component amount models. Their result was extended under linear models in \cite{Li2005} to derive a D-optimal design for a non-intercept linear model from that for a linear model with intercept. In contrast, \cite{ZHANG2013196} provided specific conditions to derive D- and A-optimals for component amount models (with intercept) from analogous optimal designs for the corresponding mixture models (without intercept). In this paper we generalize their approaches for GLMs under D- and A-criteria and we introduce a more transparent proof based on The General Equivalence Theorem.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the models and design optimality criteria are introduced. In Section 3, we present the main results followed by applications to Poisson and logistic models in Section 4. Further extensions are given in Section 5.
\section{Models and designs}
Let $Y(\boldsymbol{x}_1), ... ,Y(\boldsymbol{x}_n)$ be independent response variables at $n$ experimental conditions $\boldsymbol{x}_1,\dots, \boldsymbol{x}_n$ which come from an experimental region ${\cal X}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^{\nu}, \nu\ge1$, i.e., $\boldsymbol{x}_i\in \mathcal{X}, i=1,\dots,n$. Under generalized linear models with the vector of model parameters $\boldsymbol{\beta}\in \mathbb{R}^{p}$ each observation $Y(\boldsymbol{x}_i)$ belongs to a one-parameter exponential family distribution with expected mean $E(Y(\boldsymbol{x}_i),\boldsymbol{\beta})=\mu(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{\beta})$ and variance $\mathrm{var}(Y(\boldsymbol{x}_i),\boldsymbol{\beta})=a(\phi)V(\mu(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{\beta}))$ where $V(\mu(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{\beta}))$ is a mean-variance function and $\phi$ is a dispersion parameter (see \citet{mccullagh1989generalized}, Section 2.2.2).
Let $\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x}):{\cal X}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{p}$ be a $p$-dimensional regression function written as $\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=(f_{1}(\boldsymbol{x}),\dots, f_{p}(\boldsymbol{x}))^{\sf T}$. To assure estimability of the parameters the components $f_{1}(\boldsymbol{x}),\dots, f_{p}(\boldsymbol{x})$ are assumed to be real-valued continuous linearly independent functions on $\mathcal{X}$. The expected mean $\mu(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{\beta})$ is related to a linear predictor $\eta(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{\beta})=\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x}_i)\boldsymbol{\beta}$ via a one-to-one and differentiable
link function $g$, i.e., $\eta(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{\beta})=g(\mu(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{\beta}))$, $i=1,\dots,n$. We can define the intensity function for each point $\boldsymbol{x}_i \in \mathcal{X}$ as
\begin{equation}
u(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{\beta})=\Big(a(\phi)V\bigl(g^{-1}\big(\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x}_i)\boldsymbol{\beta}\big)\bigr)\Big)^{-1} \Big(g^{\prime}\bigl(g^{-1}\big(\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x}_i)\boldsymbol{\beta}\big) \bigr)\Big)^{-2}\,\,\,(1\le i \le n) \label{eq2.3}
\end{equation}
which is positive and depends on the value of linear predictor $\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x}_i)\boldsymbol{\beta}$ (\citet{atkinson2015designs}).
The Fisher information matrix for a GLM can be given in the form $\boldsymbol{M}(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{\beta})=u(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{\beta})\,\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x}_i)\,\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x}_i)$ for all $i=1,\dots, n$ (see \citet{fedorov2013optimal}, Subsection 1.3.2). Define the function $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}_i)=u^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{\beta})\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x}_i)$ then the Fisher information matrix may rewrite as $\boldsymbol{M}(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{\beta})=\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}_i)\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{{\sf T}}(\boldsymbol{x}_i)$ for each $i=1,\dots,n$. The latter form is appropriate for other nonlinear models and will appear frequently in the paper. For the whole experimental conditions $\boldsymbol{x}_1, \dots, \boldsymbol{x}_n$ the Fisher information matrix can be obtained by $
\boldsymbol{M}(\boldsymbol{x}_1,\dots,\boldsymbol{x}_n,\boldsymbol{\beta})=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\boldsymbol{M}(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{\beta})$.\par
In this article, we focus on approximate designs $\xi$ defined on the experimental region ${\cal X}$ with finite and mutually distinct support points $\boldsymbol{x}_1, \boldsymbol{x}_2,\dots,\boldsymbol{x}_r$ and the corresponding weights $\omega_1, \omega_2,\dots, \omega_r>0$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{r} \omega_i=1$ ( see \cite{silvey1980optimal}, p.15).
The set ${\rm supp}(\xi)=\{\boldsymbol{x}_1,\boldsymbol{x}_2, \dots,\boldsymbol{x}_r\}$ is called the support of $\xi$. The information matrix of a design $\xi$ at a parameter point $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\boldsymbol{M}(\xi, \boldsymbol{\beta})=\int_{\mathcal{X}} \boldsymbol{M}(\boldsymbol{x}, \boldsymbol{\beta})\, \xi({\rm d}\boldsymbol{x})=\sum_{i=1}^{r}\omega_i \boldsymbol{M}(\boldsymbol{x}_i, \boldsymbol{\beta}).\label{eq2-3}
\end{eqnarray}
Optimal designs derived under specific optimality criteria. Throughout, we restrict to the common D- and A-criteria. Denote by ``$\det$'' and ``${\rm tr}$'' the determinant and the trace of a matrix, respectively. A design $\xi^*$ is called locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) if it minimizes $\det\bigl(\boldsymbol{M}^{-1}(\xi, \boldsymbol{\beta})\bigr)$ over all designs $\xi$ whose information matrix (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) is nonsingular. Similarly, a design $\xi^*$ is called locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) if it minimizes ${\rm tr}\bigl(\boldsymbol{M}^{-1}(\xi, \boldsymbol{\beta})\bigr)$ over all designs $\xi$ whose information matrix (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) is nonsingular. The General Equivalence Theorem can be used to investigate the optimality of a design with respect to D-criterion and A-criterion (see \cite{silvey1980optimal}, p.40, p.48 and p.54). Let $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ be a given parameter point and let $\xi^*$ be a design with nonsingular information matrix $\boldsymbol{M}(\xi^*, \boldsymbol{\beta})$. The design $\xi^*$ is locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) if and only if
\begin{equation}
u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\boldsymbol{M}^{-1}(\xi^*, \boldsymbol{\beta}) \boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})\leq p \,\,\mbox{for all } \boldsymbol{x} \in \mathcal{X}. \label{Equiv-D}
\end{equation}
The design $\xi^*$ is locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) if and only if
\begin{equation}
u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\boldsymbol{M}^{-2}(\xi^*, \boldsymbol{\beta})\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})\leq
\mathrm{tr}\bigl(\boldsymbol{M}^{-1}(\xi^*, \boldsymbol{\beta})\bigr) \,\, \mbox{for all }
\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}. \label{Equiv-A}
\end{equation}
\begin{remark} \label{rem2.3.1.}
The maximum of inequality (\ref{Equiv-D}) or (\ref{Equiv-A}) achieves at the support points of any D- or A-optimal deigns, respectively. The left hand side of each inequality is called the sensitivity function.
\end{remark}
\section{Main results}
In the following we distinguish between the model with an explicit intercept $\mathcal{M}$, say and the corresponding model without an explicit intercept $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$, say. We modify our notations and thus these models; $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$ and $\mathcal{M}$ are (with out loss of generality) characterized in the following.
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}\,:\,\,\, \Tilde{\eta}=\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}\,\, \mbox{ where }\,\, \,\, \boldsymbol{x} \in\mathcal{\widetilde{X}}
\end{equation*}
and $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}=(\beta_1,\dots,\beta_\nu)^{\sf T}$. Denote the intensity function by $\Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ and let $\Tilde{u}_{0}=\Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{0},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$. Here we assume there is no constant (intercept) term explicitly involved in the present model, i.e., none of the regression
components of the $\nu$ real-valued function $\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})$ is constant equal to $1$.
Denote $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})= \Tilde{u}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=({f}^{(1)}_{\Tilde{\boldsymbol{\beta}}},\dots,{f}^{(\nu)}_{\Tilde{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})^{{\sf T}}$ and thus the information matrix of $\xi$ on $\mathcal{\widetilde{X}}$ under model $ \widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$ is written as
\begin{equation*}
\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}\big(\xi,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}\big)=\int_{\mathcal{\widetilde{X}}} \boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\, \xi(\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{x}).
\end{equation*}
The corresponding model $\mathcal{M}$ is defined by including the constant $1$ and the intercept parameter $\beta_0$ into the linear predictor of the generalized linear model as in the following.
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}\,:\,\,\, \eta=\big(1,\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\big)\boldsymbol{\beta}=\beta_0+\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}\,\,\mbox{ where }\,\, \boldsymbol{x} \in\mathcal{X}
\end{equation*}
and $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(\beta_0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$. Denote the intensity function by $u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})$ and let $u_{0}=u(\boldsymbol{0},\boldsymbol{\beta})$.
Denote the function $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x})=u^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=(f^{(1)}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}},\dots,f^{(\nu)}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}})^{{\sf T}}$. So we can write $u^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})\big(1,\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\big)^{\sf T}=\big(u^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta}),\boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \big)^{\sf T}$. Define $\Xi_{0}$ to be the set of all designs on $\mathcal{X}$ for model $\mathcal{M}$ such that $ \boldsymbol{0}\in \mathrm{supp}(\xi)$ and there exist a constant vector $\boldsymbol{c}$ such that $\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=1$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathrm{supp}(\xi)\setminus\{\boldsymbol{0}\}$, i.e.,
\[
\Xi_{0}=\left\{\xi: \xi \mbox{ on } \mathcal{X} \mbox{ with }\boldsymbol{0}\in \mathrm{supp}(\xi) \mbox{ and }\exists\, \boldsymbol{c}\in \mathbb{R}^{\nu} \ni \boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=1\, \forall \boldsymbol{x}\in \mathrm{supp}(\xi)\setminus\{\boldsymbol{0}\} \right\}.
\]
Then the information matrix of $\xi\in\Xi_{0}$ under model $ \mathcal{M}$ reads as
\begin{equation*}
\boldsymbol{M}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\beta})=\int_{\mathcal{X}} \big(u^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta}),\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\big)^{\sf T} \big(u^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta}),\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\big)\, \xi(\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{x}).
\end{equation*}
In the following we give sufficient conditions under which the locally D- resp. A-optimal design at a parameter point $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$ for model $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$ can be obtained from the locally D- resp. A-optimal design from $\Xi_0$ at a parameter point $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(\beta_0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$ for the corresponding model $\mathcal{M}$ by simply removing the origin point from its support points and renormalizing the weights of the remaining support points and vice versa. To this end, for a design $\xi\in \Xi_{0}$ define $\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ on $\mathcal{\widetilde{X}}\subseteq\mathcal{X}$ to be the conditional measure of $\xi$ given $\boldsymbol{x}\neq \boldsymbol{0}$. So we get $\mathrm{supp}(\xi)=\mathrm{supp}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}})\cup \{\boldsymbol{0}\}$. Let $\xi_{\boldsymbol{0}}$ denotes the one point design supported by the origin point $\boldsymbol{0}$, then we can write $ \xi=\omega\,\xi_{\boldsymbol{0}}+(1-\omega)\,\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$. Assume that for a given parameter point $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(\beta_0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$ we have $u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})=\Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ which yields $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x})=\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})$ and $\boldsymbol{M}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\beta})=\boldsymbol{M}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ with $u_{0}=\Tilde{u}_{0}$. In particular, let $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{0})=\boldsymbol{0}$ then we find
\begin{equation*}
\boldsymbol{M}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=\,\left(\begin{array}{cc} m_{1,1}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}) & (1-\omega)\,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{m}}^{\sf T}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\\[0.3cm] (1-\omega)\, \boldsymbol{\Tilde{m}}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})& (1-\omega)\, \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\end{array} \right),
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{align*}
&m_{1,1}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=\int_{\mathcal{X}} \Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\,\xi (\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{x} ),\,\,
\boldsymbol{\Tilde{m}}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=\int_{\mathcal{\widetilde{X}}} \Tilde{u}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \,\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}} (\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{x} )\,\, and \\
&\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})= \int_{\mathcal{\widetilde{X}}} \boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x}) \,\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}} (\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{x}).
\end{align*}
Note that the submatrix $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ is the information matrix of $\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ for model $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$. Furthermore, $m_{1,1}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=\omega \Tilde{u}_{0}+\widetilde{m}^{\circ}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ where $\widetilde{m}^{\circ}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=\int_{\mathcal{\widetilde{X}}}\Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\,\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}} (\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{x} )$. Since there exist a constant vector $\boldsymbol{c}$ such that $\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=1$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathrm{supp}(\xi)\setminus\{\boldsymbol{0}\}$, it is straightforward to verify the following
\begin{align*}
&\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{\Tilde{m}}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=\widetilde{m}^{\circ}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\,\,\mbox{ and } \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{\Tilde{m}}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=\boldsymbol{c}\,\, \mbox{ thus }\\
&\boldsymbol{\Tilde{m}}^{\sf T}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}) \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{\Tilde{m}}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=\widetilde{m}^{\circ}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}).
\end{align*}
As a result we get
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{M}^{-1}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{\omega\,\Tilde{u}_{0}} & -\frac{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{\omega\,\Tilde{u}_{0}}\\ [0.3cm] -\frac{\boldsymbol{c}}{\omega\,\Tilde{u}_{0}}& \frac{1}{1-\omega}\, \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})+\frac{\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{\omega\,\Tilde{u}_{0}}\end{array} \right). \label{eq3.15}
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemm3.3-1}
Consider design $\xi^*\in \Xi_{0}$ for model $\mathcal{M}$. Let a parameter point $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(\beta_0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$ be given such that $u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})=\Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathcal{\widetilde{X}}\subseteq \mathcal{X}$ and $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{0})=\boldsymbol{0}$. Then the design $\xi^*$ is locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) if it assigns weight $\omega=(\nu+1)^{-1}$ to the origin $\boldsymbol{0}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Under the assumptions given in the lemma we obtain $\boldsymbol{M}^{-1}(\xi^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ from (\ref{eq3.15}). Then the sensitivity function obtained from condition (\ref{Equiv-D}) of The Equivalence Theorem is given by
\begin{align*}
\psi(\boldsymbol{x},\xi^*)&=u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\big(1,\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\big)\boldsymbol{M}^{-1}(\xi^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\big(1,\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\big)^{\sf T}\\
&=u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\Big(\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\bigl( \frac{1}{1-\omega}\, \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}}^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})+\frac{\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{\omega\,\Tilde{u}_{0}} \bigr)\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})-2 \frac{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{\omega\,\Tilde{u}_{0}}\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})+\big(\omega \Tilde{u}_{0}\big)^{-1}\Big)\\
&=\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\bigl( \frac{1}{1-\omega}\, \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}}^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})+\frac{\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{\omega\,\Tilde{u}_{0}} \bigr)\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})-2 \frac{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{\omega\,\Tilde{u}_{0}}\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})+u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\big(\omega \Tilde{u}_{0}\big)^{-1}
\end{align*}
Since $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{0})=\boldsymbol{0}$ we have $\psi(\boldsymbol{0},\xi^*)=\Tilde{u}_{0}\big(\omega \Tilde{u}_{0}\big)^{-1}$ and according to Remark \ref{rem2.3.1.} $\xi^*$ is locally D-optimal if $ \Tilde{u}_{0}\big(\omega \Tilde{u}_{0}\big)^{-1}=\nu+1$ which holds true if $\omega=(\nu+1)^{-1}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{theo3.3.1.}
Consider design $\xi^*\in \Xi_{0}$ for model $\mathcal{M}$. Let the design $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ on $\mathcal{\widetilde{X}}$ be the conditional measure of $\xi^*$ given $\boldsymbol{x}\neq \boldsymbol{0}$. Let a parameter point $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(\beta_0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$ be given such that $u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})=\Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathcal{\widetilde{X}}$. Assume that $\mathcal{\widetilde{X}}\subseteq \mathcal{X}$ and $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{0})=\boldsymbol{0}$. Let ${\xi^*=(1/(\nu+1))\,\xi_{\boldsymbol{0}}+(\nu/(\nu+1))\,\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}}$. Then \\
(1) If $\xi^*$ is locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) for model $\mathcal{M}$ then $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ is locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$) for model $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$ .\\
(2) If $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ is locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$) for model $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$ and
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})\le \nu\Big( 1-\frac{(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})- \Tilde{u}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}))^2}{\Tilde{u}_{0}}\Big)\,\,\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in \mathcal{X} \label{eq3.16}
\end{align}
then $\xi^*$ is locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) for model $\mathcal{M}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
\underbar{Ad ($1$)}\,\,Let $\xi^*=(1/(\nu+1))\,\xi_{\boldsymbol{0}}+(\nu/(\nu+1))\,\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}} \in \Xi_{0}$ be locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) on $\mathcal{X}$ for model $\mathcal{M}$. We want to proof that $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ on $\mathcal{\widetilde{X}}$ is locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$) for model $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$. By condition (\ref{Equiv-D}) of The Equivalence Theorem we guarantee at $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(\beta_0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$ that
\begin{equation}
u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})\big(1,\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\big)\boldsymbol{M}^{-1}(\xi^*,\boldsymbol{\beta})\big(1,\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\big)^{\sf T} \le \nu+1 \,\,\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in \mathcal{X}, \label{eq3.17}
\end{equation}
where, at $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(\beta_0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$, ${u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})= \Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ and $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x})=\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \widetilde{\mathcal{X}}$ with $\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}\subseteq \mathcal{X}$. So $\boldsymbol{M}^{-1}\big(\xi^*,\boldsymbol{\beta}\big)=\boldsymbol{M}^{-1}\big(\xi^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}\big)$ which is given by (\ref{eq3.15}) with $\omega=1/(\nu+1)$. Then inequality (\ref{eq3.17}) is equivalent to
\begin{align*}
&\boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})\Big( \frac{\nu+1}{\nu}\,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})+\frac{(\nu+1)\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{\Tilde{u}_{0}}\Big)\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})\nonumber \\
&\hspace{25ex} -\frac{2(\nu+1)\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})+(\nu+1)\Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})}{\Tilde{u}_{0}}\le \nu+1 \,\,\,\,\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in \widetilde{\mathcal{X}}.
\end{align*}
Elementary computations show that the above inequality is equivalent to
\begin{align}
&\boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) +\frac{\nu\,(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})-\Tilde{u}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}))^2}{\Tilde{u}_{0}}\le \nu \,\,\,\,\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in \widetilde{\mathcal{X}}.\label{eq3.18}\\
&\mbox{ Since } \frac{\nu\,(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})-\Tilde{u}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}))^2}{\Tilde{u}_{0}}\ge0, \mbox{ (\ref{eq3.18}) is equivalent to }\nonumber\\
&\boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})\le \nu \,\,\,\,\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in \widetilde{\mathcal{X}}. \nonumber
\end{align}
and so $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ is locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$) by condition (\ref{Equiv-D}) of The Equivalence Theorem.\\
\underbar{Ad ($2$)} Let $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ on $\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}$ is locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$) for model $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$. Under the assumptions stated in the theorem, to show that $\xi^*$ from $\Xi_0$ on $\mathcal{X}$ is locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) for model $\mathcal{M}$ we investigate condition (\ref{Equiv-D}) of The Equivalence Theorem which is given above by
(\ref{eq3.17}) and is also equivalent to (\ref{eq3.18}) at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$. Hence, (\ref{eq3.18}) holds true by condition ($\ref{eq3.16}$). Of course, because $ \xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ is locally D-optimal inequality ($\ref{eq3.16}$) becomes an equality at each design point of $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ which surely is a design point of $\xi^*$ and since $\omega=1/(\nu+1)$ the equality also holds at the origin point $\boldsymbol{0}$.
\end{proof}
Next we introduce analogous result for the A-optimality. As ${\rm tr}\big(\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\big)=\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}$ we obtain from (\ref{eq3.15})
\begin{align}
{\rm tr}\bigl(\boldsymbol{M}^{-1}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\bigr)=\frac{1}{\Tilde{u}_{0}}\Bigg(\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1} +\sqrt{{\rm tr}\bigl(\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\bigr)}\Bigg)^2. \label{eq3.20}
\end{align}
Also from (\ref{eq3.15}) we get
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{M}^{-2}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \frac{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}{\omega^2\,\Tilde{u}_{0}^2} & -\frac{(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{\omega^2\,\Tilde{u}_{0}^2}-\frac{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})}{(1-\omega)\omega\Tilde{u}_{0}}\\ [0.3cm] -\frac{\boldsymbol{c}(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)}{\omega^2\,\Tilde{u}_{0}^2}-\frac{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{c}}{(1-\omega)\omega\Tilde{u}_{0}}& \frac{(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{\omega^2\,\Tilde{u}_{0}^2}+\frac{2\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{(1-\omega)\omega\Tilde{u}_{0}}+\frac{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-2}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})}{(1-\omega)^2}
\end{array} \right). \label{eq3-inv}
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemm3.3-2}
Consider design $\xi^*\in \Xi_{0}$ for model $\mathcal{M}$. Let a parameter point $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(\beta_0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$ be given such that $u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})=\Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathcal{\widetilde{X}}\subseteq \mathcal{X}$ and $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{0})=\boldsymbol{0}$. Denote ${\widetilde{\tau}={\rm tr}\bigl(\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}}^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\bigr)}$. Then the design $\xi^*$ is locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) if it assigns weight $\omega$, below, to the origin $\boldsymbol{0}$;
\[
\omega=\frac{\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}}{\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}+\sqrt{\Tilde{u}_{0}\,\widetilde{\tau}}}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Under the assumptions given in the lemma we obtain $\boldsymbol{M}^{-2}(\xi^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ from (\ref{eq3-inv}). Then the sensitivity function obtained from condition (\ref{Equiv-A}) of The Equivalence Theorem is given by
\begin{align*}
\psi(\boldsymbol{x},\xi^*)&=u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\big(1,\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\big)\boldsymbol{M}^{-2}(\xi^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\big(1,\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\big)^{\sf T}\\
&=u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\Big(\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\Big( \frac{(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{\omega^2\,\Tilde{u}_{0}^2}+\frac{2\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}}^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{(1-\omega)\omega\Tilde{u}_{0}}+\frac{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-2}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}}^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})}{(1-\omega)^2}\Big)\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})\\
&-2\Big(\frac{(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{\omega^2\,\Tilde{u}_{0}^2}-\frac{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}}^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})}{(1-\omega)\omega\Tilde{u}_{0}}\Big)\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})+(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)\big(\omega \Tilde{u}_{0}\big)^{-2}\Big)\\
&=\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\Big( \frac{(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{\omega^2\,\Tilde{u}_{0}^2}+\frac{2\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}}^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{(1-\omega)\omega\Tilde{u}_{0}}+\frac{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-2}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}}^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})}{(1-\omega)^2}\Big)\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})\\
&-2\Big(\frac{(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{\omega^2\,\Tilde{u}_{0}^2}-\frac{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}}^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})}{(1-\omega)\omega\Tilde{u}_{0}}\Big)\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})+u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)\big(\omega \Tilde{u}_{0}\big)^{-2}.
\end{align*}
Since $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{0})=\boldsymbol{0}$ we have $\psi(\boldsymbol{0},\xi^*)=\Tilde{u}_{0}(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)\big(\omega \Tilde{u}_{0}\big)^{-2}$ and according to Remark \ref{rem2.3.1.} $\xi^*$ is locally A-optimal if $\Tilde{u}_{0}(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)\big(\omega \Tilde{u}_{0}\big)^{-2}={\rm tr}(\boldsymbol{M}^{-1}(\xi^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}))$ which holds true if ${\omega=\sqrt{ \frac{(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)}{\Tilde{u}_{0}{\rm tr}(\boldsymbol{M}^{-1}(\xi^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})}}}$. By (\ref{eq3.20}) we get $\omega=\frac{\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}}{\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}+\sqrt{\Tilde{u}_{0}\,\widetilde{\tau}}}.$
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{theo3.3.2.} Consider the assumptions and notations of Theorem \ref{theo3.3.1.} with ${\widetilde{\tau}={\rm tr}\bigl(\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}}^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\bigr)}$. Let
\[
\xi^*=\Bigg(\frac{\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}}{\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}+\sqrt{\Tilde{u}_{0}\widetilde{\tau}}}\Bigg)\,\xi_{\boldsymbol{0}}+\Bigg(\frac{\sqrt{\Tilde{u}_{0}\,\widetilde{\tau}}}{\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}+\sqrt{\Tilde{u}_{0}\,\widetilde{\tau}}}\Bigg)\,\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}.
\]
Denote the following equations
\begin{align*}
T_{1}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})&=\frac{(\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}+\sqrt{\Tilde{u}_{0}\widetilde{\tau}})^2(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})-\Tilde{u}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}))^2}{\Tilde{u}_{0}^2}\\
&+\frac{2(\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}+\sqrt{\Tilde{u}_{0}\widetilde{\tau}})^2}{\Tilde{u}_{0}\,\sqrt{\widetilde{\tau}\Tilde{u}_{0}(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)}}\Bigg(\boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})\\
&-2\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T} \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\Tilde{u}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})\Bigg),\\
T_{2}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})&=2\sqrt{\frac{\widetilde{\tau} }{ \Tilde{u}_{0} (\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1) } }\Bigg( \boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \\
&-\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T} \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\Tilde{u}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \Bigg).
\end{align*}
Then \\
(1) If $\xi^*$ is locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) for model $\mathcal{M}$ and $T_1(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\ge 0$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathcal{\widetilde{X}}$ then $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ is locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$) for model $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$.\\
(2) If $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ is locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$) for model $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$ and
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\Tilde{f}}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-2}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{\Tilde{f}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \le \widetilde{\tau}\,\Big(1-\frac{(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})-\Tilde{u}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}))^2}{\Tilde{u}_{0}}\Big)+T_{2}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}) \,\,\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in \mathcal{X}\label{eq3.21}
\end{align}
then $\xi^*$ is locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) for model $\mathcal{M}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
\underbar{Ad ($1$)}\,\,Let $\xi^*=(\frac{\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}}{\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}+\sqrt{\Tilde{u}_{0}\,\widetilde{\tau}}})\,\xi_{\boldsymbol{0}}+(\frac{\sqrt{\Tilde{u}_{0}\,\widetilde{\tau}}}{\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}+\sqrt{\Tilde{u}_{0}\,\widetilde{\tau}}})\,\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}} \in \Xi_0$ on $\mathcal{X}$ be locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) for model $\mathcal{M}$. We want to proof that $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ on $\mathcal{\widetilde{X}}$ is locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$) for model $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$. Then condition (\ref{Equiv-A}) of The Equivalence Theorem guarantees at $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(\beta_0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$ that for all $\boldsymbol{x} \in \mathcal{X}$
\begin{equation}
u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})\big(1,\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\big)\boldsymbol{M}^{-2}(\xi^*,\boldsymbol{\beta})\big(1,\boldsymbol{f}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\big)^{\sf T}\leq {\rm tr}\bigl(\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi ^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\bigr), \label{eq3.22}
\end{equation}
where, at $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(\beta_0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$, ${u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})= \Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ and $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x})=\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \widetilde{\mathcal{X}}$ with $\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}\subseteq \mathcal{X}$. So $\boldsymbol{M}^{-2}\big(\xi^*,\boldsymbol{\beta}\big)=\boldsymbol{M}^{-2}\big(\xi^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}\big)$ which is given by (\ref{eq3-inv}) with $\omega=(\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1})/(\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}+\sqrt{\Tilde{u}_{0}\,\widetilde{\tau}})$. Then the l.h.s. of inequality (\ref{eq3.22}) equals
\begin{align*}
&\boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \Bigg(\frac{(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{\omega^2\Tilde{u}_{0}^2}+\frac{2\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}}{\omega(1-\omega)\Tilde{u}_{0}}+\frac{1}{(1-\omega)^2}\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-2}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\Bigg)\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \\
&-2\,\Bigg(\frac{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)}{\omega^2\,\Tilde{u}_{0}^2}+\frac{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T} \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})}{\omega(1-\omega)\Tilde{u}_{0}}\Bigg)\Tilde{u}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})+\frac{(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})}{\omega^2\,\Tilde{u}_{0}^2},
\end{align*}
and together with (\ref{eq3.20}) it is straightforward to see that (\ref{eq3.22}) is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-2}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})+T_1(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\le \widetilde{\tau} \,\,\,\,\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in \widetilde{\mathcal{X}}. \label{eq3.100}
\end{equation}
Since $T_1(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\ge 0$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathcal{\widetilde{X}}$, (\ref{eq3.100}) is equivalent to
\begin{equation*}
\boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-2}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \le \widetilde{\tau} \,\,\,\,\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in \widetilde{\mathcal{X}}.
\end{equation*}
and so $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ is locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$) by condition (\ref{Equiv-A}) of The Equivalence Theorem.\\
\underbar{Ad ($2$)} Let $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ on $\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}$ is locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$) for model $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$. Under the assumptions stated in the theorem to show that $\xi^*$ from $\Xi_0$ on $\mathcal{X}$ is locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) for model $\mathcal{M}$ we investigate condition (\ref{Equiv-A}) of The Equivalence Theorem which is given above by
(\ref{eq3.22}) and is also equivalent to (\ref{eq3.100}) at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathcal{X}$. Hence, it is straightforward to see that (\ref{eq3.100}) for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathcal{X}$ holds true by condition (\ref{eq3.21}). Of course, because $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ is locally A-optimal and $T_{2}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=0$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathrm{supp}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}})$ inequality (\ref{eq3.21}) becomes an equality at each design point of $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ which surely is a design point of $\xi^*$. Since $\omega=(\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1})/(\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}+\sqrt{\Tilde{u}_{0}\,\widetilde{\tau}})$ and $T_{2}(\boldsymbol{0},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=0$ the equality also holds at the origin point $\boldsymbol{0}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} The results of this section might be viewed as a generalization of the results of both \citet{Li2005} and \citet{ZHANG2013196} that were derived under linear models, i.e., when the intensities are constants equal to 1.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
A design with minimal support, i.e., the support size equals the dimension of $\boldsymbol{f}$ ($r = p$) is called a saturated design. In fact, the assumption $\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=1$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathrm{supp}(\xi^*)\setminus\{\boldsymbol{0}\}$ is equivalent to that $\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathrm{supp}( \xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}})$ lies on a hyperplane. Thus every saturated design for generalized linear models without intercept satisfies that assumption. Moreover, the assumption $\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=1$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}$ is satisfied when $\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}$ is given by the $(\nu-1)$-dimensional unit simplex, i.e., $\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}=\{\boldsymbol{x}=(x_1,\dots,x_\nu)^{\sf T}, 0\le x_i\le1\,\, \forall i, \sum_{i=1}^\nu x_i=1\}$. In such a case the mixture constraint of $\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}$ which is given by $\sum_{i=1}^{\nu}x_i=1$ entails that $\boldsymbol{c}=(1,\dots,1)^{\sf T}$.
\end{remark}
\section{Applications}
\subsection{ Poisson models}
We consider a first order Poisson model with $\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=(1,\boldsymbol{x}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$. The intensity functions under $\mathcal{M}$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$ are given by
\[
u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})=\exp(\beta_0+\boldsymbol{x}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\,\, \mbox{ and }\,\, \Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=\exp(\boldsymbol{x}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}),
\]
respectively. It is noted that $u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})$ factorizes; i.e., $u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta}) =\exp(\beta_0)\Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$. Therefore, $\boldsymbol{M}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\beta})=\exp(\beta_0)\boldsymbol{M}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ for any given parameter point $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(\beta_0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$. That means the design $\xi$ is independent of $\beta_0$ and hence, locally optimal designs for a Poisson model with intercept is governed by $\Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$. Similar situation holds under the Rasch Poisson-Gamma counts model (\citet{10.1007/978-3-319-00218-7_14}) in item response theory and the Rasch Poisson counts model (\citet{2018arXiv181003893G}). \par
A relevant work from the literature includes the results of \citet{10.2307/24308852} who derived a locally D-optimal saturated design $\xi^*$ for a first order Poisson model with intercept on $\mathcal{X}= [0,1]^\nu$ where \,$\nu\ge 2$ at $\beta_i=-2 \,\,(1\le i\le \nu)$. The support is given by $\boldsymbol{x}_0^*=(0,0,\dots,0)^{\sf T}$ and the $\nu$-dimensional unit vectors $\boldsymbol{x}_i^*=\boldsymbol{e}_i \,\,(1\le i \le \nu)$ with equal weights $(\nu+1)^{-1}$. So under the assumptions of Theorem \ref{theo3.3.1.}, part (1) with $\boldsymbol{c}=\boldsymbol{1}_{\nu}$ as the $\nu$-vector of ones, the design $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ on $\mathcal{X}$ is locally D-optimal at $\beta_i=-2 \,\,(1\le i\le \nu)$ for the corresponding model without intercept.
\subsection{ Logistic models}
Consider a first order logistic model with $\boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=(1,\boldsymbol{x}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$. The intensity functions under $\mathcal{M}$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$ are given by
\[
u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})=\frac{\exp(\beta_0+\boldsymbol{x}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})}{(1+\exp(\beta_0+\boldsymbol{x}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}))^2}\,\,\, \mbox{ and }\,\,\, \Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=\frac{\exp(\boldsymbol{x}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})}{(1+\exp(\boldsymbol{x}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}))^2},
\]
respectively. Note that $u(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})=\Tilde{u}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ and $\boldsymbol{M}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\beta})=\boldsymbol{M}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ at $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$. \par
In the literature \citet{doi:10.1080/02331888.2014.937342}, Theorem 3.2, provided a three-point locally D-optimal saturated design $\xi^*$ at $(0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$, $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}\in (0,\infty)^2 $ for the two-factor logistics model on the experimental region $\mathcal{X}= [0,\infty)^2$. The support is given by $(0,0)^{\sf T}, (0,u^*)^{\sf T},(u^*,0)^{\sf T}$ where $u^*> 0$ is the unique solution for $u$ to the equation $2+u+2e^u-ue^u=0$. Hence, the assumptions of Theorem \ref{theo3.3.1.}, part (1) with $\boldsymbol{c}=(1/u^*, 1/u^*)^{\sf T}$ are satisfied and hence the design $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ on $\mathcal{X}$ is locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$) with equal weights $1/2$ for the corresponding model without intercept.\par
See also Example 3 in \citet{schmidt2017optimal} where product type designs are locally D-optimal at $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$ for logistic models with intercept.
\section{Extensions} \label{sec5}
The obtained results in Section 3 under generalized linear models might be applicable under another nonlinear models that are defined by
\begin{equation}
Y(\boldsymbol{x})=h(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})+\varepsilon\,\,\mbox{ where }\,\, \varepsilon \,\,\mbox{is the error term}. \label{eq2.6}
\end{equation}
In this context we define $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x})$ to be the gradient vector of $h(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x})=\nabla h(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})=\frac{\partial h(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta}) }{\partial \boldsymbol{\beta}}=\Big(\frac{\partial h(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta}) }{\partial \beta_1},\dots,\frac{\partial h(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta}) }{\partial \beta_p}\Big)^{\sf T}. \label{eq2.7}
\end{equation}
The Fisher information matrix at a point $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathcal{X}$ is given by $\boldsymbol{M}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})=\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x})\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})$. Actually, nonlinear models of form (\ref{eq2.6}) were discussed carefully in the literature (see \citet{doi:10.1080/00401706.1989.10488475}, \citet{ATKINSON1996437}). Here, generally, a nonlinear model includes explicitly an intercept term if the function $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x})$ includes the constant $1$ (see \citet {10.1007/978-3-662-12516-8_8}, \citet{LI2011644}, \citet{doi:10.1080/02331888.2014.922562}, \citet{he2018optimal}). In \citet{doi:10.1198/016214508000000427} some dose–response nonlinear models with intercept were listed, e.g.,
\begin{align*}
&E_{\rm{max}} \mbox{ model }: h(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})=\beta_0+\frac{\beta_1 x}{x+\beta_2},\,\,\mbox{with}\,\,\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x})=\Big(1,\frac{x}{x+\beta_1},\frac{-\beta_1 x}{(x+\beta_1)^2}\Big)^{\sf T} \\
&\mbox{Exponential model}: h(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\beta})=\beta_0+\beta_1\exp(\frac{x}{\beta_2}),\,\,\mbox{with}\,\,\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x})=\Big(1,\exp(\frac{x}{\beta_2}), -\frac{\beta_1 x \exp(\frac{x}{\beta_2})}{\beta_2^2}\Big)^{\sf T}.
\end{align*}
The above nonlinear models were also considered in \citet{10.2307/25734102} and locally D-optimal designs on the experiential region $[0,150]$ were derived under zero intercept, i.e., $\beta_0=0$. The support is given by $\{0, x^*, 150\}$ with equal weights $1/3$ where $x^*\in (0,150)$ is obtained analytically. \par
In analogy to the results derived under GLMs in Section 3 we denote $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(\beta_0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$ and we can write the Fisher information matrix of $\xi$ on $\mathcal{\widetilde{X}}$ under a non-intercept nonlinear model as ${\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=\int_{\mathcal{\widetilde{X}}} \boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\, \xi(\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{x})}$, while the Fisher information matrix of $\xi$ on $\mathcal{X}$ under a nonlinear model with intercept is $\boldsymbol{M}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\beta})=\int_{\mathcal{X}} \big(1,\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\big)^{\sf T} \big(1,\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{\sf T}(\boldsymbol{x})\big)\, \xi(\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{x})$. The following results are immediate.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor3.1}
Let the design $\xi^*$ be defined on $\mathcal{X}$ such that $\boldsymbol{0}\in \mathrm{supp}(\xi^*)$. Let the design $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ on $\mathcal{\widetilde{X}}$ be the conditional measure of $\xi^*$ given $\boldsymbol{x}\neq \boldsymbol{0}$ such that $\mathcal{\widetilde{X}}\subseteq \mathcal{X}$. Given a parameter point $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(\beta_0,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}^{\sf T})^{\sf T}$ such that $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x})=\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathcal{\widetilde{X}}$ with $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{0})=\boldsymbol{0}$. Then assume there exist a constant vector $\boldsymbol{c}$ such that $\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})=1$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathrm{supp}(\xi^*)\setminus\{\boldsymbol{0}\}$. Let $\xi^*=(1/(\nu+1))\,\xi_{\boldsymbol{0}}+(\nu/(\nu+1))\,\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$. Then \\
(1) If $\xi^*$ is locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) for model with intercept then $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ is locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$) for the corresponding model without intercept.\\
(2) If $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ is locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$) for model without intercept and
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})\le \nu\Big( 1-(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})-1)^2\Big)\,\,\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in \mathcal{X} \label{eq4-6}
\end{align}
then $\xi^*$ is locally D-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) for the corresponding model with intercept.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary} \label{cor3.2} Under assumptions and notations of Corollary \ref {cor3.1} with ${\widetilde{\tau}={\rm tr}\bigl(\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}}^*,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\bigr)}$.
Let
\[
\xi^*=\Bigg(\frac{\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}}{\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}+\sqrt{\widetilde{\tau}}}\Bigg)\,\xi_{\boldsymbol{0}}+\Bigg(\frac{\sqrt{\widetilde{\tau}}}{\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}+\sqrt{\widetilde{\tau}}}\Bigg)\,\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}.\]
Denote the following equations
\begin{align*}
T_{1}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})&=(\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}+\sqrt{\widetilde{\tau}})^2(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})-1)^2\\
&+\frac{2(\sqrt{\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1}+\sqrt{\widetilde{\tau}})^2}{\sqrt{\widetilde{\tau}(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1)}}\Bigg(\boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})\\
&-2\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T} \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})\Bigg),\\
T_{2}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})&=2\sqrt{\frac{\widetilde{\tau} }{ \boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{c}+1 } }\Bigg( \boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{c}\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \\
&-\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T} \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \Bigg).
\end{align*}
Then \\
(1) If $\xi^*$ is locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) for a model with intercept and $T_1(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\ge 0$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathcal{\widetilde{X}}$ then $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ is locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$) for the corresponding model without intercept.\\
(2) If $\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}}$ is locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}$) for a model without intercept and
\begin{align*}
\boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-2}(\xi^*_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) \le \widetilde{\tau}\,\Big(1-(\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{f}^{{\sf T}}_{\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}}(\boldsymbol{x})-1)^2\Big)+T_{2}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}) \,\,\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in \mathcal{X}
\end{align*}
then $\xi^*$ is locally A-optimal (at $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) for the corresponding model with intercept.
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
In view of the assumptions of the previous corollaries $\boldsymbol{M}^{-1}(\xi,\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})$ is given by (\ref{eq3.15}) where $\Tilde{u}_{0}$ vanishes. That is due to $\boldsymbol{c}^{\sf T}\boldsymbol{\Tilde{m}}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=1$, $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{\Tilde{m}}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=\boldsymbol{c}$ thus $\boldsymbol{\Tilde{m}}^{\sf T}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}}) \boldsymbol{\Tilde{M}}^{-1}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})\boldsymbol{\Tilde{m}}(\xi_{-\boldsymbol{0}},\boldsymbol{\Tilde{\beta}})=1$.
\end{remark}
|
\section{Introduction}
In the presence of two overlapping speech sources, the human brain is capable of focusing on a selected target speaker and ignoring speech from the other speaker to a large degree.
However, constructing an automatic source separation system to extract a target speech signal from the mixture of target and interference speech signals remains a challenging task. The task becomes even more challenging when the two speakers share similar pronunciation and acoustic features.
Conventional signal processing algorithms for this task are broadly categorised into multi-channel and single-channel methods, depending on the topology of the microphones used for the signal recording.
Techniques based on a microphone-array such as principle component analysis (PCA), independent component analysis (ICA) and non-negative matrix factorisation (NMF) have been reported in the literature to be effective, but these techniques require some additional assumptions such as source independence, space sparsity and non-negative constrains \cite{winter2006geometrical,mitianoudis2004audio,weninger2012optimization,ozerov2010multichannel}.
On the other hand, traditional single-channel source separation approaches such as computational auditory scene analysis (CASA) exploits pitch and onset as grouping cues to decompose a mixed speech signal \cite{hu2010tandem}.
Over the past few years, neural network models have managed to outperform classic signal processing algorithms in many speech related applications, such as automatic speech recognition (ASR) \cite{zhang2017towards,seltzer2013investigation}, speech enhancement \cite{Keren2018,araki2015,weninger2015speech}, and speech emotion recognition (SER) \cite{zhang2018deep,han2017reconstruction,tzirakis2017end}.
This recent success of neural network models has inspired some of the recent solutions for the single-channel source separation task \cite{Wang2018SupervisedSS,lee2017fully,samui2017deep}.
A prominent recent work introduces the deep clustering approach \cite{hershey2016deep}. In this work, an assumption is made that each time-frequency bin in the speech spectrogram belongs to only one speaker. A deep recurrent network is trained to produce an embedding vector for each time-frequency bin (TF-bin), and the model is trained to emit similar embeddings for TF-bins that originate from the same speaker. A k-means clustering algorithm is then applied at test time to attribute the TF-bins to the different speakers according to the learnt embeddings.
The deep attractor network (DaNet) \cite{chen2017deep} extends the deep clustering framework. In this work, embeddings for the different TF-bins that originate from the same speaker are averaged at training time to create an attractor for this speaker. The model is trained to produce embeddings for the TF-bins that are similar to their respective attractors. The DaNet was shown in experiments to yield superior source separation performance compared to the deep clustering method.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{source_separation_extended.pdf}
\vspace{-2cm}
\caption{The source separation model architecture. The identical speaker embedding subnetworks processes the target and interference contexts via a sequence of $4$ residual blocks to produce target and interference speaker embeddings. The separation subnetwork processes the mixture segment through a sequence of $8$ residual blocks, each additionally conditioned on the target and interference speaker embeddings, to output an estimated interference frame. The difference between the central frame of the mixture segment and the estimated interference frame is the estimated target frame.}
\vspace{-1em}
\label{fig:model}
\end{figure*}
However, both the deep clustering and DaNet methods are facing a non-trivial challenge. Both models have to learn to produce similar embeddings to TF-bins that belong to similar speakers, without any indication in what region in the embedding space the similar embeddings should be. As embeddings for TF-bins that belong to different speakers may concentrate in different regions of the embedding space, given a new speaker at test time, different regions in the audio segment will have to agree in which area of the embedding space the embeddings for this speaker should concentrate. In order for this to happen, bottom layers of the neural network will have to exchange information between all the different parts of the audio segment, communicating the target area in the embedding space. As the network is not explicitly guided to do so, learning this behaviour from data alone is indeed a non-trivial challenge.
In this paper, we propose a novel source separation model based on stacks of residual blocks.
To alleviate the above issue, we supply the model with short additional context recordings containing clean speech from each of the speakers. Each of the context recordings is then processed with a dedicated subnetwork to create a speaker embedding vector. The main subnetwork processes the mixed speech segment and emits the separated speech, and is also conditioned on the speaker embedding vectors, that assist in attributing the different TF-bins to the different speakers, thus circumventing the issue described above. It is important to note that supplying the network with those additional inputs is a realistic setting. Indeed, in many real-life applications the audio segments for separation contain large parts where only a single speaker is present. Those parts can be extracted and used by the model as the additional speaker context. In experiments, we find that our proposed model outperforms the state-of-the-art deep clustering and DaNet models in the source separation task using a large-scale speech dataset.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section \ref{sec:data} presents the data used in this work and its processing. Section \ref{sec:model} discusses the structure of the proposed model, experiments and evaluation for the source separation task are described in Section \ref{sec:experiments}. Final conclusions are drawn in Section \ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Data description and processing} \label{sec:data}
In general, the performance of a deep neural network model for source separation improves as the size and diversity of the speech data increases. The VoxCeleb dataset \cite{DBLP:conf/interspeech/NagraniCZ17, DBLP:conf/interspeech/ChungNZ18} provides more than 2000 hours of single-channel recordings extracted from Youtube interviews of more than 7000 speakers, and includes more than one million utterances.
The dataset contains two versions, VoxCeleb1 and VoxCeleb2, each with its own training and test set. As each version consists of distinct speakers, our training and test sets are comprised of the union of the two corresponding sets in the two versions. For the creation of the validation set, 20 utterances from different speakers were chosen from the training set. The speakers with utterances appearing in the validation set were removed from the training set. The above procedure ensures that the training, validation and test sets are speaker independent. The amount of data for validation is selected to be very small because we do not require much hyper-parameters tuning for our proposed source separation network. The utterances in VoxCeleb cover different nationalities and range from 4 to 12 seconds in length.
At training time, the model inputs are created using a random process at each iteration, for improving the separation quality by creating a larger effective size for the training set.
At each iteration, we randomly sample two speakers, named the \emph{target speaker} and the \emph{interference speaker}, and a random utterance from each of the two speakers, named the \emph{target utterance} and the \emph{interference utterance} respectively.
The two utterances are truncated to have the same length, and then the interference utterance is mixed into the target utterance using a random SNR of either -5 ,0, 5, 10, 15 or 25\,dB to create the \emph{mixture utterance}.
The log magnitude spectrum is extracted from each of the target, interference and mixture utterances by applying a short-time Fourier transform (STFT) on each segment, using a 25\,ms Hanning window shifted by 10\,ms. Prior to computing the logarithm, a small value of $10^{-5}$ is added to the magnitude of the STFT output, to prevent the model from fitting to imperceptible differences in magnitude. The sampling frequency of all audio segments is 16\,kHz, therefore each frame consists of 400 samples and its resulting feature vector is comprised of 201 frequencies.
The source separation model processes three inputs. The \emph{mixture segment} consists of 100 successive frames from the mixture spectrum, chosen randomly at each iteration from the mixture utterance.
The parts of the target and interference utterance that were used to create the mixture segment are named the \emph{target segment} and the \emph{interference segment} respectively.
The \emph{target context} is a 35 frames segment chosen randomly at each iteration from the part of target utterance that does not appear in the mixture segment. The \emph{interference context} is chosen from the interference utterance using the same process. The target and the interference contexts each contain speech from a single speaker, and are used by the model to create the speaker embeddings to assist with the source separation process, as described in Section \ref{sec:model}. It is important to note that in many real-life applications the audio segment for separation contains large parts where only a single speaker is present, therefore conditioning our model on the target and interference contexts, that contain speech from a single speaker each, is a realistic setting that may be deployed in a variety of real-life applications.
The target segment is used by the separation model as the training label.
For creating the validation and test sets, all utterances from the corresponding set were randomly split into pairs of target and interference utterances, such that each pair contains utterances from different speakers. Each pair was then mixed to create the mixture segment, using an SNR of either -5, -3, -1, 0, 1, 3$ or $5\,dB. These SNR values ensure a fair comparison of our algorithm with previous work. A larger variety of SNRs were used in the training process, to facilitate the trained model's robustness to a variety of SNRs. Target and interference contexts were chosen to be from the beginning of the target and interference utterances, respectively. Test and validation sets were created once, and were consistent across all experiments.
\section{Source separation model} \label{sec:model}
Residual neural networks (resnets) introduce shortcut connections to the conventional CNN framework and enable a substantially deeper architecture, which has been validated to be successful in both the computer vision and audio domains\cite{he2016deep,vydana2017residual,jung2017resnet}.
A basic residual block contains two convolutional layers, where batch normalisation \cite{ioffe2015batch} followed by a rectified linear unit (ReLU) are applied between the convolutional layers. The residual block's input is added to the output of the second convolutional layer, and again batch normalisation and ReLU activation are applied to emit the block's output. In this work, we use two-dimensional convolutional layers that operate on the time and frequency axes.
The architecture of our proposed source separation model is based on stacks of residual blocks as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:model}. The model consists of three subnetworks, each mainly contains a sequence of residual blocks. First, a speaker embedding subnetwork processes the target context, to emit the \emph{target speaker embedding}. Similarly, an identical subnetwork processes the interference context to emit the \emph{interference speaker embedding}. The separation subnetwork then processes the two speaker embeddings and the mixture segment to emit an \emph{estimated interference frame}. The estimated interference frame is an estimate of the interference components in the central frame of the mixture segment. Finally, the \emph{estimated target frame} is computed to be the difference between the central frame of the mixture segment and the estimated interference frame. The model is trained to minimise the squared difference between the estimated target frame and the true target frame that is the central frame of the target segment.
\subsection{Speaker embedding subnetwork}
Each of the two speaker embedding subnetworks takes a speech context as input, and its output is a speaker embedding vector that may contain valuable acoustic information obtained from the speech segment.
The speaker embedding subnetwork is compromised of a sequence of four residual blocks using the specifications from Table \ref{tab:embedding}.
The output feature maps of the last residual block is averaged across all locations (time steps and frequency bins) to get a speaker embedding vector with a fixed length of 512.
\begin{table}[th]
\caption{The speaker embedding subnetwork specifications. The subnetwork contains 4 residual blocks, each with different kernel size, stride, and number of channels.}
\label{tab:embedding}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ l c c c}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Block}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Kernel}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Stride}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{\#Channels}} \\
\midrule
$1$ & $(8,4)$ & $(3,2)$ & $64$\\
$2$ & $(8,4)$ & $(3,2)$ & $128$\\
$3$ & $(4,4)$ & $(1,1)$ & $256$\\
$4$ & $(4,4)$ & $(1,2)$ & $512$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Two identical such subnetworks (each with its own learnable parameters) process the the target and interference contexts and produce the target and interference speaker embeddings. The learnt target and interference speaker embeddings are injected into the separation subnetwork to assist with the source separation task.
\subsection{Separation subnetwork}
This separation subnetwork is comprised of a sequence of 8 residual blocks that process the mixture segment, using the specifications from Table \ref{tab:separation}.
For each convolutional layer, the learnt target and interference speaker embeddings are each linearly projected to a dimension equal to the number of feature maps in this layer by applying a trainable fully-connected layer. The two projected vectors are then added to every location in the output map of the convolutional layer.
By doing so, all convolutional layers in the separation subnetwork are conditioned on the information of target and interference speech, allowing the separation network to better estimate the components belonging to the interference speaker.
\begin{table}[th]
\caption{The separation subnetwork specifications. The subnetwork contains 8 residual blocks, each each with different kernel size, stride and number of channels.}
\label{tab:separation}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ l c c c}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Block}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Kernel}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Stride}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{\#Channels}} \\
\midrule
$1$ & $(4,4)$ & $(1,1)$ & $64$\\
$2$ & $(4,4)$ & $(1,1)$ & $64$\\
$3$ & $(4,4)$ & $(2,2)$ & $128$\\
$4$ & $(4,4)$ & $(1,1)$ & $128$\\
$5$ & $(3,3)$ & $(2,2)$ & $256$\\
$6$ & $(3,3)$ & $(1,1)$ & $256$\\
$7$ & $(3,3)$ & $(2,2)$ & $512$\\
$8$ & $(3,3)$ & $(1,1)$ & $512$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
At last, we flatten the output of the last residual block and feed it through a fully-connected layer to get a 201 dimensional output. This output is added to the central frame of the input mixture segment to yield the estimated target frame. During the training phase, we optimise the network parameters to minimise the mean squared error (MSE) between the estimated target frame and the central frame of the target segment, using stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with a learning rate of $0.1$.
At validation and test time, inverse Short-Time Fourier transform (iSTFT) was used to reconstruct the target speech using the phase of the mixture segment.
\section{Experiments and results} \label{sec:experiments}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\hspace*{-0.2cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{performance_interpretation.png}
\vspace{-2.3cm}
\caption{An example of true target and interference spectrum, and the corresponding output of the source separation model.}
\vspace{-0.8em}
\label{fig:performance}
\end{figure*}
We conduct experiments for evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed source separation model. The performance of both our proposed model and the state-of-the-art baselines recently proposed for source separation \cite{hershey2016deep,chen2017deep} are compared in a large-scale source separation task using the VoxCeleb dataset and unseen speakers at test time as was described in Section \ref{sec:data}.
\subsection{Baseline models}
As a baseline, we implemented the deep clustering model and the deep attractor network (DaNet) as described in \cite{hershey2016deep,chen2017deep}. For experiments with the two baseline methods, we follow the audio preprocessing pipeline from these works. All audio segments were downsampled to 8\,kHz before processing and then mixed using one of the SNRs -5, -3, -1, 0, 1, 3, 5\,dB. Log magnitude spectrum of the mixture speech was obtained using STFT with a 32\,ms window length with an 8\,ms window shift. Chunks of 100 frames were used as input to the model.
The deep clustering model uses 2 bidirectional LSTM layers, while DaNet contains 4 bidirectional LSTM layers, both with 600 hidden units in each layer, to learn 20-dimensional embeddings for every TF-bin of the mixture spectrum. The deep clustering model is trained to produce similar embeddings to TF-bins that originate from the same speaker. The DaNet model averages the embeddings that originate from similar speakers to create attractors, and the model is trained to produce embeddings that are similar to their appropriate attractors. Optimisation parameters were chosen using the validation set. At test time, k-means clustering is used to allocate the TF-bins to the two speakers based on their embedding vectors.
\subsection{Comparison}
We consider three objective evaluation metrics for separation as described in \cite{vincent2006performance}: signal-to-distortion ratio (SDR), signal-to-artifacts ratio (SAR) and signal-to-interference ratio (SIR).
We use the BSSEval toolbox \cite{stoter20182018} to compute the three evaluation metrics for the VoxCeleb test set and each of the evaluated models.
Table \ref{tab:compare} contains the results for all the evaluated models.
As seen in the results table, our proposed model outperforms the deep clustering and DaNet baselines by a large margin in terms of SDR and SAR, which measures the lack of distortion and algorithm artifacts in the recovered speech signals, concerning speech quality. Regarding SIR, which represents the ability of the model to suppress the interference speech, the DaNet model yielded a better value compared to our approach. However, SIR does not measure whether the target speech was preserved, therefore a high SIR value with a low SAR and SDR value indicates that the DaNet model suppresses both the interference and the target speakers to a large extent. We note that both baseline approaches were reported to yield good source separation performance in previous work. However, in this work we use a challenging dataset of natural speech, which may be the reason for the relatively low performance of these methods in this work.
\begin{table}[th]
\caption{Comparison of test set evaluation metrics (in dB). DC and DaNet stand for deep clustering and deep attractor network. SDR, SAR, and SIR represent signal-to-distortion, signal-to-artifacts, and signal-to-interference ratio, respectively.}
\label{tab:compare}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ l r r r }
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{ }} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{SDR}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{SAR}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{SIR}}\\
\midrule
\textbf{DC\cite{hershey2016deep}} & 0.84 & 2.09 & 6.58 \\
\textbf{DaNet\cite{chen2017deep}} & 1.81 & 3.29 & \textbf{10.41} \\
\textbf{Proposed} & \textbf{4.79} & \textbf{8.44} & 7.11 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
To better visualise the performance of our source separation algorithm, we depict an example of target and interference segments from two speakers in the test set on the left column of Figure \ref{fig:performance}, where the target speaker is male and the interference speaker is female.
The right column shows our model's output, the estimated (separated by the model) target and interference segments.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusions}
In this paper, we developed a single-channel source separation model that uses additional conditioning on separate speaker context recordings.
The model learns to create speaker embeddings for unseen speakers from additional context recordings. The speaker embeddings may contain important acoustic information regarding the different speakers, and assist the model in enhancing the source separation quality.
In experiments, our proposed model considerably outperforms two state-of-the-art baseline models.
Future work should focus on extending this method to operate with any number of speakers, and further improving separation quality on the challenging dataset that was used. Moreover, more work should be done on maintaining speech intelligibility in the source separating process, to overcome distortions that are occasionally introduced in the audio. Furthermore, the speaker embeddings may be further investigated, for better understanding how the model codes the different speakers, and what specific acoustic information assists the model with the separation process.
\balance
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Creative systems are computational systems that either model human creativity in some manner or are designed to support and inspire creativity. Over the last few years, three main approaches to these systems have emerged: fully autonomous creative systems, creativity support tools, and co-creative systems. Fully autonomous creative systems, part of the field of computational creativity, are designed to generate creative artifacts or exhibit creative behaviors \cite{colton2015painting,das2014poetic}. Creativity support tools, on the other hand, are technologies that can support human creativity by accelerating or augmenting some facets of the creative process \cite{shneiderman2007creativity,voigt2012towards}. Finally, co-creative systems incorporate concepts from both fully autonomous systems and creativity support tools: they enable human users and computer systems to work together on a shared creative task \cite{davis2015enactive,yannakakis2014mixed}.
In this paper, we introduce the algorithms for a co-creative sketching tool called the Creative Sketching Partner (CSP), which involves collaboration between a designer and an AI agent on a shared design task. Figure 1 illustrates the CSP tool, in which the design task is described at the top and the three sketches below represent the responses to this task. The two sketches at the top represent the user's initial sketch on the left and the AI agent's responding sketch and label for the sketch on the right. The sketch at the bottom of the canvas is the user's new sketch, with the shaded region showing the user's additions inspired by the AI agent's sketch. The system utilizes a computational model of conceptual shifts \cite{karimi2018creative,karimi2018deep} to guide users toward different aspects of the design space based on the amount of visual and conceptual similarity to the user's sketch input. Visual similarity entails identifying a sketch that shares some structural characteristics, whereas conceptual similarity identifies a concept that has some semantic relationship. We present users with stimuli that have either both high visual and conceptual similarity (like a pen and a pencil) or low visual and conceptual similarity (like a dolphin and a chair).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{figures/fig1.png}
\caption{The Creative Sketching Partner interface.}
\label{fig:my_label}
\end{figure}
\citeauthor{karimi2018evaluating} \shortcite{karimi2018evaluating} introduced a framework of ways to evaluate creativity in co-creative systems. It was found that current co-creative systems research tends to focus on measuring the usability of the system, rather than on operationalising creativity. This demonstrates an opportunity for adopting metrics from computational creative systems in order to empower co-creative systems with the capacity to measure the creativity of their contributions to the output. For our conceptual shift model, we adopt one of the most commonly measured components of creativity from computational creative systems: novelty \cite{grace2015modeling}. Novelty is associated with measuring how different an artifact is compared to another set of artifacts \cite{grace2015modeling}. The novelty can be based on a comparison with a universal set of artifacts, which we will call a \textit{universal measure}, or on a set of artifacts that the user has previously experienced, which we will call a \textit{personal measure}. In this paper, we use a universal measure based on a large dataset of labelled sketches and deep learning that enables two kinds of representation: one that enables a measure of visual similarity and one that enables a measure of conceptual similarity. From these metrics, we have constructed a universal composite measurement of novelty that is a combination of the distance between feature vectors in the visual space and the conceptual space.
We hypothesize that, when a system provides stimulus in the form of design concept responses that are highly novel to the user's design, it leads to more transformative creative outcomes. In these cases, the designer is able to draw upon distant visual and semantic features to inspire their creative process, such as adding features from another design domain. In contrast, when the system displays stimulus design concepts that are less novel to the user's design, it corresponds to less creative outcomes. The features of similar designs do not provide highly novel input to the process, leading to design iterations that share many attributes with the designer's original sketch. To explore this hypothesis we performed a user study utilizing a Wizard of Oz system to see how altering the novelty of the AI agent's response affected the creativity of the user's response. Participants experienced three conditions: low, intermediate, and high novelty in the system's response. After the sketching experience, participants were interviewed and surveyed to determine how the AI agent's responses affected their creativity. We found that, based both on our quantitative and qualitative results, the high novelty conceptual shifts stimulated more creative thinking than the low novelty ones.
\section{Related Research}
Over the last few decades, digital tools have been introduced as a way to support design creativity \cite{johnson2009computational}. These tools offer a variety of functions that allow designers to share their digital sketches and suggest new ideas to facilitate creativity. More recently, intelligent systems have been developed that enable collaboration with designers in real time. These systems, also referred to as computational co-creative systems, work alongside human users to encourage their creativity, support inspiration, and stimulate the user to continue creating. ViewPoints AI \cite{jacob2013viewpoints} is an example of an artistic co-creative system that has applications in dance and theater. It uses a compositional technique that perceives and analyzes human movements and gestures to facilitate an AI response in real time. Morai Maker \cite{guzdial2019friend} is an example of a co-creative game level design tool that assists users in authoring game level content.
Co-creative sketching systems are an active area of research in the computational creativity community. One such example is the Drawing Apprentice, which is a co-creative drawing partner that collaborates with users in real time \cite{davis2015drawing}. The system uses sketch recognition to identify objects drawn by the user and selects a complementary object to display on the screen. Complementarity is defined by the semantic distance between the user's sketched object and the target object. DuetDraw \cite{oh2018lead} is another example of a co-creative sketching tool that works alongside the user by recognizing what the user draws and drawing related content to complete a shared scene. In our work, we use visual and conceptual similarity to select an object from a distinct category to be drawn on the screen in order to support the design process. Instead of selecting a sketch from the same conceptual category, such as Drawing Apprentice, the CSP uses a computational model of conceptual shifts \cite{karimi2018creative} to determine an appropriate target sketch from a dataset.
Conceptual shifts in design can occur when a sketch of one concept is recognized as being similar to a sketch of another concept \cite{karimi2018creative}. Identifying and capitalizing on conceptual shifts is an important component of the design process, as it allows designers to perceive their design ideas from different perspectives. There are two modes of perception that have been defined in design: \textit{seeing-that} and \textit{seeing-as} \cite{suwa1997architects}. Seeing-that refers to the concrete properties of a sketch and their function in the overall design, whereas seeing-as refers to interpretation, in which sketch elements can be considered through multiple perspectives. Conceptual shifts have the potential to inspire designers to adopt the seeing-as mode of perception, exploring how their emerging design could be connected to a variety of distinct concepts presented as stimuli.
Identifying conceptual shifts could also help users overcome design fixation \cite{purcell1996design}. Designers often have a hard time disengaging from the ideas they developed and learned over time. This effect, called fixation, may be reduced by presenting designers with a sketch of another object that shares some visual and conceptual information. We presume that, when presenting a conceptual shift successfully triggers seeing-as perception, a designer could be distracted from fixation, and potentially develop novel contributions to their design. This could lead to the discovery of innovative solutions for a design task.
The study of creative design has lead to a characterization of different types of creativity. \citeauthor{gero2000computational} \shortcite{gero2000computational} has introduced six forms of design creativity that can form the basis for computational aids: combination, exploration, transformation, analogy, emergence, and first principles. Combination happens when two distinct design concepts are added. Exploration relates to changing some variable values associated with a design concept. Transformation involves altering one or more variables of a design concept through external processes. Analogy is characterized by mapping between structural elements of two dissimilar objects. Emergence occurs when extensional properties of a design concept are identified beyond the intentional ones. First principles use computational knowledge to relate function to behaviour and behaviour to structure. The CSP introduced in this paper can be considered a computational aid to design that can support the first four of these forms of creativity in a co-creative design context: combination, exploration, transformation, and analogy.
\section{Quantifying Conceptual Shifts}
Quantifying conceptual shifts is challenging because concepts are not typically represented or evaluated numerically. Our premise is that the larger the shift, the more creative the resulting design. In order to quantify the scale of a conceptual shift between two sketches (in our case the user's sketch and the system's proposed response), we need a representation space in which we can measure similarity or novelty. The more similar the second sketch is to the first, the less novel the second item is and (we hypothesize) the less likely that it will trigger a conceptual shift. When the two items are less similar, the more novel the stimulus and (again, we hypothesize) the more likely it will result in a conceptual shift.
We focus on novelty in generating conceptual shifts because it has been shown to be a key component in predicting creativity \cite{grace2015modeling}. The assumption in measuring novelty is the existence of a representation that allows objective measurement of difference. In \cite{grace2015modeling}, the corpus of designs in the design space were represented as a set of features that formed the basis for correlation and regression analysis. The feature set was extracted from a database in which the information about the designs was manually entered as a set of features with categorical and numerical values. This representation enabled various ways to measure novelty, but not a single novelty score.
In the CSP, we measure novelty by comparing two sketches: an initial sketch presented by the user and a second sketch selected from a large dataset of sketches. Novelty is a combination of two components: the visual similarity based on the visual data and the conceptual similarity based on the label for the sketch. We use deep learning models to extract a vector representation in two design spaces: a visual space using a large dataset of sketches, and a semantic space using a word embedding model. We consider the novelty to be a combination of the classification of visual novelty in the visual space and conceptual novelty in the word embedding space.
We classify novelty into three categories: low, intermediate, and high. Low novelty occurs when two sketches share a large amount of visual and conceptual information, intermediate novelty is when two sketches share some visual and conceptual information, and high novelty occurs when two sketches share little visual and conceptual information. We presume that low novelty lies within the expectation of the user, and that the system's response might be most likely to help the designer add more details to their initial design. Intermediate novelty could instead inspire the designer to explore possible new design ideas associated with their initial design. High novelty has the potential to widen the user's thinking process, making it more likely to help them incorporate new design features from a completely different design space. Based on this presumption, we hypothesize that increasing the novelty of the CSP stimulus will correlate with more creative outputs.
\section{Conceptual Shift Algorithm}
In this section we describe an AI model of conceptual shifts. The model selects an object from a database of sketches to be displayed on the canvas as a stimulus during a co-creative session. Our model has two components: visual similarity and conceptual similarity. Visual similarity recognizes pairs of sketches from distinct categories that share some underlying visual information. Conceptual similarity identifies the semantic similarity between the labels of the sketches.
Figure 2 shows the computational model the AI agent uses to select a sketch of the desired level of novelty in response to the user's input. The visual similarity module computes the distances between the cluster centroids of distinct categories and maps the user's input to the most similar sketches from categories to which it does not belong. The conceptual similarity module takes the pairs of selected category names from the previous step and computes their semantic similarity. In this section, we describe how CSP generates a numerical value for visual and conceptual similarity and determines the conceptual shift candidates based on high, intermediate, and low novelty.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16.5cm,height=11.5cm]{figures/fig2.png}
\caption{Computational steps for identifying conceptual shifts. Top: Identifying visually similar categories to the user's input. Bottom: Balancing visual similarity with conceptual similarity and identifying conceptual shifts with high, intermediate, and low novelty.}
\label{fig:my_label}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Visual Similarity Module}
The visual similarity module uses a large public dataset of human-drawn sketches, called QuickDraw! (QD) \cite{jongejan2016quick}, with more than 50 million labeled sketches grouped into 345 categories. In preparation for calculating visual similarity, we have 2 steps: a learning step and a clustering step. In the learning step, the sketches are used to build a vector representation of the sketch's features. In the clustering step, we use the resulting feature vectors for sketches in each category to create clusters of visually similar sketches. This process provides a feature vector representation for calculating the novelty between the user's initial sketch and sketches in the QD dataset using visual similarity.
\subsection{Deep Learning Model of Sketches for Visual Similarity}
As in the case of natural images, sketches can also be processed as a grid of pixels, $(h,w,d)$, in which $h$ is the height, $w$ is the width, and $d$ is the number of channels. However, in this case, $d$ will be 1 because the sketches are monochrome. To develop a representation for visual similarity we employed a convolutional neural network (CNN) model due to their success in providing high level visual information and discriminating visual appearances, such as shapes and orientations \cite{lecun2015deep}. We started with a pre-trained model, VGG16 \cite{simonyan2014very}, with 13 convolutional layers, two fully connected layers, and a softmax output layer. The model is primarily trained on the ImageNet dataset \cite{deng2009imagenet} that contains more than 20 million labeled natural images. We then fine-tune this model on the QD dataset with the objective of classifying a sketch into one of the 345 categories. We use 30,000 training samples and 10,000 validation samples per category, and trained for 1.5 million training steps. Observation shows that the accuracy reaches 52.1\% after 1 million steps and remains the same afterwards. We extract a neural representation of each sketch by taking the output of the first fully connected layer, for 4096 values per sketch. However, this model has low accuracy and a high computational cost because of the large number of parameters in the VGG16 architecture and processing sketches as a grid of pixels.
In order to solve this problem, we tried another representation of sketches: a sequence of pen strokes, inspired by the work done by Ha and Eck on Recurrent Neural Network drawing \cite{ha2017neural}. In this case, each stroke is a list of points with 3 elements: ($\Delta$x, $\Delta$y, $p$). $\Delta$x and $\Delta$y are the coordinates with respect to the previous point, and $p$ is a binary number that determines whether the stroke is drawn or not (i.e. just moves the pen). Here we use a deep learning model called Convolutional Neural Network-Long Short Term Memory (CNN-LSTM) \cite{RNNquickdraw}. The model has three one-dimensional convolutional layers and three LSTM layers. We train the model from scratch on the QD dataset with the same objective, training, and validation samples as the CNN-only model. Results show that, after 1 million training steps, accuracy reaches 73.4\% and remains the same afterwards. Each sketch is represented by the last LSTM layer, for 256 values per sketch. Table 1 summarizes the results for accuracy and the average-per category inference time for both models. Accuracy measures a true positive rate, while inference time represents the total amount of time it takes to extract features from all sketches of a category. The CNN-LSTM model is clearly both faster and more accurate, and we use it hereafter.
\subsection{Clustering visually similar sketches in each category} The sketches in a category exhibit a large variability visually. For our visual similarity measure to be meaningful, we group the sketches in each category into clusters and use the feature vector of the cluster centroid as the representative sketch. This process is a form of denoising, where the intra-cluster variability is suppressed. We perform clustering using a K-means algorithm and determine the optimal number of clusters via the elbow method. By analyzing the variance versus the number of clusters, we observed that for most categories the optimal number of clusters is between 7 and 12---we set the number of clusters to 10 across all categories. The distances between the cluster centroids from distinct categories are computed and stored in a matrix of size $3450 \times 3450$: 10 clusters of sketches for each of 345 categories.
Given the source sketch and label from the user, $L_S$, we first extract visual features using the pre-trained CNN-LSTM model that produces 256 values. We then locate the representative cluster within its category (according to the label of the user's sketch) by selecting the closest centroid based on the L2 (i.e. Euclidean) distance. Using the distance matrix, we then select the top 20 most visually similar target clusters from other categories, $L_T$, as the ones with minimum distance from the representative cluster. The similarity is computed as $1- d_v$, where $d_v$ is the Euclidean distance normalized across the most visually similar candidates. As the similarity values for the selected target sketches change smoothly, we classify those that fall in the top 33rd percentile of the distribution as low novelty, between 33rd and 66th percentile as intermediate novelty, and above 66th percentile as high novelty.
\subsection{Conceptual Similarity Module}
The conceptual similarity module uses a word embedding model \cite{mikolov2016word2vec} trained on the Google News corpus with 3 million distinct words. The visual similarity module provides a set of candidate sketches to the conceptual similarity module based on the categories of low, intermediate, and high novelty. We extract the word2vec word embedding features \cite{mikolov2016word2vec} from these category names. The similarity between the category of the source sketch and the selected target sketch is computed as $1- d_c$, where $d_c$ is the cosine distance between the feature vectors of category names. The larger number indicates that the two sketch categories are more likely to appear in the same context, whereas a smaller number indicates that the two are less associated with each other. In order to determine the conceptual shift categories, we select those where the visual and conceptual similarity are both high, medium, or low. This is done by selecting candidates for which the difference between visual and conceptual similarity values are below 0.05 and the overall similarity component is computed as the average of visual and conceptual values.
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\def1.5{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.9in}|p{0.9in}|p{0.9in}|} \cline{2-3}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} &\hfil \textbf{VGG-16} & \hfil \textbf{CNN-LSTM} \\ \hline
\hfil Accuracy & \hfil 52.1\% & \hfil 73.4\% \\ \hline
\hfil Inference time & \hfil 18,000S & \hfil 960S \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Classification accuracy and the inference time using two different deep learning models.}
\end{table}
\section{User Study}
We conducted a user study to evaluate the effectiveness of our conceptual shift model in a co-creative design session. We investigated how the novelty of the system's response could inspire user creativity and correspond to different types of design behaviors. Our hypothesis is that increasing the novelty of the system's response can help designers add new features and/or functions from another design space to their initial drawing, thus leading to more creative outcomes. By contrast, when the system is in the low novelty condition, the designer is presented with the similar features to the initial drawing, which leads to less creative outcomes.
In this study, we used a within-subjects design, such that each participant experienced three conditions with a two-minute break between them. In the first condition the design task is a chair, and the system produces a result that is highly novel with respect to the participant's sketch. In the second condition the design task is a streetlight, and the system produces a result associated with intermediate novelty. In the third condition the design task is a bridge, and the system produces a result that is classified as low novelty. Participants were not aware whether they were in a high, intermediate, or low novelty condition. A context is provided to help guide each design task, such as ``draw a streetlight for safety at night on a city street of a small town.'' When the system's output object is presented to the user, it is accompanied by a label indicating what the object is. Each design task takes approximately 7 minutes. The order of the three conditions for each participant was randomized to account for any ordering effects.
We used an online sketching tool, called SketchTogether \cite{SketchTogether}, that enables multiple users to contribute to a shared canvas in real time. This application allowed us to run a Wizard-of-Oz interaction for the user study in which we used the results of the deep learning model for determining high, intermediate, and low novelty sketches, but a person performed the interaction of placing the selected sketch on the shared canvas. Participants underwent a 5-minute training session that included an explanation about the interface tool and the design tasks. After training, participants are asked to start the first design task. The instruction given to the participants were to draw an object according to the design task and iterate on that drawing based on inspiration from the system's response to their sketch. Following each experimental condition, we asked participants Likert scale survey questions associated with that design session. The questions we asked after each task were:
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=17.5cm]{figures/fig3.png}
\caption{The total percentage of high, intermediate, and low survey responses for (a) inspired creative ideas, and (b) led to different design.}
\label{fig:my_label}
\end{figure*}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Did the system's sketch response inspire you to come up with creative ideas for your design objects?
\item Did the system's sketch response lead you to come up with a different type of design object?
\end{enumerate}
The answers to the survey questions were recorded for quantitative analysis. After the last design session, we asked participants the following questions in an interview:
\begin{enumerate}
\item How did the sketches presented by the system affect your creative process?
\item Was it more helpful when the sketches presented by the system were more or less similar to your input?
\item In which of the three design tasks did the system's sketch inspire you most?
\item Do you have any comments for participating in this study?
\end{enumerate}
The answers to the interview questions were used for qualitative analysis. The entire session for each participant took almost 30 minutes.
\section{Results}
The user study included 24 participants recruited from the College of Architecture at a public university in North America. Gender distribution was 15 males and 9 females. The criterion for participating was whether students perform sketching frequently for their design practice. We recorded survey and interview responses for all participants. In this section, we describe our analysis based on the participants' responses in order to investigate our hypothesis.
\section{Quantitative Analysis} We compared the results from the user's feedback on the three design tasks associated with high, intermediate, and low novelty conditions. We grouped the responses into high, neutral, and low ratings: 4 and 5 are considered high, 3 is neutral, and 1 and 2 are low. For each condition we count the number of ratings based on this grouping.
\subsection{Analysis of creative ideas}
Participants were asked to rate the responses provided by the system after each design session. With this question, we aimed to understand whether increasing the novelty of the system's response inspired their creative thoughts. We found that 91.66\% of the participants thought that the system's response inspired creativity when the system was in the high novelty condition (HNC) compared to 29.16\% in the low novelty condition (LNC). These results indicate that when the system's response is more novel with respect to the user's sketch (HNC), it is associated with more creative outcomes, which may encourage the user to come up with new design ideas for their initial drawing. When the system was in intermediate novelty condition (INC), 54.16\% of the participants were highly inspired by the system's response. Figure 3a shows the distribution of the ratings for the three conditions.
\subsection{Analysis of design object inspiration}
Transformational creativity happens when a designer changes one or more structural variables of the current design object to produce new variables \cite{gero2000computational}. This implies that the system's response has the potential to inspire the user to transform some features of a design concept by adding new features from another design space related to the system's response. We explored whether increasing the novelty of the system's response can lead to transformational creativity in which the participant's designed object significantly deviates from their initial sketch. All participants rated high in response to changing their design when the system was in HNC. This indicates that when the system's response was less similar to the participant's input (HNC), they were able to transform their initial sketch. By contrast, when the system was in LNC, none of the participants reported that the system helped them come up with a different type of design object. when the system was in INC, 41.66\% of the participants rated high in response to changing their design and 58.33\% rated low or neutral (see Figure 3b).
\section{Qualitative Analysis}
To understand how the novelty of the system's response can help designers come up with creative ideas for their initial task we analyzed the participants responses to the interview questions conducted after the design tasks were complete. We aimed to explore the relationship between stimulus novelty and design thinking.
\subsection{Thematic Analysis}
We performed a thematic analysis of the responses the participants gave to the interview questions. Overall, three main themes were found from the interview answers.
\begin{itemize}
\item The tool helps with the design process
\item High novelty helps changing the design
\item Low novelty helps completing the design
\end{itemize}
In the following section, we elaborate on each of these themes.
\subsection{Supporting the design process}
Most participants found the tool useful, as it can help with the design-thinking process as well as iterating and generating new design ideas. P11 exemplifies how the sketching tool helped their design process, ``\textit{The sketches presented after I did my initial sketch, change the creative process, making me think of different object and using that design philosophy and then the second object to affect the first.''} This participant described how the system's output sketch helped them think of different design ideas and iterate on their initial design sketch. This demonstrates that the tool generally supports the iterative nature of the early design process. Additionally, P14 comments: ``\textit{it sort of help[ed] me to see how I think about design, like they teach us just to design, I never really thought about how I go about that process of designing and so having this sort of precedent to work with is more useful to me.''} This participant shows the role such a tool could play in design education. It helps to provide precedents that can inform the design process and inspire additional thinking on the topic.
P4 described how helpful the system is when they say, \textit{``I think the system's response is very helpful, because it gives me a leverage on adding to my initial design or just give me some clue or hint to change my design to make it better.''} Here, the participant comments about how the tool helps them iterate on their design by adding or changing different elements of the initial sketch based on the `clues' or `hints' provided by the system's output. P5 agrees with this sentiment when they said, \textit{``the way that we communicate is great because you add something and I am going to redesign it and so it's great.''} This participant focused on the communication channel established between the user and system, and described how this channel helped in the redesign process. In a similar vein, P25 describes how \textit{``it kind of guided me through some conventional ways of improving my design''} which shows how the tool serves to shepherd users through the design process by providing new avenues to explore and inspiration to change the user's initial design.
\subsection{High novelty inspires changing the design}
We found that high novelty conceptual shifts inspire participants to change the overall shape of their design by adding new features from another design space related to the target sketch. In this condition, 21/24 reported that it is more inspiring when the system's response is less similar to their initial design. P11 commented: \textit{``I think to create an interesting result it was more helpful to have a dissimilar object as opposed to a similar, because it allows you to change the form and different ideas instead of just kind of a similar shape affecting it.''} This participant indicates that when the system's response is less similar to their initial design (high novelty condition), it helps to change the structure, such that it is possible to incorporate different ideas from the target sketch. Similarly, P10 commented: \textit{``It was easier to make changes when it was more different. I think when something is already similar sometimes my brain already has a same set of ideas, but when I am presented with something different the contrast helps me to generate a new idea.''} This participant was able to come with a new idea when he/she was presented with a sketch that was less similar to the initial drawing.
When P16 was presented with a sketch of an aircraft-carrier after designing a chair, they described how the system's sketch opened up new possibilities for them, \textit{``The aircraft-carrier may have chairs but it doesn't elicit specific form especially giving the prompt that is going to be at the kitchen table. Thinking about new possibilities that can happen definitely opens the new design criteria.''} This example shows that the chairs of the aircraft-carrier introduced new design criteria that inspired the participant to sketch a new kitchen chair with the features of aircraft-carrier seats, such as more comfort. Additionally, when P21 was presented with a sketch of a speedboat after designing a chair, they also found new possibilities in the design space, \textit{``The relationship between the two, even though they are used both in the same task or same function because of the difference that one is on water, one needs to be outdoor, the different needs and purposes between the two was influencing me better to create something new between them.''} Similarly, P22 used the features of the system's response to reason about their initial sketch, \textit{``The aircraft, because of its curves and the materiality, so thinking about the skin of the material, maybe thinking about its curves so that led me to think about the curves which maybe helped me to think of armrest.''} In this example both the structure and the concept of the target sketch inspired the participant to change the shape to be curvy as well as adding new functionalities such as armrests.
\subsection{Low novelty helps complete the design}
Overall, 3/24 participants commented that it is more helpful when the sketch that is presented to them is more similar to their initial drawing (low novelty condition). P4 explains why the sketch of fence that was highly similar to their initial drawing of bridge was more helpful, \textit{``because there were clear features and structures that could help by adding, mainly the similar features.''} In this case, the participant preferred to finalize the original drawing by adding more details and structures rather than changing the existing features. Similarly, P9 commented: \textit{``I like the product of end results when stuff [is] more similar. Because I could pull from the profile of fence and add to the bridge...So, you take something from it and add it to your design.''} From both P4 and P9, we can conclude that when the system is in low novelty mode the designer mainly adds more details to the initial drawing rather than transforming the shape or adding new features to the drawing. Most participants found the low novelty condition less helpful. For instance, P12 described how they liked less similar designs, \textit{``I would say it was more helpful when it was less similar because then you are not just copying the instances from the other design.''} P8 agreed with this sentiment when they said: \textit{``high similarity is kind of within my expectation.''}
In both cases of P8 and P12, the low novelty conceptual shift designs do not help to significantly change the original drawing. Instead, they are used to combine some elements of the two sketches. P13 echoes this general viewpoint when they said: \textit{``I think if you are presenting something that is almost exactly the same, you are going to introduce the same idea again.''} Similar to P8, this participant also emphasizes that low novelty conceptual shifts are within their expectation. P22 also commented: \textit{``I feel that similar designs didn't give me as much creative freedom.''} These examples demonstrate that low novelty conceptual shifts may help to combine the elements of the two sketches, rather than encouraging the user's creative thoughts. Both likely have a role in co-creative design systems, serving different purposes.
\section{Conclusion}
This paper presents a computational model of conceptual shifts for a co-creative design system called the Creative Sketching Partner. The tool is meant to inspire design creativity by presenting a sketch of a distinct category that shares some visual and conceptual information with the user's input sketch. We describe the role of deep learning in creating a representation space for measuring distance between the visual and conceptual features of a sketch. We have detailed the process for classifying potential response sketches as low, intermediate, or high novelty with respect to the designer's sketch. A user study is presented in which the participants are given a design task and then experience three different versions of the tool: low, intermediate, and high novelty responses. Both quantitative and qualitative results from the user study demonstrate that the high novelty conceptual shift designs inspire creative thinking more than the low novelty condition.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The research reported in this article is funded by NSF IIS1618810 CompCog: RI: Small: Pique: A cognitive model of curiosity for personalizing sequences of learning resources.
\bibliographystyle{iccc}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $R$ be an integral domain. The \emph{Golomb topology} of $R$ is the topology on $R^\nz:=R\setminus\{0\}$ generated by the coprime cosets; we denote by $G(R)$ the space $R^\nz$ endowed with the this topology, and call it the \emph{Golomb space} of $R$. The Golomb topology on the set $\insZ^+$ of positive integer was introduced by Brown \cite{brown-golomb} and subsequently studied by Golomb \cite{golomb-connectedtop,golomb-aritmtop}. On general domains, the Golomb topology was considered alongside several other coset topologies (see for example \cite{knopf}), and was shown to provide a way to generalize Furstenberg's ``topological'' proof of the infinitude of primes in a more general context \cite{furstenberg,clark-euclidean}. See \cite[Section 4]{clark-golomb} for a more detailed historical overview of the subject.
Two recent articles have shed more light on the Golomb topology. The first one, due to Banakh, Mioduszewski and Turek \cite{bmt-golomb}, deals with the ``classical'' subject of the Golomb topology on $\insZ^+$, with the explicit goal of deciding if this space is \emph{rigid}, i.e., if it does not admit any self-homeomorphism; in particular, they show that any self-homeomorphism of this space fixes 1 \cite[Theorem 5.1]{bmt-golomb}. The second one, due to Clark, Lebowitz-Lockard and Pollack \cite{clark-golomb}, studies Golomb spaces on general domains, in particular when the ring $R$ is a Dedekind domain with infinitely many maximal ideals: under this hypothesis, they show that $G(R)$ is a Hausdorff space that is not regular, and that it is a connected space that is totally disconnected at each of its points. They also raise the \emph{isomorphism problem}: can two nonisomorphic Dedekind domains with infinitely many maximal ideals (or, more generally, two integral domains with zero Jacobson radical) have homeomorphic Golomb spaces? As a first step in this study, they prove that any homeomorphism of Golomb topologies sends units to units \cite[Theorem 13]{clark-golomb}, and thus that two domains with a different number of units have nonhomeomorphic Golomb spaces. We note that the rigidity problem and the isomorphism problem can be unified into a single question:
\smallskip
\textbf{Problem.} Let $R,S$ be two Dedekind domains with infinitely many maximal ideals, and let $h:G(R)\longrightarrow G(S)$ be a homeomorphism. Is it true that there is a ring isomorphism $\sigma:R\longrightarrow S$ and a unit $u\in S$ such that $h(x)=u\sigma(x)$ for all $x\in R$?
\smallskip
In this paper, we show that the only self-homeomorphisms of the Golomb space $G(\insZ)$ are the identity and the multiplication by $-1$ (Theorem \ref{teor:selfOmefZ}), and that if $R$ is a Dedekind domain contained in the algebraic closure $\overline{\insQ}$ of $\insQ$ such that $G(\insZ)\simeq G(R)$ then $R=\insZ$, thus giving a complete answer to the above question for $R=S=\insZ$ and a partial answer for $R=\insZ$. While the method we use works best for the ring of integers, we work as much as possible in a greater generality: the main restrictions we have to put (especially in Sections \ref{sect:clos} and \ref{sect:Yk}) are that the class group of Dedekind domain we consider must be torsion, and that some quotients of the group of units of $R/P^n$ are cyclic.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section \ref{sect:radical}, we generalize \cite[Lemma 5.6]{bmt-golomb} to the case of general Dedekind domains; in particular, we show that the partially ordered set $\insV(R)$ formed by the subsets of $\Max(R)$ that can be written as $V(x):=\{M\in\Max(R)\mid x\in M\}$ for some $x\in R^\nz$ is a topological invariant of the Golomb topology (Proposition \ref{prop:isoV}). Through this result, we prove that if $G(R)\simeq G(S)$ then the class groups of $R$ and $S$ are either both torsion or both non-torsion (Theorem \ref{teor:torsion}) and, if they are torsion, then a homeomorphism between $G(R)$ and $G(S)$ sends prime ideals to prime ideals and radical ideals to radical ideals.
In Section \ref{sect:Ptop}, given a prime ideal $P$ of $R$, we show how to construct from the Golomb topology a new topology on $R\setminus P$ (the \emph{$P$-topology}), which allows to concentrate on the cosets in the form $a+P^n$. Section \ref{sect:HnP} collects some results about the groups $H_n(P):=U(R/P^n)/\pi_n(U(R))$.
In Section \ref{sect:clos}, we study the sets $\pow{a}:=\{ua^n\mid u\in U(R)\}$ of powers of the elements $a\in R\setminus P$, and in particular their closure in the $P$-topology. We relate this closure to the cyclic subgroups of the groups $H_n(P)$; in particular, we show that under some hypothesis (among which that $R$ has torsion class group and that the $H_n(P)$ are cyclic) the closure of $\pow{a}$ is characterized by the index of the subgroup generated by $a$ in $H_n(P)$ for large $n$. Restricting to almost prime elements (i.e., irreducible elements generating a primary ideal) we show that there is a bijective correspondence between these closures and a set of integers depending on the cardinality of the $H_n(P)$ (Theorem \ref{teor:corresp-Theta}), and that this structure is preserved under homeomorphisms of Golomb spaces (Propositions \ref{prop:omef-XP} and \ref{prop:DP}). In Section \ref{sect:Yk}, we explicit enough of this correspondence to characterize completely the self-homeomorphisms of $G(\insZ)$ (Theorem \ref{teor:selfOmefZ}).
\section{Radical and prime ideals}\label{sect:radical}
Throughout the paper, $R$ will a Dedekind domain, i.e., a commutative unitary ring with no zerodivisors such that every ideal can be written as a product of prime ideals; equivalently, such that $R$ is a one-dimensional Noetherian integrally closed domain. We denote by $\Max(R)$ the set of maximal elements of $R$; if $x\in R\setminus\{0\}$, we set $V(x):=\{M\in\Max(R)\mid x\in M\}$. We denote by $U(R)$ the set of units of $R$, and by $\rad(I)$ the radical of the ideal $I$.
The \emph{class group} $\Cl(R)$ of $R$ is the abelian group of the fractional ideals of $R$ modulo principal ideals, with the operation being the multiplication between ideals. The class group of $R$ is torsion if and only if every prime ideal contains a principal primary ideal \cite[Proposition 3.1]{gilmer_qr}.
For every subset $I\subseteq R$, we set $I^\nz:=I\setminus\{0\}$. The \emph{Golomb space} $G(R)$ is the topological space on $R^\nz$ generated by the cosets $a+I$ such that $\langle a,I\rangle=R$. (Note that if $\langle a,I\rangle=R$ then $0\notin a+I$ and thus $a+I\subseteq R^\nz$.) For $X\subseteq R^\nz$, we denote by $\overline{X}$ the closure of $X$ is the Golomb topology.
The closure of the coprime cosets can be completely described.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:chiusura}
\cite[Lemma 15]{clark-golomb} Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain, let $I$ be a nonzero ideal of $R$ and let $x\in R^\nz$ be such that $\langle x,I\rangle=R$. Let $I=P_1^{e_1}\cdots P_n^{e_n}$ be the factorization of $I$. Then,
\begin{equation*}
\overline{x+I}=\left(\bigcap_{i=1}^nP_i\cup(x+P_i^{e_i})\right)^\nz.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
In particular, we immediately obtain the following.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:chiusprod}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain, and let $I,J$ be coprime ideals. For every $x$ such that $\langle x,I\rangle=\langle x,J\rangle=R$, we have $\overline{x+IJ}=\overline{x+I}\cap\overline{x+J}$.
\end{cor}
The purpose of this section is to generalize the results obtained in \cite[Section 5]{bmt-golomb} on the relationship between the Golomb topology and the prime divisors of an element $x\in R^\nz$. Following the methods used therein, we define $\filtro_x$ as the set of all $F\subseteq R^\nz$ such that there are a neighborhood $U_x$ of $x$ and a neighborhood $U_1$ of $1$ such that $\overline{U_x}\cap\overline{U_1}\subseteq F$.
Part \ref{prop:Fx:prime} of the following proposition corresponds to \cite[Lemma 5.5(a)]{bmt-golomb}, while part \ref{prop:Fx:cont} corresponds to \cite[Lemma 5.6]{bmt-golomb}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Fx}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain. Let $x,y\in R^\nz$ and let $M\in\Max(R)$. Then, the following hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{prop:Fx:filtro} $\filtro_x$ is a filter.
\item\label{prop:Fx:prime} $M^\nz\in\filtro_x$ if and only if $x\notin M$.
\item\label{prop:Fx:cont} $\filtro_x\subseteq\filtro_y$ if and only if $V(y)\subseteq V(x)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
\ref{prop:Fx:filtro} By the proof of \cite[Theorem 8(a)]{clark-golomb} (and the discussion in Section 3 therein), for every open sets $V_1,\ldots,V_n$ the intersection $\overline{V_1}\cap\cdots\cap\overline{V_n}$ is nonempty; the claim follows.
\ref{prop:Fx:prime} is a direct consequence of \cite[Lemma 17]{clark-golomb}, applied with $y=1$.
\ref{prop:Fx:cont} Suppose $\filtro_x\subseteq\filtro_y$, and let $P\in V(y)$. Then, $y\in P$, so by point \ref{prop:Fx:prime} $P\notin\filtro_y$; hence, $P\notin\filtro_x$ and thus again $x\in P$, i.e., $P\in V_x$.
Conversely, suppose $V(y)\subseteq V(x)$. Let $F\in\filtro_x$; then, there are ideals $I,J$ of $R$ such that $\langle x,I\rangle=R$ and such that $\overline{x+I}\cap\overline{1+J}\subseteq F$. Without loss of generality, we can suppose that $J\subseteq I$ and that $J=IJ'$ for some $J'$ such that $\langle I,J'\rangle=R$. Let $I=\prod_iP_i^{e_i}$ be the prime decomposition of $I$; by Corollary \ref{cor:chiusprod}, we have
\begin{align*}
\overline{x+I}\cap\overline{1+J}= & \overline{x+I}\cap\overline{1+I}\cap\overline{1+J'}=\\
=& \bigcap_i\overline{x+P_i^{e_i}}\cap\overline{1+P_i^{e_i}}\cap\overline{1+J'}.
\end{align*}
For each $i$, let $n_i$ be an integer such that $y-1\notin P_i^{n_ie_i}$. Then, by Lemma \ref{lemma:chiusura},
\begin{equation*}
\overline{y+P_i^{n_ie_i}}\cap\overline{1+P_i^{n_ie_i}}=((y+P_i^{n_ie_i})\cup P_i)^\nz\cap((1+P_i^{n_ie_i})\cup P_i)^\nz=P_i^\nz.
\end{equation*}
Let $I':=\prod_iP_i^{e_in_i}$: then,
\begin{align*}
\overline{y+I'}\cap\overline{1+I'}=& \bigcap_i\overline{y+P_i^{n_ie_i}}\cap\overline{1+P_i^{n_ie_i}}=\left(\bigcap_iP_i\right)^\nz\subseteq\\
\subseteq &\bigcap_i\overline{x+P_i^{e_i}}\cap\overline{1+P_i^{e_i}}=\\
= & \overline{x+I'}\cap\overline{1+I'}\subseteq\overline{x+I}\cap\overline{1+I},
\end{align*}
and thus
\begin{equation*}
\overline{y+I'}\cap\overline{1+I'J'}=\overline{y+I'}\cap\overline{1+I'}\cap\overline{1+J'}\subseteq\overline{x+I}\cap\overline{1+I}\cap\overline{1+J'}\subseteq F.
\end{equation*}
Since the radical of $I$ and $I'$ is the same and $\langle x,I\rangle=R$, also $\langle x,I'\rangle=R$; since $V(y)\subseteq V(x)$, we have $\langle y,I'\rangle=R$, and thus $y+I'$ is an open neighborhood of $y$. Hence, $F\in\filtro_y$ and thus $\filtro_x\subseteq\filtro_y$, as claimed.
\end{proof}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain. We consider two sets associated to $R$:
\begin{equation*}
\insfiltri(R):=\{\filtro_x\mid x\in R^\nz\}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\insV(R):=\{V(x)\mid x\in R^\nz\}.
\end{equation*}
The previous proposition establishes a relation between them.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:filtriV}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain. The map
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\Psi\colon\insfiltri(R) & \longrightarrow\insV(R),\\
\filtro_x & \longmapsto V(x)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
is well-defined and an anti-isomorphism (when $\insfiltri(R)$ and $\insV(R)$ are endowed with the containment order).
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Proposition \ref{prop:Fx}\ref{prop:Fx:cont} guarantees that $\Psi$ is well-defined, injective and order-reversing, while the surjectivity is obvious.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:isoV}
Let $R,S$ be Dedekind domains and $h:G(R)\longrightarrow G(S)$ be a homeomorphism. Then, the following hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{prop:isoV:filtri} If $h(1)=1$, then $h(\filtro_x)=\filtro_{h(x)}$ for every $x\in R^\nz$.
\item\label{prop:isoV:V} $h$ induces an order isomorphism
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\overline{h}\colon\insV(R) & \longrightarrow\insV(S),\\
V(x) & \longmapsto V(h(x)).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
\ref{prop:isoV:filtri} Since $h$ is a homeomorphism and $h(1)=1$, $h$ sends neighborhoods of $x$ into neighborhoods of $h(x)$, and neighborhoods of $1$ into neighborhoods of $1$, and analogously for their closures. The claim follows by the definition of $\filtro_x$.
\ref{prop:isoV:V} For every unit $v$ of $S$, let $\psi_v:G(S)\longrightarrow G(S)$ be the multiplication by $v$. Clearly, $\psi_v$ is a self-homeomorphism of $G(S)$.
Let $u:=h(1)$. By \cite[Theorem 13]{clark-golomb}, $u$ is a unit of $S$, and thus $\psi_u$ is a self-homeomorphism of $G(S)$. Then, $h=\psi_u\circ\psi_{u^{-1}}\circ h$; setting $h':=\psi_{u^{-1}}\circ h$, it is enough to show the claim separately for $\psi_u$ and for $h'$.
For every $y\in S^\nz$, $V(uy)=V(y)$; hence, the map
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\psi_u}\colon\insfiltri(S) & \longrightarrow\insfiltri(S),\\
\filtro_x & \longmapsto \filtro_{ux}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
is the identity, and in particular it is an order isomorphism. Then, if $\Psi$ is the map of Proposition \ref{prop:filtriV}, we have that $\Psi\circ\widetilde{\psi_u}\circ\Psi^{-1}$ is an order-isomorphism of $\insV(S)$ with itself; unraveling the definition we see that $\overline{\psi_u}=\Psi\circ\widetilde{\psi_u}\circ\Psi^{-1}$, and the claim is proved.
Consider now $h'$. Then, $h'(1)=u^{-1}h(1)=1$. By the previous point, $h'(\filtro_x)=\filtro_{h'(x)}$; hence, by Proposition \ref{prop:Fx}\ref{prop:Fx:cont}, the map
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{h'}\colon\insfiltri(R) & \longrightarrow\insfiltri(R),\\
\filtro_x & \longmapsto \filtro_{h'(x)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
is well-defined and an order-isomorphism. As before, we see that $\overline{h'}=\Psi\circ\widetilde{h'}\circ\Psi^{-1}$ and that the right hand side is an order-isomorphism between $\insV(R)$ and $\insV(S)$, and the claim is proved.
\end{proof}
Since a Dedekind domain is locally finite, $\insV(R)$ is always a subset of $\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{fin}}(\Max(R))$, the set of finite subsets of $\Max(R)$. When the class group of $R$ is torsion, we have equality: indeed, if $P$ is a maximal ideal then $P^k$ is principal for some $k$, and thus there is an $x_P$ (for example, the generator of $P^k$) such that $V(x_P)=\{P\}$. Hence, $\{P_1,\ldots,P_n\}$ is just equal to $V(x_{P_1}\cdots x_{P_n})$. This is actually an equivalence: indeed, if the class of $P$ in $\Cl(R)$ is not torsion then $V(x)\neq\{P\}$ for every $x\in R^\nz$. We can upgrade this difference.
\begin{teor}\label{teor:torsion}
Let $R,S$ be Dedekind domains such that $G(R)$ and $G(S)$ are isomorphic. Then, the class group of $R$ is torsion if and only if the class group of $S$ is torsion.
\end{teor}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that the class group of $R$ is torsion while the class group of $S$ is not, and let $\mathcal{M}(R)$ (respectively, $\mathcal{M}(S)$) be the set of maximal elements of $\insV(R)$ (resp., $\insV(S)$).
Every element of $\mathcal{M}(R)$ is a singleton. Therefore, if $\Delta\subseteq\mathcal{M}(R)$ is finite, say $\Delta=\{\{P_1\},\ldots,\{P_n\}\}$, then $\inf\Delta$ exists and is equal to $\{P_1,\ldots,P_n\}$. Therefore, $\inf\Delta\neq\inf\Lambda$ for every finite $\Delta\neq\Lambda$.
We claim that this does not hold in $\insV(S)$. Indeed, since the class group of $S$ is not torsion there is a maximal ideal $P$ such that no power of $P$ is principal. Let $x\in P\setminus P^2$: then, $xR=PA$ for some ideal $A$ coprime with $P$. By prime avoidance, we can find an $y\in P\setminus P^2$ that is not contained in any prime ideal containing $A$; then, $y=PB$ for some $B$ coprime with $P$ and $A$. In particular, the classes of $A$ and $B$ in the class group are the same (they are both the inverse of the class of $P$). Let $H$ be a nonzero ideal in the same class of $P$ that is coprime with $P$, $A$ and $B$ (which exists by prime avoidance); then, $HA$ and $HB$ are principal, say $HA=zR$ and $HB=wR$. Then, $xwR=PAHB=PBHA=yzR$, and in particular $V(xw)=V(yz)$. Let $\mathcal{M}(x)$ be the set of maximal elements of $\insV(R)$ containing $V(x)$, and likewise define $\mathcal{M}(y)$, $\mathcal{M}(z)$ and $\mathcal{M}(w)$; then, $\inf(\mathcal{M}(x)\cup\mathcal{M}(w))=V(x)\cup V(w)=V(xw)=V(yz)=\inf(\mathcal{M}(y)\cup\mathcal{M}(z))$. We claim that $\mathcal{M}(x)\cup\mathcal{M}(w)\neq\mathcal{M}(y)\cup\mathcal{M}(z)$.
There is an element of $\mathcal{M}(x)$ containing $P$: since the class of $P$ is not torsion, it must be equal to $\Theta:=\{P,Q_1,\ldots,Q_n\}$ for some prime ideals $Q_1,\ldots,Q_n$ containing $A$. Since $z\notin P$, no element of $\mathcal{M}(z)$ contains $P$, and in particular $\Theta\notin\mathcal{M}(z)$. If $\Theta'\in\mathcal{M}(y)$ contains $P$ then $\Theta'=\{P,L_1,\ldots,L_m\}$ for some prime ideals $L_1,\ldots,L_m$ containing $B$; since $A$ and $B$ are coprime, each $Q_i$ is different from each $L_j$, and thus $\Theta'\neq\Theta$, and so $\Theta\notin\mathcal{M}(y)$. Hence, there are finite subsets $\Delta\neq\Lambda$ of $\mathcal{M}(S)$ such that $\inf\Delta=\inf\Lambda$; since this property is purely order-theoretic, it follows that $\insV(R)$ and $\insV(S)$ are not isomorphic. By Proposition \ref{prop:isoV}\ref{prop:isoV:filtri}, neither $G(R)$ and $G(S)$ are homeomorphic.
\end{proof}
It would be interesting to know how much further this method can be pushed: for example, is it possible to recover the rank of the class group of $R$ from the order structure of $\insV(R)$?
\medskip
We now consider more in detail the case where the class group of $R$ is torsion. Given $\Delta\subseteq\Max(R)$, we define
\begin{equation*}
G_\Delta(R):=\{x\in R^\nz\mid V(x)=\Delta\}.
\end{equation*}
By the discussion before Theorem \ref{teor:torsion}, if $\Cl(R)$ is torsion then $G_\Delta(R)\neq\emptyset$ for every finite $\Delta\subseteq\Max(R)$.
The following is an analogue of \cite[Lemmas 5.8 and 5.9]{bmt-golomb}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:GDelta}
Let $R,S$ be Dedekind domains with torsion class group, and let $h:G(R)\longrightarrow G(S)$ be a homeomorphism. Then, there is a bijection $\sigma:\Max(R)\longrightarrow\Max(S)$ such that $h(G_\Delta(R))=G_{\sigma(\Delta)}(S)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Theorem 13]{clark-golomb}, $h(1)$ is a unit of $S$. The multiplication by $u$ is a homeomorphism of $S$ which sends every $G_\Lambda(S)$ into itself; hence, passing to $h':G(R)\longrightarrow G(S)$, $x\mapsto h(1)^{-1}h(x)$, we can suppose without loss of generality that $h(1)=1$.
We claim that $|V(x)|=|V(h(x))|$ for every $x\in R^\nz$. Indeed, since $\Cl(R)$ is torsion $\insV(R)\simeq\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{fin}}(\Max(R))$, and thus $|V(x)|$ is equal to $1$ plus the length of an ascending chain of $\insV(R)$ starting from $V(x)$. By Proposition \ref{prop:isoV}\ref{prop:isoV:V}, this property passes to $\insV(S)$, and thus $|V(x)|=|V(h(x))|$.
Let $\overline{\sigma}$ be the restriction to $\mathcal{M}(R)$ (the set of maximal elements of $\insV(R)$) of the isomorphism $\overline{h}$ of Proposition \ref{prop:isoV}\ref{prop:isoV:V}. Since $\mathcal{M}(R)$ is in natural bijective correspondence with $\Max(R)$ (just send $\{P\}$ into $P$) we get a bijection $\sigma:\Max(R)\longrightarrow\Max(S)$, such that if $P\in\Max(R)$ and $xR$ is $P$-primary then $\sigma(P)$ is the unique maximal ideal of $S$ containing $h(x)$.
If now $x\in G_\Delta(R)$, then $\Delta=\{P\in\Max(R)\mid P\notin\filtro_x\}$; hence, $\sigma(\Delta)=\{Q\in\Max(S)\mid Q\notin\filtro_{h(x)}\}$, and thus $h(x)\in G_{\sigma(\Delta)}(S)$, so $h(G_\Delta(R))\subseteq G_{\sigma(\Delta)}(S)$. Applying the same reasoning to $h^{-1}$ gives the opposite inclusion, and thus $h(G_\Delta(R))=G_{\sigma(\Delta)}(S)$.
\end{proof}
If $h:G(R)\longrightarrow G(S)$, we denote by $h_e:R\longrightarrow S$ the extension of $h$ sending $0$ to $0$.
\begin{teor}\label{teor:radical}
Let $R,S$ be Dedekind domains with torsion class group, and let $h:G(R)\longrightarrow G(S)$ be a homeomorphism. Let $I$ be a radical ideal of $R$. Then, the following hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{teor:radical:rad} $h_e(I)$ is a radical ideal of $S$.
\item\label{teor:radical:num} The number of prime ideals of $R$ containing $I$ is equal to the number of prime ideals of $S$ containing $h_e(I)$.
\item\label{teor:radical:primi} If $I$ is prime, $h_e(I)$ is prime.
\end{enumerate}
\end{teor}
\begin{proof}
Since $I$ is radical, $I=\bigcup\{G_\Delta(R)\mid V(I)\supseteq\Delta\}\cup\{0\}$; hence, applying Proposition \ref{prop:GDelta},
\begin{align*}
h_e(I)= & h\left(\bigcup\{G_\Delta(R)\mid V(I)\supseteq\Delta\}\right)\cup\{0\}=\\
=& \bigcup\{h(G_\Delta(R))\mid V(I)\supseteq\Delta\}\cup\{0\}=\\
=&\bigcup\{G_\Lambda(S)\mid V(I)\subseteq\sigma^{-1}(\Lambda)\}\cup\{0\}=\\
=&\bigcup\{G_\Lambda(S)\mid \sigma(V(I))\subseteq\Lambda\}\cup\{0\}=J
\end{align*}
where $J$ is the radical ideal such that $V(J)=\Delta$, i.e., $J=\bigcap_{Q\in\Lambda}Q$. \ref{teor:radical:rad} is proved.
\ref{teor:radical:num} follows from the fact that that the number of prime ideals containing $I$ is the least $n$ such that there is a subset $\Delta\subseteq\Max(R)$ of cardinality $n$ such that $G_\Delta(R)\subseteq I$. \ref{teor:radical:primi} is immediate from \ref{teor:radical:num}.
\end{proof}
\section{The $P$-topology}\label{sect:Ptop}
The Golomb topology on a Dedekind domain $R$ is a very ``global'' structure: that is, it depends at the same time on all the prime ideals of $R$. In this section, we show a way to ``isolate'' the neighborhoods relative to a single prime ideal $P$, i.e., in the form $a+P^n$. The main idea is the following.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:clopen}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain and let $P$ be a prime ideal of $R$; take $\Omega\subseteq R\setminus P$. If $\Omega$ is clopen in $R\setminus P$, then for every $x\in\Omega$ there is an $n\geq 1$ such that $x+P^n\subseteq\Omega$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Fix $\Omega$ clopen in $R\setminus P$ and let $x\in\Omega$. Since $R\setminus P$ is open, $\Omega$ is also an open set of $G(R)$, and thus there is an ideal $I$ such that $x+I\subseteq\Omega$; since $(x+I)\cap P=\emptyset$, we can write $I=P^nJ$ for some $n\geq 1$ and some ideal $J$ coprime with $P$. We claim that $x+P^n\subseteq\Omega$.
Otherwise, let $y\in(x+P^n)\setminus\Omega$; then, $y\in R\setminus P$, and since $(R\setminus P)\setminus\Omega$ is clopen in $R\setminus P$ we can find, as in the previous paragraph, an integer $m\geq 1$ and an ideal $L$ coprime with $P$ such that $y+P^mL\subseteq(R\setminus P)\setminus\Omega$. Since $\Omega$ is clopen in $R\setminus P$, we have $\overline{\Omega}\cap(R\setminus P)=\Omega$; hence, $\overline{x+P^nJ}\cap(R\setminus P)\subseteq\Omega$. Likewise, $\overline{y+P^mL}\cap(R\setminus P)\subseteq(R\setminus P)\setminus\Omega$, and thus in particular $\overline{x+P^nJ}\cap\overline{y+P^mL}=\emptyset$. However,
\begin{equation*}
\overline{x+P^nJ}=\overline{x+P^n}\cap\overline{x+J}=((x+P^n)\cup P)^\nz\cap\overline{x+J}\supseteq(x+P^n)\cap\rad(J)^\nz
\end{equation*}
and likewise $\overline{y+P^mL}\supseteq(y+P^m)\cap\rad(L)^\nz$. Since $y\in x+P^n$, the intersection $(x+P^n)\cap(y+P^m)$ is nonempty, and thus it contains a coset $z+P^t$. Since $J$ and $L$ are coprime with $P$, we have $(x+P^t)\cap\rad(J)^\nz\cap\rad(L)^\nz\neq\emptyset$; this contradicts the construction of $J$ and $L$, and thus $y$ cannot exist, i.e., $x+P^n\subseteq\Omega$. The claim is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
Let $R,S$ be Dedekind domain with torsion class group, let $h:G(R)\longrightarrow G(S)$ be a homeomorphism, and let $P$ be a prime ideal of $R$. For every $x\in R\setminus P$, there is an $n$ such that $h(x)+h(P)^n\subseteq h(x+P)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Since $\overline{x+P}=(x+P)\cup P^\nz$, the set $x+P$ is a clopen set of $R\setminus P$. Hence, $h(x+P)$ is clopen in $S\setminus h(P)$; we now apply the previous proposition.
\end{proof}
Let $P$ be a prime ideal of $R$. We define the \emph{$P$-topology} on $R\setminus P$ as the topology generated by the $\Omega\subseteq R\setminus P$ that are clopen $R\setminus P$, with respect to the Golomb topology. Since every coprime coset $a+P^n$ is clopen in $R\setminus P$, Proposition \ref{prop:clopen} implies that the $P$-topology is generated by $a+P^n$, for $a\in R\setminus P$ and arbitrary $n$. Therefore, the $P$-topology on $R\setminus P$ actually coincides with the restriction of the $P$-adic topology.
In our context, the most useful property of the $P$-topology is that it depends uniquely on the Golomb topology, in the following sense.
\begin{teor}\label{teor:ptop}
Let $R,S$ be Dedekind domain with torsion class group, and let $h:G(R)\longrightarrow G(S)$ be a homeomorphism of Golomb topologies. Then the restriction of $h$ to $R\setminus P$ is a homeomorphism between $R\setminus P$ with the $P$-topology and $S\setminus h(P)$ with the $h(P)$-topology.
\end{teor}
\begin{proof}
If $\Omega\subseteq R\setminus P$ is clopen in $R\setminus P$, then $h(\Omega)$ is clopen in $S\setminus h(P)$. Hence, the basic open sets of the $P$-topology go to open sets in the $h(P)$-topology; since the same holds for $h^{-1}$, the restriction of $h$ is a homeomorphism between the $P$-topology and the $h(P)$-topology.
\end{proof}
We end this section by determining the closure of a subset in the $P$-topology.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:chiusPtop}
Let $Y\subseteq R\setminus P$, and let $X$ be the closure of $Y$ in the $P$-topology. Then,
\begin{equation*}
X=\bigcap_{n\geq 1}\pi_n^{-1}(\pi_n(Y)).
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $g$ be in the intersection: then, for every $n$, there is $a_n\in Y$ such that $\pi_n(g)=\pi_n(a_n)$, that is, $g-a_n\in P^n$. Hence, $g\in X$. Conversely, if $g$ is in the closure then for every $n$ there is $a_n\in Y$ such that $g-a_n\in P^n$; that is, $\pi_n(g)\in\pi_n(Y)$, as claimed.
\end{proof}
\section{The groups $H_n(P)$}\label{sect:HnP}
Let $R,S$ be Dedekind domain with torsion class group, and let $P$ be a prime ideal of $R$. Let $h:G(R)\longrightarrow G(S)$ be a homeomorphism. By Theorem \ref{teor:radical}, $h(P)$ is a prime ideal of $S$. A natural question is whether this result can be generalized to cosets: that is, if $a\in R\setminus P$, does $h(a+P)=h(a)+h(P)$? In particular, if $h(1)=1$, does $h(1+P)=1+h(P)$? We are not able to prove this result; therefore, our strategy will be to use Proposition \ref{prop:GDelta}, the $P$-topology and the group structure of $U(R/P^n)$ to obtain ``approximate'' results. We collect in this section some technical lemmas which will be useful in the following sections.
The basic idea is to consider the quotients of $R$ into $R/P^n$, or rather the unit groups $U(R/P^n)$. However, as the multiplication by a unit of $R$ is a self-homeomorphism of $G(R)$, it is more useful to study the groups
\begin{equation*}
H_n(P):=U(R/P^n)/\pi_n(U(R)),
\end{equation*}
where $\pi_n:R\longrightarrow R/P^n$ is the canonical surjective map. Furthermore, we denote by $\theta_n:U(R/P^n)\longrightarrow H_n(P)$ the canonical quotient, and by $\widetilde{\pi}_n=\theta_n\circ\pi_n:R\setminus P\longrightarrow H_n(P)$ the composition of the previous maps.
For different $n$, these maps are linked in the following way.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:mapHn}
For every $n\geq 1$, there is a surjective map $\lambda_n:H_{n+1}(P)\longrightarrow H_n(P)$ such that the following diagram commutes:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
R\setminus P\arrow[two heads]{r}{\pi_{n+1}}\arrow[equal]{d} & U(R/P^{n+1})\arrow[two heads]{r}{\theta_{n+1}}\arrow[two heads]{d} & H_{n+1}(P)\arrow[two heads]{d}{\lambda_n}\\
R\setminus P\arrow[two heads]{r}{\pi_n} & U(R/P^n)\arrow[two heads]{r}{\theta_n} & H_n(P).
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The natural map $R/P^{n+1}\longrightarrow R/P^n$ restricts to a surjective map $\lambda':U(R/P^{n+1})\longrightarrow U(R/P^n)$. Furthermore, $\lambda'(\pi_{n+1}(U(R)))=\pi_n(U(R))$; hence, $\lambda'$ induces $\lambda_n$, which remains surjective.
\end{proof}
In particular, if $L$ is a subgroup of $H_n(L)$, then we have a sequence of surjective maps
\begin{equation}\label{eq:telescope}
\begin{tikzcd}
L & \arrow{l}[swap]{\lambda_n}L_1:=\lambda_n^{-1}(L) & \arrow{l}[swap]{\lambda_{n+1}^{-1}} L_2:=\lambda_{n+1}(L_1) & \arrow{l}[swap]{\lambda_{n+2}}\cdots
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
where each $L_i$ is a subgroup of $H_{n+i}(L)$. Furthermore, for every $i$, the index $[H_{n+i}(P):L_i]$ is equal to the index $[H_n(P):L]$ of $L$, and in particular it is constant. We call the sequence $\{L,L_1,\ldots,\}$ the \emph{telescopic sequence} of $L$.
When $L=H_1(P)$, the telescopic sequence of $L$ is just the sequence $\{H_1(P),H_2(P),\ldots\}$. We distinguish two classes of behavior.
One case is when the maps $\lambda_n$ are isomorphisms for every $n\geq N$: in this case, all the information about the $H_n(P)$ ``stops at $N$''. If $R/P$ is finite (and thus also $U(R/P^n)$ and $H_n(P)$ are finite for every $n\geq 1$) then in particular the sequence of the cardinalities of the $H_n(P)$ is bounded. This happens, for example, if $R=\insZ[1/p]$ for some prime number $p$.
The second case is when there are infinitely many $\lambda_n$ that are not isomorphisms, as it happens for $R=\insZ$: in this case, the structure of the $H_n(P)$ depends on all the groups. If $R/P$ is finite, this implies that the sequence of the cardinalities of the $H_n(P)$ is not bounded; however, a part of the structure of these groups still remain fixed, as we show next. Given an abelian group $L$ and a prime number $p$, the \emph{non-$p$-component} of $L$ is the subgroup of $L$ formed by the elements whose order is coprime with $p$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:etaP}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain and let $P$ be a prime ideal such that $R/P$ is finite; let $p$ be the characteristic of $R/P$. Then, there is an integer $\eta(P)$, coprime with $p$, such that, for all $n\geq N$, the non-$p$-component of $H_n(P)$ has order $\eta(P)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $H'_k(P)$ be non-$p$-component of $H_k(P)$, and let $\eta_k(P)$ be its cardinality. Since $\lambda_k(H'_{k+1}(P))=H'_k(P)$, $\eta_k(P)$ divides $\eta_{k+1}(P)$, and thus $\{\eta_k(P)\}_{k\inN}$ is an ascending chain with respect to the divisibility order. Furthermore, if $|R/P|=p^e$, then $|U(R/P^n)|=p^{e(n-1)}(p^e-1)$, and thus $\eta_k(P)$ divides $p^e-1$; hence, the chain is bounded above and thus finite. It follows that it stabilizes at some value $\eta(P)$.
\end{proof}
Several results in the following sections will be valid only under the assumption that the $H_n(P)$ are cyclic. This forces a rather severe limit on the cardinalities of the residue fields.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:almcyc-cardRP}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain, and let $P$ be a prime ideal of $R$. If $U(R)$ is discrete in the $P$-topology, and $H_n(P)$ is cyclic for every $n$, then $|R/P|$ is a prime number.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $U(R)$ is discrete in the $P$-topology, there is an $N\geq 2$ such that $1+P^{N-1}$ contains no units different from $1$. Let $p\in P^{N-1}\setminus P^N$, and for every $a\in R$ let $\sigma(a):=\widetilde{\pi}_N(1+ap)$. Then, $p^2\in P^N$ and thus
\begin{equation*}
\sigma(a)\sigma(b)=\widetilde{\pi}_N((1+ap)(1+bp))=\widetilde{\pi}_N(1+(a+b)p)=\sigma(a+b).
\end{equation*}
Hence, the map $a\mapsto\sigma(a)$ is a homomorphism from the additive group of $R$ to the multiplicative subgroup $\Sigma:=\{\sigma(a)\mid a\in R\}$ of $H_N(P)$. Furthermore,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\ker\sigma= & \{a\in R\mid \widetilde{\pi}_N(1+ap)=\widetilde{\pi}_N(1)\}=\\
= & \{a\in R\mid 1+ap\in U(R)+P^N\}=P
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
by the choice of $N$ and $p$. Therefore, $\sigma$ factors into an embedding of $(R/P,+)$ inside $H_N(P)$; since $H_N(P)$ is cyclic, it follows that also $(R/P,+)$ is cyclic, and since $R/P$ is a field it must be equal to $\ins{F}_p$ for some prime number $p$. In particular, $|R/P|$ is prime.
\end{proof}
Note that the fact that $|R/P|$ is a prime number does not guarantee that $H_n(P)$ is cyclic: for example, if $R=\ins{F}_p[X]$, where $p>2$ is a prime number, and $P=(X)$, then $H_3(P)$ has $p^2$ elements, but every element has order $p$.
\section{Closure of powers}\label{sect:clos}
In isolation, the $P$-topology is not very interesting: indeed, since it coincides with the $P$-adic topology, it makes $R\setminus P$ into a metric space with no isolated points. In particular, if $R$ is countable then $R\setminus P$ is homeomorphic to $\insQ$ \cite{sierpinski-Q,dagupta-atlas}, and thus a homeomorphism between the $P$-topology of $R\setminus P$ and the $Q$-topology of $S\setminus Q$ does not give much information. However, by Proposition \ref{prop:GDelta}, a homeomorphism $h$ between Golomb spaces carries a lot more structure.
In the following, we shall mostly restrict ourselves to Dedekind domains with torsion class group. Given $a\in R\setminus P$, set
\begin{equation*}
\pow{a}:=\{ua^t\mid u\in U(R),t\inN^+\}.
\end{equation*}
We want to study the closure of $\pow{a}$ in the $P$-topology.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:chiuspow}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain, $P$ a prime ideal, $a\in R\setminus P$; let $X$ be the closure of $\pow{a}$ in the $P$-topology. Then, the following hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{prop:chiuspow:princtors-pi} If $\pi_n(a)$ is torsion in $U(R/P^n)$ for every $n\geq 1$ then
\begin{equation*}
X=\bigcap_{n\geq 1}\pi_n^{-1}\bigl{(}\langle\pi_n(a),\pi_n(U(R))\rangle\bigl{)}.
\end{equation*}
\item\label{prop:chiuspow:princtors-Hn} If $\widetilde{\pi}_n(a)$ is torsion in $H_n(P)$ for every $n\geq 1$ then
\begin{equation*}
X=\bigcap_{n\geq 1}\widetilde{\pi}_n^{-1}(\langle \widetilde{\pi}_n(a)\rangle).
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
\ref{prop:chiuspow:princtors-pi} If $\pi_n(a)$ is torsion with order $k$, then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\pi_n(\pow{a})= & \{\pi_n(u)\pi_n(a)^t+P^n\mid u\in U(R),t\inN^+\}=\\
= & \{\pi_n(u)\pi_n(a)^t+P^n\mid u\in U(R),t\in\{1,\ldots,k\}\}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
is exactly the subgroup generated by $\pi_n(a)$ and $\pi_n(U(R))$. The claim now follows from Proposition \ref{prop:chiusPtop}.
\ref{prop:chiuspow:princtors-Hn} follows as the previous point, noting that $\widetilde{\pi}_n$ sends all of $U(R)$ into the identity.
\end{proof}
In general, we would like for the sequence $\widetilde{\pi}_n^{-1}(\langle \widetilde{\pi}_n(a)\rangle)$ to stabilize: in this case, we could study the closures of the $\pow{a}$ simply by studying the subgroups of the $H_n(P)$. In general, this is not true: for example, this happens if $a=1$ (so $\pow{a}=U(R)$) and the cardinality of $H_n(P)$ goes to infinity. However, we can characterize this case; we distinguish the two behaviors of the $\lambda_n$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:chius-powa-sgr-bounded}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain, $P$ a prime ideal, $X\subseteq R\setminus P$. Suppose that the canonical surjections $\lambda_n:H_{n+1}(P)\longrightarrow H_n(P)$ are isomorphisms for $n\geq N$. Then, the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $X$ is the closure of $\pow{a}$ for some $a\in R\setminus P$;
\item $X=\widetilde{\pi}_N^{-1}(L)$ for some cyclic subgroup $L$ of $H_N(P)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For every $a\in R\setminus P$, we have $\lambda_{N+k}(\langle\widetilde{\pi}_{N+k+1}(a)\rangle)=\langle\widetilde{\pi}_{N+k}(a)\rangle$ for every $k\geq 0$. Hence, $\widetilde{\pi}_N^{-1}(\langle \widetilde{\pi}_N(a)\rangle)=\widetilde{\pi}_{N+k}^{-1}(\langle \widetilde{\pi}_{N+k}(a)\rangle)$ for every $k\geq 0$. The claim follows.
\end{proof}
When the canonical surjections are not isomorphisms, the picture is more complicated. For simplicity, we restrict to the case where $R/P$ is finite.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:chius-powa-sgr}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain, $P$ a prime ideal, $a\in R\setminus P$; let $X$ be the closure of $\pow{a}$ in the $P$-topology. Suppose that $R/P$ is finite and that there are infinitely many $n$ such that $\lambda_n:H_{n+1}(P)\longrightarrow H_n(P)$ is not an isomorphism. Then, the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item\label{prop:chius-powa-sgr:stab} the chain $\{\widetilde{\pi}_n^{-1}(\langle \widetilde{\pi}_n(a)\rangle)\}_{n\inN}$ stabilizes;
\item\label{prop:chius-powa-sgr:sgr} $X=\widetilde{\pi}_N^{-1}(L)$ for some subgroup $L$ of $H_N(P)$;
\item\label{prop:chius-powa-sgr:tseq1} there is an $N$ such that every element of the telescopic sequence of $\langle\widetilde{\pi}_N(a)\rangle$ is generated by the image of $a$;
\item\label{prop:chius-powa-sgr:tseq2} there is an $N$ such that every element of the telescopic sequence of $\langle\widetilde{\pi}_N(a)\rangle$ is cyclic, and the order of $\widetilde{\pi}_n(a)$ goes to infinity as $n\to\infty$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
\ref{prop:chius-powa-sgr:stab} $\Longrightarrow$ \ref{prop:chius-powa-sgr:sgr} If the chain stabilizes at $N$, that is, if $\widetilde{\pi}_N^{-1}(\langle \widetilde{\pi}_N(a)\rangle)=\widetilde{\pi}_{N+k}^{-1}(\langle \widetilde{\pi}_{N+k}(a)\rangle)$ for all $k\geq 0$, then $X=\widetilde{\pi}_N^{-1}(L)$ with $L:=\langle \widetilde{\pi}_N(a)\rangle$.
\ref{prop:chius-powa-sgr:sgr} $\Longrightarrow$ \ref{prop:chius-powa-sgr:tseq1} If $X=\widetilde{\pi}_N^{-1}(L)$, then $\widetilde{\pi}_N(X)=L$, and thus by Proposition \ref{prop:chiuspow}\ref{prop:chiuspow:princtors-pi} $L=\langle \widetilde{\pi}_N(a)\rangle$. We have a commutative diagram
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
X\arrow[equal]{d}\arrow{r}{\widetilde{\pi}_N} & L\\
X\arrow{r}{\widetilde{\pi}_{N+1}} & \lambda_N^{-1}(L)\arrow{u}{\lambda_N};
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
however, we also have $\widetilde{\pi}_{N+1}(X)=\langle\widetilde{\pi}_{N+1}(a)\rangle$, and thus the telescopic sequence of $L$ is formed by the subgroups is generated by (the image of) $a$ in the various $H_{N+k}(P)$.
\ref{prop:chius-powa-sgr:tseq1} $\Longrightarrow$ \ref{prop:chius-powa-sgr:tseq2} Since there are infinitely many $n$ such that $\lambda_n$ is not an isomorphism, the cardinality of $H_n(P)$ goes to infinity; since the index remains fixed among the elements of a telescopic sequence, it follows that the cardinality of the $\langle\widetilde{\pi}_n(a)\rangle$ is unbounded, as claimed.
\ref{prop:chius-powa-sgr:tseq2} $\Longrightarrow$ \ref{prop:chius-powa-sgr:stab} Let $\sigma_n$ be the order of $\widetilde{\pi}_n(a)$.
By Lemma \ref{lemma:etaP}, $\sigma_n=p^{k(n)}d_n$ for some $k(n)\geq 0$ and some $d_n$ dividing $\eta(P)$; since the sequence $\{\sigma_n\}_{n\inN}$ is unbounded, we can find $N'$ such that $d_{N'}=d_{N'+k}$ for every $k\geq 0$. Furthermore, by the hypothesis, we can find $N\geq N'$ such that every element of the telescopic sequence $\{L,L_1,\ldots,\}$ of $L:=\langle\widetilde{\pi}_N(a)\rangle$ is cyclic. We claim that each $L_i$ is generated by the image of $a$.
Indeed, by construction we have $|L_k|=p^{s(k)}|L|=p^{s(k)}\sigma_N$ for every $k\geq 0$ (and some nonnegative function $k\mapsto s(k)$). If $\phi$ be the Euler totient, the number of generators of $L_k$ is
\begin{equation*}
\phi(|L_k|)=\phi(\sigma_{N+k})=\phi(p^{s(k)}\sigma_N)=p^{s(k)}\phi(\sigma_N),
\end{equation*}
since $p|\sigma_N$. Hence, every generator of $L$ lifts to a generator of $L_k$; therefore, $\widetilde{\pi}_N^{-1}(\langle \widetilde{\pi}_N(a)\rangle)=\widetilde{\pi}_{N+k}^{-1}(\langle \widetilde{\pi}_{N+k}(a)\rangle)$ for all $k\geq 0$, as claimed.
\end{proof}
One problem in applying the previous proposition to the Golomb topology is that we don't know if the sets $\pow{a}$ are invariant with respect to homeomorphism of Golomb spaces. However, if $R,S$ are principal ideal domains, and $q\in R$ is a prime element (i.e., if $qR$ is a prime ideal) then $\pow{q}=G_{\{qR\}}(R)$, and thus by Proposition \ref{prop:GDelta} a homeomorphism $h:G(R)\longrightarrow G(S)$ carries $\pow{q}$ to $\pow{q'}$, for some prime element $q'$ of $S$. Therefore, it carries the closure of $\pow{q}$ in the $P$-topology to the closure of $\pow{q'}$ in the $h(P)$-topology.
More generally, suppose $R$ is a Dedekind domain with torsion class group. If $Q^t=qR$ is the smallest power of $Q$ that is a principal ideal, we say that $q$ is an \emph{almost prime} element; equivalently, an almost prime element is an irreducible element generating a primary ideal. In this case, we still have $\pow{q}=G_{Q}(R)$, since if $xR$ is a $Q$-primary ideal then $xR$ must be in the form $(Q^t)^k$ for some $k$. In particular, we must still have $h(\pow{q})=\pow{q'}$ for some almost prime element $q'$ of $S$. More precisely, the unique prime ideal containing $q'$ will be the image $h(Q)$ of $Q$, the only prime ideal containing $q$.
\begin{defin}
Let $P$ be a prime ideal. We define $\setclos{P}$ as the set of closures of $\pow{q}$, as $q$ ranges among the almost prime elements of $R$ outside $P$.
\end{defin}
The previous discussion shows the following.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:omef-XP}
Let $R,S$ be two Dedekind domains with torsion class group, and let $h:G(R)\longrightarrow G(S)$ be a homeomorphism. Then, the map
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\overline{h}\colon\setclos{P} & \longrightarrow\setclos{h(P)},\\
X & \longmapsto h(X)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
is an order isomorphism (when $\setclos{P}$ and $\setclos{h(P)}$ are endowed with the containment order).
\end{prop}
We are now interested in studying the order structure of $\setclos{P}$; since we also need to have plenty of almost prime elements, we introduce the following definition.
\begin{defin}
Let $R$ be a principal ideal domain and $P$ a prime ideal of $R$. We say that $R$ is \emph{Dirichlet at $P$} if, for every $a\in R\setminus P$ and every $n\geq 1$ the coset $a+P^n$ contains at least one almost prime element.
\end{defin}
For example, by Dirichlet's theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions (see e.g. \cite[Chapter 4]{davenport-analytic} or \cite[Chapter 7]{apostol}), $\insZ$ is Dirichlet at each of its primes. An equivalent condition is that the set of almost prime elements of $R$ is dense in $R\setminus P$ under the $P$-topology. Note that it is not known if a homeomorphism of Golomb spaces sends almost prime elements in almost prime elements, and thus this condition may not be a topological invariant.
We shall use the following terminology.
\begin{defin}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain, and let $P$ be a prime ideal of $R$. We say that $P$ is \emph{almost cyclic} if $R/P$ is finite and $H_n(P)$ is cyclic for every $n\geq 1$.
\end{defin}
Our next step is to link $\setclos{P}$ with the subgroups of the $H_n(P)$. We first show how to compare subgroups living in different $H_n(P)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:ug-subg}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain, and let $P$ be an almost cyclic prime ideal. Let $L$ and $L'$ be, respectively, subgroups of $H_n(P)$ and $H_m(P)$. Then, $\widetilde{\pi}_n^{-1}(L)\subseteq \widetilde{\pi}_m^{-1}(L')$ if and only if $[H_m(P):L']$ divides $[H_n(P):L]$; in particular, $\widetilde{\pi}_n^{-1}(L)=\widetilde{\pi}_m^{-1}(L')$ if and only if $[H_m(P):L']=[H_n(P):L]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, suppose $m\geq n$, and let $\lambda:H_n(P)\longrightarrow H_m(P)$ be the canonical surjective map. Then, $\lambda(L)$ is a subgroup of $H_m(P)$ of index $[H_n(P):L]$; since $H_m(P)$ is cyclic, we have $\lambda(L)\subseteq L'$ if and only if $[H_n(P):L]$ is a multiple of $[H_m(P):L']$, as claimed.
The ``in particular'' part follows immediately.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:caratt-XP}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain with torsion class group, and let $P$ be an almost cyclic prime ideal. Then, the following hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{prop:caratt-XP:->sgr} Let $X$ be the closure of $\pow{q}$ in the $P$-topology. If $\pow{q}$ is disjoint from the closure of $U(R)$ (with respect to the $P$-topology), then there is an $n\geq 1$ and a subgroup $H$ of $H_n(P)$ such that $X=\widetilde{\pi}_n^{-1}(H)$.
\item\label{prop:caratt-XP:sgr->} If $R$ is Dirichlet at $P$, then $\widetilde{\pi}_n^{-1}(H)\in\mathcal{X}(P)$ for every subgroup $H$ of $H_n(P)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $p$ be the characteristic of $R/P$.
\ref{prop:caratt-XP:->sgr} If the cardinality of the $H_n(P)$ is bounded, the claim follows from Proposition \ref{prop:chius-powa-sgr-bounded}.
If the cardinality is unbounded, let $q$ be an almost prime element such that $X$ is the closure of $\pow{q}$, and let $\sigma_n$ be the order of $\widetilde{\pi}_n(q)$. Suppose that $\{\sigma_n\}_{n\inN}$ is bounded, and let $\sigma$ be its maximum; then, $\widetilde{\pi}_n(q)^\sigma$ is the identity in $H_n(P)$ for all $n$, i.e., $\pi_n(q)^\sigma\in U(R)+P^n$ for every $n$. However, this implies that $q^\sigma$ is in the closure of $U(R)$ in the $P$-topology, a contradiction. Therefore, $\sigma_n$ becomes arbitrary large and the claim follows from Proposition \ref{prop:chius-powa-sgr}.
\ref{prop:caratt-XP:sgr->} If the cardinality of the $H_n(P)$ is bounded, then there is an $a\in R\setminus P$ and an $N$ such that $X:=\widetilde{\pi}_N^{-1}(H)$ is the closure of $\pow{a}$ in the $P$-topology; since $R$ is Dirichlet at $P$ there is an almost prime element $q\in a+P^N$, and $X$ is the closure of $\pow{q}$ in the $P$-topology, as claimed.
Suppose that the cardinality of the $H_n(P)$ is not bounded. Let $N\geq n$ be big enough such that the non-$p$-component of $H_N(P)$ has cardinality $\eta(P)$, and choose $k>N$ such that $H_k(P)>H_N(P)$. Let $L$ be the element of the telescopic sequence of $H$ that is contained in $H_k(P)$. Then, $L$ is cyclic, and thus there is an $a\in R\setminus P$ such that $\widetilde{\pi}_k(a)$ generates $L$; as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:chius-powa-sgr}, the fact that $p$ divides the cardinality of $L$ implies that every element of the telescopic sequence of $L$ is generated by the image of $a$. Since $R$ is Dirichlet at $P$, we can find an almost prime element $q\in a+P^k$; then, $X$ is the closure of $\pow{q}$, and in particular $X\in\setclos{P}$, as claimed.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:RmenP-almcyc}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain with torsion class group, and let $P$ be a prime ideal of $R$. Suppose that $U(R)$ is closed in the $P$-topology. Then, the following hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item If $R\setminus P\in\setclos{P}$, then $P$ is almost cyclic.
\item If $R$ is Dirichlet at $P$ and $P$ is almost cyclic, then $R\setminus P\in\setclos{P}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
If $R\setminus P\in\setclos{P}$, then there is an almost prime element $q$ such that $R\setminus P$ is the closure of $\pow{q}$. By Proposition \ref{prop:chiuspow}, each $H_n(P)$ is generated by the image of $q$, and in particular they are all cyclic.
Conversely, suppose $P$ is almost cyclic. By Proposition \ref{prop:caratt-XP}\ref{prop:caratt-XP:sgr->}, $\widetilde{\pi}_n^{-1}(H)\in\setclos{P}$ for every subgroup of the $H_n(P)$; in particular, this holds for $H=H_n(P)$, for which we have $\widetilde{\pi}_n^{-1}(H)=R\setminus P$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:almcyc-topinv}
Let $R,R'$ be Dedekind domains with torsion class group and let $P$ be a prime ideal of $R$; suppose that $U(R)$ is closed in the $P$-topology. Let $h:G(R)\longrightarrow G(R')$ be a homeomorphism and let $P':=h(P)$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item If $R$ is Dirichlet at $P$ and $P$ is almost cyclic then $P'$ is almost cyclic.
\item If also $R'$ is Dirichlet at $P'$, then $P$ is almost cyclic if and only if $P'$ is almost cyclic.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
If $R$ is Dirichlet at $P$ and $P$ is almost cyclic, then by Corollary \ref{cor:RmenP-almcyc} $R\setminus P\in\setclos{P}$; hence, $R'\setminus P'=h(R\setminus P)\in h(\setclos{P})=\setclos{P'}$. Applying again the corollary we see that $P'$ is almost cyclic.
The second part follows by considering the inverse $h^{-1}:G(R')\longrightarrow G(R)$.
\end{proof}
Set now
\begin{equation*}
\setdiv{P}:=\{d\inN\mid d\text{~divides~}H_n(P)\text{~for some~}n\};
\end{equation*}
then, $\setdiv{P}$ has a natural order structure given by the divisibility relation (i.e., $a\leq b$ if and only if $a|b$). From a structural point of view, the previous proposition implies the following result.
\begin{figure}
\caption{The structure of $\setdiv{p\insZ}$ for $p=41$. In this case, $\eta(p\insZ)=20=2^2\cdot 5$.}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}[every arrow/.append style={dash},column sep=tiny]
& & & & & & & & & 20p^2\\
& & & & & 20p\arpp & & & 4p^2\arrow{ur} & 10p^2\arrow{u}\\
& 20\arpp & & & 4p\arrow{ur}\arpp & 10p\arrow{u}\arpp & & & 2p^2\arrow{u}\arrow{ur} & & 5p^2\arrow{ul} & & & \cdots\\
4\arrow{ur}\arpp & 10\arrow{u}\arpp & & & 2p\arrow{u}\arrow{ur}\arpp & & 5p\arrow{ul}\arpp & & & p^2\arrow{ur}\arrow{ul}\arrow{urrrr}\\
2\arrow{u}\arrow{ur}\arpp & & 5\arrow{ul}\arpp & & & p\arrow{ur}\arrow{ul}\arrow{urrrr}\\
& & & 1\arrow{ulll}\arrow{ul}\arrow{urr}
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}[every arrow/.append style={dash}]
& & 1\arrow{dll}\arrow{dl}\arrow{dr}\\
2\arrow{d}\arrow{dr}\arp & 5\arrow{d}\arp & & 41=p\arrow{dl}\arrow{d}\arrow{drr}\\
4\arrow{dr}\arp & 10\arrow{d}\arp & 2p\arrow{d}\arrow{dr}\arp & 5p\arrow{d}\arp & & 41^2=p^2\arrow{dl}\arrow{d}\arrow{drr}\\
& 20\arp & 4p\arrow{dr}\arp & 10p\arrow{d}\arp & 2p^2\arrow{d}\arrow{dr}\arp & 5p^2\arrow{d}\arp & & \cdots\\
& & & 20p\arp & 4p^2\arrow{dr} & 10p^2\arrow{d} & \cdots & \cdots\\
& & & & & 20p^2
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
\end{comment}
\begin{teor}\label{teor:corresp-Theta}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain with torsion class group, $P$ an almost cyclic prime ideals, and suppose that $U(R)$ is closed in the $P$-topology. Let $\Theta$ be the map
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\Theta\colon\setclos{P} & \longrightarrow\setdiv{P},\\
X=\widetilde{\pi}_n^{-1}(L) & \longmapsto[H_n(P):H].
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Then, the following hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\Theta$ is well-defined, injective and order-reversing.
\item If $R$ is Dirichlet at $P$, then $\Theta$ is surjective, and thus $\Theta$ is an order-reversing isomorphism.
\end{enumerate}
\end{teor}
\begin{proof}
Since $U(R)$ is closed in the $P$-topology, and every $\pow{q}$ is disjoint from $U(R)$, by Proposition \ref{prop:caratt-XP}\ref{prop:caratt-XP:->sgr} every $X\in\setclos{P}$ is in the form $\widetilde{\pi}_n^{-1}(L)$; by Lemma \ref{lemma:ug-subg}, if it is also equal to $\widetilde{\pi}_{n'}^{-1}(L')$ then the index of $L$ and $L'$ are the same, and thus $\Theta$ is well-defined. The same Lemma \ref{lemma:ug-subg} implies also that $\Theta$ is injective and order-reversing.
If $R$ is Dirichlet at $P$, we can apply Proposition \ref{prop:caratt-XP}\ref{prop:caratt-XP:sgr->}, and thus $\Theta$ is also surjective. It follows that $\Theta$ is an order-reversing isomorphism.
\end{proof}
The previous theorem implies that, under good hypothesis, the structure of $\setdiv{P}$ is a topological invariant of the Golomb topology; in particular, if $h:G(R)\longrightarrow G(S)$ is a homeomorphism, then Proposition \ref{prop:omef-XP} can be extended to a chain of bijections
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chain}
\setdiv{P}\xrightarrow{\Theta_P^{-1}}\mathcal{X}(P)\xrightarrow{~~\overline{h}~~}\mathcal{X}(h(P))\xrightarrow{\Theta_{h(P)}}\setdiv{h(P)}
\end{equation}
whose composition gives an order isomorphism between $\setdiv{P}$ and $\setdiv{h(P)}$.
We shall use the following shorthand.
\begin{defin}
Let $z,z'\inN$, and let $z=p_1^{e_1}\cdots p_k^{e_k}$ and $z'=q_1^{f_1}\cdots q_r^{f_r}$ be their factorizations. We say that $z$ and $z'$ \emph{have the same factorization structure} if $k=r$ and, after a permutation, $e_i=f_i$ for every $i$.
\end{defin}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:DP}
Let $R,R'$ be two Dedekind domain with torsion class group, and suppose there is a homeomorphism $h:G(R)\longrightarrow G(R')$. Let $P$ be an almost cyclic prime ideal of $R$, and let $P':=h(P)$; suppose that $R'/P'$ is finite, that $U(R)$ is closed in the $P$-topology, that $R$ is Dirichlet at $P$ and that $R'$ is Dirichlet at $P'$. Then, the following hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item The sequence $\{|H_n(P)|\}_{n\inN}$ is bounded if and only if $\{|H_n(P')|\}_{n\inN}$ is bounded.
\item If $|H_n(P)|=z$ and $|H_n(P)|=z'$ for all $n\geq N$, then $z$ and $z'$ have the same factorization structure.
\item If $\{|H_n(P)|\}_{n\inN}$ and $\{|H_n(P')|\}_{n\inN}$ are unbounded, then $\eta(P)$ and $\eta(P')$ have the same factorization structure.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since $h$ is a homeomorphism in the $P$-topology, $U(R')=h(U(R))$ is closed in the $P'$-topology; furthermore, by Corollary \ref{cor:almcyc-topinv}, $P'$ is almost cyclic. By Proposition \ref{prop:omef-XP}, there is an order isomorphism between $\setdiv{P}$ and $\setdiv{P'}$.
The sequence $\{|H_n(P)|\}_{n\inN}$ is bounded if and only if it is finite, which happens if and only if $\setdiv{P}$ is finite. Hence, $\{|H_n(P)|\}_{n\inN}$ is bounded if and only if $\{|H_n(P')|\}_{n\inN}$ is bounded.
If $|H_n(P)|=z$ for all large $n$, then $\setdiv{P}$ is just the set of divisors of $z$; in particular, the minimal elements of $\setdiv{P}\setminus\{1\}$ correspond to the distinct prime factors of $z$. Since the same happens for $\setdiv{P'}$, the number of distinct prime factors of $z$ and $z'$ is the same. Furthermore, the exponent of $p$ in $z$ is equal to the number of elements of $\setdiv{P}$ that are divisible only by $p$; hence, it depends only on the structure of $\setdiv{P}$, and thus it doesn't change passing from $\setdiv{P}$ to $\setdiv{P'}$.
In the same way, if $\{|H_n(P)|\}_{n\inN}$ is unbounded, the minimal elements of $\setdiv{P}$ correspond to $p$ (the cardinality of $R/P$) and the prime factors of $\eta(P)$; furthermore, $p$ is the unique minimal element such that there are infinitely many $x$ that are multiple of $p$ but of no other prime factor. Hence, in the chain of bijections \eqref{eq:chain} $p$ gets sent to $p'$, the cardinality of $R'/P'$. The divisors of $\eta(P)$ are the elements of $\setdiv{P}$ that are not divisible by $p$; hence, the divisors of $\eta(P)$ correspond to the divisors of $\eta(P')$. As in the previous case, this implies that $\eta(P)$ and $\eta(P')$ have the same factorization structure.
\end{proof}
\section{The correspondence at powers of $p$}\label{sect:Yk}
Proposition \ref{prop:DP} gives a very strong restrictions for the image of a prime ideal under a homeomorphism of Golomb spaces. For example, suppose $R=\insZ$. Then, every prime ideal is almost cyclic, and it is easy to see that
\begin{equation*}
\eta(p\insZ)=\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if~}p=2\\
\frac{p-1}{2} & \text{if~}p>2.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
The only prime ideals $p\insZ$ such that $\eta(p\insZ)=1$ (and so $\eta(p\insZ)$ has an empty factorization) are $2$ and $3$; it follows that, for every self-homeomorphism $h$ of $G(\insZ)$, $h(2\insZ)$ can be equal only to $2\insZ$ or $3\insZ$. Likewise, $\eta(5\insZ)=2$ is prime, and thus $h(5\insZ)$ must be equal to $(2q+1)\insZ$ for some prime number $q$ such that $2q+1$ is prime.
In this section, we use a finer analysis of the structure of $\setdiv{P}$ to obtain even more. We concentrate on sets in the form
\begin{equation*}
Y_k(P):=\Theta^{-1}(\eta(P)p^k)
\end{equation*}
where $\Theta$ is the map of Theorem \ref{teor:corresp-Theta}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Yk}
Preserve the hypothesis and the notation of Proposition \ref{prop:DP}, and suppose that $\{|H_n(P)|\}_{n\inN}$ is unbounded; let $p:=|R/P|$ and $p':=|R'/P'|$ . Then, the following hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item Let $h^\star:=\Theta_{P'}\circ h\circ\Theta_P$. Then, $h^\star(\eta(P)p^k)=\eta(P')(p')^k$ for every $k\geq 0$.
\item $h(Y_k(P))=Y_k(P')$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
As we saw in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:DP}, the maximal elements of $\setdiv{P}\setminus\{1\}$ correspond to $p$ and the prime factors of $\eta(P)$; moreover, $p$ is the unique minimal element of $\setdiv{P}\setminus\{1\}$ with infinitely many multiples that are not divisible by any other prime. Hence, $h^\star(p)=p'$. Furthermore, $\eta(P)$ is the largest element of $\setdiv{P}$ that is not a multiple in $p$, and thus $h^\star(\eta(P))$ is the largest element of $\setdiv{P'}$ that is not a multiple of $h^\star(p)=p'$; that is, $h^\star(\eta(P))=\eta(P')$.
Consider now the multiples of $\eta(P)$ in $\setdiv{P}$: they are all in the form $\eta(P)p^k$ for some $k\geq 0$. The map $h^\star$ restricts to an order isomorphism between the multiples of $\eta(P)$ and the multiples of $\eta(P')$; hence, it must be $h^\star(\eta(P)p^k)=\eta(P')(p')^k$, as claimed.
By turning \eqref{eq:chain} inside-out and using the previous part of the proof, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
h(Y_k(P))= & (\Theta_{P'}^{-1}\circ h^\star\circ\Theta_P)(Y_k(P))=\\
= & (\Theta_{P'}^{-1}\circ h^\star)(\eta(P)p^k)= \Theta_{P'}^{-1}(\eta(P')(p')^k)=Y_k(P').
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
The claim is proved.
\end{proof}
Proposition \ref{prop:Yk} is rather close to our hope that a homeomorphism sends cosets into cosets, since both $Y_k(P)$ and $Y_k(P')$ are union of cosets. Further improvements of this result hinge on the explicit determination of the sets $Y_k(P)$; however, this will depend closely on the actual structure of the prime ideals and the units of $R$, and in particular on the image of $U(R)$ in $R/P^n$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Yk-UR}
Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain with torsion class group, and let $P$ be an almost cyclic prime ideal; let $p:=|R/P|$. Suppose that $U(R)$ is finite. Then, the following hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{prop:Yk-UR:gen} There are $m\geq 0$ and $t\geq 1$ such that, for every $N\geq m$, we have $Y_N(P)=U(R)+P^{N+t}$.
\item\label{prop:Yk-UR:cop} If $|U(R)|$ is coprime with $p$, then we can take $m=t=1$. Furthermore, in this case
\begin{equation*}
\eta(P)=|H_1(P)|=\frac{p-1}{|\pi_1(U(R))|}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
\ref{prop:Yk-UR:gen} By Lemma \ref{lemma:almcyc-cardRP}, the cardinality $p$ of $R/P$ is a prime number.
Since $U(R)$ is finite, we can find $M'$ such that the kernel of the map $\widetilde{\pi}_n:U(R)\longrightarrow H_n(P)$ is equal to the kernel of $\widetilde{\pi}_{M'}$ for every $n\geq M'$. Furthermore, by Lemma \ref{lemma:etaP} there is an $M''$ such that $\eta(P)$ divides $|H_{M''}(P)|$. Take $M:=\max\{M',M''\}$; then, $|H_M(P)|=p^m\eta(P)$ for some $0\leq m<M$, and thus $|H_{M+k}(P)|=p^{m+k}\eta(P)$ for every $k\geq 0$.
By Theorem \ref{teor:corresp-Theta}, $Y_N(P)$ correspond to the subgroup of index $p^N\eta(P)$ in $H_k(P)$, for $k\gg 0$. If $N\geq m$, let $N:=m+k$; then, $|H_{M+k}(P)|=p^N\eta(P)$, and thus $Y_N(P)$ corresponds exactly to the identity subgroup of $H_{M+k}(P)$, i.e., $Y_N=U(R)+P^{M+k}$. However, $M+k=M+N-m$; setting $t:=M-m$ we have our claim.
\ref{prop:Yk-UR:cop} If the cardinality of $U(R)$ is coprime with $p$, then for every $n\geq 1$ the non-$p$-component of $H_1(P)$ and $H_n(P)$ are isomorphic, and the image of $U(R)$ in $H_1(P)$ and $H_n(P)$ is the same; in particular, $|\pi_n(U(R))|=|\pi_1(U(R))|$ and the formula holds.
In particular, with the notation of the previous part of the proof, we have $M'=M''=1$, $m=0$ and $t=1-0=1$. The claim is proved.
\end{proof}
We now restrict to the case $R=\insZ$; we first specialize the previous proposition.
\begin{prop}
Let $p$ be a prime number, and let $k\geq 0$. Then, the following hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item If $p=2$, then $Y_k(2\insZ)=(1+2^{k+2}\insZ)\cup(-1+2^{k+2}\insZ)$.
\item If $p>2$, then $Y_k(p\insZ)=(1+p^{k+1}\insZ)\cup(-1+p^{k+1}\insZ)$
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For $p>2$ the claim is exactly the one in Proposition \ref{prop:Yk-UR}\ref{prop:Yk-UR:cop}. For $p=2$, we can take $M=2$, so $m=0$, $t=1$ and thus $Y_k=\pm 1+2^{k+2}\insZ$, as claimed.
\end{proof}
A different way to express the previous proposition is the following.
\begin{prop}
Let $p$ be a prime number, $a$ an integer coprime with $p$, and $k\geq 0$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item if $a$ is even, then $a\in Y_k(p\insZ)$ if and only if $p^{k+1}$ divides $a^2-1$;
\item if $a$ is odd, then $a\in Y_k(p\insZ)$ if and only if $p^{k+1}$ divides $\frac{a^2-1}{4}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
If $a$ is even, then $p$ is odd. Then, $a\in Y_k(p\insZ)$ if and only if $p^{k+1}$ divides $a-1$ or $a+1$. Since $p$ cannot divide $a-1$ and $a+1$ at the same time, this happens if and only if $p^{k+1}$ divides $a^2-1$.
If $a$ is odd and $p$ is odd, the same reasoning applies (noting that $p^{k+1}$ divides $a^2-1$ if and only if it divides $\frac{a^2-1}{4})$. If $p=2$, then one between $a-1$ and $a+1$ is in the form $2b$ for $b$ odd, while the other is in the form $2^jc$ with $c$ odd and $j\geq 2$. Hence, $a\in Y_k(2\insZ)$ if and only if $j\geq k+2$, i.e., if and only if $2^{k+3}$ divides $a^2-1$. Dividing by $4$ we have our claim.
\end{proof}
For any $n\inZ$, let now
\begin{equation*}
n^\star:=\begin{cases}
n^2-1 & \text{if~}n\text{~is even},\\
\frac{n^2-1}{4} & \text{if~}n\text{~is odd}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
This notation allows to simplify the previous proposition.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:nstar}
Let $h$ be a self-homeomorphism of $G(\insZ)$, and let $n\inZ$ such that $|n|>1$. If $n^\star$ factors as $p_1^{e_1}\cdots p_t^{e_t}$, then $h(n)^\star$ factors as $q_1^{e_1}\cdots q_t^{e_t}$, where $h(p_i\insZ)=q_i\insZ$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
For every $n$, let $X(n)$ be the set of all pairs $(p,k)$ where $p$ is a prime factor of $n^\star$ and $k$ is the largest integer such that $p^{k+1}$ divides $n^\star$. By the previous proposition, $(p,k)\in X(n)$ if and only if $n\in Y_k(p\insZ)$; hence, $X(n)=\{(p_1,e_1-1),\ldots,(p_t,e_t-1)\}$.
Since $h$ is a homeomorphism, $h(Y_k(p_i\insZ))=Y_k(q_i\insZ)$; thus, $X(h(n))=\{(q_1,e_1-1),\ldots,(q_t,e_t-1)\}$. It follows that $h(n)^\star=q_1^{e_1}\cdots q_t^{e_t}$, as claimed.
\end{proof}
Note that the previous corollary is similar to Proposition \ref{prop:DP}, in that it compares the factorization structures of two elements linked by a homeomorphism $h$. However, this result is much more precise, since it applies to every integer (unless only the $\eta(P)$) and, more importantly, the relationship between the corresponding factors $p_i$ and $q_i$ is uniform for every $n$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:star}
Let $n,m\inZ$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item If $n$ and $m$ are both even or both odd, then $n^\star=m^\star$ if and only if $|n|=|m|$.
\item If $|n|>1$ and $n^\star$ is prime, then $|n|\in\{2,3\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first claim follows directly from the definition. For the second one, since $n^\star=|n|^\star$ we can suppose without loss of generality that $n>0$. If $n>3$ is even, then both $n-1$ and $n+1$ have a (distinct) prime factor, and thus $n^\star=n^2-1=(n-1)(n+1)$ has at least two factors. If $n>3$ is odd, then one between $n-1$ and $n+1$ is divisible by $4$ and the other one by $2$, so that $n^\star$ is even; however, since $n-1>2$, there is at least one odd prime dividing $n-1$ or $n+1$, and thus $n^\star$ has at least two prime factors. The claim is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{teor}\label{teor:selfOmefZ}
The unique self-homeomorphisms of $G(\insZ)$ are the identity and the multiplication by $-1$.
\end{teor}
\begin{proof}
Let $h:G(\insZ)\longrightarrow G(\insZ)$ be a self-homeomorphism of $\insZ$. We first claim that, for every $n\inZ$, $|h(n)|=n$; we proceed by induction on $n$.
If $|n|=1$ then $n$ is a unit and thus $h(n)\in U(\insZ)=\{\pm 1\}$.
Suppose $|n|=2$. Then, $n^\star=3$, and thus $h(n)^\star$ must be a prime number; by the previous lemma, $h(n)\in\{\pm 2,\pm 3\}$. Suppose that $|h(n)|=3$, so in particular $h(2\insZ)=3\insZ$ and $h(3\insZ)=2\insZ$. Consider $m=7$: then, $m^\star=12=2^2\cdot 3$, and thus by Corollary \ref{cor:nstar} $h(m)^\star$ must be equal to $3^2\cdot 2=18$. Since $h(m)\notin 2\insZ=h(3\insZ)$, we have $m^2=18\cdot 4+1=73$, a contradiction. Hence $h(n)\in\{\pm 2\}$, and at the same time $h(\pm 3)\in\{\pm 3\}$.
Suppose now the claim holds for $|m|<|n|$, with $|n|\geq 4$. In particular, $h(p\insZ)=p\insZ$ for all prime numbers $p$ with $p<|n|$; since $h(2\insZ)=2\insZ$, $n$ and $h(n)$ are either both even or both odd. Let $a:=|n|+1$ and $b:=|n|-1$; then, $n^\star=ab$ or $n^\star=\frac{ab}{4}$ (according to whether $n$ is even or odd). If $a$ is not prime, then all prime factors of $a$ and $b$ are smaller than $|n|$; hence, if $n^\star=p_1^{e_1}\cdots p_n^{e_n}$ by Corollary \ref{cor:nstar} then also $h(n)^\star=p_1^{e_1}\cdots p_n^{e_n}$, and thus $n^\star=h(n)^\star$; by Lemma \ref{lemma:star}, $|n|=|h(n)|$.
Suppose that $a$ is prime: then, $n$ must be even. Hence, $n^\star=(n-1)a$, and by Corollary \ref{cor:nstar} and inductive hypothesis we have $h(n)^\star=(n-1)a'$ for some prime number $a'$. If $|h(n)|\neq|n|$, then $|h(n)|>|n|$ (since all $m$ with $|m|<|n|$ are image of $m$ or $-m$), and since $h(n)$ is even both $|h(n)|-1$ and $|h(n)|+1$ are bigger than $b$. Since $h(n)^\star=(|h(n)|-1)(|h(n)|+1)=(n-1)a'$ and $a'$ is prime, it follows that $a'$ should divide both $|h(n)|-1$ and $|h(n)|+1$, and thus that $a'=2$. However, $h(n)^\star$ is odd; this is a contradiction, and thus $|h(n)|=|n|$.
\medskip
Set now $X:=\{n\inZ\mid h(n)=n\}$ and $Y:=\{n\inZ\mid h(n)=-n\}$: by the previous part of the proof, $X\cup Y=\insZ$, and since $0\notin G(\insZ)$ they are disjoint.
Both sets are closed in $G(\insZ)$: indeed, $X$ is the set of fixed points of $h$, which is closed since $G(\insZ)$ is Hausdorff, while $Y$ is the set of fixed point of $-h$ (i.e., the homeomorphism that sends $n$ to $-h(n)$). Since $G(\insZ)$ is connected \cite[Theoerm 8(b)]{clark-golomb}, they can't be both nonempty: hence, either $X=\emptyset$ (and thus $h$ is the multiplication by $-1$) or $Y=\emptyset$ (and thus $h$ is the identity). The claim is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{teor}\label{teor:iso-Z}
Let $K$ be an algebraic extension of $\insQ$, and let $R$ be a Dedekind domain with quotient field $K$. If $G(R)\simeq G(\insZ)$, then $R=\insZ$.
\end{teor}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Theorem 13]{clark-golomb}, the number of units is an invariant of the Golomb topology, and thus $|U(R)|=2$. By Dirichlet's Unit Theorem (see e.g. \cite[Chapter 1, \textsection 7]{neukirch}), $[K:\insQ]\leq 2$. Furthermore, if $R$ is not the ring of integers $\mathcal{O}_K$ of $K$, then there is a prime ideal of $\mathcal{O}_K$ such that $PR=R$; since $\mathcal{O}_K$ has torsion class group, there are elements of $\mathcal{O}_K$ generating a $P\cap\mathcal{O}_K$-primary ideal, and they would be units of $R$, a contradiction. Hence $R=\mathcal{O}_K$.
If $K\neq\insQ$, then there is a prime number $p$ which is inert in $R$; then, $R/pR$ is a field with $p^2$ elements, and by Lemma \ref{lemma:almcyc-cardRP} it follows that $pR$ is not almost cyclic. However, $pR=h(q\insZ)$ for some prime number $q$; since $q\insZ$ is almost cyclic and $\insZ$ is Dirichlet at every prime ideal, this contradicts Corollary \ref{cor:almcyc-topinv}. Hence, $K=\insQ$ and $R=\insZ$, as claimed.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
The history of \emph{acoustic emission} (AE) dates back to the middle of the 20th century, before the term was coined in the work of \citet[]{schofield1963acoustic}. \citet[]{obert1942use} first detected subaudible noises emitted from rock under compression and attributed these signals to microfractures in the rock. \citet[]{kaiser1950study} recorded signals from the tensile specimens of metallic materials. Since the 1960s, much subsequent work has contributed to the development of AE techniques, which have been applied to diverse engineering and scientific problems \citep[]{drouillard1987introduction,drouillard1996history, grosse2008acoustic}.
AE is a useful tool to study the source mechanisms of ``labquakes'' and the three-dimensional structure of samples under diverse fracturing experimental conditions \citep[]{pettitt1998acoustic, schofield1963acoustic, ojala2004strain, Graham2010comparison, stanchits2011fracturing, w2013acoustic, fu2015experimental, hampton2015fracture, goodfellow2015hydraulic,li2017comparison, brantut2018time}. However, it is very difficult to use full waveforms of AE to infer AE source physics and sample structures, because AE amplitudes are affected by many factors (e.g., sensor coupling, frequency response of sensors, or incidence angle of ray paths) not related to the AE source or path effects. To determine the real physical meanings of the recorded AEs, careful calibration of their amplitudes is needed.
\citet{mclaskey2012acoustic} performed AE sensor calibration tests on a thick plate with two calibration sources (ball impact and glass capillary fracture) to estimate instrument response functions. \citet{ono2016calibration} demonstrated detailed sensor calibration methods, including face-to-face, laser interferometry, Hill-Adams equation, and tri-transducer methods. \citet{yoshimitsu2016geometric} combined laser interferometry observations and a finite difference modeling method to characterize full waveforms from a circular-shaped transducer source through a cylindrical sample. However, these calibration methods only work under ambient conditions, and not within a pressure vessel where rock physics experiments are sometimes carried out. To calibrate the AE amplitudes under high-pressure conditions, \citet{kwiatek2014seismic} proposed an \textit{in situ} ultrasonic transmission calibration (UTC) method to correct relative amplitudes under high pressure. \citet[]{mclaskey2015robust} developed a technique to calibrate a high-pressure AE system using \textit{in situ} ball impact as a reference source. This design enabled the determination of absolute source parameters with an \textit{in situ} accelerometer.
This study aims to advance these calibration methodologies by quantifying the uncertainty of sensor transfer functions using a waveform-based Bayesian approach. Instead of using the waveform of a single ball bounce, our approach is able to use the waveforms of multi-bounce events. Inferring an \textit{in situ} sensor transfer function, and its associated uncertainty, makes it possible to apply full waveform analysis for acoustic emissions under high-pressure conditions. The method is tested using the newly built AE system of the MIT Rock Physics Laboratory.
\section{Methodology}
\subsection{Experimental Setup and AE Data}
\label{sec:exp}
The ball drop apparatus to conduct the \textit{in situ} ball drop experiment is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:exp_setup}. A steel ball (radius $R_1=3.18$ mm) placed in a tube is lifted to the top by air blown into the tube. After the air is cut off, the ball drops and hits the surface of a titanium cylinder (marked as ``sample'' in Figure~\ref{fig:exp_setup}), bouncing a few times. The diameter of the titanium cylinder is 46.1 mm and the length is 73.7 mm. Sixteen lead zirconate titanate (PZT) sensors are attached to the surface of the titanium cylinder (Figure \ref{fig:sensor_distr}). We stack a nonpolarized PZT piezoceramic disk, a polarized PZT piezoceramic disk, and a titanium disk adapter together to make one sensor. The diameters of the polarized and nonpolarized PZT piezoceramic disks are 5.00 mm and the thicknesses are 5.08 mm. The resonance frequency is 1 MHz. The titanium disk adapter has a diameter of 5.00 mm and a thickness of 4.00 mm. The side of the titanium disk adapter contacting the polarized PZT piezoceramic disk is machined to be flat, and the other side contacting the cylindrical sample is machined to be concave, to better fit the curved cylindrical side surface. \replaced[id=CG]{We increase the confining pressures (cp) and differential stresses (ds) gradually to improve the coupling between the PZT sensors and the sample. The \textit{in situ} ball drop experiments are conducted at varied cp and ds. High-quality AE data are observed at: (1) cp = 10 MPa, ds = 6 MPa; (2) cp = 20 MPa, ds = 10 MPa; (3) cp = 30 MPa, ds = 10 MPa. Then we decrease both cp an ds to ambient conditions and conduct one more ball drop experiment as the baseline measurements.}{The ball drop experiment is conducted at a confining pressure of 30 MPa and a differential pressure of 10 MPa.}
The AE data are continuously recorded and streamed to a hard drive at a sampling rate of 12.5 MHz, preprocessed by the STA/LTA algorithm to detect events due to ball bounces \citep[]{swindell1977station, mcevilly1982asp, earle1994characterization}. The truncated waveforms of the first and second bounces from 16 sensors due to one ball drop experiment at cp = 30 MPa and ds = 10 MPa are shown in Figure \ref{fig:sensor_distr}. We implement the Akaike information criterion (AIC) algorithm to automatically pick the P arrival time $t_1^j$ for the truncated waveforms of the first bouncing event \citep[]{maeda1985method, kurz2005strategies}. Then we align the waveforms from the later bounces and the first bounce by cross-correlation. An example of continuous waveforms containing the first three bouncing events of sensor 16 \added[id=CG]{at cp = 30 MPa and ds = 10 MPa} is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:bouncing_wfm}(a). The aligned waveforms of three bouncing events are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:bouncing_wfm}(b). The absolute P arrival time $t_k^j$ of the $k$th bouncing event at sensor $j$ can be calculated by adding the time lag between the waveforms of the first and the $k$th bouncing events to $t_1^j$. The time intervals between all the bounces recorded by sensor $j$ can thus be collected as
\begin{equation}
\bm{\delta t}^j = [t_2^j - t_1^j, t_3^j - t_2^j, \ldots, t_{k+1}^j - t_k^j, \ldots, t_n^j - t_{n-1}^j],
\label{eqn:dt_j}
\end{equation}
where $n$ is the total number of bounces.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Fig/Balldrop_exp_schematic.pdf}
\centering
\caption{(a) Photo of sample assembly before closing the pressure vessel. (b) Schematic of cross-section of the ball drop apparatus and the instrumented sample.}
\label{fig:exp_setup}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{Fig/geometry_wfm_2bc.pdf}
\centering
\caption{(a) Locations of 16 PZT sensors. (b) Example waveforms from 16 sensors for the 1st ball bounce \added[id=CG]{at cp = 30 MPa and ds = 10 MPa}.(b) Example waveforms from 16 sensors for the 2nd ball bounce \added[id=CG]{at cp = 30 MPa and ds = 10 MPa}. Black and red denote sensors and corresponding received signals on two different boards.}
\label{fig:sensor_distr}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Fig/Figure3_continous_wfm.pdf}
\centering
\caption{(a) Continuous waveforms containing the first three bouncing events of sensor 16 \added[id=CG]{at cp = 30 MPa and ds = 10 MPa}. The grey shadow areas denote time windows of bouncing events used for cross-correlation. (b) Aligned waveforms of three continuous bouncing events of sensor 16 \added[id=CG]{at cp = 30 MPa and ds = 10 MPa}. }
\label{fig:bouncing_wfm}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\added[id=CG]{The same preprocessing method has also been applied to the AE data at other cp and ds. Under each conditions, we compared the waveforms at sensor 16 due to the first bounce of the ball drop at: (1) cp = 10 MPa, ds = 6 MPa; (2) cp = 20 MPa, ds = 10 MPa; (3) cp = 30 MPa, ds = 10 MPa; and (4) cp = 0 MPa, ds = 0 MPa in Figure \ref{fig:wfm_compare_cp_ds}. Because higher confining pressures improve the coupling between sensors and the sample, resulting in smaller noise and larger amplitude response of sensors, the waveforms at high pressures show a smaller noise lever compared to those at ambient conditions. For the same reason, the waveforms at cp = 20 MPa, ds = 10 MPa, and cp = 30 MPa, ds = 10 MPa have larger amplitudes than those at cp = 10 MPa, ds = 6 MPa. However, when the confining pressure increases beyond a critical level, higher confining pressures do not affect the noise level and sensor response, as is illustrated in the almost identical waveforms at cp = 20 MPa, ds = 10 MPa, and cp = 30 MPa, ds = 10 MPa.}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Fig/wfm_compare_cp_ds_bc1.pdf}
\centering
\caption{\added[id=CG]{Waveforms at sensor 16 due to the first bounce of the ball drop at: (1) cp = 10 MPa, ds = 6 MPa; (2) cp = 20 MPa, ds = 10 MPa; (3) cp = 30 MPa, ds = 10 MPa; and (4) cp = 0 MPa, ds = 0 MPa. The waveforms are normalized by the maximum amplitues of all waveforms.}}
\label{fig:wfm_compare_cp_ds}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Bouncing time and waveform modeling}
\label{sec:forward}
To model the time interval between bounces, we first assume that after each bounce, the rebound velocity decreases to a fraction $a$ (the rebound coefficient) of the incident velocity; then the velocity after the $k$th bounce is
\begin{equation}
v_k = a^k v_0.
\end{equation}
The time interval between the $(k+1)$th and the $k$th bounce is then
\begin{equation}
\tilde{t}_{k+1}^j - \tilde{t}_k^j = \frac{2v_k}{g} = \frac{2a^k v_0}{g},
\end{equation}
where $g$ is the acceleration of gravity.
The theoretical bouncing time intervals $\bm{\delta t}^j = [\tilde{t}^j_2 - \tilde{t}^j_1, \ldots, \tilde{t}^j_n - \tilde{t}^j_{n-1}]$ can then be modeled as
\begin{equation}
\bm{\delta t_m}^j = \left[\frac{2av_0}{g}, \frac{2a^2v_0}{g}, \ldots, \frac{2a^{n-1} v_0}{g}\right]
\label{eq:dt}
\end{equation}
Now, modeling the mismatch between the modeled and measured time intervals with additive noise $\bm{e_t}^j$, the bouncing time interval data $\bm{\delta t}^j$ is represented as
\begin{equation}
\bm{\delta t}^j = \bm{\delta t_m}^j + \bm{e_t}^j.
\label{eqn:bouncingdata}
\end{equation}
The waveform recorded at receiver $j$ due to the $k$th ball bounce, $\bm{o}^{j,k}(t)$, can be written as
\begin{equation}
\bm{o}^{j,k}(t) = L[I[\bm{u}^{j,k}(\bm{r}^j,
t)]] = L[I[f_k(t)*\bm{G}(\bm{r}^j,t)]],
\label{eqn:convolution}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{u}^{j,k}(\bm{r}^j, t)$ is the input displacement at receiver $j$ due to the $k$th bounce of the ball, $f_k(t)$ is the loading function of the $k$th bounce of the ball, $\bm{G}(\bm{r}^j,t)$ is the Green's function representing the impulse response of the sample at receiver $j$, $t$ is the time, $\bm{r}^j$ is the vector directed from the bouncing ball source to receiver $j$, $I$ is the incident angle correction, and $L$ is a linear operator, assuming that the response function of the PZT transducer can be modeled as a linear time-invariant (LTI) system.
Based on previous studies of ball collisions \citep{mclaskey2012acoustic,mclaskey2015robust}, the loading function can be represented as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&f_k(t) = -F_{\text{max},k}\sin\left(\frac{\pi t}{t_c}\right)^{3/2}, \quad 0\leq |t| \leq t_c,\\
&f_k(t) = 0, \quad \text{otherwise},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $F_{\text{max},k}$ is the maximum loading force of the $k$th ball bounce and $t_c$ is the total loading time, which is the entire contact time between the ball and the top surface of the sample. The $F_{\text{max},k}$ and $t_c$ are modeled as
\begin{eqnarray}
&F_{\text{max},k}&=1.917\rho_1^{3/5}(\delta_1 + \delta_2)^{-2/5} R_1^2 v_{k-1}^{6/5},\\
&\delta_q &= \frac{1-\mu_q^2}{\pi E_q}, \quad q = 1,2\\
&t_c&=1/f_c=4.53(4\rho_1\pi(\delta_1 + \delta_2)/3)^{2/5}R_1v_{k-1}^{-1/5},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho_q$, $E_q$, $\mu_q$ are the density, Young's modulus, and Poisson's ratio of the $q$th material, respectively ($q=1$ refers to the steel ball and $q=2$ refers to the titanium sample). In this experiment, $\rho_1=8050~\text{kg}/\text{m}^3$, $E_1=180.0~\text{GPa}$, $\mu_1=0.305$, $\rho_2=4506~\text{kg}/\text{m}^3$, $E_2=113.8~\text{GPa}$, and $\mu_2=0.32$. $v_{k-1}$ is the incident velocity of the $k$th bounce of the ball.
$G_{i3}(\bm{r}^j,t)$ is the $i$th ($i = 1, 2, 3$, corresponding to three axes) component of displacement at a generic $(\bm{r}^j,t)$, for an impulsive point force source in the $x_3$ direction, i.e., the vertical direction. The $i$th component of displacement due to the $k$th bounce, $u_i^{j,k}(\bm{r}^j, t)$, is represented as \citep{aki2002quantitative}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:3C_disp}
\begin{split}
u_i^{j,k}(\bm{r}^j, t) = & f_k(t) * G_{i3}(\bm{r}^j,t), \\
= &\frac{1}{4\pi \rho_2} (3\gamma_i^j \gamma_3^j - \delta_{i3})\frac{1}{(r^j)^3} \int_{{r^j}/{V_P}}^{{r^j}/{V_S}}\tau f_k(t-\tau)d\tau \\
&+\frac{1}{4\pi \rho_2 V_P^2} \gamma_i^j \gamma_3^j \frac{1}{r^j} f_k\left(t - \frac{r^j}{V_P}\right) - \frac{1}{4 \pi \rho_2 V_S^2}(\gamma_i^j \gamma_3^j - \delta_{i3})\frac{1}{r^j}f_k\left(t - \frac{r^j}{V_S}\right),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $V_P=6011.6~\text{m}/\text{s}$ and $V_S=3093.0~\text{m}/\text{s}$ are the P wave velocity and S wave velocity of the titanium sample, respectively; $r^j$ is the norm of the vector from the source to sensor $j$; $\gamma_i^j$ is the directional cosine between this vector and the $i$th coordinate axis; and $\delta_{i3}$ is the Kronecker delta. \added[id=CG]{This Green's function is for a homogeneous, isotropic, unbounded medium. We use this approximation is because we do not observe coherent signals due to possible reflections from boundaries in the data. Second, the finite difference modeling in Appendix \ref{sec:bd_wave} shows that for our calibration system with a Titanium sample, this homogeneous, isotropic, unbounded medium approximation produces almost identical waveforms compared to the system with a Titanium-Steel boundary on the top. The ball drop apparatus is made of Steel.}
The incidence angle dependence of the sensor is assumed to be a cosine function, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
I[\bm{u}^{j,k}(\bm{r}^j, t)]=u_{\perp}^{j,k}(\bm{r}^j, t)=\sum_{i=1}^3u_i^{j,k}(\bm{r}^j, t)\xi_i^j,
\label{eqn:directional}
\end{equation}
where $\xi_i^j$ is the directional cosine of the normal vector of sensor $j$, i.e., $[r_1^j, r_2^j, 0]$. \added[id=CG]{This cosine approximation is justified in Appendix \ref{sec:amp_inc}.}
The frequency response function of sensor $j$ is modeled by
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{R}^j(\omega) = \frac{-C\omega^2}{\omega^2 + 2i\varepsilon^j\omega - (\omega_s^j)^2},
\label{eq:resp}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_s^j$ is the resonance frequency, $\varepsilon^j$ is the damping coefficient of sensor $j$, and $C$ is the conversion constant with units $\text{count}/\text{m}$. \added[id=CG]{This simple frequency response function of a damped oscillator can fully describe the resonance and damping effects of PZT sensors according to the full waveform matching, so we do not include high-fidelity PZT sensor modeling method in our model \citep{baek2010modeling}. Equation~\eqref{eq:resp} has also been used to model the frequency-response of an inertial seismometer \citep{aki2002quantitative}.}
Then the noise-free signal at sensor $j$ due to the $k$th bounce can be represented as
\begin{equation}
O^{j,k}(\omega) = \mathfrak{R}^j(\omega)U_{\perp}^{j,k}(\omega)
\label{eqn:fouriersensoroutput}
\end{equation}
in the frequency domain, and
\begin{equation}
o^{j,k}(t) = \mathfrak{r}^j(t)*u_{\perp}^{j,k}(t)
\label{eqn:timeseriesoutput}
\end{equation}
in the time domain, where $\ast$ represents the convolution operator. In \eqref{eqn:fouriersensoroutput}, $U_{\perp}^{j,k}(\omega)$ is simply the Fourier transform of $u_{\perp}^{j,k}(t)$ \eqref{eqn:directional}. Similarly, $\mathfrak{r}^j(t)$ is the inverse Fourier transform of $\mathfrak{R}^j(\omega)$ \eqref{eq:resp}.
Concatenating waveforms from all the bounces, along with their corresponding noise perturbations $e^{j,k}(t)$, the data at receiver $j$ can be modeled as
\begin{equation}
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
d^{j,1}(t)\\
d^{j,2}(t)\\
\vdots\\
d^{j,k}(t)\\
\vdots\\
d^{j,n}(t)\\
\end{array}
\right]
=
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
o^{j,1}(t)\\
o^{j,2}(t)\\
\vdots\\
o^{j,k}(t)\\
\vdots\\
o^{j,n}(t)\\
\end{array}
\right]+
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
e^{j,1}(t)\\
e^{j,2}(t)\\
\vdots\\
e^{j,k}(t)\\
\vdots\\
e^{j,n}(t)\\
\end{array}
\right],
\end{equation}
which can be written more compactly as
\begin{equation}
d^j(t)=o^j(t)+e^j(t),
\label{eq:wavedata}
\end{equation}
and, after time discretization, as
\begin{equation}
\bm{d}^j=\bm{o}^j+\bm{e}^j.
\label{eq:wavedatadiscrete}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Bayesian formulation and posterior sampling}
\label{sec:bayes}
In principle, one could use a Bayesian hierarchical model to represent the entire ball drop system, given bouncing time interval data $\bm{\delta t} \coloneqq \{ \bm{\delta t}^j \}_{j=1}^{16}$ and waveform data $\{\bm{d}^j\}_{j=1}^{16}$ from all 16 sensors. The resulting posterior density is:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&P\left(\{v_0^j, a^j, \omega_s^j, \varepsilon^j\}_{j=1}^{16}, v_0, a, \sigma_t^2|\{\bm{d}^j\}_{j=1}^{16}, \bm{\delta t} \right)\\
\propto & \ P(\bm{\delta t} | v_0, a, \sigma_t^2)P(v_0)P(a)P(\sigma_t^2)\\
&\left ( \prod\limits_{j=1}^{16}P(\bm{d}^j|v_0^j, a^j, \omega_s^j, \varepsilon^j)\right)
\left ( \prod\limits_{j=1}^{16}P(v_0^j, a^j|v_0, a) \right )
\left ( \prod\limits_{j=1}^{16}P(v_0^j)P(a^j)P(\omega_s^j)P(\varepsilon^j) \right ),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We explain this model, and the terms above, as follows. First, there is in principle a single true value of the ball's initial incident velocity and rebound coefficient, represented by the ``master'' parameters $v_0$ and $a$. All of the bouncing time intervals $\bm{\delta t}$ should depend on these values; this relationship is encoded in the conditional probability density $P(\bm{\delta t} | v_0, a, \sigma_t^2)$. Here $\sigma_t^2$ is the variance of the noise $\bm{e}_t^j$ in \eqref{eqn:bouncingdata}, which we also wish to infer.
The full waveforms $\bm{d}^j$ at each receiver $j$ also depend on the ball velocity and rebound coefficient, however, as these are needed to determine the loading function for each individual bounce $k=1, \ldots, n$. Due to noise and unmodeled dynamics, these waveforms may be better represented by slightly different local bouncing parameters, $v_0^j$ and $a^j$, at each receiver $j$. To relate the local bouncing parameters $v_0^j$ and $a^j$ with the master parameters $v_0$ and $a$, as is typical in Bayesian hierarchical modeling \citep{gelman2013bayesian}, the model above uses the conditional distributions $P(v_0^j, a^j|v_0, a)$. The relationship between the local bouncing parameters and the full waveforms is encoded in the likelihood $P(\bm{d}^j|v_0^j, a^j, \omega_s^j, \varepsilon^j)$.
To simplify and decouple this inference problem, however, we can ignore the relationship between the master $(v_0, a)$ and $(v_0^j, a^j)$, i.e., we can assume $P(v_0^j, a^j|v_0, a) \approx P(v_0^j, a^j)$. Then the master parameters become irrelevant and we can infer parameters $\bm{X}=[v_0^j, a^j, \omega_s^j, \varepsilon^j]$ and a variance $(\sigma_t^j)^2$ for each sensor separately. This assumption is reasonable because there is a considerable amount of data/information at each sensor; thus, there is little to be gained by ``sharing strength'' via the common parameters $(v_0, a)$.
For sensor $j$, the posterior probability density $P(v_0^j, a^j, \omega_s^j, \varepsilon^j,(\sigma_t^j)^2|\bm{d}^j, \bm{\delta t})$ is then written as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
P(v_0^j, a^j, \omega_s^j, \varepsilon^j, (\sigma_t^j)^2|\bm{d}^j, \bm{\delta t}) \propto \ &P(\bm{\delta t}|v_0^j, a^j,(\sigma_t^j)^2) P(\bm{d}^j|v_0^j, a^j, \omega_s^j, \varepsilon^j) \\
&P(v_0^j)P(a^j)P(\omega_s^j)P(\varepsilon^j) P((\sigma_t^j)^2).
\label{eqn:simplifiedposterior}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Figure \ref{fig:MCMC_procedure} represents the hierarchical Bayesian model and the simplified Bayesian model graphically, as Bayesian networks.
Now we define the specific prior and likelihood terms in the posterior probability density function \eqref{eqn:simplifiedposterior}. We use uniform prior distributions for $v_0^j$, $a^j$, $\omega_s^j$, and $\varepsilon^j$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&v_0^j \sim \mathcal{U}(1.0, 1.5)\ \text{m/s}, \quad a^j \sim \mathcal{U}(0.5, 0.9),\\
&\omega_s^j \sim \mathcal{U}(100, 500) \ \text{kHz},\quad \varepsilon^j \sim \mathcal{U}(10, 50)\ \text{kHz},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and a normal distribution for $(\sigma_t^j)^2$,
\begin{equation}
(\sigma_t^j)^2 \sim \mathcal{N}(10^{-10}, 10^{-22})\ \text{s}^2.
\label{eq:hyperprior}
\end{equation}
The likelihood functions $P(\bm{\delta t}|v_0^j, a^j)$ and $P(\bm{d}^j|v_0^j, a^j, \omega_s^j, \varepsilon^j)$ depend on the probability distributions of $\bm{e_t} = \bm{\delta t} - \bm{\delta t_m}$ \eqref{eqn:bouncingdata} and $\bm{e}^j = \bm{d}^j - \bm{o}^j$ \eqref{eq:wavedata}, respectively. In this paper, we assume that both errors are Gaussian, with zero mean and diagonal covariance matrices $\bm{\Sigma_t}$ and $\bm{\Sigma}^j$, respectively. The diagonal entries of $\bm{\Sigma_t}$ are
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{t,ii}=(\sigma_t^j)^2, \quad i=1,2,\ldots, N_{\delta t},
\end{equation}
where $N_{\delta t}$ is the total number of bouncing time intervals, collected over all the sensors.
The diagonal entries of $\bm{\Sigma}^j$ are
\begin{equation}
\Sigma^j_{ii}=(\sigma^j)^2, \quad i=1,2,\ldots, N
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the total number of data samples (time discretization points) for the waveforms $\bm{d}^j$. Then the likelihood functions can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
P(\bm{\delta t}|v_0^j, a^j,(\sigma_t^j)^2) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{(2\pi)^{N_{\delta t}} \det \bm{\Sigma_t}}} \exp{\left[-\frac{1}{2}(\bm{\delta t} - \bm{\delta t_m})^T \bm{\Sigma_t}^{-1}(\bm{\delta t} - \bm{\delta t_m})\right]},\\
P(\bm{d}^j|v_0^j, a^j, \omega_s^j, \varepsilon^j) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{(2\pi)^N \det \bm{\Sigma}^j}} \exp{\left[-\frac{1}{2}(\bm{d}^j - \bm{o}^j)^T (\bm{\Sigma}^j)^{-1}(\bm{d}^j - \bm{o}^j)\right]}.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
(a)
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[obs] (dt) {$\bm{\delta t}$};
\node[latent, right=2cm of dt] (v0) {$v_0$};
\node[latent, right=2of dt, yshift=-1.2cm] (a) {$a$};
\node[latent, left=2cm of dt] (et) {$\bm{e}_t$};
\node[latent, left=2cm of dt, yshift=-1.2cm] (st) {$\sigma_t$};
\node[obs, right=7cm of dt, yshift=-1.8cm] (d) {$\bm{d}^j$};
\node[latent, right=4cm of dt] (v0j) {$v_0^j$};
\node[latent, right=4cm of dt, yshift=-1.2cm] (aj) {$a^j$};
\node[latent, right=4cm of dt, yshift=-2.4cm] (omegasj) {$\omega_s^j$};
\node[latent, right=4cm of dt, yshift=-3.6cm] (varepsilonj) {$\varepsilon^j$};
\node[latent, right=2cm of d] (e) {$\bm{e}^j$};
\edge {v0,a,et,st} {dt} ; %
\edge {v0j,aj,e,omegasj,varepsilonj} {d} ;
\edge {v0} {v0j};
\edge {a} {aj};
\plate {} {(d)(v0j)(aj)(omegasj)(varepsilonj)(e)} {$j=1\ldots16$} ;
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
(b)
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[obs] (dt) {$\bm{\delta t}$};
\node[latent, left=2cm of dt] (etj) {$\bm{e}_t^j$};
\node[latent, left=2cm of dt, yshift=-1.2cm] (stj) {$\sigma_t^j$};
\node[obs, right=7cm of dt, yshift=-1.8cm] (d) {$\bm{d}^j$};
\node[latent, right=4cm of dt] (v0j) {$v_0^j$};
\node[latent, right=4cm of dt, yshift=-1.2cm] (aj) {$a^j$};
\node[latent, right=4cm of dt, yshift=-2.4cm] (omegasj) {$\omega_s^j$};
\node[latent, right=4cm of dt, yshift=-3.6cm] (varepsilonj) {$\varepsilon^j$};
\node[latent, right=2cm of d] (e) {$\bm{e}^j$};
\edge {v0j,aj,etj,stj} {dt} ; %
\edge {v0j,aj,e,omegasj,varepsilonj} {d} ;
\plate {} {(d)(v0j)(aj)(omegasj)(varepsilonj)(e)(dt)(stj)} {$j=1\ldots16$} ;
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic of MCMC procedure. (a) The hierarchical model; (b) the decoupled model.}
\label{fig:MCMC_procedure}
\end{figure}
The variance parameter $(\sigma_t^j)^2$ represents a tradeoff between the influence of the bouncing time interval data and the waveform data. As encoded in the posterior distribution \eqref{eqn:simplifiedposterior}, it is inferred from both sets of data, for each sensor $j$. The variance parameter $(\sigma^j)^2$, on the other hand, is not inferred within the Bayesian model, but is determined based on the noise level of the waveform data. In particular, we set it to be a fraction $\alpha^j \in(0, 1)$ of the power of the waveform data $\bm{d}^j$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
(\sigma^j)^2 = \alpha^j\frac{1}{T}\int\limits_0^T (d^j(t))^2 \, dt \approx \alpha^j\frac{1}{T}\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \Delta t (d_i^j)^2 = \alpha^j\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{i=1}^N (d_i^j)^2,
\label{eq:sigmaj}
\end{equation}
where $T$ is the total time length of waveform data, $N = T / \Delta t$ is the number of time discretization points, and $d^j_i = d^j(t_i)$. We estimate $\alpha^j$, the ratio of noise and waveform data power for sensor $j$, as
\begin{equation}
\alpha^j = \frac{\frac{1}{T_b}\int\limits_0^{T_b}b^2(t)dt}{\frac{1}{T}\int\limits_0^Td^2(t)dt} \approx \frac{\frac{1}{T_b}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_b} \Delta t (b_i^j)^2}{\frac{1}{T}\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \Delta t (d_i^j)^2} = \frac{N\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_b} (b_i^j)^2}{N_b\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_b} (d_i^j)^2},
\label{eq:alphaj}
\end{equation}
where $b(t)$ is the recorded noise before the first P arrival of the first bouncing event, $T_b$ is the time length of the noise window, and $N_b = T_b / \Delta t$ is the number of noise samples. Substituting \eqref{eq:alphaj} into \eqref{eq:sigmaj}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\left(\sigma^j\right)^2 = \frac{1}{N_b} \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_b} (b_i^j)^2.
\label{eq:sigma2}
\end{equation}
For each sensor $j$, we use Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling to characterize the posterior distribution given by \eqref{eqn:simplifiedposterior}. We use an independence proposal from the prior to update $(\sigma_t^j)^2$ and a
Gaussian random-walk proposal with adaptive covariance to update $\bm{X}$. The 5-dimensional vector of proposed values for $(\bm{X},(\sigma_t^j)^2)$ is then accepted or rejected according to the standard Metropolis-Hastings criterion \citep{metropolis1953equation, hastings1970monte}. The proposal for $\bm{X}$ follows the adaptive Metropolis (AM) approach of \cite{haario2001adaptive}, adjusting the proposal covariance matrix based on all previous samples of $\bm{X}$:
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell}^*= s_d \, \text{Cov} (\bm{X}_0,\ldots, \bm{X}_{\ell}) + s_d \epsilon_0 I_d \, .
\label{eq:AMcov}
\end{equation}
Here $C_{\ell}^*$ is the proposal covariance matrix at step $\ell$, $I_d$ is the $d$-dimensional identity matrix, $\epsilon_0>0$ is a small constant to make $C_{\ell}^*$ positive definite, $d=4$ is the dimension of $\bm{X}$, and $s_{d} = 2.4^2/d$. The value of the scaling parameter $s_{d}$ is a standard choice to optimize the mixing properties of the Metropolis search \citep{gelman1996efficient}. This value might affect the efficiency of MCMC, but not the posterior distribution itself.
\section{Results and Discussion}
We apply the Bayesian method to all 16 sensors \added[id=CG]{at (1) cp = 10 MPa, ds = 6 MPa; (2) cp = 20 MPa, ds = 10 MPa; and (3) cp =30 MPa, ds = 10 MPa.} (sensor $13$ did not work during the experiment). For each sensor, we first calculate the parameter $\alpha^j$ using \eqref{eq:alphaj}. The values of $\alpha^j$ for the 16 sensors are shown in Table \ref{tab:para_post_1} \added[id=CG]{ -- \ref{tab:para_post_3}}. The sensors at the top half of the cylinder sample (sensors $16$, $4$, $12$, $8$, $15$, $3$, $11$, $7$), which are closer to the ball bouncing source, generally have lower $\alpha^j$ than sensors at the bottom half of the cylinder sample, e.g., sensors $6$, $14$, $2$, $10$, $5$, $13$, $1$, $9$. This is because the sensors close to the source have better signal-to-noise ratio than sensors away from the source; in other words, $\alpha^j$ is an indicator of signal quality.
We perform $10^6$ MCMC iterations to explore the posterior \eqref{eqn:simplifiedposterior} for each sensor at varied pressures. The first $6\times10^5$ iterations of each MCMC chain are discarded as burn-in. We show MCMC chains and posterior distributions of $v_0^j$, $a^j$, $\omega_s^j$, and $\varepsilon^j$ for sensor $16$ \added[id=CG]{at cp = 30 MPa, ds = 10 MPa} in Figures~\ref{fig:post_sensor_16}(a) and (b). Figure~\ref{fig:post_sensor_16}(c) shows the mean posterior predicted trajectory of ball bouncing events. The comparison between the observed AE data and mean posterior predicted waveforms is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:post_sensor_16}(d).
The marginal posterior distributions of $(\sigma_t^j)^2$, $v_0^j$, $a^j$, $\omega_s^j$, and $\varepsilon^j$ \added[id=CG]{at (1) cp = 10 MPa, ds = 6 MPa; (2) cp = 20 MPa, ds = 10 MPa; and (3) cp =30 MPa, ds = 10 MPa} are summarized (via their means and standard deviations) in Table \ref{tab:para_post_1} \added[id=CG]{ - \ref{tab:para_post_3}}. The parameters $\omega_s^j$ and $\varepsilon^j$ for sensors closer to the bouncing source have higher posterior standard deviations than for sensors farther away from the bouncing source.
The posterior distributions of $(\sigma_t^j)^2$, $v_0^j$, and $a^j$ are relatively similar across the sensors; this is expected, as the bouncing time data sets are the same for all sensors. Note that the posterior variance of $(\sigma_t^j)^2$ is roughly half of the prior variance, and that the mean of $(\sigma_t^j)^2$ shifts slightly from its prior value.
\replaced[id=CG]{Figure \ref{fig:dt_wfm_16ch_cp10_ds6} (a) , Figure \ref{fig:dt_wfm_16ch_cp20_ds10} (a) and , Figure \ref{fig:dt_wfm_16ch_cp30_ds10} (a) show}{Figure 6 (a) shows} the comparison between observed and mean posterior predicted bouncing time intervals, $t_2^j - t_1^j$ and $t_3^j - t_2^j$, for all the sensors \added[id=CG]{at (1) cp = 10 MPa, ds = 6 MPa; (2) cp = 20 MPa, ds = 10 MPa; and (3) cp =30 MPa, ds = 10 MPa}. The bias is smaller than 20 $\mu$s. \replaced[id=CG]{Figure \ref{fig:dt_wfm_16ch_cp10_ds6} (b) , Figure \ref{fig:dt_wfm_16ch_cp20_ds10} (b) and , Figure \ref{fig:dt_wfm_16ch_cp30_ds10} (b) show}{Figure 6 (b) shows} the comparison between observed and mean posterior predicted waveforms. The observed waveforms are all well predicted. Blue and light blue shaded areas show the 1-$\sigma$ and 2-$\sigma$ regions of the posterior predictive waveforms (marginal intervals at each timestep).
The 2-$\sigma$ region of the posterior predictive waveforms (light blue shadow areas) almost covers the observed waveforms. The higher the noise levels of the observations, the larger the light blue shadow areas. In contrast, the sensors with high signal quality generally show larger bias in bouncing time intervals. This is probably because of the tradeoff between the likelihood functions $P(\bm{\delta t}|v_0^j, a^j)$ and $P(\bm{d}^j|v_0^j, a^j, \omega_s^j, \varepsilon^j)$.
The mean posterior resonance frequency $\omega_s^j$ for all the sensors varies from \replaced[id=CG]{310}{311} to \replaced[id=CG]{365}{364} kHz, and the damping coefficient $\varepsilon^j$ varies from \replaced[id=CG]{11}{13} to \replaced[id=CG]{43}{40} kHz. The posterior standard deviations for $\omega_s^j$ and $\varepsilon^j$ are all within 1 kHz. With the posterior distributions of $\omega_s^j$ and $\varepsilon^j$, we can obtain frequency-response functions of all sensors using \eqref{eq:resp}(a). The standard deviation indicates how reliable the response function of each sensor is. We show the mean posterior amplitude response and phase delay of all response functions \added[id=CG]{at varied cp and ds} in Figure \ref{fig:rsps}(a). The amplitude response tends to a constant at high frequencies, and is proportional to $\omega^2$ at low frequencies. \added[id=CG]{The amplitude response at higher cp is larger than that at lower cp, but the difference is not obvious.} The phase delay is close to zero at low frequencies and tends to $\pi$ at high frequencies. The \textit{in situ} response functions can be used to calibrate real AE data, i.e., convert digital AE data into time series with physical units, for fracturing experiments in rocks under high pressure conditions.
We plot $\omega_s^j$ and $\varepsilon^j$ as a function of source-receiver distance in Figure \ref{fig:rsps}(b). $\omega_s^j$ shows a clear trend of decay with the increasing source-receiver distance, indicating that attenuation effects, which are not included in our model, should be taken into account in \eqref{eq:3C_disp} to avoid mapping sample $Q$ into instrument response functions. $\varepsilon^j$ does not show any distance-dependent properties.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/Post_sensor_16_2.pdf}
\centering
\caption{MCMC chains and posterior distribution of four parameters for sensor $16$. The first
$6\times10^5$ iterations of MCMC chains are discarded as burn-in. (a) MCMC chains for initial velocity $v_0^j$, rebound coefficient $a^j$, resonance frequency $\omega_s^j$, and damping coefficient $\varepsilon^j$. (b) Scatter plots of four parameters corresponding to MCMC chains. (c) Mean posterior predicted trajectory of ball bouncing. (d) Waveform comparison between observed (red) and mean posterior predicted waveforms (black).}
\label{fig:post_sensor_16}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Posterior mean and standard deviation (std dev) of $(\sigma_t^j)^2$, $v_0^j$, $a^j$, $\omega_s^j$, and $\varepsilon^j$ for 16 sensors \added[id=CG]{at cp = 10 MPa and ds = 6 MPa}.}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ID} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\alpha^j$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$(\sigma_t^j)^2$ ($10^{-10} s^2$)} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$v_0^j$ (m/s)} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$a^j$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\omega_s^j$ (kHz)} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\varepsilon^j$ (kHz)}\\
& & mean & std dev & mean & std dev & mean & std dev & mean & std dev & mean & std dev \\
\hline
1 & 0.144 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.02E+00 & 4.82E-05 & 6.74E-01 & 2.29E-05 & 341.63 & 0.19 & 17.44 & 0.12\\
2 & 0.027 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.02E+00 & 4.79E-05 & 6.74E-01 & 2.28E-05 & 321.97 & 0.05 & 19.55 & 0.05\\
3 & 0.007 & 0.919 & 0.075 & 1.02E+00 & 4.80E-05 & 6.74E-01 & 2.28E-05 & 327.47 & 0.01 & 10.88 & 0.02\\
4 & 0.019 & 0.915 & 0.073 & 1.02E+00 & 4.81E-05 & 6.74E-01 & 2.28E-05 & 362.52 & 0.05 & 17.66 & 0.04\\
5 & 0.128 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.02E+00 & 4.79E-05 & 6.74E-01 & 2.28E-05 & 339.19 & 0.27 & 23.63 & 0.18\\
6 & 0.059 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.02E+00 & 4.80E-05 & 6.74E-01 & 2.29E-05 & 316.82 & 0.15 & 37.85 & 0.17\\
7 & 0.012 & 0.916 & 0.074 & 1.02E+00 & 4.78E-05 & 6.74E-01 & 2.27E-05 & 338.36 & 0.03 & 15.83 & 0.03\\
8 & 0.019 & 0.917 & 0.074 & 1.02E+00 & 4.77E-05 & 6.74E-01 & 2.27E-05 & 354.41 & 0.08 & 35.49 & 0.10\\
9 & 0.137 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.02E+00 & 4.79E-05 & 6.74E-01 & 2.28E-05 & 332.08 & 0.18 & 16.80 & 0.16\\
10 & 0.015 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.02E+00 & 4.80E-05 & 6.74E-01 & 2.28E-05 & 327.44 & 0.03 & 15.03 & 0.03\\
11 & 0.028 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.02E+00 & 4.82E-05 & 6.74E-01 & 2.30E-05 & 315.49 & 0.10 & 43.12 & 0.14\\
12 & 0.025 & 0.917 & 0.074 & 1.02E+00 & 4.78E-05 & 6.74E-01 & 2.28E-05 & 343.71 & 0.09 & 29.54 & 0.09\\
13 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & -\\
14 & 0.044 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.02E+00 & 4.81E-05 & 6.74E-01 & 2.29E-05 & 310.41 & 0.07 & 23.17 & 0.08\\
15 & 0.023 & 0.918 & 0.075 & 1.02E+00 & 4.81E-05 & 6.74E-01 & 2.30E-05 & 337.57 & 0.08 & 34.43 & 0.10\\
16 & 0.006 & 0.922 & 0.073 & 1.02E+00 & 4.87E-05 & 6.74E-01 & 2.35E-05 & 348.49 & 0.02 & 14.93 & 0.02\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:para_post_1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Posterior mean and standard deviation (std dev) of $(\sigma_t^j)^2$, $v_0^j$, $a^j$, $\omega_s^j$, and $\varepsilon^j$ for 16 sensors \added[id=CG]{at cp = 20 MPa and ds = 10 MPa}.}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ID} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\alpha^j$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$(\sigma_t^j)^2$ ($10^{-10} s^2$)} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$v_0^j$ (m/s)} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$a^j$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\omega_s^j$ (kHz)} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\varepsilon^j$ (kHz)}\\
& & mean & std dev & mean & std dev & mean & std dev & mean & std dev & mean & std dev \\
\hline
1 & 0.082 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.13E+00 & 4.89E-05 & 6.64E-01 & 2.08E-05 & 343.14 & 0.29 & 21.87 & 0.12\\
2 & 0.011 & 0.917 & 0.074 & 1.13E+00 & 4.90E-05 & 6.64E-01 & 2.09E-05 & 337.33 & 0.04 & 18.80 & 0.03\\
3 & 0.007 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.13E+00 & 4.88E-05 & 6.63E-01 & 2.08E-05 & 332.10 & 0.02 & 18.01 & 0.03\\
4 & 0.010 & 0.917 & 0.074 & 1.13E+00 & 4.92E-05 & 6.64E-01 & 2.08E-05 & 354.77 & 0.04 & 24.08 & 0.04\\
5 & 0.070 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.13E+00 & 4.91E-05 & 6.64E-01 & 2.08E-05 & 339.54 & 0.18 & 27.82 & 0.16\\
6 & 0.026 & 0.918 & 0.075 & 1.13E+00 & 4.89E-05 & 6.64E-01 & 2.08E-05 & 315.00 & 0.09 & 35.76 & 0.11\\
7 & 0.006 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.13E+00 & 4.92E-05 & 6.64E-01 & 2.09E-05 & 334.67 & 0.02 & 16.98 & 0.02\\
8 & 0.012 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.13E+00 & 4.89E-05 & 6.64E-01 & 2.08E-05 & 335.91 & 0.07 & 42.97 & 0.08\\
9 & 0.061 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.13E+00 & 4.88E-05 & 6.64E-01 & 2.08E-05 & 341.97 & 0.19 & 15.30 & 0.13\\
10 & 0.010 & 0.917 & 0.074 & 1.13E+00 & 4.93E-05 & 6.63E-01 & 2.09E-05 & 340.14 & 0.04 & 17.14 & 0.03\\
11 & 0.026 & 0.918 & 0.075 & 1.13E+00 & 4.92E-05 & 6.64E-01 & 2.09E-05 & 338.87 & 0.11 & 39.78 & 0.13\\
12 & 0.011 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.13E+00 & 4.91E-05 & 6.64E-01 & 2.08E-05 & 341.11 & 0.06 & 31.49 & 0.07\\
13 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & -\\
14 & 0.029 & 0.917 & 0.074 & 1.13E+00 & 4.94E-05 & 6.64E-01 & 2.09E-05 & 320.88 & 0.06 & 20.32 & 0.06\\
15 & 0.011 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.13E+00 & 4.89E-05 & 6.64E-01 & 2.07E-05 & 340.89 & 0.05 & 31.11 & 0.06\\
16 & 0.003 & 0.917 & 0.073 & 1.13E+00 & 4.93E-05 & 6.64E-01 & 2.08E-05 & 350.82 & 0.01 & 16.76 & 0.01\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:para_post_2}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Posterior mean and standard deviation (std dev) of $(\sigma_t^j)^2$, $v_0^j$, $a^j$, $\omega_s^j$, and $\varepsilon^j$ for 16 sensors \added[id=CG]{at cp = 30 MPa and ds = 10 MPa}.}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ID} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\alpha^j$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$(\sigma_t^j)^2$ ($10^{-10} s^2$)} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$v_0^j$ (m/s)} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$a^j$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\omega_s^j$ (kHz)} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\varepsilon^j$ (kHz)}\\
& & mean & std dev & mean & std dev & mean & std dev & mean & std dev & mean & std dev \\
\hline
1 & 0.103 & 0.917 & 0.074 & 1.31100 & 5.42E-05 & 0.61152 & 1.88E-05 & 321.48 & 0.15 & 12.93 & 0.11\\
2 & 0.013 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.31115 & 5.42E-05 & 0.61147 & 1.87E-05 & 330.47 & 0.03 & 18.26 & 0.03\\
3 & 0.005 & 0.917 & 0.074 & 1.31130 & 5.47E-05 & 0.61144 & 1.89E-05 & 338.42 & 0.02 & 22.00 & 0.03\\
4 & 0.012 & 0.916 & 0.074 & 1.31102 & 5.48E-05 & 0.61152 & 1.90E-05 & 364.67 & 0.04 & 22.77 & 0.04\\
5 & 0.074 & 0.917 & 0.074 & 1.31103 & 5.44E-05 & 0.61151 & 1.89E-05 & 323.93 & 0.17 & 34.76 & 0.17\\
6 & 0.030 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.31104 & 5.46E-05 & 0.61151 & 1.90E-05 & 311.61 & 0.08 & 31.06 & 0.10\\
7 & 0.006 & 0.918 & 0.075 & 1.31122 & 5.53E-05 & 0.61146 & 1.91E-05 & 339.36 & 0.02 & 15.50 & 0.02\\
8 & 0.014 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.31102 & 5.45E-05 & 0.61152 & 1.89E-05 & 356.53 & 0.08 & 40.51 & 0.09\\
9 & 0.085 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.31103 & 5.48E-05 & 0.61151 & 1.90E-05 & 333.22 & 0.11 & 23.96 & 0.14\\
10 & 0.012 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.31128 & 5.44E-05 & 0.61143 & 1.88E-05 & 335.74 & 0.03 & 17.36 & 0.03\\
11 & 0.016 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.31111 & 5.45E-05 & 0.61149 & 1.89E-05 & 347.06 & 0.07 & 34.66 & 0.08\\
12 & 0.013 & 0.917 & 0.074 & 1.31116 & 5.47E-05 & 0.61147 & 1.90E-05 & 347.68 & 0.06 & 26.62 & 0.06\\
13 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & -\\
14 & 0.021 & 0.919 & 0.074 & 1.31110 & 5.49E-05 & 0.61149 & 1.91E-05 & 319.47 & 0.05 & 19.52 & 0.05\\
15 & 0.012 & 0.918 & 0.074 & 1.31101 & 5.43E-05 & 0.61152 & 1.88E-05 & 335.04 & 0.05 & 30.65 & 0.05\\
16 & 0.004 & 0.917 & 0.073 & 1.31064 & 5.46E-05 & 0.61167 & 1.87E-05 & 358.74 & 0.01 & 17.55 & 0.02\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:para_post_3}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{Fig/dt_wfm_matching_16sensor_cp10_ds6.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Results at cp = 10 MPa, ds = 6 MPa: (a) Comparison between observed (red) and mean posterior predicted (blue) bouncing time intervals. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ regions. (b) Waveform comparison between observed (red) and mean posterior predicted (black) waveforms of three bouncing events for 16 PZT sensors. Blue and light blue shading areas show the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ regions of posterior predicted waveforms after the burn-in. The title of each subplot denotes sensor ID. Subplots are arranged in the order of sensor locations shown in Figure \ref{fig:sensor_distr}. Sensor $13$ did not work, so we put the legend in the position of sensor $13$.}
\label{fig:dt_wfm_16ch_cp10_ds6}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{Fig/dt_wfm_matching_16sensor_cp20_ds10.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Results at cp = 20 MPa, ds = 10 MPa: (a) Comparison between observed (red) and mean posterior predicted (blue) bouncing time intervals. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ regions. (b) Waveform comparison between observed (red) and mean posterior predicted (black) waveforms of three bouncing events for 16 PZT sensors. Blue and light blue shading areas show the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ regions of posterior predicted waveforms after the burn-in. The title of each subplot denotes sensor ID. Subplots are arranged in the order of sensor locations shown in Figure \ref{fig:sensor_distr}. Sensor $13$ did not work, so we put the legend in the position of sensor $13$.}
\label{fig:dt_wfm_16ch_cp20_ds10}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{Fig/dt_wfm_matching_16sensor_cp30_ds10.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Results at cp = 30 MPa, ds = 10 MPa: (a) Comparison between observed (red) and mean posterior predicted (blue) bouncing time intervals. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ regions. (b) Waveform comparison between observed (red) and mean posterior predicted (black) waveforms of three bouncing events for 16 PZT sensors. Blue and light blue shading areas show the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ regions of posterior predicted waveforms after the burn-in. The title of each subplot denotes sensor ID. Subplots are arranged in the order of sensor locations shown in Figure \ref{fig:sensor_distr}. Sensor $13$ did not work, so we put the legend in the position of sensor $13$.}
\label{fig:dt_wfm_16ch_cp30_ds10}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{Fig/TF_all.pdf}
\centering
\caption{\added[id=CG]{Transfer functions at different cp and ds.} (a) Mean posterior predicted amplitude response (blue) and phase delay (red). The amplitude response tends to a constant at high frequencies, and is proportional to $\omega^2$ at low frequencies. The title of each subplot denotes sensor ID. Subplots are arranged in the order of sensor locations shown in Figure \ref{fig:sensor_distr}. Sensor $13$ did not work, so we put the legend in the position of sensor $13$. (b) $\omega_s^j$ and $\varepsilon^j$ as a function of source-receiver distance.}
\label{fig:rsps}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
We develop a Bayesian waveform-based method to calibrate PZT sensors of a newly designed \textit{in situ} ball drop system in a sealed pressure vessel. Taking full waveforms due to ball bounces as input data, the Bayesian method successfully infers the model parameters $v_0^j$, $a^j$, $\omega_s^j$, and $\varepsilon^j$. Both the posterior distributions of \textit{in situ} response functions of PZT sensors and the trajectories of ball bounces are recovered by this method.
With the \textit{in situ} estimation of frequency-dependent sensor response functions, we are able to convert the AE waveforms' amplitude and phase to real physical parameters (e.g., displacements or accelerations) under high pressure conditions. The obtained uncertainties of response functions indicate the reliability of each sensor.
Our proposed method was tested on a titanium cylinder with a very homogeneous structure. For more complex (and realistic) cases, additional work needs to be performed. A good estimate of wave speeds is required, and, for example, attenuation in other rock types can be significant \citep{lockner1977changes,winkler1979friction}. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:rsps}(b), attenuation may be mapped into instrument response if not accounted for. We believe that using multiple bounces, as we have done here, will allow for a better constraint of the attenuation of the sample as well as for estimating wave speeds using relative arrival times and cross-correlation methods \citep{waldhauser2000double,zhang2003double,fuenzalida2013high,weemstra2013seismic}.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This research was supported by Total, Shell Global, and MIT Earth Resources Laboratory.
\end{acknowledgments}
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{gji}
|
\section{Introduction}
Random graph inference has witnessed extraordinary growth over the last several decades \citep{Goldenberg2009,Kolaczyk2017,Abbe2017}. To date, the majority of work has focused primarily on inference for a single random graph, leaving largely unaddressed the problem of modeling the structure of multiple-graph data, including multi-layered and time-varying graphs \citep{Kivela2014,Boccaletti2014,Holme2012}. Such multiple graph data arises naturally in a wide swath of application domains, including neuroscience \citep{Bullmore2009}, biology \citep{Han2004,Li2011}, and the social sciences \citep{Szell2010,Mucha2010}.
Several existing models for multiple-graph data require strong assumptions that limit their flexibility \citep{Holland1983,Wang2017,Nielsen2018} or scalability to the size of real-world networks \citep{Durante2017,Durante2018}. Principled approaches to multiple-graph inference \citep{Tang2014,Tang2017,Levin2017,Ginestet2017,Arroyo-Relion2017,Kim2019} reflect this challenge, in part precisely because of the challenges inherent in constructing a multiple-graph model that adequately captures real-world graph heterogeneity while remaining analytically tractable. The aim, here, is to address exactly this gap.
In this paper, we resolve the following questions: first, can we construct a simple, flexible multiple random network model that can be used to approximate real-world data? Second, for such a model, can we leverage common network structure for accurate, scalable estimation of model parameters, while also being able to describe distributional properties of our estimates? Third, how can we use such estimators in subsequent inference tasks---for instance, multiple-network testing, community detection, or graph classification?
Fourth, how well do such modeling, estimation, and testing procedures perform on simulated and real data, in comparison to current state-of-the-art techniques?
Towards this end, we present a semiparametric model for multiple graphs with aligned vertices that is based on a common subspace structure between their expected adjacency matrices, but with allowance for heterogeneity within and across the graphs. The common subspace structure has a meaningful interpretation and generalizes several existing models for multiple networks; moreover, the estimation of such a common subspace in a set of networks is an inherent part of well-known graph inference problems like community detection, graph classification, or eigenvalue estimation.
The paper is organized as follows. We start by briefly encapsulating the principal contributions of this paper, and give an overview of the related work. In Section~\ref{sec:model} and Section~\ref{sec:fit}, we give a formal treatment of the COSIE model and MASE procedure. In Section~\ref{sec:theory}, we study the theoretical statistical performance of MASE and provide a bound on the error of estimating the common subspace, and we establish asymptotic normality of the estimates of the individual graph parameters. In Section~\ref{sec:simulations}, we investigate the empirical performance of MASE for estimation and testing when compared to other benchmark procedures. In Section~\ref{sec:data}, we use MASE to analyze connectomic networks of human brain scans. Specifically, we show the ability of our model and estimation procedure to characterize and discern the differences in brain connectivity across subjects. In Section~\ref{sec:concl}, we conclude with a discussion of open problems for future work.
\subsection{Summary of contributions}
The model describes random graphs $G^{(1)}, \cdots, G^{(m)}$ with $n$ labeled vertices whose Bernoulli adjacency matrices $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}\in\{0,1\}^{n\times n}, 1 \leq i \leq m$, have expectation of the form $\mathbf{V} \mathbf{R}^{(i)} \mathbf{V}^\top$, where $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ is a low-dimensional matrix and $\mathbf{V}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$ is a matrix with orthonormal columns. Because the invariant subspaces defined by $\mathbf{V}$ are common to all the graphs, we call this model the common-subspace independent edge (COSIE) random graph model. The $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$ matrices are dimension $d \times d$, need not be diagonal, and can vary with each graph. In particular, despite the shared expectation matrix factor $\mathbf{V}$, each graph $G^{(i)}$ can have a different distribution.
Now, to estimate $\mathbf{V}$ and $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$, we rely on the low-rank structure of the expectation matrices in COSIE. Specifically, we first spectrally decompose each of the adjacency matrices $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}$ to obtain the \emph{adjacency spectral embedding} \citep{Sussman2012} $\widehat{\mathbf{X}}^{(i)}$, defined as $\widehat{\mathbf{X}}^{(i)}= \widehat{\mathbf{V}}^{(i)} |\widehat{\mathbf{D}}^{(i)}|^{1/2}$, where $\widehat{\mathbf{D}}^{(i)}$ is the $d \times d$ diagonal matrix of the top $d$ eigenvectors of $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}$, sorted by magnitude, and $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^{(i)}$ the $n \times d$ matrix of associated orthonormal eigenvectors. In the COSIE model, we will leverage the common subspace structure and use these eigenvector estimates $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^{(i)}$ to obtain an improved estimate of the true common subspace $\mathbf{V}$. In fact, we use $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^{(i)}$ to build the \emph{multiple adjacency spectral embedding} (MASE), as follows. We define the $n \times m d$ matrix $\widehat{\mathbf{U}}$ by $\widehat{\mathbf{U}}=(\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^{(1)},\cdots,\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^{(m)})$
and we let $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ be the matrix of the top $d$ leading left singular vectors of $\widehat{\mathbf{U}}$. Figure~\ref{fig:alg1} provides a graphical illustration of the MASE procedure for a collection of stochastic blockmodels. We set $\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)} = \widehat{\mathbf{V}}^\top \mathbf{A} ^{(i)} \widehat{\mathbf{V}}$.
The MASE algorithm, then, outputs $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)},$ for $ 1 \leq i \leq m$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mase1}
\caption{Graphical representation of Algorithm \ref{alg:mase} for estimating the common invariant subspace $\mathbf{V}$ in a multilayer stochastic blockmodel (see Definition~\ref{definition:multilayerSBM}).}
\label{fig:alg1}
\end{figure}
The main contributions of the paper are listed as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We introduce the \emph{common subspace independent edge} (COSIE) model for multiple graphs. COSIE is a flexible, tractable model for random graphs that retains enough homogeneity---via the common subspace---for ease of estimation, and permits sufficient heterogeneity---via the potentially distinct score matrices $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$---to model important collections of different graphs. The COSIE model is appropriate for modeling a variety of real network phenomena. Indeed, the ubiquitous SBM is COSIE, and COSIE encompasses the important case of a collection of vertex-aligned SBMs \citep{Holland1983} whose block assignments are the same but whose block probability matrices may differ (Proposition~\ref{prop:sbm-is-cosie}). COSIE also provides a generalization to the multiple-graph setting of latent position models such as the \emph{random dot product graph} \citep{Young2007}.
\item The estimates obtained by MASE provide consistent estimates for the common subspace $\mathbf{V}$ and the score matrices $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$. In particular, Theorem~\ref{thm:V-Vhat} shows that under mild assumptions on the sparsity of the graphs, there exists a constant $C$ such that for all $n \geq n_0$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\left[\min_{\mathbf{W}\in\mathcal{O}_d}\|\widehat{\mathbf{V}}-\mathbf{V}\mathbf{W}\|_F\right] \leq C\left(\sqrt{\frac{1}{nm}} + \frac{1}{n}\right),
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{O}_d$ represents the set of $d \times d$ orthogonal matrices. This result employs bounds introduced by \cite{Fan2017} for subspace estimation in distributed covariance matrices. Furthermore, under delocalization assumptions on $\mathbf{V}$, we can show that the MASE estimates $\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}$ are asymptotically normal as the size of the graph $n$ increases, with a bias term that decays as $m$ increases. Namely, there exists a sequence of orthogonal matrices $\mathbf{W}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{\sigma_{i,k,l}}(\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)} - \mathbf{W}^\top\mathbf{R}^{(i)}\mathbf{W} + \mathbf{H})_{kl} \overset{d}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{N}(0, 1),
\end{equation*}
as $n \rightarrow \infty$, where $\mathbf{H}$ is a random matrix that satisfies $\mathbb{E}[\|\mathbf{H}\|_F]=O(\frac{d}{\sqrt{m}})$, $\sigma^2_{i,k,l}=O(1)$, and $\mathcal{N}(0, 1)$ is the standard normal distribution. The norm of the score matrices typically grows with the size of the graphs, and in particular, our method requires that $\|\mathbf{R}^{(i)}\|_F=\omega(\log n)$.
The asymptotic distribution result then
shows that the estimates of the score matrices obtained by MASE are accurate, allowing their use in subsequent inference tasks. These results and simulation evidence (see Figure~\ref{fig:eigs-m-hist} in Section~\ref{sec:simulations}) also suggest that the multiplicity of graphs in a COSIE can reduce the bias in eigenvalue estimation as observed in \cite{Tang2018b}.
\item The embedding method MASE can be successfully deployed for a number of subsequent network inference tasks, including dimensionality reduction, classification, hypothesis testing and community detection, and it performs competitively with respect to (and in some cases significantly better than) a number of existing procedures. In Section~\ref{sec:community-detection} we show the ability of the method to perform community detection in multilayer stochastic blockmodels.
Section \ref{sec:simulations} examines the empirical performance of MASE in a number of graph inference tasks. In particular, hypothesis testing on populations of graphs is a relatively nascent area in which methodologically sound procedures for graph comparison are scarce. Here, we demonstrate a preview (with more details in Section \ref{sec:simulations}) of the transformative impact MASE can have on graph hypothesis testing. COSIE also provides foundations for the critical (and wide-open) question of multi-sample graph hypothesis testing, whereby we can use these estimates for $\mathbf{V}$ and $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$ to build principled tests to compare different populations of networks.
\item COSIE and MASE are robust to the challenges of real data, and provide domain-relevant insights for real data analysis. In particular, COSIE and MASE can be deployed effectively in a pressing real-data problem: that of identifying differences in brain connectivity in medical imaging on human subjects. In Section~\ref{sec:data}, we use COSIE to model a collection of brain networks, specifically data from the HNU1 study \citep{Zuo2014} consisting of diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI), and show that the MASE procedure elucidates differences across heterogeneous networks but also recognizes important similarities, and provides a rigorous statistical framework within which biologically relevant differences can be assessed.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Related work}
Latent space approaches for the multiple graph data setting have been presented before, but they either tend to limit the heterogeneity in the distributions across the graphs, or include a large number of parameters, which complicate the scalability and interpretation. \citet{Levin2017} presents a method to estimate the latent positions for a set of graphs. Although the method can in principle obtain different latent positions for each graph that do not require any further Procrustes alignment, the method is only studied under a joint RDPG model which assumes that the latent positions of all the graphs are the same. \cite{Wang2017} introduced a semiparametric model for graphs that is able to effectively handle heterogeneous distributions. However, their model usually requires a larger number of parameters to represent the same distributions than COSIE, which complicates the interpretation, and the non-convexity of the problem makes estimation more difficult. In fact, to represent a multilayer SBM with $K$ communities this model requires to embed the graphs in a latent space of dimension $O(K^2)$, compared to $O(K)$ for COSIE (see Proposition~\ref{prop:sbm-is-cosie}). Tensor factorizations \citep{zhang2018tensor} provide a way to model the structure of a collection of matrices, but current approaches that are based on tensor decompositions or other matrix factorizations \citep{Zhang2019,wang2019common,Wang2019}
present challenges on estimation due to the non-convexity of the problem, and interpretation because of the large number of parameters. In particular, the model introduced in \citep{wang2019common} has a similar factorization structure to COSIE, but the non-convexity of the likelihood complicates the tractability of the model. More recently, \cite{Nielsen2018} studied a multiple RDPG model that is a special case of the model of \cite{Wang2017} by imposing further identifiability constraints. These constraints limit the ability of their model to represent heterogeneous distributions, and, in fact, it is not possible to obtain equivalent statements to Proposition~\ref{prop:sbm-is-cosie} under this model.
Bayesian formulations of this problem have also been introduced \citep{Durante2017, Durante2018}, but computational methods to fit these models limit their applicability to much smaller graphs, with vertices numbering only in the dozens. The COSIE model, on the other hand, is both flexible enough to account for important differences in a collection of heterogeneous graphs, while being tractable enough to allow for accurate and principled inference.
In the single graph setting, \cite{Sussman2012, Lyzinski2014, Athreya2016} showed that the ASE of a graph, $\widehat{\mathbf{X}}$, is a consistent, asymptotically normal estimate of underlying graph parameters for the RDPG model. In \cite{Levin2017}, it is shown that such a spectral embedding can be profitably deployed for estimation and testing in multiple independent graphs, when all the graphs are sampled from the same connection probability matrix $\mathbf{P}$. Here, the COSIE model provides the ground for studying a multiple heterogeneous graph setting, in which each graph $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}$ is sampled from a different connection probability $\mathbf{P}^{(i)}$.
The method for estimating the common invariant subspace is related to other similar methods in the literature. \cite{Crainiceanu2011} proposed a population singular value decomposition method for representing a sample of rectangular matrices with the same dimensions, and use it to study arrays of images. In a different work, \cite{Fan2017} introduced a method for estimating the principal components of distributed data. Their method computes the leading eigenvectors of the covariance matrix on each server, and then obtains the leading eigenvectors of the average of the subspace projections, which is shown to converge to the solution of PCA with the same rate as if the data were not distributed. Both methods correspond to the unscaled ASE version of MASE. In our case, we show that this particular way of estimating the parameters of the COSIE model results in a consistent estimator of the common invariant subspace, and asymptotically normal estimators of the individual parameters.
The MASE algorithm also provides a simple extension of spectral clustering to the multiple-graph setting when all graphs share the same community structure but possibly different interconnection matrices. This community detection method is scalable and can effectively handle the heterogeneity of the graphs. Other spectral approaches for this problem rely in averaging the adjacency matrices
\citep{Han,Bhattacharyya2018,paul2020spectral} or a transformation of them \citep{Bhattacharyya2017}, which requires stronger assumptions on the connection probabilities matrices or can increase the computational cost. Other approaches for this problem, including likelihood and modularity maximization \citep{Han,Peixoto,Mucha2010,paul2020spectral} require to solve large combinatorial problems, which usually limits their scalability.
\section{The model: Common subspace independent-edge random graphs (COSIE)\label{sec:model}}
We consider a sample of $m$ observed graphs $G^{(1)},\ldots, G^{(m)}$, with $G^{(i)} = (\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E}^{(i)})$, where $\mathcal{V}=\{1,\ldots,n\}$ denotes a set of $n$ labeled vertices, and $\mathcal{E}^{(i)}\subset \mathcal{V}\times \mathcal{V}$ is the set of edges corresponding to graph $i$. Assume the vertex sets are the same (or at least aligned). Assume the graphs are undirected, with no self-loops (it is worth emphasizing however, that these results can be easily extended to allow for loops, directed or weighted graphs).
For each graph $G^{(i)}$, denote by $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}$ to the $n\times n$ adjacency matrix that represents the edges; the matrix $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}$ is binary, symmetric and hollow, and $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}_{uv}=1$ if $(u,v)\in \mathcal{E}^{(i)}$.
Assume that the above-diagonal entries $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}_{uv}$, $v>u$, of the adjacency matrix for graph $i$ are independent Bernoulli random variables with $\mathbf{P}_{uv}$ the probability of an edge between vertex $u$ and vertex $v$. Consolidate these probabilities in the matrix $\mathbf{P}$.
To model the graphs we consider an independent-edge random graph framework, in which the edges of a graph $\mathbf{A}$ are conditionally independent given a probability matrix $\mathbf{P}\in[0,1]^{n\times n}$, so that each entry of $\mathbf{P}_{uv}$ denotes the probability of a Bernoulli random variable representing an edge between the corresponding vertices $u$ and $v$, and hence, the probability of observing a graph is given by
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{A}|\mathbf{P}) = \prod_{u>v}\mathbf{P}_{uv}^{\mathbf{A}_{uv}}(1-\mathbf{P}_{uv})^{1-\mathbf{A}_{uv}}.
\end{equation*}
We also write $\mathbf{P}=\mathbb{E}[\mathbf{A}|\mathbf{P}]$. This framework
encompasses many popular statistical models for graphs \citep{Holland1983,Hoff2002,Bickel2009} which differ in the way the structure of the matrix $\mathbf{P}$ is defined. In the single graph setting, imposing some structure in the matrix $\mathbf{P}$ is necessary to make the estimation problem feasible, as there is only one graph observation. Under this framework, we can characterize the distribution of a sample of graphs $\mathbf{A}^{(1)},\ldots, \mathbf{A}^{(k)}$ by modeling their expectations $\mathbf{P}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{P}^{(m)}$. As our goal is to model a heterogenous population of graphs with possible different distributions, we do not assume that the expected matrices are all equal, so as in the single graph setting, further assumptions on the structure of these matrices are necessary.
To introduce our model, we start by reviewing some models for a single graph that motivate our approach. One of such models is the \emph{random dot product graph} (RDPG) defined below.
\begin{definition}[Random dot product graph model \citep{Young2007}]
Let $\mathbf{X}=(X_1, \ldots, X_n)^\top\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$ be a matrix such that the inner product of any two rows satisfy $0\leq X_u^\top X_v\leq 1$. We say that a random adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}$ is distributed as a random dot product graph with latent positions $\mathbf{X}$, and write $\mathbf{A} \sim \rdpg{\mathbf{X}}$, if the conditional distribution of $\mathbf{A}$ given $\mathbf{X}$ is
\[\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{A}|\mathbf{X}) = \prod_{u>v} (X_u^\top X_v)^{\mathbf{A}_{uv}}(1 - X_u^\top X_v)^{1-\mathbf{A}_{uv}}.\]
\end{definition}
The RDPG is a type of latent space model \citep{Hoff2002} in which the rows of $\mathbf{X}$ correspond to latent positions of the vertices, and the probability of an edge between a pair of vertices is proportional to the angle between their corresponding latent vectors, which gives an appealing interpretation of the matrix of latent positions $\mathbf{X}$. Under the RDPG model, the matrix of edge probabilities satisfies $\mathbf{P}=\mathbf{X}\bX^\top $, so the RDPG framework contains the class of independent-edge graph distributions for which $\mathbf{P}$ is a positive semidefinite matrix with rank at most $d$. More recently,
\cite{Rubin-Delanchy2017} introduces the generalized RDPG (GRDPG) model, which extends this framework to the whole class of matrices $\mathbf{P}$ with rank at most $d$, by introducing a diagonal matrix $\mathbf{I}(p,q)$ to the model, such that $\mathbf{I}(p,q)$ is of size $d\times d$ and there are $p$ diagonal entries equal to $1$ and $q$ entries equal to $-1$. Given $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{I}(p,q)$, the edge probabilities are modeled as $\mathbf{P}=\mathbf{X}\mathbf{I}(p,q)\mathbf{X}^\top $, which keeps the interpretation of the latent space while extending the class of graphs that can be represented within this formulation.
The stochastic blockmodel (SBM) \citep{Holland1983} is a particular example of a RDPG in which there are only $K<n$ different rows in $\mathbf{X}$, aiming to model community structure in a graph. In a SBM, vertices are partitioned into $K$ different groups, so each vertex $u\in\mathcal{V}$ has a corresponding label $z_u\in\{1,\ldots,K\}$. The probability of an edge appearing between two vertices only
depends on their corresponding labels, and these probabilities are encoded in a matrix $\mathbf{B}\in\mathbb{R}^{K\times K}$ such that
\[\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{A}_{uv}=1|\mathbf{B}, z_u,z_v) =\mathbf{P}_{uv}= \mathbf{B}_{z_uz_v}.\]
To write the SBM as a RDPG, let $\mathbf{Z}\in\{0,1\}^{n\times K}$ be a binary matrix that denotes the community memberships of the vertices, with $\mathbf{Z}_{uk} = 1$ if $z_u=k$, and 0 otherwise. Then, the edge probability matrix of the SBM is
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{P} = \mathbf{Z}\mathbf{B}\mathbf{Z}^\top \label{eq:sbm1},
\end{equation}
and denote $\mathbf{A}\sim\sbm{\mathbf{Z}, \mathbf{B}}$. Let $\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{W}\mathbf{D}\mathbf{W}^\top $ be the eigendecomposition of $\mathbf{B}$. From this representation, it is easy to see that if we write $\mathbf{X} = \mathbf{Z} \mathbf{W}|\mathbf{D}|^{1/2}$, then the distribution of a SBM corresponds to a GRPDG graph with latent positions $\mathbf{X}$. In particular, if $\mathbf{B}$ is a positive semidefinite matrix, this is also a RDPG. Multiple extensions to the SBM have been proposed in order to produce a more realistic and flexible model, including degree heterogeneity \citep{Karrer2011a}, multiple community membership \citep{Airoldi2007}, or hierarchical partitions \citep{Lyzinski2017}. These extensions usually fall within the same framework of Equation~\eqref{eq:sbm1} by placing different constraints on the matrix $\mathbf{Z}$, and hence they can also be studied within the RDPG model.
In defining a model for multiple graphs, we adopt a low-rank assumption on the expected adjacency matrices, as the RDPG model and all the other special cases do. To leverage the information of multiple graphs, a common structure among them is necessary. We thus assume that all the expected adjacency matrices of the independent edge graphs share a common invariant subspace, but allow each individual matrix to be different within that subspace.
\begin{definition}[Common Subspace Independent Edge graphs]
Let
$$\mathbf{V}=(V_1,\ldots,V_n)^\top \in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$$
be a matrix with orthonormal columns, and $\mathbf{R}^{(1)},\ldots,\mathbf{R}^{(m)}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ be symmetric matrices such that $0\leq V_u^\top \mathbf{R}^{(i)}V_v\leq 1$ for all $u,v\in[n]$, $i\in[m]$. We say that the random adjacency matrices $\mathbf{A}^{(1)},\ldots, \mathbf{A}^{(m)}$ are jointly distributed according to the \emph{common subspace independent-edge} graph model with bounded rank $d$ and parameters $\mathbf{V}$ and $\mathbf{R}^{(1)},\ldots,\mathbf{R}^{(m)}$ if for each $i=1,\ldots,m$,
given $\mathbf{V}$ and $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$ the entries of each $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}$ are independent and distributed according to
\[\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{A}^{(i)}|\mathbf{V}, \mathbf{R}^{(i)}) = \prod_{u<v} (V_u^\top \mathbf{R}^{(i)}V_v)^{\mathbf{A}^{(i)}_{uv}}(1-V_u^\top \mathbf{R}^{(i)}V_v)^{1-\mathbf{A}^{(i)}_{uv}}.\]
We denote by $(\mathbf{A}^{(1)},\ldots,\mathbf{A}^{(m)})\sim \cosie{\mathbf{V}; \mathbf{R}^{(1)},\ldots, \mathbf{R}^{(m)}}$ to the joint model for the adjacency matrices.\label{definition:model}
\end{definition}
Under the COSIE graph model, the expected adjacency matrices of the graphs share a common invariant subspace $\mathbf{V}$ that can be interpreted, upon scaling by the score matrices, as the common joint latent positions of the $m$ graphs. This invariant subspace can only be identified up to an orthogonal transformation, so the interpretation of the latent positions is preserved. Note that each graph is marginally distributed as a GRDPG. The score matrices $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$ can be expressed as $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}= \mathbf{W}^{(i)}\mathbf{D}^{(i)}(\mathbf{W}^{(i)})^\top $ as the eigendecomposition of $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$, such that $\mathbf{W}^{(i)}$ is a orthogonal matrix of size $d\times d$, and $\mathbf{D}^{(i)}$ is a diagonal matrix containing the eigenvalues. Then, the corresponding latent positions of graph $i$ in the GRDPG model are given by $\mathbf{X}^{(i)}=\mathbf{V}\mathbf{W}^{(i)}|\mathbf{D}^{(i)}|^{1/2}$, with $(|\mathbf{D}|)_{uv} = |\mathbf{D}_{uv}|$.
The model also introduces individual score matrices $\mathbf{R}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{R}^{(m)}$ that control the connection probabilities between the edges of each graph. When an $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$ is diagonal, its entries contain the eigenvalues of the corresponding probability matrix $\mathbf{P}^{(i)}$, but in general $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$ does not have to be diagonal. Formal identifiability conditions of the model are discussed in Section~\ref{sec:identifiability}.
The COSIE model can capture any distribution of multiple independent-edge graphs with aligned vertices when the model is equipped with a distribution for the score matrices and $d$ is sufficiently large. That is, for any set of probability matrices $\mathbf{P}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{P}^{(m)},$ there exist an embedding dimension $d\leq n$ such that those matrices can be represented with the COSIE model. Indeed, it is trivial to note that if $d=n$, we can set $\mathbf{V}=\mathbf{I}$ and $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}=\mathbf{P}^{(i)}$. However, for many classes of interest, the embedding dimension $d$ necessary to exactly or approximately represent the graphs is usually much smaller than $n$. In those cases, the COSIE model can effectively reduce the dimensionality of the problem from $O(mn^2)$ different parameters to only $O(nd + md^2)$.
To motivate our model, we consider the \emph{multilayer stochastic blockmodel} for multiple graphs, originally introduced by \cite{Holland1983}. In this model, the community labels of the vertices remain fixed across all the graphs in the population, but the connection probability between and within communities can be different on each graph. The parsimony and simplicity of the model, while maintining heterogeneity across the graphs, has allowed its use in different statistical tasks, including community detection \citep{Han},
multiple graph inference \citep{Pavlovic2019,Kim2019} and modelling time-varying networks \citep{Matias2016}. In brain networks, communities are usually in agreement with functional brain systems, which are common across individuals \citep{power2011functional}. Formally, the model is defined as follows.
\begin{definition}[Multilayer stochastic blockmodel \citep{Holland1983}] Let $\mathbf{Z}\in\{0,1\}^{n\times K}$ be a matrix such that $\sum_{k=1}^K\mathbf{Z}_{uk}=1$ for each $u\in[n]$, and
$\mathbf{B}^{(1)},\ldots, \mathbf{B}^{(m)}\in[0,1]^{K\times K}$ be symmetric matrices. The random adjacency matrices $\mathbf{A}^{(1)},\ldots,\mathbf{A}^{(m)}$ are jointly distributed as a multilayer SBM, denoted by $(\mathbf{A}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{A}^{(m)}) \sim\sbm{\mathbf{Z}; \mathbf{B}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{B}^{(i)}}$, if each $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}$ is independently distributed as $\sbm{\mathbf{Z}, \mathbf{B}^{(i)}}$.
\label{definition:multilayerSBM}
\end{definition}
The next proposition formalizes our intuition statement about the semiparametric aspect of the model. Namely, the COSIE graph model can represent a multilayer SBM with $K$ communities using a dimension $d$ that is at most $K$. The proof can be found in the appendix.
\begin{proposition}
Suppose that $\mathbf{Z}\in\{0,1\}^{n\times K}$ and $\mathbf{B}^{(1)},\ldots, \mathbf{B}^{(m)}\in[0,1]^{K\times K}$ are the parameters of the multilayer SBM. Then, for some $d\leq K$, there exists a matrix with orthonormal columns $\mathbf{V}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$ and symmetric matrices $\mathbf{R}^{(1)},\ldots, \mathbf{R}^{(m)}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{B}^{(i)}\mathbf{Z}^\top = \mathbf{V}\mathbf{R}^{(i)}\mathbf{V}^\top .
\end{equation*} \label{prop:sbm-is-cosie}
\end{proposition}
The previous result shows that the multilayer SBM is a special case of the COSIE model. Conversely, if $\mathbf{V}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$ is the invariant subspace of the COSIE model, and $\mathbf{V}$ has only $K$ different rows, then the COSIE model is equivalent to the multilayer SBM.
Furthermore, several extensions of the single-graph SBM can be translated directly into the multilayer setting, and are also contained within the COSIE model. By allowing the matrix $\mathbf{Z}$ to have more than one non-zero value on each row, overlapping memberships can be incorporated \citep{Latouche2011}, and if the rows of $\mathbf{Z}$ are nonnegative real numbers such that $\sum_{k=1}^K\mathbf{Z}_{uk}=1$ then we obtain an extension of the mixed membership model \citep{Airoldi2007}, which can further incorporate degree heterogeneity by multiplying the rows of $\mathbf{Z}$ by a constant \citep{Zhang2014}. More broadly, if the rows of $\mathbf{V}$ in a COSIE graph are characterized by a hierarchical structure, then the graphs correspond to a multilayer extension of the hierarchical SBM
\citep{Lyzinski2017}. Some of these extensions have not been presented before, and hence our work provides an avenue for studying these models, which are interesting in various applications.
\subsection{Identifiability\label{sec:identifiability}}
In the COSIE model, note that any orthogonal transformation $\mathbf{W}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ of the parameters keeps the probability matrix of the model unchanged. Indeed, observe that
\[\mathbf{P}^{(i)} = \mathbf{V}\mathbf{R}^{(i)}\mathbf{V}^\top = (\mathbf{V}\mathbf{W})(\mathbf{W}^\top \mathbf{R}^{(i)}\mathbf{W})(\mathbf{V}\mathbf{W})^\top ,\]
and therefore the most we can hope is that the parameters of the model are identifiable within the equivalence class
\[\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{V}, \{\mathbf{R}^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^m) = \{\mathbf{U},\{\mathbf{S}^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^m| \ \mathbf{U} =\mathbf{V}\mathbf{W}, \mathbf{S}^{(i)}=\mathbf{W}^\top \mathbf{R}^{(i)}\mathbf{W}, i\in[m]\text{ for some }\mathbf{W}\in\mathcal{O}_{d}\}.\]
This non-identifiability is unavoidable in many latent space models, including the RDPG. However, with multiple graphs the situation is more nuanced, as we do not require the probability matrix of each graph to have the same rank. Note that Definition \ref{definition:model} does not restrict the matrices $\mathbf{R}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{R}^{(m)}$ to be full rank, so the rank of each individual graph can be smaller than the dimension of the joint model.
The following proposition characterizes the identifiability of the model. Recall that for a given matrix $\mathbf{R}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ with singular value decomposition $\mathbf{R}=\mathbf{U}_1\mathbf{S}\mathbf{U}_2$, where $\mathbf{U}_1,\mathbf{U}_2\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ are orthogonal matrices and $\mathbf{S}$ is a non-negative diagonal matrix, the spectral norm is given by $\|\mathbf{R}\|:=\max_{i\in[d]} \mathbf{S}_{ii}$, and the Frobenius norm is defined as $\|\mathbf{R}\|_F:=\left(\sum_{i=1}^d\sum_{j=1}^d\mathbf{R}_{ij}^2\right)^{1/2}$.
The proof of the next result is given on the appendix.
\begin{proposition}[Model identifiability.] \label{prop:identifiability}
Let $\mathbf{V}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$ be a matrix with orthonormal columns and $\mathbf{R}^{(1)},\ldots, \mathbf{R}^{(m)}$ be symmetric matrices such that these are the parameters of the bounded rank $d$ COSIE model.
\begin{enumerate}[a)]
\item For any for any pair of indices $i,j\in[m]$, the pairwise spectral distance $\|\mathbf{R}^{(i)}-\mathbf{R}^{(j)}\|$ and the Frobenius distance $\|\mathbf{R}^{(i)}-\mathbf{R}^{(j)}\|_F$ are identifiable.
\item Define $\widetilde\mathbf{R}=\left(\mathbf{R}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{R}^{(m)}\right)\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times dm}$. If the matrix $\widetilde\mathbf{R}$ has a full rank, then $\mathbf{V}$ is identifiable up to an orthogonal transformation
\item Given $\mathbf{V}$, the matrices $\mathbf{R}^{(1)},\ldots,\mathbf{R}^{(m)}$ are identifiable.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
The previous results present identifiability characterizations at different levels. At the weakest level, the first part of Proposition~\ref{prop:identifiability} ensures that even if the parameters are not identifiable, the Frobenius or spectral distances between the score matrices of the graphs are unique. This property allows the use of distance-based methods for any subsequent inference in multiple graph problems, such as multidimensional scaling, $k$-means or $k$-nearest neighbors; some examples are shown in Section~\ref{sec:simulations} and \ref{sec:data}.
Proposition~\ref{prop:identifiability} also provides an identifiability condition for the invariant subspace $\mathbf{V}$. The matrices $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$ do not need to have the same rank, but the joint model may require a larger dimension to represent all the graphs, which is given by the rank of $\mathbf{R}$. To illustrate this scenario, consider the multilayer SBM with 3 communities. Let $\mathbf{B}^{(1)}, \mathbf{B}^{(2)}\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$ be real matrices, $\mathbf{Z}\in\{0,1\}^{n\times 3}$ a community membership matrix, and $a>b$ some constants so that
\[\mathbf{B}^{(1)} = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
a & b & b\\
b & a & a\\
b & a & a
\end{array}\right), \quad\quad\quad \mathbf{B}^{(2)} = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
a & a & b\\
a & a & b\\
b & b & a
\end{array}\right).\]
Although the joint model contains three communities, each matrix $\mathbf{B}^{(i)}$ is rank 2, so each graph individually only contains two communities. However, since the concatenated matrix whose columns are given by $\left(\mathbf{B}^{(1)},\mathbf{B}^{(2)}\right)$ has full rank (i.e rank 3),
the three communities of the model can be identified in the joint model, and thus this can be represented as a rank-3 COSIE model.
The last part of Proposition~\ref{prop:identifiability} shows that the individual parameters of a graph $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$ are only identifiable with respect to a given basis of the eigenspace $\mathbf{V}$, and hence, all the interpretations that can be derived from depending only on $\mathbf{V}$. Some instances of the COSIE model, including the multilayer SBM, provide specific characterizations of $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$ that can facilitate further interpretation of the parameters.
\section{Fitting COSIE by spectral embedding of multiple adjacency matrices \label{sec:fit}}
This section presents a method to fit the
model provided in Definition~\ref{definition:model} to a sample of $m$ adjacency matrices $(\mathbf{A}^{(1)},\ldots, \mathbf{A}^{(m)})\sim\cosie{\mathbf{V}; \mathbf{R}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{R}^{(m)}}$. Fitting the model requires an estimator $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ for the common subspace $\mathbf{V}$, for which we present a spectral approach. Given an estimated common subspace, we estimate the individual score matrices $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$ for each graph by least squares, which has a simple solution in out setting. In all of our analysis, we assume that the dimension of the model $d$ is known in advance, but we present a method to estimate it in practice.
We start by defining the \emph{adjacency spectral embedding} (ASE) of an adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}$, which is a standard tool for estimating the latent positions of a RDPG.
\begin{definition}[Adjacency spectral embedding \citep{Sussman2012,Rubin-Delanchy2017}]
For an adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}$, let $\mathbf{A}=\widehat{\mathbf{V}}\widehat{\mathbf{D}}\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^\top + \widehat{\mathbf{V}}_\perp\widehat{\mathbf{D}}_\perp\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^\top _\perp$ be the eigendecomposition of $\mathbf{A}$ such that $(\widehat{\mathbf{V}}, \widehat{\mathbf{V}}_\perp)$ is the $n\times n$ orthogonal matrix of eigenvectors, with $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$, $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}_\perp\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times(n- d)}$, and $\widehat{\mathbf{D}}$ is a diagonal matrix containing the $d$ largest eigenvalues in magnitude. The \emph{scaled adjacency spectral embedding} of $\mathbf{A}$ is defined as $\widehat{\mathbf{X}}=\widehat{\mathbf{V}}|\widehat{\mathbf{D}}|^{1/2}$. We refer to $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ as the \emph{unscaled adjacency spectral embedding}, or simply as the leading eigenvectors of $\mathbf{A}$.
\end{definition}
The ASE provides a consistent and asymptotically normal estimator of the corresponding latent positions under the RDPG and GRDPG models as the number of vertices $n$ increases \citep{Sussman2014,Athreya2017,Rubin-Delanchy2017}. Therefore, under the COSIE model for which $\mathbf{P}=\mathbf{V}\mathbf{R}\mathbf{V}^\top $, the matrix $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ obtained by ASE is a consistent estimator of $\mathbf{V}$, up to an orthogonal transformation, provided that the corresponding $\mathbf{R}$ has full rank. This suggests that given a sample of adjacency matrices, one can simply use the unscaled ASE of any single graph to obtain an estimator of $\mathbf{V}$. However, this method is not leveraging the information about $\mathbf{V}$ on all the graphs.
To give an intuition in how to fit the joint model for the data, we first consider working with the expected probability matrix of each graph $\mathbf{P}^{(i)}$. For simplicity in all our analysis here, we assume that all the matrices $\mathbf{R}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{R}^{(m)}$ have full rank, so each matrix $\mathbf{P}^{(i)}$ has exactly $d$ non-zero eigenvalues. Let $\mathbf{V}^{(i)}$ and $\mathbf{X}^{(i)}$ be the unscaled and scaled ASE of the matrix $\mathbf{P}^{(i)}$. Then
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{V}^{(i)} & = \mathbf{V}\mathbf{W}^{(i)}, \\
\mathbf{X}^{(i)} & = \mathbf{V}\mathbf{W}^{(i)}|\mathbf{D}^{(i)}|^{1/2},
\end{align*}
for some orthogonal matrix $\mathbf{W}^{(i)}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$, and a diagonal matrix $\mathbf{D}^{(i)}$ containing the eigenvalues of $\mathbf{P}^{(i)}$. Note that the matrices $\mathbf{W}^{(i)}$ are possibly different for each graph, which is problematic when we want to leverage the information of all the graphs. Consider the matrix
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{U} & = \left(\mathbf{V}^{(1)} \ \cdots \ \mathbf{V}^{(m)}\right),
\end{align*}
that is formed by concatenating the unscaled ASEs of each graph, resulting in matrices of size $n\times (dm)$. Alternatively, consider the same matrix but concatenating the scaled ASEs, given by
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{U}' & = \left(\mathbf{X}^{(1)} \ \cdots \ \mathbf{X}^{(m)}\right).
\end{align*}
Note that both matrices $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{U}'$ are rank $d$, and the $d$ left singular vectors of either of them corresponds to the common subspace $\mathbf{V}$, up to some orthogonal transformation. The SVD step effectively aligns the multiple ASEs to a common spectral embedding. In the scaled ASE, the SVD also eliminates the effect of the eigenvalues of each graph, which are nuisance parameters in the common subspace estimation problem.
In practice, we do not have access to the expected value of the matrices $\mathbf{P}^{(i)}$, but we use the procedure described above with the adjacency matrices to obtain an estimator $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ of the common subspace. Given $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$, we proceed to estimate the individual parameters of the graphs by minimizing a least squares function,
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)} = \argmin_{\mathbf{R}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}}\|\mathbf{A}^{(i)} - \widehat{\mathbf{V}}\mathbf{R}\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^\top \|_F^2 = \argmin_{\mathbf{R}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}}\|\mathbf{R} - \widehat{\mathbf{V}}^\top \mathbf{A}^{(i)}\widehat{\mathbf{V}}\|_F^2,
\end{equation*}
and so, the estimator has a closed form given by
\[\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}= \widehat{\mathbf{V}}^\top \mathbf{A}^{(i)}\widehat{\mathbf{V}}.\]
Once these parameters are known, one can also estimate the matrix of edge probabilities as $$\widehat{\mathbf{P}}^{(i)}=\widehat{\mathbf{V}}\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^\top .$$
We call this procedure the \emph{multiple adjacency spectral embedding} (MASE), and it is summarized in Algorithm~\ref{alg:mase}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Multiple adjacency spectral embedding (MASE)}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Input Sample of graphs $\mathbf{A}^{(1)},\ldots,\mathbf{A}^{(m)}$; embedding dimensions $d$ and $\{d_i\}_{i=1}^m$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each $i\in[m]$, obtain the adjacency spectral embedding of $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}$ on $d_i$ dimensions, and denote it by $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^{(i)}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d_i}$.
\item Let $\widehat{\mathbf{U}}= \left( \widehat{\mathbf{V}}^{(1)} \ \cdots \ \widehat{\mathbf{V}}^{(m)}\right)$ be the $n\times\left(\sum_{i=1}^m d_i\right)$ matrix of concatenated spectral embeddings.
\item Define $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}\in\mathbb{\mathbf{R}}^{n\times d}$ as the matrix containing the $d$ leading left singular values of $\widehat{\mathbf{U}}$.
\item For each $i\in[m]$, set $\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)} = \widehat{\mathbf{V}}^\top \mathbf{A}^{(i)}\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\Output $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}, \{\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^m$.
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg:mase}
\end{algorithm}
The MASE method presented for estimating the parameters of the COSIE model only relies on singular value decompositions, and hence it is simple and computationally scalable. This method extends the ideas of a single spectral graph embedding to a multiple graph setting. The first step of Algorithm~\ref{alg:mase}, which is typically the major burden of the method, can be carried in parallel. The estimation of the score matrices only requires to know an estimate for $\mathbf{V}$, and hence allows to easily compute an out-of-sample-embedding for a new graph $\mathbf{A}^{(m+1)}$ without having to update all the parameter estimates.
Figure \ref{fig:alg1} shows a graphical representation of MASE for estimating the common subspace of a set of four graphs. The graphs correspond to the multilayer SBM with two communities, and the connection matrices $\mathbf{B}^{(i)}$ are selected in a way that the graphs have an heterogeneous structure within the sample. Note that after step 1 of Algorithm~\ref{alg:mase} the latent positions obtained by ASE are slightly rotated relatively to each graph. After estimating the common subspace by SVD, a common set of latent positions is found, which look tightly clustered within their community, showing that MASE is able to leverage the information of all the graphs in this example.
The first step of Algorithm~\ref{alg:mase} corresponds to a separate ASE of each graph. We stated the algorithm using the unscaled version of the ASE, and later in Section~\ref{sec:theory}, we show that this version of the method is consistent in estimating the common subspace $\mathbf{V}$. In practice, this step can be replaced with other spectral embeddings of $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}$, including the scaled version described above. Note that the scaled ASE also makes use of the eigenvalues, and thus it puts more weight onto the columns of the matrix $\widehat{\mathbf{U}}'$ that correspond to the eigenvectors associated with the largest eigenvalues, which can be convenient, especially if the dimension $d$ is overestimated. Other spectral embeddings that also aim to estimate the eigenspace of the adjacency matrices, including the Laplacian spectral embedding or a regularized version of it \citep{Priebe2018,Le2017}, might be preferred in some circumstances, but we do not explore this direction further.
\subsection{Choice of embedding dimension}
In practice, the dimension of the common subspace $d$ is usually unknown. Moreover, each individual $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$ might not be full rank, and so estimating a different embedding dimension $d_i$ for each graph might be necessary. The actual values of $d$ and $\{d_i\}$ correspond to the ranks of $\mathbf{U}$ and $\{\mathbf{P}^{(i)}\}$ respectively, and so they can be approximated by estimating the ranks of $\{\widehat{\mathbf{A}}^{(i)}\}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{U}}$. The scree plot method, which consists in looking for an elbow in the plot of ordered singular values of a matrices, provides an estimator of these quantities, and can be automatically performed using the method proposed by \cite{Zhu2006}. We use this method to fit the model to real data in Section \ref{sec:data}.
\section{Theoretical results\label{sec:theory}}
In this section, we study the statistical performance of Algorithm~\ref{alg:mase} in estimating the parameters of the COSIE model when a sample of graphs is given.
We first study the expected error in estimating the common subspace, and show that this error decreases as a function of the number of graphs. This result demonstrates that our method is able to leverage the information of the multiple graphs to improve the estimation of $\mathbf{V}$.
To study the estimation error of our method, we consider a sequence of parameters of the COSIE model $\{\mathbf{R}^{(1, n)}, \ldots, \mathbf{R}^{(m, n)}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}, \mathbf{V}^{(n)}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}\}_{n=n_0}^\infty$, and present non-asymptotic error bounds on the estimation of $\mathbf{V}^{(n)}$, as well as a result on the asymptotic distribution of the estimators of the score matrices as $n$ goes to infinity.
The magnitude of the entries of the parameters typically changes with $n$, and in order to obtain consistent estimators we will require that $\|\mathbf{R}^{(i,n)}\|\rightarrow \infty$. This is a natural assumption considering the fact that $\mathbf{R}^{(i,n)}$ contains the eigenvalues of the expected adjacency matrix of a graph, and requiring these eigenvalues to grow as $n$ increases is necessary in order to control the error of the ASE \citep{Athreya2017}. In the following, we omit the dependence of the parameters in $n$ to ease the notation. To simplify the analysis, we also assume that all the score matrices $\mathbf{R}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{R}^{(m)}$ have full rank.
Our next theorem introduces a bound on the expected error in estimating the common subspace of the COSIE model, which is the basis of our theoretical results. The proof of this result relies on bounds from \cite{Fan2017} for studying the eigenvector estimation error in distributed PCA. However, our setting presents some substantial differences, including the distribution of the data and the fact that the expected adjacency matrices are not jointly diagonalizable. Moreover, the scaled version of the algorithm adds the complication of working with eigenvalues, and extending the theory to this case is more challenging. We thus work with the unscaled version of the ASE in Algorithm \ref{alg:mase}. Before stating the theorem, we introduce some notation. For a given square symmetric matrix $\mathbf{M}\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$, denote by $\lambda_1(\mathbf{M})\geq \ldots \geq \lambda_r(\mathbf{M})$ to the ordered eigenvalues of $\mathbf{M}$, and define
$\lambda_{\min}(\mathbf{M})$ and $\lambda_{\max}(\mathbf{M})$ as the smallest and largest eigenvalue in magnitude of $\mathbf{M}$, and $\delta(\mathbf{M})=\max_{u\in[r]}\sum_{v=1}^r\mathbf{M}_{uv}$ the largest sum of the rows of $\mathbf{M}$. Given a pair of sequences $\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ and $\{b_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$, denote by $a_n\lesssim b_n$ if there exists some constant $C>0,n_0>0$ such that $a_n\leq Cb_n$ for all $n\geq n_0$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thrm:COSIE Expectation Bound} Let $\mathbf{R}^{(1)},\ldots,\mathbf{R}^{(m)}$ be a collection of full rank symmetric matrices of size $d\times d$, $\mathbf{V}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$ a matrix with orthonormal columns, and $(\mathbf{A}^{(1)},\ldots, \mathbf{A}^{(m)})\sim\cosie{\mathbf{V}, \mathbf{R}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{R}^{(m)}}$ a sample of $m$ random adjacency matrices, and set $\mathbf{P}^{(i)} = \mathbf{V}\mathbf{R}^{(i)}\mathbf{V}^\top $. Define
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon = \sqrt{\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m \frac{\delta(\mathbf{P}^{(i)})}{\lambda_{\min}^2(\mathbf{R}^{(i)})}}.\label{eq:AVPVerror}
\end{equation}
Let $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ be the estimator of $\mathbf{V}$ obtained by Algorithm~\ref{alg:mase}. Suppose that $\min_{i\in[m]} \delta(\mathbf{P}^{(i)})=\omega(\log n)$ and $\varepsilon=o(1)$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Then,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[\min_{\mathbf{W}\in\mathcal{O}_d}\|\widehat{\mathbf{V}}-\mathbf{V}\mathbf{W}\|_F\right] \lesssim \sqrt{\frac{d}{m}}\varepsilon + \sqrt{d}\varepsilon^2. \label{eq:theorem-bound}
\end{equation}
\label{thm:V-Vhat}
\end{theorem}
\noindent The above theorem requires two conditions on the expected adjacency matrices, that control the estimation error of each ASE for a single graph. First, the largest expected vertex degree $\delta(\mathbf{P}^{(i)})$ needs to grow at rate $\omega(\log n )$ to ensure the concentration in spectral norm of the adjacency matrix to its expectation (see Theorem 20 of \cite{Athreya2017}). Second, the condition $\varepsilon=o(1)$ is required to control the average estimation error of each ASE. For this condition to hold, it is enough to have that $\delta(\mathbf{P}^{(i)})=o\left(\lambda^2_{\min}(\mathbf{R}^{(i)})\right)$ for each graph $i\in[m]$. In particular, observe that
$$\delta(\mathbf{P}^{(i)})= \|\mathbf{P}^{(i)}\|_1 \leq \sqrt{n}\lambda_{\max}(\mathbf{R}^{(i)}),$$
so it is sufficient that $\max_{i\in[m]}\frac{\lambda_{\max}(\mathbf{R}^{(i)})}{\lambda_{\min}^2(\mathbf{R}^{(i)})} = o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)$. Specific conditions for the multilayer SBM that relate the community sizes and the eigenvalues of the connection probability matrices are presented in Section~\ref{sec:community-detection}.
Theorem~\ref{thm:V-Vhat} theorem bounds the expected error in estimating the subspace of $\mathbf{V}$ by the sum of two terms in Equation~\eqref{eq:theorem-bound}. To understand these terms, note that the error can be partitioned as
\begin{align}
\min_{\mathbf{W}\in\mathcal{O}_d}\|\widehat{\mathbf{V}}-\mathbf{V}\mathbf{W}\|_F & \leq \|\widehat{\mathbf{V}}\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^\top -\mathbf{V}\bV^\top \|_F \nonumber\\
& \leq \left\|\widehat{\mathbf{V}}\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^\top -\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}^\top \right\|_F + \left\|\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}^\top -\mathbf{V}\bV^\top \right\|_F,
\label{eq:theory-bias-variance}
\end{align}
where $\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}$ is the matrix containing the $d$ leading eigenvectors of $\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m\mathbb{E}\big[\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^{(i)}(\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^{(i)})^\top \big]$.
The first term of the right hand side of Equation~\eqref{eq:theory-bias-variance} measures the variance of the estimated projection matrix, which corresponds to the first term in Equation~\eqref{eq:theorem-bound}.
Thus, this term converges to zero as the number of graphs increases. The estimated projection is not unbiased, and therefore the second term of Equation~\ref{eq:theory-bias-variance} is always positive, but its order is usually smaller than the variance. This bound is a function of $\varepsilon$, which quantifies the average error in estimating $\mathbf{V}$ by using the leading eigenvectors of $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}$ on each network. Note that the inclusion of an orthogonal transformation $\mathbf{W}$ has to do with the fact that the common subspace is only identifiable up to such transformation.
The above result establishes that when the sample size $m$ is small ($m\lesssim 1/\varepsilon$), the variance term dominates the error as observed in the left hand side of Equation \eqref{eq:theorem-bound}, but as the sample size increases this term vanishes. The second term is the bias of estimating $\mathbf{V}$ by using the leading eigenvectors of each network, and this term dominates when the sample size is large. These type of results are common in settings when a global estimator is obtained from the average of local estimators \citep{Lee2017,Arroyo2016,Fan2017}.
To illustrate the result of Theorem \ref{thm:V-Vhat}, consider the following example on the Erd\"os-R\'enyi (ER) model \citep{Erdos1959,Gilbert1959}. In the ER random graph model $G(n,p)$, the edges between any pair of the $n$ vertices are formed independently with a constant probability $p$. We consider a sample of adjacency matrices $\mathbf{A}^{(1)}, \ldots,\mathbf{A}^{(m)}$, each of them having a different edge probability $p_1,\ldots, p_m$ so that $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}\sim G(n, p_i)$. By defining $\mathbf{V}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\textbf{1}_n$, where $\textbf{1}_n$ is the $n$-dimensional vector with all entries equal to one, we can represent these graphs under the COSIE model by setting $\mathbf{P}^{(i)} = p_in\mathbf{V}\bV^\top $. Hence, $\delta(\mathbf{P}^{(i)}) = p_in$ and
$$\varepsilon = \sqrt{\frac{1}{nm}\sum_{i=1}^m \frac{1}{p_i}}.$$
Therefore, if $p_i=\omega(\log(n)/n)$, Theorem \ref{thm:V-Vhat} implies that
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[\min_{\mathbf{W}\in\mathcal{O}_d}\|\widehat{\mathbf{V}}-\mathbf{V}\mathbf{W}\|_F\right] & \lesssim \sqrt{\frac{1}{nm^2}\sum_{i=1}^m \frac{1}{p_i}} + {\frac{1}{nm}\sum_{i=1}^m \frac{1}{p_i}}
\end{align*}
In the dense regime when $p_i=\omega(1)$, the error of estimating the common subspace is of order $O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{nm}}+\frac{1}{n}\right)$. An alternative estimator for the common subspace $\mathbf{V}$ is given by the ASE of the mean adjacency matrix, $\operatorname{ASE}\left(\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m\mathbf{A}^{(i)}\right)$, for which the expected subspace estimation error is $O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{mn}}\right)$ \citep{Tang2018}. When $m\lesssim n$, the error rate of both estimators coincide. However, the estimator of \cite{Tang2018} is only valid when all the graphs have the same expected adjacency matrices, and can perform poorly in heterogeneous populations of graphs (see Section \ref{sec:simulations}).
%
The ER model described above can be regarded as a special case of the multilayer SBM with only one community, which we consider next.
\subsection{Perfect recovery in community detection \label{sec:community-detection}}
Estimation of the common subspace in the multilayer SBM is of particular interest due to its relation with the community detection problem \citep{Girvan2002,Abbe2017}. In the multilayer SBM with $K$ communities, the matrix of the common subspace basis $\mathbf{V}$ has $K$ different rows, each of them corresponding to a different community. An accurate estimator $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ will then reflect this structure, and when the community labels of the vertices are not known, clustering the rows of $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ into $K$ groups can reveal these labels. Different clustering procedures can be used for this goal, and in this section we focus on $K$-means clustering defined next. Suppose that $\mathcal{Z}$ is the set of valid membership matrices for $n$ vertices and $K$ communities, that is,
\[\mathcal{Z} = \left\{\mathbf{Z}\in\{0,1\}^{n\times K}:\ \sum_{v=1}^K\mathbf{Z}_{uv}=1,\ u\in[n] \right\}.\]
The community assignments are obtained by solving the $K$-means problem
\begin{equation}
(\widehat{\mathbf{Z}}, \widehat{\mathbf{C}}) = \argmin_{\widetilde{\mathbf{Z}}\in\mathcal{Z}, \widetilde{\mathbf{C}}\in\mathbb{R}^{K\times K}}\|\widetilde{\mathbf{Z}}\widetilde{\mathbf{C}}-\widehat{\mathbf{V}}\|_F.
\label{eq:k-means}
\end{equation}
The matrix $\widehat{\mathbf{Z}}$ thus contains the estimated community assignments, and $\widehat{\mathbf{C}}$ their corresponding centroids.
To understand the performance in community detection of the procedure described above, consider a multilayer SBM with parameters $\mathbf{B}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{B}^{(m)}\in[0,1]^{K\times K}$ and $\mathbf{Z}\in\{0,1\}^{n\times K}$. Denote the community sizes by $n_1,\ldots,n_K$, such that $\sum_{j=1}^k n_j=n$, and define the quantities $\mathbf{\Xi}=\operatorname{diag}(n_1,\ldots, n_K)$, $n_{\min}=\min_{j\in[K]}n_j$, $n_{\max}=\max_{j\in[K]}n_j$ and $\mathbf{P}^{(i)}=\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{B}^{(i)}\mathbf{Z}^\top $. To obtain a consistent estimator of the common invariant subspace, the following assumption is required.
\begin{assumption} \label{assumption:multilayer-SBM-parameters}
There exist some absolute constants $\kappa\in(0,1], \gamma >0$ such that for all $i\in[m]$,
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\sqrt{K} \left(\sum_{j=1}^Kn_j^2\right)^{1/2}}{n_{\min}^{2-\kappa}}\frac{\lambda_1(\mathbf{B}^{(i)})}{\lambda_{\min}^2(\mathbf{B}^{(i)})} \leq \gamma.
\end{equation*}
\end{assumption}
The previous assumption requires a uniform control on ratios of the community sizes and the eigenvalues of the connectivity matrices. When all communities have comparable sizes (i.e., $n_{\min}\geq cn_{\max}$ for some absolute constant $c>0$), then the smallest eigenvalue of each $\mathbf{B}^{(i)}$ is allowed to approach zero at a rate
\[|\lambda_{\min}(\mathbf{B}^{(i)})| = \Omega\left(\frac{\sqrt{K}\lambda^{1/2}_1(\mathbf{B}^{(i)})}{n^{1/2-\kappa/2}}\right).\]
On the other hand, if the smallest eigenvalue of each $\mathbf{B}^{(i)}$ is bounded away from zero by an absolute constant, then the size of the largest community can be at most $n_{\max}= O\left(\frac{n_{\min}^{2-\kappa}}{K}\right)$.
The next Corollary is a consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:V-Vhat} for the multilayer SBM setting. The proof is given on the Appendix.
\begin{corollary}
Consider a sample of $m$ adjacency matrices from the multilayer SBM
\[(\mathbf{A}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{A}^{(m)})\sim\sbm{\mathbf{Z}; \mathbf{B}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{B}^{(m)}},\]
and let $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ the estimated subspace from Algorithm \ref{alg:mase}.
Suppose that $n_{\min}=\omega(1)$, $\delta(\mathbf{P}^{(i)})=\omega(\log n)$, and that Assumption~\ref{assumption:multilayer-SBM-parameters} holds. Then, for sufficiently large $n$,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[\min_{\mathbf{W}\in\mathcal{O}_d}\|\widehat{\mathbf{V}}-\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{\Xi}^{-1/2}\mathbf{W}\|_F\right] \lesssim \sqrt{\frac{\gamma K}{mn_{\min}^\kappa}}+ \frac{\gamma\sqrt{K}}{n_{\min}^\kappa}.
\end{equation}\label{cor:sbm-V-Z}
\end{corollary}
The above corollary presents sufficient conditions for consistent estimation of the common invariant subspace, which contains the information of the community labels encoded in the matrix $\mathbf{Z}$. The corollary requires the size of the smallest community to grow as $n$ increases, which is something commonly assumed in the literature \citep{Rohe2011,Lyzinski2014}.
The following result provides a bound on the expected number of misclustered vertices after clustering the rows of $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ according to Equation~\eqref{eq:k-means}. Due to the non-identifiability of the community labels, these are recovered up to a permutation $\mathbf{Q}\in\mathcal{P}_K$, where $\mathcal{P}_K$ is the set of $K\times K$ permutation matrices.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:community-detection}
Suppose that $\widehat{\mathbf{Z}}$ is the membership matrix obtained by Equation~\eqref{eq:k-means}. Under the conditions of Corollary~\ref{cor:sbm-V-Z}, there exist some absolute constants $\gamma>0$, $\kappa\in(0,1]$ such that the expected number of misclustered vertices satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:thm-communitydetection}
\mathbb{E}\left[\min_{\mathbf{Q}\in\mathcal{P}_K}\|\widehat{\mathbf{Z}}-\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{Q}\|_F\right] \lesssim
\sqrt{\frac{\gamma Kn_{\max}}{mn_{\min}^\kappa}} + \frac{\gamma\sqrt{Kn_{\max}}}{n_{\min}^{\kappa}}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Similar to the estimation error of the the common subspace in Theorem \ref{thm:V-Vhat}, the bound on the expected clustering error depends on two terms in Equation~\eqref{eq:thm-communitydetection}. When the number of graphs $m$ increases, the first term vanishes. The second term also decays to zero as long as $Kn_{\max}=o(n_{\min}^{2\kappa})$, and therefore the algorithm recovers the community labels correctly as $n$ goes to infinity, provided that $m=\Omega(n_{min}^\kappa)$. On the other hand, our theory does not guarantee perfect community recovery for $m=O(1)$ because the first term in Equation~\eqref{eq:thm-communitydetection} has at least a constant order. We remark that this fact is a technical consequence of our analysis of subspace estimation error, and it is analogous to similar results obtained in spectral clustering on a single graph \citep{Rohe2011}. In contrast, previous work by \cite{Lyzinski2014} shows, via a careful analysis of the row-wise error in subspace estimation, that spectral methods can produce perfect recovery in community detection in the single-graph setting. Developing a similar result in our setting requires further investigation that we leave as future work.
\subsection{Asymptotic normality of the estimated score matrices}
Now, we study the asymptotic distribution of the individual estimates of the score matrices.
We show not only that the entries of $\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}$ accurately approximate the entries of $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$ up to some orthogonal transformation, but that under delocalization assumptions on $\mathbf{V}$, the entries $\widehat{\mathbf{R}}_{kl}^{(i)}$, where $1 \leq k \leq d, 1 \leq l \leq d$, exhibit asymptotic normality. In effect, we prove a central limit with a bias term, but this bias term decays as the number of graphs $m$ increases. The central limit theorem depends, in essence, on
the ability to estimate the common subspace $\mathbf{V}$ to sufficient precision.
%
To make such the central limit theorem precise, we require the following delocalization and edge variance assumptions.
\begin{assumption}[Delocalization of $\mathbf{V}$]\label{assump:Delocalization} There exist constants $c_1, c_2>0$, and an orthogonal matrix $\mathbf{W}\in\mathcal{O}_d$ such that each entry of $\mathbf{V}\mathbf{W}$ satisfies
$$\frac{c_1}{\sqrt{n}} < (\mathbf{V}\mathbf{W})_{kl} < \frac{c_2}{\sqrt{n}}, \quad\quad\forall k\in[n], l\in[d].$$
\end{assumption}
\noindent The delocalization assumption requires that the score matrix $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$ influence the connectivity of enough edges in the graph. Because the common subspace $\mathbf{V}$ is invariant to orthogonal transformations, the assumption only requires the existence of a particular orthogonal matrix $\mathbf{W}$ that satisfies the entrywise inequalities.
This delocalization assumption is satisfied by a wide variety of graphs; for example, if we consider $\mathbf{V}$ as the eigenvectors of an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi graph, its entries are all of order $1/\sqrt{n}$, and similarly if $\mathbf{V}$ are the eigenvectors of the probability matrix of a stochastic blockmodel all of whose block sizes grow linearly with $n$ (see Proposition~\ref{proposition:sbm-delocalization} below).
\begin{assumption}[Edge variance]\label{assump:variance_P} The sum of the variance of the edges satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:s_n-definition}
s^2(\mathbf{P}^{(i)}):=\sum_{s=1}^n\sum_{t=1}^n \mathbf{P}^{(i)}_{st}(1-\mathbf{P}^{(i)}_{st}) = \omega(1)
\end{equation}
for all $i\in[m]$.
\end{assumption}
Assumptions \ref{assump:Delocalization} and \ref{assump:variance_P} hold for a wide variety of graphs. In particular, when the community sizes of an SBM are balanced and the connection probabilities do not decay very fast, the next proposition shows that these assumptions hold. The proof is included on the Appendix.
\begin{proposition}\label{proposition:sbm-delocalization}
Let $\mathbf{Z}\in\{0,1\}^{n\times K}$ be a membership matrix with community sizes $n_1, \ldots, n_K$, and $\mathbf{B}^{(i)}\in[0,1]^{K\times K}$ a connectivity matrix .
\begin{enumerate}[a)]
\item If $\min_{k\in[K]}n_k=\Omega(n)$, then Assumption~\ref{assump:Delocalization} holds for the common invariant subspace of a multilayer SBM with parameter $\mathbf{Z}$.
\item If in addition to a), $\min_{i\in[m]}\sum_{v=1}^K\mathbf{B}^{(i)}_{uv}(1-\mathbf{B}^{(i)}_{uv})=\omega(1/n^2)$, then Assumption~\ref{assump:variance_P} also holds.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
The score matrices are symmetric, so we focus on their upper triangular and diagonal elements, and for a symmetric matrix $\mathbf{R}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$, we define $\operatorname{vec}(\mathbf{R})\in\mathbb{R}^r$ as the vector of dimension $r=\frac{d(d+1)}{2}$ that contains those elements of $\mathbf{R}$, so that for $k,l\in[d], k\leq l,$
$$[\operatorname{vec}(\mathbf{R})]_{\frac{2k+l(l-1)}{2}}:=\mathbf{R}_{kl}.$$
Given the matrices $\mathbf{V}$ and $\mathbf{P}^{(i)}=\mathbf{V}\mathbf{R}^{(i)}\mathbf{V}^\top $ we define $\mathbf{\Sigma}^{(i)}\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$ as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\Sigma}^{(i)}_{\frac{2k + l(l-1)}{2}, \frac{2k'+l'(l'-1)}{2}} := \sum_{s=1}^{n-1}\sum_{t=s+1}^n\mathbf{P}^{(i)}_{st}(1-\mathbf{P}^{(i)}_{st})\left[(\mathbf{V}_{sk}\mathbf{V}_{tl} + \mathbf{V}_{tk}\mathbf{V}_{sl})(\mathbf{V}_{sk'}\mathbf{V}_{tl'} + \mathbf{V}_{sk'}\mathbf{V}_{tl'})\right].\label{eq:covarianceR}
\end{equation}
The above matrix can change with $n$ since it is a function of $\mathbf{V}$ and $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$. As it will be formalized in Theorem~\ref{thm:COSIE_CLT}, when $n$ is large enough the covariance of the upper triangular and diagonal entries of $\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}$ (after some proper alignment) is approximated by $\mathbf{\Sigma}^{(i)}$. The following assumption provides a sufficient condition to derive the asymptotic joint distribution of such entries of $\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}$.
\begin{assumption}[Score matrix covariance]\label{assump:score_lambdamin} The magnitude of the smallest eigenvalue of $\mathbf{\Sigma}^{(i)}$ satisfies $|\lambda_{\min}(\mathbf{\Sigma}^{(i)})|=\omega(n^{-2})$.
\end{assumption}
The next theorem presents the asymptotic distribution of the estimated score matrices as the size of the graphs increases. The proof is given on the Appendix.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:COSIE_CLT} Suppose $(\mathbf{A}^{(1)}, \ldots,\mathbf{A}^{(m)})\sim\cosie{\mathbf{V};\mathbf{R}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{R}^{(m)}}$ are a sample of adjacency matrices from the COSIE model such that the parameters satisfy $\min_{i\in[m]}\delta(\mathbf{P}^{(i)})=\omega(\log n)$, $\varepsilon= O\left(\frac{1}{\max\sqrt{\delta(\mathbf{P}^{(i)})}}\right)$, as well as the delocalization requirements given in Assumption~\ref{assump:Delocalization}.
\begin{itemize}
\item[a)] Suppose that Assumption~\ref{assump:variance_P} holds. Let $\mathbf{W}\in\mathcal{O}_d$ be an orthogonal matrix such that $\mathbf{W}=\argmin_{\mathbf{W}\in\mathcal{O}_d}\|\widehat{\mathbf{V}} - \mathbf{V}\mathbf{W}\|_F$. Then,
the estimates of $\{\mathbf{R}^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^m$ provided by MASE (Algorithm~\ref{alg:mase}), $\{\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^m$, satisfy
\[\left(\mathbf{\Sigma}^{(i)}_{\frac{2k + l(l-1)}{2}, \frac{2k+l(l-1)}{2}}\right)^{-1/2}\left(\mathbf{W} \widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}\mathbf{W}^\top - \mathbf{R}^{(i)} + \mathbf{H}_{m}^{(i)}\right)_{kl} \overset{d}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{N}(0,1), \]
as $n\rightarrow\infty$, where $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ is a univariate standard normal distribution, $\mathbf{H}_{m}^{(i)}$ is a random matrix that satisfies $\mathbb{E}[\|\mathbf{H}_m^{(i)}\|_F]=O(\frac{d}{\sqrt{m}})$, and
and $\mathbf{\Sigma}^{(i)}_{\frac{2k + l(l-1)}{2}, \frac{2k+l(l-1)}{2}} \sim \frac{s^2(\mathbf{P}^{(i)})}{n^2}$.
\item[b)] If in addition to the requirements in a), Assumption~\ref{assump:score_lambdamin} holds, then
\[\left(\mathbf{\Sigma}^{(i)}\right)^{-1/2}\operatorname{vec}\left(\mathbf{W}\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}\mathbf{W}^\top - \mathbf{R}^{(i)} + \mathbf{H}_{m}^{(i)}\right) \overset{d}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0}_r,\mathbf{I}_r), \]
where $\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0}_r,\mathbf{I}_r)$ is an $r$-dimensional standard normal distribution.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
In addition to Assumptions~\ref{assump:Delocalization}, \ref{assump:variance_P} and \ref{assump:score_lambdamin}, Theorem~\ref{thm:COSIE_CLT} imposes slightly stronger assumptions on $\varepsilon$ than Theorem~\ref{thm:V-Vhat} to obtain an asymptotically normal distribution for the entries of $\mathbf{R}^{(i)}$.
Due to the non-identifiability of the specific matrix $\mathbf{V}$, the results in Theorem~\ref{thm:COSIE_CLT} about each estimated score matrix $\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}$ are stated in terms of an orthogonal matrix $\mathbf{W}$. The next corollary shows that this unknown matrix $\mathbf{W}$ can be removed and each individual entry of the matrix $\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}$ also has an asymptotic normal distribution with a unspecified but bounded variance.
\begin{corollary} \label{corollary:variance-VEV}
Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{thm:COSIE_CLT} part b) hold.
Then, there exists a sequence of orthogonal matrices $\mathbf{W}\in\mathcal{O}_d$ such that
$$\frac{1}{\sigma_{i,k,l}}(\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)} - \mathbf{W}^\top \mathbf{R}^{(i)} \mathbf{W}+\mathbf{H}_m^{(i)})_{kl}\overset{d}{\rightarrow}\mathcal{N}(0,1),$$
where $\mathbb{E}[\|\mathbf{H}^{(i)}_m\|_f]=O\left(\frac{d}{\sqrt{m}}\right)$ and $\sigma_{i,k,l}^2=O\left( \frac{d^2s^2(\mathbf{P}^{(i)})}{n^2}\right)=O(1)$.
\end{corollary}
Using Corollary~\ref{corollary:variance-VEV} in combination with a tail bounds of a normal distribution, for sufficiently large $n$, the mean square error between the estimated score matrix and its expectation satisfies
\begin{equation}
\| \widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)} - \mathbf{W}^\top \mathbf{R}^{(i)}\mathbf{W} + \mathbf{H}_m\|_F = O_P\left( \frac{d^2\sqrt{s^2(\mathbf{P}^{(i)})}}{n} \right).
\label{eq:R-Rhat-bigO}
\end{equation}
Because $s^2(\mathbf{P}^{(i)})=O(n^2)$, the right hand side of Equation~\eqref{eq:R-Rhat-bigO} is at most of an order $O_P(d^2)$. On the other hand, a lower bound for the the norm of the score matrices can be obtained by observing that
$$\|\mathbf{R}^{(i)}\|_F^2 = \|\mathbf{P}^{(i)}\|_F^2 = \sum_{k=1}^d\left(\lambda_k(\mathbf{P}^{(i)})\right)^2.$$
The eigenvalues of $\mathbf{P}^{(i)}$ are of order $\delta(\mathbf{P}^{(i)})$ (see Remark 24 in \cite{Athreya2016}), and hence, under the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{thm:COSIE_CLT}, $\|\mathbf{R}^{(i)}\|_F=\omega(\log n)$. Therefore, the relative mean square error of the estimated score matrices with respect to its expectation goes to zero as $n$ increases, and if the sample size $m$ is also growing, the estimation bias $\mathbf{H}_m$ vanishes.
To illustrate the result, we consider the problem of estimating the eigenvalues of a random graph under the COSIE model. For that goal, we generate a sample of $m$ adjacency matrices from the COSIE model, and use the eigenvalues of $\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(1)}$ as an estimate of the eigenvalues of $\mathbf{P}^{(1)}$. According to Theorem \ref{thm:COSIE_CLT}, the entries of $\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(1)}$ are asymptotically normally distributed and centered around a bias term $\mathbf{H}$ that vanishes as the sample size grows. We conjecture that there is a similar phenomenon in the eigenvalues of $\mathbf{R}^{(1)}$; namely, that the eigenvalues of $\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}$ are asymptotically normally distributed about the eigenvalues of $\mathbf{P}$, albeit with some bias. More formally, we conjecture that
$$\lambda_k(\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}) - \lambda_k(\mathbf{P}^{(i)}) - \eta_m \overset{d}{\rightarrow} \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2)$$
where $\eta_m=O_P(1/\sqrt{m})$.
These results dovetail nicely the theory of \cite{Tang2018b}, which presents a normality result, with bias, for the eigenvalues of stochastic blockmodel graphs. To illustrate the bias-reduction impact of multiple graphs in our case, consider the problem of eigenvalue estimation in both the single and multiple-graph setting. Figure~\ref{fig:eigs-m-hist} shows that as the sample size increases, the distribution of the two leading eigenvalues of a SBM graph estimated with MASE approaches the true eigenvalues. When the number of vertices increases but the sample size remains constant, this is not the case, as observed in Figure~\ref{fig:eigs-n-hist}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Eigenvalues-hist.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Eigenvalue-bias.pdf}
\caption{The top panel shows the distribution of the difference between the MASE estimates and true eigenvalues of a single graph. The graphs in the sample are distributed according to a two-block multilayer SBM with $n=300$ vertices, block connection probability matrix $\mathbf{B}^{(i)}=0.3\mathbf{I} + 0.1\textbf{1}\textbf{1}^\top $. The distributions appear to be gaussian, and as the sample size $m$ increases, the mean of the distribution (red solid line) approaches to zero (blue dashed line). This phenomenon is also observed in the bottom panel, which shows that the estimation bias decreases with the sample size.}
\label{fig:eigs-m-hist}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Eigenvalues-hist-n.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Eigenvalue-bias-n.pdf}
\caption{The top panel shows the distribution of the difference between the MASE estimates and true eigenvalues of a single graph. The graphs in the sample are distributed according to a two-block multilayer SBM, block connection probability matrix $\mathbf{B}^{(i)}=0.3\mathbf{I} + 0.1\textbf{1}\textbf{1}^\top $, and a fixed sample size $m=3$ but different number of vertices $n$. The estimation bias remains positive even with a large graph size (bottom panel), and for any fixed $n$ the mean of the distributions (red solid line) is away from zero (blue dashed line), but the distributions appear to be gaussian.}
\label{fig:eigs-n-hist}
\end{figure}
\section{Simulations\label{sec:simulations}}
In this section, we study the empirical performance of MASE for estimating the parameters of the COSIE model, as well the performance of this method in subsequent inference tasks, including community detection, graph classification and hypothesis testing. In all cases, we compare with state-of-the-art models and methods for multiple-graph data as baselines. The results show that the COSIE model is able to effectively handle heterogeneous distributions of graphs and leverage the information across all of them, and demonstrates a good empirical performance in different settings.
\subsection{Subspace estimation error}
We first study the performance in estimating the common subspace $\mathbf{V}$ by using the estimator $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ obtained by MASE in a setting where the number of graphs $m$ increases. Given a pair of matrices with orthonormal columns $\mathbf{V}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$, we measure the distance between their invariant subspaces via the spectral norm of the difference between the projections, given by $\|\widehat{\mathbf{V}} \widehat{\mathbf{V}}^\top - \mathbf{V} \mathbf{V}^\top \|$. This distance is zero only when there exist an orthogonal matrix $W\in\mathcal{O}_d$ such that $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}=\mathbf{V}\mathbf{W}$.
Given a sample of graphs $\mathbf{A}^{(1)},\ldots, \mathbf{A}^{(m)}$, the ASE of the average of the graphs, given by
$$\bar{\mathbf{A}} = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m\mathbf{A}^{(i)},$$
provides a good estimator of the invariant subspace when all the graphs have the same expectation matrix \citep{Tang2018}.
However, when each graph has a different expected value, $\bar{\mathbf{A}}$ approaches to the population average, which might not contain useful information about the structure of the invariant subspace. MASE, on the other hand, is able to handle heterogeneous structure, and does not require such strict assumptions. We compare this method with the performance of MASE these two settings, i.e.,~equal and different distribution of the graphs.
We simulate graphs from a three-block multilayer stochastic blockmodel with membership matrix $\mathbf{Z}\in\{0,1\}^{n\times 3}$ and connectivity matrices $\mathbf{B}^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf{B}^{(m)}$. The number of vertices is fixed to $3^6=729$, and equal-sized communities. We simulate two scenarios. In the first scenario, all graphs have the same connectivity, given by
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{B}^{(i)} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
.4 & .1 & .1 \\
.1 & .4 & .2 \\
.1 & .2 & .3
\end{array}\right), \quad\quad \forall i\in[m].
\end{align*}
In the second scenario, each matrix is generated randomly by independently sampling the entries as $\mathbf{B}^{(i)}_{uv} \sim U (0,1)$, for each $1\leq u\leq v \leq 3$ and $i\in[m]$.
We then compare the performance of the different methods as the number of graphs increases. We consider both the unscaled and scaled versions of MASE, and ASE on the mean of the adjacency matrices (ASE(mean)). Figure~\ref{fig:sim-subspace-error} shows the average subspace estimation error of several Monte Carlo experiments (25 simulations in the first scenario, and 100 in the second). In the first scenario, the three methods exhibit a similar performance, decreasing the error as a function of the sample size, and although ASE(mean) has a slightly better performance, the performance of MASE is statistically not worse than ASE(mean). In the second scenario, when all the graphs have different expected values, ASE(mean) performs poorly, even with a large number of graphs, while MASE mantains a small error and is still able to improve the performance with larger sample size. These results corroborate our theory that MASE is effective in leveraging the information across multiple heterogeneous graphs, and it performs similarly to the ASE on the average of the graphs when the sample has a homogeneous distribution.
The results of Figure~\ref{fig:sim-subspace-error} also show that in some circumstances the scaled MASE can perform significantly better than its unscaled counterpart in estimating the common invariant subspace. When some eigenvalues of a matrix $\mathbf{B}^{(i)}$ are close to zero, the estimation of the eigenvectors corresponding to the smallest non-zero eigenvalues is difficult.
The eigenvalue scaling in ASE can help MASE in discerning the dimensions of $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^{(i)}$ that are more accurately estimated, which might explain the improved performance of the scaled MASE in this simulation. Our current theoretical results only address the unscaled MASE, but the simulations encourage extensions of the analysis to the scaled MASE.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{scenerio1jplot.pdf}
\caption{Distance between the true and estimated invariant subspaces computed with MASE (scaled and unscaled ASE) and ASE of the mean of the graphs for a sample of graphs distributed according to a multilayer SBM with 3 communities. On the left panel,
all graphs have the same expected matrix. The three methods perform almost the same, reducing the error as the sample size increases. On the right panel, the connection probabilities of the SBM are chosen uniformly at random for each graph. ASE on the average adjacency matrix performs poorly, while MASE still improves with a larger sample size.}
\label{fig:sim-subspace-error}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Modeling heterogeneous graphs\label{sec:sim-classif}}
Now, we study the performance of MASE in modeling the structure of graphs with different distributions. First, simulated graphs are distributed according to the multilayer SBM with two blocks, but now each graph $i$ has an associated class label $y_i\in\{1,2,3,4\}$. The connection matrices $\mathbf{B}^{(i)}$ have four different classes depending on the label, so if $y_{i}=k$ then
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{B}^{(i)} = 0.25(\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}^\top ) + \alpha \mathbf{C}^{(k)},
\end{equation*}
where $\alpha\geq 0$ is a constant that controls the separation between the classes, and the matrices $\mathbf{C}^{(k)}$ are defined as
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{C}^{(1)} = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
.1 & 0 \\
0 & .1
\end{array}\right) & \quad & \mathbf{C}^{(2)} = -\left( \begin{array}{cc}
.1 & 0 \\
0 & .1
\end{array}\right)\\
\mathbf{C}^{(3)} = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
.1 & 0 \\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right) & \quad & \mathbf{C}^{(4)} = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0 \\
0 & .1
\end{array}\right).
\end{align*}
This choice of graphs allows to simultaneously study the effects on the difference between the classes and the smallest eigenvalue of the score matrices. When $\alpha=0$, all score matrices are the same, but also the smallest eigenvalue is zero, so both subspace estimation and graph classification are hard problems, and as $\alpha$ increases, the signal for these problems improves.
We simulate 40 graphs, with 10 on each class, all with $n=256$ vertices and equal-sized communities. We compare the performance of MASE with respect to other latent space approaches for modeling multiple graphs: joint embedding of graphs (JE) \citep{Wang2017}, multiple RDPG (MRDPG) \citep{Nielsen2018}, and the omnibus embedding (OMNI) \citep{Levin2017}. The first two methods, JE and MRDPG, are based on a model related to COSIE. In particular, the expected value of each adjacency matrix is described as
\[\mathbf{P}^{(i)} = \mathbf{H}\mathbf{\Lambda}^{(i)}\mathbf{H}^\top ,\]
where $\mathbf{H}$ is a $n\times d$ matrix, and $\mathbf{\Lambda}$ is a $d\times d$ diagonal matrix. In JE, the matrix $\mathbf{H}$ is only restricted to have columns with norm 1, which makes the model non-identifiable, while MRDPG imposes further restrictions on $\mathbf{H}$ to be orthogonal and $\mathbf{\Lambda}$ to have nonnegative entries. Both models are fitted by optimizing a least squares loss function to obtain estimates $\widehat{\mathbf{H}}$ and $\{\widehat{\mathbf{\Lambda}}^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^m$. The omnibus embedding obtains estimates for individual latent positions for each graph by jointly embedding the graphs into the same space. Given a sample of $m$ adjacency matrices, the omnibus embedding obtains an omnibus matrix $\mathbf{M}\in\mathbb{R}^{mn\times mn}$, in which each off-diagonal submatrix is the average of each pair of graphs in the sample, so that
\[\mathbf{M}_{u + (i-1)m, v+ (j-1)m} = \frac{\left(\mathbf{A}^{(j)}_{uv} + \mathbf{A}^{(i)}_{uv}\right)}{2}.\]
The omnibus embedding is generated by the ASE of $\mathbf{M}$, and each of the $i$th blocks of $n$ rows of the embedding corresponds to the estimated latent positions of the $i$th graph, such that
\[\left((\widehat{\mathbf{X}}^{(1,\text{OMNI})})^\top ,\ldots, (\widehat{\mathbf{X}}^{(m,\text{OMNI})})^\top \right)^\top = \text{ASE}(\mathbf{M}).\]
For MASE and OMNI, we use an embedding dimension $d=2$; JRDPG and MRDPG represent the scores of each graph with a diagonal matrix, so in order to capture all the variability in the data we use $d=3$ for the embedding dimension.
In all comparisons, the two versions of MASE (scaled and unscaled ASE) performed very similarly, and therefore we only report the results of unscaled MASE.
\subsubsection{Semi-supervised graph classification}
First, we measure the accuracy of these methods in graph classification. We use the simulated graphs as training data; for test data, we generate a second set of graphs with the same characteristics as the first.
In order to determine classification accuracy, we first use each method to obtain an embedding of all the graphs, including training and test data. We then use the Frobenius distance between the individual score matrices of each graph to build a 1-nearest neighbor classifier for the test data, and use the labels of the training data to classify the test data. The individual score matrices correspond to $\{\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^m$
in MASE, $\{\widehat{\mathbf{H}}^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^m$ in JE and MRDPG, and $\{\widehat{\mathbf{X}}^{(i,\text{OMNI})}\}_{i=1}^m$ in OMNI. Note that both training and test data are used to generate the estimates of the score matrices; in other words, to produce an {\em unsupervised} joint embedding for all the graphs. Such a joint embedding allows to avoid cumbersome Procrustes alignments that are required by the OMNI and the MRDPG procedures when embedding test and training data separately; neither OMNI and MRDPG have established out-of-sample extensions for their respective embeddings. MASE can generate the embedding without using the test data by constructing the invariant subspace matrix $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ only using the training data, but we use the semi-supervised procedure described before for consistency between the different methods.
Figure~\ref{sim:class-acc} shows the average classification accuracy as a function of $\alpha$ for 50 Monte Carlo simulations. For all methods, the accuracy increases as the separation between each class model increases with $\alpha$, and MASE performs best among all the methods. This result is not surprising, considering the fact that MASE has better flexibility to model heterogeneous graphs.
The performance of OMNI is also excellent, but it is worth noting that OMNI employs a much larger number of parameters ($n \times d$) to represent each graph. JE is based on a model that can also represent each expected adjacency correctly, but the non-convexity and over-parametertization of the objective function can make the optimization problem challenging,
and the performance depends on the initial value, which is random, resulting in inferior performance on average. The identifiability constraints of MRDPG limit the type of graphs that this model can represent, and this method is never able to separate two of the classes correctly, resulting in a limited performance in practice.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{28node40m20mcd3aseeigcls2may31jplot.pdf}
\caption{Out-of-sample classification accuracy as a function of the difference between classes for different graph embedding methods. Graphs in the sample are distributed as a multilayer SBM with $n=256$ vertices, two communities, four different connectivity matrices that correspond to the class labels, and a training and test samples with $m=40$ graphs. As the separation between the classes increase, all methods improve performance, but MASE and OMNI show the most gains.}
\label{sim:class-acc}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Model estimation}
We also compare the performance of different methods in terms of approximating the probability matrices of the model. For each method and each graph, we obtain an estimate $\widehat{\mathbf{P}}^{(i)}$ of the generative probability matrix of the model $\mathbf{P}^{(i)}$, and measure the model estimation error with the normalized mean squared error as
\begin{equation*}
L(\widehat{\mathbf{P}}^{(i)}, \mathbf{P}^{(i)}) = \frac{\|\widehat{\mathbf{P}}^{(i)} - \mathbf{P}^{(i)}\|_F}{\|\mathbf{P}^{(i)}\|_F},
\end{equation*}
and report the average estimation error over all the graphs.
Figure~\ref{fig:sim-P-Phat-err} reports the average Monte Carlo estimation error as a function of $\alpha$. Again, we observe that MASE has the best performance among all the methods. This is not surprising, considering that MASE is designed for this model, but it shows the limitations of the other methods. JE also shows an improvement in estimation as the separation between the classes increases, since this is the only other method that can represent correctly the four classes, but as in the classification task, the variance is larger. While OMNI can discriminate the graphs correctly, as previously observed, the error in estimating the generative probability matrix is large. MRDPG is again not able to succeed due to the model limitations.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{28node40m50mcadj3aseeigmay22jplot.pdf}
\caption{Average normalized mean squared error of estimating the expected adjacency matrix of a sample of graphs using different embedding methods. Graphs in the sample are distributed as a multilayer SBM with $n=256$ vertices, two communities, four different classes of connectivity matrices, and a training and test samples with $m=40$ graphs. MASE and JE are the only methods that are flexible enough to capture the heterogeneous structure of the graphs, but MASE shows superior performance among these two. As the graphs become more different, the error of MRDPG and OMNI increases.}
\label{fig:sim-P-Phat-err}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Community detection}
We use the joint latent positions obtained by each method to perform community detection, by clustering the rows of each embedding using a gaussian mixture model (GMM). For MASE, we use the matrix $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ as the estimated joint latent positions, while for JE and MRDPG we use the matrix $\widehat{\mathbf{H}}$. For OMNI, we take the average of the individual latent positions of the graphs $\sum_{i=1}^m\widehat{\mathbf{X}}^{(m,\text{OMNI})}$. In all cases, because the number of communities is known, we fit two clusters using GMM, and compare with the true communities of the multilayer SBM.
The average accuracy in clustering the communities is reported in Figure~\ref{fig:sim-community}. Spectral clustering methods require to have enough separation on the smallest non-zero eigenvalue. This is the case for MASE and OMNI, which show poor performance with small $\alpha$, but once the signal is strong enough, both methods perform excellent.
MRDPG shows a good performance, even for small $\alpha$, which could be due to the optimization procedure employed by the method in fitting $\mathbf{V}$. As in all the other tasks, JE shows a high variance in performance.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{28node40m50mcd3aseeigmay22jplot.pdf}
\caption{Performance in community detection of a gaussian mixture clustering applied to a common set of vertex latent positions estimated with different methods, for a sample of $m=40$ two-block multilayer SBM graphs, with $n=256$ vertices, and four classes of connectivity matrices. The class separation controls the magnitude of the smallest eigenvalue of the graphs, and as this increases, all methods show better accuracy. MRDPG, which is based on a non-convex optimization problem, performance the best for small $\alpha$, but as long as $\alpha$ is large enough, MASE and OMNI also show a great performance.}
\label{fig:sim-community}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Graph hypothesis testing \label{sec:sim-testing}}
Our goal is to test the hypothesis that for a given pair of random adjacency matrices $\mathbf{A}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{A}^{(2)}$, the underlying probability matrices $\mathbf{P}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{P}^{(2)}$ are the same. Using the COSIE model, for any pair of matrices $\mathbf{P}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{P}^{(2)},$ there exists an embedding dimension $d$ and a matrix with orthonormal columns $\mathbf{V}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$ such that $\mathbf{P}^{(i)}=\mathbf{V} \mathbf{R}^{(i)} \mathbf{V}^\top $. Therefore, our framework reduces the problem to testing the hypothesis $H_0: \mathbf{R}^{(1)} = \mathbf{R}^{(2)}$. We evaluate the performance of our method and compare it with the omnibus embedding (OMNI) method of \cite{Levin2017}, which is one of the few principled methods for this problem in latent space models.
We proceed by generating $\mathbf{A}^{(k)} \sim \operatorname{Ber}(\mathbf{P}^{(k)})$ with $\mathbf{P}^{(k)} = \mathbf{Z}^{(k)}\mathbf{B}^{(k)}\mathbf{Z}^{(k)^\top}$ a mixed membership SBM (MMSBM) with three communities \citep{Airoldi2007}, such that for each $i=1, \ldots, n$, the row that corresponds to vertex $i$ is distributed as $\mathbf{Z}^{(k)}_{i\cdot} \sim \operatorname{Dir}(0.1, 3)$. The matrix $\mathbf{B}^{(1)}\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$ of the first model is fixed as $\mathbf{B}^{(1)} = 0.3 \mathbf{I} + 0.1(\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}^\top)$, where $\mathbf{1}$ is the 3-dimensional vector with all entries equal to one. We simulate two scenarios.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Same community assignments, but different connectivity matrices: Fix the block memberships in both graphs to be the same, $\mathbf{Z}^{(1)} = \mathbf{Z}^{(2)}$, and vary $\|\mathbf{B}^{(1)}-\mathbf{B}^{(2)}\|_F$ by increasing $\mathbf{B}^{(2)}_{11}$ while keeping all the entries of $\mathbf{B}^{(2)}$ equal to $\mathbf{B}^{(1)}$.
\item Different community assignments for some of the vertices, same connectivity matrices: fix $\mathbf{B}^{(2)}= \mathbf{B}^{(1)}$, and sample the memberships of the first $t$ vertices independently in the two graphs, while keeping the other $n-t$ memberships equal: that is, $\{\mathbf{Z}^{(1)}_{i\cdot}, \mathbf{Z}^{(2)}_{j\cdot}: i \in[n], j\in[t]\}$ are i.i.d Dir$((0.1, 3))$, and $\mathbf{Z}^{(2)}_{k\cdot}=\mathbf{Z}^{(1)}_{k\cdot}$ for $k>t$.
\end{enumerate}
The first scenario can be represented as a COSIE model with dimension $d=d_1=d_2=3$, where $d_i$ is the rank of the matrix $\mathbf{P}^{(i)}$, but for the second one, to exactly represent these graphs in the COSIE model, we use $d_1=d_2=3$ and $d=5$.
To test the null hypothesis, we use the square Frobenius norm of the difference between the score matrices $\|\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(1)} - \widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(2)}\|_F^2$. A similar test statistic is used for OMNI by calculating the distance between the estimated latent positions $\|\widehat{\mathbf{X}}^{(1,\text{OMNI})}-\widehat{\mathbf{X}}^{(2,\text{OMNI})}\|_F^2$. For both MASE and OMNI, we estimate the exact distribution of the test statistic via Monte Carlo simulations using the correct expected value of each graph $\mathbf{P}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{P}^{(2)}$. For MASE, we also evaluate the performance of empirical p-values calculated using a parametric bootstrap approach, or the asymptotic null distribution of the score matrices, which are described below.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[a)] A semiparametric bootstrap method introduced in \cite{Tang2014} uses estimates $\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}^{(1)}$ and $\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}^{(2)}$ (constructed by the ASE of $\mathbf{A}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{A}^{(2)}$) in place of the true matrices $\mathbf{P}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{P}^{(2)}$---the latter of which may not, of course, even been known in practice. A total of 1000 independent pairs of adjacency matrices $\widetilde{\mathbf{A}}^{(1)}$ and $\widetilde{\mathbf{A}}^{(2)}$ are generated by fixing the distribution of the two graphs to $\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}^{(1)}$ for the first 500 pairs, and to $\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}^{(2)}$ for the remaining pairs, and these pairs are used to approximate the empirical null distribution of the test statistic, and calculate the p-value as the proportion of bootstrapped test statistic values that are smaller than the observed one.
\item[b)]
When $\mathbf{A}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{A}^{(2)}$ are both sampled from $\mathbf{P}^{(1)}$, Theorem~\ref{thm:COSIE_CLT} suggests that the distribution of the difference between the entries of the estimated score matrices (after a proper orthogonal alignment) is approximated by a multivariate normal, with a mean proportional to the bias term $\mathbf{H}^{(1)}$ and covariance depending on $\mathbf{\Sigma}^{(1)}$.
Letting $\widehat{\mathbf{P}}^{(1)}=\widehat{\mathbf{V}}\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(1)}\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^\top$ be the estimate for $\mathbf{P}^{(1)}$ obtained by MASE, an estimate $\widehat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}^{(1)}$ of the asymptotic covariance in Theorem~\ref{thm:COSIE_CLT} can be derived from Equation~\eqref{eq:covarianceR} by plugin in $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{P}}^{(1)}$. Neglecting the effect of the bias term $\mathbf{H}^{(1)}$ (which vanishes as the number of graphs increases), we use a random variable $\mathbf{y}\sim \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0}_r, {2}\widehat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}^{(1)})$ to approximate the null distribution of $\operatorname{vec}(\mathbf{W}(\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(1)} - \widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(2)})\mathbf{W}^\top)$ (with $\mathbf{W}$ as defined in Theorem~\ref{thm:COSIE_CLT}). Therefore, the null distribution of the test statistic $\|\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(1)} - \widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(2)}\|_F^2=\|\mathbf{W}(\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(1)} - \widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(2)})\mathbf{W}^\top\|_F^2$ is approximately distributed as a generalized chi-square distribution (since it is a function of the squared entries of $\mathbf{y}$), or it can be estimated using Monte Carlo simulations of $\mathbf{y}$. The same process is repeated by using $\widehat\mathbf{P}^{(2)}$, after which the empirical p-value can be estimated using a mixture of the empirical distributions obtained from $\widehat\mathbf{P}^{(1)}$ and $\widehat\mathbf{P}^{(2)}$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{Simres-hiptest-asymptotic-v1.pdf}
\caption{Empirical power for rejecting the null hypothesis that two graphs have the same distribution as a function of the difference in their parameters at a $0.05$ significance level (black dotted line). Both graphs are sample from a mixed-membership SBM $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}\sim\operatorname{MMSBM}(\mathbf{Z}^{(i)}, \mathbf{B}^{(i)})$. In the left panel, the community assignments $\mathbf{Z}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{Z}^{(2)}$ are the same, while the connection probability changes on the x-axis. In the right panel, $\mathbf{B}^{(1)}=\mathbf{B}^{(2)}$, while the community assignments of a few nodes change. Both methods improve their power as the difference between the graphs get larger, but MASE can effectively use the common subspace structure to outperform OMNI when the difference between the $\mathbf{B}$ matrices is small. The p-values of MASE are estimated accurately usign a a parametric bootstrap, while the asymptotic distribution is only valid in the first scenario when the common invariant subspace is represented in both graphs.}
\label{fig:sim-testing}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:sim-testing} shows the result in terms of power for rejecting the null hypothesis that the two graphs are equal (the confidence level was chosen as 0.05). As the separation between null and alternative increases, the result from both methods approach full power when the p-value is calculated using the exact null distribution (MASE and OMNI). The first scenario shows an advantage for MASE, which exploits both the fact that the common subspace is well represented on each graph and that there are a smaller number of parameters to estimate than in the omnibus model. The second scenario is more challenging for MASE since the number of parameters is increased, but it still performs competitively. In both cases, the p-values obtained with the bootstrap method (MASE-bootstrap) perform similarly to the empirical power when using the true $\mathbf{P}$ matrices.
The asymptotic distribution of the score matrices provides a computationally efficient way to estimate the p-values, but this approach relies on the validity of the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{thm:COSIE_CLT} and how small the magnitude of the bias term is, which depends on the estimation error of $\mathbf{V}$. Having only two graphs to estimate the parameters of the model, there is no guarantee that this bias term will be sufficiently small. Nevertheless, in the first scenario (Figure~\ref{fig:sim-testing}, left panel), the estimated power using the asymptotic distribution (MASE-asymptotic) provides an accurate result; here, $\mathbf{V}$ is well represented in both graphs, which helps in reducing its estimation error. In the second scenario (Figure~\ref{fig:sim-testing}, left panel), the dimension of $\mathbf{V}$ $(d=5)$ is higher than the rank of the expectation of each graph ($d_1=d_2=3$), hence, the score matrices are not full rank, affecting the magnitude of the bias term and invalidating some conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:COSIE_CLT}. As a result, the estimated p-values with this method appear to be invalid and significantly inflated on this scenario.
\section{Modeling the connectivity of brain networks\label{sec:data}}
We evaluate the ability of our method to characterize differences in brain connectivity between subjects using a set of graphs constructed from diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI). The data corresponds to the HNU1 study \citep{Zuo2014} which consists of dMRI records of 30 different healthy subjects that were scanned ten times each over a period of one month. Based on these recordings, we constructed 300 graphs (one per subject and scan) using the NeuroData's MRI to Graphs (NDMG) pipeline \citep{Kiar2018}. The vertices were registered to the CC200 atlas \citep{Craddock2012}, which identified 200 vertices in the brain.
We first apply our multiple adjacency spectral embedding method to the HNU1 data. To choose the dimension of the embedding for each individual graph, we use the automatic scree plot selection method of \cite{Zhu2006}, which chooses between 5 and 18 dimensions for each graph (see Figure~\ref{fig:hnu1-hist-d}). The joint model dimension for MASE is chosen based on the scree plot of the singular values of the matrix of concatenated adjacency spectral embeddings. We perform the method using both the scaled and unscaled versions of ASE. In both cases, we observe an elbow on the scree plot at $d=15$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:hnu1-screeplot}), and thus we selected this value for our model.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{HNU1-histogram-d.pdf}
\caption{Histogram of the embedding dimension selected by the method of \cite{Zhu2006} for each of the 300 graphs in the HNU1 data. The graphs are composed by 200 vertices, and the values of the embedding dimensions ranges between 5 and 18.}
\label{fig:hnu1-hist-d}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{HNU1-screeplot-ASE.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{HNU1-screeplot-EIG.pdf}
\caption{Scree plot of the top singular values of the concatenated scaled (left) and unscaled (right) adjacency spectral embeddings of the HNU1 data graphs. The plots show the 100 largest singular values ordered by magnitude. In both scaled and unscaled methods, we identified an elbow at $d=15$.}
\label{fig:hnu1-screeplot}
\end{figure}
When we apply the MASE method to the HNU1 data, we obtain a matrix of joint latent positions $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}\in\mathbb{\mathbf{R}}^{200\times 15}$ and a set of symmetric matrices $\{\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^{300}$ of size $15\times 15$ for each individual graph, yielding 120 parameters to represent each graph. Figure~\ref{fig:hnu1-latentpos} shows a three-dimensional plot of the latent positions of the vertices for $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$. Most of the vertices of the CC200 atlas are labeled according to their spatial location as left or right hemisphere, and this structure is reflected in Figure~\ref{fig:hnu1-latentpos}---in fact, the plane $v_3=0$ appears to be a useful discriminant boundary between left and right hemisphere. This is additional fortifying evidence that the embedding obtained by MASE is anatomically meaningful.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{HNU1-latentpositions-plot.png
\caption{Estimated latent positions obtained by MASE on the HNU1 data graphs with a 3-dimensional embedding.}
\label{fig:hnu1-latentpos}
\end{figure}
The individual graph parameters $\{\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^{300}$ of dimension $15\times 15$ are difficult to interpret because their values are identifiable only with respect to $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$, but also because of the large dimensionality. Nevertheless, the matrix of Frobenius distances $\mathbf{D}\in\mathbb{\mathbf{R}}^{300\times 300}$ such that $\mathbf{D}_{ij}=\|\widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(i)} - \widehat{\mathbf{R}}^{(j)}\|_F$, is invariant to any rotations on $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}$ according to Proposition~\ref{prop:identifiability}. This matrix is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:hnu1-D}, and reflects that graphs coming from the same individual tend to be more similar to each other than graphs of different individuals. We perform classical multidimensional scaling (CMDS) \citep{Borg2003} on the matrix $\mathbf{D}$ with 5 dimensions for the scaling. Figure~\ref{fig:hnu1-mds} shows scatter plots of the positions discovered by MDS for a subset of the graphs corresponding to 5 subjects; these subjects were chosen because the distances between them represent a useful snapshot of the variability in the data. We observe that the points representing graphs of the same subject usually cluster together. The location of the points corresponding to subjects 12 and 14 suggests some similarity between their connectomes, while subject 13 shows a larger spread, and hence more variability in the brain network representations.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{HNU1-R-dist.pdf}
\caption{Matrix of distances between the estimated score parameters. Each entry of the matrix corresponds to the distance between the MASE estimated score matrices of a pair of graphs from the HNU1 data, composed by 30 subjects with 10 graphs each. Distances between graphs of the same subject are usually smaller than distances within subjects.}
\label{fig:hnu1-D}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{HNU1-mds123-cbpalette.png}
\caption{Multidimensional scaling of the individual graph representations obtained by MASE for the HNU1 data. The plot shows the positions discovered by MDS for the graphs corresponding to 5 subjects of the data, showing that graphs corresponding to the same subject are more similar between each other.}
\label{fig:hnu1-mds}
\end{figure}
The ability of our method to distinguish between graphs of different subjects is further evaluated via classification and hypothesis testing. In the classification analysis, we performed a comparison to other methods that are based on low-rank embeddings following a similar procedure to Section \ref{sec:sim-classif}, namely, the joint embedding of graphs of \cite{Wang2017} (JE), the multiple random dot product graphs of \cite{Nielsen2018} (MRDPG), and the omnibus embedding of \cite{Levin2017} (OMNI). Additionally, we compare with the common and individual structure explained (CISE) algorithm and its variant 2 (CISEv2), introduced in \cite{wang2019common}, which fit a graph embedding based on a logistic regression for the edges.
In a real data setting, low-rank models are only an approximation to the true generation mechanism, and a more parsimonious model that requires fewer parameters to approximate the data accurately is preferable. Hence, for model selection, we measure the accuracy as a function of the number of embedding dimensions, which controls the description length, defined as the total number of parameters used by the model. Figure~\ref{fig:hnu1-classification} shows the 10-fold cross-validated error of a 1-nearest neighbor classifier of the individual graph parameters obtained by the methods. Note that both MASE and OMNI are able to obtain an almost perfect classification, with only one graph being misclassified, in both cases corresponding to subject 20. This graph can be observed to be different to all the other graphs in Figure~\ref{fig:hnu1-D}. Although OMNI can achieve good accuracy with only one embedding dimensions, the description length is much larger because OMNI requires $dn$ parameters for each graph, while MASE only uses $d\times d$ symmetric matrices. MASE achieves an optimal classification error with only $d=9$ dimensions; this classification analysis also offers a supervised way to choose the number of embedding dimensions for MASE suggesting that $9$ might be enough, but we keep the more conservative choice of $d=15$. Neither JE or MRDPG achieve an optimal classification error even with $d=20$ dimensions, and they are outperformed by MASE even when fixing the description length in all methods. CISE and CISEv2 are able to classify the graphs accurately, but require a larger number of parameters, and are computationally more demanding since are based on a non-convex optimization problem.
This result suggests that MASE is not only accurate, but more parsimonious than other similar low-rank embeddings.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{HNU1-classerror-withCISE.pdf}
\caption{Cross-validation error in classifying the subject labels of the HNU1 data. For each embedding estimated with a different method, a 1-NN classifier was trained using the distance between the individual graph embeddings, varying the number of embedding dimensions (left plot) which control the description length of the different embeddings (right plot). MASE, OMNI and CISE are the only methods that achieve perfect accuracy, but MASE requires much fewer parameters.}
\label{fig:hnu1-classification}
\end{figure}
The matrix of distance between subject parameters obtained by MASE can be used in combination with other distance-based methods to find differences and similarities between subjects, as the previous analyses show. However, a more principled approach to the identification of graph similarity is to measure, for instance, the extent to which differences between graphs can be attributed to random noise. In this spirit, we use the COSIE model to test the hypothesis that the expected edge connectivity of each pair of adjacency matrices is the same. That is, for each pair of graphs $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}$ and $\mathbf{A}^{(j)}$ we test the hypothesis $H_0: \mathbf{R}^{(i)} = \mathbf{R}^{(j)}$. We follow the same procedure described in Section~\ref{sec:sim-testing}
and used the parametric bootstrap method of \cite{Tang2014} and the asymptotic distribution of the score matrices to estimate the null distribution of the test statistic. Figure~\ref{fig:hnu1-pvalues} shows the $p$-values of the test performed for every pair of graphs. The diagonal blocks of the matrix correspond to graphs representing the same subject, and in most cases these p-values are large, especially when using the parametric bootstrap to estimate the null distribution. This suggests that in most cases we cannot reject the hypothesis that these graphs have the same distribution, which is reasonable given that these paired graphs represent brain scans of the same individual.
Off-diagonal elements of the matrices in Figure~\ref{fig:hnu1-pvalues} represent the result of the equality test for a pair of graphs corresponding to different subjects, and exhibit small $p$-values in general. For some pairs of subjects, such as 12 and 14, the $p$-values are also high, suggesting some possible similarities in the brain connectivity of these two subjects, which is also observed on Figure~\ref{fig:hnu1-mds}.
The left panel in Figure~\ref{fig:hnu1-power} shows the percentage of rejections of the test for the $p$-values in the diagonal of the matrix, and the black dotted line represents the expected number of rejections under the null hypothesis. Note that both OMNI and MASE have slightly more rejections than what would be expected by chance under their corresponding models, especially for the p-values calculated using the asymptotic distribution (MASE-A). The right panel in Figure~\ref{fig:hnu1-power} shows the percentage of rejected tests for pairs of graphs corresponding to different subjects. Both MASE and OMNI reject a large portion of those tests.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{HNU1-logpvals-MASE.pdf}
\caption{Parametric bootstrap}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{HNU1-logpvals-MASE-asymp.pdf}
\caption{Asymptotic distribution}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Matrices of p-values for the hypothesis test that a pair of graphs has the same score matrix in the COSIE model. Each entry corresponds to the aforementioned test for a pair of the graphs in the HNU1 data. The test generally assigns small $p$-values to pairs of graphs corresponding to different subjects, and large $p$-values to same-subject pairs. }
\label{fig:hnu1-pvalues}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{HNU1-hiptest-fpr-new.pdf}
\caption{Same subject graph pairs}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{HNU1-hiptest-power-new.pdf}
\caption{Different subject graph pairs}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Proportion of rejected test as a function of the significance level for pairwise equal distribution tests between pairs of graphs representing scans of the same subject (left) and different subjects (right). The black dotted line on the left figure corresponds to the identity, indicating the expected proportion of rejections assuming that the distribution of same-subject graphs is the same. The test constructed with MASE estimates either using the asymptotic distribution (MASE-A) or parametric bootstrap (MASE-B) to approximate the null is rejected more often than the OMNI test.}
\label{fig:hnu1-power}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion\label{sec:concl}}
The COSIE model presents a flexible, adaptable model for multiple graphs, one that encompasses a rich collection of independent-edge random graphs and yet retains identifiability and model parsimony.
As described in the text, several single-graph models extend to the multiple-graph setting \citep{Airoldi2007,Zhang2014,Lyzinski2017}
within the COSIE framework. The presence of a common invariant subspace and the allowance for different score matrices guarantee that COSIE can be used to approximate real-world graph heterogeneity. The MASE procedure builds on the long history of spectral graph inference; it is intuitive, scalable, and consistent for the recovery of the common subspace in COSIE. The accurate inference of the common subspace, in turn, enables to further determine the score parameters, which can then be deployed to discern distinctions between graphs and even subgraphs. Moreover, the MASE procedure enables graph eigenvalue estimation, community detection, and testing whether graphs arise from a common distribution.
Much work remains and includes the following: allowing the score matrices to grow in rank or capture important population-level properties such as variation in time or multilayer structure; to consider estimation and limit results with more relaxed sparsity and delocalization assumptions; and to investigate other spectral embeddings, such as the normalized or regularized Laplacian, which has been to shown to uncover different network structure \citep{Priebe2018} and provide consistent estimators in sparse networks \citep{Le2017}. Indeed, a rich array of open problems can begin to be addressed within the scope of the COSIE model.
Open \textsf{R} source code for MASE is available at \url{https://github.com/jesusdaniel/mase}, and in the Python \texttt{GraSPy} package at \url{https://neurodata.io/graspy}~\citep{Chung2019-tn}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This research has been supported by the Lifelong Learning Machines (L2M) program of the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) via contract number HR0011-18-2-0025. This work is also supported in part by the D3M program of DARPA, NSF DMS award number 1902755 and funding from Microsoft Research. We would like to thank Keith Levin and Elizaveta Levina for helpful discussions.
\bibliographystyle{apalike}
|
\section{Introduction}
A graph $G$ is called a \emph{split graph} if its vertex set can be partitioned
into two disjoint sets $C$ and $I$ such that $C$ is a clique and $I$ is an
independent set.
A graph $G$ is a \emph{block graph} if every biconnected component of $G$
is a clique.
A graph $G$ is a \emph{threshold graph} if there is a $t \in \mathbb{R}$
and a function $f \colon V(G) \to \mathbb{R}$ such that
for every $u,v \in V(G)$, $(u,v)$ is an edge in $G$ if and only if
$f(u)+f(v) \geq t$.
In the \emph{Split to Block Vertex Deletion} (SBVD) problem the input is
a split graph $G$ and an integer $k$,
and the goal is to decide whether there is a set $S$ of at most $k$ vertices
such that $G-S$ is a block graph.
Similarly, in the \emph{Split to Threshold Vertex Deletion} (STVD) problem
the input is a split graph $G$ and an integer $k$,
and the goal is to decide whether there is a set $S$ of at most $k$ vertices
such that $G-S$ is a threshold graph.
The SBVD and STVD problems were shown to be NP-hard by Cao et al.~\cite{cao2018vertex}.
A split graph $G$ is a block graph if and only if $G$ does not contain
an induced diamond, where a diamond is a graph with $4$ vertices and $5$ edges.
Additionally, a split graph $G$ is threshold graph if and only if $G$
does not contain an induced path with 4 vertices.
Therefore, SBVD and STVD are special cases of the 4-Hitting Set problem.
Using the fastest known parameterized algorithm for 4-Hitting Set,
due to Fomin et al.~\cite{fomin2010iterative}, the SBVD and STVD problems
can be solved in $O^*(3.076^k)$ time.
Choudhary et al.~\cite{choudhary2019vertex} gave faster algorithms for
SBVD and STVD whose running times are $O^*(2.303^k)$ and $O^*(2.792^k)$,
respectively.
In this paper we give algorithms for SBVD and STVD whose running times are
$O^*(2.076^k)$ and $O^*(2.733^k)$, respectively.
\section{Preliminaries}
For a graph $G$ and a vertex $v \in V(G)$,
$N(v)$ is the set of vertices that are adjacent to $v$.
For a set $S$ of vertices, $G-S$ is the graph obtained from $G$ by
deleting the vertices of $S$ (and incident edges).
Let $P_4$ denote a graph that is a path on 4 vertices.
In the \emph{3-Hitting Set} problem the input is a family $\mathcal{F}$ of
subsets of size at most 3 of a set $U$ and an integer $k$,
and the goal is to decide whether there is a set $X \subseteq U$
of size at most $k$ such that
$X\cap A \neq \emptyset$ for every $A \in \mathcal{F}$.
For two families of sets $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$,
$\mathcal{A} \circ \mathcal{B}
= \{A\cup B \colon A \in \mathcal{A}, B \in \mathcal{B} \}$.
\subsection{Branching algorithm}
A \emph{branching algorithm} (cf.~\cite{cygan2015parameterized})
for a parameterized problem is a recursive algorithm that uses \emph{rules}.
Given an instance $(G,k)$ to the problem, the algorithm applies some rule.
In each rule, the algorithm either computes the answer to the instance $(G,k)$,
or performs recursive calls on instances
$(G_1,k-c_1),\ldots,(G_t,k-c_t)$, where $c_1,\ldots,c_t > 0$.
The algorithm returns `yes' if and only if at least one recursive call
returned `yes'.
The rule is called a \emph{reduction rule} if $t = 1$, and
a \emph{branching rule} if $t \geq 2$.
To analyze the time complexity of the algorithm, define $T(k)$ to be the
maximum number of leaves in the recursion tree of the algorithm when the
algorithm is run on an instance with parameter $k$.
Each branching rule corresponds to a recurrence on $T(k)$:
\[ T(k) \leq T(k-c_1)+\cdots+T(k-c_t). \]
The largest real root of $P(x) = 1-\sum_{i=1}^t x^{-c_i}$
is called the \emph{branching number} of the rule.
The vector $(c_1,\ldots,c_t)$ is called the \emph{branching vector} of
the rule.
Let $\gamma$ be the maximum branching number over all branching rules.
Assuming that the application of a rule takes $O^*(1)$ time,
the time complexity of the algorithm is $O^*(\gamma^k)$.
\section{Algorithm for SBVD}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:block}
Let $G$ be a split graph with a partition $C,I$ of its vertices.
$G$ is a block graph if and only if
(1) A vertex in $I$ with degree at least $2$ is adjacent to all vertices in $C$, and
(2) There is at most one vertex in $I$ with degree at least 2.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $G$ is a block graph.
If a vertex $v \in I$ has degree at least 2, let $a_1,a_2 \in C$ be two neighbors
of $v$. For every $b \in C\setminus \{a_1,a_2\}$, we have that $v$ is adjacent
o $b$, otherwise $v,a_1,a_2,b$ induces a diamond, contradicting the assumption that
$G$ is a block graph.
Now, suppose conversely that there are $u,v \in I$ with degree at least 2.
Let $a_1,a_2$ be two vertices in $C$. From the paragraph above,
$a_1,a_2$ are neighbors of $u$ and of $v$.
Therefore, $u,v,a_1,a_2$ induces a diamond, contradicting the assumption that
$G$ is a block graph.
To prove the opposite direction, suppose that $G$ satisfied (1) and (2).
Suppose conversely that $G$ is not a block graph.
Then there is a set of vertices $X$ that induces a diamond.
Since $C$ is a clique and $I$ is an independent set, $|X\cap I|$ is
equal to either 1 or 2.
If $|X\cap I|=1$ then $G$ does not satisfy (1), and if $|X\cap I|=2$ then
$G$ does not satisfy (2), a contradiction.
Therefore $G$ is a block graph.
\end{proof}
IF $(G,k)$ is a yes instance, let $S$ be a solution for $(G,k)$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:block}, there is at most one vertex in $I\setminus S$ with
degree at least 2 in $G-S$.
Denote this vertex, if it exists, by $v^*$.
For every $v \in I \setminus (\{v^*\} \cup S)$ we have that
$v$ has degree at most 1 in $G-S$.
The algorithm for SBVD goes over all possible choices for the vertex
$v^* \in I$.
Additionally, the algorithm also inspects the case in which no such vertex
exist.
For every choice of $v^*$, the algorithm deletes from $G$ all the vertices of
$C$ that are not adjacent to $v^*$ and decreases the value of $k$ by the number
of vertices deleted.
When the algorithm inspects the case when $v^*$ does not exists, the graph is
not modified.
For every choice of $v^*$,
the algorithm generates an instance $(\mathcal{F},k)$ of 3-Hitting Set as follows:
For every vertex $v \in I \setminus \{v^*\}$ that has at least two neighbors,
and for every two neighbors $a,b \in C$ of $v$, the algorithm adds
the set $\{v,a,b\}$ to $\mathcal{F}$.
The algorithm then uses the algorithm of
Wahlstr{\"o}m~\cite{wahlstrom2007algorithms} to solve the instance
$(\mathcal{F},k)$ in $O^*(2.076^k)$ time.
If $(\mathcal{F},k)$ is a yes instance of 3-Hitting Set then the algorithm
returns yes.
If all the constructed 3-Hitting Set instances, for all choices of $v^*$, are no
instances, the algorithm returns no.
\section{Algorithm for STVD}
Let $I_0$ be the set of all vertices in $I$ that have minimum degree
(namely, a vertex $u \in I$ is in $I_0$ if $|N(u)|\leq |N(v)|$ for every
$v\in I$).
We say that two vertices $u,v \in I$ are \emph{twins} if $N(u) = N(v)$.
Let $\twins{v}$ be a set containing $v$ and all the twins of $v$.
Recall that a split graph $G$ is a threshold graph if and only if $G$ does not
contain an induced $P_4$.
Note that an induced $P_4$ in $G$ must be of the form $u,a,b,v$ where
$u,v \in I$ and $a,b \in C$.
The algorithm for STVD is a branching algorithm.
At each step, the algorithm applies the first applicable rule from the rules
below.
The reduction rules of the algorithm are as follows.
\begin{rrule}
If $k\leq 0$ and $G$ is not a threshold graph, return `no'.
\end{rrule}
\begin{rrule}
If $G$ is an empty graph, return `yes'.
\end{rrule}
\begin{rrule}
If $v$ is a vertex such that there is no induced $P_4$ in $G$ that contains $v$,
delete $v$.\label{rrule:no-P4}
\end{rrule}
If Rule~(R\ref{rrule:no-P4}) cannot be applied we have that
for every $a\in C$ there is a vertex $v \in I$ such that $a \notin N(v)$.
We now describe the branching rules of the algorithm.
When we say that the algorithm branches on sets $S_1,\ldots,S_p$, we mean
that the algorithm is called recursively on the instances
$(G-S_1,k-|S_1|),\ldots,(G-S_p,k-|S_p|)$.
\begin{brule}
If there are non-twin vertices $u,v \in I$ such that $|N(u)| = |N(v)| = 1$,
branch on $N(u)$ and $N(v)$.\label{brule:degree-1a}
\end{brule}
To show the safeness of Rule~(B\arabic{brule}),
denote $N(u) = \{a\}$ and $N(v) = \{b\}$.
If $S$ is a solution for the instance $(G,k)$ then $S$ must contain at least one
vertex from the induced path $u,a,b,v$.
If $u \in S$ then $S' = (S \setminus \{u\}) \cup \{a\}$ is also a solution
(since every induced $P_4$ that contains $u$ also contains $a$).
Additionally, if $v \in S$ then $(S \setminus \{v\}) \cup \{b\}$ is also a
solution.
Therefore, there is a solution $S$ such that either $a \in S$ or $b \in S$.
Thus, Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) is safe.
The branching vector of Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) is $(1,1)$.
\begin{brule}
If there is a vertex $u \in I$ such that $|N(u)| = 1$, let $v \in I$
be a vertex such that $N(u) \not\subseteq N(v)$.
Branch on $\{v\}$, $N(u)$ and $N(v)$.\label{brule:degree-1}
\end{brule}
Note that the vertex $v$ exists since Rule~(R\ref{rrule:no-P4}) cannot be
applied.
To prove the safeness of Rule~(B\arabic{brule}), note that if $S$ is a solution
for the instance $(G,k)$ then either $u\in S$, $v\in S$,
$N(u) \subseteq S$, or $N(v) \subseteq S$.
If one of the last three cases occurs we are done.
Otherwise (if $u \in S$), $S' = (S \setminus \{u\}) \cup N(u)$ is also
a solution.
It follows that Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) is safe.
Since Rule~(B\ref{brule:degree-1a}) cannot be applied, $|N(v)| \geq 2$.
Therefore, the branching vector of Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) is at least $(1,1,2)$.
Note that if Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) cannot be applied, every vertex in $I$ has
degree at least~2.
\begin{brule}
If there are vertices $u,v \in I$ such that
$|N(u) \setminus N(v)| \geq 2$ and $|N(v) \setminus N(u)| \geq 2$,
branch on $\{u\}$, $\{v\}$, $N(u) \setminus N(v)$,
and $N(v) \setminus N(u)$.\label{brule:2-2}
\end{brule}
If $S$ is a solution for the instance $(G,k)$ then either
$u \in S$, $v\in S$, $N(u) \setminus N(v) \subseteq S$, or
$N(v) \setminus N(u) \subseteq S$
(If neither of the above cases hold, let
$a \in (N(u) \setminus N(v))\setminus S$ and
$b \in (N(v) \setminus N(u))\setminus S$.
Then, $u,a,b,v$ is an induced $P_4$ in $G-S$, a contradiction).
Therefore, Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) is safe.
The branching vector of Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) is at least $(1,1,2,2)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Nu-Nv}
If Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) cannot be applied and $u,v \in I$ are two
vertices such that $|N(u)| \leq |N(v)|$
then $|N(u) \setminus N(v)| \leq 1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose conversely that $|N(u) \setminus N(v)| \geq 2$.
Then, $|N(v) \setminus N(u)| \geq |N(u) \setminus N(v)| \geq 2$.
Therefore, Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) can be applied on $u,v$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
We now consider two cases.
\paragraph{Case 1}
In the first case, every two vertices in $I_0$ are twins.
The algorithm picks an arbitrary vertex $u \in I_0$ and vertices
$a_1,a_2 \in N(u)$.
Since Rule~(R\ref{rrule:no-P4}) cannot be applied, there is
a vertex $v_1 \in I$ such that $a_1 \notin N(v_1)$ and
a vertex $v_2 \in I$ such that $a_2 \notin N(v_2)$.
For $i = 1,2$ we have that $v_i \notin I_0$ since $v_i$ is not a twin of $u$.
Since $u \in I_0$, it follows that $|N(v_i)| > |N(u)|$.
Thus, $|N(v_i) \setminus N(u)| > |N(u) \setminus N(v_i)| \geq 1$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:Nu-Nv} and the fact that $a_i \in N(u) \setminus N(v_i)$
we obtain that $ N(u) \setminus N(v_i) = \{a_i\}$ and thus
$N(u) \setminus \{a_i\} \subseteq N(v_i)$.
In particular, $a_2 \in N(v_1)$ and $a_1 \in N(v_2)$.
Note that this implies that $v_1 \neq v_2$.
\begin{lemma}
$|(N(v_1) \cap N(v_2)) \setminus N(u)| \geq 2$.\label{lem:Nv1Nv2}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose without loss of generality that $|N(v_1)| \leq |N(v_2)|$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:Nu-Nv} and the fact that $a_2 \in N(v_1) \setminus N(v_2)$
we have that
$N(v_1) \setminus N(u) \subseteq N(v_2)$.
Therefore, $(N(v_1) \cap N(v_2)) \setminus N(u) = N(v_2) \setminus N(u)$.
We have shown above that $|N(v_2) \setminus N(u)| \geq 2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{brule}
If Case~1 occurs and
$a_1,a_2 \in N(w)$ for every $w \in I \setminus \{v_1,v_2\}$,
branch on $\{u\}$, $(N(v_1) \cap N(v_2)) \setminus N(u)$,
and $\{v_1,v_2\}$.\label{brule:case1-1}
\end{brule}
We now prove the safeness of Rule~(B\arabic{brule}).
In order to delete the paths of the form $u,a_1,b,v_1$ or $u,a_2,b,v_2$
for some $b \in (N(v_1) \cap N(v_2)) \setminus N(u)$,
a solution $S$ must satisfy one of the following
(1) $u \in S$
(2) $(N(v_1) \cap N(v_2)) \setminus N(u) \subseteq S$, or
(3) $S$ contains at least one vertex from $\{a_1,v_1\}$ and at least one vertex
from $\{a_2,v_2\}$.
Suppose that $S$ is a solution that satisfies~(3).
Due to the assumption of Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) and the fact that $a_1 \in N(v_2)$,
we have that every vertex in $I \setminus \{v_1\}$ is adjacent to $a_1$.
Therefore, every induced $P_4$ that contains $a_1$ is of the form $v_1,x,a_1,y$.
Thus, if $v_1 \notin S$ then $S' = (S \setminus \{a_1\}) \cup \{v_1\}$
is also a solution.
Similarly, if $v_2 \notin S$ then $S' = (S \setminus \{a_2\}) \cup \{v_2\}$
is also a solution.
Therefore, if $(G,k)$ is a yes instance, there is a solution $S$ such that
either $S$ satisfies (1) or (2) above, or $\{v_1,v_2\} \subseteq S$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:Nv1Nv2},
the branching vector of Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) is at least $(1,2,2)$.
\begin{brule}
If Case~1 occurs, let $w \in I \setminus \{v_1,v_2\}$ be a vertex such that
$\{a_1,a_2\} \not\subseteq N(w)$,
and without loss of generality assume that $w_1 \notin N(w)$.
Branch on $\{u\}$, $(N(v_1) \cap N(v_2)) \setminus N(u)$,
and on the sets in
$\{ \{a_1\}, \{v_1\} \cup (N(w) \setminus N(u)), \{v_1,w\} \}
\circ \{ \{a_2\},\{v_2\} \}$.\label{brule:case1-2}
\end{brule}
We now show the safeness of Rule~(B\arabic{brule}).
In order to delete the induced paths of the form $u,a_1,b,v_1$ or $u,a_2,b,v_2$
for $b \in (N(v_1) \cap N(v_2)) \setminus N(u)$,
a solution $S$ must satisfy (1), (2), or (3) above.
Suppose that (1) is not satisfied (namely, $u \notin S$) and that (3) is
satisfied.
Additionally, suppose that $a_1 \notin S$.
Therefore, $v_1 \in S$ and $S$ contains at least one vertex from $\{a_2,v_2\}$.
In order to delete the induced paths of the form $u,a_1,c,w$ for
every $c \in N(w) \setminus N(u)$,
either $w \in S$ or $N(w)\setminus N(u) \subseteq S$.
We have that $w \notin I_0$ since $w$ is not a twin of $u$.
Since $u \in I_0$, it follows that $|N(w)| > |N(u)|$.
Thus, $|N(w) \setminus N(u)| > |N(u) \setminus N(w)| \geq 1$.
From the previous inequality, Lemma~\ref{lem:Nv1Nv2},
and the fact that $v_1,v_2,a_2 \notin N(w) \setminus N(u)$,
it follows that the branching vector of Rule~(B\arabic{brule})
is at least $(1,2,2,4,3,2,4,3)$.
\paragraph{Case 2}
In the second case, there are non-twin vertices in $I_0$.
Suppose that $u_1,u_2 \in I_0$ are non-twin vertices,
where the choice of $u_1,u_2$ will be given later.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:Nu-Nv},
$|N(u_1) \setminus N(u_2)| = |N(u_2) \setminus N(u_1)| = 1$.
Denote $N(u_1) \setminus N(u_2) = \{a_1\}$ and
$N(u_2) \setminus N(u_1) = \{a_2\}$.
Let $I_1 = I_0 \setminus (\twins{u_1} \cup \twins{u_2})$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:sunflower}
If $I_1 \neq \emptyset$ then either
(1) for every $u \in I_1$,
$N(u)$ consists of $N(u_1) \cap N(u_2)$ plus an additional vertex
that is not in $\{a_1,a_2\}$,
or
(2) for every $u \in I_1$,
$N(u)$ consists of $a_1$, $a_2$, and all the vertices of $N(u_1) \cap N(u_2)$
except one vertex.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first claim that every $u \in I_1$, $|N(u) \cap {a_1,a_2}|$ is either 0 or 2.
Suppose conversely that $N(u)$ contains exactly one vertex from $a_1,a_2$ and
without loss of generality, $a_2 \in N(u)$ and $a_1 \notin N(u)$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:Nu-Nv} on $u,u_1$ we obtain that $N(u)$ contains all the
vertices in $N(u_1) \setminus \{a_1\} = N(u_2) \setminus \{a_2\}$.
Since we assumed that $a_2 \in N(u)$, we have that $N(u_2) \subseteq N(u)$.
From the fact that $|N(u_2)| = |N(u)|$ we obtain that $N(u_2) = N(u)$,
contradicting the assumption that $u$ is not a twin of $u_2$.
Therefore, $|N(u) \cap {a_1,a_2}|$ is either 0 or 2.
We first assume that there is no vertex $u \in I_1$ such that
$a_1,a_2 \in N(u)$.
From the claim above we have that $a_1 \notin N(u)$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:Nu-Nv} on $u,u_1$, $N(u)$ contains all the vertices in
$N(u_1) \setminus \{a_1\} = N(u_1)\cap N(u_2)$ plus an additional vertex
that is not in $\{a_1,a_2\}$.
Now suppose that there is a vertex $u_3 \in I_1$ such that $a_1,a_2 \in N(u_3)$.
Consider some $u \in I_1$. We claim that $a_1 \in N(u)$.
Suppose conversely that $a_1 \notin N(u)$.
From the claim above, $a_2 \notin N(u)$.
Therefore, $a_1,a_2 \in N(u_3)\setminus N(u)$,
contradicting Lemma~\ref{lem:Nu-Nv}.
Thus, $a_1 \in N(u)$. From the claim above and Lemma~\ref{lem:Nu-Nv} we conclude
that $N(u)$ contains $a_2$ and all the vertices in $N(u_1) \cap N(u_2)$ except
one vertex.
\end{proof}
If $I_1 = \emptyset$ or the first case of Lemma~\ref{lem:sunflower} occurs,
we say that the vertices of $I_0$ form a \emph{sunflower}.
Note that if the vertices of $I_0$ do not form a sunflower,
for every vertex $a \in N(u_1) \cup N(u_2)$ there are non-twin vertices
$u,u' \in I_0$ that are adjacent to $a$.
\begin{brule}
If there are non-twin vertices $u_1,u_2 \in I_0$ such that $a_1,a_2 \in N(w)$
for every $w \in I \setminus I_0$, then suppose without loss of generality that
$|\twins{u_1}| \leq |\twins{u_2}|$.
Branch on $\twins{u_1}$ and $\{a_1\}$.\label{brule:case2-1}
\end{brule}
To prove the safeness of Rule~(B\arabic{brule}), suppose that $(G,k)$ is a yes
instance and let $S$ be a solution.
If $a_1 \in S$ or $\twins{u_1} \subseteq S$ we are done, so suppose that
that $a_1 \notin S$ and $\twins{u_1} \not\subseteq S$.
We can assume that $S \cap \twins{u_1} = \emptyset$ (otherwise,
$S' = S \setminus \twins{u_1}$ is also a solution).
Since $u'_1,a_1,a_2,u'_2$ is an induced path for every $u'_1 \in \twins{u_1}$
and $u'_2 \in \twins{u_2}$, either $a_2 \in S$ or $\twins{u_2} \subseteq S$.
Note that we can assume that if $S$ contains at least one vertex from
$\twins{u_2}$ then it contains all the vertices of $\twins{u_2}$.
Define a set $S'$ by taking the vertices in
$S \setminus (\{a_2\} \cup \twins{u_2})$.
Additionally, if $a_2 \in S$, add $a_1$ to $S'$, and
if $\twins{u_2} \subseteq S$, add $\twins{u_1}$ to $S'$.
We now show that $S'$ is also a solution.
Since $|\twins{u_1}| \leq |\twins{u_2}|$, we have that $|S'| \leq |S| \leq k$.
Suppose conversely that $G-S'$ contains an induced $P_4$ and denote this path
by $P'$.
Create a path $P$ by taking $P'$ and performing the following steps:
(1) If $a_1$ is in $P'$, replace it with $a_2$.
(2) If $a_2$ is in $P'$, replace it with $a_1$.
(3) If $P'$ contains a vertex $u'_1 \in \twins{u_1}$, replace it with $u_2$.
(4) If $P'$ contains a vertex $u'_2 \in \twins{u_2}$, replace it with $u_1$.
Recall that $a_1,a_2 \in N(w)$ for every $w \in I \setminus I_0$.
Additionally, for every $u \in I_1$, $a_1,a_2 \notin N(u)$ if
the vertices of $I_0$ form a sunflower, and $a_1,a_2 \in N(u)$ otherwise.
Therefore, for every two vertices $x',y'$ in $P'$ and the corresponding vertices
$x,y$ in $P$, we have that $(x,y)$ is an edge if and only if $(x',y')$ is
an edge.
It follows that $P$ is also an induced path in $G$.
From the assumptions that $a_1 \notin S$ and $\twins{u_1} \cap S = \emptyset$
and from the definition of $S'$ we have that $S$ does not contain a vertex of
$P$.
This contradicts the assumption that $S$ is a solution.
Therefore, $S'$ is a solution. The solution $S'$ contains either $\twins{u_1}$
or $\{a_1\}$, and therefore Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) is safe.
The branching vector of Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) is at least $(1,1)$.
Now suppose that Rule~(B\ref{brule:case2-1}) cannot be applied.
We choose non-twin vertices $u_1,u_2 \in I_0$,
a vertex $a \in N(u_1) \cap N(u_2)$, and a vertex $v \in I \setminus I_0$ that
is not adjacent to $a$ as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
If the vertices of $I_0$ form a sunflower,
pick arbitrary non-twin vertices $u_1,u_2 \in I_0$.
Pick $a \in N(u_1) \cap N(u_2)$.
Since Rule~(R\ref{rrule:no-P4}) cannot be applied, there is a vertex $v\in I$
such that $a \notin N(v)$.
Since $a \in N(u)$ for every $u \in I_0$
(as the vertices of $I_0$ form a sunflower)
it follows that $v \in I \setminus I_0$.
\item
Otherwise, since Rule~(B\ref{brule:case2-1}) cannot be applied,
there is a vertex $v \in I \setminus I_0$ such that
$\bigcup_{u\in I_0} N(u) \not\subseteq N(v)$.
Pick $a \in (\bigcup_{u\in I_0} N(u)) \setminus N(v)$.
Since the vertices of $I_0$ do not form a sunflower,
there are non-twin vertices $u_1,u_2 \in I_0$ such that
$a \in N(u_1) \cap N(u_2)$.
\end{enumerate}
Since Rule~(B\ref{brule:case2-1}) cannot be applied, there is a vertex
$w \in I \setminus I_0$ such that, without loss of generality,
$a_1 \notin N(w)$.
\begin{brule}
Branch on $\{u_1\}$, $(N(v) \cap N(w)) \setminus N(u_1)$,
and on the sets in
$\{ \{a\},\{v\} \} \circ \{ \{a_1\},\{w,a_2\},\{w,u_2\} \}$.
\end{brule}
The proof of the safeness of Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) is similar to the proof
for Rule~(B\ref{brule:case1-2}).
To bound the branching vector of Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) we use the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
$|(N(v) \cap N(w)) \setminus N(u_1)| \geq 2$.\label{lem:NvNw}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $|N(v)| > |N(u_1)|$, we have that
$|N(v) \setminus N(u_1)| > |N(u_1) \setminus N(v)| \geq 1$.
Similarly,
$|N(w) \setminus N(u_1)| > |N(u_1) \setminus N(w)| \geq 1$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:Nu-Nv} and the fact that $a_1 \in N(u_1) \setminus N(w)$
we have that $a \in N(w)$.
We consider two cases.
If $|N(v)| > |N(w)|$ then by Lemma~\ref{lem:Nu-Nv} and the fact that
$a \in N(w) \setminus N(v)$ we have that
$N(w) \setminus N(u_1) \subseteq N(w) \setminus \{a\} \subseteq N(v)$.
Therefore, $(N(v)\cap N(w)) \setminus N(u_1) = N(w) \setminus N(u_1)$
and the lemma follows since $|N(w) \setminus N(u_1)| \geq 2$.
If $|N(v)| \leq |N(w)|$ then by Lemma~\ref{lem:Nu-Nv} and the fact that
$a_1 \in N(v)\setminus N(w)$ we have that
$N(v) \setminus N(u_1) \subseteq N(v) \setminus \{a_1\} \subseteq N(w)$.
Therefore, $(N(v)\cap N(w)) \setminus N(u_1) = N(v)\setminus N(u_1)$
and the lemma follows since $|N(v) \setminus N(u_1)| \geq 2$.
\end{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:NvNw},
the branching vector of Rule~(B\arabic{brule}) is at least $(1,2,2,2,3,3,3,3)$.
The rule with largest branching number is Rule~(B\ref{brule:2-2}) and
its branching number is at most 2.733.
Therefore, the running time of the algorithm is $O^*(2.733^k)$.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\chapter{}
\section{Initial Conditions}
\label{sec:appendix_A}
Here we report the initial conditions adopted in this paper for a non-minimally coupled scalar field, which generalize the
case of adiabatic initial conditions for IG presented in \cite{Paoletti:2018xet}.
These quantities reduces to IG and general relativity cases for $N_{pl}=0$ and $(N_{pl}=M_{pl},\xi=0)$, respectively.
\begin{widetext}
For the background cosmology we have as initial conditions:
\begin{equation}
a(\tau)=\sqrt{\frac{\rho_{r0}}{3F_{i}}}\tau\left[1+\frac{\omega}{4}\tau-\frac{5}{16}\frac{\xi^2\sigma_i^2(1+6\xi)}{F_i+6\xi^2\sigma_i^2}\omega^2\tau^2\right],
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}(\tau)=\frac{1}{\tau}\left[1+\frac{\omega}{4}\tau-\frac{1}{16}\frac{F_i+4\xi^2\sigma_i^2(4+15\xi)}{F_i+6\xi^2\sigma_i^2}\omega^2\tau^2\right],
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\tau)=\sigma_i\left[1+\frac{3}{2}\xi\omega\tau-\frac{2F_i(1-3\xi)+27\xi^2\sigma_i^2(1+2\xi)}{8(F_i+6\xi^2\sigma_i^2)}\omega^2\tau^2\right],
\end{equation}
where $\omega=\frac{\rho_{m0}}{\sqrt{3\rho_{r0}}}\frac{\sqrt{F_i}}{F_i+6\xi^2\sigma_i^2}$.
For cosmological fluctuations in the synchronous gauge we have as adiabatic initial conditions:
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\gamma}(k,\tau)=\delta_\nu(k,\tau)=\frac{4}{3}\delta_b(k,\tau)=\frac{4}{3}\delta_c(k,\tau)=-\frac{1}{3}k^2\tau^2
\left(1-\frac{\omega}{5}\tau\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\theta_{c}(k,\tau)=0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\theta_{\gamma}(k,\tau)=\theta_b(k,\tau)=-\frac{k^4\tau^3}{36}\left[1-\frac{3}{20}\frac{F_i(1-R_\nu+5R_b)+30\xi^2\sigma_i^2}{(1-R_\nu)F_i}\omega\tau\right],
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\theta_{\nu}(k,\tau)=-\frac{k^4\tau^3}{36}\left[\frac{23+4R_\nu}{15+4R_\nu}
-\frac{3(275+50R_\nu+8R_\nu^2)F_i-180(-5+4R_\nu)\xi^2\sigma_i^2}{20(15+2R_\nu)(15+4R_\nu)F_i}\omega\tau\right],
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\sigma_\nu(k,\tau)=\frac{2k^2\tau^2}{3(15+4R_\nu)}\left[1+\frac{(-5+4R_\nu)(F+6\xi^2\sigma_i^2)}{4(15+2R_\nu)F_i}\omega\tau\right],
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\eta(k,\tau)=1-\frac{k^2\tau^2}{12}\left[\frac{5+4R_\nu}{15+4R_\nu}-\frac{150(-5+4R_\nu)\xi^2\sigma_i^2+(325+280R_\nu+16R_\nu^2)F_i}{10(15+4R_\nu)(15+2R_\nu)F_i}\omega\tau\right],
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
h(k,\tau)=\frac{k^2\tau^2}{2}\left(1-\frac{\omega}{5}\tau\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\delta\sigma(k,\tau)=-\frac{1}{8}k^2\tau^3\xi\omega\sigma_i\left[1-\frac{2\xi^2\sigma_i^2(24+45\xi)+(4-9\xi)F_i}{10(F_i+6\xi^2\sigma_i^2)}
\omega\tau\right] \,,
\end{equation}
where $R_\nu=\frac{\rho_{\nu0}}{\rho_r0}$ and $R_b=\frac{\rho_{b0}}{\rho_{m0}}$.
\end{widetext}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We have expanded on our previous study of the
observational predictions within the eJBD theory
or, equivalently, IG \cite{Umilta:2015cta,Ballardini:2016cvy},
to the case of a scalar field nonminimally coupled
to the Einstein gravity as in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:action} with $G_3 = G_5 =0$ and $2G_4=F(\sigma)=N_{pl}^2+\xi\sigma^2$.
We have studied this class of model under the assumption that the effective gravitational
constant in these scalar-tensor theories is compatible with the one measured in a Cavendish-like
experiment. Whereas in the eJBD theory only the first post-Newtonian parameter $\gamma_{\rm PN}$
($=1-\frac{F_{,\sigma}^{2}}{F+2F_{,\sigma}^{2}}$) is not
vanishing, in this simple extension both the first and second
post-Newtonian parameter $\beta_{\rm PN}$ ($=1+\frac{F \, F_{,\sigma}}{8F+12F_{,\sigma}^{2}}
\frac{d\gamma_{\rm PN}}{d\sigma}$) are non-zero. The second post-Newtonian
parameters encodes the sign of the coupling to gravity, i.e. $\beta_\mathrm{PN} > 0$ ($<0$)
for $\xi > 0$ ($\xi <0$).
For the sake of semplicity, we have restricted ourselves to the class of potential
$V(\sigma) \propto F^2 (\sigma)$, which makes the field effectively massless
\cite{Amendola:1999qq} and allows for a direct comparison with the IG model for $N_{pl}=0$
\cite{CV,Wetterich:1987fk,Finelli:2007wb,Umilta:2015cta,Ballardini:2016cvy}.
For this choice of potential $V(\sigma) \propto F^2 (\sigma)$, the scalar field
is effectively massless. By assuming natural initial conditions in which the decaying mode
is negligible, the scalar field starts at rest deep
in the radiation era and is pushed by pressureless matter
to the final stage in which it drives the Universe
in a nearly de Sitter stage at late times with $\sigma = {\rm const}$.
In general the effective parameter of state $w_{\rm DE}$ for $\sigma$ defined in
\cite{Boisseau:2000pr} tracks the one of the dominant matter component before reaching $-1$
once the Universe enters in the accelerated stage as for the IG case. We find that the
conformal case $\xi=-1/6$ is an exception to this general trend: for such a value the
effective parameter of state $w_{\rm DE}$ interpolates between $1/3$ and $-1$ without
an intermediate pressureless stage.
Irrespective of the sign of the coupling $\xi$, $G_N (a) = 1/(8 \pi F)$
decrease with time for this class of potential.
As in our previous works in IG, we have considered adiabatic initial conditions for
fluctuations \cite{Umilta:2015cta,Ballardini:2016cvy,Paoletti:2018xet} which are derived
in this work for a non-minimally coupled scalar field.
By extending the modification of {\tt CLASSig} \cite{Umilta:2015cta} to a generic coupling
$F(\sigma)$, we have derived the CMB temperature and polarization anisotropies and the matter
power spectrum.
Since the effective Newton's constant decrease in time after the relativistic era, we
observe a shift of the acoustic peaks to higher multipoles and an excess in the matter power
spectrum at $k \gtrsim 0.01$ Mpc$^{-1}$ proportional to the deviation from GR.
We have used $Planck$ 2015 and BAO data to constrain this class of models.
As for IG, we obtain a marginalized value for $H_0$ higher than in $\Lambda$CDM for all these
models, potentially alleviating the tension with the local measurement of the Hubble parameter
obtained by calibrating with the Cepheids \cite{Riess:2018byc}. The goodness of fit to $Planck$
2015 plus BAO data provided by the models studied in this paper is quantitative similar to
$\Lambda$CDM: since they have one (for the conformal coupled case $\xi=-1/6$) or two (for
$\xi$ allowed to vary) extra parameters, these models are not preferred with respect to $\Lambda$CDM.
We have derived 95\% CL upper bounds $\xi < 0.064$ ($|\xi| < 0.11$) and
$0.81 < N_{pl} < 1$ ($1 < N_{pl} < 1.39$) for $\xi >0$ ($\xi <0$).
It is interesting to note that the bound on $\gamma_{\rm PN}$ and $\delta G_{\rm eff}/G$ have just a small degradation
with respect to eJBD with the same data set ($0.997 < \gamma_{\rm PN} <1$
\cite{Ballardini:2016cvy}). Overall, some cosmological constraints do not seem strongly dependent
on the assumption $\beta_{\rm PN} = 0$ and have a large margin of improvement with future observations \cite{Ballardini:2019tho}.
Although model dependent,
cosmological observations seem more promising than
other independent ways to test scalar-tensor theories
in the strong gravity regime as the search for the presence
of scalar polarization states of gravitational waves \cite{Du:2018txo},
which is also strongly constrained by LIGO/Virgo \cite{Abbott:2018lct}.
The conformal value $\xi = -1/6$ is an interesting and particular case which stands out
within the general class of non-minimally coupled scalar fields. In addition to what already
remarked about its effective parameter of state, we find that $Planck$ 2015 + BAO data
constrain quite tightly the conformal case with $V(\sigma) \propto F^2 (\sigma)$: as 95\% CL
intervals, we find $1 < 10^5 \Delta \tilde{N}_{\rm Pl} < 3.8$, or equivalently $0.99996 < \gamma_{\rm PN} < 1$,
$1 < \beta_{\rm PN} < 1.000003$, in terms of the post-Newtonian parameters.
These tight cosmological constraints for the conformal case are comparable to those of obtained within the Solar System bounds \cite{Bertotti:2003rm}.
As from Figs.~\ref{fig:CMB_xp}-\ref{fig:CMB_xn}-\ref{fig:CMB_cc}-\ref{fig:Bmode} CMB polarization anisotropies have a greater sensitivity to the variation of
the gravitational strength in these models. It will be therefore
interesting to see the impact of the latest and more robust measurement
of CMB polarization anisotropies from Planck
\cite{Akrami:2018vks,Akrami:2018jnw,Aghanim:2018fcm} and from BICEP2/Keck Array \cite{Akrami:2018vks}
as well as of the more recent BAO data on the constraints of these models.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The astrophysical and cosmic tests for the change of the fundamental physical constants are
improving thanks to the increasing precision of observations \cite{Uzan:2010pm,Ade:2013zuv}.
In most of the cases these tests cannot compete with the precision which can be achieved in
laboratories, but can probe lengths and/or timescales otherwise unaccessible on ground.
There are however exceptions: for instance, current cosmological data can constrain the time
variation of the Newtonian constant at the same level of experiments within the Solar System
such as the Lunar Laser ranging \cite{Umilta:2015cta,Ballardini:2016cvy}.
As far as cosmological tests are concerned, one of workhorse model to test deviations from
general relativity (GR) is the extended Jordan-Brans-Dicke (eJBD) \cite{Jordan:1949zz,Brans:1961sx}
theory, which has been extensively studied
\cite{Chen:1999qh,Nagata:2003qn,Acquaviva:2004ti,Avilez:2013dxa,Li:2013nwa,Ooba:2016slp,Umilta:2015cta,Ballardini:2016cvy}.
eJBD is perhaps the simplest extension of GR within the more general Horndeski theory
\cite{Horndeski:1974wa}:
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:action}
S = &\int \mathrm{d}^{4}x \sqrt{-g} \Bigl[ G_2(\sigma,\chi) + G_3(\sigma,\chi)\square \sigma \notag\\
&+G_4(\sigma,\chi) \, R
-2 G_{4,\chi}(\sigma,\chi) \left(\square\sigma^2-\sigma^{;\mu\nu}\sigma_{;\mu\nu}\right) \notag\\
&+G_5(\sigma,\chi) G_{\mu\nu}\sigma^{;\mu\nu}
+\frac{1}{3}G_{5,\sigma}(\sigma,\chi)
\left(\square\sigma^3 \right.\notag\\
&\left.-3 \sigma_{;\mu\nu}\sigma^{;\mu\nu} \square\sigma
+2\sigma_{;\mu\nu}\sigma^{;\nu \rho}{\sigma^{;\mu}}_{;\rho}\right) + {\cal L}_m \Bigr] \,,
\end{align}
where $\chi = -g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \sigma \partial_\nu \sigma$, "$_{;}$" denotes the covariant derivative, $R$ is the Ricci scalar,
$G_{\mu\nu}=R_{\mu\nu}-g_{\mu\nu} R/2$, and ${\cal L}_m$ is the density Lagrangian for the rest
of matter. The eJBD theory corresponds to $G_3=G_5=0$, $G_2 = \omega_{\rm BD} \chi/\sigma - V(\sigma)$,
$G_4 = \sigma$ (in the equivalent induced gravity (IG) formulation with a standard kinetic term
the two last conditions become $G_2 = \chi/2 - V(\sigma)$,
$G_4 = \xi \sigma^2/2$ with $\xi = 1/(4 \omega_{\rm BD})$).
Cosmology puts severe test on eJBD theories.
The constraints from $Planck$ 2015 and a compilation of baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) data
lead to a 95\% CL upper bound $\xi < 0.00075$, weakly dependent on the index for a power-law
potential \cite{Ballardini:2016cvy} (see \cite{Umilta:2015cta} for the $Planck$ 2013
constraints obtained with the same methodology). In terms of the first post-Newtonian parameter
$\gamma_{\rm PN} = (1+\omega_{\rm BD})/(2+\omega_{\rm BD}) = (1+4 \xi)/(1+8\xi)$, the above 95\% CL
constraint read as $|\gamma_{\rm PN}-1| < 0.003$ \cite{Ballardini:2016cvy}.
With the same data, a 95\% CL bound is obtained on the relative time variation of the effective
Newton's constant $10^{13}|\dot G_\textup{eff}/G_\textup{eff}| \lesssim 6\times 10^{-3}\ H_0$
at 95\% CL with an index for a power-law potential in the range $[0,8]$.
The combination of future measurement of CMB anisotropies in temperature, polarization and lensing
with Euclid-like (galaxy clustering and weak lensing) data can lead to constraints on
$\gamma_{\rm PN}$ at a slightly larger level than the current Solar System constraints
\cite{Ballardini:2019tho} (see also \cite{Alonso:2016suf} for forecasts
for different experiments with different assumptions).
However, theoretical priors can play an important role in the derivation of the cosmological
constraints and need to be taken into account in the comparison with other astrophysical or
laboratory tests. Indeed, for eJBD theories only the first post-Newtonian parameter $\gamma_{\rm PN}$
is nonzero and fully encodes the deviations from GR, being the second post-Newtonian parameter
$\beta_{\rm PN} \propto \mathrm{d} \gamma_{\rm PN}/\mathrm{d} \sigma$. In this paper we wish to go beyond the
working assumption of $\beta_{\rm PN}=0$ implicit within in eJBD theories. For this purpose we
therefore consider nonminimally coupled (NMC) scalar fields with $2G_4 = N_{\rm pl}^2 + \xi \sigma^2$
as a minimal generalization of the eJBD theories.
NMC with this type of coupling are also known as extended quintessence models in the context of
dark energy \cite{Uzan:1999ch,Perrotta:1999am,Bartolo:1999sq,Amendola:1999qq,Chiba:1999wt}.
As for eJBD, NMC are also within the class of Horndeski theories consistent with the constraints
on the velocity of propagation of gravitational waves \cite{Baker:2017hug,Creminelli:2017sry,Ezquiaga:2017ekz} which followed the
observation of GW170817 and its electromagnetic counterpart \cite{ligobinary} (see also \cite{Lombriser:2015sxa,Lombriser:2016yzn}).
The outline of this paper is as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:two} we discuss the background
dynamics and the post-Newtonian parameters $\gamma_{\rm PN}$ and $\beta_{\rm PN}$ for this
class of scalar-tensor theories. We study the evolution of linear fluctuations in
Section~\ref{sec:three}. We show the dependence on $\xi$ of the CMB anisotropies power spectra
in temperature and polarization in Section~\ref{sec:four}.
We present the $Planck$ and BAO constraints on these models in Section~\ref{sec:five}.
We conclude in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}. The initial conditions for background and
cosmological fluctuations are collected in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix_A}.
\section{Constraints from cosmological observations}
\label{sec:five}
We perform a Monte Carlo Markov Chain analysis by using the publicly available code
\texttt{MontePython}
\footnote{\href{https://github.com/brinckmann/montepython\_public}{https://github.com/brinckmann/montepython\_public}}
\cite{Audren:2012wb,Brinckmann:2018cvx} connected to our modified version of the code
\texttt{CLASS}
\footnote{\href{https://github.com/lesgourg/class\_public}{https://github.com/lesgourg/class\_public}}
\cite{Blas:2011rf}, i.e. \texttt{CLASSig} \cite{Umilta:2015cta}.
We use $Planck$ 2015 and BAO likelihoods.
We combine the $Planck$ high-$\ell$ ($\ell > 29$) temperature data with the joint
temperature-polarization low-$\ell$ ($2 \le \ell \le 29$) likelihood in pixel space at a
resolution of 3.7 deg, i.e. \texttt{HEALPIX} Nside=16 \cite{Aghanim:2015xee}. The $Planck$ CMB
lensing likelihood in the conservative multipoles range, i.e. $40 \leq \ell \leq 400$
\cite{Ade:2015zua} from the publicly available $Planck$ 2015 release is also combined.
We use BAO data to complement CMB anisotropies at low redshift: we include measurements of
$D_V/r_s$ at $z_\mathrm{eff}= 0.106$ from 6dFGRS \cite{Beutler:2011hx},
at $z_\mathrm{eff} = 0.15$ from SDSS-MGS \cite{Anderson:2013zyy},
and from SDSS-DR11 CMASS and LOWZ at $z_\mathrm{eff} = 0.57$ and
$z_\mathrm{eff} = 0.32$, respectively \cite{Ross:2014qpa}.
We sample with linear priors the six standard cosmological parameters,
i.e. $\omega_{\rm b} \equiv \Omega_{\rm b}h^2$,
$\omega_{\rm c} \equiv \Omega_{\rm c}h^2$, $H_0$, $\tau_\mathrm{re}$,
$\ln\left(10^{10}A_{\rm s}\right)$, and $n_{\rm s}$, plus the two extra
parameters for a non-minimally coupled scalar field, i.e. $\Delta \tilde N_{\mathrm pl}$ and $\xi$.
In the analysis we assume massless neutrinos and marginalize over $Planck$ high-$\ell$ likelihood
foreground and calibration nuisance parameters \cite{Aghanim:2015xee} which are allowed to vary.
As in \cite{Ballardini:2016cvy}, we take into account the change of the cosmological abundances
of the light elements during Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) induced by a different gravitational
constant during the radiation era with respect the theoretical prediction obtained from the
public code \texttt{PArthENoPE} \cite{Pisanti:2007hk}. We take into account the modified BBN
consistency condition due to the different value of the effective gravitational constant during
BBN, by considering this effect as modelled by dark radiation, since the latter effect is
already tabulated as $Y_\textup{P}^\textup{BBN}(\omega_b,\,N_\textup{eff})$ \cite{Hamann:2007sb}
in the public version of the \texttt{CLASS} code.
As in \cite{Ballardini:2016cvy}, the posterior probabilities for the primary cosmological
parameters are hardly affected by the modified BBN consistency condition, and we report a
small shift for the primordial Helium abundance to higher values.
\subsection{Results}
The results from our MCMC exploration are summarized in Table \ref{tab:xi}.
We find for the positive branch of the coupling at 95\% CL:
\begin{align}
&N_{pl} > 0.81\ [\text{M}_{pl}],\\%\text{(95\% CL, $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO)}
&\xi < 0.064.
\end{align}
We show in Fig.~\ref{fig:xp_H0xi} a zoom of the 2D parameter space ($H_0$, $\xi$)
comparing the result of NMC to IG, i.e. $N_{pl}=0$. The constraint on $\xi$ is degradated
by almost two order of magnitude ($\xi < 0.0075$ at 95\% CL for IG \cite{Ballardini:2016cvy})
due to the strong degeneracy between $N_{pl}$ and $\xi$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:xp_Nxi}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{xp_H0xi_final2.pdf}
\caption{2D marginalized confidence levels at 68\% and 95\% for ($H_0$, $\xi$)
for NMC $\xi>0$ (red) and IG (blue) with $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO. }
\label{fig:xp_H0xi}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{xp_xiN_final.pdf}
\caption{2D marginalized confidence levels at 68\% and 95\% for ($N_{pl}$, $\xi$)
for NMC $\xi>0$ with $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO.}
\label{fig:xp_Nxi}
\end{figure}
The constraints for the negative branch are (see Figs.~\ref{fig:xn_H0xi}-\ref{fig:xn_Nxi}):
\begin{align}
&N_{pl} < 1.39\ [\text{M}_{pl}],\\%\text{(95\% CL, $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO)}
&\xi > -0.11.
\end{align}
at the 95\% CL for $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{xn_H0xi_final2.pdf}
\caption{2D marginalized confidence levels at 68\% and 95\% for ($H_0$, $\xi$)
for NMC $\xi<0$ with $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO.}
\label{fig:xn_H0xi}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{xn_xiN_final.pdf}
\caption{2D marginalized confidence levels at 68\% and 95\% for ($N_{pl}$, $\xi$)
for NMC $\xi<0$ with $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO.}
\label{fig:xn_Nxi}
\end{figure}
We quote also the derived constraints on the change of the effective Newton's constant
\eqref{eqn:Geff} evaluated between the radiation era and the present time, and also its
derivative at present time at 95\% CL:
\begin{align}
&\frac{\delta G_{\rm eff}}{G} > -0.027\,,\\%\text{(95\% CL, $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO)} \\
&\frac{\dot{G}_{\rm eff}}{G}(z=0) > -1.4 \left[\times10^{-13}\,\text{yr}^{-1}\right]
\,
\end{align}
for $\xi>0$, and:
\begin{align}
&\frac{\delta G_{\rm eff}}{G} > -0.027\,,\\%\text{(95\% CL, $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO)} \\
&\frac{\dot{G}_{\rm eff}}{G}(z=0) > -0.97 \left[\times10^{-13}\,\text{yr}^{-1}\right]
\,
\end{align}
for $\xi<0$.
\begin{table*}
\centering{\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{|l|cccc|}
\hline
& $Planck$ TT + lowP & $Planck$ TT + lowP & $Planck$ TT + lowP & $Planck$ TT + lowP \\
& + lensing + BAO & + lensing + BAO & + lensing + BAO & + lensing + BAO \\
& $\Lambda$CDM & IG & ($\xi > 0$) & ($\xi < 0$) \\
\hline
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$ \omega_{\rm b}$ & $0.02225 \pm 0.00020$ & $0.02224_{-0.00021}^{+0.00020}$ & $0.02226 \pm 0.00019$ & $0.02226 \pm 0.00021$ \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$ \omega_{\rm c}$ & $0.1186 \pm 0.0012$ & $0.1191 \pm {-0.0014}$ & $0.1190 \pm 0.0015$ & $0.1189 \pm 0.0015$ \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$H_0$ [km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$] & $67.78 \pm 0.57$ & $69.4_{-0.9}^{+0.7}$ & $69.2_{-1.1}^{+0.8}$ & $69.2_{-1.0}^{+0.7}$ \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$\tau_\mathrm{re}$ & $0.066 \pm 0.012$ & $0.063_{-0.014}^{+0.012}$ & $0.068 \pm 0.014$ & $0.069 \pm 0.013$ \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$\ln \left(10^{10} A_{\rm s} \right)$ & $3.062 \pm 0.024$ & $3.059^{+0.022}_{-0.026}$ & $3.069_{-0.027}^{+0.023}$ & $3.071 \pm 0.024$ \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$n_{\rm s}$ & $0.9675 \pm 0.0045$ & $0.9669^{+0.0042}_{-0.0047}$ & $0.9674 \pm 0.0046$ & $0.9728 \pm 0.0043$ \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$\xi$ & $\dots$ & $< 0.00075$ (95\% CL) & $< 0.064$ (95\% CL) & $> -0.011$ (95\% CL)
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}\\
\hline
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$N_{pl}\ [\text{M}_{pl}]$ & $\dots$ & $0$ & $> 0.81$ (95\% CL) & $< 1.39$ (95\% CL) \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$\gamma_{\rm PN}$ & $1$ & $> 0.9970$ (95\% CL) & $> 0.995$ (95\% CL) & $> 0.997$ (95\% CL) \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$\beta_{\rm PN}$ & $1$ & $1$ & $> 0.99987$ (95\% CL) & $< 1.000011$ (95\% CL)
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}\\
\hline
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$\delta G_{\rm N}/G_{\rm N}$ & $\dots$ & $-0.009^{+0.003}_{-0.009}$ & $> -0.027$ (95\% CL) & $> -0.027$ (95\% CL) \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$10^{13}\,\dot{G}_{\rm N}(z=0)/G_{\rm N}$ [yr$^{-1}$] & $\dots$ & $-0.37^{+34}_{-12}$ & $> -1.4$ (95\% CL) & $> -0.97$ (95\% CL)
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Constraints on main and derived parameters for $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO
(at 68\% CL if not otherwise stated). In the first column we report the results obtained
for the branch with $\xi>0$ and in the second the branch for $\xi<0$.
In the first column we report the results obtained for the $\Lambda$CDM model with the same dataset
\cite{Ade:2015xua} and in the second column IG case, i.e. $N_{pl}=0$, for comparison
\cite{Ballardini:2016cvy}.}
\label{tab:xi}
\end{table*}
For the CC case, i.e. fixing $\xi=-1/6$, results are listed in Tab.~\ref{tab:cc}.
This model is severely constrained by data leading to tight upper bound on $N_{pl}$ at 95\% CL:
\begin{equation}
1 < N_{pl} < 1.000038\ [\text{M}_{pl}]
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{N}_{pl}$ can take only values larger than one in this case.
\begin{table}
\centering{\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{|l|cc|}
\hline
& $Planck$ TT + lowP & $Planck$ TT + lowP \\
& + lensing + BAO & + lensing + BAO \\
& & + HST \\
\hline
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$ \omega_{\rm b}$ & $0.02223 \pm 0.00021$ & $0.02228 \pm 0.00021$ \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$ \omega_{\rm c}$ & $0.1188_{-0.0015}^{+0.0014}$ & $0.1187 \pm 0.0015$ \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$H_0$ [km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$] & $69.19_{-0.93}^{+0.77}$ & $70.20 \pm 0.83$ \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$\tau_\mathrm{re}$ & $0.068_{-0.014}^{+0.012}$ & $0.070_{-0.015}^{+0.013}$ \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$\ln \left(10^{10} A_{\rm s} \right)$ & $3.070 \pm 0.024$ & $3.074 \pm 0.024$ \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$n_{\rm s}$ & $0.9699 \pm 0.0045$ & $0.9728 \pm 0.0043$
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}\\
\hline
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$N_{pl}\ [\text{M}_{pl}]$ & $< 1.000038$ (95\% CL) & $1.000028^{+0.000012}_{-0.000014}$ \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$\gamma_{\rm PN}$ & $> 0.99996$ (95\% CL) & $1.00003 \pm 0.00001$ \\
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}
$\beta_{\rm PN}$ & $< 1.000003$ (95\% CL) & $0.999998 \pm 0.000001$
\rule[-1mm]{0mm}{.4cm}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Constraints on main and derived parameters for $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO in the case of the CC model
(at 68\% CL if not otherwise stated).}
\label{tab:cc}
\end{table}
All these models provide a fit to $Planck$ 2015 and BAO data very similar to $\Lambda$CDM:
we report $\Delta \chi^2 \sim -2.6$ for all the models considered in this paper.
Due to the limited improvement in $\Delta \chi^2$, none of these models is preferred at a statistically significant level with respect
to $\Lambda$CDM.
\subsection{The Hubble parameter}
We find constraints compatible with the $\Lambda$CDM values for the standard cosmological
parameters. However, the shifts in $H_0$ deserve a particular mention: as already remarked
in \cite{Umilta:2015cta,Ballardini:2016cvy} for the IG case, the mean values for $H_0$ are
larger for all the models studied here.
Fig.~\ref{fig:cc_H0tau} shows how the 2D marginalized contours for ($H_0$, $N_{pl}$)
have a degeneracy.
We find:
\begin{equation}
H_0 = 69.19_{-0.93}^{+0.77}\ [\text{km/s/Mpc}]
\label{H0_CC}
\end{equation}
This value is larger, but compatible at 2$\sigma$ level with the $\Lambda$CDM value
($H_0 = 67.78 \pm 0.57\ [\text{km/s/Mpc}]$). However, it is still lower than the local
measurement of the Hubble constant \cite{Riess:2018byc} ($H_0=73.52 \pm 1.62\ [\text{km/s/Mpc}]$)
obtained by including the new MW parallaxes from HST and Gaia to the rest of the data from
\cite{Riess:2016jrr}. Therefore the tension between the model dependent estimate of the Hubble
parameter from $Planck$ 2015 plus BAO data and the local measurement from \cite{Riess:2018byc}
decreases to 2.3$\sigma$ from the 3.3$\sigma$ of the $\Lambda$CDM model.
For comparison, by varying the number degree of relativistic species $N_{\rm eff}$ in Einstein
gravity, a lower value for the Hubble parameter, i.e. $H_0=68.00\pm 1.5\ [\text{km/s/Mpc}]$
(with $N_{\rm eff}=3.08^{+0.22}_{-0.24}$) for $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO at 68\% CL,
is obtained compared to the CC case reported in Eq. (\ref{H0_CC}).
When the local measurement of the Hubble constant \cite{Riess:2018byc} is included in the fit
we obtain:
\begin{align}
&H_0 = 70.20 \pm 0.83\ [\text{km/s/Mpc}],\\
&N_{pl} = 1.000028^{+0.000012}_{-0.000014}\ [\text{M}_{pl}] \,.
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{cc_H0Npl_final2.pdf}
\caption{2D marginalized confidence levels at 68\% and 95\% for ($H_0$, $N_{pl}$)
for conformal coupling with $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO.
We include in blue the local estimates of $H_0 = 73.52 \pm 1.62$ [km/s/Mpc] \cite{Riess:2018byc}.}
\label{fig:cc_H0tau}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{H_Rel88mm.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{BAOiso_88mm.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Redshift evolution for relative difference between the Hubble parameter $H(z)$ and its $\Lambda$CDM counterpart
(upper panel) and the ratio $D_V(z)/r_s$ (lower panel). For $\Lambda$CDM
quantities we used $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO best-fit. The models plotted are IG,
CC, $\xi<0$, $\xi>0$, $\Lambda CDM$ model with $N_{\textup{eff}}>3.046$ and wCDM with
$w_0=\textup{const}\neq0$ for green, red,
brown, black, blue and orange lines respectively.
\label{H0BAO}}
\end{figure}
Since the marginalized value for $H_0$ in either eJBD and NMC models is larger than in common
extensions of the $\Lambda$CDM model \cite{Ade:2015xua}, such as $\Lambda$CDM + $N_{\rm eff}$,
it is useful to understand how the evolution of the Hubble parameter differ at early and late times.
The differences at early time can be easily understood: since the effective Newton's constant
can only decrease, if we consider the same $H_0$, this will correspond to an higher $H(z)$ or
to a larger $N_{\rm eff}$ in the radiation era compared to the $\Lambda$CDM. A second effect
around recombination is the motion of the scalar field driven by pressureless matter.
At lower redshifts, the differences with respect to $\Lambda$CDM are originated by the onset
of the acceleration stage by $\sigma$.
The upper panel of Fig.~\ref{H0BAO} shows relative differences of $H(z)$ with respect to the
$Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO $\Lambda$CDM best-fit: best-fit (for IG) or NMC models within
the 1$\sigma$ contours are compared with $\Lambda$CDM + $N_{\rm eff}$ or $w$CDM.
This plot shows how in these scalar-tensor models both early and late time dynamics can contribute
to a larger value for $H_0$ than in $\Lambda$CDM + $N_{\rm eff}$, for example.
However, because of this contribution from late time dynamics, the change in $H_0$ cannot be
interpreted only as a proportional decrement in the comoving sound horizon at the baryon drag
epoch $r_s$, which is the quantity used to calibrate the BAO standard ruler and is 147.6 Mpc for
$\Lambda$CDM with the data considered.
The bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{H0BAO} shows $D_V(z)/r_s\equiv\frac{[c z (1+z)^2 D_A(z)^2 H(z)^{-1}]^{1/3}}{r_s}$, with $D_A$ as the angular diameter distance, normalized to its $\Lambda$CDM value, and
the value of $r_s$. It is easy to see that both $r_s$ and $H_0$ are lower for $\Lambda$CDM +
$N_{\rm eff}$ than for the scalar-tensor models studied here and the eJBD model.
These scalar-tensor models therefore differ from those which aim in reducing the tension between
CMB anisotropies and the local measurements of $H_0$ through a decrement of $r_s$
\cite{Cuesta:2014asa,Bernal:2016gxb,Aylor:2018drw}, such as those in which ultralight axion fields
move slowly around recombination and then dilute away
\cite{Poulin:2018dzj,Poulin:2018cxd,Agrawal:2019lmo}. In the scalar-tensor models considered here
the scalar field moves naturally around recombination since is forced by pressureless matter
and dominates at late time acting as DE.
\subsection{Constraints on the post-Newtonian parameters}
Finally, we quote the derived constraints on the post-Newtonian parameters.
In this class of models $\gamma_{\rm PN},\,\beta_{\rm PN} \ne 1$ according to
Eqs.~\eqref{eqn:gammaPN}-\eqref{eqn:betaPN} at 95\% CL:
\begin{align}
&0.995 < \gamma_{\rm PN} < 1,\ (\xi > 0) \\
&0.99987 < \beta_{\rm PN} < 1,\
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&0.997 < \gamma_{\rm PN} < 1,\ (\xi < 0) \\
&1 < \beta_{\rm PN} < 1.000011 .
\end{align}
See Fig. 23 for the 2D marginalized constraints in the
$(\gamma_{\rm PN}, \beta_{\rm PN})$ plane.
See Fig. 24 for the 2D marginalized constraints
in the $(H_0, \gamma_{\rm PN})$ plane for $\xi > 0$
compared to the IG case studied in \cite{Ballardini:2016cvy}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{xp_ppn_final2.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{xn_ppn_final2.pdf}
\caption{2D marginalized confidence levels at 68\% and 95\% for
($\gamma_{\rm PN}$, $\beta_{\rm PN}$) for NMC $\xi>0$ (left panel) and $\xi<0$ (right panel)
with $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO}
\label{fig:xn}
\end{figure}
The tight constraint on $N_{pl}$ for the CC case correspond at 95\% CL to:
\begin{align}
&0 < 1 - \gamma_{\rm PN} < 4\times 10^{-5},\\
&0 < \beta_{\rm PN}-1 < 3\times 10^{-6},
\end{align}
for $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO, where the latter is tighter than the
constraint from the perihelion shift $\beta_{\rm PN}-1 = (4.1\pm7.8) \times 10^{-5}$
\cite{Will:2014kxa} and the former is twice the uncertainty of the Shapiro time
delay constraint $\gamma_{\rm PN}-1 = (2.1 \pm 2.3) \times 10^{-5}$ \cite{Bertotti:2003rm}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{xp_H0ppn_final3.pdf}
\caption{2D marginalized confidence levels at 68\% and 95\% for ($H_0$, $\gamma_{\rm PN}$)
for NMC $\xi>0$ (red) and IG (blue) with $Planck$ TT + lowP + lensing + BAO.}
\label{fig:xp_H0ppn}
\end{figure}
\section{CMB anisotropies and matter power spectra}
\label{sec:four}
The footprints of these scalar-tensor theories into the CMB anisotropies angular power spectra
can be understood as a generalization of the effects in eJBD or equivalently IG theories.
The redshift of matter-radiation equality is modified in scalar-tensor theories by the motion
of the scalar field driven by pressureless matter and this results in a shift of the CMB
acoustic peaks for values $\xi \ne 0$, as for the IG case \cite{Liddle:1998ij,Chen:1999qh}.
In addition, a departure from $\tilde{N}_{pl} = 1$ induces a further change both in the amplitude
of the peaks and their positions. We note that decreasing the value of $\tilde{N}_{pl}$ is possible
to suppress the deviations with respect to the $\Lambda$CDM model allowing for larger values of
the coupling $\xi$ compared to the IG case.
We show the relative differences with respect to the $\Lambda$CDM model for the lensed CMB
angular power spectra anisotropies in temperature and E-mode polarization, and the CMB lensing
angular power spectra for different values of $N_{pl}$ for $\xi>0$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMB_xp},
$\xi<0$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMB_xn}, and the CC case $\xi=-1/6$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMB_cc}.
We show also the absolute difference of the TE cross-correlation weighted by the square root
of the product of the two auto-correlators.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:pk_NMC} we show the relative differences for the matter power spectrum at $z=0$
with respect to the $\Lambda$CDM model for different values of the parameters.
In all the cases the $P(k)$ is enhanced at small scales, i.e. $k \gtrsim 0.01$ h Mpc$^{-1}$,
compared to the $\Lambda$CDM model.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{CMB_xp_v2.pdf}
\caption{From top to bottom: relative differences of the TT-EE-TE-$\phi\phi$ power spectra with respect
to the $\Lambda$CDM model for $\tilde{N}_{pl}=1,\,0.9$ and different values of $\xi=10^{-2},\,5\times10^{-3}$.}
\label{fig:CMB_xp}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{CMB_xn_v2.pdf}
\caption{From top to bottom: relative differences of the TT-EE-TE-$\phi\phi$ power spectra with respect
to the $\Lambda$CDM model for $\tilde{N}_{pl}=1.01,\,1.1$ and different values of $\xi=-10^{-2},\,-5\times10^{-3}$.}
\label{fig:CMB_xn}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{CMB_cc_v2.pdf}
\caption{From top to bottom: relative differences of the TT-EE-TE-$\phi\phi$ power spectra with respect
to the $\Lambda$CDM model for the CC case, i.e. $\xi=-1/6$, with different values of
$\Delta \tilde{N}_{pl}=10^{-4},\,10^{-5},\,10^{-6}$.}
\label{fig:CMB_cc}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{pk.pdf}
\caption{From top to bottom: relative differences of the matter power spectra at $z=0$ with respect
to the $\Lambda$CDM model for $\xi>0$, $\xi <0$ and $\xi = -1/6$.}
\label{fig:pk_NMC}
\end{figure}
We end this section by discussing the B-mode polarization power spectra resulting from the
evolution of tensor fluctuations in Eq.~\ref{eq_motion_gw}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:Bmode} shows the comparison of the tensor and lensing contributions to B-mode
polarization in $\Lambda$CDM GR and the scalar-tensor cases of IG ($N_{\mathrm pl}=0$),
CC ($\xi=-1/6$), positive and negative $\xi$ for a value of a tensor-to-scalar ratio $r=0.05$,
compatible with the most recent constraints \cite{Akrami:2018odb,Ade:2018gkx}. It is important
to note that for the values of the couplings chosen in Fig.~\ref{fig:Bmode} the main differences
in the tensor contribution to B-mode polarization with respect to $\Lambda$CDM GR case is due
to the different evolution in the Hubble parameter and in the transfer functions in the definition
of CMB anisotropies.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{CMB_BB_v2.pdf}
\caption{From top to bottom: CMB B-mode polarization band power, relative differences of the tensor contribution,
and relative differences of the lensing contribution with respect
to the $\Lambda$CDM model for $\xi>0$, $\xi <0$, $\xi = -1/6$, and IG.
Dashed lines refer to the lensing contribution to the B-mode polarization angular power spectrum.}
\label{fig:Bmode}
\end{figure}
\section{Linear perturbations}
\label{sec:three}
We study linear fluctuations around the FRW metric in the synchronous gauge:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{d} s^2=a(\tau)^2\left[-\mathrm{d}\tau^2+(\delta_{ij}+h_{ij})\mathrm{d} x^i\mathrm{d} x^j\right],
\end{equation}
where $\tau$ is the conformal time and $h_{ij}$ include both the scalar ($h_{ij}^{S}$) and the
tensor ($h_{ij}^{T}$) part. We follow the conventions of Ref.~\cite{Ma:1995ey} for scalar metric
perturbations $h_{ij}$ and scalar field perturbation $\delta \sigma$:
\begin{align}
h_{ij}^{S}=\int \mathrm{d}^3k\,e^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}\Biggl[&\hat{k}_i\hat{k}_j\,
h(\vec{k},\tau)\notag\\&+\left(\hat{k}_i\hat{k}_j-\frac{1}{3}\delta_{ij}\right)\eta(\vec{k},\tau)\Biggr] ,
\end{align}
\begin{equation}
\delta \sigma=\int \mathrm{d}^3k\,e^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}} \delta \sigma (\vec{k},\tau).
\end{equation}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:fieldfluctuation}, we show the evolution of the scalar field perturbation
$\delta \sigma$ at $k=0.05$ Mpc$^{-1}$ for different values of $N_{pl}$ and $\xi$.
The modified Einstein equations in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:EE} at first order for scalar perturbations are:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
&\frac{k^2}{a^2}\eta-\frac{1}{2}H\dot{h}=-\frac{1}{2F}\left[\delta\rho+\dot{\sigma}\delta\dot{\sigma}+V_{,\sigma}\delta\sigma-\frac{F_{,\sigma}}{F}\left(\rho+\frac{\dot{\sigma}^2}{2}+V-3H\dot{F}\right)\delta\sigma\right],\\
&\frac{k^2}{a^2}\dot{\eta}=\frac{1}{2F}\left[\sum_i(\rho_i+p_i)\theta_i +k^2\left(\dot{\sigma}\delta\sigma+\delta\dot{F}-H\delta F\right)\right],\\
&\ddot{h}+3H\dot{h}-2\frac{k^2}{a^2}\eta=-\frac{3}{F}\left[p+\dot{\sigma}\delta\dot{\sigma}-V_{,\sigma}\delta\sigma-\frac{F_{,\sigma}}{F}\left(p+\frac{\dot{\sigma}^2}{2}-V+\ddot{F}+2H\dot{F}\right)\delta\sigma\right.\notag \\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\left.+\frac{2}{3}\frac{k^2}{a^2}\delta F+\delta\ddot{F}+2H\delta\dot{F}+\frac{1}{3}\dot{h}\dot{F}\right],\\
&\ddot{h}+6\ddot{\eta}+3H(\dot{h}+6\dot{\eta})-2\frac{k^2}{a^2}\eta=-\frac{3}{F}\left[\sum_i(\rho_i+p_i)\sigma_i
+\frac{2}{3}\frac{k^2}{a^2}\delta F+\frac{\dot{F}}{3}(\dot{h}+6\dot{\eta})\right],
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
where all perturbations are considered in the Fourier configuration. The quantities $\theta_i$
and $\sigma_i$ represent the velocity potential and the anisotropic stress, respectively.
It can be seen from the last of these equations that the coupling function acts also as a source
for the anisotropic stress.
The perturbed Klein-Gordon equation is:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\delta\ddot{\sigma}=&-\delta\dot{\sigma}\left[3H+\frac{2(1+6\xi)\xi\sigma\dot{\sigma}}{F+6\xi^2\sigma^2}\right] -\delta\sigma\biggl\{\frac{k^2}{a^2}+\frac{FV_{,\sigma,\sigma}}{F+6\xi^2\sigma^2}-\frac{2\xi\sigma V_{,\sigma}}{F+6\xi^2\sigma^2} \biggl[1+\frac{F(1+6\xi)}{F+6\xi^2\sigma^2}\biggr]\\
&+\frac{\xi}{F+6\xi^2\sigma^2} \biggl[1-\frac{2(1+6\xi)\xi\sigma^2}{F+6\xi^2\sigma^2}\biggr]\Big[(1+6\xi)\dot{\sigma}^2-4V +(3p-\rho)\Big]\bigg\}-\frac{\left(3\delta p-\delta\rho\right)\xi\sigma}{F+6\xi^2\sigma^2}-\frac{1}{2}\dot{h}\dot{\sigma}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
As for the homogeneous KG Eq.~\eqref{eqn:KG}, the choice $V\propto F^2$ also leads to an
effectively massless scalar field fluctuation.
Both initial conditions for the background and for the linear perturbations at the
next-to-leading order in $\tau$ are shown in the Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix_A}.
We consider adiabatic initial condition for the scalar cosmological fluctuations
\cite{Rossi:2016,Umilta:2015cta}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{F2_N01_delta_phi_k2.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of scalar field perturbations in the synchronous gauge for $k=0.05$ Mpc$^{-1}$.}
\label{fig:fieldfluctuation}
\end{figure}
Analogously, the transverse and traceless part of the metric fluctuation $h_{ij}^{T}$ is expanded as:
\begin{equation}
h_{i j}^{T} = \int \mathrm{d}^3k e^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}
\left[ h_+ e_{i j}^+ + h_\times e_{i j}^\times \right] \,,
\label{gw}
\end{equation}
where $h_+ \,, h_-$ and $e^+ \,, e^\times$ are the amplitude and normalized tensors of the two independent states to the
direction of propagation of gravitational
waves in Fourier space. The evolution equation for the amplitude is:
\begin{equation}
\ddot h_{s \,, k} + \left( 3 H + \frac{\dot F}{F} \right) \dot{h}_{s \,, k} + \frac{k^2}{a^2} h_{s \,, k} = \frac{2}{F} \rho_\nu \pi^\nu
\label{eq_motion_gw}
\end{equation}
where $s$ denote the two polarization state of the two independent modes ($s =+,\times$) and the
right hand side denotes the contribution of the traceless and transverse part of the neutrino
anisotropic stress.
The importance of the extra-damping term in the evolution equation for gravitational waves has
been previously stressed \cite{Riazuelo:2000fc,Amendola:2014wma}.
The example of the impact of this term with respect to GR is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:gwevolution}.
Note that the parameters chosen are compatible with the previous figures in this paper and we are
therefore in a regime in which $\dot F/F \ll 3H$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{tensorsConfIG_88mm.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of tensor fluctuations $h^T$ for $k=0.01$ Mpc$^{-1}$.}
\label{fig:gwevolution}
\end{figure}
\section{Dark Energy as an effectively massless scalar field non-minimally coupled to gravity}
\label{sec:two}
We study the restriction of the Horndeski action \eqref{eqn:action} to a standard kinetic term
and $G_3 = G_5 = 0$. We also assume:
\begin{equation}
2G_4 \equiv F(\sigma)=N_\mathrm{pl}^2+\xi\sigma^2 \,,
\end{equation}
where $\xi$ is the coupling to the Ricci scalar which is commonly used in extended quintessence
\cite{Uzan:1999ch,Perrotta:1999am,Bartolo:1999sq,Amendola:1999qq,Chiba:1999wt}.
For simplicity we denote by a tilde the quantities normalized to $M_{pl} \equiv 1/\sqrt{8\pi G}$,
where $G = 6.67 \times 10^{-8}$ cm$^3$ g$^{-1}$ s$^{-2}$ is the gravitational constant measured
in a Cavendish-like experiment.
We also introduce the notation $\tilde{N}_{pl} \equiv 1 \mp \Delta\tilde{N}_{pl}$ for $\xi \gtrless 0$.
The field equations are obtained by varying the action with respect to the metric:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:EE}
\begin{split}
G_{\mu\nu}&=\frac{1}{F(\sigma)}\left[T_{\mu\nu}+\partial_{\mu}\sigma\partial_{\nu}\sigma
-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}\partial^{\rho}\sigma\partial_{\rho}\sigma\right.\\
&\left.\frac{}{}-g_{\mu\nu}V(\sigma)+(\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}-g_{\mu\nu}\Box)F(\sigma)\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The Einstein trace equation results:
\begin{equation}
R=\frac{1}{F}\left[-T+\partial_\mu\sigma\partial^\mu\sigma+4V+3\square F\right] ,
\end{equation}
where $T$ is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor.
The Klein-Gordon (KG) equation can be obtained varying the action with respect to the scalar field:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:KGFR}
-\square\sigma-\frac{1}{2}F_{,\sigma}R+V_{,\sigma} = 0 ,
\end{equation}
and substituting the Einstein trace equation one obtains:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&-\square \sigma \left(1+\frac{3}{2}\frac{F_{,\sigma}^2}{F}\right)+V_{,\sigma}
-2\frac{V F_{,\sigma}}{F} \\
&+\frac{F_{,\sigma}}{2F}
\left[T-\partial_\mu\sigma\partial^\mu\sigma\left(1+3F_{,\sigma\sigma}\right)\right]=0 \,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In this paper, we do not consider a quintessence-like inverse power-law potential (see for
instance \cite{Uzan:1999ch,Perrotta:1999am,Bartolo:1999sq,Chiba:1999wt}), but we restrict
ourselves to a potential of the type $V\propto F^2$ in which the scalar field is effectively
massless. This case generalizes the broken scale invariant case \cite{Wetterich:1987fm,CV,Finelli:2007wb} to NMC
and is a particular case of the class of models with $V\propto F^M$ admitting scaling solutions
\cite{Amendola:1999qq}.
Note that though for the form of $F(\sigma)$ used in the paper and for large values of $\sigma$,
this potential looks similar to that in the Higgs inflationary model~\cite{Bezrukov:2007ep},
in fact it is crucially different, since it is exactly flat in the Einstein frame\footnote{Although
our work is based in the original Jordan frame, it is also useful to think about this class
of theories in the dual Einstein frame where
$\hat g_{\mu\nu} \propto F g_{\mu\nu} \,, \hat V = {V}/{F^2}$.}
in the absence of other matter and cannot support a metastable inflationary stage in the early Universe. Contrary, this model may be used for description of dark energy in the present Universe.
\subsection{Background cosmology}
We consider cosmic time and a flat FLRW metric, for which the unperturbed cosmological
spacetime metric is given by:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{d} s^2=-\mathrm{d} t^2+a(t)^2\mathrm{d} x_i\mathrm{d} x^i
\end{equation}
The Friedmann and the KG equations are then given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:NMC_Friedmann}
&3H^{2}F &= \rho+\frac{\dot{\sigma}^{2}}{2}+V(\sigma)-3H\dot{F} \\
& &=\rho+\rho_\sigma, \\
&-2\dot{H}F &= \rho+p+\dot{\sigma}^{2}+\ddot{F}-H\dot{F} \\
& &=\left(\rho+p\right)+\rho_\sigma+p_\sigma.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:KG}
\begin{split}
\ddot{\sigma} = &-3H\dot{\sigma}+\frac{\xi\sigma}{F+6\xi^{2}\sigma^{2}}\Bigl[\rho_{m}+4V-\frac{F V_{,\sigma}}{\xi\sigma} \\
&-(1+6\xi)\dot{\sigma}^{2}\Bigr].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:phi} the evolution of the scalar field $\sigma$ is shown for different values
of $\xi$ for both positive and negative values of the coupling. The natural initial conditions
for the background displayed in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix_A} neglect the decaying mode which
would be rapidly dissipated, but would have destroyed the Universe isotropy at sufficiently
early times otherwise (see for instance \cite{Finelli:2007wb}). With this natural assumption the scalar
field is nearly at rest deep in the radiation era whereas it grows (decreases) for positive
(negative) couplings during the matter era and it reaches a constant value at recent times.
During the matter dominated era in the regime $\xi \sigma^2 \ll N_{\mathrm pl}^2$
(which is the only one allowed by observations, see Section V), the evolution of the scalar field
can be approximated as $\sigma \sim \sigma_i \left[ 1 + 2 \xi (\ln a + 8) \right]$, with
$\sigma_i$ being the initial value of the scalar field in the radiation era.
In the bottom panel, we show the evolution of the scalar field for the conformal coupling (CC)
case with $\xi=-1/6$ for different values of $N_{\mathrm pl}$. In this case the field is always
sub-Planckian for $\Delta \tilde{N}_{\mathrm pl} \lesssim 0.0005$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{sigma.pdf}
\caption{Top panel: relative evolution of $\sigma$ for different values of $\xi$.
Bottom panel: evolution of $\sigma$ for different values of $N_{pl}$ for the CC case,
i.e. $\xi=-1/6$.}
\label{fig:phi}
\end{figure}
The above equations lead to the straightforward associations:
\begin{align}
\rho_{\sigma}&=\frac{\dot{\sigma}^{2}}{2}+V(\sigma)-3H\dot{F} \notag\\
&=\frac{\dot{\sigma}^{2}}{2}+V(\sigma)-6H\xi\sigma\dot{\sigma} ,
\end{align}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
p_{\sigma}=&\frac{\dot{\sigma}^{2}}{2}\left[\frac{F(1+4\xi)+2\xi^{2}\sigma^{2}}{F+6\xi^{2}\sigma^{2}}\right]-2H\xi\sigma\dot{\sigma} \\
&+\frac{2\xi^{2}\sigma^{2}}{F+6\xi^{2}\sigma^{2}}\left(\rho_{m}+4V-\frac{FV_{,\sigma}}{\xi\sigma}\right)-V,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where in the equation for $p_{\sigma}$ we have explicitly substituted the KG equation.
We can recover an expression for the dark energy (DE) density parameter dividing $\rho_{\sigma}$
for the quantity $3H^2 F$ which represents the critical density.
Alternatively, it is also convenient to define new density parameters in a framework which mimics
Einstein gravity at present and satisfy the conservation law
$\dot \rho_{\rm DE}+3H(\rho_{\rm DE}+p_{\rm DE})=0$ \cite{Boisseau:2000pr,Gannouji:2006jm}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{rhoandp}
\rho_{\rm DE}&=&\frac{F_{0}}{F}\rho_{\sigma}+(\rho_{m}+\rho_{r})\left(\frac{F_{0}}{F}-1\right) \,, \\
p_{\rm DE}&=&\frac{F_{0}}{F}p_{\sigma}+p_r\left(\frac{F_{0}}{F}-1\right) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
The effective parameter of state for DE can be defined as $w_{\rm DE} \equiv p_{\rm DE}/\rho_{\rm DE}$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:w} the evolution of this effective parameter of state is shown for different
values of the parameters $N_{pl}$ and $\xi$. In all the cases the parameter of state $w_{\rm DE}$ mimics $1/3$ ($-1$) in the relativistic
era (at late times): this behaviour can be easily understood from Eq. (\ref{rhoandp}) when $\rho_r$ ($V(\sigma)$) dominates over the energy densities
of other components. The behavious of $w_{\rm DE}$ at the onset of the matter dominated era is instead model dependent:
for $\xi \ne -1/6$, we see that $w_{\rm DE} > 0$ from the upper two panels in Fig.~\ref{fig:w}, whereas for $\xi = -1/6$ we obtain
$w_{\rm DE} \sim 1/3$ when $\sigma_0 \ll \sigma$.
The absence of an intermediate phase of a matter dominated era for $\xi = -1/6$ is also clear
in the initial conditions for the scale factor reported in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix_A}.
It can be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:w} that there is no phantom behaviour of the effective DE
component at small redshifts in contrast to more general scalar-tensor DE models studied in
\cite{Gannouji:2006jm}.
Indeed a phantom behaviour with $w_{\rm DE} < -1$ \cite{Gannouji:2006jm} is barely visible
in the transient regime from the tracking value to $w_{\rm DE} \approx -1$ because of the small
coupling $\xi$ considered in Fig.~\ref{fig:w} and cannot occur in the stable accelerating regime
for these models with $V(\sigma) \propto F^2 (\sigma)$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{wDE_v2.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of $w_{\rm DE}$ for different values of $N_{pl}$ and $\xi$.
We plot the effective parameter of state for DE for $\xi>0$ in the upper panel,
$\xi<0$ in the central panel, and the CC case $\xi=-1/6$ in the bottom panel.}
\label{fig:w}
\end{figure}
In Figs.~\ref{fig:omega_xp}-\ref{fig:omega_xn}-\ref{fig:omega_cc}, we show the
evolution of the density parameters $\Omega_i$, corresponding to an Einstein
gravity system with a Newton’s constant given by the current value of the scalar
field today $G_N=1/(8\pi F_0)$ \cite{Boisseau:2000pr} (also used in \cite{Finelli:2007wb,Umilta:2015cta}) for $\xi >0$, $\xi <0$ and
$\xi = -1/6$, respectively.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{background_xp.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the density parameters $\Omega_i$: radiation in yellow,
matter in blue, and effective DE in red.
We plot $\tilde{N}_{pl}=1$ ($\tilde{N}_{pl}=0.9$) for $\xi = 10^{-2},\,10^{-3}$
in the top (bottom) panel.}
\label{fig:omega_xp}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{background_xn.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the density parameters $\Omega_i$: radiation in yellow,
matter in blue, and effective DE in red.
We plot $\tilde{N}_{pl}=1.01$ ($\tilde{N}_{pl}=1.1$) for $\xi = -10^{-2},\,-10^{-3}$
in the top (bottom) panel.}
\label{fig:omega_xn}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{background_cc_v2.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the density parameters $\Omega_i$: radiation in yellow,
matter in blue, and effective DE in red.
We plot the CC case $\xi = -1/6$ for
$\Delta\tilde{N}_{pl}=10^{-3},\,10^{-4},\,10^{-5}$.}
\label{fig:omega_cc}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Boundary conditions for the the scalar field}
As boundary conditions we impose that the effective Newton's constant at present is compatible
with the Cavendish-like experiments. The effective gravitational constant for NMC is given
by \cite{Boisseau:2000pr}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Geff}
G_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{8\pi F}\left(\frac{2F+4F_{,\sigma}^{2}}{2F+3F_{,\sigma}^{2}}\right) .
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{Geff_v2.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the effective gravitational constant $G_{\rm eff}$ relative
to its value today for different values of $N_{pl}$ and $\xi$. From top to bottom, the cases
with $\xi > 0$, $\xi < 0$, and $\xi = -1/6$ are displayed, respectively.}
\label{fig:Geff}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Geff} is shown the evolution of the relative effective gravitational
constant \eqref{eqn:Geff}. We can see that the effective gravitational constant decreases
in time for all the choices of both $N_{pl}$ and $\xi$.
We can distinguish three different cases beyond GR:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\tilde{N}_{pl}\rightarrow 0$ which is the IG case. This leads to:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\sigma}_0^2=\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{1+8\xi}{1+6\xi} ,
\end{equation}
which is the same result as obtained in \cite{Umilta:2015cta};
\item $\xi\rightarrow-1/6$ which is the CC. In this particular case the polynomial equation (\ref{eqn:Geff})
in $\sigma_0$ in quadratic and we have:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\sigma}_{0}^2=\frac{18\tilde{N}_{pl}^2(\tilde{N}_{pl}^2-1)}{1+3\tilde{N}_{pl}^2} ;
\end{equation}
\item a general NMC case for $\xi \ne -1/6$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\tilde{\sigma}_{0}^{2}=&\frac{1-2\tilde{N}_{pl}^{2}+2\xi(4-3\tilde{N}_{pl}^{2})}{2\xi(1+6\xi)} \\
&\pm\frac{\sqrt{1-4\xi(5\tilde{N}_{pl}^{2}-4)+4\xi^{2}(3\tilde{N}_{pl}^{2}-4)^{2}}}{2\xi(1+6\xi)} .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
By requiring $\tilde{\sigma}^2\geq0$ and $F\geq 0$,
we obtain conditions on the two parameters $\tilde{N}_{pl}$ and $\xi$ for the physical
solution:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{N}_{pl} & < & 1 \, \,\,\text{for}\,\, \, \xi>0 \,, \\
\tilde{N}_{pl} & > & 1 \, \,\,\text{for} \,\,\, \xi<0 \,.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Comparison with general relativity}
The deviations from GR for a theory of gravitation are described by the so called post-Newtonian
parameters. For NMC only the parameters $\gamma_{\rm PN}$ and $\beta_{\rm PN}$ differ from GR
predictions, for which they both equal unity. In terms of these parameters the line element can
be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{d} s^2=-(1+2\Phi-2\beta_{\rm PN}\Phi^2)\mathrm{d} t^2+(1-2\gamma_{\rm PN}\Phi)\mathrm{d} x_i \mathrm{d} x^i.
\end{equation}
These parameters are given within NMC by the following equations \cite{Boisseau:2000pr}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:gammaPN}
&\gamma_{\rm PN}&=1-\frac{F_{,\sigma}^{2}}{F+2F_{,\sigma}^{2}},\\
\label{eqn:betaPN}
&\beta_{\rm PN}&=1+\frac{FF_{,\sigma}}{8F+12F_{,\sigma}^{2}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma_{\rm PN}}{\mathrm{d}\sigma}.
\end{eqnarray}
We have $\gamma_{\rm PN} \leq 1$ and $\beta_{\rm PN}\leq1$ for $\xi >0$, whereas
$\gamma_{\rm PN} \leq 1$ and $\beta_{\rm PN}\geq1$ for $\xi <0$.
In Figs.~\ref{fig:ppnPOS}, \ref{fig:ppnNEG} and \ref{fig:ppnCC}, we show the evolution of
these parameters for different values of $N_{pl}$ and $\xi$. It is interesting to note how in the
CC case $\gamma_{\rm PN}$ and $\beta_{\rm PN}$ approach the GR value more rapidly than for
$\xi \ne -1/6$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{ppn_xp.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the post-Newtonian parameters $\gamma_{\rm PN}$ and $\beta_{\rm PN}$
for different values of $N_{pl}$ and $\xi$. We show the case with $\xi>0$.}
\label{fig:ppnPOS}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{ppn_xn.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the post-Newtonian parameters $\gamma_{\rm PN}$ and $\beta_{\rm PN}$
for different values of $N_{pl}$ and $\xi$. We show the NMC case with $\xi>0$.}
\label{fig:ppnNEG}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{ppn_cc.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the post-Newtonian parameters $\gamma_{\rm PN}$ and $\beta_{\rm PN}$
for different values of $N_{pl}$. We show the NMC case $\xi=-1/6$, i.e. the CC case.}
\label{fig:ppnCC}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
Since Superconducting Nanowire Single Photon Detectors (SNSPDs) were introduced in 2001 \cite{doi:10.1063/1.1388868}, their performance has been dramatically improved to become the leading technology in single photon detection. Nowadays, SNSPDs offer outstanding performance, with system detection efficiencies of 80 - 95 $\%$, from the visible to the infrared \cite{Wollman:17,Wang:19,doi:10.1063/1.5000001,Marsili2013}, dark count rates in the mHz range \cite{Schuck2013a,Marsili2013}, detection count rates up to 1.5 GHz \cite{8627992}, and timing jitter as low as < 10 ps \cite{2018arXiv180106574E,Korzh:18,PhysRevB.98.134504}. High performance SNSPDs operating at \SI{4}{K} and above, are particularly interesting due to the vast number of potential applications. It has been proposed that for superconducting quantum computing, part of the qubit readout can be performed with optical signals within the dilution refrigerator. Due to limited cooling power available at the quantum processor stage (below \SI{1}{K}), the readout device has to be located at a higher temperature stage of the cryostat (\SI{4}{K}) \cite{8036394}. Another potential application is optical quantum information processing, which is based on efficient generation and detection of on demand entangled single photons with effective electronic control of the single photon source spin. Promising candidates are solid state emitters such as quantum dots (QDs) and nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centres in diamond which emit in the range of 600 - 1550 nm \cite{Montinaro2014,Chen2018,Manson_2018,doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b00550}. To achieve scalability and more efficient photon extraction \cite{Zadeh2016,PhysRevX.5.031009,Gao2015}, it is required to integrate single photon sources and single photon detectors with photonic circuits \cite{Gourgues:19}. Extending the complexity of integrated photonic circuit with active optical components such as modulators \cite{Gehl:17} will increase the base temperature of the cryostat due to the heat load of the wiring connecting the components with external room temperature control electronics. Thus, this will have a detrimental effect on the performance of the SNSPD. Currently, SNSPDs require sophisticated cooling systems with sizeable power consumption (>\SI{1}{kW}) which restricts their use mainly to the research community. Several high critical temperature (Tc) superconducting materials, such as magnesium diboride (MgB$_{2}$) have been investigated to detect single photons but efficient detectors have yet to be demonstrated \cite{Shibata_2013}. On the other hand, semiconductor avalanche photodiodes (APDs) are an alternative technology in the VIS - NIR range, operating at room temperature and being relatively inexpensive. However, APDs suffer from after-pulsing, higher dark count rates, long non-Gaussian instrument response function and thus limited time resolution \cite{doi:10.1063/1.2221516}. Recently, a low power consumption and compact closed-cycle cooling cryostat suitable for space applications has been developed and engineered by different international research laboratories \cite{Gemmell_2017,8657757,655397499}. For such cryocoolers, the base temperature reached is $\sim$ \SI{4}{K} which drastically limits performance of existing SNSPDs.
\\
In this work, we engineer NbTiN SNSPDs to achieve high efficiency and high time resolution at \SI{4}{K} and above, paving the way for integration of SNSPDs in complex, large scale and portable optical experiments.
\section{SNSPDs fabrication}
\begin{figure}[hbtp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=11.5 cm]{HighTc_Figure1_C.png}
\caption{(a) Measurements of the superconducting transition temperature for 8 nm and 13 nm film thickness. The table in the inset summarizes the Tc for the studied films. The error is estimated to be $\pm$ \SI{0.1}{K}.
(b) False-color SEM image of the superconducting single photon detector meander. The inset shows the 70 nm nanowire width of the superconducting device.
(c) Free-space holder with the sample wire-bonded in the center of the PCB.
(d) Fiber-coupled superconducting detector wire-bonded to the PCB, mounted on the oxygen free copper block.}
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}
The first fabrication step of the SNSPD is the deposition of NbTiN films by magnetron co-sputtering in an Ar and N$_{2}$ atmosphere on a Distributed Bragg Reflector (DBR) mirror optimized for the wavelength of interest. The sputtering recipe was, in a separate study \cite{zichi2019}, optimized for saturation of internal efficiency and critical current which lead us to choose Nb$_{0.85}$Ti$_{0.15}$N and Nb$_{0.62}$Ti$_{0.38}$N as compositions for the VIS-NIR range and 1550 nm, respectively. The film thicknesses processed in this manuscript are 8 nm, 9 nm, 10.5 nm and 13 nm. The nominal thickness was estimated from the sputtering time and the deposition rate which has been verified by Atomic Force Microscopy. After film deposition, the wafers were cleaved in a small and large piece. The small pieces were used for determining the superconducting transition temperature in a four-point probe cryogenic setup and the large pieces were used to fabricate the detectors. \textbf{Figure \ref{fig:fig1}(a)} shows the normalized resistance versus base temperature for 8 nm and 13 nm thick films. In the inset, the table summarizes the critical temperature (Tc) for different film thicknesses studied in this work. We observe that the critical temperature increases with the film thickness. This behavior can be explained by the proximity effect \cite{Ilin_2008}, in addition to a decrease of the 3-dimensional disorder of the film \cite{PhysRevB.80.054510}. Subsequently, we used photolithography to deposit gold contact pads for the fiber-coupled devices. The meanders were patterned using the positive AR-P 6200 e-beam resist and a 100 keV electron beam lithography system, then the pattern was transferred to the NbTiN layer by dry etching using SF$_{6}$ and O$_{2}$ chemistry. Devices with different widths of nanowires were fabricated, from 50 nm to 100 nm, while keeping the filling factor (50 $\%$) and diameter (14 $\mu$m) constant. \textbf{Figure \ref{fig:fig1}(b)} presents a scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of a fabricated detector with the meander highlighted in red. The inset of \textbf{Fig \ref{fig:fig1}(b)} shows a magnified view of the detector with a nanowire width of 70 nm. To fiber couple the detectors, an additional etching step is needed to etch keyhole shaped chips\cite{Miller:11}. Next, the samples were mounted on two different printed circuit boards (PCB): \textbf{Fig \ref{fig:fig1}(c)} presents a picture of a flood illumination holder whereas \textbf{Fig \ref{fig:fig1}(d)} shows a fiber-coupling holder made from oxygen free copper. In both cases, a heater element which consists of a flat flexible resistor embedded in Kapton film (Iceoxford), is placed below the PCB to control the detector temperature. Moreover a cryogenic temperature sensor is glued with varnish in the proximity of the detector. Finally, the detectors were wire-bonded to the selected PCB for electrical bias and readout. We investigated the internal efficiency performance of devices made from different film thicknesses by using the flood illumination holder (\textbf{Fig \ref{fig:fig1}(c)}) as described in the first part of section 4. The measurements were performed with a home-made exchange gas dipstick immersed into a transportable liquid helium dewar.
\section{Measurements of SNSPDs critical current and dark count rate as a function of temperature}
\begin{figure}[hbtp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{HighTc_Figure2.png}
\caption{(a) Measurements of the critical current vs. base temperature for different film thicknesses (8 nm, 9 nm, 10.5 nm and 13 nm) and nanowire width (50 nm, 60nm ,70 nm and 100 nm). The red dashed line is a fit from the Ginzburg-Landau theory.
(b) Measurements of the dark count rates vs. bias current for different film thicknesses (8 nm, 9 nm, 10.5 nm and 13 nm) with 70 nm nanowire width.}
\label{fig:fig2}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Figure \ref{fig:fig2}(a)} shows the critical currents of SNSPDs made from films with different thicknesses and nanowire widths, operated at temperatures ranging from \SI{4.3}{K} to \SI{8.1}{K}. Above $\sim$ \SI{8}{K}, the critical current is too low to resolve a detection pulse from the noise (root mean square noise $\sim$ 30 mV) of our setup. We observe that the critical current decreases when the temperature increases, as expected. Additionally, the use of thicker films and wider nanowires increase the critical current of the superconducting devices \cite{doi:10.1063/1.3437043}. The red dashed curve in \textbf{Fig \ref{fig:fig2}(a)} is a fit from the Ginzburg-Landau theory (Ic $\propto$ \((1-\frac{T}{Tc})^\frac{3}{2}\)), which defines the behavior of the critical current as function of the temperature. For 70 nm wide nanowires, the fit leads to Tc= \SI{8.55}{K} and Tc= \SI{9.18}{K} instead of Tc=\SI{10.12}{K} and Tc= \SI{10.85}{K} that was measured before etching the superconducting film into a meander shape, for 9 nm and 12 nm film thickness, respectively. \textbf{Figure \ref{fig:fig2}(b)} presents the Dark Count Rate (DCR) of 70 nm wide nanowire SNSPDs as function of the bias current for different film thickness, in a temperature range from \SI{4.3}{K} to \SI{7.1}{K}. For these measurements, we used the flood illumination holder (\textbf{Fig \ref{fig:fig1}(c)}) in order to minimize the influence of black-body radiation that could be transmitted by the fiber and we assumed that only the intrinsic dark counts were recorded. We notice that the DCR raises exponentially with the bias current and the absolute value increases with the temperature. This behavior suggests that the dominant mechanism responsible for dark count is the current-assisted unbinding of vortex-antivortex pairs caused by thermal fluctuations \cite{doi:10.1063/1.3652908}. Moreover, for thicker films the exponential increases of DCR starts at higher bias current compared to the critical current. For instance, at \SI{4.3}{K} (blue curves in \textbf{Fig \ref{fig:fig2}(b)}) we can compare the starting bias current values for which the DRC curve starts to increase exponentially. It corresponds to a bias current of 0.85.Ic and 0.93.Ic for 8 nm and 13 nm film thickness, respectively. A similar trend is observed for all the investigated temperatures. To conclude this section, we have shown that it is possible to reduce the intrinsic DCR and increase the switching current (by up to a factor of 3 for 70 nm nanowire width) by using thick film for SNSPDs.
\section{SNSPDs efficiencies and timing jitter characterization as a function of temperature}
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{HighTc_Figure3.png}
\caption{(a) Normalized detection efficiency vs. bias current at \SI{4.3}{K}, \SI{5.2}{K} and \SI{6.2}{K} for 9 nm thick film.
(b) Normalized detection efficiency vs. bias current at \SI{4.3}{K}, \SI{5.2}{K}, \SI{6.2}{K} and \SI{7.1}{K} for 13 nm thick film. The measurements are performed with CW laser diodes at 785 nm, 642 nm, 515 nm and 400 nm.
}
\label{fig:fig3}
\end{figure}
To characterize the single photon detectors, we used different laser diodes emitting at 400 nm, 515 nm, 642 nm, 670 nm, 785 nm and 1550 nm. The wavelength range of 400 - 700 nm is significant for fluorescence microscopy \cite{doi:10.1002/open.201700177,Rockland} and for studying celestial objects from space and ground-based observatories. Many high purity III-V QDs emit at $\sim$ 800 nm \cite{doi:10.1063/1.5020038,SchAll2019} likewise quantum memories based on electromagnetically induced transparency in Rubidium cells \cite{PhysRevLett.100.093602}. 1550 nm wavelength is the widely used wavelength for quantum communication technology.
\\
\textbf{Figure \ref{fig:fig3}(a)} presents the normalized detection efficiency of the device as a function of the bias current for 70 nm wide nanowire and 9 nm film thickness, from \SI{4.3}{K} to \SI{6.2}{K}. Each data point is an average of three measurements with an integration time of 200 ms, and the DCR is subtracted. From \SI{4.3}{K} to \SI{6.2}{K}, we observe a strong saturation of the internal efficiency for all wavelengths, except for 785 nm at \SI{6.2}{K} where the saturation is weak. By increasing the film thickness, we enhance the optical absorption for longer wavelengths but the internal efficiency gets weaker \cite{doi:10.1063/1.5000001}. \textbf{Figure \ref{fig:fig3}(b)} presents the normalized detection efficiency from \SI{4.3}{K} to \SI{7.1}{K} as function of the bias current, for 70 nm wide nanowire and 13 nm film thickness. Similar to 9 nm thickness, the saturation of the internal efficiency is reached from \SI{4.3}{K} to \SI{6.2}{K}, but decreases with higher photon wavelength. At \SI{7.1}{K}, the saturation regime is attained for 400 nm and 515 nm. As expected, at low temperatures (\SI{4.3}{K}) devices made from the thinner 9 nm films exhibits stronger saturation of internal efficiency than devices from the thicker 13 nm films. However, at \SI{7.1}{K}, 13 nm film thickness still demonstrate saturation for 515 nm and 400 nm. The electrical output signal from 9 nm film is to weak to expose any saturation behavior. Therefore, at higher temperatures 13 nm film outperforms 9 nm film.
\begin{figure}[hbtp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{HighTc_Figure4.png}
\caption{(a) Detection efficiency measurements at 785 nm for T= 2.5 - \SI{6.2}{K} vs. bias current. The inset presents the normalized detection efficiency at 670 nm vs. bias current in the same temperature range.
(b) Detection efficiency measurements at 1550 nm for T= 2.5 - \SI{5.2}{K} vs. bias current.}
\label{fig:fig4}
\end{figure}
Finally, we fabricated fully packaged devices in order to measure the efficiencies at $\sim$ 800 nm and 1550 nm as well as the temporal resolution at higher base temperatures. The fiber-coupled lasers were attenuated with a NIST-traceable attenuator to a level corresponding to a photon flux of $\sim$ 80 kphotons/s. The light polarization was set by using a fiber paddle polarization controller to the transverse electric mode such that the SNSPD has maximum optical absorption. The integration time for measuring the efficiency is 1 s and the DCR is subtracted. The main contribution of error in our measurements originated from the power meter, 3 $\%$ for 785 nm and 5 $\%$ for 1550 nm, while the laser power is stable within 1 $\%$ for both wavelength. Thus, we estimated the measurement error to be 4 $\%$ for 785 nm and less than 6 $\%$ for 1550 nm. \textbf{Figure \ref{fig:fig4} (a)} shows the detection efficiency at 785 nm in the temperature range of \SI{2.5}{K} to \SI{6.2}{K}. The inset is the normalized efficiency at 670 nm for the same device, in the temperature range of \SI{4.3}{K} to \SI{6.2}{K}. The measurements at \SI{2.5}{K} display in grey in \textbf{Fig\ref{fig:fig4} (a)} and \textbf{Fig\ref{fig:fig4} (b)} were carried out in a Gifford-McMahon closed cycle system. At \SI{2.5}{K} in \textbf{Fig\ref{fig:fig4} (a)}, the detection efficiency starts to saturate at 25.5 $\mu$A and reaches 80 $\%$. By considering the fiber-air interface reflection during measuring the input power, the system detection efficiency is 77 $\%$. At liquid helium temperature, the saturation plateau gets weaker but the detection efficiency is maintained and yield to 82 $\%$. The difference in detection efficiency between \SI{2.5}{K} and \SI{4.3}{K}, which should be identical, is attribute to the use of different sets up for the measurements. Until \SI{5.2}{K}, the detection efficiency remains above 70 $\%$ and reaches 15 $\%$ at \SI{6.2}{K}. At 670 nm the saturation behavior is maintained until \SI{5}{K}.
\textbf{Figure \ref{fig:fig4} (b)} shows the detection efficiency at 1550 nm in the temperature of \SI{2.5}{K} to \SI{5.2}{K}. At \SI{2.5}{K}, the detection efficiency plateaus to 81 $\%$. Similar to 785 nm, at \SI{4.3}{K} the saturation gets weaker and reaches 64 $\%$ of detection efficiency. For \SI{4.7}{K} and \SI{5.2}{K} the detection efficiency is above 40 $\%$ and 15 $\%$, respectively.
\begin{figure}[hbtp!]
\centering\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{HighTc_Figure5_Jitter.png}
\caption{Timing jitter measurements (dots) and their corresponding fits (lines) at base temperature of \SI{4.3}{K}, \SI{5.2}{K} and \SI{6.2}{K}. The left inset is the detection pulse of the SNSPD at base temperature of \SI{4.3}{K}, \SI{5.2}{K} and \SI{6.2}{K}. The right inset is the timing jitter as a function of the temperature.}
\label{fig:fig5}
\end{figure}
The timing jitter was measured as function of the base temperature and to get an optimal result, we replaced the room-temperature amplification with a cryogenic amplifier cooled down to 77 K. We used a picosecond pulsed laser (center wavelength of 1064 nm, 50 MHz repetition rate) and an fast digital oscilloscope (Lecroy Waverunner 640Zi 4 GHz,40 GS/s) as correlator. \textbf{Figure \ref{fig:fig5}} presents the timing jitter measurement results of the detector biased at 90 $\%$ of its critical current at the temperatures of \SI{4.3}{K}, \SI{5.2}{K} and \SI{6.2}{K}. The signal to noise ratio decreases with temperature which results in a deterioration of the temporal resolution of the detector \cite{doi:10.1063/1.5000001}.
From \SI{4.3}{K} to \SI{6.2}{K}, the amplitude of the electrical output pulse of the superconducting device is lowered by a factor $\sim$ 3, as shown in the left inset of \textbf{Fig \ref{fig:fig5}}. The right inset of \textbf{Fig \ref{fig:fig5}} presents the timing jitter of the detector depending on the base temperature. The fitted data gives a full width half maximum (FWHM) timing-jitter of 30.6 $\pm$ 0.3 ps and 67.2 $\pm$ 0.3 ps at \SI{4.3}{K} and \SI{6.2}{K}, respectively.
\section{Conclusion}
In summary, we have demonstrated that NbTiN superconducting material is suitable to operate in cryostats with base temperatures as high as \SI{7}{K}. By optimizing the film thickness and nanowire width of the superconducting single photon detector, we showed a detection efficiency of 82 $\%$ at 785 nm combined with a temporal resolution as high as 30.6 $\pm$ 0.3 ps at \SI{4.3}{K}. For a similar operating temperature, we measured a detection efficiency of 64 $\%$ at 1550 nm. Moreover, we reached saturation of the internal efficiency for the whole visible spectrum, up to \SI{7}{K} while preserving a high critical and by increasing the film thickness of the superconducting device, we decrease the intrinsic dark count rate. The devices reported in this work paves the way for integration of large arrays of high performance SNSPDs in emerging or well establish applications such as astronomy, quantum applications and bio-imaging.
\section*{Funding}
This work was supported by the European Commission via the Marie-Sklodowska Curie action Phonsi (H2020-MSCA-ITN-642656). I.E.Z. acknowledges the support
of NWO LIFT-HTSM for Physics 2016-2017, project no. 680-91-202.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Dr. M.J.A. de Dood for valuable discussions and A. W. Elshaari for his help with the publication.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
Reflections are commonly observed in images taken through glass, where the light reflected by the glass (\ie, \emph{reflection}) and that from the objects behind the glass (\ie, \emph{transmission}) are both captured by the camera.
Undesired reflections inevitably degrade image visual quality and hinder many subsequent vision applications such as autonomous driving and entertainment, making reflection removal both very challenging and practically valuable in low level vision~\cite{Punnappurath_2019_CVPR, CEILNet, ERRNet}.
To mitigate the ill-posedness of reflection removal, early studies usually resort to multiple input images captured under different illumination conditions, focal lengths, polarizer angles, and camera viewpoints.
On the contrary, single image reflection removal (SIRR)~\cite{Zhang2018CVPR, BDN, IBCLN} is more common in task setting and practically more significant, and has received considerable interest in the recent few years.
Following the formulation in \cite{ERRNet, Zhang2018CVPR}, the input image, \ie, an observation $I$, can be viewed as a linear combination of a transmission layer $T$ and a reflection layer $R$, \ie, $I=T+R$.
The goal of SIRR is to recover the transmission layer $T$ for the observation $I$.
Unfortunately, the intrinsic ill-posedness of SIRR makes it very challenging to learn a direct mapping from the input image $I$ to the transmission $T$.
To ease the difficulty of training SIRR, cascaded deep models are usually adopted to mitigate the uncertainty of transmission estimation~\cite{CEILNet,BDN,IBCLN}.
For example, \cite{CEILNet} first estimates the edge map and then the transmission, while \cite{BDN} and \cite{IBCLN} progressively refine the estimation of reflection and transmission layers.
However, there remain several interesting issues to further investigate (i) what should be estimated in the prior stage and (ii) how to exploit the result in prior stage for guiding succeeding transmission estimation, thereby leaving some leeway in improving SIRR.
In this paper, we take a step forward to address the above issues, and present a novel two-stage network with reflection-aware guidance (RAGNet).
To be specific, our RAGNet first estimates the reflection layer $\hat{R}$ in the first stage.
Then, it takes both the estimated reflection $\hat{R}$ and observation $I$ as the input to predict the transmission layer $\hat{T}$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:introduction} shows an example of an input image as well as the estimated reflection by our RAGNet.
The reasons to estimate the reflection layer in the first stage can be explained from three aspects.
First, the reflection layer generally is much simpler than the transmission layer and is relatively easier to estimate.
Second, the estimated reflection is beneficial to transmission estimation.
For example, the difference between the observation and estimated reflection, \ie, $I - \hat{R}$, can serve as a reasonable initialization of the transmission.
Third, the linear combination $I=T+R$ may not hold true for real-world observations, especially those images with heavy and bright reflection (see Fig.~\ref{fig:introduction}).
Also, the illumination of estimated reflection is helpful in finding the regions violating the linear combination hypothesis.
\begin{table}[t
\captionsetup{font={small}}
\caption{\footnotesize Comparison of deep cascaded models for SIRR. $I$, $R$, $T$ and $E$ denote observation, reflection, transmission and edge maps, respectively.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\centering
\label{tab:introduction}
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{lcc}%
\toprule
Methods & Multi-stage Scheme & Cross-stage Fusion \\
\midrule
CEILNet~\cite{CEILNet} & $I \to E \to T$ & Concat \\
BDN~\cite{BDN} & $I \to T_0 \to R \to T$ & Concat \\
IBCLN~\cite{IBCLN} & $(\mathbf{0},I) \to (R_1, T_1) \to \ldots $ & Concat+LSTM \\
Ours & $I \to R \to T$ & RAG \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-2.5mm}
\end{table}
Furthermore, we elaborate a reflection-aware guidance (RAG) module for better exploiting the estimated reflection in the second stage.
As summarized in Table~\ref{tab:introduction}, the output of the prior stage is concatenated with the original observation as the input of the subsequent stage in~\cite{BDN,CEILNet}.
Li \etal~\cite{IBCLN} further applied a recurrent layer (\ie, LSTM~\cite{LSTM}) to exploit the deep features across stages.
In comparison, the second stage of RAGNet includes an encoder for the estimated reflection and an encoder-decoder for the original observation.
For each block of the decoder, an RAG module is elaborated for better leveraging the estimated reflection from two aspects.
On the one hand, the encoder feature map of the reflection is utilized to suppress that of the observation, and their difference is then concatenated with the decoder feature map of the observation.
On the other hand, the encoder feature maps of the reflection and observation are incorporated with the decoder feature map to generate a mask indicating the extent to which the transmission is corrupted by heavy reflection.
The mask is then collaborated with partial convolution to mitigate the effect of deviating from linear combination hypothesis.
And a dedicated mask loss is further presented for reconciling the contributions of encoder and decoder features.
Extensive experiments are conducted on five commonly used real-world datasets to evaluate our RAGNet.
With the RAG module, the estimated reflection is effective in guiding the transmission estimation and alleviating the effect of violating linear combination hypothesis.
In comparison with the state-of-the-art models~\cite{CEILNet, Zhang2018CVPR, BDN, ERRNet, IBCLN}, our RAGNet performs favorably in terms of both quantitative metrics and visual quality.
In general, the main contribution of this work is summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item A SIRR network RAGNet is presented, which involves two stages, \ie, first estimating reflection and then predicting transmission. Its rationality is also explicated to differentiate from existing cascaded SIRR models.
\item For better leveraging the estimated reflection in the second stage, the reflection-aware guidance (RAG) module is further introduced to guide the transmission estimation and alleviate the effect of violating linear combination hypothesis.
\item Experiments on five popular datasets show that our RAGNet performs favorably against the state-of-the-art methods quantitatively and qualitatively.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related_work}
In this section, we briefly review two categories of relevant methods on reflection removal tasks, \ie, multiple image reflection removal and single image reflection removal.
\subsection{Multiple Image Reflection Removal}\label{subsec:MIRR}
Due to the ill-posed nature, multiple images have been exploited to solve the reflection removal problem by providing extra information.
Agrawal \etal~\cite{2005Removing} used two separate images as input, which are captured with and without flash light, respectively, and Fu \etal~\cite{Fu_2013_ICCV} further took into consideration the high frequency illumination.
Schechner \etal~\cite{2000Separation} treated the input image as a superimposition of two layers, and novel blur kernels were proposed to eliminate mutual penetration of the separated layers, using images taken with different focal lengths as a clue.
Polarization camera is also used to take advantage of the polarization properties of light~\cite{2004Separating, Wieschollek_2018_ECCV, Lei_2020_CVPR}.
{In particular, based on the linear hypothesis $I=T+R$ in raw RGB space, Lei \etal~\cite{Lei_2020_CVPR} adopted a simple two-stage model but took multiple polarized images as input.}
In these methods, the behavioral difference between the reflection layer and the transmission layer under different settings serves as an effective clue for reflection removal.
Unlike the aforementioned methods, whose input images are captured in a fixed position, taking images from different viewpoints is another popular way to exploit multiple image information in reflection removal tasks~\cite{2015A, 855826, Li_2013_ICCV, Guo_2014_CVPR, 2004Separating, 5765994, 2012Image, Yang_2016_CVPR, sun2016automatic, HAN_2017_CVPR, Simon_2015_CVPR}.
In particular, Punnappurath \etal~\cite{Punnappurath_2019_CVPR} leveraged the newly developed dual pixel (DP) cameras, and images captured from two sub-aperture views are readily accessible.
Although approaches in the multi-input paradigm can obtain impressive results, the necessity to prepare qualified input images with specially designed hardware or extra human efforts makes them inconvenient, and the prerequisites are unable to be satisfied in many practical scenarios, which boosts the recent prevalence of single image reflection removal.
\subsection{Single Image Reflection Removal}\label{subsec:SIRR}
As the name implies, SIRR methods merely require a single image as input.
Traditional methods employ various priors observed in real-world images to reduce the ill-posedness, such as gradient sparsity prior~\cite{4288165, 8300655, Arvanitopoulos_2017_CVPR, Sandhan_2017_CVPR}, smoothness prior~\cite{Li_2014_CVPR, 7532311} and ghosting cues~\cite{Shih_2015_CVPR}.
Unfortunately, the representation and generalization ability of such methods is limited, and they are prone to produce poor results in the absence of discriminative hints, which is often the case when using handcrafted priors.
As a remedy, learning based methods have been proposed to solve the SIRR problem by leveraging the capacity of deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs), which mainly focus on data synthesis, loss function and network design.
Due to the tremendous effort required to collect sufficient well-aligned real image pairs for model training, Fan \etal~\cite{CEILNet} generated reflection layers via smoothing and illumination intensity decay, which were then used to synthesize the observation by linear combination.
Zhang \etal~\cite{Zhang2018CVPR} further adapted the intensity decay to suit reflections with higher illuminance level, and applied random vignette to simulate different camera views.
Besides, several loss functions have been particularly designed to leverage the characteristic of reflections.
CEILNet~\cite{CEILNet} constrains the gradient maps of the predicted transmission layer to avoid blurry output.
Zhang \etal~\cite{Zhang2018CVPR} proposed an exclusion loss by minimizing the correlation between the gradient maps of estimated transmission and reflection layers, based on the observation that the edges in these two layers are unlikely to overlap.
Li \etal~\cite{IBCLN} took advantage of the synthesis model to reconstruct the observation, which is constrained to approximate the input.
As to network structure, most recent works follow two main schemes.
On the one hand, \cite{Zhang2018CVPR} and \cite{ERRNet} extracted input features via a pre-trained VGG-19~\cite{VGG} model and stack them together for subsequent usage, which exploits multi-scale features and is tolerant of mild misalignment between real-world training pairs.
On the other hand, the encoder-decoder framework is exploited in \cite{CEILNet, ERRNet, BDN, IBCLN}, where skip connections are usually integrated for better feature utilization.
Considering the difficulty of directly estimating the transmission layer, cascaded models have been widely adopted in the hope of finding a better reflection removal pathway.
Fan \etal~\cite{CEILNet} first predicted potential edge maps, and then the transmission layer is generated given the edge maps.
Yang \etal~\cite{BDN} alternated between reflection and transmission estimation, while Li \etal~\cite{IBCLN} further incorporated a long short-term memory (LSTM) module~\cite{LSTM} to generate the reflection and the transmission layer in a progressive manner.
Such multi-stage methods are closely related to our proposed method, however, as further discussed in Sec.~\ref{subsec:limitations}, they are still limited in exploiting the result from prior stage.
We note that the MIRR method~\cite{Lei_2020_CVPR} also uses a two-stage network but takes raw polarized images with different polarization angles as input.
Moreover, it adopts the linear hypothesis $I=T+R$ and {its} concatenation-based fusion is limited in exploiting the estimated reflection for the {subsequent} stage.
Empirically, the retraining of adjusted MIRR by feeding a single unpolarized image is still limited in removing heavy and bright reflections (See Fig.~\ref{fig:introduction}).
\section{Proposed Method}\label{sec:method}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\begin{overpic}[width=1\textwidth]{figures/net.pdf}
\put(16,33.8){\normalsize $\hat{R}$}
\put(17,29.8){\normalsize $I$}
\put(16.5,10.1){\normalsize $\hat{T}$}
\put(24,32.6){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_R^1$}
\put(43,32.6){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_R^2$}
\put(62.2,32.6){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_R^3$}
\put(81.4,32.6){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_R^4$}
\put(30,28.6){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_I^1$}
\put(49,28.6){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_I^2$}
\put(68.2,28.6){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_I^3$}
\put(87.4,28.6){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_I^4$}
\put(95.5,24.2){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_I^5$}
\put(23.3,19.1){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}^1$}
\put(29.2,19.1){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{dec}^1$}
\put(42.3,19.1){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}^2$}
\put(48.2,19.1){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{dec}^2$}
\put(61.9,19.1){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}^3$}
\put(67.2,19.1){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{dec}^3$}
\put(80.3,19.1){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}^4$}
\put(86.5,19.1){\normalsize $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{dec}^4$}
\put(35.5,12.8){\footnotesize $\mathbf{F}_R^i$}
\put(51.8,12.8){\footnotesize $\mathbf{F}_I^i$}
\put(35,1.7){\footnotesize $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}^i$}
\put(51.2,1.7){\footnotesize $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{dec}^i$}
\put(89.3,8.4){\textbf{\scriptsize Encoder $\bm{E_I}$}}
\put(89.3,3){\textbf{\scriptsize Encoder $\bm{E_R}$}}
\put(79.5,3){\textbf{\scriptsize Decoder $\bm{D_T}$}}
\put(79.3,8.4){\textbf{\scriptsize Skip Connect}}
\put(72.8,8.4){\textbf{\scriptsize Concat}}
\put(63.3,8.4){\textbf{\scriptsize Partial Conv}}
\put(63.5,3){\textbf{\scriptsize Subtraction}}
\put(72.4,3){\textbf{\scriptsize Sigmoid}}
\end{overpic}
\vspace{-5mm}
\captionsetup{font={small}}
\caption{Structure of the second stage subnetwork ($G_T$) in RAGNet, which takes both the observation $I$ and the predicted reflection $\hat{R}$ as input, and generates the transmission layer $\hat{T}$. $G_T$ follows the U-Net~\cite{UNet} setting, while the concatenated feature through the skip-connection is $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}=\mathbf{F}_I-\mathbf{F}_R$ rather than $\mathbf{F}_I$. More detailed structure settings please refer to the supplementary material.}
\label{fig:architecture}
\end{figure*}
In this section, we first revisit the limitations of existing multi-stage SIRR methods.
Then, the overall architecture and the design to exploit reflection-aware guidance are illustrated in detail.
Finally, the dedicated mask loss and the learning objective are presented.
\subsection{Limitations of existing multi-stage methods}\label{subsec:limitations}
Given an observation $I$, CEILNet~\cite{CEILNet} predicts a potential edge map $E$ for the transmission layer, where a reflection smoothness prior is assumed to distinguish whether the image gradients belong to the transmission layer or the reflection layer.
Unfortunately, such smoothness prior is often violated in real scenarios, and the resulting inaccurate edge maps will lead to a degraded performance by providing wrong information to the second stage.
BDN~\cite{BDN} and IBCLN~\cite{IBCLN} resort to predicting reflection layer in the prior stage.
However, a simple concatenation is insufficient to make full use of the predicted reflection layer and is limited in suppressing the heavy and bright reflections, thus BDN~\cite{BDN} often fails to process the reflections in difficult regions (see Fig.~\ref{fig:introduction}).
IBCLN~\cite{IBCLN} takes the input image $I$ and black image $\mathbf{0}_{h\times w}$ as initial estimation of transmission and reflection, and iteratively refines them with a LSTM~\cite{LSTM} module to exploit cross-stage information, which significantly promotes the SIRR performance.
Nevertheless, such principle makes the method less efficient and greatly relies on the generation quality in the prior stages, and the errors will also be accumulated across stages, leading to undesired artifacts in some scenarios (\eg, zooming in Fig.~\ref{fig:introduction} for clear observation).
\subsection{Overall Architecture Design}\label{subsec:structure}
Considering the aforementioned limitations, we build a \emph{two-stage} model, where a \emph{reflection-aware guidance (RAG)} module is introduced in the second stage to better exploit the \emph{reflection layer} predicted in the first stage.
Specifically, we use a plain U-Net~\cite{UNet} model as the first stage subnetwork, namely $G_R$, which takes the observation $I$ as input and predicts the reflection layer, \ie, $\hat{R}=G_R(I)$.
The structure of the second stage subnetwork $G_T$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:architecture}, $\hat{R}$ is fed into $G_T$ together with the observation $I$ to generate the transmission layer, \ie, $\hat{T}=G_T(I, \hat{R})$.
In particular, $G_T$ is composed of two encoders ($E_I$ and $E_R$) and one decoder ($D_T$), and an RAG module is elaborated in each block of $D_T$.
Kindly refer to the supplementary material for detailed structure configurations.
\begin{figure}[th]
\small
\centering
\scalebox{.93}{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/masks_chen/input.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/masks_chen/pretrained_R.jpg}
\\
Input&\hspace{-4.2mm}
Predicted $\hat{R}$
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/masks_chen/maske_.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/masks_chen/maskd_.jpg}
\\
$\mathbf{M}_\mathit{diff}$&\hspace{-4.2mm}
$\mathbf{M}_\mathit{dec}$
\\
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-2mm}
\captionsetup{font={small}}
\caption{Visualization of $\mathbf{M}_\mathit{diff}$ and $\mathbf{M}_\mathit{dec}$, and we randomly select $12$ channels for each. It can be seen that the values of $\mathbf{M}_\mathit{diff}$ tend to be $0$ (black in color) in heavy reflection areas, while the values in regions with minor reflections are close to $1$. The image is from the \emph{Real 20} Dataset.}
\label{fig:mask}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[thbp]
\small
\centering
\scalebox{.95}{
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/0_input.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/0_ceil.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/0_chen.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/0_bdn.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/0_errnet.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/0_ibcln.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/0_ours.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/0_gt.png}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/2_input.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/2_ceil.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/2_chen.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/2_bdn.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/2_errnet.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/2_ibcln.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/2_ours.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/2_gt.png}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/5_input.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/5_ceil.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/5_chen.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/5_bdn.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/5_errnet.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/5_ibcln.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/5_ours.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/5_gt.png}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/10_input.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/10_ceil.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/10_chen.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/10_bdn.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/10_errnet.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/10_ibcln.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/10_ours.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.124\textwidth]{figures/comparison/10_gt.png}
\\
Input&\hspace{-4.2mm}
CEILNet~\cite{CEILNet}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
Zhang \etal~\cite{Zhang2018CVPR}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
BDN~\cite{BDN}& \hspace{-4.2mm}
ERRNet~\cite{ERRNet}& \hspace{-4.2mm}
IBCLN~\cite{IBCLN}& \hspace{-4.2mm}
Ours& \hspace{-4.2mm}
Ground-truth
\\
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-3mm}
\captionsetup{font={small}}
\caption{Visual comparison on four real-world datasets. The first column and the last column are the inputs and ground-truth transmission layers. From top to down, the four rows of images are from \emph{SIR$^2$ Solid}, \emph{SIR$^2$ Postcard}, \emph{SIR$^2$ Wild} and \emph{Real 20} datasets, respectively. More results are given in the supplementary material, and please zoom in for better observation.}
\label{fig:comparison0}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Reflection-Aware Guidance}\label{subsec:RAG}
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:introduction}, reflections are spatially nonuniform, whose location and intensity can be roughly predicted in the first stage.
The estimated reflection $\hat{R}$ can then be incorporated with the observation $I$ for succeeding transmission estimation.
However, the estimated reflection $\hat{R}$ may be inaccurate.
Furthermore, the linear combination hypothesis may not hold true in regions with high reflection intensities, where few informative features of the transmission are retained in $I-\hat{R}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:introduction}).
Therefore, estimating the transmission in such regions is more challenging, and is more likely to be an inpainting task.
Taking these factors into account, we elaborate an RAG module in each decoder block for (i) generating feature complementary to the decoder and (ii) predicting a mask to indicate the heavy reflection regions for guiding image inpainting.
Given the observation feature $\mathbf{F}_I$, the reflection feature $\mathbf{F}_R$ and the decoder feature $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{dec}$, the RAG module is designed as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:architecture}.
Using $\mathbf{F}_I$ and $\mathbf{F}_R$, the difference feature $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}$ is generated via a subtraction operation to better suppress the reflections, \ie, $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff} = \mathbf{F}_I - \mathbf{F}_R$, which serves as a complement and enhancement to the decoder feature $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{dec}$.
Furthermore, taking $\mathbf{F}_I$, $\mathbf{F}_R$ and $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{dec}$ as input, the RAG module generates a mask $\mathbf{M}$ via two $1 \times 1$ convolution layers followed by a sigmoid operation.
Note that $\mathbf{M}=[\mathbf{M}_\mathit{diff}, \mathbf{M}_\mathit{dec}]$, where $[\cdot,\cdot]$ denotes the concatenation operation, and $\mathbf{M}_\mathit{diff}$ and $\mathbf{M}_\mathit{dec}$ are masks regarding to $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}$ and $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{dec}$, respectively.
With such mask, the model is aware of the regions deviating from the linear combination hypothesis, and recovers the transmission layer in such areas mainly relying on the surrounding decoder feature using image inpainting.
The mask $\mathbf{M}$ is visualized in Fig.~\ref{fig:mask}.
Considering the similarity between inpainting and reflection removal in heavy reflection regions, we deploy a partial convolution~\cite{partial_conv} alongside each RAG module to better exploit the mask, which was first introduced in image inpainting methods~\cite{Liu_2018_ECCV,xie2019image}.
The mask generated by RAG module ranges from 0 to 1, thus the partial convolution in this paper can be formulated as,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:partial_conv}
\resizebox*{.9\linewidth}{!}{
$\mathbf{F}'= \left \{
\begin{array}{cl}
\displaystyle (\mathbf{W}\ast(\mathbf{F}\circ\mathbf{M}))\circ\frac{1}{\mathbf{\bar{M}}_{3\times3}}+\mathbf{b}, & \mathbf{\bar{M}}_{3\times3} > 0 \\
0, & \mathrm{otherwise}
\end{array}\right.$
\!,}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{W}$ and $\mathbf{b}$ represent the weight and bias of the partial convolution, $\mathbf{F}=[\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}, \mathbf{F}_\mathit{dec}]$, $\ast$ and $\circ$ are convolution and entry-wise product respectively. $\mathbf{\bar{M}}_{3\times3}$ contains the average values of $\mathbf{M}$ in $3\!\times\!3$ neighborhood regions, which can be efficiently calculated by a $3\!\times\!3$ average pooling operation.
\begin{figure*}[thbp]
\small
\centering
\scalebox{.95}{
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/11_input.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/11_ceil.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/11_chen.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/11_bdn.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/11_errnet.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/11_ibcln.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/11_ours.png}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/2_input.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/2_ceil.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/2_chen.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/2_bdn.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/2_errnet.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/2_ibcln.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/2_ours.png}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/13_input.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/13_ceil.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/13_chen.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/13_bdn.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/13_errnet.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/13_ibcln.png}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/comparison_wogt/13_ours.png}
\\
Input&\hspace{-4.2mm}
CEILNet~\cite{CEILNet}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
Zhang \etal~\cite{Zhang2018CVPR}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
BDN~\cite{BDN}& \hspace{-4.2mm}
ERRNet~\cite{ERRNet}& \hspace{-4.2mm}
IBCLN~\cite{IBCLN}& \hspace{-4.2mm}
Ours
\\
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-3mm}
\captionsetup{font={small}}
\caption{Visual comparison on \emph{Real 45} dataset, where the ground-truth transmission layer is unavailable. More results are given in the supplementary material. Please zoom in for better observation.}
\label{fig:comparison1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[thbp
\centering
\captionsetup{font={small}}
\caption{PSNR/SSIM results by different methods for reflection removal on four real-world datasets with ground-truth. The best and the second-best results in each dataset are highlighted with {\color{red}red} and {\color{blue}blue}, respectively.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{tab:comparison}
\scalebox{0.85}{
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Datasets} & CEILNet~\cite{CEILNet} & Zhang \etal~\cite{Zhang2018CVPR} & BDN~\cite{BDN} & ERRNet~\cite{ERRNet} & Lei \etal~\cite{Lei_2020_CVPR} & IBCLN~\cite{IBCLN} & Ours \\
\cmidrule(l){2-8}
{} & PSNR / SSIM & PSNR / SSIM & PSNR / SSIM & PSNR / SSIM & PSNR / SSIM & PSNR / SSIM & PSNR / SSIM \\
\midrule
{\emph{SIR$^2$ Solid} (200)} &23.37 / 0.875 & 22.68 / 0.879 & 22.73 / 0.853 & 24.85 / {\color{blue}0.894} & 23.81 / 0.882 & {\color{blue}24.88} / 0.893 & {\color{red}26.15} / {\color{red}0.903} \\
\emph{SIR$^2$ Postcard} (199)& 20.09 / 0.786 & 16.81 / 0.797 & 20.71 / 0.857 & 21.99 / 0.874 & 21.48 / 0.873 & {\color{blue}23.39} / {\color{blue}0.875} & {\color{red}23.67} / {\color{red}0.879} \\
\emph{SIR$^2$ Wild} (55) & 21.07 / 0.805 & 21.52 / 0.832 & 22.34 / 0.821 & 24.16 / 0.847 & 23.84 / 0.866 & {\color{blue}24.71} / {\color{red}0.886} & {\color{red}25.52} / {\color{blue}0.880} \\
\emph{Real 20} (20) & 18.87 / 0.692 & 22.55 / 0.788 & 18.81 / 0.737 & {\color{red}23.19} / {\color{red}0.817} & 22.35 / {\color{blue}0.793} & 22.04 / 0.772 & {\color{blue}22.95} / {\color{blue}0.793} \\
Average (474) & 21.54 / 0.822 & 20.08 / 0.835& 21.67 / 0.846 & 23.50 / 0.877 & 22.77 / 0.873 & {\color{blue}24.11} / {\color{blue}0.880} & {\color{red}24.90} / {\color{red}0.886} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Mask Loss}\label{subsec:mask_loss}
Furthermore, we design a novel mask loss to better exploit the mask $\mathbf{M}$ during training RAGNet.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:introduction}, for areas with heavy reflections, $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}$ can hardly provide informative features.
Therefore, we dispose the values of $\mathbf{M}_\mathit{diff}$ to approximate $0$ in such areas, \ie,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:mask_loss_diff}
\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{mask}^\mathit{diff}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^4\| \mathbf{M}_\mathit{diff}^i[R>\varphi]\|_1,
\end{equation}%
where $i$ means the $i$-th layer, $\|\cdot\|_{_1}$ denotes the $\ell_1$ norm, $A[condition]$ represents the part of $A$ that meets the $condition$ in the square brackets, $\varphi$ is the threshold that delimits heavy reflection areas.
However, with $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{mask}^\mathit{diff}$ only, $\mathbf{M}$ may be optimized towards a trivial solution $\mathbf{0}$, which diminishes the effect of $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}$.
Therefore, $\mathbf{M}$ is supposed to be $1$ for areas with few reflections, to avoid the trivial solution as a regularization term and force the partial convolution to exploit both $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}$ and $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{dec}$, since both of them are reliable in such areas, \ie,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:mask_loss_reg}
\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{mask}^\mathit{reg}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^4\| \mathbf{M}^i[R<\xi] -1 \|_1,
\end{equation}%
where $\xi$ means threshold for regions with few reflections.
Note that we do not constrain the mask values in remaining regions, which will be automatically optimized for better transmission estimation.
Therefore, the mask loss is formulated as,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:mask_loss}
\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{mask}=\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{mask}^\mathit{diff}+\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{mask}^\mathit{reg},
\end{equation}%
and we empirically set $\xi=0.01$ and $\varphi=0.3$.
The effectiveness of mask loss will be further corroborated in ablation studies.
\subsection{Learning Objective}\label{subsec:learning_objectives}
\begin{figure*}[thbp]
\small
\centering
\scalebox{.95}{
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/str_loss/8_input.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/str_loss/8_3-2.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/str_loss/8_3-1.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/str_loss/8_2-2.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/str_loss/8_2-5.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/str_loss/8_2-4.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/str_loss/8_final.jpg}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/str_loss/7_input.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/str_loss/7_3-2.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/str_loss/7_3-1.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/str_loss/7_2-2.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/str_loss/7_2-5.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/str_loss/7_2-4.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/str_loss/7_final.jpg}
\\
Input&\hspace{-4.2mm}
RAGNet$_{I \to T}$&\hspace{-4.2mm}
w/o $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}$& \hspace{-4.2mm}
w/o $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{mask}$& \hspace{-4.2mm}
w/o $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{mask}^\mathit{diff}$& \hspace{-4.2mm}
w/o $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{mask}^\mathit{reg}$& \hspace{-4.2mm}
RAGNet
\\
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-3mm}
\captionsetup{font={small}}
\caption{Visual results of ablation studies on structure and loss functions. The images are from \emph{Real 20} and \emph{SIR$^2$ Wild} datasets, respectively. Please zoom in for better observation.}
\label{fig:ablation_structure}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure*}
To train our RAGNet, several commonly used loss functions are collaborated, including reconstruction loss, perceptual loss~\cite{LiFeiFei_styletransfer}, exclusion loss~\cite{Zhang2018CVPR} and adversarial loss~\cite{GAN}.
\noindent\textbf{Reconstruction loss.}
With synthetic image pairs, we are able to minimize the pixel-wise difference between network outputs $\hat{T}$, $\hat{R}$ and the corresponding ground-truths $T$, $R$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:reconstruction_loss}
\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{rec}=\sum_{Y\in\{T,R\}}\| \hat{Y} -Y \|_1.
\end{equation}
\noindent\textbf{Perceptual loss.}
Given a pre-trained VGG-19~\cite{VGG} model $\phi$, we minimize the $\ell_1$ difference between $\phi(\hat{T})$, $\phi(\hat{R})$ and $\phi(T)$, $\phi(R)$ in the selected feature layers,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:perceptual_loss}
\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{percep}=\sum_{Y\in\{T,R\}}\sum\limits_{l}\kappa_l\| \phi_l(\hat{Y}) -\phi_l(Y) \|_1,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $l$ indicates the index of $conv1\_2$, $conv2\_2$, $conv3\_2$, $conv4\_2$ and $conv5\_2$ layers.
The weights $\{\kappa_l\}$ are used to balance different layers.
\noindent\textbf{Exclusion loss.}
Following~\cite{Zhang2018CVPR}, the exclusion loss is formulated as,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:exclusion_loss}
\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{excl}=\frac{1}{N\!+\!1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^N\sqrt{\|\Psi(T^{\downarrow n},R^{\downarrow n}) \|_{_F}}.
\end{equation}
where $\Psi(T,R)={\tanh}(\lambda_{_T}\vert \nabla T \vert)\circ {\tanh}(\lambda_{_R}\vert \nabla R \vert)$, and $\lambda_{T}$ and $\lambda_{R}$ denote normalization factors.
$\nabla T$ and $\nabla R$ are gradients of $T$ and $R$.
$\|\cdot\|_{F}$ is the Frobenius norm.
$T^{\downarrow n}$ and $R^{\downarrow n}$ represent the $n\times$ down-sampling versions of $T$ and $R$, where $T^{\downarrow 0}$ and $R^{\downarrow 0}$ are the original inputs.
In practice, we set $N$ = 2, $\lambda_{T} = \frac{1}{2}$, and $\lambda_{R} = \frac{\|\nabla T \|_1}{\|\nabla{R}\|_1}$.
\noindent\textbf{Adversarial Loss.}
Adversarial loss is adopted to further enhance the visual quality of the output images.
We treat the whole RAGNet as the generator $G$ and additionally build a $4$-layer discriminator $D$, whose parameters are updated via,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_D=\mathbb{E}_{I,T}{\log}D(I,T)+\mathbb{E}_{I}(1-{\log}D(I,G(I))),
\end{equation}
while the parameters of $G$ are optimized by,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{adv}=-\mathbb{E}_{I}{\log}D(I,G(I)).
\end{equation}
Taking the above loss functions into account, the learning objective to train our RAGNet can be formulated as,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:total_loss}
\mathcal{L}=\lambda_1\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{rec}+\lambda_2\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{percep}+\lambda_3\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{excl}+\lambda_4\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{adv}+\lambda_5\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{mask},
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\lambda_5=1, \lambda_3=0.2$ and $\lambda_4=0.01$.
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:experiments}
\subsection{Implementation Details}\label{subsec:implementation_details}
\noindent\textbf{Training Data.}
Following previous works, the proposed RAGNet is trained with both synthetic and real-world images, and we use the same data synthesis protocol as ERRNet~\cite{ERRNet}.
Specifically, $7,643$ image pairs are chosen from the PASCAL VOC dataset~\cite{VOC}, and each pair is used to generate the transmission $T$ and the reflection $R$, respectively.
In each iteration, we select a pair of two images, whose shorter sides are randomly scaled into $[224, 448]$, and two $224\times224$ patches are then cropped to synthesize the input $I$.
For real-world data, Zhang \etal~\cite{Zhang2018CVPR} collected 110 input-transmission pairs, and we follow the official split where 90 image pairs are used for training.
Since the ground-truth reflection $R$ is unavailable, the corresponding reconstruction and and perceptual losses on $\hat{R}$ are omitted when training with real-world images.
\noindent\textbf{Evaluation Datasets.}
Five commonly used real-world datasets are exploited for evaluation, including 20 image pairs (\emph{Real 20}) from~\cite{Zhang2018CVPR}, 45 images (\emph{Real 45}) from~\cite{CEILNet} and three subsets from SIR$^2$~\cite{Wan_2017_ICCV}, including
\romannumeral1)~\emph{SIR$^2$ Wild} with 55 wild scene images,
\romannumeral2)~\emph{SIR$^2$ Solid} with 200 controlled scene images of a set of daily-life objects, and
\romannumeral3)~\emph{SIR$^2$ Postcard} with 199 controlled scene images on postcards, which are obtained by using one postcard as transmission and another as reflection.
Note that we only give the quantitative results of \emph{Real 20} and three SIR$^2$ subsets, since the ground-truth transmission of \emph{Real 45} is unavailable.
\noindent\textbf{Implementation Details.}
The model is optimized by the Adam~\cite{Adam} optimizer with $\beta_1=0.9$, $\beta_2=0.999$ and a fixed learning rate of $1\times10^{-4}$.
For stable training, we first train $G_R$ for 50 epochs, and then the whole model is jointly trained for another 100 epochs.
All the experiments are conducted in the PyTorch~\cite{PyTorch} environment running on a PC with an Nvidia RTX 2080Ti GPU.
The source code and pre-trained model are available at \url{https://github.com/liyucs/RAGNet}.
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\small
\centering
\scalebox{1}{
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/PartialConv/1_input.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/PartialConv/1_1-1.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/PartialConv/1_1-2.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/PartialConv/1_1-3.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/PartialConv/1_final.jpg}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/PartialConv/3_input.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/PartialConv/3_1-1.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/PartialConv/3_1-2.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/PartialConv/3_1-3.jpg}&\hspace{-4.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{figures/AblationStudy/PartialConv/3_final.jpg}
\\
Input&\hspace{-4.2mm}
RAGNet$_\mathbf{F}$&\hspace{-4.2mm}
RAGNet$_{\mathbf{F}\circ\mathbf{M}}$& \hspace{-4.2mm}
RAGNet$_{\mathbf{F}\circ\mathbf{M}^{2c}}$& \hspace{-4.2mm}
RAGNet
\\
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-3mm}
\captionsetup{font={small}}
\caption{Visual results of ablation studies on mask utilization schemes. The images are from \emph{Real 20} and \emph{SIR$^2$ Wild} datasets, respectively. Please zoom in for better observation.}
\label{fig:ablation_mask}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[t
\vspace{-3mm}
\captionsetup{font={small}}
\caption{Quantitative comparison of different settings on structure and loss functions.}
\vspace{-2mm}
\centering
\label{tab:ablation_structure_loss}
\scalebox{0.9}{
\begin{tabular}{lcc}%
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Model} & \emph{Real 20} & \emph{SIR$^2$ Wild} \\
\cline{2-3}
{}& PSNR / SSIM & PSNR / SSIM \\
\midrule
RAGNet$_{I \to T}$ &20.73 / 0.753 & 24.37 / 0.871\\
w/o $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}$ &20.99 / 0.758 & 24.57 / 0.865\\
\midrule
w/o ${\rm \mathcal{L}_{mask}}$ &21.32 / 0.764 & 25.09 / 0.878\\
w/o $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{mask}^\mathit{diff}$ &22.08 / 0.769 & 25.09 / 0.877\\
w/o $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{mask}^\mathit{reg}$ &22.11 / 0.773 & 25.12 / 0.876\\
\midrule
RAGNet &22.95 / 0.793 & 25.52 / 0.880\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-1mm}
\end{table}
\subsection{Comparison with State-of-the-arts}\label{subsec:comparison}
We compare the proposed RAGNet with five state-of-the-art SIRR methods, \ie, CEILNet~\cite{CEILNet}, Zhang \etal~\cite{Zhang2018CVPR}, BDN~\cite{BDN}, ERRNet~\cite{ERRNet} {,} IBCLN~\cite{IBCLN}, as well as {the adjusted MIRR method by only taking the observation $I$ as the network input, \ie, Lei \etal~\cite{Lei_2020_CVPR}}.
We finetune these models on our training dataset
and report the better result between the finetuned version
and the released one.
For Lei \etal~\cite{Lei_2020_CVPR}, we adjust the network input and retrain the model with our training set.
The PSNR and SSIM metrics of all competing methods are reported in Table~\ref{tab:comparison}.
Note that the results of \emph{Real 45} are omitted due to lack of ground-truth.
{Therefore, a user study is conducted on \emph{Real 45} to evaluate the reflection removal quality and the results also show the superiority of our RAGNet. The details are given in the supplementary material.}
It can be seen that the proposed RAGNet achieves the best performance by PSNR on three of the four datasets, and surpasses all other methods on average quantitative performance by a large margin ($\sim$0.8dB in PSNR).
{The quantitative gain against other deep cascaded models~\cite{CEILNet,BDN,IBCLN,Lei_2020_CVPR} also indicates the benefit of appropriate reflection-aware guidance.}
Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison0} shows the qualitative results and the corresponding ground-truth on three SIR$^2$ subsets and \emph{Real 20} dataset, and the results on \emph{Real 45} dataset are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison1}.
One can see that CEILNet may fail when the reflections have clear edges, where the smoothness assumption is violated (\eg, the second row of Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison0}).
Zhang \etal~\cite{Zhang2018CVPR} is prone to over-processing, which generates dim results with color aberration in most cases, while BDN~\cite{BDN} tends to generate brighter output images than input ones.
Moreover, the reflections seem insufficiently removed in the results of ERRNet~\cite{ERRNet} and IBCLN~\cite{IBCLN}.
In general, our method outperforms the competing methods, and removes the reflection areas more accurately and thoroughly.
Please refer to the supplementary material for more qualitative results.
\section{Ablation Study}\label{sec:ablation_study}
In this section, we perform ablation studies on two outdoor real-world datasets, \ie, \emph{Real 20} and \emph{SIR$^2$ Wild}.
\subsection{Two-stage Architecture}\label{subsec:ablation_two_stage}
Our RAGNet is designed as a two-stage network, which takes reflection as an intermediate result to ease the reflection removal procedure.
However, it may be concerned whether a well-designed one-stage network is sufficient for SIRR.
To show the necessity and superiority of the two-stage architecture, we additionally design a single-stage variant, namely RAGNet$_{I \to T}$, which directly estimates the transmission layer from the input.
According to Fig.~\ref{fig:architecture}, the generation of $T$ in RAGNet requires features from two sources, \ie, $\mathbf{M}_\mathit{diff} \circ \mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}$ and $\mathbf{M}_{dec} \circ \mathbf{F}_\mathit{dec}$.
We expect that $\mathbf{M}_\mathit{diff}\to0$ when reflection is heavy as in Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:mask_loss_diff}), so that only $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{dec}$ provides information for recovering heavy reflection areas.
When designing RAGNet$_{I \to T}$, we retain the functionality of the skip connection and $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{dec}$:
one for providing auxiliary information via subtraction operations, the other focuses on gradually recovering $\hat{T}$.
The structure of the one-stage model is provided in the supplementary material.
The results in Table~\ref{tab:ablation_structure_loss} and Fig.~\ref{fig:ablation_structure} show that the one-stage variant RAGNet$_{I \to T}$ suffers a huge performance degradation, indicating the essentiality of the two-stage architecture for our RAGNet.
\begin{table}[t
\captionsetup{font={small}}
\caption{Quantitative comparison of different settings on mask utilization schemes.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\centering
\label{tab:ablation_mask}
\scalebox{0.9}{
\begin{tabular}{lcc}%
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Model} & \emph{Real 20} & \emph{SIR$^2$ Wild} \\
\cline{2-3}
{}& PSNR / SSIM & PSNR / SSIM \\
\midrule
RAGNet$_\mathbf{F}$ &20.93 / 0.750 & 24.47 / 0.875\\
RAGNet$_{\mathbf{F}\circ\mathbf{M}}$ &21.60 / 0.772 & 24.86 / 0.875\\
RAGNet$_{\mathbf{F}\circ\mathbf{M}^{2c}}$ &21.69 / 0.774 & 24.69 / 0.871\\
\midrule
RAGNet &22.95 / 0.793 & 25.52 / 0.880\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-1mm}
\end{table}
\subsection{RAG Module}\label{subsec:ablation_rag}
\noindent\textbf{Difference Features.}
To evaluate the effectiveness of difference features, we replace $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}$ with $\mathbf{F}_{I}$ and keep the other parts of the model unchanged, \ie, the subtraction operation is discarded.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ablation_structure}, without $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}$, the model performs poorly in suppressing the reflection, leading to an obvious performance drop in Table~\ref{tab:ablation_structure_loss}.
\noindent\textbf{Masks.}
In order to verify the settings about masks, we conduct ablation studies on three variants,
(i)~RAGNet$_\mathbf{F}$: the masks are totally discarded, where the partial convolution is accordingly replaced by vanilla convolution.
(ii)~RAGNet$_{\mathbf{F}\circ\mathbf{M}}$: the masks are multiplied with the feature $\mathbf{F}$, in other words, the renormalization operation in partial convolutions is removed.
(iii)~RAGNet$_{\mathbf{F}\circ\mathbf{M}^{2c}}$: a unified one-channel mask is predicted for $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{diff}$ and $\mathbf{F}_\mathit{dec}$ respectively, \ie, $\mathbf{M}_\mathit{diff}^{1c}$ and $\mathbf{M}_\mathit{dec}^{1c}$, where $\mathbf{M}^{2c}=[\mathbf{M}_\mathit{diff}^{1c}, \mathbf{M}_\mathit{dec}^{1c}]$.
Table~\ref{tab:ablation_mask} shows the quantitative results of the ablation studies on masks.
It can be seen that our RAGNet surpasses its variants RAGNet$_\mathbf{F}$ and RAGNet$_{\mathbf{F}\circ\mathbf{M}}$ in both PSNR and SSIM, indicating the effectiveness of the deployment of mask and partial convolution.
Furthermore, the ablation study on RAGNet$_{\mathbf{F}\circ\mathbf{M}^{2c}}$ shows that predicting a per-channel mask better suits the SIRR task in our framework.
Fig.~\ref{fig:ablation_mask} shows the qualitative results of the ablation studies.
It can be seen that, all of RAGNet$_\mathbf{F}$, RAGNet$_{\mathbf{F}\circ\mathbf{M}}$ and RAGNet$_{\mathbf{F}\circ\mathbf{M}^{2c}}$ fail to remove the heavy reflections, especially in complex environments (\eg, in the second row of Fig.~\ref{fig:ablation_mask}, the light on the ground is very similar to the reflections).
RAGNet outperforms the others by recovering the heavy reflection areas with contextual information, making the output image visually pleasant.
Moreover, by integrating partial convolution, the reflection removal performance is also enhanced for images with mild reflections.
\subsection{Mask Loss}\label{subsec:ablation_loss}
From the aspect of the proposed mask loss, we conduct three experiments, \ie , discarding $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{mask}_\mathit{diff}}$, $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{mask}_\mathit{util}}$ and both of them, respectively.
Table \ref{tab:ablation_structure_loss} and Fig.~\ref{fig:ablation_structure} show that with the mask loss, the performance of our RAGNet is improved by a large margin.
Furthermore, one can see that both items of the specifically designed mask loss are essential for RAGNet, and greatly boost the quantitative performance and visual quality.
The thresholds $\xi$ and $\varphi$ in Eqns. (\ref{eqn:mask_loss_diff}) and (\ref{eqn:mask_loss_reg}) are discussed in the supplementary material.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we investigated the two-stage framework for the single image reflection removal (SIRR) task, and presented an RAGNet to exploit the reflection-aware guidance via the RAG module.
The RAG module suppresses the reflection by using the difference between observation and reflection features, while a mask is generated to indicate the extent to which the transmission is corrupted by heavy reflection and to collaborate with partial convolution for mitigating the effect of deviating from the linear combination hypothesis.
A mask loss is accordingly designed for reconciling the contributions of encoder and decoder features.
Extensive experiments on five widely used real-world datasets indicate that the proposed RAGNet outperforms the state-of-the-art methods by a large margin.
|
\section{Introduction}
Learning and generalizing from a few examples to effectively make predictions in new domains/tasks is a common scenario in real applications, as the supervised information is often hard to acquire due to some practical considerations, such as high labeling cost, privacy, safety or ethic issues.
Naively applying the traditional supervised learning techniques tend to overfit in this scenario~\cite{finn2017model,vinyals2016matching}. This stimulates the emergence of {\em few-shot learning (FSL)}, which mimics the human ability of recognizing new data after observing a few instances.
In such a few-shot regime, it is desired to leverage knowledge (\textit{e.g.} parameters and embeddings) from one task to another. Recent research has shown promising results in exploiting \textit{episodic learning} on this task. In essence, the episodic learning aims to mimic the real testing scenarios where the model generalizes information from a few labeled instances
(called \textit{support set}) to predict labels of unlabeled instances (called \textit{query set}) in each episode. Research efforts in solving FSL can be broadly categorized into two types:
$(\RN{1})$ \textit{Meta-learning}~\cite{finn2017model,nichol2018reptile} can quickly adapt parameters to a new task after fine-tuning;
$(\RN{2})$ \textit{Embedding and metric-based learning}~\cite{sung2018learning,vinyals2016matching} directly performs nearest-neighbor classification given a similarity metric on an embedding space. Our work is falling into this category.
The fundamental task for the metric learning methods is to design an appropriate metric space~\cite{oreshkin2018tadam} that can satisfy the following three properties simultaneously: $(\RN{1})$ a valid measure (or metric) such as Euclidean distance and Cosine similarity~\cite{snell2017prototypical,oreshkin2018tadam,kye2020transductive}); $(\RN{2})$ a cost function that can fully exploit input information to update the network; $(\RN{3})$ the metric consistency from training to testing, as well as from pretraining to fine-tuning if a pretraining is being applied. A contradictory example that arouses an inconsistency issue is seen in most works as well as recent advanced metric-based FSL frameworks~\cite{chen2020new,ye2018fewshot}. They adopt an inefficient two-phase training procedure: a \emph{parametric} pre-training with a linear classifier and a \emph{non-parametric} fine-tuning with the nearest-neighbor prediction. In FSL, the pretraining essentially leads to a different metric space from that learnt by fine-tuning. However, the testing is only accessible to use the \emph{non-parametric} nearest neighbor classifier (see more details in the Background section). In the end, the inconsistency is reflected on the very limited performance gain~\cite{ye2018fewshot}.
While the first two properties have largely been individually explored~\cite{snell2017prototypical,qi2018low,lifchitz2019dense}, the last one is less studied (if not ignored at all).
We observe that this missing ingredient can lead up to 5\% absolute recognition accuracy drop when the inconsistent metric exists. In the meantime, however, this kind of parametric linear classifier is essential to explore a discriminative metric space and to encourage faster convergence. So the natural question is: \emph{is there a strategy that can maintain the metric consistency as well as fully utilize the training data information to learn a meaningful metric space?}
To this end, we argue that a suitable interaction of above three properties can yield significant improvements in terms of performance and stability. We study the FSL problem from a unified perspective and propose a rectified metric propagation (ReMP) framework that can progressively make predictions in a discriminative feature space, namely the rectified metric space. The rectified metric is induced from maintaining consistency from training to testing. Specifically, we firstly design a \textbf{cooperative learning} objective that considers training-testing consistency both within a global parametric classifier (called \textbf{global matching}) and local nearest neighbor prediction among instances (called \textbf{local matching}). The framework proceeds in a feed-forward pass without either pre-training or fine-tuning. To further enhance the nearest neighbor prediction confidence, we propose an attention-based contextualized label embedding method to iteratively rectify the prototypes, such that data importance is taken into account when calculating class prototypes. The resulting approach is simpler and more efficient than related recent approaches.
The contributions of this paper are threefold:
\begin{itemize}
\item We identify the metric inconsistency issue between training and testing in FSL, a long-standing issue of almost all metric-based FSL approaches. To alleviate this problem, we propose a \textbf{cooperative label-aligned training} scheme, where the unabridged metric space can be inherited to the testing phase.
\item We describe a \textbf{contextualized label embedding module containing attentive prototype propagation layers} to take into account data importance to make more confident predictions.
\item With the above two novelties, \textbf{new state-of-the-art (SoTA)} performances on four standard FSL classification datasets, the \textit{miniImageNet}, \textit{tieredImageNet} and \textit{CIFAR-FS} are achieved.
\end{itemize}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We first summarize the related work and how our proposal
is differentiated from those. Then, we describe our contribution in detail and present extensive experiments to demonstrate our justifications. Finally, we conclude our paper and highlight future research directions.
\section{Related work}
In this section, we introduce related works and make distinction between our approach and related FSL methods. These methods broadly fall into three categories, meta-learning, embedding and metric learning, and transductive learning based approaches.
\paragraph{Meta-learning}
Meta-learning~\cite{thrun1998lifelong,finn2017model}, or learning-to-learn, is a framework that is capable of learning a task-specific meta-network. After observing the support set of a new task, the meta-network can quickly adapt to be evaluated on the query set of that new task. \cite{ravi2016optimization} proposes to finetune an LSTM-based optimizer besides the meta-learner to maximize the performance. \cite{munkhdalai2017meta} learns to change its inductive bias via fast parameterization. These works include MAML~\cite{finn2017model}, Reptile~\cite{nichol2018reptile}, Meta-SGD~\cite{li2017meta}, Bayesian-MAML~\cite{yoon2018bayesian}, Implicit-MAML~\cite{rajeswaran2019meta} and LEO~\cite{rusu2018meta}. However, the aforementioned approaches often suffer from over-fitting and sensitive to architectures, making the performance after fine-tuning on a new task limited. Although some recent work \cite{antoniou2018train} proposes some modifications, this line of approaches is still unsatisfactory for solving FSL. By contrast, our proposed model can make predictions in a direct and efficient feed-forward manner without the necessity of fine-tuning.
Recently, perhaps the most popular approach is model agnostic meta learning (MAML) \cite{finn2017model}. MAML learns a meta-parameter-initialization of a meta-network such that it can solve a new task with only a few gradient descent steps.
\paragraph{Embedding and metric learning}
This class of methods for FSL has drawn more and more attention. The main goal is to learn a transferable and discriminative feature space that preserves the neighborhood structure, {\it e.g.}, the Matching network \cite{vinyals2016matching} and Prototypical network \cite{snell2017prototypical}. This means objects belonging to the same class should be consistently closer to each other in the feature space measured by some similarity measures, {\it e.g.}, the Euclidean distance and Cosine similarity, and vice versa. Two typical works Relational network \cite{sung2018learning} and TADAM~\cite{oreshkin2018tadam} made further improvements. Another line of work proposes to learn global prototypes \cite{gidaris2018dynamic,qi2018low}.
Label embedding has been proposed as anchor points to improve text classification in NLP~\cite{wang2018joint}.
Different from these approaches, the proposed cooperative learning objective can fully \emph{exploit} the manifold information of both support set and query set in training, and progressively \emph{explore} a discriminative feature space to refine the prototype in testing.
\paragraph{Transductive learning}
The transductive learning is first introduced in TPN \cite{liu2018learning} that exploits the manifold structure in the data by learning a graph construction to propagate labels from the support set to the unlabeled query set. It alleviates the small-data problem in FSL and has been shown to outperform the inductive learning (inaccessible to a query set) counterparts. \cite{kim2019edge} further enhances the graph construction module. FEAT~\cite{ye2018fewshot}, CAN~\cite{hou2019cross}, Meta-Fun~\cite{xu2019metafun} and EPNet~\cite{rodriguez2020embedding} optimize the embedding manifold to better generalize to unseen classes. DFMN-MCT~\cite{kye2020transductive} chooses to propagate prototypes along with assigning confidence scores to all unlabeled queries, leading to SoTA results. However, the pretraining phase of FEAT and the pixel-wise dense classifier of DFMN-MCT lead to an inconsistent pipeline from training to testing. Our work is distinguished from existing works by that we propose to rectify the metric space, which aims to close the gap between training and testing. Furthermore, our approach can achieve new SoTA results with a newly proposed repulsive attention strategy by stacking up more attention layers.
\section{Background}
\subsection{Problem definition}
Similar to the supervised-learning setting, a dataset is typically divided into three parts in FSL: a training dataset $\mathcal{D}^{\text{train}}$, a testing dataset $\mathcal{D}^{\text{test}}$ and a validation dataset $\mathcal{D}^{\text{val}}$. The main distinction of FSL is that the three sets have disjoint label spaces. The episodic classification \cite{finn2017model,mishra2017simple,lee2019meta,vinyals2016matching,snell2017prototypical,santoro2016meta} is a common and effective approach to FSL, where the training dataset is exploited to simulate the few-shot learning setting via episode-based training.
Specifically, to characterize generalization, in the training process, one typically randomly samples $N$ classes instances in each episode, containing a \textit{support} set $\mathcal{S}=\{(\mathbf{x}_i, y_i \}_{i=1}^{N\times K}$ ($K$ samples per class) and a \textit{query} set $\mathcal{Q}=\{(\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_i, \tilde{y}_i \}_{i=1}^{N\times M}$ ($M$ samples per class). {\em The support set is used to calculate prototypes and then make predictions on the query set, which in turn is used to update the model.} This setting is often abbreviated as {\em {\it N}-way {\it K}-shot} FSL.
The number of $K$ is generally very small, \textit{e.g.} 1 and 5. The goal of FSL is to learn a model to exploit such a low resource data
set $\mathcal{S}$ to predict labels for queries in $\mathcal{Q}$.
\subsection{Revisiting the classifiers in the feature space}
Current approaches to FSL resort to a two-step procedure, represented as a function decomposition $f \circ g $, where
$(\RN{1})$ $f: \mathbf{x}\xrightarrow[]{} \mathbf{z}$ is a feature extractor, which maps an input $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^D$ to a feature vector $\mathbf{z} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ in a transferable and discriminative space. It is worth noting that $d$ is not necessarily much smaller than $D$ and it is mostly related to the complexity of $f$;
$(\RN{2})$
$g$ is a classifier, mapping the feature $\mathbf{z}$ into a vector of logits $g(\mathbf{z})$ and produce a probability distribution $p(\cdot|\mathbf{x})$ over all categories activated by the \textsf{Softmax}.
Since $f$ and $g$ are sometimes not trained end-to-end, it is crucial to find a good association between a classifier $ g$ and the feature representation $\mathbf{z}$. Typically, there are two general paradigms to design the classifier $g$. Unfortunately, both paradigms endow a limitation. Our proposed approach would inherit the best of both worlds, as described in the next section.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Parametric Methods.} These approaches usually learn a linear classifier $g(\mathbf{z})= \mathbf{w}^\intercal \mathbf{z} + \mathbf{b}, \mathbf{w}\in \mathbb{R}^{d \times N}, \mathbf{b} \in \mathbb{R}^{N}$, thus inherits fast convergence. However, since in FSL, the label space in the testing is disjoint with that in the training phase. This implies that $\{\mathbf{w, b}\}$ trained on the training data is not ready to be adopted for testing directly. Two solutions can be designed to mitigate this problem: $(\RN{1})$ Fine-tuning to adapt the parameters \cite{finn2017model,li2017meta,rusu2018meta} to test sets; $(\RN{2})$ Performing the nearest neighbor search in an embedding space \cite{qi2018low,kye2020transductive,chen2020new} for testing. We only consider the second approach in the following as the fine-tuning approaches are often unsatisfactory and time-consuming. However, the second solution would lead to \textbf{inconsistency between training and testing}. This is because $g(\mathbf{z})$ is computed based on a linear mapping in training; whereas the nearest neighbor is used in testing. In fact, the model is unaware of an appropriate metric in training. Such inconsistency could harm model performance.
%
\item {\bf Non-parametric Methods.} In training and testing, one consistently applies a metric-based similarity measure $g(\mathbf{z})=\kappa(\mathbf{z}, \mathbf{c}_n)$, where $\mathbf{c}_n$ is the class prototype (prototype), usually defined as the intra-class mean over support embeddings; $\kappa(\cdot, \cdot)$ is often defined by Cosine similarity~\cite{oreshkin2018tadam}, negative Euclidean distance~\cite{snell2017prototypical,oreshkin2018tadam,kye2020transductive} and kernel-based functions~\cite{xu2019metafun,liu2018learning}. However, it has been found that these approaches \textbf{are hard to explore and learn a discriminative metric space}\footnote{A metric space means an embedding space, where one can compute similairty given a metric. It is different from the definition in mathematics, \textit{e.g.}, the Cosine similarity, which can be negative.} \cite{snell2017prototypical,oreshkin2018tadam,sung2018learning}, thus limiting its potential to reach a good convergence point (see Tab.~\ref{tab: metric}).
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.65}{
\includegraphics{latex/figures/illustration.pdf}
}
\vspace{2mm}
\caption{Illustration of the proposed label-aligned learning. The training considers matching in both a parametric global weight space and a non-parametric rectified metric space. In testing, predictions are only made through local matching in a feed-forward manner, where rectified prototypes help to generate a better decision boundary based on self-attention.}
\label{fig: model}
\end{figure*}
\section{The Proposed Method}
Our goal is to overcome the two aforementioned limitations, and design a model to close the gap between training and testing, and at the same time, to learn a discriminative metric space. To this end, we first define a cooperatively label-aligned learning objective. A contextualized label embedding module with self-attention is then further formulated to iteratively propagate labels on $\mathcal{S} \cup \mathcal{Q}$, and to rectify prototypes such that more confident predictions can be made. The overall framework is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig: model}.
\subsection{Label-Aligned Cooperative Learning}\label{sec: rectify}
We firstly define a label-aligned learning objective to optimize the feature extractor $f$ and the classifier $g$ in training. It completes the cooperative learning on two levels, \textit{global matching} on the global prototype of $\mathcal{D}^\text{train}$ and \textit{local matching} on the local prototype of the episodic $\mathcal{S} \cup \mathcal{Q}$.
\paragraph{Notations}
To facilitate the reading, notations are clarified. The number of classes in $\mathcal{D}^\text{train}$ is $N^\text{train}$. The {\it i}-th pair of $\mathcal{Q}$ is $(\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_i, \tilde{y}_i)$.
For the $N$-way classification protocol on the instance $\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_i$, ($\tilde{y}_i^g=\tilde{y}_i, \hat{y}_i^{g}$) are the true label and predicted label ranging from 1 to $N^\text{train}$ on the global level; whereas ($\tilde{y}_i^l, \hat{y}_i^{l}$) denotes the true label and predicted label ranging from 1 to $N$ on the local level. Note $\tilde{y}_i^g$ and $\tilde{y}_i^l$ are different random variables corresponding to the same data instance $\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_i$ in a FSL setting.
\paragraph{Global matching}
To encourage fast convergence, we first define a global matching loss on $\mathcal{D}^{\text{train}}$. The global matching is a parametric model, aiming to make predictions matched with the global-level label $\tilde{y}_i^g$. To this end, we first introduce a metric $\kappa(\cdot, \cdot)$ to measure the similarity between two vectors. The metric can be flexible. We adopt the Consine similary and Euclidean distance in our experiments. The goal is to match the feature of a data instance with a set of global learnable weight vectors $\{\mathbf{w}_k \in \mathbb{R}^d\}_{k=1}^{N^\text{train}}$, each representing a global class prototype, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig: model}. To this end, the global likelihood on $\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_i$ is:
\begin{align}\label{eq: ll_global}
p(\hat{y}_i^{g}=k|\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_i) = \frac{\exp(\kappa(f(\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_i), \mathbf{w}_k))}{\sum_{k=1}^{N^\text{train}} \exp(\kappa(f(\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_i), \mathbf{w}_k))}~.
\end{align}
The global loss is then defined as the standard cross-entropy loss:
\begin{align}\label{eq: global}
\mathcal{L}_{global}
= -\sum_{i=1}^{NM} \sum_{k=1}^{N^{\text{train}}} \mathbb{I}(\tilde{y}_i^g=k)\log p(\hat{y}_i^{g}=k|\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_i),
\end{align}
where $\mathbb{I}(\cdot)$ is an indicator function. In each episode, all global weights are being optimized with interactive information sharing, which could significantly encourage the model's convergence. Note that, the proposed approach is different from other types of inconsistent global matching, \textit{e.g.}, the linear classifier in \cite{hou2019cross} and the dense matching in \cite{kye2020transductive}, where the embedding has a different dimension from the global weight.
\paragraph{Local matching}
Note the above global loss $\mathcal{L}_{global}$ is \textit{parametric}, which still could cause training-testing inconsistency. To close the gap, we further incorporate a local loss on episodic $\mathcal{S} \cup \mathcal{Q}$ with $N$ classes. Instead of using a parametric model, we define a non-parametric model to directly match predictions with local prototypes. We first define the local likelihood on $\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_i$ as:
\begin{align}\label{eq: ll_local}
p(\hat{y}_i^{l}=n|\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_i) = \frac{\exp(\kappa(f(\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_i), \mathbf{c}_n))}{\sum_{n=1}^{N} \exp(\kappa(f(\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_i), \mathbf{c}_n))}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{c}_n$ represents the prototype for local class $n$, calculated as
\begin{align}\label{eq: center}
\mathbf{c}_n= \frac{1}{K}\sum_{i=1}^{NK} \mathbb{I}(y_i=n)f(\mathbf{x}_i),~~ \text{for }(\mathbf{x}_i, y_i) \in \mathcal{S}~.
\end{align}
We then define the local loss as:
\begin{align}\label{eq: local}
\mathcal{L}_{local}
= -\sum_{i=1}^{NM} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \mathbb{I}(\tilde{y}_i^{l}=n)\log p(\hat{y}_i^{l}=n|\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_i)~.
\end{align}
It is clear that $\mathcal{L}_{local}$ can leverage episodic $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ for similarity comparison both in training and testing, without consulting the global parametric classifier.
\paragraph{Label-aligned objective}
To align labels in the local matching with that in the global metric space, we propose a full objective that combines Eq.~\eqref{eq: global} and Eq.~\eqref{eq: local}:
\begin{align}\label{eq: full}
\mathcal{L}_{full} = \mathcal{L}_{global}+\alpha \mathcal{L}_{local}~,
\end{align}
where $\alpha$ is a balance hyper-parameter. At testing, predictions will only be made following Eq.~\eqref{eq: ll_local} such that the local matching is consistent for both training and testing. We claim that:
\begin{remark}\label{remark}
A good metric space is all we need in metric-based FSL. On the premise that the embedding $\mathbf{z}$ and the global weight $\mathbf{w}$ are jointly learned via Eq.~\eqref{eq: full}, global matching helps accelerate convergence and explore a space that is endowed with a strong transferability; meanwhile local matching preserves the metric inheritance from training to testing.
\end{remark}
Besides, the metric in Equation \eqref{eq: global} and Equation \eqref{eq: local} don't need to be the same since the global weight vectors are learned rather than computed by the episodic instances. This claim is essentially different from previous methods, {\it e.g.}, CAN~\cite{hou2019cross} and MCT-DFMN~\cite{kye2020transductive}. We will give detailed justifications in the experiments.
\subsection{Contextualized Label Embeddings for Prototype Rectification}
In FSL, the training set $\mathcal{D}^{\text{train}}$ and test set $\mathcal{D}^{\text{test}}$ have disjoint label space. This makes the resulting embedding space trained on the training dataset not discriminative enough for making predictions on the testing dataset. Consequently, the prototypes computed on the support set $\mathcal{S}$ with Eq.~\eqref{eq: center} might not reflect the ground true. Following the transductive-learning setting \cite{liu2018learning}, we propose to incorporate the query set $\mathcal{Q}$ to refine the prototype progressively, so that one can make more accurate predictions. To this end, we propose a self-attentive prototype rectification process, where contextualized label embeddings are propagated from $\mathcal{S}$ to $\mathcal{Q}$. The overall procedure is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig: rectification}.
\paragraph{Embedding}
We first use the feature extractor $f$ to map the input $\mathcal{S} \cup \mathcal{Q}$ to an embedding matrix $\mathbf{Z} = [\mathbf{Z}^\mathcal{S}; \mathbf{Z}^\mathcal{Q}] \in \mathbb{R}^{(NK+NM)\times d}$, where $\mathcal{S} \xrightarrow{f} \mathbf{Z}^\mathcal{S} \in \mathbb{R}^{NK \times d}$ and $\mathcal{Q} \xrightarrow{f} \mathbf{Z}^\mathcal{Q} \in \mathbb{R}^{NM \times d} $. meanwhile, the prototype matrix $\mathbf{C}=[\mathbf{c}_1; ...; \mathbf{c}_n; ...] \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times d}$ is initialized from $\mathbf{Z}^\mathcal{S}$ with Eq.~\eqref{eq: center}.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{latex/figures/attention.pdf}
\vspace{2mm}
\caption{Prototype rectification. The color depth of a query represents the attention score to the prototype. (a) The initial prototype is the mean embedding of the two instances in the support set. (b) Rectification will take the neighbor information into consideration to refine the prototype. (c) Repulsive rectification further imposes a repulsive force to get a more representative prototype.}
\label{fig: rectification}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Prototype rectification}
Our idea is to refine the prototypes by considering the similarity information of the support set $\mathcal{S}$ and query set $\mathcal{Q}$. To achieve this, we modify the popular attention-based method~\cite{vaswani2017attention} to be suited to FSL.
Specifically, the prototype rectification aims to aggregate information from weighted embeddings of $\mathbf{Z}$, where the attentive weight $\mathbf{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times (NK+NM)}$ is given by the similarity between the current prototype $\mathbf{C}$ and the embedding $\mathbf{Z}$. As a result, the output $\mathbf{C}^*$ (the rectified prototype) is:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: oatt}
\mathbf{C}^*=\mathbf{A} \mathbf{Z}=\textsf{Softmax}(\kappa(\mathbf{C}, \mathbf{Z}))\mathbf{Z}~.
\end{equation}
Considering the labels of $\mathcal{S}$ have been defined in advance in the local level, those labels shouldn't be ambiguous even if a new prototype is computed. So the way to compute the attention is not straightforward as shown in Eq.~\eqref{eq: oatt}, otherwise the attention matrix will be problematic as presented in \cite{ye2018learning}. Given that, we split the attention matrix $\mathbf{A}$ into two parts $\mathbf{A} = [\mathbf{A}^{\mathcal{S}},\mathbf{A}^{\mathcal{Q}}]$ with
\begin{align}
\mathbf{A}^{\mathcal{S}}=\textsf{Softmax}(\kappa(\mathbf{C}, \mathbf{Z}^\mathcal{S}))\in \mathbb{R}^{N \times NK},\\ \nonumber \mathbf{A}^{\mathcal{Q}}=\textsf{Softmax}(\kappa(\mathbf{C}, \mathbf{Z}^\mathcal{Q}))\in \mathbb{R}^{N \times NM}.
\end{align}
where the \textsf{Softmax}$(\cdot)$ is performed on each column.
To preserve the predefined label information in the support set, we re-define the metric $\kappa(\cdot, \cdot)$ in $\mathbf{A}^{\mathcal{S}}$. Recall the label of the current data instance is $n$. The metric is defined as
\begin{align}
\kappa(\mathbf{c}_n, \mathbf{z}_s) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{rll}
+\infty & \mbox{if} & n=y_s, \\
-\infty & \mbox{if} & n\neq y_s.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
where $-\infty$ and $+\infty$ indicate attention scores are 0 and 1. In this way, the attention weights in $\mathbf{A}^{\mathcal{S}}$ are non-zero only if the labels are the same. In other words, $\mathbf{A}^\mathcal{S}$ can be written as
\begin{align}
\mathbf{A}^\mathcal{S} = [\mathbf{v}(1); ...;\mathbf{v}(n);...], \text{ for }n \in \{1, 2, ..., N\}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{v}(n)$ is a zero-vector except for elements from $K \times (n-1)$ to $K \times n$ with value 1. With $\mathbf{A}^\mathcal{S}$ being hard-coded, the label of each support instance won't be ambiguous even if the prototype is iteratively refined. Eventually, when concatenating the hard-coded $\mathbf{A}^\mathcal{S}$ with $\mathbf{A}^\mathcal{Q}$, we re-normalize the resulting matrix per row.
To further explore the metric space and ensure the embedding is not drifted away, a residual projection layer $h: \mathbb{R}^d \xrightarrow[]{} \mathbb{R}^d$ is stacked on top of the above attention layer:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{C} = h(\mathbf{C}^*) + \mathbf{C}, \mathbf{Z} = h(\mathbf{Z}) + \mathbf{Z}
\end{align}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\scalebox{0.95}{
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{{\bf Models}} & \multirow{2}{*}{{\bf Backbone}} & \multirow{2}{*}{{\bf FT}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{\emph{miniImageNet}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{\emph{tieredImageNet}}} \\
& & & 1-shot & 5-shot & 1-shot & 5-shot \\ \midrule
Prototypical Net~\cite{snell2017prototypical} & ConvNet & \xmark & 49.42\tiny{$\pm0.78$} & 68.20\tiny{$\pm0.66$} & 53.31\tiny{$\pm0.89$} & 72.69\tiny{$\pm0.74$} \\
Relation Net~\cite{sung2018learning} & ConvNet & \xmark & 50.44\tiny{$\pm0.82$} & 65.32\tiny{$\pm0.70$} & 54.48\tiny{$\pm0.93$} & 71.32\tiny{$\pm0.78$} \\
TPN~\cite{liu2018learning} & ConvNet & \xmark & 55.51\tiny{$\pm0.86$} & 69.86\tiny{$\pm0.65$} & 59.91\tiny{$\pm0.94$} & 73.30\tiny{$\pm0.75$} \\
FEAT~\cite{ye2018learning} & ConvNet & \cmark & 55.75 & 72.17 & -- & -- \\
EPNet~\cite{rodriguez2020embedding} & ConvNet & \cmark & 59.32\tiny{$\pm0.84$} & 72.95\tiny{$\pm0.63$} & 60.70\tiny{$\pm0.97$} & 73.91\tiny{$\pm0.74$} \\
DFMN-MCT~\cite{kye2020transductive} & ConvNet & \xmark & 64.65\tiny{$\pm0.89$} & 75.96\tiny{$\pm0.54$} & 65.66\tiny{$\pm0.98$} & 75.72\tiny{$\pm0.61$} \\ \midrule
\rowcolor{Gray}
ReMP & ConvNet & \xmark & \textcolor{tblue}{\bf 66.21\tiny{$\pm0.36$}} & \textcolor{tblue}{\bf 76.50\tiny{$\pm0.29$}} & \textcolor{tblue}{\bf 67.12\tiny{$\pm0.87$}} & \textcolor{tblue}{\bf 76.43\tiny{$\pm0.50$}} \\
\midrule
\midrule
TADAM~\cite{oreshkin2018tadam} & ResNet & \xmark & 58.50\tiny{$\pm0.30$} & 76.70\tiny{$\pm0.30$} & -- & -- \\
TPN~\cite{liu2018learning} & ResNet & \xmark & 59.46 & 75.65 & -- & -- \\
FEAT~\cite{ye2018learning} & ResNet & \cmark & 62.60 & 78.06 & -- & -- \\
CAN~\cite{hou2019cross} & ResNet & \xmark & 67.19\tiny{$\pm0.55$} & 80.64\tiny{$\pm0.35$} & 73.21\tiny{$\pm0.58$} & 84.93\tiny{$\pm0.38$} \\
EPNet~\cite{rodriguez2020embedding} & ResNet & \cmark & 70.74\tiny{$\pm0.86$} & 81.52\tiny{$\pm0.58$} & 78.50\tiny{$\pm0.86$} & 87.48\tiny{$\pm0.69$} \\
DFMN-MCT~\cite{kye2020transductive} & ResNet & \xmark & 78.30\tiny{$\pm0.81$} & 86.48\tiny{$\pm0.42$} & 80.89\tiny{$\pm0.84$} & 87.30\tiny{$\pm0.49$} \\ \midrule
\rowcolor{Gray}
ReMP & ResNet & \xmark & \textcolor{tblue}{\bf 79.25\tiny{$\pm0.31$}} & \textcolor{tblue}{\bf 87.01\tiny{$\pm0.29$}} & \textcolor{tblue}{\bf 82.01\tiny{$\pm0.71$}}& \textcolor{tblue}{\bf87.92\tiny{$\pm 0.38$}} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{2mm}
\caption{Comparison with state-of-the-art methods on 5-way classification (FT: fine-tuning).}
\label{tab: main_results}
\end{table*}
\paragraph{Repulsive attention}
In an episode of the standard $N$-way FSL classification scenario, each of the $N$ classes is associated with $M$ queries. With the attention mechanism defined above, the prototype rectification for a specific class might be affected by the other $N(M-1)$ queries beyond this class. Intuitively, queries too far away from the current instance is not expected to interact with the current instance. As a result, we propose a repulsive self-attention mechanism to refine the attention scores. Specifically, given a threshold $\beta$, we refine the attention score as:
\begin{align}\label{eq: mask}
\mathbf{A}[\mathsf{mask}] = -\text{min}(\mathbf{A}), \text{ where } \mathsf{mask} = (\mathbf{A} < \beta).
\end{align}
Also, a larger $\beta$ tends to enforce weaker repulsive force. The enforced negative attention score, which corresponds to some dissimilar queries, can induce a repulsive force that prevents a prototype from being pulled away by these queries, as demonstrated in Figure~\ref{fig: rectification}.
In our experiment, we stack $L$ layers of the rectification process described above, corresponding to an $L$-layer attention mechanism, which has been demonstrated effective in natural language processing (NLP) tasks~\cite{vaswani2017attention,lan2019albert}.
\section{Experiments}
In this section, we evaluate the proposed ReMP to seek answers for the following questions:
\textbf{\texttt{Q1}}: How does ReMP perform on standard benchmarks compared to SoTA?
\textbf{\texttt{Q2}}: Does ReMP indeed reduce the inconsistency between training and testing?
\textbf{\texttt{Q3}}: How much does each component of ReMP contribute to the performance?
\subsection{Experimental Settings}
\paragraph{Datasets} In the main part, we consider two standard FSL datasets, \textit{miniImageNet}, \textit{tieredImageNet} and \textit{CIFAR-FS}.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{miniImageNet} is a subset of ILSVRC-12~\cite{deng2009imagenet} proposed in~\cite{vinyals2016matching} for FSL evaluation. It consists of 100 classes with 600 images per class. We follow the standard protocol to divide the dataset into three subsets: $\mathcal{D}^{\text{train}}$ of 64 classes, $\mathcal{D}^{\text{test}}$ of 20 classes and $\mathcal{D}^{\text{val}}$ of 16 classes.
\item \textit{tieredImageNet} is an alternative subset of ILSVRC-12 prepared for more challenging FSL evaluation. It has a hierarchical structure of 34 coarse categories with fine-grained classes. There are three subsets: $\mathcal{D}^{\text{train}}$ with 20 categories and 351 classes, $\mathcal{D}^{\text{test}}$ with 8 categories and 160 classes, and $\mathcal{D}^{\text{val}}$ with 6 categories and 97 classes.
\item \textit{CIFAR-FS} is based on CIFAR-100~\cite{krizhevsky2009learning}. It is split into 64 training classes, 16 validation classes and 20 testing classes.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Implementation details}
All experiments are conducted in PyTorch-1.3 on NVIDIA TITAN XP (12GB) platform.
Following~\cite{kye2020transductive,sung2018learning,lee2019meta}, we consider two standard embedding modules ($f$) as backbones: a 4-layer ConvNet with 64 channels per layer and a 12-layer ResNet, as well as standard data augmentation (including random resized crop and horizontal flip). Following~\cite{sung2018learning,kye2020transductive}, in each episode, the number of queries in each class is set to $M=15$. Cosine similarity is used in~\eqref{eq: ll_global} and negative Euclidean distance is used in~\eqref{eq: ll_local}. All models are trained with a Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) optimizer with momentum 0.9. The initial learning rate is set to $0.1$ and the weight decay is $5e^{-3}$. We decay the learning rate by a factor of 10 every 25000 iterations until convergence. We stack $L=2$ layers in training and $L=10$ layers in testing. The default loss balance factor $\alpha=0.1$. All reported accuracy results are averaged over 600 test episodes with 95\% confidence intervals.
\paragraph{Baseline Methods} We compare our approach with seven baselines. All baselines, except for Prototypical Net~\cite{snell2017prototypical}, Relation Net~\cite{sung2018learning} and TADAM~\cite{oreshkin2018tadam}, are transductive-learning based approaches. Specifically, FEAT~\cite{ye2018learning} and CAN~\cite{hou2019cross} use embedding propagation while TPN~\cite{liu2018learning}, EPNet~\cite{rodriguez2020embedding} and DFMN-MCT~\cite{kye2020transductive} are based on label propagation. We also note that, $(\RN{1})$ TADAM introduces a co-training method that takes the parametric linear classifier as an auxiliary task whose importance is decayed, however, it is still decoupled from the primary FSL task; $(\RN{2})$ FEAT borrows the entire \textsf{Transformer} architecture from~\cite{vaswani2017attention}. This tends to break both the pretrained embedding space and ignore the predefined label information (if used in a transductive manner), resulting in a limited performance gain; $(\RN{3})$ CAN~\cite{hou2019cross} also combines the local and global losses, both of which are defined with cosine similarity. However, we demonstrate that it is not necessary to use the same metric as the global loss and the local loss don't necessarily share the same ``prototypes''.
\subsection{Comparison with SoTA methods}
The main results are shown in Table~\ref{tab: main_results}. As is seen, ReMP obtains the highest FSL classification accuracy as well as the lowest deviations in most settings by a large margin. Table~~\ref{tab: cifar} shows the 1-shot and 5-shot accuracy results on \textit{CIFAR-FS}.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.85}{
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\toprule
\textbf{Models} & \textbf{Backbone} & \textbf{1-shot} & \textbf{5-shot} \\ \midrule
ProtoNet & ConvNet & 55.50\tiny{$\pm0.70$} & 72.00 \tiny{$\pm0.60$} \\
MetaOpt-SVM & ResNet & 72.00\tiny{$\pm0.70$} & 84.20\tiny{$\pm0.50$} \\
DFMN-MCT & Resnet & 87.51\tiny{$\pm0.48$} & 90.23\tiny{$\pm0.63$} \\ \midrule
\rowcolor{Gray}
ReMP & ResNet & \textcolor{tblue}{\bf87.83\tiny{$\pm0.31$}} & 90.17\tiny{$\pm0.50$} \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{2mm}
\caption{Comparison with various baselines on CIFAR-FS.}
\label{tab: cifar}
\end{table}
\paragraph{{\it N}-way {\it M}-query learning}
We conduct further analysis to determine the effect of the number of queries per class and the number of classes per testing episodes. Decreasing the number of queries and increasing the number of classes could both affect the model's prediction accuracy. The related work DFMN-MCT, which holds the current state-of-the-arts, is chosen as a strong baseline. ReMP distinguishes from DFMN-MCT in a rectified metric objective and an efficient repulsive attention-based propagation layer. As seen in Figure~\ref{fig:1-shot-n-way}, ReMP consistently outperforms DFMN-MCT under two sets of scenarios, endowing both higher accuracy and lower deviation.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{latex/figures/1-shot-m-query.png} \\
\vspace{2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{latex/figures/1-shot-n-way.png}
\end{tabular}
\vspace{2mm}
\caption{Comparison showing the effect of: ({\bf Top}) the number of test queries per class and ({\bf Bottom}) the number of classes per testing episode for 1-shot protocol on the {\it miniImageNet}.}
\label{fig:1-shot-n-way}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Why does ReMP improve performance?}
\paragraph{On the rectification of learning objective}
We present four scenarios covering the impact of training schedules and metric options for the demonstration: $(\RN{1})$ Cooperative training - apply $\mathcal{L}_{full}$~\eqref{eq: full}; $(\RN{2})$ Pretrain and finetune - apply $\mathcal{L}_{global}$~\eqref{eq: global} then use $\mathcal{L}_{local}$~\eqref{eq: local}; $(\RN{3})$ Local matching - only apply $\mathcal{L}_{local}$; and $(\RN{4})$ Global matching - only apply $\mathcal{L}_{global}$. The main results are shown in Tab.~\ref{tab: metric}, from which we can conclude:
\begin{itemize}
\item Global matching stimulates a more discrminative metric space, as it is observed that the accuracy in (b) is always higher than the corresponding one in (c), regardless of the metrics.
\item Local matching mitigates the discrepancy between training and testing as seen in (a) and (d). The reason lies in the improved transferability from training to testing, as they are being optimized towards exactly the same goal in \eqref{eq: ll_local}.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{latex/figures/alpha.png}
\vspace{2mm}
\caption{The impact of $\alpha$ under Euclidean distance.}
\label{fig: alpha}
\end{figure}
In addition, comparing (a) with (b) and (d), \textbf{we find that cooperative learning surprisingly obtains the best performance when Cosine similarity and Euclidean distance are applied at the same time}, which nearly closes the gap between the two measures. We hypothesize that the metric-based FSL problem is fundamentally difficult without inductive biases on both the models and the data. The most suitable metric space can not be easily identified. Figure~\ref{fig: t-sne} in Appendix~\ref{sec: appendix_tsne} shows the t-SNE~\cite{maaten2008visualizing} visualization of embedding spaces. The observation is consistent with Tab.~\ref{tab: metric}. Above findings provide strong support for Remark \ref{remark} to answer \textbf{\texttt{Q2}}.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{latex/figures/metric-a.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{latex/figures/metric-b.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{latex/figures/metric-c.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{latex/figures/metric-d.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\vspace{1mm}
\caption{The impact of similarity $\kappa(\cdot, \cdot)$ and training schedule. Results are averaged over 10 independent runs of 6000 episodes.}
\label{tab: metric}
\end{table}
We also visualize the impact of the balance factor $\alpha$ in Figure~\ref{fig: alpha}, where two red dots appeared as the unstable model training tries (about 6 out of 10). When $\alpha=0$, global matching itself will cause inconsistency issues. As $\alpha$ gets a bit larger, global and local prototypes try to reach a consensus to induce an optimal model. If $\alpha$ is very large, instability issues will be triggered where global and local prototypes struggle to fit each other. When $\alpha \xrightarrow[]{} \inf$, the local matching itself won't find a discriminative space as the global matching does.
\paragraph{Repulsive attention}
We empirically define a layer-wise threshold $\beta_l=1.5/N(L-l)$ throughout our experiments, where $l$ is the layer number of a stacked propagation. $\beta_l$ is expected to gradually increase as we rectify the prototype with more layers. We visualize the rectification process using attention heatmap in Figure~\ref{fig: focal_move}. Apparently, the iterative rectification process leads to a better decision boundary. And generally, the boundary can be further optimized by the repulsive rectification as seen in Figure~\ref{fig: rectification}(c).
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{latex/figures/focal_move.png}
\caption{Visualization of the rectification process for 5-way 1-shot classification on \textit{miniImageNet}. In a heatmap, the $x$-axis and $y$-axis represent class types for prototypes and queries, respectively. For example, the value in (row 1, column 2) represents the similarity between query of class 1 and prototype of class 2. For better classification, the diagonal values should be the highest in each row.}
\label{fig: focal_move}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Ablate the component}\label{sec: appendix_ab}
To anwer \textbf{\texttt{Q3}}, we conduct an ablation study to examine the contribution of each component to our model. As it can seen in Table~\ref{tab: ablation}, the transductive FSL obviously outperforms the inductive implementation. More importantly, the global matching indeed encourages a more discriminative metric space than the local matching does. In summary, the cooperative learning can give the best performance.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{l|l}
\toprule
\textbf{Ablation} & \textbf{Accuracy} \\ \midrule
ReMP & 66.21\tiny{$\pm0.36$} \\ \midrule
ReMP w/o repulsive attention & 65.55\tiny{$\pm0.36$} \\
ReMP w/o $\mathcal{L}_{local}$ & 60.62\tiny{$\pm0.37$} \\
ReMP w/o $\mathcal{L}_{global}$ & 58.53\tiny{$\pm0.36$} \\
ReMP w/o contextualization (inductive) & 56.13\tiny{$\pm0.78$} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{2mm}
\caption{Ablation study results with 95\% confidence intervals on 1-shot 5-way classification on \textit{miniImageNet} (backbone: ConvNet-64).}
\label{tab: ablation}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we have presented a rectified metric propagation (ReMP) framework for few-shot learning. To cope with the inconsistency issues between training and testing in metric-based FSL, we propose a label-aligned learning objective to close the gap, where a discriminative and transferable embedding space is induced. To further enhance the quality of the prototype in the testing phase, we propose a contextualized label embedding module, which progressively propagates labels to the query set basis in a repulsive self-attention mechanism. Empirically, ReMP achieves state-of-the-art results on various FSL datasets.
\clearpage
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Introduction}
It is common to estimate the attitude, velocity and position for inertial navigation in mobile robotics. However, there is no much theory about the description of the extended poses. Alex Barrau proposed the matrix Lie group $SE_K(d)(K\in\mathbb{N},d\in \mathbb{N_+})$ which is called group of $K$ direct isometries to describe extended poses \cite{barrau2015non,barrau2015ekf} in the invariant extended Kalman filter algorithm\cite{barrau2016invariant}. This group seems to include all the Lie groups currently applied in the state estimation problem for robotics. The group $SE_K(d)$ allows recovering $SE_K(3)$ with $d=3$, and the theory of $SE_K(3)$ is further developed recently in contact-aided invariant extended Kalman filter for the legged robot state estimation\cite{Ross2020Contact}. The multiple direct spatial isometries group $SE_K(2)$ was also proposed for two dimensional state estimation problem in \cite{barrau2015ekf}.
When $K$ equals to 0, the group $SE_K(3)$ reduced to the Matrix Lie group $SO(3)$ (the Special Orthogonal group) which represents the rotation matrices,
and when $K$ equals to 1, it reduced to the Matrix Lie group $SE(3)$ (the Special Euclidean group) which is usually used to represent the pose (orientation, position) in state estimation. More details about these two special matrix Lie groups can be found in \cite{barfoot2017state}.
When $K$ equals to 2, the group $SE_K(3)$ is called group of double direct isometries\cite{barrau2015non} and denoted as $SE_2(3)$. The matrix Lie group $SE_2(3)$ has been used in many applications, such as solving the localization problem from noisy inertial sensors and a noisy GPS by using $SE_2(3)$\cite{barrau2014invariant}, representing the extended poses (orientation, position,velocity) in 3D inertial navigation\cite{barrau2019linear} and leveraging the theory of preintegration on manifolds that account for rotating earth\cite{bonnabel2020mathematical}. In most invariant filtering theory works, $SE_k(3)$ is proposed to resolve the consistency issues of KF-like problem\cite{barrau2015ekf}\cite{brossard2018unscented}.
The contribution in this note including:
\begin{itemize}
\item the geometry and kinematics of the matrix Lie group $SE_K(3)$ are given similar to the matrix Lie group $SO(3)$ and $SE(3)$. And the applications about the group are also discussed in detail.
\item the simulation code about the manipulations of this group is released at \url{https://github.com/LYRen1900/Matrix-Lie-group-and-its-application}.
\end{itemize}
\section{Geometry of Matrix Lie Group $SE_K(3)$}
This section gives detailed derivation about the geometry of the $K$ direct isometries group $SE_K(3)$ by analogy with matrix Lie group $SE(3)$ and $SO(3)$ which have been shown in Barfoot's book~\cite{barfoot2017state}.
\subsection{Group of K Direct Isometries $SE_K(3)$}
The group represents the space of matrices that apply a rigid body rotation and K translations to points in $\mathbb{R}^3$. The group $SO(3)$ and the three dimensional vector space $\mathbb{R}^3$ is the subgroup of $SE_K(3)$.
Moreover, the group $SE_K(3)$ has the structure of the semidirect product of $SO(3)$ by $\underbrace{\mathbb{R}^3\times \mathbb{R}^3 \times \cdots \times \mathbb{R}^3}_K$ and it can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}\label{semedirect}
SE_K(3)=SO(3) \propto \underbrace{\mathbb{R}^3\times \mathbb{R}^3 \times \cdots \times \mathbb{R}^3}_K
\end{equation}
The geometric meaning of the above semi-direct product is the rotation acting on the $K$ translations.
Formally, the matrix Lie group $SE_K(3)$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{group_defition}
SE_K(3):=\left\{T=\begin{bmatrix}
R&p_1&p_2& \cdots & p_K\\
\bf{0}^T&1&0&\cdots &0\\
\bf{0}^T&0&1&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdot&1
\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^{(K+3)\times (K+3)}|R\in SO(3),p_k\in \mathbb{R}^3,k=1,\cdots,K\right\}
\end{equation}
where SO(3) is the space of valid rotation matrices:
\begin{equation}\label{so_3_definition}
SO(3):=\left\{ R\in \mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}|RR^T=I_3,\det R=1\right\}
\end{equation}
and $I_d$ is the identity matrix of dimension d.
The identity element of the group is the $(K+3)\times (K+3)$ identity matrix. The matrix multiplication provides the group composition operation of any two elements in Lie group $SE_K(3)$. The closure for $SE_K(3)$ can be verified by multiplication,
\begin{equation}\label{closure_multiplycation}
\begin{aligned}
T_1T_2&=\begin{bmatrix}
R_1&{p_1}_1&{p_1}_2& \cdots & {p_1}_K\\
\bf{0}^T&1&0&\cdots &0\\
\bf{0}^T&0&1&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdot&1
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
R_2&{p_2}_1&{p_2}_2& \cdots & {p_2}_K\\
\bf{0}^T&1&0&\cdots &0\\
\bf{0}^T&0&1&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdot&1
\end{bmatrix}\\
&=\begin{bmatrix}
R_1R_2&R_1{p_2}_1+{p_1}_1&R_1{p_2}_2+{p_1}_2& \cdots & R_1{p_2}_K+{p_1}_K\\
\bf{0}^T&1&0&\cdots &0\\
\bf{0}^T&0&1&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdot&1
\end{bmatrix}\in SE_K(3)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
as a result of the closure $R_1R_2\in SO(3)$ and $R_1{p_2}_k+{p_1}_k\in \mathbb{R}^3,k=1,\cdots,K$.
For invertibility, the inverse of the element is given as
\begin{equation}\label{inverse_of_group}
T^{-1}=\begin{bmatrix}
R^{-1}&-R^{-1}p_1&-R^{-1}p_2& \cdots & -R^{-1}p_K\\
\bf{0}^T&1&0&\cdots &0\\
\bf{0}^T&0&1&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdot&1
\end{bmatrix}\in SE_K(3)
\end{equation}
\subsection{Lie algebra $\mathfrak{se}_k(3)$}
The tangent space of the matrix Lie group $SE_K(3)$ at the identity element is the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{se}_3(k)$, which is also a vectorspace that completely captures the local structure of the group.
The Lie algebra associated with $SE_K(3)$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\text{vectorspace}:&\quad \mathfrak{se}_k(3)=\left\{S=\mathcal{L}(\xi)\in \mathbb{R}^{(K+3)\times (K+3)}|\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}\right\}\\
\text{field}:&\quad \mathbb{R}\\
\text{Lie bracket}:&\quad [S_1,S_2]=S_1S_2-S_2S_1
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
This space of matrices is isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$, and aims at to identify $\mathfrak{se}_k(3)$ to $\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$. We define a linear map $\mathcal{L}:\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{(K+3)\times (K+3)}$ that converts the Euclidean vector to the matrix forms:
\begin{equation}\label{lie_algebra_se_3_k}
\mathcal{L}(\xi)=\mathcal{L}\left(\begin{bmatrix}
\phi\\t_1\\t_2\\ \vdots \\t_K
\end{bmatrix}\right)=\begin{bmatrix}
\phi_{\wedge}&t_1&t_2& \cdots & t_K\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdots &0\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdot&0
\end{bmatrix},\phi,t_1,t_2,\cdots,t_K\in\mathbb{R}^3
\end{equation}
where $\phi_{\wedge}$ denotes the skew-symmetric matrix of a vector $\phi=\begin{pmatrix}
\phi_1 &\phi_2&\phi_3
\end{pmatrix}^T\in\mathbb{R}^3$.
Let $S_1=\mathcal{L}(\xi_1),S_2=\mathcal{L}(\xi_2)\in \mathfrak{se}_k(3)$, then, for the closure property of \text{the Lie bracket}, we can get
\begin{equation}\label{closure_property}
[S_1,S_2]=S_1S_2-S_2S_1=\mathcal{L}(\xi_1)\mathcal{L}(\xi_2)-\mathcal{L}(\xi_2)\mathcal{L}(\xi_1)=\mathcal{L}\left(\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1)\xi_2\right)\in \mathfrak{se}_k(3)
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{L}$ is also defined as a linear map $\mathfrak{L}:\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{(K+3)\times (K+3)}$ that converts the Euclidean vector to the matrix forms:
\begin{equation}\label{adjoint_represnetation_algebra}
\mathfrak{L}(\xi)=\mathfrak{L}\left(\begin{bmatrix}
\phi\\t_1\\t_2\\ \vdots \\t_K
\end{bmatrix}\right)=\begin{bmatrix}
\phi_{\wedge}&0&0&\cdots&0\\
(t_1)_{\wedge}&\phi_{\wedge}&0&\cdots&0\\
(t_2)_{\wedge}&0&\phi_{\wedge}&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
(t_K)_{\wedge}&0&0&\cdots&\phi_{\wedge}
\end{bmatrix}\in\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)\times3(K+1)}
\end{equation}
The Lie algebra $\mathfrak{se}_k(3)$ is the set of $(K+3)\times (K+3)$ matrices corresponding to differential translations and rotations. Therefore, there are thus $3(K+1)$ generators of this Lie algebra:
\begin{equation}\label{generators}
\begin{aligned}
G_1&=\begin{bmatrix}
0&0&0&0_{1\times 3K}\\
0&0&-1&0_{1\times 3K}\\
0&1&0&0_{1\times 3K}\\
0_{3K\times 1}&0_{3K\times 1}&0_{3K\times 1}&0_{3K\times 3K}
\end{bmatrix},G_2=\begin{bmatrix}
0&0&1&0_{1\times 3K}\\
0&0&0&0_{1\times 3K}\\
-1&&0&0_{1\times 3K}\\
0_{3K\times 1}&0_{3K\times 1}&0_{3K\times 1}&0_{3K\times 3K}
\end{bmatrix}\\
G_3&=\begin{bmatrix}
0&-1&0&0_{1\times 3K}\\
1&0&0&0_{1\times 3K}\\
0&0&0&0_{1\times 3K}\\
0_{3K\times 1}&0_{3K\times 1}&0_{3K\times 1}&0_{3K\times 3K}
\end{bmatrix},
G_{3k+1}=\begin{bmatrix}
0_{3\times 3}& \begin{array}{ccc}
0_{1\times (k-1)} & 1& 0_{1\times {(K-k)}}\\
0_{1\times (k-1)} & 0& 0_{1\times {(K-k)}}\\
0_{1\times (k-1)} & 0& 0_{1\times {(K-k)}}
\end{array}\\
0_{3K\times 3}&0_{3K\times 3K}
\end{bmatrix}\\
G_{3k+2}&=\begin{bmatrix}
0_{3\times 3}& \begin{array}{ccc}
0_{1\times (k-1)} & 0& 0_{1\times {(K-k)}}\\
0_{1\times (k-1)} & 1& 0_{1\times {(K-k)}}\\
0_{1\times (k-1)} & 0& 0_{1\times {(K-k)}}
\end{array}\\
0_{3K\times 3}&0_{3K\times 3K}
\end{bmatrix},G_{3k+3}=\begin{bmatrix}
0_{3\times 3}& \begin{array}{ccc}
0_{1\times (k-1)} & 0& 0_{1\times {(K-k)}}\\
0_{1\times (k-1)} & 0& 0_{1\times {(K-k)}}\\
0_{1\times (k-1)} & 1& 0_{1\times {(K-k)}}
\end{array}\\
0_{3K\times 3}&0_{3K\times 3K}
\end{bmatrix}\\
&k=1,\cdots,K
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Any element of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{se}_k(3)$ can be represented as a linear combination of the generators:
\begin{equation}\label{linear_combination}
\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
\phi^T &t_1^T&t_2^T& \cdots & t_K^T
\end{bmatrix}^T &\in \mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}\\
\phi_1G_1+\phi_2G_2+\phi_3G_3+\sum_{k=1}^{K}\left({t_k}_1G_{3k+1}+{t_k}_2G_{3k+2}+{t_k}_3G_{3k+3}\right) &\in \mathfrak{se}_k(3)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Consequently, the Lie algebra space is a $3(K+1)$-dimensional vector space with basis elements $\{G_1,\cdots,G_{3(K+1)}\}$, and there is a linear isomorphism between $\mathfrak{se}_k(3)$ and $\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$ that we denote as follows: $\mathcal{L}:\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{(K+3)\times (K+3)}$ and $\mathcal{L}^{-1}:\mathbb{R}^{(K+3)\times (K+3)} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$. The isomorphism property will allow us to express the differential calculus of the matrix Lie group computation in vector form with the minimal number of parameters $3(K+1)$, as opposed to considering the matrices with $(K+3)^2$ coefficients.
Moreover, the Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$ is sometimes called the Lie algebra of the Lie group $SE_K(3)$ in some literatures.
\subsection{Exponential Map}
The exponential map from the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{se}_k(3)$ to the Lie group $SE_K(3)$ is the simple extension of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{se}(3)$. Consequently, given the vector $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$ and the Lie algebra $\mathcal{L}(\xi)$, the Lie group can be given by
\begin{equation}\label{exponential_map_sek_3_to_gourp}
\begin{aligned}
T&=Exp(\xi)=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))=\begin{bmatrix}
\exp_G(\phi_{\wedge})&J_lt_1&J_lt_2& \cdots & J_lt_K\\
\bf{0}^T&1&0&\cdots &0\\
\bf{0}^T&0&1&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdot&1
\end{bmatrix}\\
&=\begin{bmatrix}
R&p_1&p_2& \cdots & p_K\\
\bf{0}^T&1&0&\cdots &0\\
\bf{0}^T&0&1&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdot&1
\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^{(K+3)\times (K+3)},R\in SO(3),p_k\in \mathbb{R}^3,k=1,\cdots,K
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $Exp$ denotes the map that maps the vector $\xi$ to $SE_K(3)$, $\exp_G$ denotes the matrix exponential,
\begin{equation}\label{R_SO3_exponential}
\begin{aligned}
R=R(\phi)=\exp_G(\phi_{\wedge})&=I_3+\sin\theta u_{\wedge}+(1-\cos\theta)u_{\wedge}^2\\
&=I_3+\sin\theta u_{\wedge}+(1-\cos\theta)(-I_3+uu^T)\\
&=\cos\theta I_3+(1-\cos\theta)uu^T+\sin\theta u_{\wedge}\\
&=I_3+\frac{\sin\theta}{\theta}\phi_{\wedge}+\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}\phi_{\wedge}^2,\theta=||\phi||,u=\phi/\theta\\
u_{\wedge}^3&=-u_{\wedge}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{left_Jacobian_vector}
p_k=J_lt_k\in \mathbb{R}^3,k=1,\cdots,K
\end{equation}
and $J_l$ is the left Jacobian matrix of the rotation matrices group $SO(3)$ which is given by
\begin{equation}\label{left_Jacobian}
\begin{aligned}
J_l=J_l(\phi)&=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(n+1)!}(\phi_{\wedge})^n=\int_{0}^{1}R^{\alpha}d\alpha\\
&=I_3+\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta}u_{\wedge}+(1-\frac{\sin\theta}{\theta})u_{\wedge}^2\\
&=I_3+\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta}u_{\wedge}+(1-\frac{\sin\theta}{\theta})(-I_3+uu^T)\\
&=\frac{\sin\theta}{\theta}I_3+(1-\frac{\sin\theta}{\theta})uu^T+\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta}u_{\wedge}\\
&=I_3+\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}\phi_{\wedge}+\frac{\theta-\sin\theta}{\theta^3}\phi_{\wedge}^2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and the inverse of the left Jacobian matrix $J_l$ is
\begin{equation}\label{inverse_left_Jacobian_matrix}
\begin{aligned}
J_l^{-1}=J_l^{-1}(\phi)&=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{B_n}{n!}(\phi_{\wedge})^n=I_3-\frac{\theta}{2}u_{\wedge}+(1-\frac{\theta}{2}\cot\frac{\theta}{2})u_{\wedge}u_{\wedge}\\
&=I_3-\frac{\theta}{2}u_{\wedge}+(1-\frac{\theta}{2}\cot\frac{\theta}{2})(-I_3+uu^T)\\
&=\frac{\theta}{2}\cot\frac{\theta}{2}I_3+(1-\frac{\theta}{2}\cot\frac{\theta}{2})uu^T-\frac{\theta}{2}u_{\wedge}\\
&=I-\frac{1}{2}\phi_{\wedge}+\left(\frac{1}{\theta^2}-\frac{1+\cos\theta}{2\theta\sin\theta} \right)\phi_{\wedge}^2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $B_n (n=1,\cdots,\infty)$ are the Bernoulli numbers.
The identity relationship between the Rodriguez formula and the left Jacobian matrix can be proofed as following:
\begin{equation}\label{left_jacobian_rodriguez}
\begin{aligned}
J_l(R\phi)&=I_3+\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}(R\phi)_{\wedge}+\frac{\theta-\sin\theta}{\theta^3}(R\phi)_{\wedge}^2\\
&=I_3+\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}R\phi_{\wedge}R^T+\frac{\theta-\sin\theta}{\theta^3}R\phi_{\wedge}R^TR\phi_{\wedge}R^T\\
&=RR^T+\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}R\phi_{\wedge}R^T+\frac{\theta-\sin\theta}{\theta^3}R\phi_{\wedge}^2R^T=RJ_l(\phi)R^T
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{left_jacobian_rodriguez_2}
\begin{aligned}
&J_l(\phi)\phi_{\wedge}=\left(I_3+\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}\phi_{\wedge}+\frac{\theta-\sin\theta}{\theta^3}\phi_{\wedge}^2\right)\phi_{\wedge}=\phi_{\wedge}+\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}\phi_{\wedge}^2+\frac{\theta-\sin\theta}{\theta^3}\phi_{\wedge}^3\\
=&\phi_{\wedge}+\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}\phi_{\wedge}^2+(\theta-\sin\theta)u_{\wedge}^3=\phi_{\wedge}+\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}\phi_{\wedge}^2+(\theta-\sin\theta)(-u_{\wedge})\\
=&\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}\phi_{\wedge}^2+\frac{\sin\theta}{\theta}\phi_{\wedge}=R(\phi)-I_3
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
we can go in the other direction but not uniquely use the logarithmic mapping:
\begin{equation}\label{logarithm_map_definition}
\xi=Log(T)=\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\log_G(T))
\end{equation}
where $Log$ denotes the map that maps the element $T$ of matrix Lie group $SE_K(3)$ to the vector $\xi$, and $\log_G$ denotes the matrix logarithm.
The exponential map from $\mathfrak{se}_k(3)$ to $SE_K(3)$ is surjective-only: every $T\in SE_K(3)$ can be generated by many $\xi\in \mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$.
We can also develop a direct series expression for T from the exponential map by using the useful identity
\begin{equation}\label{direct_series_expression}
\mathcal{L}(\xi)^4+\theta^2\mathcal{L}(\xi)^2=S^4+\theta^2S^2=\bf{0}_{K+3}
\end{equation}
where $\xi=\begin{bmatrix}
\phi^T &t_1^T&t_2^T& \cdots & t_K^T
\end{bmatrix}^T \in \mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$.
Expanding the series and using the identity to rewrite all quartic and higher terms in terms of lower-order terms,
the closed form expression for the exponential map of $SE_K(3)$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{Exponential_map_se_k_3}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad T=Exp(\xi)=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))=\exp_G(S)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}S^n\\
&=I_{K+3}+S+\frac{1}{2!}S^2+\frac{1}{3!}S^3+\frac{1}{4!}S^4+\frac{1}{5!}S^5+\cdots\\
&=I_{K+3}+S+\underbrace{\left(\frac{1}{2!}-\frac{1}{4!}\theta^2+\frac{1}{6!}\theta^4-\frac{1}{8!}\theta^6+\cdots \right)}_{\frac{1-\cos{\theta}}{\theta^2}} S^2+\underbrace{\left(\frac{1}{3!}-\frac{1}{5!}\theta^2+\frac{1}{7!}\theta^4-\frac{1}{9!}\theta^6+\cdots \right)}_{\frac{\theta-\sin{\theta}}{\theta^3}} S^3\\
&=I_{K+3}+S+\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}S^2+\frac{\theta-\sin\theta}{\theta^3}S^3
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Adjoints}
The adjoint representation of a matrix Lie group $G$ on the Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^{p}$ is defined as the linear operator $Ad_T$, it captures properties related to commutation:
\begin{equation}\label{adjoint_representation_definition}
\begin{aligned}
\forall T\in G,\xi\in \mathbb{R}^p \quad Exp(Ad_T\cdot \xi)&=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(Ad_T\cdot \xi)):=\exp_G(T\mathcal{L}(\xi)T^{-1})=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(T\mathcal{L}(\xi)T^{-1})^n\\
&=T\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(\mathcal{L}(\xi))^nT^{-1}=T\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))T^{-1}=TExp(\xi)T^{-1}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
the adjoint representation describes the effect of non-commutability matrix multiplication.
Assuming we have a vector $\xi\in \mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$, the corresponded Lie algebra $\mathfrak{se}_k(3)$ and matrix Lie group $T\in SE_K(3)$,
combining the nice property that $R\phi_{\wedge}R^{-1}=(R\phi)_{\wedge}$, the adjoin of an element of $SE_K(3)$ is given by analogy to $SE(3)$:
\begin{equation}\label{adjoint_representation_derivtive}
\begin{aligned}
&\qquad Exp(Ad_T\cdot \xi)=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(Ad_T\cdot \xi))=\exp_G(T\mathcal{L}(\xi)T^{-1})\\
&=\exp_G\left(\begin{bmatrix}
R&p_1&p_2& \cdots & p_K\\
\bf{0}^T&1&0&\cdots &0\\
\bf{0}^T&0&1&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdot&1
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\phi_{\wedge}&t_1&t_2& \cdots & t_K\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdots &0\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdot&0
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
R^{-1}&-R^{-1}p_1&-R^{-1}p_2& \cdots & -R^{-1}p_K\\
\bf{0}^T&1&0&\cdots &0\\
\bf{0}^T&0&1&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdot&1
\end{bmatrix}
\right)\\
&=\exp_G\left(\begin{bmatrix}
R\phi_{\wedge}R^{-1}&-R\phi_{\wedge}R^{-1}p_1+Rt_1&-R\phi_{\wedge}R^{-1}p_2+Rt_2& \cdots & -R\phi_{\wedge}R^{-1}p_K+Rt_K\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdots &0\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdot&0
\end{bmatrix}
\right)\\
&=\exp_G\left(\begin{bmatrix}
(R\phi)_{\wedge}&(p_1)_{\wedge}R\phi+Rt_1&(p_2)_{\wedge}R\phi+Rt_2& \cdots & (p_K)_{\wedge}R\phi+Rt_K\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdots &0\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdot&0
\end{bmatrix}
\right)\\
&=\exp_G\left(\mathcal{L}\left(\begin{bmatrix}
R\phi\\
(p_1)_{\wedge}R\phi+Rt_1\\
(p_2)_{\wedge}R\phi+Rt_2\\
\vdots\\
(p_K)_{\wedge}R\phi+Rt_K
\end{bmatrix}\right)
\right)=Exp\left(\begin{bmatrix}
R&0&0&\cdots&0\\
(p_1)_{\wedge}R&R&0&\cdots&0\\
(p_2)_{\wedge}R&0&R&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
(p_K)_{\wedge}R&0&0&\cdots&R
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\phi\\
t_1\\
t_2\\
\vdots\\
t_K
\end{bmatrix}\right)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It is obvious that the adjoint representation of $SE_K(3)$ can be rewritten as:
\begin{equation}\label{adjoint_representation_1}
Ad_T=\begin{bmatrix}
R&0&0&\cdots&0\\
(p_1)_{\wedge}R&R&0&\cdots&0\\
(p_2)_{\wedge}R&0&R&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
(p_K)_{\wedge}R&0&0&\cdots&R
\end{bmatrix}\in\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)\times3(K+1)}
\end{equation}
$Ad_T$ is described as an operator that can act directly on $\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$ instead of on the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{se}_k(3)$.
The set of adjoint representations of all the elements of $SE_K(3)$ can form a matrix Lie group, we denote it as:
\begin{equation}\label{adjoint_representation_group}
Ad\left(SE_K(3)\right)=\left\{ \mathcal{T}=Ad_T|T\in SE_K(3) \right\}
\end{equation}
It turns out that $\left\{ \mathcal{T}=Ad_T|T\in SE_K(3) \right\}
$ is also a matrix Lie group. For closure we let $\mathcal{T}_1=Ad_{T_1},\mathcal{T}_2=Ad_{T_2}\in Ad(SE_K(3))$, and then
\begin{equation}\label{closure_adjoint_group}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{T}_1\mathcal{T}_2&=Ad_{T_1}Ad_{T_2}=\begin{bmatrix}
R_1&0&0&\cdots&0\\
({p_1}_1)_{\wedge}R_1&R_1&0&\cdots&0\\
({p_2}_1)_{\wedge}R_1&0&R_1&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
({p_K}_1)_{\wedge}R_1&0&0&\cdots&R_1
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
R_2&0&0&\cdots&0\\
({p_1}_2)_{\wedge}R_2&R_2&0&\cdots&0\\
({p_2}_2)_{\wedge}R_2&0&R_2&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
({p_K}_2)_{\wedge}R_2&0&0&\cdots&R_2
\end{bmatrix}\\
&=\begin{bmatrix}
R_1R_2&0&0&\cdots&0\\
({p_1}_1)_{\wedge}R_1R_2+R_1({p_1}_2)_{\wedge}R_2&R_1R_2&0&\cdots&0\\
({p_2}_1)_{\wedge}R_1R_2+R_1({p_2}_2)_{\wedge}R_2&0&R_1R_2&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
({p_K}_1)_{\wedge}R_1R_2+R_1({p_K}_2)_{\wedge}R_2&0&0&\cdots&R_1R_2
\end{bmatrix}\\
&=\begin{bmatrix}
R_1R_2&0&0&\cdots&0\\
(R_1{p_1}_2+ {p_1}_1)_{\wedge}R_1R_2&R_1R_2&0&\cdots&0\\
(R_1{p_2}_2+{p_2}_1)_{\wedge}R_1R_2&0&R_1R_2&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
(R_1{p_K}_2+{p_K}_1)_{\wedge}R_1R_2&0&0&\cdots&R_1R_2
\end{bmatrix}=Ad_{T_1T_2}\in Ad(SE_K(3))
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we have used the linearity of the $\wedge$ operator. Associativity follows from basic properties of matrix multiplication, and the identity element of the group is the $3(K+1)\times 3(K+1)$ identity matrix.
For invertibility, we let $\mathcal{T}=Ad_T\in Ad(SE_K(3))$, and then we have
\begin{equation}\label{adjoint_group_inverse}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{T}^{-1}&=(Ad_T)^{-1}=\begin{bmatrix}
R&0&0&\cdots&0\\
(p_1)_{\wedge}R&R&0&\cdots&0\\
(p_2)_{\wedge}R&0&R&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
(p_K)_{\wedge}R&0&0&\cdots&R
\end{bmatrix}^{-1}=
\begin{bmatrix}
R^{-1}&0&0&\cdots&0\\
-R^{-1}(p_1)_{\wedge}&R^{-1}&0&\cdots&0\\
-R^{-1} (p_2)_{\wedge}&0&R^{-1}&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
-R^{-1} (p_K)_{\wedge}&0&0&\cdots&R^{-1}
\end{bmatrix}\\
&= \begin{bmatrix}
R^{-1}&0&0&\cdots&0\\
(-R^{-1}p_1)_{\wedge}R^{-1}&R^{-1}&0&\cdots&0\\
(-R^{-1}p_2)_{\wedge}R^{-1}&0&R^{-1}&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
(-R^{-1}p_K)_{\wedge}R^{-1}&0&0&\cdots&R^{-1}
\end{bmatrix}=Ad_{T^{-1}}\in Ad(SE_K(3))
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In the end, it is shown that $Ad(SE_K(3))$ is a matrix Lie group. The Lie group $Ad(SE_K(3))$ plays important role in the invariant filter theory\cite{barrau2016invariant} when the error needs to be switched between the left and right error forms\cite{Ross2020Contact}.
Meanwhile, we can also consider the adjoint of an element of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{se}_k(3)$. Let $S=\mathcal{L}(\xi)\in \mathfrak{se}_k(3)$, then the adjoint of this element is $\mathfrak{L}(\xi)$ which has been defined in equation (\ref{adjoint_represnetation_algebra});
\begin{equation}\label{adjoint_representation_algebra_definition}
\mathfrak{T}:= ad_S=ad_{\mathcal{L}(\xi)}=\mathfrak{L}(\xi)
\end{equation}
It is easy to verify that
\begin{equation}\label{antisymetry}
\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1)\xi_2=-\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2)\xi_1, \forall \xi_1,\xi_2\in\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}
\end{equation}
The Lie algebra associated with the matrix Lie group $Ad(SE_K(3))$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\text{vectorspace}:&\quad ad(\mathfrak{se}_3(k))=\left\{\mathfrak{T}=ad_S\in \mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)\times 3(K+1)}|S \in \mathfrak{se}_k(3)\right\}\\
\text{field}:&\quad \mathbb{R}\\
\text{Lie bracket}:&\quad [\mathfrak{T}_1,\mathfrak{T}_2]=\mathfrak{T}_1\mathfrak{T}_2-\mathfrak{T}_2\mathfrak{T}_1
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
We will omit to show that $ad(\mathfrak{se}_k(3))$ is a vectorspace, but will briefly show that the closure, bilinearity, alternating and Jacaobi identity are satisfied.
Let $\mathfrak{T},\mathfrak{T}_1=\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1),\mathfrak{T}_2=\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2)\in ad(\mathfrak{se}_k(3))$. Then, for the closure property, we have
\begin{equation}\label{closure_property_adjoint_algebra}
[\mathfrak{T}_1,\mathfrak{T}_2]=\mathfrak{T}_1\mathfrak{T}_2-\mathfrak{T}_2\mathfrak{T}_1=\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1)\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2)-\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2)\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1)
=\mathfrak{L}\left(\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1) \xi_2\right)
\in ad\left(\mathfrak{se}_k(3)\right)
\end{equation}
Bilinearity follows directly from the fact that $\mathfrak{L}(\cdot)$ is a linear operator. The alternating property can be seen easily through
\begin{equation}\label{alternating_property_adjoint_algebra}
[\mathfrak{T},\mathfrak{T}]=\mathfrak{T}\mathfrak{T}-\mathfrak{T}\mathfrak{T}=\bf{0}_{3(K+1)}
\in ad\left(\mathfrak{se}_k(3)\right)
\end{equation}
Finally, the Jacobi identity can be verified by substituting and applying
the definition of the Lie bracket. Again, we will refer to $ad(\mathfrak{se}_k(3))$ as the
Lie algebra, although technically this is only the associated vectorspace.
Once again, the Lie algebra $ad(\mathfrak{se}_k(3))$ can be mapped to the Lie group $Ad(SE_K(3))$ through the exponential map as shown below:
\begin{equation}\label{exponential_adjoint_group}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{T}&=\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))=\exp_G(\mathfrak{T})=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^n=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}\begin{bmatrix}
\phi_{\wedge}&0&0&\cdots&0\\
(t_1)_{\wedge}&\phi_{\wedge}&0&\cdots&0\\
(t_2)_{\wedge}&0&\phi_{\wedge}&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
(t_K)_{\wedge}&0&0&\cdots&\phi_{\wedge}
\end{bmatrix}^n\\
&=\begin{bmatrix}
R&0&0&\cdots&0\\
(p_1)_{\wedge}R&R&0&\cdots&0\\
(p_2)_{\wedge}R&0&R&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
(p_K)_{\wedge}R&0&0&\cdots&R
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}
R&0&0&\cdots&0\\
(J_lt_1)_{\wedge}R&R&0&\cdots&0\\
(J_lt_2)_{\wedge}R&0&R&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
(J_lt_K)_{\wedge}R&0&0&\cdots&R
\end{bmatrix}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{T}\in Ad(SE_K(3)),\mathfrak{L}(\xi)\in ad(\mathfrak{se}_k(3))$ and the key property which has been proven in \cite{barfoot2017state} is used:
\begin{equation}\label{equivalence_aojoint}
(J_lt_k)_{\wedge}R=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(n+m+1)!}(\theta_{\wedge})^n(t_k)_{\wedge}(\theta_{\wedge})^m,k=1,\cdots,K
\end{equation}
The logarithm mapping is defined through:
\begin{equation}\label{logarithm_mapping_adjoint}
\xi=\mathfrak{L}^{-1}(\log_G(\mathcal{T}))
\end{equation}
The exponential mapping is again surjective-only: every $\mathcal{T}\in Ad(SE_K(3))$ can be generated by many $\xi\in \mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$.
So far, we see a nice commutative relationship between the various Lie groups and algebras associated with $SE_K(3)$:
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{
&\text{Lie algebra} & \text{Lie group}\\
(K+3)\times (K+3) & S=\mathcal{L}(\xi)\in \mathfrak{se}_k(3) \ar[r]^{\exp_G} \ar[d]_{ad} & T\in SE_K(3) \ar[d]^{Ad} \\
3(K+1)\times 3(K+1)& \mathfrak{T}=\mathfrak{L}(\xi)\in ad(\mathfrak{se}_k(3)) \ar[r]^{\exp_G} & \mathcal{T}\in Ad(SE_K(3))
}
\end{displaymath}
The two paths from the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{se}_k(3)$ to the Lie group $Ad(SE_K(3))$ amount to show that the adjoint representation $Ad(SE_K(3))$ is the automorphism of the group $SE_K(3)$ and therefore we get
\begin{equation}\label{adjoint_Adjoint}
\underbrace{Ad\left(\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))\right)}_{\mathcal{T}}=\exp_G\left(\underbrace{ad(\mathcal{L}(\xi))}_{\mathfrak{L}(\xi)}\right)
\end{equation}
which implies that we can go from $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$ to $\mathcal{T}\in Ad(SE_K(3))$ and back.
Similarly to the direct series expression for $T$, we can also work one out for $\mathcal{T}=Ad_T$ by using the identity
\begin{equation}\label{direct_series_adjoint_representation}
\left(\mathfrak{L}(\xi)\right)^5+2\theta^2\left(\mathfrak{L}(\xi) \right)^3+\theta^4 \mathfrak{L}(\xi)=\mathfrak{T}^5+2\theta^2\mathfrak{T}^3+\theta^4\mathfrak{T}=\bf{0}_{3(K+1)}
\end{equation}
Expanding the series and using the identity to rewrite all quintic and higher terms in lower-order terms, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Exponential_map_adjoint_se_k_3}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad \mathcal{T} =Exp(\xi)=\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))=\exp_G(\mathfrak{T})=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}\mathfrak{T}^n\\
&=I_{3(K+1)}+\mathfrak{T}+\frac{1}{2!}\mathfrak{T}^2+\frac{1}{3!}\mathfrak{T}^3+\frac{1}{4!}\mathfrak{T}^4+\frac{1}{5!}\mathfrak{T}^5+\cdots\\
&=I_{3(K+1)}+\underbrace{\left(1-\frac{1}{5!}\theta^4+\frac{2}{7!}\theta^6-\frac{3}{9!}\theta^8+\frac{4}{11!}\theta^{10}-\cdots \right)}_{\frac{3\sin\theta-\theta\cos\theta}{2\theta}}\mathfrak{T}\\
&\quad +\underbrace{\left(\frac{1}{2!}-\frac{1}{6!}\theta^4+\frac{2}{8!}\theta^6-\frac{3}{10!}\theta^8+\frac{4}{12!}\theta^{10}-\cdots \right)}_{\frac{4-\theta\sin\theta-4\cos\theta}{2\theta^2}} \mathfrak{T}^2\\
&\quad +\underbrace{\left(\frac{1}{3!}-\frac{2}{5!}\theta^2+\frac{3}{7!}\theta^4-\frac{4}{9!}\theta^6+\frac{4}{11!}\theta^{8}-\cdots \right)}_{\frac{\sin\theta-\theta\cos\theta}{2\theta^3}} \mathfrak{T}^3\\
&\quad +\underbrace{\left(\frac{1}{4!}-\frac{2}{6!}\theta^2+\frac{3}{8!}\theta^4-\frac{4}{10!}\theta^6+\frac{5}{12!}\theta^{8}-\cdots \right)}_{\frac{2-\theta\sin\theta-2\cos\theta}{2\theta^4}} \mathfrak{T}^4\\
&=I_{3(K+1)}+\left(\frac{3\sin\theta-\theta\cos\theta}{2\theta}\right)\mathfrak{T}+\left(\frac{4-\theta\sin\theta-4\cos\theta}{2\theta^2}\right)\mathfrak{T}^2\\
&\quad +\left(\frac{\sin\theta-\theta\cos\theta}{2\theta^3}\right)\mathfrak{T}^3+\left(\frac{2-\theta\sin\theta-2\cos\theta}{2\theta^4}\right)\mathfrak{T}^4\in\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)\times3(K+1)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Actions of the group $SE_K(3)$}
Each group $SE_K(3)$ comes with a family of natural group actions allowing to recover many of the observation functions of robotics and navigation.
The vector action of the group $SE_K(3)$ on $\mathbb{R}^3$ with parameters $(\gamma_1,\cdots,\gamma_K)^T\in \mathbb{R}^K$ can be defined as:
\begin{equation}\label{group_action}
x \circ b= Rb+\sum_{i=1}^{K}\gamma_i r_i \in\mathbb{R}^3,x=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(R,r_1,\cdots,r_K))\in SE_K(3),b\in\mathbb{R}^3
\end{equation}
It is easy to check that this defines an action of the group $SE_K(3)$:
Given $x=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(R,r_1,\cdots,r_K))\in SE_K(3)$, $x'=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(R',t_1,\cdots,t_K))\in SE_K(3)$, and $b\in\mathbb{R}^3$, we have:
\begin{equation}\label{verify_group_action}
\begin{aligned}
x\circ (x'\circ b)&=x\circ (R'b+\sum_{i=1}^{K}\gamma_i t_i)=R(R'b+\sum_{i=1}^{K}\gamma_i t_i)+\sum_{i=1}^{K}\gamma_i r_i\\
&=RR'b+\sum_{i=1}^{K}\gamma_i(Rt_i+r_i)=(x x')\circ b
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we used the group multiplication $xx'=(RR',Rt_1+r_1,\cdots,Rt_K+r_K)$.
\subsection{Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff}
Given two non-commuting elements $A, B\in \mathfrak{se}_k(3)$, the well known Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff (BCH) formula states that the element $C\in \mathfrak{se}_k(3)$ defined by $\exp_G(A)\exp_G(B)=\exp_G(C)$ can be expressed in the vectorspace without requiring the application of the exponential or the logarithm map:
\begin{equation}\label{BCH_group}
\begin{aligned}
C&=\log_G(\exp_G(A)\exp_G(B))\\
&=A+B+\frac{1}{2}[A,B]+\frac{1}{12}([A,[A,B]]+[B,[B,A]])-\frac{1}{24}[B,[A,[A,B]]]+\cdots
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In particular cases of $SE_K(3)$ and $Ad(SE_K(3))$, let $\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi_1)),\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi_2))\in SE_K(3)$, and $ \exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1)),\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2))\in Ad(SE_K(3))$, we can show that
\begin{equation}\label{BCH_group_SE_K_3}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad \xi=\mathcal{L}^{-1}(S)=\mathcal{L}^{-1}\left(\log_G(\exp_G(S_1)\exp_G(S_2) \right)=\mathcal{L}^{-1}\left(\log_G(\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi_1))\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi_2))) \right)\\
&=\xi_1+\xi_2+\frac{1}{2!}\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1)\xi_2+\frac{1}{12!}\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1)\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1)\xi_2+\frac{1}{12!}\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2)\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2)\xi_1-\frac{1}{24!}\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2)\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1)\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1)\xi_2+\cdots
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{BCH_group_Ad_SE_K_3}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad \xi=\mathfrak{L}^{-1}(\mathfrak{T})=\mathfrak{L}^{-1}\left(\log_G(\exp_G(\mathfrak{T}_1)\exp_G(\mathfrak{T}_2)) \right)=\mathfrak{L}^{-1}\left(\log_G(\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1))\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2))) \right)\\
&=\xi_1+\xi_2+\frac{1}{2!}\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1)\xi_2+\frac{1}{12!}\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1)\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1)\xi_2+\frac{1}{12!}\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2)\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2)\xi_1-\frac{1}{24!}\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2)\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1)\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1)\xi_2+\cdots
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Alternatively, if we assume that $\xi_1$ or $\xi_2$ is small, then using the approximate BCH formulas, we can show that
\begin{equation}\label{BCH_group_SE_K_3_Jacobian}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad \xi=\mathcal{L}^{-1}\left(\log_G(\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi_1))\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi_2))) \right)\approx \left\{ \begin{array}{lr}
\mathcal{J}_l(\xi_2)^{-1}\xi_1+\xi_2& \text{if $\xi_1$ small}\\
\xi_1+\mathcal{J}_r(\xi_1)^{-1}\xi_2& \text{if $\xi_2$ small}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{BCH_group_Ad_SE_K_3_Jacobian}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad \xi=\mathfrak{L}^{-1}\left(\log_G(\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1))\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2))) \right)\approx \left\{ \begin{array}{lr}
\mathcal{J}_l(\xi_2)^{-1}\xi_1+\xi_2& \text{if $\xi_1$ small}\\
\xi_1+\mathcal{J}_r(\xi_1)^{-1}\xi_2& \text{if $\xi_2$ small}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{J}_l(\xi)^{-1}$ and $\mathcal{J}_r(\xi)^{-1}$ are denoted as the inverse of the left and right Jacobians of matrix Lie group $SE_K(3)$, respectively. And they are given as
\begin{equation}\label{inverse_left_jacobian_gourp}
\mathcal{J}_l(\xi)^{-1}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{B_n}{n!}(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^n
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{inverse_right_jacobian_gourp}
\mathcal{J}_r(\xi)^{-1}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{B_n}{n!}(-\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^n
\end{equation}
On the other hand, if we perturb the Lie algebra by adding small element $\xi$, which is equivalent to multiplying the Lie group $SE_K(3)$ and $Ad(SE_K(3))$ by small increments, we can get the left and right form of BCH formula separately
\begin{equation}\label{lie_algebra_perturb_left}
\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\delta\xi+\xi))=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{J}_l(\xi)^{-1}\mathcal{J}_l(\xi)\delta\xi+\xi))\approx \exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{J}_l(\xi)\delta\xi))\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{lie_algebra_perturb_right}
\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi+\delta\xi))=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi+\mathcal{J}_r(\xi)^{-1}\mathcal{J}_r(\xi)\delta\xi))\approx \exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{J}_r(\xi)\delta\xi))
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{lie_algebra_perturb_left_Ad}
\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\delta\xi+\xi))=\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{J}_l(\xi)^{-1}\mathcal{J}_l(\xi)\delta\xi+\xi))\approx \exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{J}_l(\xi)\delta\xi))\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{lie_algebra_perturb_right_Ad}
\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi+\delta\xi))=\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi+\mathcal{J}_r(\xi)^{-1}\mathcal{J}_r(\xi)\delta\xi))\approx \exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{J}_r(\xi)\delta\xi))
\end{equation}
The expressions for the right and left Jacobians of $SE_K(3)$ can be given as
\begin{equation}\label{left_jacobian_gourp}
\mathcal{J}_l(\xi)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(n+1)!}(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^n=\int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{T}^{\alpha}d\alpha=\begin{bmatrix}
J_l &0 &0 &\cdots & 0\\
{Q_1}_l &J_l &0 &\cdots &0\\
{Q_2}_l &0 &J_l &\cdots &0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
{Q_K}_l &0 &0 &\cdots &J_l
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{right_jacobian_gourp}
\mathcal{J}_r(\xi)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(n+1)!}(-\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^n=\int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{T}^{-\alpha}d\alpha=\begin{bmatrix}
J_r &0 &0 &\cdots & 0\\
{Q_1}_r &J_r &0 &\cdots &0\\
{Q_2}_r &0 &J_r &\cdots &0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
{Q_K}_r &0 &0 &\cdots &J_r
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{Q_k_l}
\begin{aligned}
{Q_k}_l(\xi)&=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}(\phi_{\wedge})^n(t_k)_{\wedge}(\phi_{\wedge})^m\\
&=\frac{1}{2}(t_k)_{\wedge}+(\frac{\theta-\sin\theta}{\theta^3})(\phi_{\wedge}(t_k)_{\wedge}+(t_k)_{\wedge}\phi_{\wedge}+\phi_{\wedge}(t_k)_{\wedge}\phi_{\wedge})\\
&\qquad +(\frac{\theta^2+2\cos\theta-2}{2\theta^4})(\phi_{\wedge}\phi_{\wedge}(t_k)_{\wedge}+(t_k)_{\wedge}\phi_{\wedge}\phi_{\wedge}-3\phi_{\wedge}(t_k)_{\wedge}\phi_{\wedge})\\
&\qquad +(\frac{2\theta-3\sin\theta+\theta\cos\theta}{2\theta^5})(\phi_{\wedge}(t_k)_{\wedge}\phi_{\wedge}\phi_{\wedge}+\phi_{\wedge}\phi_{\wedge}(t_k)_{\wedge}\phi_{\wedge})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{right_Jacobian}
\begin{aligned}
&J_r=J_r(\phi)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(n+1)!}(-\phi_{\wedge})^n=\int_{0}^{1}R^{-\alpha}d\alpha=I_3-\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta}u_{\wedge}+(1-\frac{\sin\theta}{\theta})u_{\wedge}^2\\
=&I_3-\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta}u_{\wedge}+\frac{\theta-\sin\theta}{\theta}(-I_3+uu^T)
=\frac{\sin\theta}{\theta}I_3-\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta}u_{\wedge}+(1-\frac{\sin\theta}{\theta})uu^T\\
=&I_3-\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}\phi_{\wedge}+\frac{\theta-\sin\theta}{\theta^3}\phi_{\wedge}^2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$\mathcal{T}=\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))$, $R=\exp_G(\phi_{\wedge})$, and $\xi=\begin{bmatrix}
\phi^T &t_1^T&t_2^T& \cdots & t_K^T
\end{bmatrix}^T \in \mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$. $J_l$ and $J_r$ are referred to as the right and left Jacobians of $SO(3)$, respectively. The expression for ${Q_k}_l$ comes from expanding the series and grouping terms into
the series forms of the trigonometric functions\cite{barfoot2017state}.
The inverse for the right Jacobian matrix $J_r$ is
\begin{equation}\label{inverse_right_Jacobian_matrix}
\begin{aligned}
&J_r^{-1}= J_r^{-1}(\phi)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{B_n}{n!}(-\phi_{\wedge})^n=I_3+\frac{\theta}{2}u_{\wedge}+(1-\frac{\theta}{2}\cot\frac{\theta}{2})u_\wedge u_{\wedge}\\
=&I_3+\frac{\theta}{2}u_{\wedge}+(1-\frac{\theta}{2}\cot\frac{\theta}{2})(-I_3+uu^T)
=\frac{\theta}{2}\cot\frac{\theta}{2}I_3+(1-\frac{\theta}{2}\cot\frac{\theta}{2})uu^T+\frac{\theta}{2}u_{\wedge}\\
=&I+\frac{1}{2}\phi_{\wedge}+\left(\frac{1}{\theta^2}-\frac{1+\cos\theta}{2\theta\sin\theta} \right)\phi_{\wedge}^2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The identity relationship between the Rodriguez formula and the right Jacobian matrix can be proofed as following:
\begin{equation}\label{right_jacobian_rodriguez}
\begin{aligned}
J_r(R\phi)&=I_3-\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}(R\phi)_{\wedge}+\frac{\theta-\sin\theta}{\theta^3}(R\phi)_{\wedge}^2\\
&=I_3-\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}R\phi_{\wedge}R^T+\frac{\theta-\sin\theta}{\theta^3}R\phi_{\wedge}R^TR\phi_{\wedge}R^T\\
&=RR^T-\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}R\phi_{\wedge}R^T+\frac{\theta-\sin\theta}{\theta^3}R\phi_{\wedge}^2R^T=RJ_r(\phi)R^T
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{right_jacobian_rodriguez_2}
\begin{aligned}
&J_r(\phi)\phi_{\wedge}=\left(I_3-\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}\phi_{\wedge}+\frac{\theta-\sin\theta}{\theta^3}\phi_{\wedge}^2\right)\phi_{\wedge}=\phi_{\wedge}-\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}\phi_{\wedge}^2+\frac{\theta-\sin\theta}{\theta^3}\phi_{\wedge}^3\\
=&\phi_{\wedge}-\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}\phi_{\wedge}^2+(\theta-\sin\theta)u_{\wedge}^3=\phi_{\wedge}-\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}\phi_{\wedge}^2+(\theta-\sin\theta)(-u_{\wedge})\\
=&-\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}\phi_{\wedge}^2+\frac{\sin\theta}{\theta}\phi_{\wedge}=I_3-R(-\phi)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The relations for ${Q_k}_r$ come from the relationships between the left and right Jacobians:
\begin{equation}\label{Jacobian_left_from_right}
\mathcal{J}_l(\xi)=\mathcal{T}\mathcal{J}_r(\xi)=Ad_{T}\mathcal{J}_r(\xi)=Ad_{Exp(\xi)}\mathcal{J}_r(\xi)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{Jacobian_left_to_right}
\mathcal{J}_l(-\xi)=\mathcal{J}_r(\xi)
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{Jacobian_left_from_right}) is proved by
\begin{equation}\label{Jacobian_left_from_right_prove}
\mathcal{T}\mathcal{J}_r(\xi)=\mathcal{T}\int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{T}^{-\alpha}d\alpha=\int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{T}^{1-\alpha}d\alpha=-\int_{1}^{0}\mathcal{T}^{\beta}d\beta=\int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{T}^{\beta}d\beta=\mathcal{J}_l(\xi)
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{Jacobian_left_to_right}) is to be true from
\begin{equation}\label{Jacobian_left_to_right_prove}
\mathcal{J}_r(\xi)=\int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{T}(\xi)^{-\alpha}d\alpha=\int_{0}^{1}(\mathcal{T}(\xi)^{-1})^{\alpha}d\alpha=\int_{0}^{1}(\mathcal{T}(-\xi))^{\alpha}d\alpha=\mathcal{J}_l(-\xi)
\end{equation}
From the equation (\ref{Jacobian_left_from_right}) we have
\begin{equation}\label{Jacobian_left_from_right_deduce}
J_l=RJ_r,{Q_k}_l=R{Q_k}_r+(J_lt_k)_{\wedge}RJ_r,k=1,\cdots,K
\end{equation}
From the equation (\ref{Jacobian_left_to_right}) we have
\begin{equation}\label{Jacobian_left_to_right_deduce}
J_l(-\xi)=J_r(\xi),{Q_k}_l(-\xi)={Q_k}_r(\xi),k=1,\cdots,K
\end{equation}
From the Taylor series expressions of $\mathcal{T}$ and $\mathcal{J}_l$, we know that
\begin{equation}\label{T_and_Jacobian_left}
\mathcal{T}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^n=I_{3(K+1)}+\mathfrak{L}(\xi)\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(n+1)!}(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^n=I_{3(K+1)}+\mathfrak{L}(\xi)\mathcal{J}_l
\end{equation}
Expanding the expression for the Jacobian, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{Jacobian_Ad_group}
\mathcal{J}_l(\xi)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(n+1)!}(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^n=I_{3(K+1)}+\alpha_1\mathfrak{L}(\xi)+\alpha_2(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^2+\alpha_3(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^3+\alpha_4(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^4
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_4$ are unknown coefficients. These series can be expressed using only terms up to quartic through the use of the identity in equation (\ref{direct_series_adjoint_representation}). Substituting this into equation (\ref{T_and_Jacobian_left}) we see that
\begin{equation}\label{T_and_Jacobian_left_series}
\mathcal{T}=I_{3(K+1)}+\mathfrak{L}(\xi)+\alpha_1(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^2+\alpha_2(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^3+\alpha_3(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^4+\alpha_4(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^5
\end{equation}
Using equation (\ref{direct_series_adjoint_representation}) to rewrite the quintic term using the lower-order terms, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{T_and_Jacobian_left_series_lower_order_terms}
\mathcal{T}=I_{3(K+1)}+(1-\alpha_4\theta^4)\mathfrak{L}(\xi)+\alpha_1(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^2+(\alpha_2-2\alpha_4\theta^2)(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^3+\alpha_3(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))^4
\end{equation}
Comparing the coefficients to those in equation (\ref{Exponential_map_adjoint_se_k_3}), we can solve for $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_3$ and $\alpha_4$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{T_and_Jacobian_left_series_lower_order_terms_analytic}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}_l(\xi)&=I_{3(K+1)}+\left(\frac{4-\theta\sin\theta-4\cos\theta}{2\theta^2}\right)\mathfrak{T}+\left(\frac{4\theta-5\sin\theta+\theta\cos\theta}{2\theta^3}\right)\mathfrak{T}^2\\
&\quad +\left(\frac{2-\theta\sin\theta-2\cos\theta}{2\theta^4}\right)\mathfrak{T}^3+\left(\frac{2\theta-3\sin\theta+\theta\cos\theta}{2\theta^5}\right)\mathfrak{T}^4\in\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)\times3(K+1)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This avoids the need to work out $J_l$ and ${Q_k}_l, k=1,\cdots,K$ individually and then to assemble them into $\mathcal{J}_l$.
From the definition of Jacobians of $SE_K(3)$ in equation (\ref{left_jacobian_gourp}) and equation (\ref{right_jacobian_gourp}), we get:
\begin{equation}\label{inverse_left_Jacobian_Ad}
\mathcal{J}_l^{-1}=\begin{bmatrix}
J_l^{-1} & 0 &0 &\cdots & 0 \\
-J_l^{-1}{Q_1}_lJ_l^{-1} &J_l^{-1} &0 &\cdots & 0\\
-J_l^{-1}{Q_2}_lJ_l^{-1} &0 &J_l^{-1}&\cdots& 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\ddots & 0\\
-J_l^{-1}{Q_K}_lJ_l^{-1} &0&0&\cdots&J_l^{-1}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{inverse_right_Jacobian_Ad}
\mathcal{J}_r^{-1}=\begin{bmatrix}
J_r^{-1} & 0 &0 &\cdots & 0 \\
-J_r^{-1}{Q_1}_rJ_r^{-1} &J_r^{-1} &0 &\cdots & 0\\
-J_r^{-1}{Q_2}_rJ_r^{-1} &0 &J_r^{-1}&\cdots& 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\ddots & 0\\
-J_r^{-1}{Q_K}_rJ_r^{-1} &0&0&\cdots&J_r^{-1}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
We have that the singularities of $\mathcal{J}_l$ and $\mathcal{J}_r$ are precisely the same as the singularities of $J_l$ and $J_r$, respectively, since
\begin{equation}\label{determinant_Jacobian}
\det(\mathcal{J}_l)=(\det(J_l))^{(K+1)},\det(\mathcal{J}_r)=(\det(J_r))^{(K+1)}
\end{equation}
and having a non-zero determinant is a necessary and sufficient condition for invertibility, and therefore $\mathcal{J}$ has no singularity.
It is worth noting that $\mathcal{J}\mathcal{J}^T>0$ means $\mathcal{J}\mathcal{J}^T$ is positive definite for either the left or right Jacobian matrix. We can see this through the following factorization:
\begin{equation}\label{Ja cobian_positive_definte}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}\mathcal{J}^T&=\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
I_{3(K+1)} & 0& 0& \cdots & 0\\
Q_1J^{-1} & I_{3(K+1)}& 0 &\cdots & 0\\
Q_2J^{-1} &0&I_{3(K+1)}&\cdots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\ddots & 0\\
Q_KJ^{-1}& 0& 0& \cdots &I_{3(K+1)}
\end{bmatrix}}_{>0}
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
JJ^T & 0& 0& \cdots & 0\\
0 & JJ^T& 0 &\cdots & 0\\
0 &0&JJ^T&\cdots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\ddots & 0\\
0& 0& 0& \cdots &JJ^T\end{bmatrix}}_{>0}\\
&\quad
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
I_{3(K+1)} & J^{-T}Q_1^T& J^{-T}Q_2^T& \cdots & J^{-T}Q_K^T\\
0 & I_{3(K+1)}& 0 &\cdots & 0\\
0 &0&I_{3(K+1)}&\cdots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\ddots & 0\\
0& 0& 0& \cdots &I_{3(K+1)}\end{bmatrix}}_{>0}>0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we have used $JJ^T>0$ which has been proved in \cite{barfoot2017state}.
\subsection{Distance, Volume, Integration}
We need to think about the concepts of distance, volume, and integration differently for Lie groups than for vectorspaces.
There are two common ways to define the difference of two elements of the matrix Lie group $SE_K(3)$ and $Ad(SE_K(3))$, and they are called the right and left distance metrics, respectively:
\begin{equation}\label{left_distance_metrics}
\xi_{12}=\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\log_G(T_1^{-1}T_2))=\mathfrak{L}^{-1}(\log_G(\mathcal{T}_1^{-1}\mathcal{T}_2)),\quad \text{left invariant}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{right_distance_metrics}
\xi_{21}=\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\log_G(T_2T_1^{-1}))=\mathfrak{L}^{-1}(\log_G(\mathcal{T}_2\mathcal{T}_1^{-1})),\quad \text{right invariant}
\end{equation}
Then we can define the $(K+3)\times (K+3)$ and $3(K+1)\times 3(K+1)$ inner products for $\mathfrak{se}_k(3)$ as
\begin{equation}\label{K_3_inner_product}
<\mathcal{L}(\xi_1),\mathcal{L}(\xi_2)>=\xi_1^T\xi_2
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{3_K_1_inner_product}
<\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1),\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2)>=\xi_1^T\xi_2
\end{equation}
Suppose there are weight matrices that make the inner product completely defined, the weight matrices should be diagonal:
\begin{equation}\label{K_3_inner_product_weight}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad <\mathcal{L}(\xi_1),\mathcal{L}(\xi_2)>=tr\left( \mathcal{L}(\xi_1) \begin{bmatrix}
cI_3 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
\bf{0}^T & d_1 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
\bf{0}^T & 0 & d_2 & \cdots & 0\\
\vdots&\vdots &\vdots &\ddots & \vdots\\
\bf{0}^T& 0& 0& \cdots &d_K
\end{bmatrix}\mathcal{L}(\xi_2) \right)\\
&=-c\cdot tr({\theta_1}_{\wedge}{\theta_2}_{\wedge})+ tr(\sum_{k=1}^{K}d_k({t_1}_k)({t_2}_k)^T=\xi_1^T\xi_2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{3_K_1_inner_product_weight}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad <\mathfrak{L}(\xi_1),\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2)>=tr\left( \mathfrak{L}(\xi_1) \begin{bmatrix}
aI_3 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
0 & b_1 I_3 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
0 & 0 & b_2I_3 & \cdots & 0\\
\vdots&\vdots &\vdots &\ddots & \vdots\\
0& 0& 0& \cdots &b_KI_3
\end{bmatrix}\mathfrak{L}(\xi_2) \right)\\
&=-(a+b_1+b_2+\cdots+b_K)tr({\theta_1}_{\wedge}{\theta_2}_{\wedge})-a\cdot tr(\sum_{k=1}^{K}({t_1}_k)_{\wedge}({t_2}_k)_{\wedge})=\xi_1^T\xi_2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $tr(\cdot)$ means the trace of matrix and the unknown coefficients $c, d_1, d_2, \cdots, d_K$ and $a, b_1, b_2, \cdots, b_K$ can be solved such that
\begin{equation}\label{coefficient_metric_weight}
c=\frac{1}{2},d_1=d_2=\cdots=d_K=1,
a=\frac{1}{2},b_1=b_2=\cdots=b_K=0
\end{equation}
The right and left distance are
\begin{equation}\label{right_distance_definition_2}
\xi_{12}=\sqrt{<\mathcal{L}(\xi_{12}),\mathcal{L}(\xi_{12})>}=\sqrt{<\mathfrak{L}(\xi_{12}),\mathfrak{L}(\xi_{12})>}=\sqrt{\xi_{12}^T\xi_{12}}=||\xi_{12}||
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{left_distance_definition_2}
\xi_{21}=\sqrt{<\mathcal{L}(\xi_{21}),\mathcal{L}(\xi_{21})>}=\sqrt{<\mathfrak{L}(\xi_{21}),\mathfrak{L}(\xi_{21})>}=\sqrt{\xi_{21}^T\xi_{21}}=||\xi_{21}||
\end{equation}
Using the parameterization
\begin{equation}\label{parameterization_T}
T=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))
\end{equation}
and the perturbation
\begin{equation}\label{perturbation_T}
T'=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi+\delta\xi))
\end{equation}
by combining with equation (\ref{lie_algebra_perturb_left}) and equation (\ref{lie_algebra_perturb_right}), the differences relative to $T$ are
\begin{equation}\label{left_difference}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\log_G(\delta T_r))&=\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\log_G(T^{-1} T'))=\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\log_G(\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))^{-1} \exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi+\delta\xi))))\\
&=\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\log_G(\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(-\xi)) \exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi)+\mathcal{L}(\delta\xi))))\approx \mathcal{J}_r\delta\xi
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{right_difference}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\log_G(\delta T_l))&=\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\log_G( T'T^{-1}))=\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\log_G(\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi+\delta\xi)\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))^{-1})))\\
&=\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\log_G(\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\delta\xi)+\mathcal{L}(\xi)) \exp_G(\mathcal{L}(-\xi)) ))\approx \mathcal{J}_l\delta\xi
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The right and left infinitesimal volume elements are
\begin{equation}\label{right_infinitesimal}
dT_r=|\det(\mathcal{J}_r)|d\xi
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{left_infinitesimal}
dT_l=|\det(\mathcal{J}_l)|d\xi
\end{equation}
We have that
\begin{equation}\label{determinant_left_right}
\det(\mathcal{J}_l)=\det(\mathcal{T}\mathcal{J}_r)=\det(\mathcal{T})\det(\mathcal{J}_r)=\det(\mathcal{J}_r)
\end{equation}
since $\det(\mathcal{T})=(\det(R))^{K+1}=1$. We can therefore write
\begin{equation}\label{infinitesimal}
dT=|\det(\mathcal{J})|d\xi
\end{equation}
for our integration volume. Finally, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{determinant_J}
|\det(\mathcal{J})|=|\det(J)|^{K+1}=\left(2\frac{1-\cos\theta}{\theta^2}\right)^{K+1}=\left(\frac{\sin(\frac{\theta}{2})}{\frac{\theta}{2}}\right)^{2(K+1)}
\end{equation}
To integrate functions over $SE_K(3)$, we can now use our infinitesimal volume in the calculation:
\begin{equation}\label{integration_SE_K_3}
\int_{SE_K(3)}f(T)dT=\int_{|\theta|<\pi,\mathbb{R}^{3K}}f(\xi)|\det(\mathcal{J})|d\xi
\end{equation}
where we limit $\theta$ to the ball of radius $\pi$ (due to the surjective-only nature of the exponential map) but let $t_k\in\mathbb{R}^3,k=1,\cdots,K$.
\subsection{Interpolation}
We let $T=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))$, $T_1=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi_1))$, $T_2=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi_2))\in SE_K(3)$ with $\xi, \xi_1, \xi_2\in \mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$. If we are able to make the assumption that $\xi_{21}$ is small in the sense of distance from equation (\ref{right_distance_metrics}), then we have
\begin{equation}\label{interpolation}
\begin{aligned}
\xi&=\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\log_G(T))=\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\log_G((T_2T_1^{-1})^{\alpha}T_1))=\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\log_G(\exp_G(\alpha\mathcal{L}(\xi_{21}))\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi_1))))\\
&\approx\alpha J_l(\xi_1)^{-1}\xi_{21}+\xi_1
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which is a form of linear interpolation.
Another case worth noting when $T_1=I_{K+3}$, whereupon
\begin{equation}\label{interpolation_T_1}
T=T_2^{\alpha}, \xi=\alpha\xi_2
\end{equation}
with no approximation.
\subsection{Calculus and Optimization}
On occasion, we construct functions related to the Lie group elements and then discuss the perturbation of the elements. Consequently, we face the problem taking derivatives with respect to the Lie algebras so as to find the minimal perturbation. There two ways of thinking about it:
\begin{itemize}
\item One way is to represent the Lie group with the Lie algebra, and then take the derivative of the Lie algebra according to the Euclidean space addition.
\item Another way is to multiply the Lie group left or right by a small perturbation, and then take the derivative of that perturbation.
\end{itemize}
For the group $Ad(SE_K(3))$, we may want to take the derivative of the product of a $3(K+1)\times 3(K+1)$ transformation matrix and a $3(K+1)\times 1$ column, with respect to the $3(K+1)\times 1$ pose variable. Assume $
\mathcal{T}\in \mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)\times 3(K+1)}$, $x\in \mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$ and $\xi\in \mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$, taking the derivative of the group left action of $Ad(SE_K(3))$ on vector $x$ along $\xi$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{jacobian_wrt_algebra_SE_K}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad \frac{\partial(\mathcal{T}x)}{\partial \xi}=\frac{\partial(\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))x)}{\partial \xi}=\lim\limits_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}} \frac{\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi+\delta\xi))x-\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))x}{ \delta \xi}\\
&=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{J}_l\delta\xi))\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))x-\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))x}{\delta \xi}\\
&=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{(I_{3(K+1)}+\mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{J}_l\delta\xi))\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))x-\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))x}{\delta \xi}=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{\mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{J}_l\delta\xi)\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))x}{\delta \xi}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using the property stated in the equation (\ref{antisymetry}), we have
\begin{equation}\label{jacobian_wrt_algebra_SE_K_final}
\frac{\partial(\mathcal{T}x)}{\partial \xi}=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{-\mathfrak{L}(\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))x)\mathcal{J}_l\delta \xi}{\delta\xi}=-\mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{T}x)\mathcal{J}_l
\end{equation}
However, since the result contain a complex form of the left Jacobian matrix $\mathcal{J}_l$, we do not want to calculate it.
Another way to perturb $T$ by left multiplying a perturbation $\delta \mathcal{T}=\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\delta \xi))$ as:
\begin{equation}\label{jacobian_wrt_algebra_Ad_SE_K}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad \frac{\partial(\mathcal{T}x)}{\partial \delta\xi}=\frac{\partial(\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))x)}{\partial \delta\xi}=\lim\limits_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}} \frac{\delta\mathcal{T}\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))x-\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))x}{ \delta \xi}\\
&=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\delta\xi))\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))x-\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))x}{\delta \xi}\\
&=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{(I_{3(K+1)}+\mathfrak{L}(\delta\xi))\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))x-\exp_G(\mathfrak{L}(\xi))x}{\delta \xi}=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{\mathfrak{L}(\delta\xi)\mathcal{T}x}{\delta \xi}=-\mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{T}x)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Meanwhile, the targets are three-dimensional points in space when we usually want to manipulate. We turn our attention to the homogeneous points in space.
As the Lie group $SE_K(3)$ has $K$ translational components, we define a new matrix that combines $K$ homogeneous points as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{P_K_homogeneous_points}
P=\begin{bmatrix}
p_1&p_2&p_3&\cdots&p_K\\
1 &0 &0 &\cdots&0\\
0 &1 &0 &\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
0 &0 &0 &0\cdots&1
\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^{(K+3)\times K},p_k\in \mathbb{R}^3,k=1,\cdots,K
\end{equation}
Analogously, The Jacobian of $K$ transformed point with respect to the Lie algebra vector representing the transformation is
\begin{equation}\label{jacobian_wrt_algebra}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad \frac{\partial(TP)}{\partial \xi}=\frac{\partial(\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))P)}{\partial \xi}=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi+\delta\xi))P-\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))P}{\delta\xi}\\
&=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{J}_l\delta\xi))\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))P-\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))P}{\delta \xi}\\
&=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{(I_{3(K+1)}+\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{J}_l\delta\xi))\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))P-\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))P}{\delta \xi}=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{J}_l\delta\xi)\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))P}{\delta \xi}\\
&=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{\mathcal{L}\left(\begin{bmatrix}
J_l\delta \phi_{\wedge}\\ Q_1\delta\phi+J_l\delta t_1 \\Q_2\delta\phi+J_l\delta t_2 \\\vdots \\Q_K\delta\phi+J_l\delta t_K
\end{bmatrix} \right)\begin{bmatrix}
Rp_1+t_1 &Rp_2+t_2 &Rp_3+t_3& \cdots &Rp_K+t_K\\
1 & 0 & 0 &\cdots & 0\\
0 & 1 &0 &\cdots & 0\\
0&0&1&\cdots & 0\\
0&0&0&\cdots & 1
\end{bmatrix}}{[\delta\phi,\delta t_1,\cdots,\delta t_K]^T}\\
&=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{\left[\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{cccc}
(J_l\delta\phi)_{\wedge}(Rp_1+t_1)+Q_1\delta\phi+J_l\delta t_1&\cdots& (J_l\delta\phi)_{\wedge}(Rp_K+t_K)+Q_K\delta\phi+J_l\delta t_K
\end{array}\\
\hdashline[2pt/2pt]
O_{K\times K}
\end{array} \right]}{[\delta\phi,\delta t_1,\cdots,\delta t_K]^T}\\
&=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{cccc}
E_1\mathcal{J}_l&E_2\mathcal{J}_l&\cdots& E_K\mathcal{J}_l
\end{array}\\
\hdashline[2pt/2pt]
O_{K\times 3K(K+1)}
\end{array} \right]
\in \mathbb{R}^{(K+3)\times 3K(K+1)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $E_m=\begin{bmatrix}
-\mathcal{L}{(Rp_m+t_m)} &\bf{0}_{3\times(m-1)} &I_{3} &\bf{0}_{3\times(K-m)}
\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^{3\times 3(K+1)},m=1,\cdots,K$ and $\mathcal{J}_l$ is the left Jacobian of $SE_K(3)$.
Again, the result still contains a complex form of the left Jacobian matrix $\mathcal{J}_l$, we do not want to calculate it.
Another way to perturb $T$ by left multiplying a perturbation $\delta T=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\delta \xi))$ as:
\begin{equation}\label{jacobian_left_multiplication}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad\frac{\partial(TP)}{\partial \delta\xi}=\frac{\partial(\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))P)}{\partial \delta \xi}=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\delta\xi))\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))P-\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))P}{\partial \xi}\\
&=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{(I_{3(K+1)}+\mathcal{L}(\delta\xi))\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))P-\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))P}{\partial \xi}=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{\mathcal{L}(\delta\xi)\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))P}{\partial \xi}\\
&=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{\begin{bmatrix}
\delta \phi_{\wedge} & \delta t_1 &\delta t_2 &\cdots &\delta t_K\\
\bf{0}^T &0 &0 &\cdots & 0\\
\bf{0}^T &0 &0 &\cdots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots&\vdots\\
\bf{0}^T &0 &0 &\cdots & 0
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
Rp_1+t_1 &Rp_2+t_2 &Rp_3+t_3& \cdots &Rp_K+t_K\\
1 & 0 & 0 &\cdots & 0\\
0 & 1 &0 &\cdots & 0\\
0&0&1&\cdots & 0\\
0&0&0&\cdots & 1
\end{bmatrix}}{[\delta\phi,\delta t_1,\cdots,\delta t_K]^T}\\
&=\lim_{\delta\xi\rightarrow \bf{0}}\frac{\left[\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{cccc}
\phi_{\wedge}(Rp_1+t_1)+\delta t_1&\phi_{\wedge}(Rp_2+t_2)+\delta t_2&\cdots& \phi_{\wedge}(Rp_K+t_K)+\delta t_K
\end{array}\\
\hdashline[2pt/2pt]
O_{K\times K}
\end{array} \right]}{[\delta\phi,\delta t_1,\cdots,\delta t_K]^T}\\
&=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{cccc}
E_1&E_2&\cdots& E_K
\end{array}\\
\hdashline[2pt/2pt]
O_{K\times 3K(K+1)}
\end{array} \right]
\in \mathbb{R}^{(K+3)\times 3K(K+1)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $E_m=\begin{bmatrix}
-\mathcal{L}{(Rp_m+t_m)} &\bf{0}_{3\times(m-1)} &I_{3} &\bf{0}_{3\times(K-m)}
\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^{3\times 3(K+1)},m=1,\cdots,K$. It is worth noting that we will not calculate Jacobian matrix $\mathcal{J}_l$ anymore, which makes the perturbation more practical and useful.
Finally, for optimization, suppose we have a general nonlinear, quadratic cost function of a transformation of the form
\begin{equation}\label{cost_function_matrix}
C(T)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n}(u_n(TP))^2
\end{equation}
where $u_n(\cdot)$ are nonlinear functions of matrices and $P\in \mathbb{R}^{(K+3)\times K}$ are combined by K three-dimensional points expressed in homogeneous coordinates. This could be solved by the Gauss-Newton algorithm.
\section{Kinematics of Lie group $SE_K(3)$}
We have seen how the geometry of a Lie group works. The next step
is to allow the geometry to change over time. We will work out the
kinematics associated with our matrix Lie group $SE_K(3)$.
\subsection{Lie Group and Lie Algebra}
Let us rewrite the exponential map from the Lie algebra to the matrix Lie group $SE_K(3)$ here:
\begin{equation}\label{exponential_map_transformation}
\begin{aligned}
T&=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))=\begin{bmatrix}
R&p_1&p_2& \cdots & p_K\\
\bf{0}^T&1&0&\cdots &0\\
\bf{0}^T&0&1&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\bf{0}^T&0&0&\cdot&1
\end{bmatrix}, R\in SO(3), p_k\in \mathbb{R}^3, k=1,\cdots,K
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Suppose the kinematics in terms of separated translation and rotation are given by
\begin{equation}\label{kinematics}
\begin{aligned}
\dot{p}_k&={\omega_l}_{\wedge}p_k+{\nu_l}_k=R{\nu_r}_k, k=1,\cdots,K\\
\dot{R}&={\omega_l}_{\wedge}R=R{\omega_r}_{\wedge}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_l, {\nu_l}_k, k=1, \cdots, K$ are the rotational and translational left velocities, respectively; $\omega_r, {\nu_r}_k, k=1, \cdots, K$ are the rotational and translational right velocities, respectively.
Using the transformation matrices, the kinematic differential equation in terms of $T$ can be written equivalently as
\begin{equation}\label{equivalently_kinematic}
\begin{aligned}
&\dot{T}=\mathcal{L}(\overline{\omega}_l)T=T\mathcal{L}(\overline{\omega}_r)=T\mathcal{L}(\overline{\omega}_r)T^{-1}T=\mathcal{L}({Ad_T}\overline{\omega}_r)T \\
\Rightarrow &\mathcal{L}(\overline{\omega}_l)=\dot{T}T^{-1}\quad \mathcal{L}(\overline{\omega}_r)=T^{-1}\dot{T} \quad \overline{\omega}_l={Ad_T}\overline{\omega}_r
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{overline_omega}
\overline{\omega}_l=\begin{bmatrix}
\omega_l\\ \nu_{l1}\\ \nu_{l2}\\ \vdots\\ \nu_{lK}
\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)},\overline{\omega}_r=\begin{bmatrix}
\omega_r\\ \nu_{r1}\\ \nu_{r2}\\ \vdots\\ \nu_{rK}
\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)},\begin{bmatrix}
\omega_l=R\omega_r\\
\nu_{l1}={p_1}_{\wedge}R\omega_r+R\nu_{r1}\\
\nu_{l2}={p_2}_{\wedge}R\omega_r+R\nu_{r2}\\
\vdots\\
\nu_{lK}={p_K}_{\wedge}R\omega_r+R\nu_{rK}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
$\overline{\omega}_l$ and $\overline{\omega}_r$ are the generalized left velocity and the generalized right velocity, respectively. It is worth noting that these equations are singularity-free but still have the constraint that $RR^{-1}=I_3$.
To see the equivalent kinematics in terms of the Lie algebra, we need to differentiate the group element $T \in SE_K(3)$ by analogy to the groups $SO(3)$ and $SE(3)$, which comes from the general expression for the time derivative of the matrix exponential~\cite{barfoot2017state}:
\begin{equation}\label{time_derivative_T}
\begin{aligned}
\dot{T}=\frac{d}{dt}\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\xi))&=\int_{0}^{1}\exp_G(\alpha\mathcal{L}(\xi))\mathcal{L}(\dot{\xi})\exp_G((1-\alpha)\mathcal{L}(\xi))d\alpha\\
&=\int_{0}^{1}\exp_G((1-\alpha)\mathcal{L}(\xi))\mathcal{L}(\dot{\xi})\exp_G(\alpha\mathcal{L}(\xi))d\alpha
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
or equivalently,
\begin{equation}\label{time_derivative_T_1}
\dot{T}T^{-1}=\int_{0}^{1}T^{\alpha}\mathcal{L}(\dot{\xi})T^{-\alpha}d\alpha=\int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{T}^{\alpha}\dot{\xi})d\alpha=\mathcal{L}((\int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{T}^{\alpha}d\alpha)\dot{\xi})=\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{J}_l\dot{\xi})
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{time_derivative_T_r}
T^{-1}\dot{T}=\int_{0}^{1}T^{-\alpha}\mathcal{L}(\dot{\xi})T^{\alpha}d\alpha=\int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{T}^{-\alpha}\dot{\xi})d\alpha=\mathcal{L}((\int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{T}^{-\alpha}d\alpha)\dot{\xi})=\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{J}_r\dot{\xi})
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{J}_l=\int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{T}^{\alpha}d\alpha$ is the left Jacobian for $SE_K(3)$; $\mathcal{J}_r=\int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{T}^{-\alpha}d\alpha$ is the right Jacobian for $SE_K(3)$. Comparing equation (\ref{equivalently_kinematic}) and equation (\ref{time_derivative_T_1}), we can get the relationship between generalized velocity and the pose parameter derivative:
\begin{equation}\label{Lie_algebra_kinematic}
\overline{\omega}_l=\mathcal{J}_l\dot{\xi},\overline{\omega}_r=\mathcal{J}_r\dot{\xi}
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}\label{Lie_algebra_kinematic_1}
\dot{\xi}=\mathcal{J}_l^{-1}\overline{\omega}_l=(Ad_T\mathcal{J}_r)^{-1}(Ad_T\overline{\omega}_l)=\mathcal{J}_r^{-1}\overline{\omega}_r
\end{equation}
for our equivalent kinematics in terms of the Lie algebra. Again, these equations are now free of constraints.
Then we can derive a $SE_K(3)$ Jacobian identity similar to the $SO(3)$ group and $SE(3)$ group\cite{barfoot2017state}:
\begin{equation}\label{Jacobian_Identity}
\dot{\mathcal{J}}(\xi)-\mathfrak{L}(\overline{\omega})\mathcal{J}(\xi) \equiv \frac{\partial \overline{\omega}}{\partial \xi}
\end{equation}
Starting from the right-hand side, we get
\begin{equation}\label{Proof_Jacobian_Identity}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \overline{\omega}}{\partial \xi}&=\frac{\partial }{\partial \xi}(\mathcal{J}(\xi)\dot{\xi})=\frac{\partial }{\partial \xi}\left(\underbrace{\int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{T}(\xi)^{\alpha}d\alpha}_{\mathcal{J}(\xi)}\dot{\xi}\right)=\int_{0}^{1}\frac{\partial }{\partial \xi}\left(\mathcal{T}(\alpha\xi)\dot{\xi}\right)d\alpha\\
&=-\int_{0}^{1}\mathfrak{L}\left(\mathcal{T}(\alpha\xi)\dot{\xi}\right)\alpha\mathcal{J}(\alpha\xi)d\alpha
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Noting that
\begin{equation}\label{Jacobian_Transformation}
\frac{d}{d\alpha}\left(\alpha\mathcal{J}(\alpha\xi)\right)=\mathcal{T}(\alpha\xi), \int\mathcal{T}(\alpha\xi)d\alpha=\alpha\mathcal{J}(\alpha\xi)
\end{equation}
we can then integrate by parts to see that
\begin{equation}\label{Proof_Jacobian_Identity_final}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \overline{\omega}}{\partial \xi}&=-\underbrace{\mathfrak{L}\left(\alpha \mathcal{J}(\alpha\xi)\dot{\xi}\right)\alpha\mathcal{J}(\alpha\xi)|_{\alpha=0}^{\alpha=1}}_{\mathfrak{L}(\overline{\omega})\mathcal{J}(\xi)}+\int_{0}^{1}\underbrace{\mathfrak{L}(\alpha\mathcal{J}_l(\alpha\xi)\dot{\xi})\mathcal{T}(\alpha\xi)}_{\dot{\mathcal{T}}(\alpha\xi)}d\alpha\\
&=-\mathfrak{L}(\overline{\omega})\mathcal{J}(\xi)+\frac{d}{dt}\underbrace{\int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{T}(\xi)^{\alpha}d\alpha}_{\mathcal{J}(\xi)}=\dot{\mathcal{J}}(\xi)-\mathfrak{L}(\overline{\omega})\mathcal{J}(\xi)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which is the desired result.
\subsection{Linearization in Lie Group and Lie Algebra}
We can also perturb our kinematic about some nominal solution, both in the Lie group and the Lie algebra. We begin with the Lie group $SE_K(3)$. Consider the following perturbed matrix $T'\in SE_K(3)$:
\begin{equation}\label{perturbation_kinematic}
T'=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}(\delta\xi))T\approx (I_{K+3}+\mathcal{L}(\delta \xi))T
\end{equation}
where $T\in SE_K(3)$ and $\xi\in \mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)}$ is a perturbation. The perturbed kinematics,
\begin{equation}\label{perturbed_kinematic}
\dot{T}'=\mathcal{L}(\overline{\omega}_l')T'
\end{equation}
can then be broken into nominal and perturbation kinematics:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\text{nominal kinematics}: & \dot{T}=\mathcal{L}(\overline{\omega}_l)T\\
\text{perturbation kinematics}:& \delta \dot{\xi}=\mathfrak{L}(\overline{\omega}_l)\delta\xi+\delta\overline{\omega}_l
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\overline{\omega}_l'=\overline{\omega}_l+\delta\overline{\omega}_l$. These can be integrated separately and combined to provide the complete solution approximately.
\section{Uncertainties on Matrix Lie Group $SE_K(3)$}
Aiming at defining random variables on matrix Lie group $SE_K(3)$, we can not apply the usual method of additive Gaussian noise for $T_1,T_2\in SE_K(3)$ as $SE_K(3)$ is not a vector space, i.e., generally $T_1+T_2\notin SE_K(3)$ does not hold.
In contract, we adopt the concentrated Gaussian distribution\cite{barfoot2014associating} using differential geometry tools to define a Gaussian distribution directly on the manifold.
Specifically, in matrix Lie group $SE_K(3)$, there are both left multiplication and right multiplication depending on whether the noise is multiplied through the left or right of the group element:
\begin{equation}\label{uncertainty}
\begin{aligned}
\text{left multiplication}:{T}_l&=\hat{T}\exp_G(\mathcal{L}{(\varepsilon_l)})=\hat{T}\exp_G(\mathcal{L}{(\varepsilon_l)})\hat{T}^{-1}\hat{T}=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}{(Ad_{\hat{T}}(\varepsilon_l))})\hat{T}\\
\text{right multiplication}:{T}_r&=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}{(\varepsilon_r)})\hat{T}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Therefore, the probability distributions for the random variables $T\in SE_K(3)$ can be defined as left-invariant concentrated Gaussian distribution on $SE_K(3)$ and right-invariant concentrated Gaussian distribution on $SE_K(3)$:
\begin{equation}\label{concentrated}
\begin{aligned}
\text{left-invariant}:T\sim \mathcal{N}_L(\hat{T},P),{T}_l&=\hat{T}\exp_G(\mathcal{L}{(\varepsilon_l)}),\varepsilon_l\sim \mathcal{N}(0,P)\\
\text{right-invariant}:T\sim \mathcal{N}_R(\hat{T},P),{T}_r&=\exp_G(\mathcal{L}{(\varepsilon_r)})\hat{T},\varepsilon_r\sim \mathcal{N}(0,P)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{N}(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the classical Gaussian distribution in Euclidean space and $P\in\mathbb{R}^{3(K+1)\times 3(K+1)}$ is a covariance matrix. The invariant property can be verified by $\exp_G(\mathcal{L}{(\varepsilon_r)})=({T}_r \Gamma) (\hat{T}\Gamma)^{-1}={T}_r \hat{T}^{-1}$ and $\exp_G(\mathcal{L}{(\varepsilon_l)})=(\Gamma\hat{T})^{-1}(\Gamma{T}_l ) =\hat{T}^{-1}{T}_l$. The noise-free quantity $\hat{T}$ is viewed as the mean, and the dispersion arises through left multiplication or right multiplication with the matrix exponential of a zero mean Gaussian random variable.
\section{Applications of $SE_K(3)$}
The application about this group mainly includes three aspects: the 3-dimensional inertial navigation, the IMU preintegration and the simultaneous localization and mapping problem. All applications require that the system dynamics are group affine, becasue group affine systems have log-linear property of the error propagation.
Most of the applications are related to inertial navigation and the error states are easy to be modeled so as to satisfy the group affine property. The measurement equations are determined by the definition form of the error state. When the error state is left invariant by the left group action, the measurement should be also left invariant, this is the robo-centric estimator formulation and is suitable for sensors such as GNSS, 5G, etc. When the error state is right invariant by the right group action, the measurement should be also right invariant, this is world-centric formulation and is suitable for sensors such as camera, Lidar, odometry, etc.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, the geometry and kinematics of the matrix Lie group $SE_K(3)$ is given as an extension of the matrix Lie group $SE(3)$. The application of this group is analyzed in detail. Finally, we share the simulation code about this group. More applications will be given in future.
\vspace{2ex}
\noindent
{\bf\normalsize Acknowledgement}\newline
{This research was supported by a grant from the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFB1305001).
We express thanks to GNSS Center, Wuhan University.} \vspace{2ex}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Annotation}
\label{sec:annotation}
Annotating a large video dataset requires balancing quality and cost. Annotating for testing and evaluation, as is the case for \textit{OurDS}\xspace, must prioritize the quality of ground truth annotations, as any evaluation will only be as reliable as the ground truth derived from the annotations. Ground truth annotations must minimize missed and incorrect activities to reduce the potential for penalizing correct detections, strictly adhere to activity definitions, and address corner cases to reduce ambiguity in scoring. We annotated \textit{OurDS}\xspace by first localizing spatio-temporal activities and then creating bounding boxes for objects involved in the activity. We optimized a multi-step process for quality and cost: (1) an annotation step to identify the temporal bounds for activities and objects involved, (2) an audit step by experts to ensure completeness and accuracy of the activity annotations, (3) a crowdsourced method for bounding box track creation for objects, and (4) a custom interface for rapid remediation of corner cases by experts, with automated checks for common human errors between each of these steps.
\subsection{Activity Annotation}
\label{sec:activity}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/g336-out-c10-halfhour.jpg}
\caption{Half an hour of activities overlaid on a background image. 112 activities, 17 types, ranging from 1 to 14 instances.}
\label{fig:outdoor-half-hour}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We annotated \textit{OurDS}\xspace through a sequential process of activity identification by a trained, dedicated team of third-party annotators, followed by a quality control audit from an internal team of \textit{OurDS}\xspace experts intimately involved in defining the activities. The initial activity identification step detects all \textit{OurDS}\xspace activities in a 5 minute video clip, specifying the start and end times for each activity, and identifying the initial and final location for each actor or object involved. The subsequent audit step catches any missed or incorrectly labeled activity instances, and confirms strict adherence to \textit{OurDS}\xspace definitions.
Ambiguity in activity definitions is a fundamental annotation challenge. To minimize this, we define activities very explicitly and require that events are always annotated on pixel evidence and not human interpretation. We developed detailed annotation guidelines for each activity, including definition of the start and end times for an activity, and the actors and objects involved. Definitions also include extensive discussion of corner cases.
We explored several methods to increase annotation efficiency and quality, including completely crowdsourced methods on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) and a solely in-house team of experts. The optimized annotation process used a team of third-party annotators dedicated to \textit{OurDS}\xspace annotation to lower the overall cost and supply surge capacity via dynamic team scaling while still guaranteeing quality results. After comparing the results of multiple annotators performing activity annotation in parallel and combined results in a post-processing step with annotating in series with a quality assurance step, serial annotation was selected to enable efficiently annotating a larger dataset.
Annotation consistency is essential to providing high-quality ground truth annotations. When using a diverse team of annotators, it was essential to have a clear set of guidelines and iterative definition modifications to include corner cases to ensure annotator agreement across the team. Additionally, we found that project-specific training, including effective use of the annotation tools, in-depth discussion of definitions including examples, and iterative feedback on annotation quality produced improvements in annotation quality and speed. Finally, a quality audit from an internal team of \textit{OurDS}\xspace annotators was used to guarantee no missed or incorrect instances. We observed a 3-fold increase in audit efficiency over a two month period of working in a tight feedback loop with these procedures and a project-dedicated team of annotators.
\subsection{Track Annotation}
\label{sec:track}
Once activities and participating objects were identified by \textit{OurDS}\xspace experts, objects were tracked with bounding boxes for the duration of their involvement in the activity. The annotation of bounding boxes was primarily conducted through crowdsourced annotation on AMT, via an iterative process of bounding box creation and quality review.
In the first step of bounding box refinement, videos were broken up into segments that corresponded to a single activity annotation. An AMT task was created for each activity, displaying a set of start and end boxes with linearly interpolated boxes on intervening frames for all objects involved in the activity. Workers were instructed to complete the tracks by annotating bounding boxes for the interpolated frames which were as tight as possible around the object; for example, all the visible limbs of a person should be in the bounding box while minimizing "buffer" pixels. These two characteristics are required in the \textit{OurDS}\xspace dataset to ensure that high-quality activity examples with minimal irrelevant pixels are provided for testing and evaluation. These traits were enforced by using other AMT annotators to assess the quality of the resulting tracks.
In the quality review step, the bounding box annotations were shown to several AMT workers who were asked to evaluate them as acceptable according our guidelines. If agreement was achieved between the AMT workers, then the results were considered acceptable and complete; otherwise, a new AMT task would be created for bounding box refinement. The results of the next round of refinement would be provided for quality review, and the process would repeat until acceptable annotations were produced or a threshold number of iterations were performed. If the threshold number of iterations were performed, the clips would be vetted and edited manually as needed by an \textit{OurDS}\xspace auditor. The percentage of activities requiring expert intervention was less than 5\%. Specialized web interfaces were developed for each of these tasks to allow workers (AMT or in-house) to easily provide the necessary results. In order to eliminate most systematic low quality jobs, annotations were sampled and workers were allowed to continue based on quality.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/gif-5-still.png}
\caption{Examples of activities and tracks from diverse fields of view. The font size in each images is consistent, indicating varying scale of the annotations.}
\label{fig:tracks}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:tracks} illustrates bounding box annotations for tracks from a variety of activities and fields of view that demonstrate the quality produced by our track annotation procedure. Box size varied dramatically due to the scale variation in the video, with a mean area of 13559$\pm$23799. Annotations span 5 track types (person, vehicle, other, bag, and bicycle) with a distribution of 90.71\%, 4.5\%, 4.51\%, 0.15\%, and 0.05\%, respectively. As part of quality control, we compared \textit{OurDS}\xspace annotations against high-confidence performer false alarms from the ActEV evaluation; our false negative rate (i.e., confirmed missed instances to total activity count in reviewed clips) is less than 0.6\% .
\textbf{Additional Data} In addition to the annotations, we have provided supplemental data such as camera models for the camera models which register into a common geo-referenced coordinate system. We have also provided a 3D model of the outdoor component of the collection site, provided as a PLY file and visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:3d-model}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/mutc-3d-model.png}
\caption{Visualization of the fine-grained 3D point cloud model of the collection site.}
\label{fig:3d-model}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We have presented the \textit{OurDS}\xspace dataset, a large-scale, realistic video dataset containing annotation of a diverse set of visual activity types. The \textit{OurDS}\xspace video dataset surpasses existing activity detection datasets in hours of video, number of cameras providing overlapping and singular fields of view, variety of sensor modalities, and broad releasability. The dataset also provides a substantial 144 hours of evaluation-quality activity annotations of scripted and naturally occurring activities. We believe that with these traits the \textit{OurDS}\xspace dataset will stimulate diverse research within the computer vision community. The \textit{OurDS}\xspace dataset is available at: \url{http://mevadata.org}.
\textbf{Acknowledgement:} This work is supported by the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) via contract 2017-16110300001. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation thereon. Disclaimer: The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of IARPA or the U.S. Government.
\section{Dataset Design}
\label{sec:design}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/site-map-v2.png}
\caption{Site map with released cameras and approximate fields-of-view. Indoor cameras are blue circles; triangles are outdoor cameras. Red are co-located EO/IR; blue is fixed-focal-length; green is PTZ in stationary mode; purple is PTZ in patrol mode. Pink fields of view are outdoors; yellow are indoors. }
\label{fig:site-map}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The \textit{OurDS}\xspace dataset was designed to capture human activities, both spontaneous and scripted, in an environment as close as possible to that encountered by deployed CCTV systems in the real world. The dataset was designed to be realistic, natural and challenging for security and public safety video research in terms of its resolution, background clutter, visual diversity, and activity content. As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:release}, the data is fully releasable under a Create Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY-4.0) license, facilitated by a detailed human subjects research plan. Activity diversity was achieved through pre-collect scripting for scenarios and activity types (Section-\ref{sec:script}), and collected via an ambitious camera plan with 38 ground-level cameras and two UAVs (Section-\ref{sec:collect}). Scene diversity was accomplished by scripting scenarios to occur at different times of day and year to create variations in environmental conditions, and directing demographically diverse actors to perform activities in multiple locations with varied natural behaviors. The ground-camera plan includes a variety of camera types, indoor and outdoor viewpoints, and overlapping and singular fields of view. Realism was enhanced by scripting to include naturally occurring activity instances, frequent incidental moving objects and background activities, as discussed in Section-\ref{sec:script}. Finally, the quantity of data collected was enabled by planning for a multi-week data collection effort to allow for a large set of activity types with a large number of instances per activity class as discussed in Section-\ref{sec:collect}.
\subsection{Releasability}
\label{sec:release}
A critical requirement for the \textit{OurDS}\xspace dataset is broad releasablility to the research community. Possible restrictions include prevention of commercial use, which discourages commercial companies from using the dataset for research or collaborating on teams which do use the dataset. Another restriction is when data containing human activity is collected without oversight of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or collected outside of its initially IRB-approved conditions. While the data may address other needs of the research community, lack of proper IRB oversight or participant consent can render the data unusable, wasting significant resources in the collection and curation process.
The \textit{OurDS}\xspace dataset was carefully crafted to avoid such restrictions to maximize its value to the research community. The data collection effort was overseen by an IRB to ensure that the data collected would be usable. We wrote a human subjects research protocol and informed consent documents that detailed the collection process, what types of data would be collected, how the data will be released and may be used, and the risks and benefits to anyone consenting to participate in the study. The informed consent document was provided to prospective participants in advance and reviewed in an informed consent briefing session prior to beginning the data collection. Included in the protocol and consent briefing was a sample license that may be used for the data, a CC-BY 4.0, to make it fully clear the intent and potential future use of the data. The consent presentation was followed by small group discussions and question/answer periods to thoroughly address and answer any participant concerns prior to them consenting to participate the research. Once the individuals who voluntarily chose to participate signed the consent forms, we were able to begin the data collection process.
To further ensure broad releasability of the data, the collection occurred at an access-controlled facility to minimize non-participating individuals entering the fields of view of the cameras and appearing in the data.
\subsection{Scripting}
\label{sec:script}
To guarantee collection of minimum activity instance counts, ensure diversity in the data, and produce the most realistic video data, \textit{OurDS}\xspace data was collected for both scripted and unscripted activities. The scripting challenges for the data collection effort can broadly be broken down into two categories: (1) scripting for satisfying program requirements such as quantity and diversity, and (2) scripting for realism in activity behavior.
It was critical to design the data collection to represent a variety of realistic scenarios in ground-based security video collection. We determined seven overarching scenarios of interest to the public safety community. For example a footrace with multiple phases including registration, participant arrival, race and cleanup. The scenarios were collected over a period of three weeks on different days and at different times of days to capture video variations due to weather and lighting. At the extreme, two sub-collects in March and May produced dramatic contrast in weather from snow to extreme heat, and thus diversity in natural human behavior (e.g., clustering together in the cold) and wardrobe (i.e., jackets in the winter and t-shirts in the summer).
Scripted into these scenarios were 37 primitive, complex and threat-based human activity types to ensure minimum instance counts useful to the program; these are listed in Figure~\ref{fig:act-list}. These activities were scripted to be performed by actors with different age, sex and ethnicity as allowed by the actor pool. Activities involving vehicles or props were specifically scripted to rotate the vehicle pool and theatrical property. Scripted activities occurred across various scenarios and at multiple locations in the facility. Activities were scripted in overlapping and singular fields of view, indoor and outdoor cameras, and various camera types (e.g., stationary EO and IR, roaming EO). Activities were scripted to be performed by the same individual in different, singular cameras with the goal of associating the same individual across different cameras. This is relevant when a central activity is detected involving a subject, and then a derived complex activity is to detect other individuals that meet with the original subject of interest. Scenarios also included confusers for the scripted activity types to add value for performer evaluation in the final dataset. Figure~\ref{fig:indoor1} shows two approximately synchronized views from the gym.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/gym-2-scaled.png}
\caption{Two approximately synchronized views from the gym.}
\label{fig:indoor1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Though scenarios had an overarching theme, multiple iterations of the same scenario (called takes) were designed to produce visibly distinct but comparable results by varying the parameters described above. Additionally, actor density at various location in the facility and traffic flow were modified to produce differences in subsequent takes of the same scenario. Scripting the scenarios and activities in this level of detail guaranteed the diversity and quantity of data satisfied program requirements.
To address the second broad goal, we hired professional actors to act scenarios in a natural manner to create an equivalent challenge for computer vision event detectors, as if the events occurred in real-life scenarios without acting. The actors were divided into squads which each had a squad lead in charge of managing a group of 5-8 individuals. The squads were designed, grouped and shuffled to produce variations in demographics, behaviors and inter-actor behaviors. Each squad was given a direction card which provided information on timing and locations for activities to be performed, and group behavior such as social groupings within the squad. By giving the squad lead the ability to designate roles within the group, natural social dynamics, such as those observed in married couples or families, were preserved and increased the realism of the collected data. The squad lead was responsible for assigning roles to the actors, managing vehicle and prop assignment, providing feedback to individual actors for corrections on activity behavior, and reporting descriptions of complex or threat-based activities for use in expediting later annotation.
We found that providing scripting at the squad rather than individual level produced the most realistic actor behavior. When actor behavior was scripted on the individual level at high temporal and spatial resolution, the actors, overwhelmed by the details, focused on achieving all activities at the specified time and location rather than performing activities that were natural in appearance. Using a small pilot collect of data, we were able to determine which activities occurred naturally in the data collection without direction (e.g., person\_opens\_door). Taking this into account when scripting, lower instances of these activities were scripted and a mix of scripted and unscripted occurrences were collected. On the other hand, rare and threat-based activities needed to be specifically scripted to ensure minimum counts of these activities were achieved and later located for annotation. However, allowing the actors to have artistic licence with how to accomplish activities, especially complex activities, produced more a natural and diverse dataset. Actor familiarity with the scripted scenario also increased realism. Most scenarios varied in time from 15 minutes to 1 hour. Multiple takes could be run consecutively with minor modifications to scripted behaviors and activity instances, and minimal reset time (5 to 10 minutes) to efficiently produced varied instances of a scenario and communicate modifications to the squad leads.
In addition to activity-focused scripting, scene-level behaviors also needed to be scripted to ensure realism. For example, train and bus arrival schedules were designed to reflect public transit schedules scaled for the population depicted by our actors. Vehicle traffic was scripted to have ebbs and flows associated with similar patterns to real-world versions scripted scenarios. For example, an increase in vehicles dropping off people at the bus station just prior to a bus's scheduled arrival. Driving routes, vehicles and drivers were shuffled to provide variations between different scenarios and takes. Again, these tasks were assigned at the squad level and managed by squad leads.
In addition to scripted scenarios, periods of completely unscripted data were collected with the aim of collecting naturally occurring common activities with no actor direction. We also took advantage of unscripted data to interject threat-based and rare activities to capture undirected response by casual observers. These unscripted times were naturally occurring and added value to reset times between scenario takes.
\subsection{Collection}
\label{sec:collect}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/enrollmentfig.png}
\caption{Enrollment photos were taken daily of all actors, with (a) and without (b) outerwear, from the front and back. Photos included actor numbers, which correspond to their unique GPS logger number for reidentification purposes. }
\label{fig:enrollmentfig}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The \textit{OurDS}\xspace video dataset was collected over a total of three weeks at the Muscatatuck Urban Training Center (MUTC) with a team of over 100 actors and 10 researchers. MUTC is an access-controlled facility run by the Indiana National Guard that offers a globally unique, urban operating environment. The real and operational physical infrastructure, including curbed roads and used buildings, set it apart from other access-controlled facilities for collecting realistic video data.
The camera infrastructure included commercial-off-the-shelf EO cameras; thermal IR camerasas part of several EO-IR pairs, two DJI Inspire 1 v2 drones, and a range of video and still images from handheld cameras used by the actors. The fields of view, both overlapping and non-overlapping, capture person and vehicle activities in indoor and outdoor settings.
Onsite staging and actor instruction also improved the realism in scenes for the \textit{OurDS}\xspace scenario collection. Areas were staged with props, such as signs, tables, chairs, and trashcans, to provide scenario-specific context necessary to increase the natural appearance and usefulness of the area to both actors and recording cameras. Additionally, areas were staged to look similar but distinct between different scenarios to add diversity to the dataset collected. For example, the foyer of one building was converted into an operational cafe where the actors were able to grab drinks and snacks during scripted or unscripted camera time.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/reid-vert.png}
\caption{The actor in the purple jacket, actor 544 in Figure~\ref{fig:enrollmentfig}, is visible in multiple cameras during the scenario. Her height is (a) 301 pixels, (b) 118 pixels, (c ) 176 pixels, and (d) 89 pixels in each of the respective fields of view.}
\label{fig:reidfig}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Actors were selected to provide a diverse pool of individuals in background, ethnicity and gender. As part of our iterative process to receive and incorporate feedback, all actors attended briefings in which camera fields of view and common issues (e.g., erratic driving or aimless walking) were discussed in a group setting, raising awareness of key factors required to collaboratively produce realistic behaviors in video. Squad leads also held smaller briefings, providing feedback to the scripting team and receiving instructions to pass to their squad members. During morning briefings, all actors and \textit{OurDS}\xspace team members were registered with a unique identifying number matched to their GPS logger unit and wardrobe enrollment photograph(s) as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:enrollmentfig}. The photos, paired with the GPS logs, enable reidentification of individual actors across fields of view in a single scenario, as seen in Figure~\ref{fig:reidfig}. Each day before filming, squad leads were given direction cards to assign roles to their actors and inform prop distribution, then data collection was performed. Shorter scenario takes of less than 1 hour were performed in rapid succession with only minor modifications relayed during a brief reset. One day short-scenario data collection would contain between 4 and 8 takes; for longer scenarios of approximately 8 hours, the scenario would be repeated across multiple sequential days. Direction and course correction was provided by both directly interjecting a \textit{OurDS}\xspace team member into the scenario for a brief interval or incorporating actor briefings naturally into the scenario schedule.
The final dataset contains 9,303 hours of ground-camera video (both EO and thermal IR), 42 hours of UAV footage, and 46 hours from hand-held and body-worn cameras. Additionally we collected over 2.7 million GPS trackpoints from 108 unique loggers.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\input{table-37-activities}
It has been estimated that in 2019, 180 million security cameras were shipped worldwide~\cite{cctv_market_report}, while the attention span of a human camera operator has been estimated at only 20 minutes~\cite{haering2008evolution,green1999appropriate}. The gap between the massive volume of data available and the scarce capacity of human analysts has been closed, but not eliminated, by the rapid advancement of computer vision techniques, particularly deep-learning based methods. Fundamental progress is often spurred by datasets such as ImageNet~\cite{russakovsky2015imagenet} and MS COCO~\cite{lin2014microsoft} for object recognition and MOT16~\cite{milan2016mot16} and Caltech Pedestrian~\cite{dollar2009pedestrian} for pedestrian detection and tracking.
However, as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:prior-work}, datasets for action recognition typically do not address many of the needs of the public safety community. Datasets such as AVA~\cite{Gu_2018_CVPR}, Moments in Time~\cite{monfort2019moments}, and YouTube-8m~\cite{abuelhaija2016youtube8m} present videos which are short, high-resolution, and temporally and spatially centered on the activities of interest. Rigorous research and evaluation of activity detection in public safety and security video data requires a dataset with realistic spatial and temporal scope, yet containing sufficient instances of relevant activities. In support of evaluations such as the NIST Activities in Extended Video (ActEV)~\cite{actev}, we designed the \textit{OurDS}\xspace dataset to explicitly capture video of large groups of people conducting scripted activities in realistic settings in multiple camera views, both indoor and outdoor. We defined 37 activity types, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:act-list}, ranging from simple, atomic single-actor instances to complex, multi-actor activities. Our fundamental resources included approximately one hundred actors on-site at an access-controlled facility with indoor and outdoor venues for a total of around three weeks, recorded by 38 ground-level cameras and two UAVs. Additionally, actors were provided with GPS loggers. We conducted extensive pre-collect planning, including a pilot collection exercise, to develop the appropriate level of actor direction required to maximize instances of our 37 activity types while maintaining realism and avoiding actor fatigue.
The final dataset contains over 9300 hours of ground-camera video, 42 hours of UAV video, and over three million GPS trackpoints. In support of the ActEV evaluation, we have annotated 144 hours of this video for the 37 activity types. While most of this data is sequestered for ActEV, we have released 328 hours of ground-camera data, 4.6 hours of UAV data, and 22 hours of annotations via the \textit{OurDS}\xspace website. The dataset design and collection underwent rigorous IRB oversight, with all actors signing consent forms. The data is fully releasable under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY-4.0) license, and we believe represents by far the largest dataset of its kind available to the research community.
Figure 1 shows a sample of data available from the \textit{OurDS}\xspace website, approximately synchronized in time, collected during a footrace scenario. The left side shows a montage of 12 of the 29 released RGB and thermal IR cameras, illustrating the diversity in locations, settings (indoors and outdoors), as well as overlapping viewpoints. The middle illustration plots approximately 90 GPS locations on a background image. The right image is a crop from UAV footage.
The paper is organized as follows. Sections~\ref{sec:prior-work} places our work in context with similar efforts. Section~\ref{sec:design} discusses how we desgined the dataset to maximize realism and activity counts. Section~\ref{sec:annotation} describes our annotation process. Section~\ref{sec:results} briefly describes the ActEV leaderboard results on \textit{OurDS}\xspace.
\section{Prior Work}
\label{sec:prior-work}
We distinguish "focused" activity recognition datasets such as~\cite{Gu_2018_CVPR, monfort2019moments, abuelhaija2016youtube8m}, which typically contain single, short activities, from security-style video, which is typically long-duration and ranges from long stretches of low or no activity to busy periods with high counts of overlapping activities. Figure~\ref{fig:datasets} shows how \textit{OurDS}\xspace advances the state of the art along several security dataset factors, notably: duration, number of persistent fields of view (both overlapping and singular), modalities (EO, thermal IR, UAV, hand-held cameras, and GPS loggers), and annotated hours. The UCF-Crime dataset~\cite{sultani2018real} presents real incidents from real security cameras, but only from a single viewpoint at the point of activity; little or no background data is available. The VIRAT Video Dataset~\cite{CVPR2011_ViratData} contains both scripted and spontaneous activities, but without overlapping viewpoints. The Duke MTMC dataset~\cite{ristani2016performance} presents security-style video from multiple viewpoints, but with only spontaneous, unscripted activity.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\fontsize{9}{10}\selectfont
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\space & VIRAT~\cite{CVPR2011_ViratData} & UCF-101 Untrimmed~\cite{ucf2012wild} & Duke MTMC~\cite{ristani2016performance} & UCF-Crimes~\cite{sultani2018real} & \textit{OurDS}\xspace \\ [0.5ex]
\hline\hline
Number of activity types & 23 & 101 & - & 13 & 37 \\
\hline
Range of samples per type & 10-1500 & 90-170 & - & 50-150 & 5-750 (1200) \\
\hline
Incidental objects and activities & yes & no & yes & yes & yes \\
\hline
Natural background behavior & yes & no & yes & yes & yes \\
\hline
Tight bounding boxes & yes & no & no & no & yes \\
\hline
Max resolution & 1920x1080 & 320x240 & 1920x1080 & 320x240 & 1920x1080 \\
\hline
Sensor modalities & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 \\
\hline
Security & yes & no & yes & yes & yes \\
\hline
Number of FOV & 17 & unique-per-clip & 8 & unique-per-clip & 28 \\
\hline
Overlapping FOV & no & no & yes & no & yes \\
\hline
Indoor \& outdoor & no & yes & no & yes & yes \\
\hline
Availability & direct & reference & \textit{retracted} & direct & direct \\
\hline
Clip length & 2-3 minutes & 1-71 seconds & - & 4 minutes & 5 minutes \\
\hline
Dataset duration (hours) & 29 & 26.6 & 10 & 128 & 9300 / 144 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ Comparison of characteristics of activity and security datasets to \textit{OurDS}\xspace. The reported range of activity counts per type is only for \textit{OurDS}\xspace released data while the average number of samples in parenthesis includes both released and sequestered annotations. The 5 sensor modalities included in the \textit{OurDS}\xspace dataset are static EO, UAV EO, Thermal IR, Handheld or Body-Worn Cameras (BWC), and GPS. There are 28 unique FOV with additional FOVs offered by drone, handheld and BWC footage. The overall duration of video collected as part of \textit{OurDS}\xspace is 9300 hours while 144 hours were annotated.}
\label{fig:datasets}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Baseline Activity Detection Results}
\label{sec:results}
The NIST ActEV challenge~\cite{actev} is using the \textit{OurDS}\xspace dataset for its ongoing Sequestered Data Leaderboard (SDL). The ActEV challenge defines three tasks: Activity Detection (AD) with no spatial localization in the video, Activity and Object Detection (AOD) where the activity and participating objects are spatially localized within a frame but not necessarily correlated across frames, and Activity / Object Detection and Tracking (AODT), which extends AOD to establish real-world activity and object identity across frames. The current leaderboard is for AD, scored using Probability of Miss (pMiss), the proportion of activities which were not detected for at least one second, vs. Time-based False Alarm (TFA), the proportion of time the system detected an activity when there was none. Figure~\ref{fig:actev-graph} shows results current at time of writing for nine teams plus a baseline implementation~\cite{actev-baseline} based on RC3D~\cite{xu2017r}. As the scores indicate, the \textit{OurDS}\xspace dataset is very difficult compared to related datasets, presenting abundant opportunities for innovation and advancement in activity detection, tracking, re-identification and other problems.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/actev-sdl.png}
\caption{The NIST ActEV leaderboard as of 9 Nov 2020, computed on \textit{OurDS}\xspace data. Better performance is lower and to the left.}
\label{fig:actev-graph}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
An intriguing phenomenon observed in systems of coupled identical oscillators is the coexistence of coherent and incoherent regions in the space, knowing as the chimera states \cite{kuramoto02,abrams04}. This counterintuitive dynamical behavior is discovered first by Kuramoto and Battogtokh \cite{kuramoto02}, and is named later as ``chimera state" for its analogy to the monster in Greek mythology which owns lion's head, goat's body, and serpent's tail \cite{abrams04}. Since its discovery, chimera state has inspired extensive theoretical and experimental studies during the past two decades, with the systems investigated ranging from physical to chemical and to biological systems \cite{MJP:2014,OEO:2008,GCS:2008,DMA:2008,IO:2011,IO:2013,MK:2013,YZ:2012,NS:2016,Tian_fop17,Xiao_nd18,Dai_ND18,Gavrilov_prl18,Xu_prl18,wang_epl19,Shepelev_cnsns19,QLD:2020,hagerstromnat12,tinsleynat12,nkomoprl13,martenspns13,Gambuzza_pre14,Larger_nc15,AEM:2020,Socorro_cnsns21}. With these studies, the strict conditions for generating chimera states as adopted in the seminal works have been largely relaxed \cite{sethiaprl14,Kemeth_chaos16,yeldesbayprl14,Laing_pre15,Bera_epl17,Tian_pre17}, and the concept of chimera state has been largely broadened and generalized \cite{YZ:2013,AZ:2014,Clerc_pre16,Bera_pre16_2,Premalatha_chaos18,shimapre04,martensprl10}. For instance, instead of nonlocal couplings which has been regarded as a necessary condition for generating chimera states, recent studies show that chimera states can also be generated in systems with global \cite{OEO:2008,sethiaprl14,yeldesbayprl14} or local couplings \cite{Laing_pre15,Bera_pre16,Clerc_pre16,Bera_epl17,Premalatha_chaos18,Kundu_pre18,Kundu_pre19,Clerca_cnsns20}; and, besides regular networks, a variety of chimera-like states have been reported and studied in networks of complex structures \cite{Yao_sr13,Zhu_pre14,XJ:2016,Majhi_plr19,LZH:2020,zheng_sspma20,Makarov_cnsns19}. In particular, chimera-like states have been observed in complex network of coupled neurons \cite{Majhi_plr19,LZH:2020}, and are regarded as having important implications to the neuronal functions, saying, for example, the unihemispheric slow-wave sleep (USWS) of some aquatic mammals (e.g. dolphins and whales) and birds \cite{NCR:2000}, in which one half of the brain is in sleep while the other part of the brain remains awake.
Whereas chimera state is originally observed in one-dimensional systems, recent studies show that sophisticated chimera-like patterns can be also generated in higher dimensional systems. One example is the spiral wave chimera (SWC) \cite{shimapre04,martensprl10}, which combines the features of spiral waves and chimera states, and is typically observed in two-dimensional systems of nonlocally coupled oscillators. Different from the classical spiral wave in which the core (spiral tip) is defined as the point of phase singularity (topological defect), in SWC the core is constituted by a group of desynchronized oscillators and occupies a small, circular region in the space. Interestingly, it is shown that despite of the incoherent inner core, spiral wave is propagating stably in the outer region. Discovered by Shima and Kuramoto in 2004 in nonlocally coupled periodic oscillators \cite{shimapre04}, SWC has received growing interest in the field of nonlinear science in recent years, particularly for researchers working on pattern formations in reaction-diffusion (RD) systems \cite{laingphd09,YL:2011,guprl13,Wang_jcp14,xiepre15,Maistrenko,Li_pre16,Nicolaou_prl17,Omelchenko_siam18,Kundu_epj18,Gao_CSF18,Rybalova_chaos19,Totz_sr20,Maistrenko_epj20}. For the model of nonlocally coupled phase oscillators, an analytical description of SWC has been given in Ref. \cite{martensprl10} and, by the perturbation theory, both the rotation speed of the spiral arms and the size of the asynchronous core can be predicted. Besides phase oscillators, SWCs have been also observed in nonlocally coupled chaotic oscillators \cite{guprl13}, which are characterized by the presence of synchronization defect lines along which the local dynamics is periodic. Experimental verification of SWCs has been given in Ref. \cite{Totz_np18}, in which a large-size two-dimensional array of nonlocally coupled Belousov–Zhabotinsky (BZ) chemical oscillators are employed and some new dynamical features of SWCs are revealed, including the erratic motion of the asynchronous spiral core, the growth and splitting of the cores, and the transition from SWCs to incoherent states. Despite the progresses made, the mechanisms and properties of SWCs remain elusive and many questions remain not clear, e.g., the roles of the phase-lag parameter in generating SWCs \cite{martensprl10}, the transitions from SWCs to other states in the parameter space \cite{Totz_np18}, and the observability of SWCs in locally coupled systems \cite{Wang_jcp14,Li_pre16}.
For experimental physicists and chemists, a question of particular interest is whether SWCs can be generated in the general RD systems in which the dynamical elements are locally coupled through diffusions. Whereas results based on numerical simulations indicate that SWCs could be generated in locally coupled systems \cite{Wang_jcp14,Kundu_epj18}, the models employed in these studies seems somewhat artificial and are difficult to be realized in experiments. The experiment conducted by Totz {\it et al.} \cite{Totz_np18}, whereas is able to generate SWCs successfully, relies on the non-physical, nonlocal couplings that are realized through computer interface. As such, from the point of view of experimental studies, an urgent question to be answered is whether SWCs can be observed in the general RD systems possessing local, diffusive couplings. Should the answer be positive, the following-up questions are: (1) What are the properties of the SWCs? (2) How the SWCs are destabilized and transited to other states as the system parameters vary? and (3) Can the theoretical models be realized in experiments? In the present work, we attempt to address these questions by investigating the dynamics of an experimentally feasible RD system of local couplings. We are able to demonstrate that, even though the system elements are coupled locally, stable SWCs can still be generated in a wide region in the parameter space. We conduct a detailed numerical analysis on the properties of SWCs, and also the transitions of SWCs to other states in the parameter space. It is found that, while the SWCs share the properties of the conventional SWCs as observed in nonlocally coupled systems, they do possess some unique features, including the presence of SWCs in partial variables, the destabilization scenarios of SWCs, and the phenomenon of shadowed spirals. In particular, in shadowed spirals, regular spirals are emerged on top of the desynchronization background, which manifests from a new viewpoint the coexistence of coherence and incoherence in spatiotemporal systems, generalizing thus the concept of chimera states. Furthermore, treating the system as an ensemble of oscillators coupled through a common medium, we conduct a phenomenological analysis on the formation of SWCs, which provides insights on the mechanism of SWCs.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we will present the model of a three-component FitzHugh-Nagumo-type RD system, and describe the numerical methods used in simulations. In Sec. III, we will demonstrate the typical SWC states observed in simulations and, by the conventional approaches, characterize the properties of SWCs. In Sec. IV, we will propose the phenomenological theory, based on which the underlying mechanism of SWCs will be explored. In Sec. V, we will study the transition behaviors of SWCs in the parameter space, in which the two destabilization scenarios, namely core breakup and core expansion, will be discussed and the new phenomenon of shadowed spirals will be presented. Candidate experiments for verifying the theoretical findings will be given in Sec. VI, together with discussions and conclusion.
\section{Model and numerical methods}
Our model of locally coupled RD system reads \cite{Alonso_jcp11,Nicola_pre02,Li_pre16},
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} &=& \phi(au -\alpha u^{3}-bv -cw)+D_{u}\nabla^{2} u,\label{rd1}
\\
\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}&=& \phi\epsilon_{1}(u - v)+D_{v}\nabla^{2} v,\label{rd2}
\label{rd} \\
\frac{\partial w}{\partial t} &=& \phi\epsilon_{2}(u - w) + D_{w}\nabla^{2} w, \label{rd3}
\end{eqnarray}
which describe the dynamics of the concentrations of three chemical reactants, $u$, $v$ and $w$. This three-component RD system consists of a FitzHugh-Nagumo (FHN) kernel (consisting of $u$ and $v$) coupled to the third component $w$, and has been used in literature to investigate pattern formations in BZ systems dispersed in a water-in-oil Aerosol OT (AOT) microemulsion (BZ-AOT system) \cite{Cherkashin_jcp08} or to model spot dynamics in gas discharges \cite{Schenk_prl97}. In specific, in the BZ-AOT system $u$ is associated with the activator species ${\rm HBrO_{2}}$, while $v$ and $w$ represent the inhibitors ${\rm Br^{-}}$ and ${\rm Br_{2}}$, respectively \cite{Cherkashin_jcp08}. The parameters characterizing the local dynamics are $\phi$, $\alpha$, $a$, $b$, $c$, $\epsilon_{1}$ and $\epsilon_{2}$ (see Ref. \cite{Alonso_jcp11} for details). In specific, $a$ governs the reaction rate of $u$, and plays as the bifurcation parameter of the local dynamics; $\epsilon_2$ governs the reaction rate of $w$, through which the time-scale of $w$ can be tuned. In the present work, we fix the other parameters in the model, while investigating the variation of the system dynamics with respect to parameters $a$ and $\epsilon_{2}$, as $a$ and $\epsilon_{2}$ can be adjusted conveniently in experiments. The reactants diffuse in the space, with the coefficients being $D_u$, $D_v$ and $D_w$ for components $u$, $v$ and $w$, respectively. We note that the parameter $\phi$, which represents the fraction of the dispersed phase in the BZ-AOT system, in principle can be absorbed into the other parameters by a rescaling operation, but here we keep it in the equations so as to keep the model identical to the one studied in Ref. \cite{Alonso_jcp11}.
Whereas diffusions exist for all chemical reactants, we focus on the case of single-component diffusion, i.e., $D_{u}=D_{v}=0$ and $D_w>0$. This setting is a good approximation for the realistic situations where the diffusion coefficient of one component is much larger than the others (e.g. $D_w>0$ and $D_{u}=D_{v}\approx 0$), and captures the essence of many chemical and biological systems in experiments, e.g., the synthetic genetic regulation network used in {\it Escherichia coli} cells \cite{Danino_nat10}, yeast cell layers \cite{Shutz_BJ11} as well as a dense population of {\it Dictyostelium} cells \cite{Noorbakhsh_pre15}. We note that with this setting, the RD system can be alternatively regarded as a population of FHN oscillators coupled through a dynamics environment described by $w$, namely the scheme of quorum sensing coupling \cite{JA:1976,AC:2006}. In this picture, the component $u$ of the local oscillators is affected by the environment through the term $-\phi c w$ in Eq. (\ref{rd1}), while the environment component $w$ is affected by the oscillators through the term $\phi \epsilon_{2}(u-w)$ in Eq. (\ref{rd3}). This picture of indirectly coupled FHN oscillators, as will be shown later, facilitates our analysis of the underlying mechanism of SWCs.
In simulations, we employ the explicit forward Euler method to solve Eqs. (\ref{rd1}-\ref{rd3}), with the space step being $dx=dy=0.2$ and the time step being $dt=dx^2/(5D_{w})=0.016$. The two-dimensional spatially continuous RD system is discretized into a grid of $N_{tot}=N \times N$ oscillators, with $N=1024$. In implementing the Laplace term in Eq. (\ref{rd3}), a five-point stencil has been used. Throughout our present work, we fix the parameters $(\phi,b,c,\epsilon_1,\alpha,D_w) = (0.62,3.0,3.5,1.0,4/3,0.5)$, while varying the parameters $a$ and $\epsilon_{2}$ to change the system dynamics. The no-flux boundary condition is adopted in simulating the evolution of component $w$. As in other systems \cite{shimapre04,martensprl10}, special initial conditions are required in generating SWCs. Here, to generate SWCs, we initialize the systems with a SWC core, with the details the following. First, by simulating the dynamics of an isolated FHN oscillator [$D_u=D_v=D_w=0$ in Eqs. (1-3)], we obtain the time series of a component for one period of the oscillation, saying the series $u_{1},u_{2},u_{3},\cdots,u_{M}$, with $M$ the series length. Then, we assign each point on the grid with a data from the series $u_{j,k}=u_{[M\phi_{j,k}/(2\pi)]}$, with $(j,k)$ the location of the grid point, $\phi_{j,k}$ the geometry phase associated to $(j,k)$, and $[\cdot]$ the floor integral function. The geometry phase is defined as $\phi_{j,k}=\tan^{-1}(y_{j,k}-y_{c})/(x_{j,k}-x_{c})$, where $x_{j,k}=j$ and $y_{j,k}=k$ are the coordinates of the grid point $(j,k)$ in the two-dimensional space, and $(x_{c},y_{c})=(N/2,N/2)$ denotes location of the system center. The initial condition of the center point is set as $0$. Finally, we repeat the process for the other two components ($v$ and $w$), which completes the state initialization.
\section{Spiral wave chimeras and properties}
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{Fig1_chimera_new.png}
\caption{For parameters $a=3.8$ and $\epsilon_{2}=0.2$, a typical SWC observed in simulations. (a) A snapshot of the $u$ component. (b) Enlarged view of the core region in (a). (c) The variation of $\Delta u(y) =u_{N/2,k+1}-u_{N/2,k}$ with respect to $y$ along the vertical central axis. The physical diameter of the asynchronous core is $d \approx \Delta y_{asy}\times dy \approx 33\times 0.2 =6.6$. (d) Time evolutions of two neighboring points inside the core region. (e) Time evolutions of two neighboring points outside the core region. (f) A snapshot of the $w$ component. (g) Enlarged view of the core region in (f). (h) The variation of $\Delta w(y)=w_{N/2,k+1}-w_{N/2,k}$ with respect to $y$ along the vertical central axis.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure*}
Setting $a=3.8$ and $\epsilon_{2}=0.2$, we plot in Fig. \ref{fig1}(a) a snapshot of the $u$ component taken around $t=2\times 10^4$. We see that the whole space is occupied by a single spiral wave centered at $(0,0)$. As time increases, the spiral wave is rotating inwardly, e.g., towards the center, with the angular speed $\omega_s \approx 0.85$. A zoom-in plot of the core region is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig1}(b). We see that, encircled by the spiral arms, a circular region consisting of a group of disordered, asynchronous points is formed. (See Supplementary Materials for the movie.) To characterize the asynchronous core, we plot in Fig. \ref{fig1}(c) the variation of the reactant gradient $\Delta u=u_{N/2,k+1}-u_{N/2,k}$ with respect to $y$ along the vertical axis crossing the center. We see that $\Delta u$ is fluctuating randomly in the central region, $y\in (496,529)$, but is staying around $0$ outside. The physical diameter of the asynchronous core thus is estimated to be $d = \Delta y_{asy}\times dy=6.6$. To show the asynchronous feature of the core, we plot in Fig. \ref{fig1}(d) the time evolutions of two neighboring points inside the core, $(512,508)$ and $(512,507)$. Apparently, the two trajectories are desynchronized from each other. Figure \ref{fig1}(e) shows the time evolutions of two neighboring points adopted outside of core region, $(512,256)$ and $(512,255)$. We see that the two trajectories are completely overlapped. Similar to the component $u$, SWC is also observed for the component $v$ (not shown). Numerical results thus show that SWC can be generated in the locally coupled RD system.
However, SWC is not observed for the third component $w$, as depicted in Figs. \ref{fig1}(f) and (g). In particular, Fig. \ref{fig1}(g) shows that in the central region the asynchronous core is disappeared. As such, the patten is evolving as a normal spiral. The absence of the asynchronous core is further verified by the gradient profile along the vertical central axis. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}(h), the value of $\Delta w=w_{N/2,k+1}-w_{N/2,k}$ is staying around $0$ in both the core and outer regions. The absence of SWC in the component $w$ is understandable, as $w$ is diffusing in the space with a fast speed ($D_w=0.5$), which smooths the distribution of $w$ in the core region. In contrast, as diffusion is absent for components $u$ and $v$, the asynchronous cores are stable. The coexistence of SWC (for components $u$ and $v$) and normal spiral (for the component $w$) is a unique feature for SWCs generated in locally coupled RD systems with single-component diffusion.
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{Fig2_chimera_phase_order.png}
\caption{Characterizing SWC by the phase variable and local order parameter. (a) The distribution of the phase variable $\Phi$ around the central region. (b) The variation of $\Delta \Phi(y)=\Phi_{N/2,k+1}-\Phi_{N/2,k}$ with respect to $y$ along the vertical central axis in (a). (c) The distribution of the local order parameter $R$ around the central region. (d) The variation of $R$ with respect to $y$ along the vertical central axis in (c). The SWC is the same to one shown in Fig. 1.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure*}
To study the properties of SWCs, we introduce the phase variable, $\Phi_{j,k} = \tan^{-1}(v_{j,k}/u_{j,k})$, and the local order parameter \cite{nkomoprl13}
\begin{equation}
R_{j,k}(t) = \left|\frac{1}{2m+1}\sum_{j',k'\in V_{j,k}}e^{{\rm i}\Phi_{j',k'}}\right|.
\end{equation}
Here ${\rm i}=\sqrt{-1}$ is the imaginary unit, and $V_{j,k}$ denotes the set of points around $(j,k)$ on the grid, including the point $(j,k)$ itself and its four nearest neighbors.
$m=2$ denotes the dimensionality of the RD system. It is straightforward to find that $R_{j,k}\approx 1$ if the set of points in $V_{j,k}$ are synchronized, and $0<R_{j,k}<1$ if the points are desynchronized. The spatial distribution of $\Phi_{j,k}$ around the core region is shown in Fig. \ref{fig2}(a), which is analogy to the SWC shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}(b). The phase difference $\Delta \Phi(y)=\Phi_{N/2,k+1}-\Phi_{N/2,k}$ along the vertical central axis is shown in Fig. \ref{fig2}(b). We see that, similar to the behavior of $\Delta u$ [see Fig. \ref{fig1}(c)], $\Delta \Phi$ is fluctuating randomly in the core region but is staying around $0$ outside. The distribution of the order parameter $R$ in the two-dimensional space and along the vertical central axis are presented in Figs. \ref{fig2}(c) and (d), respectively. We see that $R<1$ for points inside the core region, and $R\approx 1$ for the outside points, signifying the fact that points inside the core are desynchronized from their neighbors, while points outside the core are highly synchronized with their neighbors.
We move on to characterize SWC by the topological charge \cite{Totz_sr20,Iyer_abe01}
\begin{equation}
W = \frac{1}{2\pi} \oint_{C} \nabla \Phi \cdot d\vec{s},
\label{charge}
\end{equation}
with $\Phi$ the phase variable defined above and $C$ a closed curve surrounding the asynchronous core. Previous studies show that for the case of single SWC (e.g. one asynchronous core and one spiral), the integral gives $\pm 2\pi$, resulting in $W=\pm 1$, with the sign of $W$ denoting the chirality of SWC. For the SWC shown in Figs. \ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2}, we have $W=-1$, indicating that the SWC is left-handed \cite{Iyer_abe01}. When multiple SWCs exist, the net charge of the system will be keeping unchanged during the process of system evolution, which will be discussed later in exploring SWC transitions.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Fig3_W_osc_Amp.png}
\caption{Properties of the component $w$. (a) Time profile of $w$ for two grid points, one is far from the core region (red, solid line) and the other is inside the core (blue, dotted line). (b) Time-averaged amplitude, $ A_{w}(y)$, along central vertical axis ($x=512$). $A_w^c\approx 0.24$ denotes the critical amplitude for synchronization, below which the oscillator is not locked to the medium. The parameters are the same as in Fig. 1.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\section{Mechanism analysis}\label{mechanism}
The fact that SWCs can be generated in locally coupled RD systems seems contradictory to the existing studies on spiral waves, as it is well known that the presence of diffusion in RD systems will lead to a smooth distribution of the reactants in space (except the point at the spiral tip) \cite{Spiral:Book}. The key to generating SWCs in our model of locally coupled RD systems lies in the special scheme of single-component diffusion, i.e., diffusion exists only for the component $w$, while are absent for components $u$ and $v$. Such a scheme sets a barrier between the diffusive and non-diffusive components, protecting therefore the asynchronous cores from destruction. Indeed, as depicted in Fig. \ref{fig1}, the behaviors of the diffusive ($w$) and non-diffusive ($u$ and $v$) components are clearly different from each other. This might explain why SWCs have not been reported in locally coupled RD systems in literature.
The mechanism of SWCs can be analyzed by a phenomenological theory, as follows. We first note that the RD system described by Eqs. ({\ref{rd1}-\ref{rd3}}) can be treated as a population of FHN oscillators (each has two variables, $u$ and $v$) coupled indirectly through a common medium (described by $w$) \cite{Li_pre16,cao_chaos19,li_jnls17}. In this picture, the local oscillators are isolated from each other, but are all driven by a spatially extended dynamical medium. Denoting $F(w_y,t)=-\phi c w_y(t)$ as the driving force at $y$ ($x=N/2$), the dynamics of the oscillator at $y$ is governed by the equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{meanfield}
\frac{d u_y}{d t} &=& \phi(au_y -\alpha u_y^{3}-bv_y )+F(w_y,t),
\\
\frac{d v_y}{d t}&=& \phi\epsilon_{1}(u_y - v_y) \label{mf-2}.
\end{eqnarray}
We note that the driving force $F(w_y,t)$ depends on both the spatial location of the oscillator and time, i.e., its a spatiotemporal signal. For the reason that the dynamics governing $w$ is linear [see Eq. (\ref{rd3})] and $u$ is oscillatory [see Fig. \ref{fig1}], the local component $w_y$ will be also oscillating with time. The oscillatory feature of $w_y$ is confirmed by simulations, as depicted in Fig. \ref{fig3}(a). It is noticed in Fig. \ref{fig3}(a) that the two oscillations, one in the core region and the other one in the outer region, are of similar frequency but different amplitudes. Specifically, the amplitude of the inner point is clearly smaller than that of the outer point. Denote $A_w(y)$ as the time-averaged amplitude of the oscillation at $y$, we plot in Fig. \ref{fig3}(b) the variation of $A_w(y)$ with respect to $y$ along the vertical central axis (i.e. $x=N/2$ in the pattern). We see that $A_w(y) \approx 0.24$ in the outer region, but is gradually decreased in the core region as $y$ approaches the central point. In particular, the value of $A_w(y)$ is decreased to about $0.02$ at $y=N/2$.
Based on the numerical results [Fig. \ref{fig3}(a)], we may approximate the oscillations of $w_y(t)$ by a sinusoidal function, $w_y(t)=A_w(y) \sin(\omega_f t)$. Accordingly, the driving force can be written as $F(w_y,t)=A_y\sin(\omega_f t)$, with $A_y=-\phi c A_w(y)$. With this approximation, we are able to analyze the formation of SWC by a phenomenological approach, with the details the following. According to the synchronization theory \cite{pikovsky:book}, periodic oscillator of natural frequency $\omega_0$ can be locked to the external forcing given that the frequency mismatch between them is small and the driving amplitude is large enough. For the isolated FHN oscillator adopted in our study, the natural frequency is about $\omega_0=0.57$. Defining the frequency ratio $r = \omega_f/\omega_0$ and characterizing synchronization degree by the frequency error, $\Delta \omega=\Omega_0 - \omega_f$ with $\Omega_0$ the practical frequency of the FHN oscillator, we calculate numerically the distribution of $\Delta \omega$ in the two-dimensional parameter space spanned by $r$ and $A_y$. The results are plotted in Fig. \ref{figadd}. We see that with the increase of $r$, the critical amplitude, $A_{c}$, required for phase synchronization is gradually increased. As $\omega_f \approx 0.85$ (the rotating frequency of the spiral arms), the frequency ratio therefore is $r\approx 1.5$, which, according to the numerical results shown in Fig. \ref{figadd}, gives the critical amplitude $A_{c}\approx 0.5$. From the relation $A_w=A_{y}/(c\phi)$ and setting $A_{y}=A_{c}$, we finally have the critical amplitude $A_w^c\approx 0.23$, which defines the boundary of the asynchronous core. As depicted in Fig. \ref{fig3}(b), this predication is in good agreement with the results of direct simulations where $A_{w}\approx 0.24$ in the outer region.
The above mechanism provides insights on the necessary conditions for generating SWC in locally coupled RD systems. Our above analysis shows that the nature of single-component diffusion is to weaken the synchronization of the local oscillators, so as to form the asynchronous core. Otherwise, if diffusions are introduced to all three components, the local oscillators will be strongly coupled and be synchronized, therefore destroying the asynchronous core. As such, the essence for generating SWC is that the local oscillators should be weakly coupled, instead of the scheme of single-component diffusion. This new understanding has been verified by simulations. For instance, if weak diffusions are introduced to component $u$ and $v$ ($D_u,D_v\ll D_w$), the SWC shown in Fig. 1 can still be observed (not shown).
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Fig4_arnodtonue.png}
\caption{Driving FHN oscillator by the periodic forcing, $F(w_y,t)=A_y\sin(\omega_{f}t)$, the distribution of the frequency error, $\Delta \omega$, in the two-dimensional parameter space spanned by the frequency ratio, $r=\omega_f/\omega_0$, and the driving amplitude, $A_y$. Vertical dashed line at $r=1.5$ corresponds to the frequency ratio of the SWC shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}. Along the vertical dashed line, we have $\Delta \omega \approx 0$ for $A_y>A_c\approx 0.5$.}
\label{figadd}
\end{figure}
\section{Transitions from spiral wave chimeras to other states}
By varying the system parameters, the system may transit from SWC to other states. In the current study, we focus on the transitions of SWCs to other states with respect to the variations of $a$ and $\epsilon_{2}$. As discussed in Sec. II, $a$ plays as the bifurcation parameter of FHN oscillator and $\epsilon_2$ characterizes the reaction rate of the diffusive component $w$. We thus expect that by varying $a$ and $\epsilon_2$, rich dynamics could be observed. In what follows, we will present two typical scenarios governing the transitions: core breakup and core expansion. The former is featured by the continuous breakup of the asynchronous core, by which the system is finally developed into SWC turbulence. The latter, on the other hand, is featured by the continuous expansion of the asynchronous core, by which the system might develop into a new type of chimera state, the shadowed spirals.
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Fig5_chimera_brkup_p.png}
\caption{ Transition from SWC to SWC turbulence through core breakup. Shown are the typical states of the component $u$ (a-c), the local order parameter $R$ (d-f) and the component $w$ (g-i) observed in the process of system evolution at $t=2000$, $6000$ and $20,000$. (j) Time evolution of the fraction of asynchronous oscillators, $p$, in the system. The parameters are $a=3.8$ and $\epsilon_{2}=0.245$.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{Fig6_chimera_brkup.png}
\caption{ Details of core breakup. (a-j) Successive snapshots of the component $u$, with time interval being $\Delta t=32$. The parameters are the same as in Fig. \ref{fig5}.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Core breakup and SWC turbulence}
To demonstrate the scenario of core breakup, we fix the parameter $a=3.8$, while increasing $\epsilon_{2}$ gradually from $0.2$ (the same parameter and initial condition as used in Fig. \ref{fig1} for generating SWC). Numerical results show that when the increment is small, SWC survives, but with the wave length being slightly decreased. The SWC, however, becomes unstable when $\epsilon_{2}$ exceeds a critical value $\epsilon^c_{2} \approx 0.24$. To show an example, we set $\epsilon=0.245$ and plot in Fig. \ref{fig5} the typical states observed in the system evolution. The time evolution of the component $u$ is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig5}(a-c). We see that as time increases, the single asynchronous core is broken into many small-size asynchronous cores, leading to a state similar to spiral wave turbulence \cite{Spiral:Book}. However, different from the conventional picture of spiral wave turbulence, here the tips of the small spirals are replaced by asynchronous cores. For this reason, we call this new state SWC turbulence. The time evolution of the local parameter $R$ are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig5}(d-f), which show clearly how new asynchronous cores are born with the vanishing of the original core. The similar phenomenon is also observed for component $w$ [Fig. \ref{fig5}(g-i)]. As asynchronous core is absent in $w$, the state should be classified as spiral wave turbulence. To explore further the transition from SWC to SWC turbulence, we plot in Fig. \ref{fig5}(j) the time evolution of the fraction of asynchronous oscillators in the system, $p=N_{asy}/N_{tot}$ \cite{Kemeth_chaos16}. Here $N_{asy}$ is the number of oscillators whose local parameter is smaller to a threshold. For illustration, we set the threshold as $R=0.95$. Figure \ref{fig5}(j) shows that $p$ starts to increase at about $t=4800$, indicating the breaking of the asynchronous core at this moment. After that, $p$ is gradually increased with fluctuations, signifying the fact that more asynchronous cores are emerged and the SWCs are evolving as turbulence \cite{Kemeth_chaos16}.
To have a close look at the transition dynamics, we focus on the behavior of the asynchronous core at the onset of the breaking ($t\approx 4800$). Typical states of $u$ observed during the breaking process are shown in Fig. \ref{fig6}. We see that the breaking starts with the emergence of a synchronous core inside the asynchronous core [see the region indicated by the white arrow in Fig. \ref{fig6}(a)]. As time increases, the synchronous core expands in space and, as the consequence, the asynchronous core is reshaped into an annulus [Fig. \ref{fig6}(b)]. The expansion of the synchronous core eventually leads to the breaking of the asynchronous annulus, resulting in two disconnected asynchronous segments [Fig. \ref{fig6}(c)]. In the following evolution, the asynchronous segments are pushed outward by the expanding synchronous core [Fig. \ref{fig6}(d)], and reshaped continuously by the rotation of the spiral arms [Figs. \ref{fig6}(e-i)]. Finally, with the insertion of the spiral arm, the synchronous core is broken into two parts [Fig. \ref{fig6}(j)]: the one connected with the spiral arms is developed to a small-size SWC, while the one detached from the arms is eventually developed into two small-size SWCs. (See Supplementary Materials for the movie.)
The above process of core breaking continues, resulting in SWC turbulence in which many small-size SWCs coexist, which, as the system evolves, are continuously broken and eliminated. It is just the breaking and elimination of the small SWCs that results in the wild fluctuation of $p$, as depicted in Fig. \ref{fig5}(j). To characterize SWC turbulence, we calculate the network topological charge of the system and investigate its time evolution. Previous studies on spiral wave turbulence show that, despite the continuous breaking and elimination of the spirals, the net topological charge is keeping unchanged \cite{Spiral:Book}. For the case of SWC breaking, this is indeed what we find in simulations. For instance, for the breaking process shown in Fig. \ref{fig6}, the breaking of the original core finally leads to the generation of three new cores [Fig. \ref{fig6}(j)]. The one connected to the spiral arms has the topological charge $W=-1$, while the other two detached from the arms have the charge $W=+1$ and $W=-1$. As such, the net topological charge of the system is keeping as $-1$. This finding is consistent with the results reported in Ref. \cite{Totz_np18}, in which splitting of SWCs in a nonlocally coupled oscillator system has been studied.
\subsection{Core expansion and shadowed spirals}
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{Fig7_coreexpanding.png}
\caption{Emergence of shadowed spirals through core expansion. Shown are the typical states of the component $u$ (a-c), the local order parameter $R$ (d-f) and the component $w$ (g-i) observed in the process of system evolution at $t=500$, $2000$ and $5000$. (j) Time evolution of the fraction of asynchronous oscillators, $p$, in the system. The numerical results (red dots) can be fitted by the logistic growth (blue curve). The parameters used in simulations are $a=3.8$ and $\epsilon_{2}=0.45$.}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure*}
Besides the scenario of core breakup, SWC may also be destabilized through the scenario of core expansion, which occurs when $\epsilon_{2}$ is large. Setting $\epsilon_{2}=0.45$, we plot in Figs. \ref{fig7}(a-c) three typical states observed in the evolution of $u$. We see that as time increases, the asynchronous core is gradually expanded and finally dominates the whole space. More interestingly, inside the expanding core, a distinct pattern of spiral waves is emerged on top of the disordered, desynchronization background. (See Supplementary Materials for the movie.) The feature of core expansion is also reflected in the evolution of the local parameter $R$, as can be seen in Figs. \ref{fig7}(d-f). Moreover, in Fig. \ref{fig7}(f) it is clearly seen that the local order parameter is close to $1$ for sites outside the core region, while is smaller to $1$ for sites inside the core. For the reason that the spiral waves are embedded in the background of desynchronized sites, we call this new phenomenon shadowed spirals, so as to distinguish it from the conventional spirals observed in RD systems. The development of new spiral waves is more clearly presented in the component $w$ [Figs. \ref{fig7}(g-i)], in which the desynchronization background is disappeared and only the spirals are shown. To explore the transient behavior of the core expansion, we plot in Fig. \ref{fig7}(j) the time evolution of the fraction of asynchronous oscillators, $p$. Different from the core breakup scenario [see Fig. \ref{fig5}(j)], here we see that $p$ is smoothly increased with time, and reaches $1$ at about $t=4\times 10^3$, indicating that at this moment the whole space is dominated by shadowed spirals. Numerically, we find that the behavior of $p$ can be fitted by the logistic growth
\begin{equation}
p(t)=\frac{\beta}{1+\gamma \exp(-kt)},
\end{equation}
with the fitted coefficients being $\beta=0.9836$, $\gamma=6.1$ and $k=2\times 10^{-3}$.
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Fig8_coreexpand2.png}
\caption{Properties of shadowed spirals in the core area. (a) Enlarged view of component $u$. (b) Distributions of $u$ (top) and $\Delta u$ (bottom) along the central vertical axis ($x=512$) in (a). The wave length of $u$ is $\lambda_u\approx 26$. (c) Enlarged view of the local order parameter $R$. (d) Distributions of $R$ (top) and $\Delta R$ (bottom) along the central vertical axis in (c). (e) Enlarged view of component $w$. (f) Distributions of $w$ (top) and $\Delta w$ (bottom) along the central vertical axis in (e). The wave length of $w$ is $\lambda_w\approx 26$. The parameters are the same as in Fig. \ref{fig7}.}
\label{fig8}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Fig9_coreexpanding.png}
\caption{Transition from SWC to completely incoherent state. The parameters are $a=3.0$ and $\epsilon_{2}=0.40$. (a-c) Typical states observed in the evolution of component $u$ at $t=500$, $2000$ and $5000$. (d-f) Typical states of the local order parameter $R$. (g-i) Typical states of the component $w$. (j) The time evolution of the fraction of asynchronous oscillators, $p$. Red dots: numerical results obtained by simulations. Blue curve: the fitted growth, which is identical to the one obtained for SWC in Fig. \ref{fig7}(j).}
\label{fig9}
\end{figure*}
To characterize the phenomenon of shadowed spirals further, we focus on the behaviors of the core area, and investigate the spatial distribution of the components $u$ and $w$ and the local order parameter $R$. The enlarged view of the core area for component $u$ is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig8}(a). Fixing $x=512$ in Fig. \ref{fig8}(a), we plot in Fig. \ref{fig8}(b) the distributions of $u$ (top) and its gradient $\Delta u$ (bottom), respectively. The top panel in Fig. \ref{fig8}(b) shows that, while $u$ is varying wildly along $y$, some regular patterns are found in the variation. To be more specific, the variation reaches its local maxima at a regular spatial distance $\lambda_{u}\approx 26$. However, when looking at the gradient $\Delta u$, the patterns found in $u$ are disappeared and the variation is completely random, as depicted in the bottom panel in Fig. \ref{fig8}(b). Figures \ref{fig8}(a) and (b) confirm the fact that spiral wave is only observable at large scale ($>\lambda_{u}$), while at small scales the system is completely disordered. The similar features are also observed for the local order parameter $R$, as depicted in Figs. \ref{fig8}(c) and (d). Comparing to the distribution of $u$, we see that in the top panel of Fig. \ref{fig8}(d) the distribution of $R$ is more irregular. The irregular variation of $R$ is understandable, as it represents the synchronization degree of five neighboring oscillators on the grid, which smears the patterns shown in the top panel of Fig. \ref{fig8}(b). The pattern of spiral waves is more prominent for the component $w$, as depicted in Figs. \ref{fig8}(e) and (f). The distribution of $w$ along the vertical central axis is plotted in the top panel of Fig. \ref{fig8}(f). We see that $w$ is varying in a regular manner along $y$, with the wave length being $\lambda_w\approx 26$ [identical to that of $u$ shown in the top panel of Fig. \ref{fig8}(b)]. The distribution of $\Delta w$ is plotted in the bottom panel of Fig. \ref{fig8}(f), which shows that $\Delta w\approx 0$ along the axis. We note that, while the similar phenomenon can be observed by introducing noise perturbations to the conventional spiral waves, the phenomenon of shadowed spirals reported here is emerged as a self-organization pattern of the locally coupled dynamical elements. That is, shadowed spirals is an inherent pattern of the system.
The expansion of the asynchronous core does not always lead to shadowed spirals. Varying the parameters $a$ and $\epsilon_2$, cases can be found in which the expansion of the asynchronous core leads to the development of completely incoherent state. (See Supplementary Materials for the movie.) An example of this is shown in Fig. \ref{fig9}, in which the parameters are $a=3.0$ and $\epsilon_{2}=0.4$. Typical states in the evolution of the component $u$ are shown in Figs. \ref{fig9}(a-c). We see that as time increases, the asynchronous core is expanding in size, and finally occupies the whole space. Yet, different from shadowed spirals, no pattern is observed in the asynchronous core in the transient states, neither in the finally state. That is, oscillators in the asynchronous core are completely desynchronized. The feature of desynchronized oscillators inside the core is shown more clearly in the evolution of the local parameter $R$, as depicted in Fig. \ref{fig9}(d-f). We see that $R<1$ inside the core while $R\approx 1$ outside. The evolution of the component $w$ is shown in Fig. \ref{fig9}(g-i). We see that, unlike the behaviors of $u$ and $R$, the distribution of $w$ is almost uniform. Comparing completely incoherent state with shadowed spirals, we see that the former might be regarded as the removal of the spirals from the latter. As a verification of this conjecture, we plot in Fig. \ref{fig9}(j) the variation of $p$, the fraction of asynchronous oscillators on the grid, with respect to time. The results are similar to that of shadowed spirals shown in Fig. \ref{fig7}(j).
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Fig10_coreexpand2.png}
\caption{Properties of completely incoherent state in the core area. (a) Enlarged view of component $u$. (b) Distributions of $u$ (top) and $\Delta u$ (bottom) along the central vertical axis ($x=512$) in (a). (c) Enlarged view of the local order parameter $R$. (d) Distributions of $R$ (top) and $\Delta R$ (bottom) along the central vertical axis. (e) Enlarged view of component $w$. (f) Distributions of $w$ (top) and $\Delta w$ (bottom) along the central vertical axis. Note that in the top panel the value of $w$ is fluctuating around $0$ with a very small amplitude ($\sim 5\times 10^{-2}$). The parameters are the same as in Fig. \ref{fig9}.}
\label{fig10}
\end{figure*}
To have more details on the properties the complete incoherent state, we plot in Fig. \ref{fig10} the distributions of $u$, $R$ and $w$ in the core region, together with their distributions along the vertical central line ($x=512$). Comparing the results with that of shadowed spirals [see Fig. \ref{fig8}], we see that in Fig. \ref{fig10} no regular pattern is observed in $u$, $R$ and $w$, neither in the variations of $\Delta u$, $\Delta R$ and $\Delta w$. In particular, the top panel of Fig. \ref{fig10}(f) shows that $w\approx 0$ for all sites, which is apparently different from the results of shadowed spirals [see the top panel in Fig. \ref{fig8}(f)]. The results in Fig. \ref{fig10} confirm the absence of any pattern in the core area, and imply that oscillators inside the core are completely desynchronized.
\subsection{The global picture}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\center
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig11_phasediagram.png}
\caption{Phase diagram in the parameter space of $(a,\epsilon_{2})$. Region I (green color): stable SWC. Region II (yellow color): SWC turbulence generated by core breakup. Region III (red color): shadowed spirals and completely incoherent states generated by core expansion. Region IV (blue color): other states observed in simulations.}
\label{fig11}
\end{figure}
To have a global picture on the bifurcation diagram, we check numerically the distribution of the final state in the parameter space of $(a,\epsilon_2)$. In simulations, the system is always initialized with the same conditions (as described in Sec. II), and the final state is taken at $t=2\times 10^5$ of the system evolution. The results are presented in Fig. \ref{fig11}. In Fig. \ref{fig11}, SWC is observed in region I (green color), SWC turbulence generated by core breakup is observed in region II (yellow color), shadowed spirals and completely incoherent states generated by core expansion are observed in region III (red color), and region IV (blue color) denotes the other states. Please note that region III is constituted by two disconnected small regions, one at the top left corner and the other one at the top right corner. Shadowed spirals and completely incoherent states are observed in both two small regions, and are entangled in the parameter space without a clear boundary. However, in terms of shadowed spirals, numerically we find that the wave length of the spirals generated in the top right region is much larger than that in the top left region. Figure \ref{fig11} reveals the rich dynamics inherent in the model of locally coupled RD system we have proposed, and provides a guideline for finding SWCs and shadowed spirals in simulations and experiments.
Besides the aforementioned states, other interesting states can be also emerged in the locally coupled RD system. These states are observed in region IV in Fig. \ref{fig11}. For instance, a new type of traveling wave containing an asynchronous strip is observed. As time increases, the plane waves are traveling inward, and are vanished after reaching the asynchronous strip. (See Supplementary Materials for the movie.) Different from the conventional traveling and target waves observed in RD systems, a fascinating feature of this state is that the source of the waves is composed of a group of desynchronized oscillators. As the oscillators in the strip are desynchronized, the new type of traveling wave thus is generated without the presence of periodic forcing or heterogeneity -- a necessary condition for generating traveling and target waves in conventional RD systems. A full exploration of the states in region IV is out the scope of the current study.
\section{Discussions and Conclusion}
Whereas chimera-like patterns have been reported in a variety of systems in literature, most of the studies rely on the adoption of nonlocal couplings. As nonlocal couplings are absent in typical RD systems in which elements are interacted through local diffusions, it is commonly believed that chimera-like pattens such as SWC can not be observed in typical RD systems. This believing is validated further by experiments in Ref. \cite{Totz_np18}. There, to generate SWC in chemical BZ oscillators, nonlocal couplings are established between remote oscillators through a computer interface. In contrast to the conventional wisdom, our present work shows that SWC can be generated in typical RD systems of local diffusion as well. Moreover, we demonstrate that by varying the system parameters, rich dynamics and bifurcation scenarios can be presented in the proposed system. In particular, a new phenomenon named shadowed spirals is observed, in which regular spirals are embedded in the background of globally desynchronized oscillators. This new phenomenon, which to the best of our knowledge has not been reported in literature, manifests from a new viewpoint the coexistence of incoherent and coherent states in spatially extended systems, generalizing thus the traditional concept of chimera states. Besides offering rich dynamics, the system presents also clear scenarios on the transitions of the system dynamics. Specifically, two different scenarios have been revealed in the destabilization of SWCs: core breakup and core expansion. While similar scenarios have been reported in Ref. \cite{Totz_np18}, the results in Ref. \cite{Totz_np18} are obtained in nonlocally coupled oscillators. Moreover, we conduct in the present work a detailed analysis on scenarios of SWC transitions and, more importantly, explore the bifurcation diagram of SWC in the two-dimensional parameter space, which deepens our understandings on the nature of SWCs. As nonlocal couplings are employed in Ref. \cite{Totz_np18} and the present work utilizes local couplings, our study thus suggests that the above scenarios might be universal for the transitions of SWC in RD systems.
The theoretical model we have proposed could be realized in experiments. As analyzed in Sec. \ref{mechanism}, the key to generating SWC lies in the single-component diffusion of the chemical reactants, i.e., diffusion exists only for the component $w$, while is absent or very weak for components $u$ and $v$. The essence of such a setting is to separate the diffusive component from the non-diffusive ones, protecting thus the asynchronous cores of the latter from diffusion-induced destructions. A candidate system approximately satisfying the requirement of single-component diffusion is the BZ-AOT systems \cite{Cherkashin_jcp08}, in which the diffusion coefficients of the activator species ${\rm HBrO_{2}}$ (water soluble) and the inhibitors ${\rm Br^{-}}$ (water soluble) are much smaller to that of the inhibitors ${\rm Br_{2}}$ (oil soluble). Single-component diffusion can be also realized in synthetic biological systems, saying, for instance, the genetic regulation network of {\it Escherichia coli} cells \cite{Danino_nat10}, the yeast cell layers \cite{Shutz_BJ11}, and the {\it Dictyostelium} cells \cite{Noorbakhsh_pre15}. In these systems, the dynamical elements are not interacting directly, but through a common diffusive environment. From the point of view of indirectly coupled oscillators, these systems share the same nature of the model we have proposed, and therefore are also suitable candidates for generating SWCs.
In summary, we have proposed an experimentally feasible model of locally coupled RD system, and investigated the formation of SWC and the transitions from SWC to other states. The conditions for generating SWC have been given, and the underlying mechanism has been analyzed by a phenomenological theory. The transitions from SWC to other states in the two-dimensional parameter space of experimental interest have been studied, which shows that SWC is typically destabilized through two scenarios, core breakup and core expansion. Details of the transition processes have been explored, and new patterns have been observed. In particular, a new type of chimera, namely shadowed spirals, has been uncovered. A global picture of the bifurcation diagram has been given, which shows that, in contrast to the conventional wisdom, SWC can be generated in a wide region in the parameter space of the locally coupled RD system. Our studies shed new lights on the formation of chimera states in spatiotemporal systems, and pay the way for generating SWC in typical RD systems in experiments.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province under Grant No. LY16A050003. XGW was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11875182.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The nuclear regions of galaxies show morphological and kinematic structures on scales of a parsec to a some hundred parsecs that clearly set them apart from the large-scale structures of galaxies.
Around the central black holes \citep{Kormendy_13} there are additional structures in stars, dust and gas.
On the scale of a few parsecs there are compact nuclear star clusters from $10^5$ to a few $10^7$ M$_\odot$ \citep{Boeker_02,Walcher_05,Chatzopoulos_15,Neumayer_20} in almost every galaxy with mass similar to the one of the Milky Way.
Further out, in spiral galaxies, particularly in barred spiral galaxies, there are more flattened structures
like nuclear rings, inner bars and disks \citep{Erwin_02,Launhardt_02,Comeron_10,Gadotti_19} of about a few 100 pc and up to 1 kpc \citep{Gadotti_20}\footnote{For simplicity we will call all nuclear structures nuclear disks in the following.}. Often there is more
dust and late star formation in the nuclear region than in the surrounding bulge and inner disk \citep{Gadotti_19,Bittner_20}.
Nuclear components are interesting on their own as well as the way they are connected to the larger scales of a galaxy.
Galactic centers are sinks of gas. In particular, the bar moves gas towards galactic centers \citep{Athanassoula_83,Binney_91,Emsellem_15}. It accumulates at the inner Lindblad resonance of the bar and forms stars there \citep{Athanassoula_83,Knapen_05,Kim_12}, often in rings. While the gas that is currently observed there, was probably only recently deposited, the stars keep an imprint of gas inflows that happened in the past.
The star formation history can be used to infer how efficiently the bar transported gas to the center over time \citep{Nogueras_19c,Bittner_20}.
Further, a nuclear star formation burst may influence the outer galaxy through outflows \citep{Veilleux_05} and form structures like the Fermi bubble \citep{Su_10}, the radio bubble \citep{Heywood_19} and the X-ray chimney \citep{Ponti_19} in the Milky Way.
In the other direction, compact structures like globular clusters can migrate towards the Galactic center due to dynamic friction \citep{Tremaine_75,Tsatsi_17} and deposit stars there. Such stars can be identified from their low metallicites \citep{Dong_17}.
It is also possible that the nuclear cluster stars were formed locally or in locally formed clusters \citep{Milosavljevic_04,Mastrobuono-Battisti_19}.
All three nuclear components (central black hole \citep{Schoedel_02}, nuclear cluster \citep{Becklin_68,Catchpole_90,Launhardt_02}, and nuclear disk) exist together in the Milky Way, embedded into the bulge. In contrast to the bulge, there are young stars in clusters \citep{Figer_99} and outside \citep{Cotera_96,Cotera_99,Clark_21} in the nuclear disk. There is also molecular gas, the central molecular zone \citep[CMZ][]{Morris_96,Mezger_96,Molinari_11,Kruijssen_15,Ginsburg_16}, with about the same extent as the stars of the nuclear disk \citep{Launhardt_02}.
The nuclear cluster of the Milky Way has a size of about 5 pc \citep{Fritz_16,Gallego_20}.
The nuclear disk has a radius of about 230 pc and a scale height of about 45 pc \citep{Launhardt_02}, similar but somewhat smaller than most extragalactic nuclear structures \citep{Gadotti_19,Gadotti_20}.
Comparing the chemistry of the oldest stars in the nuclear disk and the inner Galactic Bulge \citep{Ness_13,Schultheis_15, Zoccali_17}
will show whether they are chemically similar.
In that case the old nuclear disk stars are possibly (partly) just the inner continuation of the bulge, otherwise the stars are possibly connected to precursors of today's CMZ. There is an indication for differences between the nuclear cluster and the bulge \citep{Nogueras_18b,Schultheis_19,Schoedel_20}.
The bulge of the Milky Way is in its outer parts bar-shaped and mostly formed by secular evolution \citep{Bland_16}.
However, it is still possible that an old classical bulge is hidden in the inner metal-poor bulge \citep{Dekany_13,Kunder_20,Arentsen_20}. The coverage of the inner bulge is still too limited to answer this question.
Photometric data of the nuclear disk are available from large scale surveys. The most extensive bulge survey is VVV \citep{Minniti_10}. SIRIUS \citep{Nishiyama_13} covers the full nuclear disk and parts of the surrounding bulge. GALACTICNUCLEUS \citep{Nogueras_19a} also covers the central part of the nuclear disk at larger depth and sensitivity. The nuclear disc is much too extincted for \textit{Gaia} proper motions\citep{Brown_18}. HST proper motions are now available in a relatively small area \citep{Libralato_21}, while crowding and saturation makes the larger area effort by VIRAC \citep{Clarke_19} less useful. Due to the large and variable extinction \citep{Schoedel_10,Fritz_11,Nogueras_18}, metallicity estimates based on color magnitude diagrams are difficult to obtain
\citep{Gonzalez_13}, even J-band images are difficult to obtain at sufficient depth.
While the central few parsecs of the Milky Way have been already observed extensively with spectroscopic observations and high resolution imaging \citep{Genzel_10},
the nuclear disk has not yet been studied in depth \citep{Bland_16}.
The largest scale work is radio based, consists of
Masers \citep{Lindqvist_92,Trapp_18} and thus covers only a short and not well understood evolutionary phase.
Outside the few known clusters, the nuclear cluster \citep{Feldmeier_14,Do_15,Ryde_16,Fritz_16,Do_18,Thorsbro_20,Feldmeier_20,Davidge_20},
Arches and Quintuplet \citep{Najarro_04,Martins_08,Clark_18a,Clark_18b}, near infrared spectroscopy is limited, and was mostly aimed to target special stars like young stellar objects \citep{Nandakumar_18}, early-type stars with strong emission lines and X-ray activity \citep{Mauerhan_10a,Mauerhan_10c,Clark_21}
or very red stars \citep{Geballe_19}. The most extensive data till now are likely from APOGEE \citep{Schoenrich_15,Majewski_17,Schultheis_20}.
However, APOGEE is not ideal to study the Galactic nuclear disk: the relatively small telescope size and high extinction in the H-band limit the APOGEE observations, and bias the sample to blue and intrinsically bright stars.
Therefore we executed a dedicated spectroscopic survey of the central 270 $\times$ 130 pc radius of the Milky Way targeting the nuclear disk and the innermost bulge in the IR-K-band using KMOS (VLT).
This paper is the first of a series. The
paper is structured as follows: in Sect.~\ref{sect:surv_des} we describe our survey design and the obtained data.
We detail the data reduction procedures in Sect.~\ref{sect:data} including extraction of 1D spectra of the targets. We analyze the stellar spectra in Sect.~\ref{sec:spec_ana}, and measure the line-of-sight velocity and line index values. We use the latter to derive metallicities and effective temperatures in Sect.~\ref{sec:phys_properties}. That includes a new calibration for deriving metallicities from line indices.
We give summary and conclusions in Sect.~\ref{sec:summ}.
\section{Survey design}
\label{sect:surv_des}
Here we describe the design of our survey. First, we describe the general survey properties, and how we select the potential targets and fields for our KMOS observations. Finally, we describe the actually targeted stars and the observation setup.
\subsection{General survey properties}
\label{sect:surv_gen}
Our dedicated survey of the nuclear disk has the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item In order to characterize the full nuclear disk, our survey samples the full range of the nuclear disk
\citep[radius of $\approx1.55$\degree\,$\approx$220 pc and scale-height of $\approx0.3$\degree\,$\approx$45 pc, see][]{Launhardt_02}
and line-of-sight depth.
\item Due to the relatively small size \citep{Launhardt_02,Nishiyama_13,Gallego_20} the line-of-sight distances of nuclear disc stars vary little, but there is a significant amount of dust in the nuclear region \citep{Launhardt_02,Chatzopoulos_15a,Nogueras_20},
that obscures stars at varying depth. For this reason, we selected our targets in extinction corrected magnitudes.
\item Our survey is designed to cover the full range in age and metallicity. The population with
the faintest tip of the red giant branch (RGB) is old and metal-poor. Theoretical PARSEC isochrones \citep{Bressan_12,Marigo_17} predict that the tip of the RGB of an old, metal-poor stellar population (12 Gyr, [Fe/H]=-1) is
at M$_H=-6.09$ and M$_K=-6.25$. In order to reach the old stars of the nuclear disk, we selected predominantly stars fainter than this limit.
The magnitude range of our sample extends over more than two magnitudes.
Because of this, a small change in the extinction law over our fields does not affect the selected sample significantly.
Further, metal-poor stars are bluer in (H-K) color. To prevent biases, we carefully selected stars distributed over the full range of (H-K) color in the nuclear disk.
\end{itemize}
We measure line-of-sight velocities of individual stars for dynamics.
A relatively low resolution is sufficient to measure the internal dispersion of about 70 km/s.
To obtain the star formation history, we construct a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram with luminosities and temperatures. Due to the high extinction, temperatures need to be derived from spectra rather than from photometry.
We also determine metallicities for most stars.
Because the measurement of absolute properties, especially metallicities, is difficult, we obtain the same kind of observations also outside the nuclear disk in the inner bulge. That way we can account for bulge pollution in our nuclear disk sample. Since the bulge is probably symmetric in star formation history and chemistry in latitude \citep{Nandakumar_18b}, sampling it on one side is sufficient.
The interstellar extinction toward the Galactic center is high (up to A$_K=$4.5, A$_H=$8 even when excluding infrared dark clouds).
The magnitude of the tip of the RGB of old metal poor stars and distance to the Galactic center of 8.18 kpc \citep{Abuter_19} implies that stars fainter than m$_K=12.8$ or m$_H=16.5$ should be observed in a nuclear disk survey to sample the RGB tip completely.
This H-band magnitude is far below the limit of APOGEE \citep{Majewski_17} and is even challenging with H-band instruments at larger telescopes when more information than the line-of-sight velocity is wanted.
Therefore, we observe exclusively in the K-band.
\subsection{Observed fields}
\label{sect:surv_kmos}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.76\columnwidth,angle=-90]{kmos_nuclear_P101f.eps}
\caption{Locations of the KMOS patrol fields of our survey. As shown by the colors most were executed. We also show similar KMOS observations outside of this survey (\citep{Feldmeier_20}; Feldmeier-Krause et al. in prep.). Together the full nuclear disk \citep{Launhardt_02} is covered. The small black circle in the center shows the effective radius of the nuclear cluster \citep{Gallego_20}.
The background shows a low resolution extinction map in which the average extinction varies between A$_{K}=0.45$ and 2.93, see color bar. We made the extinction map from the catalog of \citet{Nishiyama_13}.
}
\label{fig:field_loc}
\end{figure*}
We observe with the instrument K-band Multi Object Spectrograph (KMOS) \citep{Sharples_13} at the VLT.
KMOS places 24 integral field units (IFUs) of 2.8\arcsec$\times$2.8\arcsec size over a diameter of 7.2\arcmin.
The survey was executed in program 0101.B-0354 between April and September 2018.
With the survey we target 24 fields in the nuclear disk and five reference fields in the bulge.
Two bulge fields are located on both sides of the nucleus in the plane and three at increasing Galactic latitude at the same Galactic longitude as Sgr~A*. We tried to sample the nuclear region evenly.
We note that we avoided the inner few arcmin (the nuclear cluster) as it has been covered already by other programs \citep{Fritz_16,Feldmeier_17a,Feldmeier_20}. Not all requested fields in the central 0.2\degree~region were observed (red circles in Fig.~\ref{fig:field_loc}).
In the central part we also placed some fields outside the midplane to be able to measure properties and gradients in scale-height. In the outer parts where the nuclear disk is likely thinner \citep{Launhardt_02} we only target it directly in the Galactic plane.
\subsection{Target selection}
\label{sect:targ_select}
We use 24 IFUs of KMOS for target observations.
As targets we select stars primarily by $K$-band extinction corrected magnitude (K$_0$). We target stars with K$_0$ between 7 and 9.5. For a Galactic center distance of 8.18 kpc \citep{Abuter_19} this corresponds to absolute magnitudes between -7.56 and -5.06.
Thus, metal-poor old stars still fall within the selection window.
Observationally, due to the extinction range from about A$_{K}=0.5$ (in the outermost bulge reference field) to about 4.5, that corresponds to observed magnitudes of m$_{K}=7.5$ to 15.
As the primary catalog we use SIRIUS \citep{Nagayama_03,Nishiyama_06}. Compared to VVV \citep{Minniti_10} and 2MASS \citep{Skrutskie_06}, SIRIUS has the advantage that neither saturation nor crowding affects the majority of our targets.
We use VVV photometry where SIRIUS is not available.
This affects two fields, in which about 12\% are missing.
Stars brighter than $K = 9.2$ are saturated in SIRIUS, see also \citet{Matsunaga_09}; for them we use 2MASS instead.
This affects on average 3\% of targets per field, but for the outer most bulge field, this rises to 30\%.
We align the 2MASS/VVV magnitude to SIRIUS by using the median of common sources to ensure that all stars are on the same calibration.
We correct for extinction on a star-by-star basis A$_K=(m_H-m_K-[(H-K)_\mathrm{intr}])\times1.37$, the factor is between \citet{Nishiyama_06} and the value of \citet{Fritz_11}\footnote{We note that more recent works get slightly smaller factors, see \citet{Nogueras_18}, and \citet{Nogueras_20}.}. For the intrinsic color ($(H-K)_\mathrm{intr}$) we use 0.25 as typical for bright giants.
We exclude stars which are clearly in front of the nuclear region to make our survey more efficient. Such foreground stars are less extinguished and thus more efficiently targeted with other spectrographs.
We use a cut in $H-K$, which varies by field from 0.3 to 0.9.
This is an intentionally blue color cut that aims to include all nuclear disk stars.
We probably include some foreground stars this way \citep{Nogueras_19c}, but it is easier to exclude an observed target a posteriori than to
correct for missed stars.
Using this color cut, on average we exclude 1\% per field and at most 4\%. In Schultheis et al. (submitted) we use stricter cuts in color which use spectroscopic information on star properties together with dynamic information to construct purer samples. Ultimately, the best approach will be probabilistic using all available information (i.e. colors, magnitudes, line-of-sight velocities, temperatures and metallicities).
After that step we make a selection by observed magnitude, we exclude sources with m$_K>14$, to limit the exposure time.
This magnitude selection effects only a few sources in the catalog,
on average 0.1\% per field, at most 0.7\%.
In practice there are probably more omitted very red sources, because we omit stars which do not have H-magnitudes from all catalogs. One reason for a missing H magnitude is that a source is too faint for detection. Similarly, a source can already be missing from the K-band catalog. To avoid a large impact due to this we shifted a few fields slightly to exclude line-of-sights towards infrared dark clouds, for example we shifted a field away from the symmetry axis to l/b -0.156/0.173\degree\, for that reason.
Since our program is designed for bad seeing, we excluded sources with a close neighbor\footnote{By mistake we cleaned the catalog which had already been cleaned from foreground sources, therefore we observed a few sources with a close by foreground sources. The number is small enough to not affect the analysis.}.
A star is excluded when it has a close neighbor located within 2\arcsec and $<$0.5 mag fainter in K; within 2-2.5\arcsec and $>$0.5 mag brighter; or within 2.5-3\arcsec and $>$3 mag brighter.
In total that results in the exclusion of 3\% to 18\%
(on average 9\%) of the previously defined sources, depending mainly on source density, such that more sources are affected close to the Galactic center. Overall, our selection results in between 229 and 1283 main target stars per KMOS field.
We add APOGEE sources within the fields for calibration. In total, there are seven sources for the 29 patrol fields. Only four of those sources were actually observed, because not all patrol fields were observed.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{HK_K_iso5c.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{HK_K_iso6c.eps}
\caption{Observed CMDs of nuclear disk based on SIRIUS/2MASS (top, $|l^*|<1.55\degree$ and $|b^*|<0.3\degree$) and inner bulge (bottom $|l^*|<2\degree$ and $0.3\degree<|b^*|<1\degree$. There are two sequences in the KMOS bulge data because of the variable extinction, see also \citet{Nogueras_18b}. In blue we show all stars within the KMOS fields. The KMOS and APOGEE target stars are shown in black and red respectively. The shown isochrones are from PARSEC. The gray polygons outline our CMD selection of targets. The blue H-K color limit varies slightly from field to field.
}
\label{fig:cmd_nuc}
\end{figure}
The details on the observations are in Appendix~\ref{ap:field_details}. We show in Figure~\ref{fig:cmd_nuc} the CMD of our observed stars together with all stars in our field and the APOGEE targets in the inner Galaxy, all separated in nuclear disk and inner bulge\footnote{For APOGEE we use all in
DR16 \citep{Ahumada_19} published sources, that includes besides main survey targets also telluric targets and targets of other observations. Besides the outlined spatial selection, we require K-magnitude and S/N$>14$. Below this number even line-of-sight velocities are often unreliable.}. For the star selection in nuclear disk and inner bulge we use shifted Galactocentric coordinates ($l^*$ and $b^*$) such that Sgr~A* is at 0/0.
It is clear that, towards the nuclear disk, APOGEE only targets stars brighter than the old population or stars at extinctions clearly smaller than the mean. Probably nearly all of the latter are bulge stars projected onto the nuclear disk.
\subsection{Design of the KMOS observing blocks}
\label{sect:surv_kmosobs}
To observe a sufficiently large number of stars per field, we planned to observe five different KMOS configurations per field with varying targets distributed over the 24 KMOS arms. Therefore, we divide the above defined catalog by K-band magnitude into five different sub catalogs. We use the K-band magnitude for reducing the dynamic range of each observing block (OB), to make it easier to avoid saturation and insufficient signal to noise ratio (S/N). In the following, one such selection is called a subset.
In part, not all subsets were observed successfully.
From the sub catalogs the targets are
selected by the arm allocation tool KARMA using the Hungarian algorithm.
The number of potential targets is usually high enough that all arms can be allocated;
only in a few cases 1 to 3
arms are not allocated.
The algorithm results into an uneven spatial sampling, the center of a field (r$<1.4$\arcmin) is targeted most densely, then there is a minimum at about 2.3\arcmin\, from where it rises to the outer rim to nearly the same level as in the center. This effect is stronger with a larger catalog size.
We show the effect in Figure~\ref{fig:tar_dens}.
For our science aims this uneven sample within a field is not important.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{targ_den1.eps}
\caption{Number of targets per square arcminute in a KMOS OB as a function of radial distance in arcminutes from the field center.
The overall target numbers are divided by 24 to show the typical target density per KMOS field. Fields 1 and 5 are the most extreme fields in terms of target density, field 1 is at the higher density limit, field 5 is at the lower density limit and has also fewer observed stars because one subset was not successfully observed. The downward-facing arrows mark bins in which no star was observed.
}
\label{fig:tar_dens}
\end{figure}
Because the stellar density is high in the Galactic center it is difficult to obtain an appropriate sky position for each individual OB, see e.g. \citet{Feldmeier_17a}, even for such short exposures as those used here. Therefore, we observed a dedicated sky field centered on the dark cloud at l/b -0.0654/0.1575$\degree$. This ensures that we encounter the minimal number of bright stars in each KMOS IFU in our sky fields.
Three IFUs (18, 19 and 24) could not be allocated to a star-free sky area, and therefore we do not subtract any sky cube from these IFUs. The general subtraction of a spectrum constructed from nearly object free pixels in the science cube, see Section~\ref{sect:sta_spec_extrac}, acts as a first order sky correction. We check for the effect of missing sky cube subtraction in Appendix~\ref{sect:spec_nsky}.
For efficiency we do not dither for most targets and obtain only a single object and sky exposure. Only for the lower extinction bulge fields we add some dithers since the lower exposure times make that possible.
For the telluric data we use the standard observations provided by the observatory. These are observed with the standard 3-arm telluric routine.
\section{Data}
\label{sect:data}
Here we present the procedure of reduction from raw data to 1D spectra. We present the data reduction, measure the quality of the cubes and then extract the 1D spectra of the stars in the cubes. Details and potential problems of the spectra, OH lines and continuum ripples, are discussed in Appendix~\ref{ap:spec_details}.
\subsection{Data reduction}
\label{sect:spec_red}
We use close to standard setting for most of our reduction with mainly the software package SPARK \citep{Davies_13}. We change the wavelength sampling to 3072 pixels (from 2048) to better sample the wavelength scale. For each day, we use the matching detector calibrations. We assign by hand the matching sky to the object OBs, since the headers of our sky OBs have a science setting. We use the mode sky\_tweak in the object file reduction step to optimally subtract the sky emission lines. Since we have usually only one exposure per target, cosmics
are a problem. We correct for them with LA-cosmic \citep{Vandokkum_01}. We use the IDL variant for spectral cubes by Richard Davies\footnote{http://www.mpe.mpg.de/~davies/downloads/lac3d.tar
} and run them on the final cubes. The same code also creates the noise cubes, used in the following.
As our science goals require the analysis of various absorption features
a good correction of the telluric transmission is important. We use for the telluric correction, 31 standards observed in the nights of the science observations. We extract spectra and noise spectra from the telluric cubes. We use all spatial pixels since the S/N is high and it improves flux calibration. We treat each of the three spectrograph sub-system groups of IFUs (1 to 8, 9 to 16, 17 to 24) separately in the following because a different telluric spectrum is available for them. Our first sample includes all observed telluric standard stars besides the B emission line stars observed (HD 186456 and HD 171219).
It consists mainly of early-type stars between B5V and A0V, one early white dwarf (HD2191) and 3 dwarfs between G0V and G2V. The spectrum of HD 194872, classified as G3V, looks like a colder spectral type and we thus exclude it, because such stars are difficult to model and are also too similar to the science targets.
We first correct the telluric spectra for the spectral features of the stars.
For this, we use the ASPCAP model spectra \citep{Garcia_16} for the observed dwarfs of the same spectral types.
We fit the best fitting template to the observed spectra between 2.146 and 2.187 $\mu$m with the free parameters: normalization, velocity, and Gaussian smoothing width. By using this wavelength range we are concentrating on Brackett $\gamma$, the strongest line, but we check by eye that other lines are also well fitted. Before fitting we multiply by the closest ATRAN \citep{Lord_92} model spectrum\footnote{We use spectra from https://www.gemini.edu/sciops/telescopes-and-sites/observing-condition-constraints/ir-transmission-spectra.} and eliminate any telluric affected wavelengths from the fit in order to avoid that we fit the atmospheric features and not the intrinsic spectral features.
We require Gaussian smoothing to account for the strong rotation of early-type stars, and the pressure broadened white dwarf spectrum.
For the G dwarfs no smoothing is necessary. We flux calibrate the corrected spectra using 2MASS magnitudes, blackbodies matching the temperatures of the observed spectral types and a flux of $4.288\times10^{-10}$ W/m$^2$/$\mu$m for a magnitude of 0 at the reference wavelength of 2.157 $\mu$m.
Between the different spectral types there is up to 5\% ratio variation over the Ks-band.
We do not use these transmission spectra directly because they often deviate too much in the atmospheric parameters (airmass and water vapor) from the science data. We use the telluric spectra to derive how each spectral pixel varies with airmass and with integrated water vapor. For the latter we use airmass times water vapor. For that we normalize all spectra, by taking the median of not strongly varying pixels. These pixels are identified in an iterative process, which gets more exclusive with the iterations. We then fit each spectral pixel with a linear model of airmass and integrated water vapor. This model is sufficient in general. It is not perfect when the transmission becomes non linear, as it is the case for high airmass at wavelength with low transmission, like for example around 2.02 $\mu$m. However, the flux there is anyway so low that it cannot easily be used for analysis, thus the impact is minor. From the scatter of the 31 spectra compared to the fit we get the error. We find the median residual of the transmission is 1.3\%, in average it is 1.5\% and at most 7\%.
Now we identify the telluric standard closest in atmospheric conditions to the science data. For that we determine the relative strength of the typical strength in airmass and water vapor. We find that the trend in airmass is 4 times stronger.
Therefore we weight the airmass of science and tellurics up by a factor four and then choose the best match by calculating the distance in airmass-water vapor space to all and choosing the smallest one. We then change that spectrum
according to our linear model of airmass and water vapor, to account for the airmass and water vapor differences between telluric and science observations.
\subsection{Cube quality}
\label{sect:surv_qual}
Overall 24 of 29 fields were observed. In two fields (5 and 20) one of the five subsets was not observed.
Two subsets in field 20 have a lower S/N, since the stars were not centered within the IFUs during acquisition.
Due to bad seeing in them, the stars extend into the IFUs, and thus we still could extract spectra.
The first 10 observed subsets (fields 14 and 20) had one target less, because arm 3
has not been active.
The spatial resolution is usually good, though it is worst in field 20, where the FWHM is about 1.3\arcsec\, in the three subsets where the star center is in the IFUs, in the others it is difficult to determine. Excluding these fields, the FWHM is always less than 1\arcsec, and can be as low as 0.33\arcsec, we note that when it is so small, pixel digitization could impact this estimate. Overall the median FWHM is 0.57\arcsec.
\subsection{Star spectra extraction}
\label{sect:sta_spec_extrac}
We extract stellar spectra using a dedicated spectral extraction routine, which subtracts a local background before extraction of the object spectrum.
This is important because the background stellar emission of similar sources can lead to an underestimation of the dispersion \citep{Luetzendorf_15}.
Also in case of several sources, a more targeted extraction is necessary in an IFU.
We collapse the (non-telluric corrected) cubes into an average image and work with this image in the way explained below.
We start with extraction of the pixels of the primary object. This is identified by the brightest pixel.
We fit the PSF shape by a two dimensional Gaussian using a 3 pixel radius box around it.
We use the Gaussian fit to identify the pixels with more than 50\% of the maximum stellar flux, they represent our usual estimate of object pixels.
With the 50\% limit, we achieved maximum S/N for most noise regimes and PSF shapes. If that methods results in 3 or less pixels
we add the next brightest pixels, until we obtain 4 pixels. Thus, we avoid an undersampled PSF, which leads to strong ripples in the continuum (see also Appendix~\ref{sect:spec_ripp}).
If the Gaussian PSF fit failed, we use pixel count ordering. Neighboring pixels are first checked to see whether they are above the flux cut. Then all pixels are checked whether they have at least 50\% of the flux of the brightest pixel.
For the background, we simply use the faintest pixels of the collapsed cube. We use at least 25\% of all pixels. This number is increased, when the object covers many pixels to avoid that the overall S/N is limited by the background. The same background pixels are used for secondary sources. Secondary sources are local maxima compared to all neighboring pixels, which are not within a primary source or the background and have sufficient S/N. The S/N cut
is chosen such that essentially all sources for which spectral features are detectable are included.
However, we did not include all sources that were detectable in the continuum. At most three secondary sources were found per IFU. We then add pixels from the surrounding ring of pixels when the following conditions are fulfilled: They are not already selected for a source or background and they are brighter than 50\% of the main secondary pixel.
After that first extraction, we make three quality control checks on the primary sources to make sure that they are the targets selected from the catalog.
\begin{itemize}
\item Firstly, we compare the spectroscopic flux, and spectroscopic color against the photometric properties from the input catalog.
We also check the sources where the primary source has less than 50\% of the flux of all sources in the cube.
\item Secondly, we check the target pixel coordinates against the typical target pixel coordinates in the other IFUs in that exposure to identify offset sources.
\item Lastly, we also check all sources whose S/N is below 10.
\end{itemize}
When one of these three checks has a negative outcome we look at the collapsed cube and, if we find that the current extraction is clearly suboptimal, we change object pixels by hand. For a few collapsed IFU cubes we also identified additional secondary sources during that process.
In case of sources with more than one exposure we also ensured that the order of sources is always the same.
For some sources we saw in the collapsed cubes that the background include bad pixels.
All these changes affect only 37 sources (i.e. 1.2\% of all targets).
\section{Spectroscopic analysis}
\label{sec:spec_ana}
Here we describe how we measure basic properties from the spectra. We measure the line-of-sight velocity and spectral indices for H$_2$O, Brackett $\gamma$, Na I, Ca I and CO 2-0.
\subsection{Velocity measurements}
\label{sec:vel_meas}
As a first step we obtain radial velocities because they are needed for the subsequent analysis of the spectra.
Most stars show CO band heads, and we use cross-correlation at 2.18-2.425 $\mu$m to measure line-of-sight velocities, because the band heads are too complex for other ways of analysis.
We normalize our spectra to 1 by fitting linear function to the spectra before the CO band heads (2.08 to 2.29 $\mu$m).
As templates we use GNIRS spectra from Gemini\footnote{http://www.gemini.edu/sciops/instruments/nearir-resources/spectral-templates/library-v20} which cover at least from 2.18 to 2.425 $\mu$m. We select mostly very late giants and some earlier giants between F7 and M0. For most stars the best correlation is achieved with the K7III star, HD63425B.
We correlated all KMOS spectra with all templates. Usually very similar velocities are achieved for all the different templates. Then we correlated the template with the largest correlation coefficient in wavelength sections with the spectra. In most cases, we select six sections, one before the band heads and then one for each band head. In all but 43 cases the velocities in the different sections agree very well. The others we inspect closer, a few are clearly late-type but have positive spikes (and a few negative ones) likely due to sky subtraction problems. We correct them like bad pixels.
Further, we correlated the problematic spectra in three sections, one before and two in the band heads. After that process all primary spectra except for 19 have a velocity consistently determined over the full wavelength range and in sections, with at most 30 km/s difference, usually much less.
They also show a small scatter (at most 45 km/s) between the different sections and have also agreeing velocities for the different templates. We inspected the more diverging cases by eye. They are all late-type stars.
Thus, velocities with large errors can also be trusted, since there is the right signal in the spectra.
In total we have 3405 CO based velocities of primary spectra. Not all are from different stars, since some stars have several exposures.
For the velocity errors ($\sigma_\mathrm{l.o.s}$) we use primarily the error given by the correlation. It is usually consistent with the scatter from the velocities determined in sections although the latter should be larger when the error is dominated by S/N. That shows that we do not underestimate errors, and that for most stars the S/N does not matter for the error, but systematics like template target mismatch are the dominating contributions.
For stars with S/N$<25$, the formal correlation errors are larger. We correct for that to obtain the velocity error over the full range by $\sigma_\mathrm{l.o.s\,segm}=\sqrt{\sigma_\mathrm{segm}^2-(c/[S/N])^2}$.
Here $\sigma_\mathrm{segm}$ is the scatter over the velocities in the different wavelength ranges. $c$ is determined such that $\sigma_\mathrm{l.o.s\,segm}$ is in the median the same as the error of the correlation over the full wavelength range.
We compare the errors obtained this way with the errors obtained by correlation.
We used the errors obtained in this way for stars which have a large $\sigma_\mathrm{l.o.s\,segm} $ (less than 5\% likelihood by chance). That is the case for 248 spectra. We use the same method for secondary source spectra.
Stars in some bulge fields have several exposures. We combine their measurements in the following way. We only use exposures which have a velocity measurement.
Of them we combine the different velocities error weighted. In the median the error derived from the error weighted scatter over the different exposures is consistent with the error which follows from the error weighted combination of the individual uncertainties.
We check for each star whether the $\chi^2$ is within the 95\% quantile for the available number of spectra. That is the case for 201 stars, and not for 44 stars. For them we upscale the error by $\sqrt{\chi^2/\mathrm{d.o.f.}}$. The upscale factor is at most 3.6 and the final uncertainty at most 17 km/s which shows that our statistical errors are well estimated and small. Their S/N is calculated as $\mathrm{S/N}_\mathrm{exp}\times\sqrt{\mathrm{EXP}}$.
Overall we have CO-based velocities for 2790 primary sources and for 241 secondary sources.
We obtain velocities for the early-type stars by fitting their lines, see Patrick et al. in preparation.
For the primary sources there are six spectra without velocity, five have low S/N
below 12, one has higher S/N and is feature free. We discuss them more in Patrick et al. in preparation, together with the other young stars.
Of the stars with CO lines the median velocity error is 2.5 km/s, the 5\% with the largest error have errors larger than 6 km/s, the 1\% with the largest error have errors larger than 11 km/s, and the largest error is 44 km/s.
Secondary sources perform somewhat worse, as expected due to the lower S/N:
Of them 40 spectra have no velocity, out of which 33 have low S/N
below 24 and seven have higher S/N, and are some kind of early-type star. Of the secondary stars with CO lines the median velocity error is 4.5 km/s, 5\% with the largest error have errors larger than 20 km/s, and the largest error is 54 km/s.
We test the velocity calibration and errors (see Appendix~\ref{sec:vel_tests}) and make small corrections because of it. An overall shift of 4 km/s for the velocities and we set a lower limit of 4.2 km/s for the error.
We show the velocities as function Galactic longitude in Figure~\ref{fig:vel_l}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{vel_l.eps}
\caption{Barycentric velocities of all stars with measurements as function of Galactic longitude.
}
\label{fig:vel_l}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Spectroscopic indices}
\label{sec:vspec_indices}
We measure for all stars spectroscopic indices for Brackett $\gamma$, Na I, Ca I, CO 2-0 and H$_2$O. For obtaining the wavelengths in the reference frame of each star we use the velocity previously determined without barycentric corrections. For stars without a velocity measurement we assume a velocity of 0. The wavelength ranges for the indices are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:spec_ind}.
For the CO index we use the index definition of \citet{Frogel_01}\footnote{We change the sign definition for this as for the other indices, such that an absorption line has negative value, and an emission line a positive value.}. For the continuum reference we fit the four continuum ranges by a linear function in which we give all ranges the same weight.
We then integrated over the CO band range without interpolation and convert the result to the equivalent width in \AA.
The error is estimated from repeated observations of the same star. It is 57/(S/N). This could be an underestimation when systematics like extinction or velocity play a role. The index of \citet{Frogel_01} is not particularly sensitive to those \citep{Pfuhl_11}, but a small contribution is possible.
\begin{table}
\small
\caption[]{Vacuum wavelength ranges used for the spectroscopic indices. For CO 2-0, Na I and Ca I we use the definitions of \citet{Frogel_01}, while the Brackett $\gamma$ and H$_2$O index range are defined by us. The details about the indices are explained in the text.}
\label{tab:spec_ind}
$$
\begin{array}{p{0.41\linewidth}l}
\hline
\hline
\rm{Purpose~of~wavelength~range} & \rm{wavelength~range~} [\mu m] \\
\hline
\hline
\hline
\rm{CO~continuum} & 2.2300-2.2370 \\
\rm{CO~continuum} & 2.2420-2.2580 \\
\rm{CO~continuum} & 2.2680-2.2790 \\
\rm{CO~continuum} & 2.2840-2.2910 \\
\rm{CO~feature} & 2.2910-2.3020 \\
\hline
$\rm{Br~}\gamma\rm{~continuum}$ & 2.13112-2.15112\\
$\rm{Br~}\gamma$ & 2.16412-2.16812\\
$\rm{Br~}\gamma\rm{~continuum}$ & 2.18112-2.20112\\
\hline
\rm{Na continuum} & 2.1910-2.1966\\
\rm{Na~feature} & 2.2040-2.2107\\
\rm{Na continuum} & 2.2125-2.2170\\
\hline
\rm{Ca continuum} & 2.2450-2.2560\\
\rm{Ca~feature} & 2.2577-2.2692\\
\rm{Ca continuum} & 2.2700-2.2720\\
\hline
\rm{H}$_2$\rm{O~feature} & 1.9850-1.9990\\
\rm{H}$_2$\rm{O~continuum} & 2.1800-2.2040\\
\rm{H}$_2$\rm{O~continuum} & 2.2107-2.2577\\
\rm{H}$_2$\rm{O~continuum} & 2.2692-2.2910\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{array}
$$
\normalsize
\end{table}
For Brackett $\gamma$ we construct our own index, see Table~\ref{tab:spec_ind}.
For this index we obtain from repeated observations of the same star an error of 23/(S/N).
We also calculate the Na I and Ca I indices of \citet{Frogel_01} for our stars. From the repeat observations we estimate an error of 27/(S/N) for the Na index and of 58/(S/N) for the Ca index. We show these indices as function of CO, which is a good approximation for effective temperature, in Figure~\ref{fig:naca_indices}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{co_na2.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{co_ca2.eps}
\caption{Na (top) and Ca (bottom) as function of CO index. For Na we show all stars with a S/N$>20$, the value where the intrinsic scatter of CO and Na is of the size of the measurement error. For Ca the S/N is lower and thus we plot only stars with a S/N$>40$.
}
\label{fig:naca_indices}
\end{figure}
We show in Figure~\ref{fig:indices} the CO and Brackett $\gamma$ indices. Even when all (including low S/N) stars are plotted, the expected structure is visible. Most stars have strong CO absorption and essentially no Brackett $\gamma$ absorption or emission, thus EW$_{\mathrm{Br~}\gamma}\approx$ 0. These stars are too cold for hydrogen lines.
Moving to weaker CO there is then weak Brackett $\gamma$ absorption. When the index is larger than about -4 \AA~most high S/N stars have then no CO based velocity. These are the young stars, see Patrick et al. in prep.
Around EW$_\mathrm{CO}\approx-5$ \AA~several stars have weak CO absorption and narrow Brackett $\gamma$ absorption, that is expected for warm stars. They are not early-type stars \citep{Habibi_19}.
Finally, we looked at stars with an CO EW index more negative than -4 \AA, to find stars unusual in Brackett $\gamma$ which have CO. We only look at stars with a S/N$>20$. We determine the median in bins and fit a quadratic function to it. We then look at stars which deviate by more than 2 \AA~from the track. For some of them the signal is spurious.
However, we find 3 genuinely unusual stars.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{COd_Br6_v3.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{COd_Br7_v3.eps}
\caption{CO and Brackett $\gamma$ equivalent widths for all stars. Stars with early-type lines are confirmed with visual inspection of the spectra. In the top panel we show the stars with a S/N$<20$, in the bottom one the stars with a S/N$>20$. This S/N is the approximately border of the nearly complete regime of spectral classification. The lines divide absorption (negative) and emission.
}
\label{fig:indices}
\end{figure}
We check these and all stars for being AGB stars. Therefore, we look for broad H$_2$O features as typical for AGB stars, see e.g. \citet{Lancon_00}. Because our spectra cover only the K-band we cannot construct the usual indices which require H and K coverage like in e.g. \citet{Blum_03}. We construct our own index in the following way: we fit the continuum between 2.18 and 2.291 $\mu$m (excluding Na and Ca features) with a linear function of $\log{\lambda}$. This is the wavelength range where neither H$_2$O nor CO has features. The extrapolation of the fit gives the expected continuum. Then we measure the H$_2$O in a full width window of 0.014 $\mu$m around 1.992 $\mu$m. This is the bluest wavelength range where the atmospheric transmission is still acceptable. This and all other index windows are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ex_spectrum}.
The ratio of this flux and the extrapolated continuum flux gives the H$_2$O index. We check the formal error by analyzing the stars with multiple exposures. We find that the error is underestimated for higher S/N. The main reason is not clear but effects like correlated errors and imperfect telluric correction could be responsible. We add to the formal errors 0.048 in quadrature to have realistic errors over the full S/N range.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{example_spectrum2a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{example_spectrum2b.eps}
\caption{Indices windows together with a typical spectrum. The continuum windows are shown hatched, the feature windows cross hatched. The spectrum is typical for a primary target spectrum in S/N and CO and Na index values. In the top panel we show the molecular indices, in the bottom panel the atomic indices.
}
\label{fig:ex_spectrum}
\end{figure}
We check the H$_2$O-index for dependency on extinction, by determining the median index in extinction bins. We exclude stars with K$_0$<7.5 because there are many AGB stars and thus there is a stronger variation. There is some trend over the full range, but the impact over the central 80\% extinction range
(A$_K$ between 1.46 and 3.49) is with 0.044 smaller than the error floor, it steepens somewhat at the blue and red end. The H$_2$O index is smaller for more extincted stars. That is expected when the stars are not all at the same distance since more distant stars suffer higher extinction and are intrinsically brighter. Brighter stars have a larger H$_2$O index in our sample in the median. Whether this can explain the full trend is unclear. It is possible that we do not fully correct for extinction effects in our measurement. It is also possible that our assumption of constant $(H-K)_0=$0.25 matters.
Still, the index is sufficiently well determined so that plausible trends are visible, see Figure~\ref{fig:agb_co}. Most stars including the early-type stars have an index between 0.8 and 1.1. 153 stars have index below 0.7 and are strong candidates for AGB stars. They are distributed over a relatively large range in CO index between -8 and -32 EW [\AA]. The three late-type stars with Brackett $\gamma$ emission are among them and belong to the AGB candidates with the weakest CO features. A similar trend is visible in the figure S13 of \citet{Lancon_00} which is for the same star in different phases. These stars belong also to the brightest in our sample, but the luminosity could be slightly overestimated since we do not consider AGB star effects for the effective temperature and intrinsic color estimation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{K0_h20.eps}
\caption{H$_2$O index as function of extinction corrected magnitude K$_0$ for stars with S/N$>20$. Unusual sources are indicated with open symbols, blue circles (early-type or young stellar objects) or boxes (AGB with Brackett $\gamma$). Sources with H$_2$O index below 0.7 are probably AGB stars.
}
\label{fig:agb_co}
\end{figure}
\section{Physical properties}
\label{sec:phys_properties}
To obtain physical properties of the late-type stars (all stars with CO absorption and radial velocity measurements) we use the indices.
We use calibration stars with known metallicity to derive an index-metallicity relation. For temperatures, we combine CO index-temperature relations from the literature.
\subsection{Metallicity calibration}
\label{sec:met_cal}
Firstly, to estimate the metallicity, we test the index calibrations of \citet{Frogel_01}. \citet{Frogel_01} collected a sample of calibrators together with their Na, Ca, and CO equivalent widths and fit the full sample with linear and quadratic functions.
We find that both their options lead to unrealistic low metallicities for stars with strong lines. The quadratic function even leads to decreasing metallicity for stronger Na at large CO EW depth. That is not surprising because the calibration of \citet{Frogel_01} is based on globular clusters and thus is not well suited for the expected metallicity range of our sample. We therefore derive our own calibration. We use Na and CO EW widths because they have the highest S/N. \citet{Frogel_01} found that Ca contributes only weakly to the metallicity estimate. We find the same.
\subsubsection{Metallicity index construction}
\label{sec:met_cal_const}
For the derivation of our own calibration we use the following spectra.
\begin{itemize}
\item Firstly, 18 of our KMOS stars were also observed by APOGEE and have their metallicity determined in DR16 \citep{Ahumada_19}.
\item Secondly, we use the X-shooter spectral library (XSL), precisely the spectra published in \citet{Gonneau_20}. We select spectra with log(g)$<2.5$ according to \citet{Arentsen_19}. Around the order transition at 2.275 $\mu$m the XSL spectra show some spikes, we corrected for the worst by assigning them bad pixels. Also we calculate an alternative CO index which uses two continuum points redward of the problematic region. The two CO indices deviate from each other by 1.0 \AA~EW standard deviation with a median bias of 0.5 \AA~EW whereby the \citet{Frogel_01} index is slightly smaller. We use the average of both in the following.
A few stars have several spectra in the XSL, we compared the values obtained for them, the differences are very small, and thus they measure the same quantities. In such cases we use the median of the index values in the following way. We exclude stars with a positive (CO emission) CO index, because we are only analyzing stars with CO absorption here. Thirdly, we use SINFONI spectra of the Galactic center stars from \citet{Thorsbro_20}. For GC25 we do not have a spectrum and we exclude GC16867 because of too small S/N. A few stars have two spectra, with very similar EW values. Therefore we use their average.
\item Finally, we also use NGC6583-46 for which we obtained a spectrum with FIRE\footnote{\url{http://web.mit.edu/rsimcoe/www/FIRE/observers.htm}}.
\end{itemize}
For stellar properties we use APOGEE DR16 properties when possible. We use [Fe/H] when available and use [M/H], as provided by \citet{Ahumada_19}, for three KMOS stars for which [Fe/H] is not available. From the stars with both, we determined that [M/H] is in average 0.012 dex larger, we subtract this number from three metal rich stars which do not have [Fe/H]. APOGEE data are available for the 18 KMOS stars and for 21 stars from XSL.
For these stars we determine that the average difference in metallicity between APOGEE and \citet{Arentsen_19} is 0.088 dex, whereas the metallicity of APOGEE is larger.
Therefore, we add 0.088 dex to all metallicities from \citet{Arentsen_19}. For the Galactic Center stars we use the [Fe/H] from \citet{Thorsbro_20}.
We use for NGC6583-46 the high resolution spectroscopy results of \citet{Magrini_10} for this cluster.
In general these different data sets agree about as well as expected from their errors. The exception is that cold stars from \citet{Arentsen_19} do not follow the same pattern in CO-Na space, it is more random. \citet{Arentsen_19} mention in Sect.~5.4 that they do not trust their results below 3800 K, therefore we exclude those stars.
From all samples we exclude stars brighter than M$_K=-7.5$. We choose this limit since the nuclear disk stars sample excludes brighter stars and because beyond that limit most stars are not red giants but AGB stars and supergiants, which often have different index strengths for the same temperature. We use Gaia DR2 parallaxes \citep{Brown_18} for the local stars, and a Galactic Center distance of 8.18 kpc \citep{Abuter_19,Bland_16} for the bulge and nuclear stars. Similarly, we use distances from \citet{Harris_96} for the globular cluster stars and a distance of 50.1 and 62.8 kpc for the large and small Magellanic Cloud member stars, respectively \citep{Fritz_20}. For NGC 2324 we use a distance of 3.8 kpc \citep{Piatti_04} and for NGC 2682 we use a distance of 0.88 kpc \citep{Babusiaux_18}.
For magnitudes we use for most, 2MASS. Besides we use the previously mentioned SIRIUS magnitudes for the KMOS stars and magnitudes from \citet{Fritz_16} for the stars from \citet{Thorsbro_20}. We correct the latter stars like the nuclear stars for extinction. The others we do not correct for extinction, the extinction is usually small and it does not matter much when we include a few slightly brighter stars because not all slightly brighter stars have different indices. We are excluding stars with H$_2O\mathrm{-index}<0.7$. That excludes most AGB stars.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{all_co_na_fit2.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{fe_cal1.eps}
\caption{Metallicity derivation. Top: Calibration of metallicity based on CO and Na EW. The large symbols are the 183 used calibration spectra, the symbol shape shows the source of spectra and metallicity \citep{Magrini_10,Thorsbro_20,Ahumada_19,Arentsen_19}, the value is indicated by the color within, SINF indicates SINFONI. The background shows the derived relation, the color range saturates below [Fe/H]$<-2.5$ and above [Fe/H]$>0.6$ (the range of the calibrators.), where the derived values are based on more uncertain extrapolation. The two vertical lines separate the application of the high and low CO solutions, in the overlap region between we use both to derive metallicities. The small dots show all our KMOS targets with S/N$>30$ and a CO based velocity. The background shows the derived value only for areas where either calibrators or the nuclear stars have coverage. Bottom: Comparison between literature (x-axis) and our metallicities (y-axis). The thick black line is the identity line, the thin lines bracket the typical uncertainty. Stars are coded by CO depth, the hottest ones have the smallest depth.
}
\label{fig:met_cals}
\end{figure}
All this together results in a sample of 187 stars, which are listed in Appendix~\ref{ap:met_cal}.
We tried to fit the full sample at once but found that such a high order polynomial is needed, that extrapolation beyond the data range is implausible and also within the data the metallicity does not always increase with feature strength in contrast to the expectations. Therefore we divide the data set into parts by CO strengths. Firstly, there is a shallow CO depth range, the part where the maximum possible Na strength does not increase much. That is the case for EW$_\mathrm{CO}>-11.5$ \AA, see top of Figure~\ref{fig:met_cals}. Secondly, this is a region where both Na and CO EWs clearly vary, we choose a range down to CO EW of -8.5 \AA, to make sure both use partly the same data. That avoids a big jump in the overlap region. When applied to spectra we linearly change the weight of the two for EW between -11 and -9, to ensure a smooth overlap.
From the sample we excluded four outliers, two of them are of very low CO depth, where we do not derive metallicities from targets.
We derive the following relation. For EW$_\mathrm{CO}>-8.5$ we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathrm{[Fe/H]}=-3.14-0.0106\,\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{CO}-1.98\,\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{Na} +0.00763\,\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{CO}^2\\
-0.0929\,\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{CO}\,\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{Na}+0.00646\,\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{Na}^2
\end{split}
\label{eq:met_lowco}
\end{equation}
wherein all EW are in \AA. For EW$_\mathrm{CO}<-11.5$ we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathrm{[Fe/H]}=-1.65+0.0317\,\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{CO}-1.07\,\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{Na}
+0.00195\,\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{CO}^2\\
-0.0288\,\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{CO}\,\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{Na}-0.0211\,\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{Na}^2
\end{split}
\label{eq:met_highco}
\end{equation}
In the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:met_cals} we show the comparison between the metallicities of our reference sample and our derived metallicities using equations~\ref{eq:met_lowco} and \ref{eq:met_highco}.
We notice that the scatter is larger for the warmest stars with the weakest CO absorption which is expected as for those stars the used features are weak.
The standard deviation between the input and the derived [Fe/H] is 0.32, which varies little over almost the entire range of CO depth. The scatter is 0.5 for $EW_\mathrm{CO}>-2$. It does not impact our conclusions because none of our targets stars has such a small depth; the smallest depth of a late-type star in our science sample is -2.5 when ignoring low S/N sources.
We see in addition more deviations from the identity line for metal-rich stars ($\rm [Fe/H] > 0$). This is due to the fact that cool metal-rich giants ($\rm T_{eff} < 4000$\,K) suffer from substantial molecular lines in their spectra which results in consequent line blending and blanketing and affects the stellar parameters. The increased scatter could therefore be also due to the larger errors in the metallicities of the reference sample we are using. 72\% of our sample are cool stars with $\rm EW < -20$ which lie mostly inside the 1$\,\sigma$ scatter.
In the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:met_cals}, it is visible that the metallicity follows the expectations: the metallicity increases with increasing Na depth for constant CO.
The deviation between input and derived metallicity has probably several contributions. The S/N caused error is small for most stars as is clear from repeated observations of the same star. At shallow CO depth, S/N can contribute as can the continuum problem of the XSL spectra. The error in the calibrator [Fe/H] is small for APOGEE (in median 0.013 and at most 0.036) and NGC6583-46 (0.08), also for the stars of \citet{Thorsbro_20} it is 0.15, still small compared to the uncertainty here. From the overlap of \citet{Arentsen_19} and APOGEE we derive an uncertainty of 0.09, consistent with their median error of 0.08. Thus, all these errors are small. That is also confirmed when we compare the scatter by spectra/metallicity calibration: all are within 1 $\sigma$ of each other when the stars with EW$_\mathrm{CO}>-2$ are excluded.
The different data sets show somewhat different offsets, the main XSL \citep{Arentsen_19} agrees not surprisingly, since it dominates the fit.
Surprisingly the XSL APOGEE sample has an offset of -0.2 dex with respect to the model. Since this sample consists mainly of globular clusters, this may show that they are somewhat different in these indicators. Because there are not so many nuclear disk stars in their [Fe/H] range it does not influence the results much. The SINFONI-\citet{Thorsbro_20} sample
has an offset of -0.1 dex with respect to the model.
That is because the mean metallicity of this sample is smaller than that of most nuclear samples, which are summarized in \citet{Schultheis_19}. Not surprisingly the APOGEE-KMOS sample
has an offset of 0.1 dex with respect to the model, since the model chooses a compromise between
the APOGEE-KMOS and SINFONI-\citet{Thorsbro_20} samples which dominate the low temperature end. This difference shows that our metallicity calibration has an uncertainty of about 0.1 dex.
\subsubsection{Application of the metallicity index}
\label{sec:met_cal_ap}
We now apply the index to our target stars.
For checking the impact of the calibration, we also calculate [Fe/H] excluding either SINFONI-\citet{Thorsbro_20} or KMOS-APOGEE from the fit, the other samples are always used.
The indices of our spectra have errors which cause metallicity uncertainties. We calculated the resulting metallicity error by Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, i. e. we assumed a Gaussian distribution of the EW values and calculated the metallicity for 10000 random realizations. From the MC samples we calculated the 1-$\sigma$ confidence intervals. In the median it is 0.13 dex. This is small compared to the calibration error.
It depends mostly on the S/N of the spectra, but it also matters how strong the CO and Na indices are because for strong indices, [Fe/H] varies less per \AA. For EW$_\mathrm{CO}$<-15, we find that the error is typically $\sigma\mathrm{[Fe/H]}=0.93/\mathrm{(S/N)}$. For the smallest CO depth, the error is a factor 4 larger. Because metal poor stars have usually shallower CO depths,
their random error is usually larger. We provide the errors in the result table, see Appendix~\ref{ap:star_prop}.
It depends on the application whether this error can be used on its own or whether the calibration error should be added. The former is the case when rather similar stars are compared and only relative metallicity matters, the latter when the stars are rather different or the absolute metallicity matters.
The obtained numbers confirm that the S/N cannot be the main reason for the 0.32 dex scatter in the calibration sample. A reason could be that we use the [Fe/H] of the spectra but we do not measure it. Our indices measure mainly Na and C\footnote{C is limiting in CO, see \citet{Frogel_01}.}. We looked into that possibility by using the APOGEE stars, in it 33 stars have [C/Fe] and 24 have [Na/Fe], the latter is rarely available for the most metal rich stars. For Na we do not find a trend in [Fe/H]$_\mathrm{index}-$[Fe/H]$_\mathrm{APOGEE}$; also not when we divide the sample into XSL and KMOS spectra to account for the different offsets\footnote{However, we note that Na belongs to the least reliable elements in APOGEE, see \citet{Joensson_20}.}. For [C/Fe] we find weak trends, we find a trend slope of $1.19\pm0.95$ for the APOGEE-KMOS sample and a trend slope of $0.28\pm0.26$ ($0.34\pm0.26$ excluding one outlier) for the APOGEE-XSL sample, where a slope of 1.0 would fully explain the offset. Thus, while abundance variations are probably not enough to explain the full error they likely contribute. The reason that there is no trend in [Na/Fe] could be due to the fact, that this index measures not only Na but also Sc I for cold stars, see e.g. \citet{Park_18}.
We show in Figure~\ref{fig:fe_distribution} the metallicity distribution of our survey stars.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{fe_his_err.eps}
\caption{Metallicity distribution of survey stars. We show all 2734 stars with CO absorption and S/N$>30$. In the top we show in black the median statistical error of stars passing these cuts and in blue the calibration uncertainty which does not depend on metallicity.
}
\label{fig:fe_distribution}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Temperature calibration}
\label{sec:t_cal}
Another property which can be obtained from spectra of our resolution is the temperature.
For the cool stars which dominate our sample, a common method is to use the CO band heads. Often it is assumed that their strength depends only on the temperature, see e.g. \citet{Blum_03,Schultheis_16,Feldmeier_17a}. The strength depends however also on the metallicity, at least for metallicities clearly below solar, see e.g. \citet{Frogel_01} and \citet{Marmol_08}. To estimate the temperature we use the calibration of \citet{Marmol_08}. It uses as input our CO EW and our metallicity.
When the metallicity is outside the range of -2.5 to 0.6 we set it to the closer limit. The range combines the range of the calibrators of \citet{Marmol_08} and of our calibrators.
For low temperatures, \citet{Marmol_08} calibrated with relatively few stars, which causes likely the following problem. Below about 3290 K the temperature increases slightly towards lower Na EW for constant CO, opposite to what is expected
\citep{Frogel_01}.
Therefore we use for very large CO depth the relation of \citet{Feldmeier_17a} which does not depend on metallicity. We correct for the offset between the two scales by subtracting 50 K from the \citet{Feldmeier_17a} values, that is the difference between the two scales for solar metallicity at 3290 K. We use only \citet{Marmol_08} for CO$_\mathrm{EW}>-21.5$ and only \citet{Feldmeier_17a} adjusted for CO$_\mathrm{EW}<-22.5$. In between we transition linearly between the two. The use of \citet{Feldmeier_17a} has also the advantage that only very few stars are extremely cold. We show the temperature as function of indexes EW in Figure~\ref{fig:temp_calibration}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{na_ca_t7d.eps}
\caption{Temperature calibration for stars with CO absorption. For CO EW larger than -21.5 \AA~ we use the equation of \citet{Marmol_08}. It uses our [Fe/H] determination.
Below -22.5 we use the calibration by \citet{Feldmeier_17a} corrected for the offset between the two. Between these values (indicated by the two black lines) we transition linearly between the two relations. The diagonal strip shows the uncorrected relation by \citet{Feldmeier_17a}. We plot it for $|[\mathrm{Fe/H]}|<0.075$. The color scales saturates outside of 2600 and 5800 K. The dots show our KMOS targets with S/N$>30$.
}
\label{fig:temp_calibration}
\end{figure}
For solar metallicity, the two scales are relatively similar, with the \citet{Marmol_08} based temperatures being usually about 100 K lower than the \citet{Feldmeier_17a} based temperatures. However, there are also differences of up to 200 K for high temperatures\footnote{Both differences are for the unadjusted \citet{Feldmeier_17a} scale.}.
We calculate temperature errors caused by S/N
for all stars in a MC simulation. In that simulation we include the effects of metallicity uncertainties. The median uncertainty is 64 K for primary sources and 284 K for secondary sources. The difference is mostly caused by the higher S/N of the primary sources. Other parameters have some impact, too.
There is an error minimum around 3600 K. Those errors are usually an underestimate, the calibration of \citet{Feldmeier_17a} has a residual scatter of 163 K and the calibration of \citet{Marmol_08} of 32 K. For the calibration used, as well for other temperature calibrations \citep{Pfuhl_11,Schultheis_16,Feldmeier_17a}, we found that the resulting median temperature for solar metallicity stars is cooler than all possible temperatures from PARSEC \citep{Bressan_12} and BaSTI \citep{Pietrinferni_04} isochrones for stars with M$_{K}>-6$. This could indicate a problem with isochrones or a problem with the effective temperatures. The latter could be affected by differences between spectroscopic and photometric temperatures; spectroscopic temperatures can be calibrated \citep{Joensson_20,Gonzalez_09} on photometric but that is difficult especially for relatively cool stars. In both cases it shows the limitations of past star formation histories obtained from spectroscopy like \citet{Blum_03,Pfuhl_11}. We give CO based temperatures for all stars with CO based velocities and negative EW$_\mathrm{CO}$ and also for stars with EW$_\mathrm{CO}<-4$ without velocity, because such a depth occurs only for late-type stars, see Figure~\ref{fig:indices}.
We cannot estimate a temperature for stars without CO absorption in this way.
We provide rough estimates based on the lines present.
We assume a temperature of 10000 K for stars which show only Brackett $\gamma$ absorption and a temperature of 25000 K for stars which show
also or only lines with higher ionization potential.
We assign an intermediate temperature of 8000 K to all other stars (most of them of low S/N).
We show the temperature distribution in Figure~\ref{fig:temp_distribution}. It is visible that while M-giants dominate the sample, it also contains warmer stars of different spectral classes.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{te_his2.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{te_his1.eps}
\caption{Temperature distribution of survey stars. The spectral class (borders) are indicated in the top of the plots. In the top panel we show all stars with S/N$>20$, that is, all stars that we could classify (with a single exception).
Here the latter is grouped together with the young stellar objects at 8000 K. This temperature and of the hotter stars is qualitative based on spectral feature existence. In the bottom panel we zoom into the colder stars (stars with CO absorption) for which we calculate temperatures from line indices. For the bottom panel we select stars with S/N$>30$.
}
\label{fig:temp_distribution}
\end{figure}
We estimate from the temperatures the intrinsic H-K color for better extinction estimates.
We use PARSEC 3.3 isochrones \citep{Bressan_12,Chen_14,Chen_15,Tang_14,Marigo_17,Pastorelli_19} for the conversion from effective temperatures to H-K colors. We round our metallicities to one decimal and set limits of -2.5 and 0.6 dex. We download isochrones in 0.1 dex steps between -2.5 and 0.6 dex for 30 Myrs, 1 and 12 Gyrs. We use stars from M$_K=2$ (to exclude dwarfs which follow a different track) to the tip of the RGB, because later phases are less well modeled. We also exclude stars warmer than 5600 K because our stars are cooler.
For all the selected data points we fit the H-K points with a fourth order polynomial of the temperature. The data points deviate at most by 0.014 mag in the standard deviation from these fits, likely other uncertainties such as model or passband uncertainties are more important. We extrapolate to lower temperatures by using the linear slope at the coolest data point, 21\% of the stars are in the extrapolation regime. We set stars colder than 2700 K to this temperature because no giants in PARSEC are cooler and these temperatures are likely caused by uncertainties.
Using the PARSEC isochrones, we assign to the hot stars (8000, 10000 and 25000 K) colors of H-K$_0=$ 0.01, -0.01 and H-K$_0$=-0.09.
Overall our targets have an average intrinsic color H-K$_0$ of 0.30 with a scatter of 0.07; within the error consistent with our input assumption of always 0.25.
We use these intrinsic H-K colors to order the targets in H-K corrected for the intrinsic color (H-K$_0$). All stars are compared with all potential target stars (see Section~\ref{sect:targ_select}) in that field i.e., the stars which have magnitudes between K$_0=$7 and K$_0=$9.5. For unobserved target stars, we draw the intrinsic color using the mean and standard deviation of the primary targets with S/N$>$30 in that field. Since in field 20
most stars have low S/N, we use the average of the four neighboring fields. The extinction ordering parameter ext-order is defined as the fraction of stars which has an H-K$_0$ smaller than the target star. Ext-order orders by extinction because stellar effects are corrected for. Ext-order is mainly an estimate for the line-of-sight order, although extinction variation in the plane of sky of the fields contributes as well. Ext-order is published in our catalog, see Appendix~\ref{ap:star_prop}.
\section{Summary and conclusions}
\label{sec:summ}
In this paper we introduce our spectroscopic survey of the nuclear disk. This region is highly extincted, limiting \textit{Gaia} and even APOGEE observations.
The aim of the presented survey is to study the older stellar populations in the nuclear disk region, which have not been previously systematically studied. Therefore, we target stars with absolute extinction corrected magnitudes below the tip of the red giants branch of old stars. Despite the fact that we do not use color selection criteria, most (more than 99\%) observed stars are red giants because they are the most abundant stars in the observed magnitude range.
We observe 20 fields in the nuclear disk and four reference fields in the nearby inner bulge with the multi-object IFU instrument KMOS/VLT. We obtain K-band spectra of 3113 stars with a median S/N of 67.
We measure velocities for 3051 stars
with a typical accuracy of 5 km/s.
We measure line indices of Brackett $\gamma$, Na, Ca, CO 2-0 and H$_2$O, in order to identify contaminants (AGB, young stars) and to measure physical properties of late-type stars.
2735 sources have sufficient S/N to
estimate
temperatures and metallicities which are limited by systematics.
We measure metallicities by using the two strongest features of cool ($\leq$5500 K) stars in the K-band: CO and Na.
For calibration we use 183 giants with metallicities between -2.5 to 0.6 dex obtained with higher resolution observations and K-band spectra.
The resulting metallicities deviate from the calibration values with a scatter of 0.32 dex.
The internal uncertainties of our metallicities are likely smaller, since the uncertainty caused by S/N has a median value of 0.13 dex and we observe mostly similar luminousity stars. We obtain temperatures from CO using the literature relations of \citet{Marmol_08} and \citet{Feldmeier_17a}.
Our data contain also a number of early-type stars (hot stars showing hydrogen and, partly, also stars with lines with higher ionization potential and a few young stellar objects). We will publish a detailed analysis of the young stars and other rare stars in Patrick et al. in prep. They are also included in our catalog.
We publish the catalog electronically along with this paper.
We have already analyzed (Schultheis et al. submitted) the metallicity properties and its dependency on other properties, particularly dynamics, similar to \citet{Schultheis_20} for APOGEE data covering the inner bulge and the nuclear disk. In the future we will utilize the velocities and metallicities to constrain the nuclear disk mass and dynamic state, and improve existing measurements for nuclear disk \citep{Sormani_20} and nuclear cluster \citep{Chatzopoulos_15}.
Further, we will study the star formation history of the nuclear disk (similar to \citet{Blum_03,Pfuhl_11} for the nuclear cluster), and test if the majority of stars of the nuclear disk are indeed old \citep{Nogueras_19c}.
\begin{acknowledgements}
This research made use of Astropy,\footnote{http://www.astropy.org} a community-developed core Python package for Astronomy \citep{astropy:2013, astropy:2018}.
This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission
{\it Gaia} (\url{https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia}), processed by the {\it Gaia}
Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC,
\url{https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium}). Funding for the DPAC
has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions
participating in the {\it Gaia} Multilateral Agreement.
This paper includes data gathered with the 6.5 meter Magellan Telescopes located at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile.
Author R. S. acknowledges financial support from the State Agency for Research of the Spanish MCIU through the "Center of Excellence Severo Ochoa" award for the Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (SEV-2017-0709). RS acknowledges financial support from national project PGC2018-095049-B-C21 (MCIU/AEI/FEDER, UE).
N. N. and F. N.-L. gratefully acknowledge support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) -- Project-ID 138713538 -- SFB 881 (`The Milky Way System', subproject B8).
\end{acknowledgements}
\begin{appendix}
\label{sec:app}
\section{Details of KMOS fields}
\label{ap:field_details}
In Table~\ref{tab:kmos_obs} we present the details on the observed fields and their spectra.
\begin{table*}
\small
\caption[]{KMOS field observation information; a variable blue H-K cut excludes foreground stars; a field consists of 5 subsets of observations; secondary stars are sources which are found in addition to the target stars (primary sources) in the IFU observations.}
\label{tab:kmos_obs}
$$
\begin{array}{p{0.11\linewidth}lllllllll}
\hline
\hline
\rm{Field number} & l [\degree] & b [\degree] & \rm{blue\,} H-K \rm{\,cut} & \rm{observed\,subsets} & \rm{total\,stars} & \rm{secondary\,stars} & \rm{velocities} & \rm{stars\, with\, S/N>30} \\
\hline
\hline
\hline
Nuclear disk 1 & -0.056 & 0.043 & 0.9 & 5 & 133 & 13 & 132 & 128 \\
Nuclear disk 2 & -0.156 & 0.173 & 0.8 & 5 & 166 & 46 & 161 & 127 \\
\hline
Bulge 3 & -0.056 & 0.303 & 0.65 & 5 & 133 & 13 & 130 & 125 \\
Bulge 4 & -0.056 & 0.503 & 0.5 & 5 & 126 & 8 & 126 & 119 \\
Bulge 5 & -0.056 & 0.853 & 0.3 & 4 & 100 & 6 & 100 & 96 \\
\hline
Nuclear disk 6 & 0.104 & 0.043 & 0.9 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
Nuclear disk 7 & 0.104 & -0.137 & 0.9 & 4 & 120 & 1 & 97 & 97 \\
Nuclear disk 8 & -0.216 & 0.043 & 0.8 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
Nuclear disk 9 & -0.216 & -0.137 & 0.9 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
Nuclear disk 10 & 0.264 & -0.047 & 0.9 & 5 & 128 & 8 & 127 & 122 \\
Nuclear disk 11 & -0.056 & -0.137 & 0.9 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
Nuclear disk 12 & -0.056 & -0.267 & 0.75 & 5 & 137 & 17 & 136 & 123 \\
Nuclear disk 13 & 0.444 & -0.047 & 0.9 & 5 & 135 & 15 & 134 & 123 \\
Nuclear disk 14 & 0.644 & -0.047 & 0.9 & 5 & 121 & 7 & 120 & 116 \\
Nuclear disk 15 & 0.894 & -0.047 & 0.9 & 5 & 137 & 17 & 137 & 121 \\
Nuclear disk 16 & 1.144 & -0.047 & 0.9 & 5 & 130 & 11 & 129 & 120 \\
Nuclear disk 17 & 1.394 & -0.047 & 0.8 & 5 & 122 & 3 & 121 & 119 \\
Nuclear disk 18 & -0.376 & -0.047 & 0.9 & 5 & 132 & 12 & 125 & 113 \\
Nuclear disk 19 & -0.556 & -0.047 & 0.9 & 5 & 123 & 3 & 123 & 110 \\
Nuclear disk 20 & -0.756 & -0.047 & 0.9 & 5 & 118 & 3 & 115 & 22 \\
Nuclear disk 21 & -1.006 & -0.047 & 0.7 & 5 & 135 & 15 & 133 & 121 \\
Nuclear disk 22 & -1.256 & -0.047 & 0.9 & 5 & 123 & 3 & 123 & 121 \\
Nuclear disk 23 & -1.506 & -0.047 & 0.6 & 5 & 127 & 8 & 124 & 120 \\
Nuclear disk 24 & -0.556 & -0.247 & 0.75 & 5 & 131 & 11 & 129 & 122 \\
Nuclear disk 25 & -0.556 & 0.153 & 0.9 & 5 & 146 & 26 & 142 & 129 \\
Nuclear disk 26 & 0.444 & -0.247 & 0.8 & 5 & 124 & 7 & 123 & 118 \\
Nuclear disk 27 & 0.444 & 0.153 & 0.65 & 5 & 138 & 18 & 137 & 122 \\
\hline
Bulge 28 & 1.894 & -0.047 & 0.7 & 5 & 128 & 10 & 127 & 120 \\
Bulge 29 & -1.906 & -0.047 & 0.65 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{array}
$$
\normalsize
\end{table*}
\section{Details and tests of spectral procedures}
\label{ap:spec_details}
Here we describe tests and correction affecting a minority of all spectra.
\subsection{Correction of sky residuals}
\label{sect:sky_res}
We checked the spectra for residual OH lines. We found that some of them, especially those extracted from IFUs without corresponding sky observations show them in emission. To quantify this effect we measure the OH flux around 2.1801, 2.1955, and 2.2125 $\mu$m. We choose these lines because they are relatively strong, in a region with less strong stellar lines and are close to the Na I doublet around 2.207 $\mu$m, which is the most important feature affected by OH emission. When at least two of these are 2 $\sigma$ above 1.0 and all three together (excluding the one which is below 2 $\sigma$) at least are 6 $\sigma$ above 1.0, we correct them for OH lines. For that we restrict the wavelength range between 2.08 and 2.29 $\mu$m, because at smaller wavelengths the telluric transmission is low and at larger wavelengths the CO absorption makes the detection of OH lines difficult. We found that there are no strong OH lines in the CO band pass. Pixels are flagged when the following three conditions are fulfilled:
Firstly, they need to be at wavelengths of OH lines, secondly be larger than 1.07 and thirdly be at least 3 $\sigma$ larger than 1. For the two latter criteria the spectrum is normalized to 1 by a linear fit to the selected wavelength range. Those pixels are treated as bad pixels, the errors are increased to a factor 10 of the flux, the flux is corrected as for bad pixels in images.
170 spectra are corrected in this way. In a similar way we identify and correct spectra with overcorrected OH lines.
We find 6 such spectra.
There are fewer because our background pixels are selected among low emission, thus we underestimate the background flux when most pixels of an IFU do not contain sources. This is good, as overcorrection of OH is more difficult to identify than undercorrection, because most of our spectra are dominated by absorption lines.
The later mentioned young stars with emission lines are not affected by OH lines. Therefore, we use
the original spectra for those.
\subsection{Ripples in the KMOS Continuum}
\label{sect:spec_ripp}
We note that some spectra show ripples in the continuum. These are sources where a small aperture is used due to good seeing. This effect is known, see e.g. \citet{Davies_13,Feldmeier_15} and the KMOS manual.
To quantify the affected sources we extracted for all primary sources also spectra with a circular aperture of 3 pixels. These spectra should be unaffected by the ripples but have often clearly lower S/N. We divide these spectra by our standard (potentially rippled) spectra. The result is dominated by the ripple signal. We fit the spectra ratio by a quadratic polynomial multiplied by a sine function. By visual inspection we identified the parameters characteristic for ripples, the most important one is that the sine function has at least 0.5\% amplitude. The corresponding spectra were flagged.
Ripples are mostly seen in exposures with good spatial resolution. In addition, they also populate some IFUs more than others. In particular we note, that spectra from the second spectrograph (IFU 9 to 16) show nearly no ripples. We use the pattern in IFU and exposure to identify spectra which have likely also ripples, but whose spectra have too low S/N to identify them. In total we flag 326 primary spectra. To that we add 40 secondary sources which are on cubes where the primary source is flagged.
While line indices of these sources are less reliable than for the other sources, especially important for Na I which dominates our metallicity estimate, visual inspection of the spectra shows that the rough metallicity and temperature of a star is still usually preserved.
The velocities should not be affected by the ripples since a large wavelength range is used for cross-correlation and also many tests were done.
\subsection{Impact of no sky subtraction}
\label{sect:spec_nsky}
For IFUs 18, 19 and 24 no
appropriate sky field could be found. As
diffuse background emission is subtracted from all IFUs, the effects of sky emission are corrected rather well, especially in the most important spectral range (2.08 to 2.32 $\mu$m), see Figure~\ref{fig:raw_spec_nsky}. Not in all cases the OH correction is as well, in those cases the in Section~\ref{sect:sky_res} explained additional correction for OH lines matters.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{ob_sky_318_2c.eps}
\caption{Typical spectrum without sky subtraction from a separate cube. We show the raw object spectrum (black), the sky subtracted spectrum (red), a sky spectrum (blue), and the final telluric corrected science spectrum (green).
The spectrum is from 3-18-2, an early-type star (showing the line of Brackett $\gamma$ at 2.166 $\mu$m) which is a little brighter than the median magnitude of the full sample.
}
\label{fig:raw_spec_nsky}
\end{figure}
To quantitatively test the impact of no dedicated sky exposure subtraction on the final spectra we now compare spectral properties of spectra with and without dedicated sky exposure subtraction. We use therefore only primary spectra, since they are more reliable. First we look at the overall properties as they come from the linear spectrum fit between 1.95 and 2.29 $\mu$m. We compare thus with the photometric properties. Firstly, we compare the zero point of the spectra with and without dedicated sky exposure subtraction, we find that in the mean and median it agrees very well with less than 0.005 mag difference. However, there is somewhat larger scatter without dedicated sky exposure subtraction
by 12 to 22 \% dependent on whether outliers are included or not. We looked also on the other spectra obtained with the third spectrograph (That means IFU number larger than 16.) and found no increase, thus it is likely caused by the missing dedicated sky exposure subtraction. Since the overall zeropoint is not necessarily important for relevant properties, we looked also at other properties. Firstly, that is the spectral slope of the linear fit which is well correlated with the H-K color. We fit for the two cases linearly. We find that the slope is consistent for with and without dedicated sky exposure subtraction. However, the intercept differs by 0.095 (equivalent of an H-K difference of 0.11). While that is significant, it is small compared to the single star error which is 0.36. The single star error is by 11\% increased for stars with in-cube sky subtraction.
Next we look at the velocities. We find the velocities show no difference in mean and scatter between with and without dedicated sky exposure subtraction. Most stars are in systematic error regime, but the number of the stars above the systematic error regime is 13\% higher without dedicated sky exposure subtraction than with subtraction (8\%).
Now we look at the indices and derived properties from them. There are biases which are often formally significant but are always smaller than the scatter, at most 57\% of it. The bias of 0.06 is relatively large for H$_2$O, but we know that it has a systematic error of at least 0.05. Next largest bias is for Brackett $\gamma$ which is also rather unimportant. For [Fe/H] the bias is 0.06 and for T$_\mathrm{eff}$, 120 K, resulting in larger values without sky subtraction.
The scatter increases partly dedicated sky exposure without subtraction by up to 22\% like for [Fe/H]. For T$_\mathrm{eff}$ the scatter increases by 18\%. Part of the differences with and without dedicated sky exposure subtraction are likely caused by spectrograph sub-system groups of IFUs and IFU effects.
There is some impact of applying only in-cube sky subtraction. However, it does not dominate the intrinsic variation. Since all fields have the missing arms, it and any IFU dependent effect does not lead to differences between fields and thus to no spurious discoveries in physical space.
It is possible to construct a sample that is not affected by the suboptimal in-cube only sky subtraction by excluding the affected IFUs. The second part of the identification number corresponds to the IFU.
\section{Tests of the velocities}
\label{sec:vel_tests}
In this Appendix we test the quality of our radial velocity measurements made in Section~\ref{sec:vel_meas}. In particular, we test here whether the absolute wavelength calibration is accurate and we compare our radial velocities to the APOGEE survey.
To test whether the absolute wavelength calibration of the spectra is good enough and that its error can be considered irrelevant, we used ATRAN atmospheric transmission spectra, which we smooth to the resolution of KMOS. We tested different ATRAN cases\footnote{We tested the closest in airmass and water for both, Cerro Panch\'{o}n and Mauna Kea, from the Gemini website and the KMOS K-model in the reduction directory.} but found that the velocities vary at most by 2 km/s (in case of the KMOS K-band model which does not vary with the conditions in contrast with the other models.), negligible compared to the other errors.
To test for the velocity we cross-correlate the transmission spectra with the observed spectra before telluric correction of the primary targets. First, we cross-correlate the full spectra with the ATRAN models allowing offsets of up to $|600|$ km/s. In nearly all cases cross-correlation works. We find a median velocity of -3.5 km/s with a robust scatter of 4 km/s. Since most of the telluric signal is at wavelengths very different from the spectral features, that might not be characteristic of the star velocities, if the wavelength calibration error changes with wavelength.
For most of our stars the velocity is based on late-type spectra between 2.18 and 2.425 $\mu$m. Therefore, we also cross-correlated our spectra with transmission spectra in that range and obtain an offset of $-3.5\pm4.5$ km/s.
We also coadd spectra from the same exposure together, then the offset stays the same and the scatter reduces to about 1.5 km/s, with no trend over time. Thus the error goes down with nearly $\sqrt{N}$. This suggests that the scatter between different spectra in one exposure is probably caused by 'noise', like the spectral features in them.
Because the CO band head in the spectra matters most for the velocity we also cross-correlate around the strongest CO features, at the strongest atmospheric feature which is at 2.317 $\mu$m. To cross-correlate only with it we use a range of 2.30 to 2.335 $\mu$m. For stars with CO lines this leads to bad results due to the many features there. Therefore we use only stars without CO,
the offset is $-3\pm5$ km/s.
In conclusion, the spectra are well wavelength calibrated with no evidence of wavelength distortions. There is an offset of about 4 km/s which seems rather constant, with at most 5 km/s variation over the sample.
We correct for the calibration offset by adding 4 km/s to the raw velocities.
In addition we compare with external velocity measurements from the APOGEE survey \citep{Majewski_17} in DR16 of SDSS \citep{Ahumada_19}.
We find 20 common targets
in the surveys, 19 stars with CO and one foreground star with Brackett $\gamma$ absorption. The velocities agree well in the mean, see Figure~\ref{fig:vel_offs}. However with original errors the scatter is larger than expected, as visible in the $\chi^2$ of 76. Since the agreement is better for stars with larger KMOS errors, we conclude that the KMOS errors are underestimated when the error is small. By requiring a $\chi^2$ of 19 we obtain that errors smaller than 4.2 km/s are underestimated. We therefore enlarge all errors below this limit to 4.2 km/s. The reason for the error underestimating is not clear, it could be the limit of the algorithm or calibration uncertainty. In this sample we looked at stars with several exposures and find that their error is also underestimated. Since the exposures are obtained directly after each other with the same IFUs and only small dithers, this is not surprising, because this observing strategy leads to constant systematics in the instruments.
After the error adjustment we find that the KMOS velocities are in the weighted average -$1\pm1$ km/s smaller than the APOGEE velocities. Thus, our velocity scales are consistent.
The enlargement of the errors does not impact our work, since the velocity differences between the survey stars are much larger than 4.2 km/s.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.72\columnwidth,angle=-90]{Tap_dv2.eps}
\caption{Velocity offset between KMOS and APOGEE. The star in red has no effective temperature in APOGEE, it shows cold stars features. In color are shown the original KMOS errors. (The APOGEE errors are negligibly small in comparison.) The errors after adjustment are shown in black.
}
\label{fig:vel_offs}
\end{figure}
\section{Metallicity calibration details}
\label{ap:met_cal}
We show in Table~\ref{tab:cal_star}, the calibrator stars used for the derivation of our metallicity relation. Besides the names and metallicity from the literature, we also include the line indices measured by us and the derived metallicities.
\begin{table*}
\small
\caption[]{Metallicity calibration stars (The full table is only available with the electronic paper.); column 1 list the name, column 2 the metallicity from the literature source (given in 3); column 4 the source of the K-band spectrum; column 5 and 6 give the line indices of Na and CO used for the mettallicity determination; column 7 gives the from us determined derived metallicity.}
\label{tab:cal_star}
$$
\begin{array}{p{0.23\linewidth}lllllll}
\hline
\hline
name & \mathrm{literature~[Fe/H]} & \mathrm{source~of~[Fe/H]} & \mathrm{source~of~spectrum} & \mathrm{Na~EW~[\AA]} & \mathrm{CO~EW~[\AA]} & \mathrm{derived~[Fe/H]} \\
\hline
\hline
\hline
HD 6268 & -2.382 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -0.57085 & -0.0744 & -2.01341 \\
HD 16456 & -1.382 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -0.97503 & -0.11402 & -1.20498 \\
HD 139717 & 0.298 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -1.37645 & -0.11079 & -0.41259 \\
HD 178287 & 0.268 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -2.01691 & -0.14897 & 0.85605 \\
HD 53003 & 0.148 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -1.52129 & -0.3269 & -0.16019 \\
HD 105262 & -1.852 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -0.50033 & -0.35391 & -2.16084 \\
HD 179315 & 0.338 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -1.77065 & -0.51751 & 0.30245 \\
HD 161817 & -1.222 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -0.79191 & -0.54579 & -1.60488 \\
HD 166161 & -1.122 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -0.85418 & -0.84563 & -1.50597 \\
HD 48616 & 0.168 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -1.19382 & -0.90589 & -0.86107 \\
HD 2796 & -2.442 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -0.6748 & -0.93804 & -1.85334 \\
HD 17072 & -1.002 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -0.88558 & -1.17352 & -1.44881 \\
HD 85773 & -2.262 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -0.59183 & -1.19293 & -2.01239 \\
HD 172365 & 0.208 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -1.56569 & -1.2126 & -0.17291 \\
HD 186478 & -2.222 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -0.8696 & -1.31837 & -1.49354 \\
HD 204543 & -1.972 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -0.64096 & -1.38151 & -1.92396 \\
NGC 6397 211 & -1.972 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -0.8847 & -1.38269 & -1.47791 \\
BD+18 2890 & -1.472 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -0.9283 & -1.38975 & -1.38489 \\
HD 165195 & -2.182 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -0.17826 & -1.47843 & -2.77524 \\
NGC 7078 1079 & -2.33466 & 1 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -0.63271 & -1.53196 & -1.94662 \\
HD 9051 & -1.607 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -1.05279 & -1.84992 & -1.19017 \\
2MASS J18352834-3444085 & -1.507 & 2 & \mathrm{XSL},~3 & -1.04436 & -1.91434 & -1.21294 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{array}
$$
\tablebib{
(1)~\citet{Ahumada_19}; (2)~\citet{Arentsen_19}; (3)~\citet{Gonneau_20}; (4)~\citet{Magrini_10}; (5)~\citet{Thorsbro_20}
}
\normalsize
\end{table*}
\section{Derived stellar properties}
\label{ap:star_prop}
We present the properties for all successfully observed stars in the electronic table.
A successfully observed star is defined as having a measured line-of-sight velocity and/or at least S/N$>10$.
The table lists the following properties:
Our identification number, coordinates, magnitudes in H, K, and when available also in J \citep[all from][]{Nishiyama_13}
and in the IRAC bands \citep[obtained from][]{Churchwell_09,Ipac_08}.
If there is no good match or no detection, the magnitude value is set as -999.999.
From our spectroscopy we present the overall S/N, the barycentric line-of-sight velocity and its error, the line indices of Brackett $\gamma$, Na I, Ca I, CO 2-0, H$_2$O and their errors caused by S/N.
For all stars with a CO based temperature, we also include the metallicity, its random error term and metallicity value when we omit KMOS/APOGEE or SINFONI/\citet{Thorsbro_20} for the calibration. For all stars we include the effective temperature with its random error. For stars without CO absorption (T$>$6000 K), the temperature estimate is more uncertain as also visible in the error. For all stars we show an estimate of the intrinsic H-K color and of the extinction ordering parameter ext-order. We also provide the ripples flags. Values which could not be provided are set to -999.999.
Properties of secondary sources are often less reliable, in particular the photometric properties.
The position is calculated from the brightest pixel offset relative to the primary source. That can be slightly offset when the maximum of either source is not within the IFU.
The secondary sources are too faint and too confused for large scale surveys, while the deeper GALACTICNUCLEUS survey does not cover the majority of our area.
As such we do not provide J and IRAC magnitudes for our secondary sources. We estimate K and H magnitudes from the spectra in the following way:
The K-magnitude is derived from the flux ratio comparing the secondary source relative to the primary source. Often this leads to underestimating its magnitude. We calculate the H magnitude by deriving a relationship between H-K color and K spectral slope between 1.95 and 2.29 $\mu$m for the primary sources. The scatter in this relationship is 0.37 magnitudes.
The spectral properties can be affected by flux from the primary source.
\end{appendix}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\part{}
\title{Accurately computing electronic properties of a quantum ring}
\author{C. Neill\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{T. McCourt\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{X. Mi\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{Z. Jiang\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{M. Y. Niu\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{W. Mruczkiewicz\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{I. Aleiner\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{F. Arute\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{K. Arya\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{J. Atalaya\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{R. Babbush\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{J. C.~Bardin\textsuperscript{1,2}}
\author{R. Barends\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{A. Bengtsson\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{A. Bourassa\textsuperscript{1,5}}
\author{M. Broughton\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{B. B.~Buckley\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{D. A.~Buell\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{B. Burkett\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{N. Bushnell\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{J. Campero\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{Z. Chen\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{B. Chiaro\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{R. Collins\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{W. Courtney\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{S. Demura\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{A. R. Derk\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{A. Dunsworth\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{D. Eppens\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{C. Erickson\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{E. Farhi\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{A. G.~Fowler\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{B. Foxen\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{C. Gidney\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{M. Giustina\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{J. A.~Gross\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{M. P.~Harrigan\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{S. D.~Harrington\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{J. Hilton\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{A. Ho\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{S. Hong\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{T. Huang\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{W. J. Huggins\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{S. V.~Isakov\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{M. Jacob-Mitos\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{E. Jeffrey\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{C. Jones\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{D. Kafri\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{K. Kechedzhi\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{J. Kelly\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{S. Kim\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{P. V.~Klimov\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{A. N.~Korotkov\textsuperscript{1,4}}
\author{F. Kostritsa\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{D. Landhuis\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{P. Laptev\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{E. Lucero\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{O. Martin\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{J. R.~McClean\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{M. McEwen\textsuperscript{1,3}}
\author{A. Megrant\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{K. C.~Miao\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{M. Mohseni\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{J. Mutus\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{O. Naaman\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{M. Neeley\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{M. Newman\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{T. E.~O'Brien\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{A. Opremcak\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{E. Ostby\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{B. Pató\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{A. Petukhov\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{C. Quintana\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{N. Redd\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{N. C.~Rubin\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{D. Sank\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{K. J.~Satzinger\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{V. Shvarts\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{D. Strain\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{M. Szalay\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{M. D.~Trevithick\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{B. Villalonga\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{T. C. White\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{Z. Yao\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{P. Yeh\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{A. Zalcman\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{H. Neven\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{S. Boixo\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{L.~B.~Ioffe\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{P. Roushan\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{Y. Chen\textsuperscript{1}}
\author{V. Smelyanskiy\textsuperscript{1}}
\address{\textsuperscript{1}Google Quantum AI, Mountain View, CA}
\address{\textsuperscript{2}Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA}
\address{\textsuperscript{3}Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA}
\address{\textsuperscript{4}Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Riverside, CA}
\address{\textsuperscript{5}Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL}
\date{\today}
\email[Corresponding author (V.~Smelyanskiy):]{<EMAIL>}
\email[\\Corresponding author (P.~Roushan):]{<EMAIL>}
\email[\\Corresponding author (Y.~Chen):]{<EMAIL>}
\begin{abstract}
A promising approach to study condensed-matter systems is to simulate them on an engineered quantum platform \cite{feynman1982simulating,cirac1995quantum, bloch2008many, georgescu2014quantum}. However, achieving the accuracy needed to outperform classical methods has been an outstanding challenge. Here, using eighteen superconducting qubits, we provide an experimental blueprint for an accurate condensed-matter simulator and demonstrate how to probe fundamental electronic properties. We benchmark the underlying method by reconstructing the single-particle band-structure of a one-dimensional wire. We demonstrate nearly complete mitigation of decoherence and readout errors and arrive at an accuracy in measuring energy eigenvalues of this wire with an error of \SI{\sim 0.01}{\radian}, whereas typical energy scales are of order \SI{1}{\radian}. Insight into this unprecedented algorithm fidelity is gained by highlighting robust properties of a Fourier transform, including the ability to resolve eigenenergies with a statistical uncertainty of \SI[product-units = single]{e-4}{\radian}. Furthermore, we synthesize magnetic flux and disordered local potentials, two key tenets of a condensed-matter system. When sweeping the magnetic flux, we observe avoided level crossings in the spectrum, a detailed fingerprint of the spatial distribution of local disorder. Combining these methods, we reconstruct electronic properties of the eigenstates where we observe persistent currents and a strong suppression of conductance with added disorder. Our work describes an accurate method for quantum simulation \cite{polkovnikov83nonequilibrium, carusotto2020photonic} and paves the way to study novel quantum materials with superconducting qubits.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
In condensed-matter systems, the interplay of symmetries, interactions and local fields give rise to intriguing many-body phases. Insight into these phases of matter comes from both experimental and theoretical developments; however, limitations in both approaches prevent a complete physical picture from emerging \cite{Qin2010, Jiang1424}. For example, despite enormous effort, it is still not clear which state is realized at the 5/2 filling of fractional quantum Hall and which interaction one would need to generate the desired state \cite{willett1987observation, dolev2008observation, willett2019interference}. Generally, the difficulty arises from the fact that interesting properties of quantum materials arise from subtle interference effects of many particles and small errors can lead to large deviations in observables. Neither numerical methods nor analytics have sufficient accuracy to predict such phenomena in realistic systems. While conventional experiments provide the most direct approach, the necessary observables, such as correlated measurements, are typically inaccessible and the lack of controllability limits the benefits of such experiments.
To outperform conventional approaches, quantum processors need to overcome two main sources of error: errors from control (unitary) and decoherence (non-unitary). Here, we demonstrate an experimental blueprint for achieving low control error and comprehensive mitigation of decoherence. The key insight into this development stems from robust properties of the Fourier transform. Consider a quantum signal that oscillates in time with an envelope that decays due to decoherence. Taking a Fourier transform of the signal will yield peaks at the oscillation frequencies. While decoherence (as well as readout errors) will affect the amplitude and width of the peaks, the center frequencies will remain unaffected, see Appendix \ref{sec:open_sys-ring}. On the other hand, small errors in the control parameters will manifest as shifts in the frequency of the peaks, providing a reliable signature from which we can learn these errors. The essence of our work is that studying quantum signals in the Fourier domain enables error mitigation and provides a sensitive probe of control parameters.
We apply this insight at both the level of individual pairs for calibration and at the system level for mitigating decoherence in algorithms. At the level of two qubits, gates can be applied periodically and local observables can be measured as a function of circuit depth. Small errors in the control parameters are inferred from shifts in the Fourier peaks; these errors are then corrected for. In addition, we show that these parameters can be inferred with a remarkable statistical precision below \SI[product-units = single]{e-5}{\radian}, see Appendix \ref{sec:two_q_floquet}. At the system level, a similar strategy can be used, where we apply a multi-qubit unitary periodically and monitor local observables. Here, we focus on a simple exactly-solvable model where we demonstrate an 18-qubit algorithm consisting of over 1,400 two-qubit gates with a total error in the extracted Fourier frequencies (corresponding to energy eigenvalues) of \SI{0.01}{\radian} and a statistical precision of \SI[product-units = single]{e-4}{\radian}. The 18-qubit ring formed in this experiment can be viewed as an Aharonov-Bohm interferometer. The phases associated with single qubit operations are analogous to disorder in a wire that causes a particle to scatter. The sum of these phases realizes an Aharonov-Bohm flux, which lifts the degeneracy between clockwise and counterclockwise propagating particles. In this analogy, precision stems from the sensitivity of wave interference patterns to imperfections. The underlying physics discussed in this work is general and can be adopted by other platforms.
\begin{figure}
\label{fig:engineering_flux}
\includegraphics[width=87mm]{chip_and_gates}
\caption{\textbf{Engineering a 1D system with energy, momentum \& flux. a} Schematic of the 54-qubit processor. Qubits are shown as gray crosses and tunable couplers as blue squares. Eighteen of the qubits are chosen to form a one-dimensional ring. Connecting the qubits in a ring allows us to introduce a controllable synthetic flux using single-qubit gates. \textbf{b} Schematic showing the control sequence used in these experiments. Each large vertical gray box indicates a cycle of evolution which we repeat many times. Each cycle contains two sequential layers of $\surd{\text{i}}\text{SWAP}$ gates (blue), separated by single-qubit z-rotations (gray). Periodicity in space leads to eigenstates of the cycle unitary with definite momentum. Periodicity in time introduces conservation of energy. Together, this realizes a digital circuit with well-defined physical properties such as energy spectrum, momentum, and flux.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=178mm, height=60mm]{band_structure}
\caption{\textbf{Measuring the single-particle band-structure. a} Example of typical raw-data from an 18-qubit experiment. One qubit is initialized into the state $\left|+x\right>$, a variable number of cycles in applied, and the same qubit is measured in the $x$ and $y$ basis. Expectation values are estimated from 100,000 repetitions of the experiment. \textbf{b} The Fourier transform of $\langle \text{X} \rangle + i\langle \text{Y} \rangle$ is plotted versus Fourier frequency. Peaks in the spectrum correspond to eigenvalues of the cycle unitary. Each eigenvalue corresponds to an eigenstate with definite momentum; the corresponding momentum can be determined by the order of the peaks. \textbf{c} The frequency at which each peak occurs (energy) is plotted versus the peak index (momentum) in order to recover the band structure. Statistical error bars correspond to 1,000 standard-deviations. The ideal single-particle band-structure is shown as a gray line and is given by Eq. \ref{eq:eigenvalues}. The difference between the measured and ideal curves are shown inset. This constitutes a well-defined computational problem at 18 qubits, requiring over 1,400 two-qubit gates, with a total algorithm error around \SI{0.01}{\radian}.}
\end{figure*}
We demonstrate our method using superconducting qubits with adjustable couplers as they enable control over individual frequencies, which set local fields and magnetic flux; and couplings, which set kinetic energy or hopping\,\cite{chen2014qubit, neill2017path}. A schematic of our 54-qubit processor is shown in Fig. 1a~\cite{Arute2019}. The qubits are depicted as gray crosses and the tunable couplers as blue squares. Eighteen of the qubits are isolated from the rest in order to form a ring. This geometry is chosen to realize an artificial one-dimensional wire whose electrical properties we can study \cite{giamarchi2003quantum}. While we focus on ring geometry for simplicity, our results are sufficiently general to apply to more complex connectivities, such as a two-dimensional lattice.
The gate sequence used in this work is shown in Fig. 1b. Each large vertical gray box indicates a single cycle of evolution which we repeat periodically in time. Each cycle contains two sequential layers of $\surd{\text{i}}\text{SWAP}$ gates (blue), separated by single-qubit z-rotations (gray). Within each cycle, a two-qubit gate is applied between all possible pairs in the loop. The $\surd{\text{i}}\text{SWAP}$ gates cause a particle (microwave excitation in this case) to hop between adjacent lattice sites (qubits). The z-rotations are used to generate local fields and their their summation gives rise to an effective magnetic flux that threads the qubit loop~\cite{jotzu_experimental_2014, manovitz_quantum_2020}. Here, we will focus on the dynamics of a single particle; however, our approach allows for a straightforward generalization to full many-body systems.
The connectivity and gate sequence are chosen such that the algorithm is translationally invariant in space, resulting in a cycle unitary whose eigenstates have well-defined momentum. Because the control sequence is periodic in time, the cycle unitary will have well-defined energies (known as quasi-energies).
This allows us to realize a tight-binding Hamiltonian with terms of the form $(\sigma^+_m\sigma^-_{m+1}+\sigma^-_m\sigma^+_{m+1})$,
where $\sigma^+$ ($\sigma^-$) are raising (lowering) operators that cause an excitation to propagate along the ring.
See Appendix~\ref{sub_sec:small_disorder} for details of the model and see Appendix~\ref{sec:open_sys-ring} for the embedding into qubits. The eigenstates $\psi_k$ of this model are plane-waves and eigenvalues $\omega_k$ can be expressed in terms of the momentum $k$
\begin{gather}
\psi_k(x) \propto e^{ikx}, \,\,\,\,\,\, \cos(\omega_k) = \sin^2(k/2 - \Phi)
\label{eq:eigenvalues}
\end{gather}
where $x$ is the position along the ring. Combined with the ability to introduce a synthetic magnetic field using z-rotations, we realize a digital quantum circuit with robust physical properties of momentum, energy and flux.
We probe the eigenspectrum of this 18-qubit ring using a many-body spectroscopy technique \cite{roushan2017spectroscopic}. Peaks in a spectroscopy experiment provide a robust signature of the underlying quantum system. The raw data is shown in Fig. 2a where we plot the expectation values of the Pauli-$x$ and Pauli-$y$ operators on a single qubit (denoted $\langle \text{X} \rangle$ and $\langle \text{Y} \rangle$) as a function of the number of cycles in the control sequence. While the raw data does not contain particularly intuitive features, the complex Fourier transform of $\langle \text{X} \rangle + i\langle \text{Y} \rangle$ has the special property that peaks show up only at frequencies corresponding to the energy eigenvalues. The Fourier transform of the time-domain data is shown in Fig. 2b where we observe clear, well-resolved peaks.
In the absence of local fields (z-rotations), the dynamics are governed entirely by the kinetic energy (or hopping), and a simple plane-wave model describes the spectrum. This allows us to associate with each peak a corresponding value of momentum by simply noting the index of the peak, starting from 0. The momentum has units of $4\pi/N_q$, where $2\pi/N_q$ corresponds to the lattice spacing in a typical condensed matter setting and the extra factor of 2 comes the discrete evolution using gates.
In Fig. 2c we show the measured energy as a function of the inferred momentum, realizing an experimental technique for extracting the single-particle band-structure. The energies are inferred by fitting the data to the expression
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fitting_model}
\langle \text{X} \rangle + i \langle \text{Y} \rangle = e^{-\Gamma d}\sum_k A_k e^{-i \omega_k d}
\end{equation}
where $d$ are the measured circuit depths, $\Gamma$ is a damping rate, and $A_k$ are Fourier amplitudes. This expression is derived in Appendix~\ref{sec:uniformG}. The difference between ideal eigenvalues (given by Eq. \ref{eq:eigenvalues}) and the measured eigenvalues is shown in the inset with a typical value of around \SI{0.01}{\radian}, an unprecedented level of accuracy for an 18-qubit experiment with over 1,400 two-qubit gates.
Extracting information from the Fourier domain has other salient features that were crucial in arriving at our results. At large circuit depths, decoherence causes the signal to fall below the noise level of the experiment. Maintaining a high signal-to-noise ratio is therefore key to scalable error mitigation. Fourier transforms have the important property that the statistical uncertainty scales inversely with the length of the time-domain signal.
Consider a shallow circuit of depth $D$ where coherence can be neglected. In this limit, the statistical uncertainty $\sigma$ scales as $1/\sqrt{N} \times 1/D$, where $N$ is the number of measurements. In the supplementary we provide the explicit relation and show that this physics is general and is not affected by the damping rate $\Gamma$.
The factor $1/D$ is expected when taking a Fourier transform and the factor $1/\sqrt{N}$ is the standard expression for finite-sampling noise. Here, we benefit from both factors because we fit the data to Eq.~\ref{eq:fitting_model} rather than simply taking a Fourier transform. Experimentally, the statistical uncertainty in the measured eigenvalues are computed using bootstrap resampling and are shown as error-bars in Fig. 2c, multiplied by 1,000 so as to be visible. The typical uncertainty in the measured eigenvalues is of order \SI[product-units = single]{e-4}{\radian}. This method provides a remarkably high precision tool for probing eigenvalues in large quantum systems.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=178mm, height=60mm]{flux}
\caption{\textbf{Synthetic flux as a probe of local disorder. a} Gate decomposition for producing local fields and complex hoppings. The sum of the hopping phases over all pairs realizes a synthetic flux. \textbf{b} The spectrum of the cycle unitary is plotted as a function of flux in the case of nominally zero disorder. The ideal spectrum is shown as black lines. Expectation values are estimated using 30,00 samples. \textbf{c} The pattern of added disorder is plotted as a function of position along the ring of qubits. \textbf{d} The measured spectrum as a function of flux in the case of added disorder. Only the expected transitions become gapped. This demonstrates the correspondence between gaps in the spectrum and the spatial Fourier components of disorder in the system. In addition, the absence of significant splitting in the native disorder case indicates that intrinsic disorder is small.}
\end{figure*}
The energy levels of atoms and materials shift in the presence of an external magnetic field, providing a simple probe of the underlying system. In Fig. 3a, we provide a control sequence for producing a synthetic magnetic field which we will use to probe disorder in the local potentials ($\xi$). By applying a specific pattern of z-rotations around the $\surd{\text{i}}\text{SWAP}$ gate, we can produce a complex hopping, such that a particle hopping between adjacent lattice sites accumulates the phase $\chi$; see Appendix~\ref{sec:gauge}. The sum of these phases across all links produces a magnetic flux, $\Phi = \sum \chi$. This is analogous to the Aharonov-Bohm phase~\cite{aharonov_significance_1959} that an electron accumulates when circulating in a conducting ring threaded by a magnetic flux. In addition to flux, the z-rotations can be used to control the phase of the particle in the cases that it stays on the same site, corresponding to a dynamical phase $\xi$ that a particle would accumulate in a local potential.
The measured energy eigenvalues are plotted as a function of flux in Fig. 3b. The data (blue circles) are placed atop the exact spectrum (black lines) where we observe excellent agreement between data and theory. At zero flux, the spectrum is highly degenerate; away from zero flux, the eigenvalues split. This happens because in the absence of an external flux, a particle travelling clockwise and counter-clockwise have the same energy by symmetry. The application of flux breaks this symmetry (known as chirality). Disorder in the local potentials will also break this degeneracy and lead to gaps in the measured spectrum. These gaps enable us to infer the spatial distribution of the disorder through the relation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:gaps}
\mbox{gap}_k \propto \frac{1}{N_q} \left| \sum_{x=1}^{N_q} \xi_x e^{ikx} \right|
\end{equation}
where $\mbox{gap}_k$ is the gap at momentum $k$ and $\xi_x$ is the local field at position $x$; the right hand side of this expression is simply the Fourier transform of the local fields at spatial-frequency $k$. See Appendix~\ref{sub_sec:small_disorder} for a derivation that includes over-rotations in the swap angles. This is quite a remarkable result: gaps in the spectrum correspond one-to-one to the spatial Fourier components of disorder. This provides a scalable metrology tool for diagnosing control errors in quantum algorithms.
In order to better understand this effect, we controllably inject disorder into the local fields. The pattern of local disorder is shown in Fig. 3c. Rather than random disorder which will open gaps at all values of momentum, we have chosen to add disorder with a single spatial frequency to highlight Eq. \ref{eq:gaps}. The resulting spectrum with added disorder is shown in Fig. 3d where we observe gaps form at the expected transitions. The ability to systematically control the disorder enables us to explore novel condensed-matter systems, such as many-body localized phases \cite{pal2010many, ponte2015many, schreiber2015observation}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=178mm, height=60mm]{conductance}
\caption{\textbf{Inferring current and conductance from avoided level crossings. a} Plot of energy versus flux for a single value of momentum. Near zero flux, we observe an avoided level crossing caused by intrinsic disorder in the local fields. A fit to the data to a simple avoided level crossing model is shown as solid lines. \textbf{b} The derivative of the energy with respect to flux is shown versus flux. This quantity corresponds to the expectation value of current in each eigenstate. For small fluxes, a linear response to flux is observed; for large flux, current is independent of flux, corresponding to persistent current states. \textbf{c} The second derivative of energy is shown versus the amplitude of added disorder. This quantity corresponds to the conductance of the loop. We observe a strong suppression of conductance with added disorder. These results demonstrate that expectation values of observables in eigenstates can be measured with high precision and accuracy.}
\end{figure*}
In typical condensed-matter systems, disorder leads to scattering and is the origin of electrical resistance. In order to study this effect, we focus on the degeneracy near zero flux, as this region of the spectrum is first-order sensitive to disorder. Figure 4a shows a zoom in of the spectrum at $k=\pm 5$. Disorder in the local fields cause a small gap to form between the two levels. In this region, the spectrum is well fit by a simple avoided level crossing model, shown as solid lines. This generic model for the behavior near a level crossing will enable us to infer electrical properties of the eigenstates.
When an external magnetic field $\Phi$ give raise to a current $I$ in a wire, the Hamiltonian can be written as $H = \Phi I$. This enables us to define the current operator as simply $\hat{I} = dH/d\Phi$. The expectation value of the current in an eigenstate is then given by the relation
\begin{equation}
\langle \psi_k | \hat{I} | \psi_k \rangle = \frac{d \omega_k}{d\Phi}
\end{equation}
where $| \psi_k \rangle$ is the energy eigenstate at momentum k and $\omega_k$ is the corresponding eigenvalue. In Fig. 4b we show the extracted current as a function of flux for the eigenstates at momentum $k=\pm 5$. Near zero flux, where disorder dominates, we observe a linear dependence of current on flux, similar to that of a classical system. Away from zero flux, we observe current that is independent of disorder - known as persistent current states, similar to that of a superconducting loop \cite{kleemans2007oscillatory, bleszynski2009persistent}. These results demonstrate that expectation values of observables in eigenstates can be extracted from the spectrum.
The ability to measure current also enables us to infer the conductance of our one-dimensional quantum wire. We use the reasoning introduced by Thouless et al that establishes a connection between the conductance of a disordered wire and the energy levels dependence on magnetic flux~\cite{thouless_quantized_1982}. Briefly, conductance can be defined as dissipation associated with the unit voltage applied to the wire or the one resulting from flux that changes linearly with time in a ring. The single particle energy levels on a ring move as a function of the flux and experience avoided crossings. Each such crossing leads to dissipation when the level is occupied by an electron. Therefore, one concludes that the physical conductance of a wire is proportional to the product of the slope of current versus flux near zero flux and the density of states~\cite{braun1997level}; this equation relates the non-equilibrium property conductance to the single particle spectrum. This quantity is known as Thouless conductance. In Fig. 4c we plot Thouless conductance as a function of added disorder and observe a strong suppression of the conductance with increasing disorder. A numerical simulation is shown as a black line. Because this quantity is computed from eigenvalues, it retains the unprecedented accuracy and precision inherent in using a Fourier transform to process the experimental data.
Quantum processors hold the promise to solve computationally hard tasks beyond the capability of classical approaches. However, in order for these engineered platforms to be considered as serious contenders, they must offer computational accuracy beyond the current state-of-the-art classical methods. While analytical approaches occasionally provide exact solutions, they quickly lose their relevance upon small perturbations to the underlying Hamiltonian. Numerical methods, in addition to tackling groundstate problems, can handle the dynamics of highly excited states and non-equilibrium phenomena. Currently, the most powerful numerical methods, such as DMRG, have roots in renormalization group ideas and are successful in 1D and quasi-1D geometries \cite{white1992density, white1993numerical}. In dealing with higher spatial dimensions where entanglement spreads widely in space or grows rapidly in time, all numerical methods resort to approximations, where parts of the Hilbert space are truncated to make the computation feasible. As a result of these limitations, one can safely claim that, for example, studying dynamics in an 8 by 8 spin lattice with local arbitrary interactions and predicting observables with $1\%$ accuracy is beyond any classical computational method. With the experimental advancements presented here, going beyond this classical horizon seems within reach in the very near future.
\vspace{-3mm}
\section*{Author Contributions}
\noindent \small{C.N. designed and executed the experiment. C.N, and P.R. wrote the manuscript. C.N., T.M., and V.S wrote the supplementary material. V.S., S.B., T.M., Z.J, X.M., L.I., and C.N. provided the theoretical support and analysis techniques, theory of Floquet Calibration, and the open system model. Y. C., V. S., and H. N. led and coordinated the project. Infrastructure support was provided by the hardware team. All authors contributed to revising the manuscript and the supplementary Information.}
\textbf{Data and materials availability:} The data presented in the main text and python code for processing the data can be found in the Dryad repository located at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.4f4qrfj9x.
\section*{Methods}
Here, we use the Sycamore quantum processor consisting of 54 superconducting qubits and 86 tunable couplers in a two-dimensional array~\cite{Arute2019}. This processor consists of gmon qubits (transmons with tunable coupling) with frequencies ranging from 5 to 7 GHz. These frequencies are chosen to mitigate a variety of error mechanisms such as two-level defects. Our coupler design allows us to quickly tune the qubit–qubit coupling from 0 to 40+ MHz. The chip is connected to a superconducting circuit board and cooled down to below 20 mK in a dilution refrigerator.
Each qubit has a microwave control line used to drive an excitation and a flux control line to tune the frequency. The processor is connected through filters to room-temperature electronics that synthesize the control signals. We execute single-qubit X, Y, X/2 and Y/2 gates by driving 25ns microwave pulses resonant with the qubit transition frequency. Single-qubit Z-rotations are implemented using 10ns flux pulses. The qubits are connected to a resonator that is used to read out the state of the qubit. The state of all qubits can be read simultaneously by using a frequency-multiplexing.
Initial device calibration is performed using 'Optimus' where calibration experiments are represented as nodes in a graph~\cite{kelly2018physical}. On top of these initial experiments, we perform a new two-qubit calibration technique known as 'Floquet Calibrations.' The name Floquet Calibrations is based on the idea that we want to calibrate a periodic sequence of gates; the unitary describing one period of evolution is known as the Floquet unitary. This technique is very similar to a Ramsey experiment where greater precision is achieved at long times. Details of this procedure are presented in the supplementary materials.
\section{Floquet Calibrations for two-qubit gates}\label{sec:two_q_floquet}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=178mm, height=60mm]{sup_figures/periodic_cals.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Two-qubit gate calibration: strategy overview. a} General representation of a photon-conserving two-qubit gate, truncated to the single-particle subspace. This model has four parameters. The parameter $\theta$ describes how much the particle hops between qubits. The parameter $\zeta$ is the phase the particle accumulates when it stays on the same site (corresponding to a local field). The parameter $\chi$ is the phase the particle accumulates when it hops (corresponding to a complex hopping). The parameter $\gamma$ is a global phase. \textbf{b} Two methods for extracting parameters in the Fourier domain by repeated application of the two-qubit gate separated by single-qubit z-rotations. The z-rotation provides a probe which can be varied to determine parameters. \textbf{c} Table showing the Fourier frequencies that each method resolves. \textbf{d} Calibration procedure for determining $\theta$, $\zeta$ and $\gamma$ from the measured Fourier frequencies. The remaining parameter $\chi$ cannot be determined from frequencies at two qubits as it corresponds to a flux and thus requires a ring of qubits.}
\label{fig:2q_diag}
\end{figure}
In this work, we report an 18-qubit algorithm consisting of over 1,400 two-qubit gates with a total error in energy eigenvalues of 0.01 radians. How is such an unprecedented accuracy possible? As described in the main text, errors from T1, T2 and readout are mitigated by processing the data in the frequency domain and extracting peak locations. After this mitigation, the algorithm error is dominated by miscalibrations in the single and two-qubit gates. This places the problem of resolving small control errors at the center stage. In this section, we describe a new procedure, called Floquet Calibrations, that allows us to resolve control errors with a remarkable precision below $10^{-5}$ radians. The name Floquet Calibrations is based on the idea that we want to calibrate a periodic sequence of gates; the unitary describing one period of evolution is known as the Floquet unitary. This technique is very similar to a Ramsey experiment where greater precision is achieved at long times; we now apply this principle to two-qubit gate calibration.
An overview of Floquet Calibrations is described in Fig.~\ref{fig:2q_diag}. The general strategy is to repeat a two-qubit gate many times in order to amplify the control errors. For example, consider a dial which is slightly over-rotated every time it is turned (e.g. 360.1 degrees instead of 360 degrees) - this small over-rotation might be hard to detect. However, if we repeatedly rotate the dial many times, we can amplify the small error until it is large enough to easily measure. The same idea can be applied to gates by repeating the operation many times, thus amplifying any small over-rotations.
The model that we use to describe gate parameters is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2q_diag} a. This model represents the most general form of a unitary in the single-particle subspace of two qubits - this is the subspace of interest for the experiments in this paper. Our goal is to learn the parameters of this model with high precision so that we can then correct for any offsets from the ideal values. Each of the four parameters can be assigned intuitive physical meanings: a local field, a complex hopping, a global phase and a swap angle. Note that at two qubits, we will not be able to learn the complex hopping, as this physically corresponds to a magnetic flux, requiring a loop in order to amplify the parameter (see main text).
Two examples of periodic circuits that can be used to infer the control parameters is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2q_diag} b. In both cases, we repeat the two-qubit gate periodically in time. Between each gate we apply a variable z-rotation by the angle $\alpha$ which we will use as a probe of the gate parameters ($\alpha$ is the same at each depth). The key difference between the two methods is the initialization and measurement basis. The first method is similar to a T1 experiment (excite one qubit, measure in the z-basis). The second method is similar to a Ramsey experiment (intitialize along the equator, measure along the equator). These experiments will provide access to different information about the unitary parameters.
For both methods, we process the data in the Fourier domain and extract oscillation frequencies. This strategy has the benefit of being robust to T1, T2 and readout errors as well as amplifying the signal by going to large depths. The Fourier frequencies extracted by either method is shown in Fig. ~\ref{fig:2q_diag} c. The key difference is that the phase method is sensitive to the global phase whereas the population method is not. Generally, for any number of qubits in the circuit, the phase method has frequencies at the eigenvalues of the unitary (as we show in the main text); the population method has frequencies at all possible differences between eigenvalues.
Putting all of these ideas together enables a simple, robust and accurate method for calibrating two-qubit gates. An overview of this procedure is shown in Fig. ~\ref{fig:2q_diag} d. Only two values of the probe angle $\alpha$ are needed to extract all of the parameters; more values may be included as a consistency check of the model. The eigenvalues of the unitary $\Omega$ can be measured using either method and the expression
\begin{equation}
\cos(\Omega) = \cos(\theta) \cos(\xi + \alpha)
\end{equation}
can be used to extract the control parameters $\theta$ and $\xi$. The last parameter $\gamma$ can be extracted using the phase method by finding the center point between the two Fourier peaks.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=178mm, height=60mm]{sup_figures/freq_estimation_2q.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Two-qubit gate calibration: Fast, high-precision frequency estimation. a} Raw time-domain data used to extract Fourier frequencies for two-qubit gate calibration. Depths are spaced logarithmically in order to enable fast acquisition of the signal. The data is fit for an oscillation frequency $\omega$ and damping rate $\Gamma$. \textbf{b} Statistical uncertainty in the oscillation frequency as a function of depth, computed using bootstrap resampling. The ideal analytic curve is shown in gray where $N_m=50,000$ is the number of measurements taken at each depth. At large depth decoherence dominates and uncertainty plateaus at around $6 \times 10^{-6}$ radians. \textbf{c} The mean-squared fitting cost is shown as a function of $\omega$ for three values of depth. Deeper circuits correspond to a sharper minima around the optimal frequency, corresponding to an improved accuracy with increasing depth. \textbf{d} Optimal frequency as function of depth. We observe variations in the oscillation frequency on the order of $10^{-4}$ radians.
}
\label{fig:2q_var}
\end{figure*}
Our calibration scheme is based on extracting Fourier frequencies from measurements of single-qubit observables. Fig.~\ref{fig:2q_var} a shows a typical dataset used in this procedure where we observe a rather simple damped oscillation in $\langle z \rangle$ as a function of depth. Sparse sampling in depth is used in order to enable fast acquisition of the signal. It takes around one minute to measure 23 separate depths (d) out to $d=1,500$ with 50,000 repetitions at each depth. A fit to the data is shown in gray which enables us to extract an oscillation frequency and a damping rate. The oscillation frequency can be used to infer control parameters and the damping rate provides a metric of decoherence.
The longer we measure the signal, the more precisely we can infer the Fourier frequencies. Fig.~\ref{fig:2q_var} b shows the statistical uncertainty in the extracted oscillation frequency as a function of the maximum depth considered, computed using bootstrap resampling. The data shows orders of magnitude reduction in the uncertainty with increasing depth, reaching a plateau of $6\times 10^{-6}$ radians. The expected behavior is shown as a gray line and depends only on the maximum depth (d), the number of measurements $N_m$ and the damping rate $\Gamma$. Note that the corresponding error (1 - fidelity) is quadratic in the over-rotation, corresponding to an error as low as $4 \times 10^{-11}$.
Intuition into this precision can be gained by looking into the optimization landscape for learning the oscillation frequency. Fig.~\ref{fig:2q_var} c shows the cost function around the optimal frequency for three values of maximum circuit depth. Deeper circuits correspond to a sharper minima, leading to more precision in estimating the optimal value. Fig.~\ref{fig:2q_var} d shows the extracted frequency as a function of depth where we observe small drift at the level of $10^{-4}$ radians. Potential sources of this include fitting-bias at short depth, time-correlated errors in the control signals, and low-frequency noise.
\section{Periodic circuit on a qubit ring: Unitary evolution}
Let us consider a periodic circuit composed of 2-qubit gates acting over a linear array of $N$ qubits, where the gate $U_j$ is applied on qubits $j$ and $j+1$. The circuit unitary depicted in the Fig.~\ref{fig:ring} is equal to
\begin{equation}
U(d)=U_\mathrm{cycle}^{d}, \quad U_{\rm cycle}=\prod_{j=1}^{N/2}U_{2j} \prod_{j=1}^{N/2} U_{2j-1} \;.\label{eq:Ud}
\end{equation}
Here $U_{\rm cycle}$ is a cycle unitary composed of two layers of gates. In the first layer the gates are applied between odd and even qubits, and in the second layer the gates are applied between even and odd qubits. We shall assume that the number of qubits $N$ is even.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width= 5.5in]{sup_figures/closed_chain.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Linear chain circuit structure} a periodic circuit on a linear chain with even number of qubits $N=2L$ (cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:Ud})). Gate $U_N$ is applied between $N^{\rm th}$ and $1^{\rm st}$ qubits. \label{fig:ring}}
\end{figure}
The circuit unitary can be expressed in terms of it's Floquet eigenstates and eigenvalues
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eigen}
U(d)=U_\mathrm{cycle}^{d}=\sum_{\alpha}e^{-i \,d \,\omega_\alpha}\ket{\psi^\alpha}\bra{\psi^\alpha}\;,
\end{equation}
where $\omega_\alpha$ are usually referred to as quasi-energies. Here, we will focus on unitaries $U_\mathrm{cycle}$ that preserve the total number of excitations in a chain and consider the case with 1 and 0 excitations (the vacuum state $\ket{0}$ is an eigenstate of $U_\mathrm{cycle}$ with
$\omega_0=0$). On a short time scale when decoherence can be neglected observable quantities are expressed in terms of the matrix elements of the superoperator
\begin{equation}
U(d)\otimes U^{\dag}(d)=\sum_{\alpha,\beta}e^{-i d\, \omega_{\alpha\beta}}F_{\alpha\beta},\quad \omega_{\alpha\beta}=\omega_\alpha-\omega_\beta\;,\label{eq:super}
\end{equation}
where $F_{\alpha\beta} =\ket{\psi_\alpha}\otimes \ket{\psi_\beta}\bra{\psi_\alpha}\otimes \bra{ \psi_\beta}$. In the limit $d \gg 1$, small changes in the gate parameters will lead to large changes in the phase factors $e^{-i d \omega_{\alpha\beta}}$. Therefore from stand point of Floquet calibration the dependence of quasi-energy differences $\omega_{\alpha\beta}$ on the gate parameters are of a predominant importance.
In what following we will consider the transformation of the periodic circuit unitaries to the form
$U_\mathrm{cycle}^{d}=\mathfrak R\, {\mathfrak U}^d\,{\mathfrak R}^{\dag}$
where the unitary $\mathfrak R$ does not affect the quasi-energies while ${\mathfrak U}$ represents the reduced (canonical) form of the cycle unitary that depends on a smaller number of gate parameters than the original circuit unitary $U_\mathrm{cycle}^{d}$.
Formally, each two-qubit gate $U_j$ is defined by 5 parameters: 3 single qubit phases $\chi_j, \zeta_j, \gamma_j$, swap angle $\theta_j$ and CZ phase $\varphi_j$. The cycle unitary $U_{\rm cycle}$ contains $N$ gates and the total number of the parameters is $5N$. As will be shown below the number of parameters on which the quasi-energy differences $\omega_{\alpha\beta}$ depend upon will be much smaller.
To determine this we shall perform the transformation of the unitary $U_{\rm cycle}^{d}$ to the simplified ``canonical" form as described below.
\subsection{Excitation conserving 2-qubit gates}
Throughout the paper the basic element of the circuit is an excitation-conserving two-qubit gate. Its most general form is given below with the basis states in the order $\ket{00},\ket{01},\ket{10},\ket{11}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Uf}
\begin{split}
\begin{gathered}
\mathfrak{U}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & e^{-i (\gamma +\zeta )} \cos (\theta ) & -i e^{-i (\gamma -\chi )} \sin (\theta ) & 0 \\
0 & -i e^{-i (\gamma +\chi )} \sin (\theta ) & e^{-i (\gamma -\zeta )} \cos (\theta ) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & e^{-i (2 \gamma +\varphi )} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\end{gathered}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We denote this gate applied between the qubits $j$ and $j$+1
as $\mathfrak{U}=U_j$. Its expression in terms of the Pauli matrices of the qubits is
\begin{equation}
U_j=e^{-i \left(n_j+n_{j+1}\right) \gamma _j}\,e^{i \left(n_j-n_{j+1}\right) \left(\frac{\zeta _j-\chi _j}{2}\right)} u_j(\theta_j,\varphi_j) e^{i \left(n_j-n_{j+1}\right) \left(\frac{\zeta _j+\chi _j}{2}\right)}\;,\label{eq:Uj}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
n_j=\frac{ 1-\sigma_j^z }{2}\;,\label{eq:nj}
\end{equation}
is a number operator and the $u_j$ are the ``bare" two-qubit unitaries of the iSWAP type
\begin{equation}
u_j(\theta,\varphi)=\exp \left(-i \theta \left(\sigma _j^+\sigma _{j+1}^-+\sigma _j^-\sigma _{j+1}^+\right)-i \varphi \,n_j
n_{j+1}\right)\;.\label{eq:uj}
\end{equation}
In the single excitation subspace the gate $U_j$ can be written in the form (up to an overall phase factor $e^{-i \gamma _j}$)
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:gate_unitary}
U_j=e^{i \zeta _j}|j\rangle \langle j| \cos \theta _j-i e^{i \chi _j}|j+1\rangle \langle j| \sin\theta_j-i e^{-i \chi
_j} |j\rangle \langle j+1|\sin\theta_j+e^{-i \zeta _j}|j+1\rangle \langle j+1| \sin\theta_j
\end{equation}
where we introduced the basis states
\begin{equation}
|j\rangle =|0_10_2\text{$\ldots $0}_{j-1}1_j0_{j+1}\text{$\ldots $0}_n\rangle\;,\label{eq:basis}
\end{equation}
where $|j\rangle $ corresponds to the qubit $j$ in the state 1 and the rest of the qubits in the state 0.
In analogy to the tight binding model describing the motion of a charge in a magnetic field \cite{kohn1959theory}, $\chi_j$ is a Peierls phase corresponding to the integral of the vector potential along the hopping path. Therefore one might expect that the physical properties of the system will depend on the magnetic flux through the ring $\sum_{j=1}^{N}\chi_j$. To reveal this property we study the gauge transformation in the next section.
\subsection{Local gauge transformation of the circuit unitary to the canonical form}
\label{sec:gauge}
We start by writing the cycle unitary in a form that separates the single-qubit $z$-rotations from the two-qubit gates $V_j$
\begin{equation}
U_{\rm cycle}=R_{\lambda }V_e\, R_{\alpha }\, V_o\, R_{\beta }\;, \label{eq:cycle}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
V_e=\prod_{k=1}^{L}u_{2j},\quad V_o=\prod_{k=1}^{L-1}u_{2j+1},\quad L=\frac{N}{2}\;.\label{eq:VoVe}
\end{equation}
where $u_k\equiv u_k(\theta_k,\varphi_k)$ and $V_o$, $V_e$ correspond to the first and second layer of the two-qubit unitaries $u_j$ (\ref{eq:uj}) and we used the fact that in the circuits we consider the number of qubits $N=2L$ in a chain is even.
In Eq.~(\ref{eq:cycle}) above the matrices of single-qubit rotations appear at the beginning of first layer of gates ($R_{\beta }$), between the layers ($R_{\alpha }$) and after the second layer
($R_{\lambda }$)
\begin{align}
R_{\lambda }=\exp\left(-i \sum _{k=1}^{L-1} \left(n_{2k}+n_{2k+1}\right) \gamma _{2k}+\frac{i}{2}\sum _{k=1}^{L-1} \left(n_{2k}-n_{2k+1}\right)
\left(\zeta _{2k}-\chi _{2k}\right)\right),\label{eq:Rlambda}\\
R_{\alpha }= \exp \left( \frac{i}{2} \sum _{k=1}^{L-1} \left(n_{2k}-n_{2k+1}\right) \left(\zeta _{2k}+\chi _{2k}\right)+\frac{i}{2}\sum _{k=1}^L \left(n_{2k-1}-n_{2k}\right)
\left(\zeta _{2k-1}-\chi _{2k-1}\right)\right),\label{eq:Ralpha} \\
R_{\beta }= \exp \left( \frac{i}{2} \sum _{k = 1}^{L} \left(n_{2k-1}-n_{2k}\right) \left(\zeta _{2k-1}+\chi _{2k-1}\right)-i\sum _{k = 1}^{L} \left(n_{2k-1}+n_{2k}\right)
\gamma _{2k-1}\right)\;.\label{eq:Rbeta}
\end{align}
Let us now consider the circuit unitary $U_{\rm cycle}^{d}$ after $d$ cycles. We push $R_{\lambda }$ to the beginning of the next cycle, yeilding
\begin{equation*}
U_{\rm cycle}^{d}=R_{\lambda }\,U^{d }\,R_{\lambda }^{-1}
\qquad U=\,V_e\,R_{\alpha }\,V_o\,R_{\beta }\,R_{\lambda }
\end{equation*}
We further split $R_{\alpha }$ into two parts
\begin{equation*}
R_{\alpha }=R_{\alpha }^{(-) }\,R_{\alpha }^{(+)}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
R_{\alpha }^{(\pm)}=\exp\left(-i \sum _{k=1}^L \left( n_{2k+1}\pm n_{2k}\right)a_k^{\pm} \right)
\end{equation*}
where we imply the periodicity condition
\begin{equation}
n_{N+1}=n_1\;.\label{eq:per}
\end{equation}
The unitary $R_{\alpha }^{(+) }$ can be commuted through the second layers of iSWAP gates
\begin{equation}
\left[V_e,R_{\alpha }^{(+)}\right]=0,\label{q:commZaVe}
\end{equation}
while the unitary $R_{\alpha }^{(-) }$ cannot. The explicit form of the coefficients $a_k^-$ is
\begin{equation}
a_k^-=\frac{\zeta _{2k}+\chi _{2k}}{2}-\frac{\zeta _{2k+1}+\zeta _{2k-1}-\chi _{2k+1}-\chi _{2k-1}}{4},\quad k\in (1,L-1)\label{eq:am}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
a_N^-=\frac{\zeta _1-\chi _1+\zeta _{N-1}-\chi _{N-1}-2\left(\zeta _N+\chi _N\right)}{4}\label{eq:anm}
\end{equation}
The coefficients $a_k^+$ are not very important and will be given later.
Using the above commutation relation we can write after $d$ cycles
\begin{equation}
U_{\rm cycle}^{d}=R_{\lambda }\,R_{\alpha }^{(+)}\,\tilde U^{d}_{\rm cycle}\,\left( R_{\alpha }^{(+)}\,R_{\lambda
}\right){}^{-1}\;,
\end{equation}
where the new cycle unitary has the form
\begin{equation}
\tilde U_{\rm cycle}= V_e\,R_{\alpha }^{(-)} V_o\,\ R_{\alpha }^{(-)\,\dagger}\,R\;.\label{eq:Uc1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
R=R_{\alpha }\,R_{\beta }\,R_{\lambda }\,\label{eq:R}
\end{equation}
is simply a product of all single-qubit phase gates of the original cycle unitary $U_{\rm cycle}$ (\ref{eq:cycle}).
We seek to simplify the factor $R_{\alpha }^{(-)} V_o\, R_{\alpha }^{(-)\,\dagger}$ in (\ref{eq:Uc1}) by making the local {\it gauge} transformation of the unitary $\tilde U_{\rm cycle}$
\begin{equation*}
\mathfrak{U}=S\,\tilde U_{\rm cycle}\,S^{-1}=\,V_e \left(R_{\alpha }^{(-)} S\right)V_o\left( R_{\alpha }^{(-)} S\right){}^{-1} R
\end{equation*}
where $ S$ has the form
\begin{equation}
S=\prod_{j=1}^{L} \exp\left(- i \left(n_{2j}+n_{2j+1}\right)\varrho _j\right), \quad [ V_e,S]=0\;,\label{eq:Rfr}
\end{equation}
and we used the fact that $[V_e,S]=0$.
Our strategy is to choose the coefficients $\varrho _j$ in such a way that the phase gate $R_{\alpha }^{(-)} S$ has the form where all factors commute with $V_o$ except for a single link
\begin{equation}
[R_{\alpha }^{(-)} S,V_o]=[e^{-i\,\frac{1}{2}\left(n_1-n_N\right) \phi},V_o]\;.\label{eq:coimm}
\end{equation}
for some value of the gauge field $\phi$. This can be achieved if the unitary $R_{\alpha }^{(-)} S$ has the form
\begin{equation}
R_{\alpha }^{(-)} S=e^{ -i \sum _{j=1}^{N/2} \left(n_{2j-1}+n_{2j}\right)b_j}e^{-i\,\frac{1}{2}\left(n_1-n_N\right) \phi}\;,\label{eq:RR}
\end{equation}
with some coefficients $b_j$. Under this condition the expression for the circuit unitary after $d$ cycles can be written in the form
\begin{equation}
U_{\text{\rm cycle}}^d=\mathfrak{R}\,\mathfrak{U}^{d }\mathfrak{R}^{-1},\label{eq:Uc2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{U}= V_e \, e^{-i\,\frac{1}{2}\left(n_1-n_N\right) \phi }\,V_o\,e^{i\,\frac{1}{2}\left(n_1-n_N\right) \phi } R\;.\label{eq:Ufr}
\end{equation}
where $V_e$, $V_o$ are given in (\ref{eq:VoVe}). Phase $\phi$ plays a role of the gauge field on a ring and the local gauge transformation $\mathfrak{R}$ equals
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{R}=S^{-1} R_{\lambda }\,R_{\alpha}^{(+)}\;.\label{eq:Rf}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Gauge field $\phi$}
Equating right and left hand sides in (\ref{eq:RR}) we can readily obtain the set of
$\varrho_j$ and $b_j$ coefficients. In particular, one can show that
\begin{equation*}
\phi=2\sum _{j=1}^L a_j^-,\quad b_k\,=a_1^-+2\sum _{j=2}^{k-1} a_j^-,\quad k\in (1,L)
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\varrho_1=0,\quad \varrho _k=a_1^-+a_k^-+2\sum _{j=2}^{k-1} a_j^-\quad k\in(2,L-1),\quad
\varrho _L=\sum _{j=2}^{L-1} a_j^-
\end{equation*}
Using explicit form of the coefficients $a_j^-$ from (\ref{eq:am}),(\ref{eq:anm}) we get
\begin{equation}
\phi=\sum _{k=1}^N (\chi _k+(-1)^k\zeta _k)\;.\label{eq:B}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Derivation of the phase gate unitary $R$}
Also one can readily obtain the explicit form of the phase gate operator in (\ref{eq:R})
\begin{equation}
R =e^{-i \sum _{j=1}^N \nu _jn_j}\label{eq:Rnu}
\end{equation}
where the parameters $\nu _j$ do not depend on the angles $\chi_j$
\begin{align}
\nu _{2m}&=\zeta _{2m-1}-\zeta _{2m} +\gamma _{2m}+\gamma _{2m-1}\label{eq:nu} \\
\nonumber \\
\nu _{2m+1}&=\zeta _{2m}-\zeta _{2m+1} +\,\gamma _{2m}+\,\gamma _{2m+1}\nonumber
\end{align}
where we implied cycle conditions $\nu_j=\nu_{j+N}$. We fix that the global phase to be zero hence
\begin{equation}
\sum _{j=1}^n \nu_j=0\;.\label{eq:cond}
\end{equation}
One can see that the dependence on the angles $\zeta_j$ and $\gamma_j$ comes only in terms of the combinations (\ref{eq:nu}). Therefore without loss of generality we can set $\gamma_j=0$.
\subsubsection{Local gauge transformation $\mathfrak{R}$}
Using the equations (\ref{eq:Rlambda}), (\ref{eq:Rfr}) and (\ref{eq:Rf}) we obtain
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{R}=e^{i \mathfrak{r}}\;,\label{eq:Rf1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{r}=\frac{1}{2}\sum _{k=1}^L \left[\left(n_{2k}+n_{2k+1}\right)f_k+\left(n_{2k}-n_{2k+1}\right)\left(\zeta _{2k}-\chi _{2k}\right)\right]\;,\label{eq:rf}
\end{equation}
where site number operators $n_j$ are given in (\ref{eq:nj}) and quantities $f_k$ expressed in terms of the combinations of single-qubit phases $x_k$
\begin{equation*}
x_k\equiv \chi _k+(-1)^k\zeta _k
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
f_1=\frac{x_1-x_3}{2}\hspace{8 mm}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
f_2=\frac{x_1+2x_2+3 x_3+2 x_4}{2}\hspace{5 mm}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\hspace{3 mm}f_k=\frac{x_1+2x_2+3x_3}{2}+x_{2k}+2\sum _{j=4}^{2k-1} x_j\hspace{9 mm}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
f_{n/2}=\frac{x_3-x_1}{2}+\sum _{j=4}^{n-1} x_j
\end{equation*}
\subsubsection{Number of independent parameters}\label{sec:param_counting}
The equations (\ref{eq:Uc2}) express the circuit unitary $U_{\rm cycle}^{d}$ in terms of the canonical form of the cycle
unitary ${\mathfrak U}$ that has the same set of eigenvalues as $U_{\rm cycle}$. It depends on the $N$ swap angles $\theta_j$ and CZ phases $\varphi_j$, also $N-1$ independent single qubit phases $\nu_j$ (cf. (\ref{eq:cond})) and a gauge field $\phi$. The eigenvalues of $U_\mathrm{cycle}$ and ${\mathfrak U}$ are the same. Therefore the quasi-energy differences $\omega_{\alpha\beta}$ depend on $2N$ parameters as shown in Table \ref{eq:tab-param}. In a single excitation subspace the CZ phases are not important and the number of independent parameters is 2$N$. We also note that cycle unitary ${\mathfrak U}$ depends on the angles $\chi_j$ only via the gauge field $\phi$.
\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{10pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Swap angles and CZ phases & Single-qubit phases & Gauge field &All parameters \\
$\{\theta_j,\,\varphi_j\}_{j=1}^{N}$ & $\{\nu_j\}_{j=1}^{N} $ & $\phi=\sum_{j=1}^{N}(\chi_j+(-1)^j\zeta_j)$&\\
\hline
$2N$& $N-1$ & 1 &3$N$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Parameters that determine the quasi-energy differences for a periodic circuit on a ring}
\label{eq:tab-param}
\end{table}
\endgroup
\subsubsection{Uniformly Distributed Flux}
For future purposes it is desirable to modify Eq.~ (\ref{eq:Ufr}) such that the flux is distributed evenly over the gates instead of being concentrated on one gate (involving qubits $N$ and $1$). Let us define an average flux per gate
\begin{equation}
\Bar{\chi} = \frac{\phi}{N},\label{eq:chibar}
\end{equation}
and consider a cycle unitary $U_\mathrm{cycle}$ where each gate $U_j=U_j(\Bar{\chi},0,\theta_j)$ corresponds to the same value of single-qubit phases, $\chi_j=\Bar{\chi}$ and $\zeta_j=0$
\begin{equation}
U_{\rm cycle}(\Bar{\chi},0,\vec{\theta}\,) \equiv \prod_{j\in {\rm even}} U_j(\Bar{\chi},0,\theta_j) \prod_{j\in {\rm odd}} U_j(\Bar{\chi},0,\theta_j)\;.\label{eq:Uc0}
\end{equation}
Here we used a vector notation for the set of parameters, $\vec \theta=\{\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_N\}$. The corresponding
local gauge transformation $\mathfrak{R}$ in (\ref{eq:Uc2}) can be obtained from (\ref{eq:Rf1}) by setting $\chi_j = \Bar{\chi}$ and $\zeta_j=0$.
In the general case of non-uniform single qubit angles the circuit unitary can be expressed in terms of $U_{\rm cycle}(\Bar{\chi},0,\vec{\theta})$ as follows
\begin{equation}
U_{\rm cycle}^{d}(\vec{\chi},\vec{\zeta},\vec{\theta})=\mathfrak R(\vec{\delta\chi} ,\vec{\zeta})\,\,
{\mathfrak U}^d(\Bar{\chi},\vec\zeta,\vec\theta)\,\,
\mathfrak R^{-1}(\vec{\delta\chi},\vec{\zeta})\;,\label{eq:Uc4}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\mathfrak U}(\,\Bar{\chi},\vec\zeta,\vec\theta\,)=
U_{\rm cycle}(\,\Bar{\chi},0,\vec{\theta}\,)\,R(\,\vec{\zeta}\,)\;,\label{eq:Uc4a}
\end{equation}
where $\vec{\delta\chi}\equiv \{\chi_1-\Bar{\chi},\ldots,\chi_N-\Bar{\chi}\}$,
the phase gate unitary (\ref{eq:R}) $R(\,\vec{\zeta}\,)$ is given in (\ref{eq:Rnu}) and we explicitly indicated all the arguments in the equations above.
\subsection{``Reference" Circuit with Identical Gates}
\label{sub_sec:reference_circuit}
Here we study the ``reference" circuit corresponding to the case where all gates are identical
\begin{equation}
\chi_j=\chi,\quad \zeta_j=0,\quad \theta_j=\frac{\pi}{4}\;.\label{eq:ref}
\end{equation}
We want to solve the eigen-problem for the nominal circuit $U_\mathrm{cycle}(\chi) \equiv U_\mathrm{cycle}(\,\chi,0,\pi/4)$ as given by
\begin{equation}
U_\mathrm{cycle}(\chi) \ket{\psi} = e^{-i \omega}\ket{\psi}\;.\label{eq:eig-ref}
\end{equation}
We introduce the nomenclature of the site basis states
\begin{equation}
\{\,\, \ket{\gamma, m}, \quad \gamma=1,2,\quad m=1,\ldots,N/2\,\,\}\;,\label{eq:basis-block} \end{equation}
where qubits at subsequent odd ($\gamma=1$) and even $(\gamma=2$) positions form blocks enumerated by the index $m=1:N/2$.
In this notation the matrix elements of the cycle unitary are given by
\begin{equation}
U_{m\,k}^{\gamma \beta} = \bra{\beta, m} U_\mathrm{cycle}(\chi) \ket{\gamma, k},\quad \gamma, \beta \in \{1,2\},\quad m,k\in\{1,\ldots,N/2\}\;.\label{eq:Ublock}
\end{equation}
$U_{m\,k}^{\gamma \beta}$ has the following block-translationally invariant form
\begin{equation}
U_{m,m-1}^{11} = -\frac{1}{2}e^{2 i \chi}, \quad U_{m,m}^{11} = \frac{1}{2}, \quad U_{m, m-1}^{12} = -\frac{i}{2} e^{i \chi}, \quad U_{m,m}^{12} = -\frac{i}{2} e^{-i \chi}\,\label{eq:Uref}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
U_{m,m}^{21} = -\frac{i}{2}e^{i \chi}, \quad U_{m,m+1}^{21} = -\frac{i}{2} e^{-i \chi}, \quad U_{m, m}^{22} = \frac{1}{2}, \quad U_{m,m+1}^{22} = -\frac{1}{2} e^{-2 i \chi}\;.\nonumber
\end{equation}
Because of this translational symmetry
the components of the eigenstates $\ket{\psi^{\alpha}}$ in the basis (\ref{eq:basis-block}) $\braket{\beta, k}{\psi^{\nu}(q)} \equiv \psi_{\beta, k}^{\nu}(q)$ have the form
\begin{equation}
\psi_{\gamma, m}^{\nu} (q) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}} V_{\gamma}^{\nu}(q) e^{i q m},\quad \nu=\pm,\quad q\in{\cal Q}\;,
\end{equation}
and are characterized by the values of the quasi-momentum $q$ from the set $\mathfrak{Q}$ (to be given below) and the branch index $\nu=\pm $. For each eigenstate the values of $V_{\gamma}^{\nu}(q)$ form a two-component spinor
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{gathered}
V^{\nu}(q)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\nu \left(1-\nu \sin (p/2)\left( \sin ^2(p/2)+1\right)^{-1/2}\right)^{1/2} \\
e^{i \left(\frac{p}{2}+\chi \right)} \left(1+\nu \sin (p/2)\left( \sin ^2(p/2)+1\right)^{-1/2}\right)^{1/2} \\
\end{array}
\right),\quad p=q-2\chi\;\label{eq:Vpm}
\end{gathered}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The corresponding quasi-energies are given by
\begin{align}
\omega_{\pm}(q) = \pm \Omega(q-2\chi), \label{eq:mupm}
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
\Omega(p) = \arccos\left( \sin^2\left( p/2\right)\right)\;.\label{eq:ring_omega}
\end{equation}
For odd values of $L$, the quantized values of quasi-momentum are given by the following
\begin{equation}
q\equiv q_m = -\pi + \frac{\pi \left(2m + 1\right)}{L}, \quad m \in {0, L-1},\quad L=\frac{N}{2}\,\,({\rm odd}),\label{eq:qodd}
\end{equation}
and for even values of $L$
\begin{equation}
q\equiv q_m = -\pi + \frac{2 \pi m}{L}, \quad m \in {0, L-1},\quad L=\frac{N}{2}\,\,({\rm even}),\label{eq:qeven}
\end{equation}
Fig.~\ref{fig:mu-q} shows the quasi-energies $\omega_\pm(q)$ as a function of the quasi-momentum $q$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{sup_figures/Fig-ring-mu.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Study of the spectrum of a ring} Quasi-energies $\omega_{\pm}(q)$ of the reference circuit (\ref{eq:ref}), (\ref{eq:Uref}) {\it vs} quasi-momentum $q$ at zero flux $\chi=0$. Left plot corresponds to the ring with $N=$22 qubits ($N/2$ is odd). Thick points correspond to the values of the quasi-momentum (\ref{eq:qodd}). Pairs of blue points with $q=\pm |q|$, $|q|\neq 0$ correspond to the doubly-degenerate quasi-energy values (doublets). There are $N-2$ doublets in total. Red points correspond to quasi-energy singlets with $q=0$. They correspond to maximum quasi-energy values $\omega_\pm(0)=\pm\pi/2$. Right plot corresponds to the ring with $N=$24 qubits ($N/2$ is even). Thick points correspond to the values of the quasi-momentum (\ref{eq:qeven}). Unlike the case with odd values of $N/2$ there is a value of momentum $q=-\pi$ corresponding to the pair of degenerate quasi-energy levels $\omega_{\pm}(-\pi)=0$. There are $N-4$ doublets corresponding each to the opposite nonzero quasi-momenta $q$.}
\label{fig:mu-q}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{sup_figures/honecomb.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Level crossings in the ring spectrum} Quasi-energies $\omega_+$ of the reference circuit on a ring of qubits (\ref{eq:ref}), (\ref{eq:Uref}) {\it vs} flux $\chi$. The plots correspond to $N=10$. The solid points show one set of level-crossings $\chi=\chi_{0j}$ as predicted by Eq.~\ref{eq:level_cr}}
\label{fig:ring_quasi_spectrum}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:ring_quasi_spectrum} shows the positive quasi-energies $\omega_+$ as a function of $\chi$.
Based on Eq.~\ref{eq:ring_omega}, level-crossings are expected between $\omega_{+}(q_i)$ and $\omega_{+}(q_j)$ for the values of $\chi = \chi_{ij}$ given below
\begin{equation}
\chi_{ij} = \frac{q_i}{2} - \left(n + \frac{\kappa}{2}\right) \pi + \frac{q_j - q_i}{4}, \: n \in \mathbb{I}, \: \kappa \in \{0,1\}\;,\label{eq:level_cr}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\omega_\nu(q_i)=\omega_\nu(q_j)\quad {\rm for}\quad \chi=\chi_{ij}\;.\label{eq:doublet}
\end{equation}
Fig.~\ref{fig:ring_quasi_spectrum} shows the level crossings between $\omega_{+}(q_0)$ and $\omega_{+}(q_j)$ for all $j$. The expression for $\chi_{ij}$ is given below as a function of $q_i$ and $q_j$
\subsection{Circuit with small disorder in gate parameters}
\label{sub_sec:small_disorder}
We now consider a circuit unitary $U_{\rm cycle}(\,\vec{\chi},\vec{\zeta},\vec{\theta}\,)$ for a $N$-qubit ring whose parameters are sufficiently close to those in a reference circuit $U_{\rm cycle}(\chi_{i\,j})$.
The degeneracy of the quasi-energy levels (\ref{eq:level_cr}),(\ref{eq:doublet}) corresponding to the single-excitation spectrum of the reference circuit is lifted when the average flux per gate deviates from its value $\chi=\chi_{i\,j}$ and the rest of the circuit parameters distributed non-uniformly along the qubit chain around their reference values (\ref{eq:ref}).
We study the splitting of the quasi-energy levels in a doublet corresponding to one of the values of $q=q_m>0$ given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qodd}) or (\ref{eq:qeven}). The solution of the eigenproblem
\begin{equation}
U_{\rm cycle}(\,\vec{\chi},\vec{\zeta},\vec{\theta}\,)\ket{ \psi^{\alpha}}=e^{-i \omega_\alpha}\ket{\psi^{\alpha}},
\label{eq:eigUd}
\end{equation}
depends on the gate parameters $\zeta_j,\chi_j,\theta_j$ via the following 3 quantities
\begin{equation}
\delta _{\zeta }(q)=\frac{1}{N}\sum _{k=1}^N \zeta _ke^{- i k\,q},\hspace{8 mm}\delta _{\theta }(q)=\frac{1}{N}\sum _{k=1}^N \left(\theta
_k-\pi /4\right)e^{- i k\,q} ,\hspace{8 mm}\Bar{\chi} =\frac{1}{N}\sum _{k=1}^N \chi _k\;.\label{eq:fur}
\end{equation}
Here $\Bar{\chi}$ is an average flux per gate discussed above (\ref{eq:chibar}) and $\delta _{\zeta }(q)$, $\delta _{\theta }(q)$ are Fourier transforms of the disorder in $\zeta_j$ and $\theta_j$.
When the disorder parameters are much smaller than the separation $4\pi |\omega^\prime(q)|/N$ between neighbouring quasi-energies of the reference circuit with different values of $|q|$ (cf. (\ref{eq:ring_omega}))
\begin{equation}
|\delta _{\zeta }(q)|,\,|\delta _{\theta }(q)|,\,|\Bar{\chi}|\ll \frac{2\pi }{N}\frac{ \sin (q)}{\sqrt{1-\sin (q)^4}}\;,\label{eq:cond}
\end{equation}
the solution of matrix eigenvalue problem (\ref{eq:eigUd})
can be obtained using the degenerate perturbation theory of quantum mechanics.
A pair of zeroth-order eigenstates $V_{\gamma }^{(\nu )}(\pm q)e^{\pm i q m}$ of the reference circuit unitary form two linear superpositions
\begin{equation}
\psi_{\gamma , m}^{\pm,\nu ,q}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N/2}}\sum _{\sigma =\pm } u_{\sigma }^{\pm}(\nu,q) V_{\gamma }^{(\nu )}(\sigma q)\hspace{2 mm}e^{i \sigma q m}\;,\label{eq:psi}
\end{equation}
each corresponding to the eigenstate $\ket{\psi^{f,\nu ,q}}$ of the cycle unitary
\begin{equation}
U_{\rm cycle}(\,\vec{\chi},\vec{\zeta},\vec{\theta})\,\ket{\psi^{f,\nu ,q}}=e^{-i \omega_\nu^f(q)}\,\ket{\psi^{f,\nu ,q}},\quad f=\pm 1\;.\label{eq:fnuq}
\end{equation}
Therefore in the limit of weak disorder (\ref{eq:cond}) the eigenstates of $U_\mathrm{cycle}$ are defined by a triple of quantum numbers $\alpha=(f,\nu,q)$. The coefficients $u_{\pm}^{f}(\nu,q)$ above form spinors that are eigenstates of the $2\times2$ "Floquet Hamiltonian" $h(\nu,q)$
\begin{equation}
h(\nu,q)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
u_{+}^{f}(\nu,q) \\
u_{-}^{f}(\nu,q)
\end{array}
\right)=\delta\omega_\nu^f(q) \left(
\begin{array}{c}
u_{+}^{f}(\nu,q) \\
u_{-}^{f}(\nu,q)
\end{array}
\right),\quad f=\pm 1\;.\label{eq:eigF}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{gathered}
h=\nu\, B \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)+\nu\, \delta\omega \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\sin \gamma & e^{i \delta } \text{cos$\gamma $} \\
e^{-i \delta }\cos \gamma & - \sin \gamma \\
\end{array}
\right)\;.\label{eq:h}
\end{gathered}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
(above we omitted the argument $(\nu,q)$ for brevity). The expressions for the eigenstates are
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{gathered}
\hspace{8 mm}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
u_+^{f }(\nu ,q) \\
u_-^{f }(\nu ,q) \\
\end{array}
\right)=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
f e^{-i \delta } \sin \left(\frac{\pi }{4}+f \frac{\gamma }{2}\right) \\
\sin \left(\frac{\pi }{4}-f \frac{\gamma }{2}\right) \\
\end{array}
\right),\hspace{4 mm}f =\pm 1\;\label{eq:uupm}
\end{gathered}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The parameters $B\equiv B(q)$ and $\delta\omega\equiv \delta\Omega(\nu,q)$ determine the disorder-induced uniform shift and splitting, respectively, of the quasi-energy levels in a doublet relative to their unperturbed value $\nu\Omega(q)$
\begin{equation}
\omega_\nu^\pm(q)=\nu\Omega(q)+\nu B(q)\pm \nu \delta\Omega(\nu,q)\;.\label{eq:muDis}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
B(q) =\frac{\cos (q/2)}{\sqrt{1+\sin (q/2)^2}}\delta _{\theta }(0)
\end{equation}\newline
and
\begin{equation}
\delta\Omega(\nu ,q)=\left(\frac{4\hspace{2 mm}\bar{\chi }^2}{1+\sin \left(\frac{q}{2}\right)^{-2}}\hspace{2 mm}+| \xi (\nu,q)| ^2\right)^{1/2}\;.\label{eq:A}
\end{equation}
The parameter $\xi(\nu,q)$ equals
\begin{equation}
\xi (\nu ,q)= e^{-\frac{3i q}{2}}\left(\delta _{\theta }(q)-2i \nu \frac{\sin (q/2)}{\sqrt{1+\sin (q/2)^2}} \delta _{\zeta }(q)\right)\,\label{eq:xi}
\end{equation}
The angles $\gamma,\,\delta$ equal
\begin{equation}
\gamma (\nu ,q)=\arcsin \left(\frac{2 \bar{\chi }}{\delta\Omega(\nu ,q) \sqrt{1+\sin (q/2)^{-2}}}\right)\;,\label{eq:gamma}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\delta (\nu ,q)=\arg \xi (\nu ,q)\;.\label{eq:delta}
\end{equation}
We note that the doublet levels $\omega_{\nu}^{\pm}(q)$ varying with the average flux $\Bar{\chi}$ undergo avoided crossing at $\Bar{\chi}=0$. The level splitting at the avoided crossing is $2|\xi(\nu,q)|$. It is of interest to consider the case where $\Bar{\chi}$ is a sum of the flux $\chi$ from the reference circuit and some systematic errors
\begin{equation}
\chi_j=\chi+\delta\chi_j\;.
\end{equation}
The value of $\chi=\chi^{(c)}$ corresponding to the avoided crossing point is
\begin{equation}
\chi^{(c)}=-\sum_{j=1}^{N}\delta\chi_j\;,\label{eq:chiC}
\end{equation}
For $N\gg1$ and in the case where $\delta\chi_j$ are zero-mean i.i.d. random numbers
$|\chi^{(c)}|\sim N^{1/2}$ is much greater than the typical value of $|\chi_j|$.
\subsection{Measuring the spectrum of quasi-energies}
\label{sec:measure-q}
The most direct way to obtain the quasi-energies in a single-excitation spectrum of the cycle unitary $U_\mathrm{cycle}$ is to measure for a given qubit $m$ the spectral decomposition of the expectation value $\langle \sigma^{+}_{m}(t)\rangle$ dependence on the cycle number $d$. We define the basis states with 0 and 1 excitation in terms of computational basis states for $N$-qubit system \begin{equation}
\ket{j}=\ket{0_10_2\ldots1_j\ldots0_N},\quad \ket{0}=\ket{0_10_2\ldots 0_N},\quad j\in(1,N)\;. \label{eq:basis1}
\end{equation}
In this basis the Pauli matrices have the form
\begin{equation}\sigma_m^z = \ket{0}\bra{0} + \sum_{k \neq m} \ket{k}\bra{k} - \ket{m}\bra{m}, \quad \sigma_m^- = \ket{m}\bra{0},\quad \sigma_m^+ = \ket{0}\bra{m}\;,\label{eq:sigma-D}\end{equation}
we note that because a single qubit state $\ket{0_m} \equiv \begin{pmatrix}1 \\0 \end{pmatrix}_m$
corresponds to a spin-1/2 state $\ket{\uparrow_m}$ at the site $m$ the operator $\sigma_m^-$ creates the excitation and $\sigma_m^+$ annihilates the excitation at that site.
We start from the vacuum state $\ket{0}$ and apply $\pi/2$ pulse $\exp(i \pi\sigma_r^x/4)$ to the $r$th qubit, $r\in (1,N)$
\begin{equation}
\ket{\Phi_1}\equiv e^{i \pi\sigma_r^x/4} \ket{0}=\frac{\ket{r}+\ket{0}}{\sqrt{2}}\;.\label{eq:Phi1}
\end{equation}
We then apply periodic circuit $U_\mathrm{cycle}^{d}$ to the state $\ket{\Phi_1}$ and obtain the quantum state after $d$ steps
\begin{equation}
|\Phi_{1+d}\rangle =U_\mathrm{cycle}^{d}|\Phi_1\rangle =\frac{U_\mathrm{cycle}^{d}|r\rangle +|0\rangle }{\sqrt{2}}\;,\label{eq:Phid}
\end{equation}
where we used $U_\mathrm{cycle}\ket{0}=\ket{0}$. The expectation value of the operator $\sigma_r^\dagger$ equals
\begin{equation}
\langle \Phi_{1+d} | \sigma _r^+|\Phi_{ 1+d}\rangle =\frac{1}{2}\sum _{\alpha =1}^{N} e^{-i d\, \omega _{\alpha
}}|\left\langle r\left|\psi ^{\alpha }\right.\right\rangle|^2 \;.\label{eq:cmd}
\end{equation}
The spectral function
$\sum_{d=0}^{d_{\rm max}-1}\langle \Phi_{1+d} | \sigma _r^+|\Phi_{ 1+d}\rangle\, e^{-2\pi i k d/d_{\rm max}}$ (\,$k=0,\ldots,d_{\rm max}-1$) gives the quasi-energy spectrum $\{\omega_\alpha\}$.
\section{Persistent current for periodic circuit on a qubit ring \label{sec:spin_cur}}
The gauge field $\phi$ (\ref{eq:B}) corresponds to the total flux through the ring over one cycle. It determines the integral of the persistent current in the ring over the cycle duration.
To obtain the persistent current we write a time-periodic control Hamiltonian $H(t)$ that acts on qubit system
\begin{equation}
H(t)=\sum _{m=1}^N \epsilon _m(t)\sigma _m^z +\sum _{m=1}^N g_m(t)\left(\sigma_m^{+}\sigma _{m+1}^{-} e^{i \vartheta}+\sigma _{m+1}^{-}\sigma _m^{+}e^{-i \vartheta}\right),\hspace{6 mm}\sigma^{k} _{N+1}\equiv \sigma^{k} _N\;.\label{eq:LH}
\end{equation}
where $\vartheta$ is a fiducius twist angle that will be eventually set to zero.
The quantum circuit $U_\mathrm{cycle}^{d}$ (\ref{eq:Ud}) is defined by specifying the time-dependence of the frequency detunings between qubits $\epsilon_m(t)$ and coupling coefficients $g_m(t)$. They are periodic in time
\begin{equation}
H(t)=H(t+t_{\rm cycle})\;,
\end{equation}
with the period $t_{\rm cycle}$ equal to the physical duration of the cycle of gates $U_\mathrm{cycle}$ (\ref{eq:Ud}). From (\ref{eq:LH}) the current operator is equal to
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal J}(t)=\frac{\partial H(t)}{\partial\vartheta}\;.\label{eq:calJ}
\end{equation}
In a Heisenberg picture the current operator equals $U^\dagger(t,0){\mathcal J}(t) U(t,0)$
where $U(t,0)$ is the quantum propagator
\begin{equation}
U(t,0)=T e^{-i \int_0^t H(s,\vartheta ) \, ds}\;.\label{eq:U0t}
\end{equation}
One can obtain the expression for the integral of the current over the interval of time $(0,t)$
\begin{equation}
J(t)\equiv \int _0^tU^{\dagger }(s,0)\mathcal{J}(s)U(s,0)ds=i U^{\dagger }(t,0) \frac{\partial U(t,0)}{\partial \vartheta }\;,\label{eq:UJU}
\end{equation}
In the cycle unitary $U(t_\mathrm{cycle},0)\equiv U_\mathrm{cycle}$ the twist angle $\vartheta$ shifts the values of the Peierls phases (cf. (\ref{eqn:gate_unitary}))
\[\chi_k\rightarrow \chi_k+\vartheta,\quad k=1:N\;.\]
Therefore we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial U_\mathrm{cycle}}{\partial \vartheta}=\sum_{k=1}^{N} \frac{\partial U_\mathrm{cycle}}{\partial \chi_k}
\end{equation}
In Eq.~(\ref{eq:UJU}) we set the fiducius twist angle to zero $\vartheta=0$ and for $t=d t_\mathrm{cycle}$ obtain for the integral of the spin current over $d$ cycles
\begin{equation}
J(d\,t_\mathrm{cycle})=i (U_{\rm cycle}^{d})^{\dagger} \sum_{k=1}^{N}\frac{\partial U_{\rm cycle}^{d}}{\partial \chi_k }\;\label{eq:Jc}
\end{equation}\newline
Using the expression (\ref{eq:Ud}) for $U_\mathrm{cycle}$ in terms of the product of the
gate unitaries we obtain
\begin{equation}
J(t_\mathrm{cycle})=\sum _{k=1}^{N/2} \left(J_{2k-1}+ J_{2k}^{\prime } \right),\hspace{11 mm}J_{2k}^{\prime }=U_{2k+1}^{\dagger }U_{2k-1}^{\dagger
} J_{2k}U_{2k+1}U_{2k-1}\;,\label{eq:Jc1}
\end{equation}
where $J_k$ \begin{equation}
J_k=i U_k^{\dagger }\frac{\partial U_k}{\partial \chi_k }\,\label{eq:Jm}
\end{equation}\newline
corresponds to the spin current density operator for the magnetization transport from the site $k$ to $k+1$ over the duration of the gate $U_k$ (\ref{eqn:gate_unitary}). In the single excitation subspace it has the form
\begin{equation}
J_k=i\left( |k+1\rangle \langle k|e^{i \left(\chi _k+\zeta _k\right)}- |k\rangle \langle k+1| e^{-i \left(\chi _k+\zeta _k\right)}\right)\sin\theta_k\sin\theta_{k+1}+ (|k+1\rangle \langle k+1|- |k\rangle \langle k|)\sin ^2\left(\theta _k\right)
\end{equation}
The first term corresponds to the standard form of the spin operator while the second term $\propto (|m+1\rangle \langle m+1|- |m\rangle \langle m|)$ is due to the two-layered form of the cycle of gates.
We note in passing that the local spin currents in (\ref{eq:Jc1}) and (\ref{eq:Jm}) obey the two continuity equations, separately for odd and even sites that was obtained in \cite{PhysRevLett.122.150605} by a different method.
\subsection{Average persistent current}
We use the expression for the circuit unitary (\ref{eq:eigen}) in terms of Floquet eigenstates and eigenvalues of the cycle unitary to obtain the operator for a time-average of the persistent current $J(t)/t$ (\ref{eq:UJU}) over the duration of the quantum circuit $U(d)$ (\ref{eq:Ud}) with $d$ cycles, $t=dt_\mathrm{cycle}$
\begin{equation}
\frac{J\left(d \,t_{\text{cycle}}\right)}{d\, t_{\text{cycle}}}=\sum_{k=1}^{N}\sum _{\alpha =1}^n \frac{\partial \omega _{\alpha }}{\partial \chi_k }|\psi ^{\alpha }\rangle
\langle \psi ^{\alpha }|+\frac{1}{d\, t_{\text{cycle}}} \sum _{\alpha =1}^N \sum _{\gamma \neq \alpha } e^{-i d t_{\text{cycle}} \left.\left(\omega _{\alpha
}-\omega _{\gamma }\right)\right/2}F_{\alpha \gamma }(d)|\psi ^{\gamma }\rangle \langle \psi ^{\alpha }|\;,\label{eq:Jav}
\end{equation}\newline
where
\begin{equation*}
F_{\alpha \gamma }(d)=2\pi i \delta _d\left(\omega _{\alpha }-\omega _{\gamma }\right)e^{i\left.\left(\omega _{\alpha }+\omega _{\gamma }\right)\right/2}\sum_{k=1}^{N}\langle
\psi ^{\gamma }| \frac{dU_{\text{cycle}}}{d \chi_k }|\psi ^{\alpha }\rangle
\end{equation*}\newline
and
\begin{equation}
\delta _d(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\sum _{l=-(d-1)/2}^{(d-1)/2} e^{i x l}\hspace{4 mm}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\sin (d x/2)}{\sin (x/2)}\;\label{eq:dd}
\end{equation}\newline
(it is assumed that $d$ is an odd integer). In the limit of large number of cycles
\begin{equation}
d\gg \Delta\omega^{-1},\quad \Delta\omega\equiv \min_{\alpha\neq\beta\in(1,N)}(\omega_\alpha-\omega_\beta)\;,\label{eq:dlim}
\end{equation}
the expression (\ref{eq:Jav}) for the time-averaged persistent current operator is dominated by the first term. Because eigenvalues of the cycle unitary $\omega_\alpha$ depend on angles $\chi_k$ only via the total flux $\phi$ (\ref{eq:Ufr}) given in (\ref{eq:B}). Then to the leading order in $1/(d\Delta\omega) $ we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{J\left(d\, t_{\text{cycle}}\right)}{d\, t_{\text{cycle}}}\simeq \sum _{\alpha =1}^n \frac{\partial \omega _{\alpha }}{\partial \phi }|\psi ^{\alpha
}\rangle \langle \psi ^{\alpha }|+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{d \,\Delta \omega }\right)\;.\label{eq:Javd}
\end{equation}\newline
One can also derive the expression for the Drude weight $D$ in terms of the quasi-energy level curvatures following the approach similar to that presented above
\begin{equation}
D=\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}N\sum_{\alpha=1}^{N} p_\alpha \frac{\partial^2 \omega_\alpha}{\partial \phi^2}
\end{equation}
where $p_\alpha=\bra{\psi^\alpha}\rho(0)\ket{\psi^\alpha}$ is the population of the Floquet state $\ket{\psi^\alpha}$. This expression for $D$ is a generalization of the Kohn's formula \cite{PhysRev.133.A171} for the case of periodically driven systems.
\section{ Periodic Circuit on a Qubit Ring: Open System Dynamics}\label{sec:open_sys-ring}
Precise determination of the quasi-energies requires studying the periodic circuits $U_\mathrm{cycle}^{d}$ of a large depth when the environmental effects must be included.
As will be shown in the next section the non-Markovian effects of the low frequency noise and parameter drift can be neglected on the time scale of the experiment.
Therefore we will model open system dynamics with Lindblad master equation
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:general_linbald}
\frac{d \rho(t)}{dt} = -i \left[ H(t), \rho(t)\right] + L[\rho(t)]\;,
\end{equation}
where the Lindbladian operator has the form \cite{breuer2002theory}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:dephase_photon}
L[\rho] = \sum_{m=1}^{n} \frac{\Gamma_{2\phi}^{m}}{2} \left( \sigma_m^z \rho \sigma_m^z - \rho \right) + \Gamma_1^m \left( \sigma_m^- \rho \sigma_m^+ - \frac{1}{2} \left( \sigma_m^+ \sigma_m^- \rho + \rho \sigma_m^+ \sigma_m^-\right)\right)
\end{equation}
Here $\Gamma_1^m, \Gamma_{2\phi}^{m}$ are decay and (intrinsic) dephasing rates for individual qubits. In (\ref{eqn:general_linbald}) $H(t)$ is time-periodic control Hamiltonian that acts on qubit system. In its simplest form $H(t)$ is equal to
\begin{equation}
H(t)=\sum _{m=1}^N \epsilon _m(t)\sigma _m^z +\sum _{m=1}^N g_m(t)\left(\sigma_m^{+}\sigma _{m+1}^{-}+\sigma _{m+1}^{-}\sigma _m^{+}\right),\hspace{6 mm}\sigma^{k} _{N+1}\equiv \sigma^{k} _N\;.\label{eq:H}
\end{equation}
The quantum circuit (\ref{eq:Ud}) is defined by specifying the time-dependence of the frequency detunings between qubits $\epsilon_m(t)$ and coupling coefficients $g_m(t)$. They are periodic in time
\begin{equation}
H(t)=H(t+t_{\rm cycle})\;,
\end{equation}
with the period $t_{\rm cycle}$ equal to the physical duration of the cycle of gates $U_\mathrm{cycle}$ (\ref{eq:Ud}). The corresponding quantum propagator can be expanded in the basis of the Floquet eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $H(t)$
\begin{equation}
U(t,0)=T \exp \left(-i \int_0^t H(t ) \, dt \right)=\sum _{\alpha} |\psi^\alpha(t)\rangle \langle \psi^\alpha(0)| e^{-i \lambda _\alpha t}\;,\label{eq:Ut0}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
|\psi^\alpha(t)\rangle =|\psi^\alpha\left(t+t_{\text{\rm cycle}}\right)\rangle\;.\label{eq:Floq-u}
\end{equation}
At time intervals $t= d\, t_{\rm cycle}$ that are integers of the cycle duration the propagator equals to the $d$th power of the cycle unitary considered above (\ref{eq:Ud})
\begin{equation}
U( d\, t_{\rm cycle},0)=U_\mathrm{cycle}^{d},\quad d=0,1,2,\ldots\;.
\end{equation}
This defines the connection between the eigenstates and eigenvalues of
$U(t,0)$ and those of $U_\mathrm{cycle}$ (\ref{eq:eigUd}),(\ref{eq:psi})
\begin{equation}\ket{\psi^\alpha(d\, t_{\rm cycle})}= \ket{\psi^\alpha},\quad \omega_\alpha=\lambda_\alpha t_{\rm cycle}\;.\end{equation}
We move into the interaction picture
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\rho }(t)=U^{\dagger }(t,0) \rho (t) U(t,0)\;,\label{eq:rhoI}
\end{equation}
and consider the density matrix $\tilde\rho_{\alpha\beta}(t)$
in the Floquet basis
\begin{equation}
\hspace{2 mm}\tilde{\rho }_{\alpha \beta }(t)\equiv \langle \psi^{\alpha }| \tilde{\rho }(t)|\psi^{\beta }\rangle =e^{i \left(\lambda
_{\alpha }-\lambda _{\beta }\right)t} \langle \psi^{\alpha }(t)| \rho (t)|\psi^{\beta }(t)\rangle\,.
\end{equation}
In the subspaces with 0 and 1 excitations the Lindblad equation for $\tilde{\rho }_{\alpha \beta }(t)$ has the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial \tilde{\rho }_{\alpha \delta }(t)}{\partial t}=\sum _{\beta , \gamma =0}^N R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(t) \tilde{\rho }_{\beta
\gamma }(t)\\
R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(t) =\sum _{m=1}^N \Gamma_{2\phi}^{m}\left(2U_{m\alpha }^*(t)U_{m\beta }(t)U_{m\gamma }^*(t)U_{m\delta }(t)-\delta _{\alpha
,\beta }U_{m\gamma }^*(t)U_{m\delta }(t)-\delta _{\gamma ,\delta }U_{m\alpha }^*(t)U_{m\beta }(t)\right)\\
+\sum _{m=1}^N \Gamma _1^m\left(\delta _{\alpha ,0} \delta _{\delta ,0}U_{m\beta }(t) U_{m\gamma }^*(t)-\frac{1}{2}\left(U_{m\alpha }^*(t)U_{m\beta
}(t)\delta _{\gamma ,\delta }+\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }U_{m\gamma }^*(t)U_{m\delta }(t)\right)\right)\;,\label{eq:RI}
\end{gathered}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{\gamma,\delta}$ is a Kronecker delta, the Floquet state $\ket{\psi^0}=\ket{0}$ corresponds to the vacuum with the quasi-energy $\lambda_0=0$ and \begin{equation}
U_{m\beta }(t)\equiv \langle \psi^m| U(t,0)|\psi ^{\beta }\rangle=U_{m\beta}(t-d(t)t_\mathrm{cycle}) \,e^{-i d(t)\,\omega_\alpha},\qquad
d(t)\equiv\left \lfloor t/t_\mathrm{cycle} \right\rfloor =0,1,\ldots\;.\label{eq:Umb}
\end{equation}
Here $d(t)$ is the number of cycles elapsed before the moment $t$ and $U_{m\beta}(t-d(t)t_\mathrm{cycle})$ is a periodic function of time with period $t_\mathrm{cycle}$.
For the technique to estimate the values of quasi-energies from experimental data we will follow the same approach as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:measure-q}.
To compare directly with the Eq.~(\ref{eq:cmd}) we write the expectation value of the operator $\sigma_{r}^{\dagger}(dt_\mathrm{cycle})$ after $d$ cycles starting from the pure initial state
$(\ket{0}+\ket{r})/\sqrt{2}$ (\ref{eq:Phi1})
\begin{equation}
\text{Tr}\left[\sigma _r^{\dagger }\rho (d\,t_\mathrm{cycle})\right]=\sum _{\alpha =1}^n e^{-i d \omega _{\alpha }}\tilde{\rho }_{\alpha 0}(d\,t_\mathrm{cycle})\,\left\langle
r\left|\psi ^{\alpha }\right.\right\rangle\;.\label{eq:cmd0}
\end{equation}
It is expressed in terms of the off-diagonal matrix elements $\tilde{\rho }_{\alpha 0 }(t)$ that connects vacuum state to a Floquet state in a single excitation subspace, $\alpha =1,2,\ldots ,N$.
For those matrix elements the Eq.~(\ref{eq:RI}) takes the form
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \tilde{\rho }_{\alpha 0}(\tau )}{\partial \tau }=-\sum _{\beta =1}^N \sum _{m=1}^N \left(\Gamma_{2\phi}^{m}+\frac{\Gamma _1^m}{2}\right)U_{m\alpha
}^*(t)U_{m\beta }(t)\tilde{\rho }_{\beta 0}(t),\quad
\tilde{\rho }_{\alpha 0}(0)=\frac{1}{2}\braket{\psi^\alpha}{r}\;.
\label{eq:rho0alpha}
\end{equation}
\iffalse
It is also instructive to consider the probability to be in a vacuum state $\tilde\rho_{00}$ obeys the equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \tilde\rho_{00}(t)}{\partial \tau }=\sum _{\beta , \gamma =1}^N \sum _{m=1}^N \Gamma _1^m \, U_{m\beta }(t)U_{m\gamma }^*(t) \tilde{\rho
}_{\beta \gamma }(t),\quad \tilde\rho_{00}(0)=\frac{1}{2}.\label{eq:rho00}
\end{equation}
\fi
\subsection{\label{sec:Secular-O}Secular approximation}
Dominant matrix elements in $\tilde\rho(t)$ are changing on the time scale corresponding to the typical dephasing and decay times ($1/\Gamma_2$ and $1/\Gamma_1$, respectively)
that is much greater than the cycle duration.
Therefore we can coarse-grain Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho0alpha}) over the time $\Delta\,t$, such that
$\Gamma_{2\phi},1/\Gamma_1\gg \Delta\,t \gg t_{\rm cycle}$. After the coarse-graining the sum
in the right hand side of the Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho0alpha}) only contains terms where
the separation between the quasi-energies is sufficiently large, $|\omega_\alpha-\omega_\beta|\lesssim \Gamma_{1,2} t_\mathrm{cycle}$.
This corresponds to a secular approximation \cite{breuer2002theory}.
We note that for not too long qubit chains the decay and dephasing rates are much smaller then the separation between the quasi-energies of the reference circuit with nearest values of quasi-momenta $|q_{m+1}-q_{m}|\sim\frac{2\pi}{N}$
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_1,\,\Gamma_{2\phi} \ll|\omega_\nu(q_{m+1})-\omega_\nu(q_{m}|\simeq \frac{2\pi}{N}\frac{\sin(q)}{\sqrt{1-\sin(q)^2}},\quad
\quad {\rm for}\quad |q|\simeq\mathcal{O}(1)\;.\label{eq:condG}
\end{equation}
Therefore the above secular approximation is applicable here and the corresponding Floquet eigenstates are not coupled in Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho0alpha}) after coarse-graining. However the quasi-energy splittings $|\omega_\nu^+(q)-\omega_\nu^-(q)|$ for the Floquet states $\ket{\psi^{\pm,\nu,|q|}}$ (\ref{eq:psi}) that are superpositions of planes waves with the same value of $|q|$ are limited by disorder and not by $2\pi/N$.
Therefore for sufficiently small disorder the condition $|\omega_\nu^+(q)-\omega_\nu^-(q)|\gg \Gamma_{1,2}t_\mathrm{cycle}$ can be violated in which case the Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho0alpha}) couples the states $\ket{\psi^{\pm,\nu,|q|}}$ and the secular approximation breaks down for these transitions. This regime will be referred to a future study. Here we focus on the case
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_1,\Gamma_{2\phi}\ll |\delta_\zeta(q)|, |\delta_\theta(q)|,|\Bar{\chi}|\lesssim\frac{2\pi}{N}\;.\label{eq:cond2}
\end{equation}
Under the condition given in (\ref{eq:cond2}) the secular approximation (\ref{eq:wp})-(\ref{eq:Walpha}) applies for all transitions $\ket{0}-\ket{\psi^{\alpha}}$ ($\alpha=1:N$). Then the expressions for the elements of the density matrix in Schrodinger picture $\rho_{\alpha0}(d\,t_\mathrm{cycle})$ and the observable (\ref{eq:cmd0}) have the form
\begin{align}
\langle \psi ^{\alpha}|\rho (d\,t_\mathrm{cycle})|0\rangle=\frac{1}{2}\braket{\psi^\alpha}{r}\,e^{-i d\, \omega_\alpha -d \,W_\alpha}\;,\label{eq:wp}\\
\langle\sigma_r^+(d)\rangle=\frac{1}{2}\sum _{\alpha =1}^n e^{-i d \omega _{\alpha }-d\,W_\alpha}\,\left |\left\langle
r\left|\psi ^{\alpha }\right.\right\rangle\right|^2\;.\label{eq:cmd1}
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
W_\alpha=\sum _{m=1}^N\left(\Gamma _2^{m}+\frac{\Gamma _1^{m}}{2}\right)\overline{|U_{m,\alpha}(s)|^2}\;. \label{eq:Walpha}
\end{equation}
Here dephasing rate $W_\alpha$ corresponds to the eigenstate $\ket{\psi^\alpha}$. The horizontal bar above denotes averaging $t_{\text{cycle}}^{-1}\int _0^{t_{\text{cycle}}}\cdots ds$.
\subsubsection{Limit of small disorder}
In the case where disorder is small compare to level separation for different values of $|q|$ (\ref{eq:cond}) we can use the results for the reference circuit in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:cmd1}) and (\ref{eq:Walpha}). In particular, we use Eq.~(\ref{eq:psi}) for the Floquet eigenstates $\psi_{\gamma , m}^{\pm,\nu ,q}$
and Eq.~(\ref{eq:muDis}) for the quasi-energies $\omega_\nu^\pm(q)$. Then the dephasing rate
(\ref{eq:Walpha}) corresponding to an eigenstate $\ket{\psi^{\pm,\nu,q}}$ equals
\begin{equation}
W_{\nu }^{\pm}(q)=\sum _{l=1}^N\sum_{\gamma=1,2} \left(\Gamma _2^{\gamma , l}+\frac{\Gamma _1^{\gamma ,l}}{2}\right)\overline{|U_{\gamma,l}^{\pm,\nu,q}(s)|^2},\qquad U_{\gamma,l}^{\pm,\nu,q}(s)\equiv \langle \gamma ,l| U(s,0)|\psi
^{\pm, \nu ,q}\rangle\;. \label{eq:Wnu}
\end{equation}
Here $\Gamma _{2\phi}^{\gamma ,l}+\Gamma _1^{\gamma ,l}/2$ is a total dephasing rate for a qubit at the position $m=2(l-1)+\gamma$ on a ring and
\begin{align}
U_{\gamma,l}^{\pm,\nu,q}(s) =\left(\frac{2}{N}\right)^{1/2} \sum _{\sigma =\pm } \sum _{\lambda =1,2}
&\left(\mathcal{U}^{3-\gamma , 1}(s)\mathcal{U}^{2, \lambda }e^{-i \frac{\sigma q}{2}}
+ \mathcal{U}^{3-\gamma , 2}(s)\mathcal{U}^{1,
\lambda } e^{i \frac{\sigma q}{2}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times V_{\lambda }^{(\nu )}(\sigma q)u_{\sigma }^f(\nu ,q)e^{i (-1)^{\gamma } \frac{\sigma q}{2}}e^{i \sigma q l}\;.\label{eq:Ugl}
\end{align}
Here ${\mathcal U}_{i,j}(s)$ are time-dependent matrix elements of the
unitary ${\mathcal U}(s)=T\exp(-\int_{0}^{s}H_{\rm gate}(s')ds')$, with $s\in(0,t_\mathrm{cycle})$. The gate Hamiltonian $H_{\rm gate}(t)$ applies to a given pair of qubits and implements the gate unitary ${\mathcal U}$ (\ref{eq:Uf}) where \({\mathcal U}_{\lambda , \lambda }=i {\mathcal U}_{\lambda , 3-\lambda }=2^{-1/2 }\text{
}(\lambda =1,2)\). The gate Hamiltonian is part of the system control Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:H}). In the case of the reference circuit control pulses $\epsilon_j(t)=\epsilon(t)$, $g_j(t)=g(t)$) are identical for all qubits.
The coefficients $\overline{|U_{\gamma,l}^{\pm,\nu,q}(s)|^2}$ in (\ref{eq:Wnu}) depend on the elements of the tensor
\begin{equation}
w_{ijkl}=\overline{{\mathcal U}_{i,j}^{*}(s ){\mathcal U}_{k,l}(s )}\;.\label{eq:cijkl}
\end{equation}
The coefficients $w_{ijkl}$ and therefore the density matrix $\wp _{f\nu q}(t)$
depend on the shape of the control pulses and not only on the parameters of the logical gate unitary. This is a difference from the closed quantum system evolution where final sate depends only on the logical circuit.
This happens because the processes
of decoherence and decay are continuous in time. The coefficients $c_{ijkl}$ are not all independent from each other due to the
unitary constrains. One can show that coefficients $\Lambda$ depend only on
two parameters
\begin{equation}
w_{1111}=\frac{1}{t_{\text{cycle}}}\int_0^{t_{\text{cycle}}} \left| \mathcal U_{1,1}(\tau )\right| {}^2 \, d\tau ,\hspace{4 mm}w_{1112}=\frac{1}{t_{\text{cycle}}}\int
_0^{t_{\text{cycle}}}{\mathcal U}_{1,1}^*(\tau ){\mathcal U}_{1,2}(\tau )d\tau\;.\label{eq:cI}
\end{equation}
Because of the constraint $|{\mathcal U}_{1,1}(\tau )|^2+|{\mathcal U}_{1,2}(\tau )|^2=1$ there are in total 3 real-valued pulse-dependent parameters.
\iffalse
\subsubsection{\label{sec:Lambda} Expression for the coefficients $\Lambda$}
The explicit form of the coefficients $\Lambda _{\gamma \sigma \sigma '}^{fg}(\nu ,q)$ in (\ref{eq:dwp}) is given below
\begin{equation}
\Lambda _{\gamma \sigma \sigma '}^{fg}(\nu ,q)=\overline{\kappa _{\gamma ,\sigma }^* (\nu ,q,t)\kappa _{\gamma ,\sigma^\prime } (\nu ,q,t)}\hspace{2 mm}u_{\sigma
}^{f*} (\nu ,q) u_{\sigma '}^g (\nu ,q) e^{i (-1)^{\gamma } \frac{\left(\sigma '-\sigma \right) q}{2}}\;,\label{eq:Lambda1}
\end{equation}
where $f,g,\sigma, \sigma '=\pm 1$ and the vertical bar implies time-averaging over the cycle, $t_{\rm cycle}^{-1}\int_{0}^{t_\mathrm{cycle}}\ldots dt$. The coefficients $\kappa$ are given below
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{gathered}
\kappa _{1,\sigma } (\nu ,q,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\mathfrak{U}_{1,1}^*(t) e^{i \frac{\sigma q}{2}}+i \mathfrak{U}_{1,2}^*(t) e^{-i \frac{\sigma
q}{2}}\right)V_1^{(\nu )}(\sigma q)-\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \mathfrak{U}_{1,1}^*(t) e^{i \frac{\sigma q}{2}}-i \mathfrak{U}_{1,2}^*(t)e^{-i \frac{\sigma
q}{2}}\right)V_2^{(\nu )}(\sigma q)\\
\kappa _{2,\sigma } (\nu ,q,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\mathfrak{U}_{1,1}(t)e^{-i \frac{\sigma q}{2}}-i \mathfrak{U}_{1,2}(t)
e^{i \frac{\sigma q}{2}}\right)V_2^{(\nu )}\left(\sigma q\right)-\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \mathfrak{U}_{1,1}(t)e^{-i \frac{\sigma q}{2}}+i {\mathcal U}_{1,2}(t) e^{i \frac{\sigma
q}{2}}\right)V_1^{(\nu )}\left(\sigma q\right)\;.\label{eq:kappa}
\end{gathered}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\fi
\subsection{Case of large rings $\mathbf{ N\gg1}$ \label{sec:uniformG} }
Here we make an interesting observation. Under the assumption that dephasing and decay rates are the same for all qubits,
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_1^m\equiv \Gamma_1,\quad \Gamma_{2\phi}^m\equiv \Gamma_{2\phi},\quad m\in(1,N)\;,\label{eq:Gmoe}
\end{equation} Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho0alpha}) can be simplified using the orthonormality and completeness of Floquet basis, $\sum_{m=1}^{N}U_{m\alpha
}^*(t)U_{m\beta }(t)=\delta_{\alpha,\beta}$. From here it immediately follows that all matrix elements $\tilde{\rho }_{\alpha 0}(t)$ for $\alpha=1:N$ undergo exponential decay independently from each other with the same rate $\Gamma _{2\phi}+\Gamma _1/2$, starting from the initial value $\tilde{\rho }_{\alpha 0}(0)=\langle \psi ^{\alpha }|r\rangle/2$ where $r$ is a site number for the excitation at $t=0$ (cf. (\ref{eq:Phi1})). The expectation value of $\sigma_r^\dagger$ after $d$ cycles from Eq.~(\ref{eq:cmd0}) is
\begin{equation}
\left\langle \sigma _r^+(d)\right\rangle =\frac{1}{2}e^{-\Gamma d}\hspace{2 mm}\sum _{\alpha =1}^N e^{-i
d \omega _{\alpha }}A_\alpha\;.\label{eq:c-uni}
\end{equation}
where we introduced dimensionless damping rate $\Gamma$ and
\begin{equation}
\Gamma= \left(\Gamma _{2\phi}+\frac{\Gamma _1}{2}\right)t_\mathrm{cycle},\quad A_\alpha=\left|\braket{r}{\psi^\alpha}\right|^2\;.\label{eq:def}
\end{equation}
Above the $\ket{\psi^\alpha}$ and $\omega_\alpha$ and, respectively, eigenstates and eigenvalues of the cycle unitary (\ref{eq:eigUd}) and $\ket{r}$ is a site basis state.
In the main text, the expectation value of $\sigma^+_r$ at a given site is constructed by measuring the Pauli operators $X_r$ and $Y_r$ through the relation $\left<\sigma^+\right> = \left<X\right> + i \left<Y\right>$. The expression (\ref{eq:c-uni}) is obtained above is given in the main text.
We now proceed by showing that for large qubit rings $N\gg1$ the expression (\ref{eq:c-uni}) is correct under much more relaxing conditions than (\ref{eq:Gmoe}). We re-write the expression for $W_{\nu }^{\alpha }(q)$ (\ref{eq:Walpha}) in the following form
\begin{equation}
W_{\nu }^{\alpha }(q)=\sum _{\sigma ,\sigma '=\pm } \sum _{\gamma =1}^2 \Gamma _{\gamma }\left(q(\sigma -\sigma')\right) \Lambda _{\gamma ,\sigma
, \sigma '}^{\nu ,\alpha }\left(q\right)\;,\label{eq:W1}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Gamma _{\gamma }(q)=\frac{1}{N}\sum _{l=1}^{N/2} \left(\Gamma _{2\phi}^{2(l-1)+\gamma}+\frac{\Gamma _1^{2(l-1)+\gamma}}{2}\right)e^{-i q l}\;,\quad, \gamma=1,2\label{eq:Gammag}
\end{equation}
are Fourier transforms of the qubit dephasing rates $\Gamma _{2\phi}^{m}+\Gamma _1^{m}/2$ taken over odd ($\gamma=1$) and even ($\gamma=2$) sites only. The expression for $\Lambda _{\gamma ,\sigma
, \sigma '}^{\nu ,\alpha }\left(q\right)$ is not given here, it follows immediately from comparing (\ref{eq:W1}) with the equations (\ref{eq:Wnu}) and (\ref{eq:Ugl}) in the previous section.
In general, dephasing rates may fluctuate form site to site.
However these fluctuations are statistically independent for super-conducing qubits.
Therefore the dominant terms in the sum (\ref{eq:W1}) correspond to $\sigma=\sigma'$ and the result depend on the dephasing rate averages $\Gamma_1(0),\Gamma_2(0)$ taken over odd and even sites, respectively.
Therefore $W_{\nu }^{\alpha }(q)$ does not depened on the individual dephasing rates but rather on their averages over odd and even sites.
From the central limit theorem
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{1,2}(0)\simeq\Gamma +{\mathcal O}(N^{-1/2})
\end{equation}
In this case the value of $W_{\nu }^{\alpha }(q)\sim\Gamma$ and we again arrive to the expression (\ref{eq:c-uni}).
Therefore for larger qubit rings $N\gg1$ the later is correct under the condition that fluctuations on $\Gamma _{2\phi}^{m}+\Gamma _1^{m}/2$ are bounded in magnitude and statistically independent from site to site.
\subsection{Estimation of quasi-energy spectrum from the data: scaling considerations} \label{sec:scaling}
In the protocol described in the main text we apply a family of periodic circuits to an $N$-qubit array. The circuits have the same cycle unitary $U_\mathrm{cycle}$ but differ in the number of cycles $d=1,2,\ldots,D$. We estimate the circuit parameters given in Table \ref{eq:tab-param} by measuring the expectation value $\left\langle \sigma _r^+(d)\right\rangle$ of the operator $ \sigma _r^+$ after each cycle $d$. We then fit the analytical model given in Eq.(\ref{eq:c-uni}) to the empirical values $ \sigma _r^{\rm data}(d)$. The fitting is done using the least mean square approach via the cost function
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal L}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{d=1}^{D}M_d \Bigl\vert\left\langle \sigma _r^+(d)\right\rangle- \sigma _r^{\rm data}(d)\Bigr\vert^2\;.\label{eq:Lr}
\end{equation}
Here, $M_d$ is the number of times a circuit of the depth $r$ is repeated to obtain the expectation value.
Using (\ref{eq:c-uni}) we get
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal L}(\omega,A,\Gamma)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{d=1}^{D}M_d \left|\frac{1}{2}e^{-\Gamma d}\hspace{2 mm}\sum _{\alpha =1}^N e^{-i
d \omega _{\alpha }}A_\alpha -\sigma _r^{\rm data}(d)\right |^2\;.\label{eq:Lr}
\end{equation}
Minimizing the cost function $ {\mathcal L}(\omega,A,\Gamma)$ with respect to the parameters $\omega_\alpha,\, A_\alpha,\,\Gamma$ we get their estimated values. It is instructive to compute the inverse covariance matrix with respect to the quasi-energies
\begin{equation}
K_{\alpha,\beta}\equiv {\rm Cov}[\omega_\alpha,\omega_\beta],\quad (K^{-1})_{\alpha,\beta}\propto\frac{\partial^2\mathcal{L}}{\partial\omega_\alpha\partial \omega_\beta}\;,\label{eq:K}
\end{equation}
where $\partial ^2\mathcal{L}/\partial \omega _{\alpha }\partial \omega _{\beta }$ is evaluated at the
minimum of the cost function ${\mathcal L}$. Its expectation value equals
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial ^2\mathcal{L}}{\partial \omega _{\alpha }\omega _{\beta }}=\frac{\left| F_{\alpha }(r)\right| {}^2\left| F_{\beta }(r)\right| {}^2}{N^2}\sum
_{d=1}^D M_d d^2e^{-2\Gamma d}\cos \left[d \left(\omega _{\beta }-\omega _{\alpha }\right) \right]\;\label{eq:Cov1}
\end{equation}\newline
where we used the relation (\ref{eq:def}) for $A_\alpha$
\begin{equation*}
A_\alpha= |\left\langle r\left|\psi _{\alpha }\right\rangle\right|^2=\frac{2 |F_\alpha(r)|^2}{N}\;.
\end{equation*}
and $F_\alpha(r)\simeq 2^{-1/2}$ is the rescaled eigenfunction (cf. (\ref{eq:psi}), (\ref{eq:uupm})).
We assume that the number of measurements are the same for each circuit depth, $M_d=M$. In this case the contribution to the inverse covarience from the circuits of the same depth $d$ is $\propto d^2 e^{-2\Gamma d}$. The $d^2$ dependence is a hallmark of Heisenberg scaling in quantum metrology. Eqs.~(\ref{eq:K}) and (\ref{eq:Cov1}) correspond to the Eq.(4) in the main text.
Performing the summation over $d$ we get the explicit form of the matrix elements $\partial ^2\mathcal{L}/\partial \omega _{\alpha }\partial \omega _{\beta }$. One can show that for
\begin{equation}
D\gg N\;,\label{eq:ND}
\end{equation}
the eigenvalues of the matrix $\partial ^2\mathcal{L}/\partial \omega _{\alpha }\partial \omega _{\beta }$ are well approximated by the its diagonal elements that determine the variances of the individual quasi-energies, $\sigma(\omega_\alpha)\propto (\partial^2 \mathcal{L}/\partial \omega _{\alpha }^2)^{-1}$. The condition (\ref{eq:ND}) has a clear physics meaning: to resolve individual quasi-energies we need circuit depth $D$ greater than the inverse separation between their nearest values, $2\pi/|\omega_\alpha-\omega_{\alpha+1}|\sim N$.
Under the above condition (\ref{eq:ND}) we obtain for the inverse variance of individual quasi-energy
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{{\sigma}(\omega_\alpha)}\propto \frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{L}}{\partial \omega _{\alpha }^2}=M\frac{1-e^{-2 x}\left(1+2 x +2 x^2 \right)}{4 \Gamma ^3 N^2}\left| F_{\alpha }(r)\right|
{}^4,\quad x=\Gamma D\;.\label{eq:var}
\end{equation}\newline
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4.0in]{sup_figures/Var-figure.pdf}
\caption{Plot of the coefficient in the expression for the diagonal elements of the inverse covarience matrix (\ref{eq:var}).}
\label{fig:var}
\end{figure}
In (\ref{eq:var}) we introduced quantity $x=\Gamma D$ that controls how much the variance of the estimated quasi-energies scales with the maximum circuit depth $D$. As can be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:var} the accuracy improves with the maximum circuit depth till $D \,\Gamma \leq 3$-$4$ and then it saturates. For a shorter circuit depth $D$ we obtain from Eq.~(\ref{eq:var})
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{{\sigma}(\omega_\alpha)}\propto M\frac{D^3}{3 N^2}\label{eq:var1}
\end{equation}
and the variance scales as $1/D^3$. For the experimentally observed damping rate $\Gamma\simeq 0.007$ the maximum circuit depth beyond which variance does not decrease is
$D <$500-600. Combining this with the condition (\ref{eq:ND}) we arrive at the estimate for the number of qubits in a ring $N< 150$.
We now use (\ref{eq:var}) to investigate how the total number of repetitions depends on $N$ assuming that the value of the variance $\sigma$ remains {\it fixed}. The number of circuits with different
depths (from 1 to $D$) grows linearly with $N$ and the total number of repetitions is $D M$.
According to the discussion above (cf. (\ref{eq:ND})) we set the circuit depth $D=c N$ with $c=$ 3-4. For $N\ll \Gamma^{-1}$
we use the Eq.~(\ref{eq:var1}) and obtain $M\propto N^2/D^3\propto N^{-1}$. The decrease of the required number of repetitions with $N$ is due to the fact that the numerator in (\ref{eq:var1}) increases as $ D^3\propto N^3$ that more than compensates for the factor $N^2$ in the denominator.
Therefore the total required number of repetitions $D M$ does not change with $N$ at $N\ll \Gamma^{-1}$.
On the other hand, for larger number of qubits $N> \Gamma^{-1}$ the necessary circuit depth $D$ is large so that the expression (\ref{eq:var}) for the inverse variance saturates at
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{{\sigma}(\omega_\alpha)}\propto \frac{M}{\Gamma^3 N^2}\;.\label{eq:var2}
\end{equation}
The factor $N^2$ in the denominator is due to the fact that the probability to find an excitation on a given site scales down as $1/N$ that leads to the increase in the number of repetitions at each circuit depth
to reach the same accuracy $M\propto N^2$. The total number of repetitions $D M$ grows rapidly as $N^3$.
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{{\sigma}(\omega_\alpha)}\propto \frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{L}}{\partial \omega _{\alpha }^2}=M\frac{1-e^{-2 x}\left(1+2 x +2 x^2 \right)}{4 \Gamma ^3 N^2}\left| F_{\alpha }(r)\right|
{}^4,\quad x=\Gamma D\;.\label{eq:var}
\end{equation}\newline
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4.0in]{sup_figures/Var1-figure.pdf}
\caption{Plot of the total number of repetitions $M D(N)$ to reach a given accuracy from Eq.~(\ref{eq:var}) assuming that $D(N)=3N$ and taking in account the experimental parameters described in the text.}
\label{fig:var1}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:var1} we plot the total number of repetitions $D M$ as a function of $N$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:var}) by fixing the value of $\sigma$. We set $D=3N$ and use as a reference point
our experimental parameters: the number of repetitions per each circuit depth $M$=100000, maximum depth $d=80$, number of qubit $N=18$, the accuracy of the quasi-energy estimation $\sigma^{1/2}\simeq 10^{-4}$ and $\Gamma=0.007$. One can see that at $N=100$ the total number of repetitions is 4$\times$10$^7$ while at $N=150$ it is 10$^8$.
In our experiments the set or 100000 repetitions of the circuit of the same length takes approximately 2-3 secs (this number is determined by the communication latency and not by the total circuits duration). The entire experiment takes around 3 minutes. Therefore for $N=100$ the experiment is expected to
take about 15-20 mins and for $N=150$ between 40 to 60 mins. Those numbers are well within the stability range of our system.
\section{Periodic circuit on the open chain of qubits: Unitary Evolution }\label{sec:open_chain_unitary}
The circuit on the open chain of qubits is obtained from the one defined on a qubit ring in Eq.(\ref{eq:Ud}) by setting the gate $U_N$ applied between the qubits $N-1$ and $N$ to identity at each cycle. In follows from the discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec:gauge} that the gauge field $\phi=0$ in this case (cf. Eq.(\ref{eq:Ufr})) and therefore reduced cycle unitary ${\mathfrak U}$ does not depend on the single qubit phases $\chi_j$. The circuit unitary can be written in the form given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Uc2})
\begin{equation*}
U_{\text{\rm cycle}}^d=\mathfrak{R}\,\mathfrak{U}^{d }\mathfrak{R}^{-1}\;,
\end{equation*}
where the reduced cycle unitary ${\mathfrak U}$ equals
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{U}= G R\;.\label{eq:Ufro}
\end{equation}
Here
\begin{equation}
G=\prod_{k=1}^{N/2}u_{2j} \, \prod_{k=1}^{N/2-1}u_{2j+1}\;,\label{eq:Gdef}
\end{equation}
(cf. (\ref{eq:VoVe})). The unitary $R$ is given by Eq.(\ref{eq:Rnu}) with phases $\nu_m$ given in (\ref{eq:nu}) except for the $\nu_1$ and $\nu_N$ given below
\begin{equation}
\nu _1=-\zeta _1+ \gamma _1,\quad \nu _{N}=\zeta _{N-1}+\gamma _{N-1}
\end{equation}
In the site basis (\ref{eq:basis}) of a single excitation subspace $R=\sum_{j=1}^{N}e^{i \nu_j}\ket{j}$ and the eigenproblem for the cycle unitary (\ref{eq:eigen}) has the matrix form
\begin{equation}
\sum_{l=1}^{N} G_{kl} \,e^{i \nu_l} \,\psi_{l}^{\alpha}=e^{-i\omega_\alpha}\psi_{k}^{\alpha},\quad \alpha,k=1:N\;,\label{eq:eigen1}
\end{equation}
where nonzero elements of the $N\times N$ matrix $G_{kl}$ are
\begin{equation}
G_{1,1}=\cos \theta _1 ,\quad G_{1,2}= -i\sin \theta _1\,\label{eq:G}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation*}
G_{2k,2k-1}=-i\sin \theta _{2k-1}\cos \theta _{2k},\quad G_{2k,2k}=\cos \theta _{2k-1}\cos \theta _{2k},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
G_{2k,2k+1}=-i
\sin \theta _{2k}\cos \theta _{2k+1},\quad G_{2k,2k+2}=-\sin \theta _{2k}\sin \theta _{2k+1}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
G_{2k+1,2k-1}=-\sin\theta_{2k-1}\sin \theta _{2k},\quad G_{2k+1,2k}=-i \cos\theta_{2k-1}\sin \theta _{2k},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
G_{2k+1,2k+1}= \cos \theta _{2k+1}\cos \theta _{2k},\quad G_{2k+1,2k+2}=-i \sin \theta _{2k+1}\cos \theta _{2k}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
G_{N,N-1}=-i\sin \theta _{N-1},\quad G_{N, N}=\cos\theta_{N-1}
\end{equation*}
\subsection{Circuit with identical gates}\label{sec:chain_nominal}
Here we consider the particular example of the periodic circuit where all gates $u_j$ are identical
\begin{equation}
\zeta_j=\zeta,\quad \theta_j=\theta\;.\label{eq:uniform}
\end{equation}
The parameters $\nu_j$ are
\begin{equation}
\nu_1=- \nu_N=\zeta,\quad \nu_{k \in (2,N-1)}=0\;.\label{eq:nu-u}
\end{equation}
One can show that for not too large values of $\zeta$
\begin{equation}
|\zeta | \leq \zeta_c(N)=\arccos\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{N-2}{N-1}\right)\;,\label{eq:bulk-cond}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\zeta_c(N)=\pi/4\;.
\end{equation*}
eigenstates of ${\mathfrak U}$ form two branches of "bulk" eigenmodes each corresponding to the standing wave with momentum $q$.
Using spinor notation for mode amplitudes on neighboring odd and even sites we can write
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{gathered}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi _{2m+2}^{\alpha } \\
\psi _{2m+1}^{\alpha } \\
\end{array}
\right)=\frac{e^{ i m q_{\alpha }} A_+(\omega_\alpha,\zeta )+e^{ -i m q_{\alpha }}A_-(\omega_\alpha ),\zeta}{2} \psi _1^{\alpha },\quad m\in(1,N/2-2)\;,\label{eq:psi}
\end{gathered}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
For the sites at the boundaries of the chain the mode amplitudes have the form
\begin{equation}
\psi _2^{\alpha }=\frac{e^{i \zeta } \cos \theta -e^{-i \omega _{\alpha }}}{i\hspace{2 mm}\sin \theta } \psi _1^{\alpha }
\end{equation} \begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{gathered}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi _N^{(\alpha )} \\
\psi _{N-1}^{(\alpha )} \\
\end{array}
\right)=b(\zeta )\frac{e^{ i (N/2-1) q_{\alpha }} A_+(\omega_\alpha,\zeta )+e^{ -i (N/2-1) q_{\alpha }}A_-(\omega_\alpha,\zeta)}{2}\psi _1^{\alpha }\hspace{3 mm}
\end{gathered}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here
$A_\pm(\omega,\zeta)$ and $b(\zeta)$ are 2$\times$2 matrices of the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{gathered}
A_{\mp }(\omega ,\zeta )=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-i e^{i \zeta }+i \sqrt{2} e^{-i \omega }\pm \frac{i e^{i \zeta -\frac{i \omega }{2} }-\hspace{2 mm}i e^{i \zeta +\frac{i \omega }{2}} - i \sqrt{2} e^{-\frac{3
i \omega }{2}}}{\sqrt{2} \sqrt{\text{Cos}[\omega ]}} \\
e^{i \zeta }\pm \frac{e^{i \zeta -\frac{i \omega }{2}}+e^{i \zeta +\frac{i \omega }{2}}-\sqrt{2} e^{-\frac{i \omega }{2}}}{\sqrt{2} \sqrt{\text{Cos}[\omega
]}} \\
\end{array}
\right)\;,\label{eq:Amp}
\end{gathered}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{gathered}
b(\zeta)=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\hspace{1 mm}e^{i \zeta}\hspace{2 mm} & 0 \\
0 & \hspace{1 mm}1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\;.\label{eq:b}
\end{gathered}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Two branches of the eigenmodes corresponds to the quasienergies $\omega _{\pm }(q)$
\begin{equation}
\omega _{\pm }(q)=\pm \omega (q)\;,\label{eq:mupm}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\omega (q)=2\arcsin \left(\frac{\cos (q/2)}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\;.\label{eq:mu-open}
\end{equation}
The momentum $q$ is quantized taking $N/2$ distinct values that are roots of the transcendental equation
\begin{equation}
\tan \left(q\left(\frac{N}{2}-1\right)\right)+\tan \left(\frac{q}{2}\right)\left(1-\frac{1}{2-\sqrt{2} -\text{Cos}[q]}\right)=0\;.\label{eq:q-tran}
\end{equation}
This quantized relationship between $\omega$ and $q$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:quasi_spectrum} a, and the full quasi energy spectrum for two values of $\zeta$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:quasi_spectrum} b.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sup_figures/vadim_spectrum_fig.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Plots of the open chain spectrum} Uniform (reference) circuit eigenmodes and quasi-energy spectrum. (a) The relationship between $\Omega(q)$ and $q$. The solid line shows the continuous relationship between the two, while the points show the quantized values of momentum. (b) The plots of the sorted arrays of positive quasi-energies $\omega_+$ for $\zeta = 0$ and $\zeta = 0.6 \pi$. We see that in the latter case the largest quasi-energy splits from the bulk spectrum.}
\label{fig:quasi_spectrum}
\end{figure}
The function $\Omega(q)$ is approximately quadratic for $q << 1$
\begin{equation}
\Omega(q) \approxeq \frac{\pi}{2} - \frac{q^2}{4}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation*}
q\equiv q_k=\frac{\pi k}{N/2-1},\quad k\ll N/2
\end{equation*}
For small values of $\Omega(q)$ it is approximately linear
\begin{equation}
\Omega(q) \approxeq \frac{\pi - q}{\sqrt{2}}\ll 1
\end{equation}
\begin{equation*}
q\equiv q_k=\pi -\frac{\pi \left(N/2-\frac{1}{2}-k\right)}{N/2-1}
\end{equation*}
For sufficiently large values of $\zeta$
\begin{equation}
\pi\geq |\zeta | \geq \zeta_c(N)=\arccos\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{N-2}{N-1}\right)\;,\label{eq:loc-cond}
\end{equation}
The pair of localised Floquet states are formed at the ends of the chain with quasi-energies $\pm\omega_0$, $\pi \leq \omega_0\leq \pi/2$. The dependence of the quasi-energy and quasi-momentum of the localized state is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:mu-q-loc}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{sup_figures/loc0.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Quasi-energy and quasi-momentum of the localized state {\textbf vs} {\boldmath$\zeta$}.} Right figure the plots of real and imaginary parts of the quasi-momentum depicted with blue and red colors respectively for the chain with $N$=10 qubits. The localised state is formed at $\zeta=\zeta_C(N)\simeq \pi/4$. The left figure shows the dependence of the absolute value of the quasi-energies $\pm\omega_0$ of the localised states.}
\label{fig:mu-q-loc}
\end{figure}
The localized state is formed from the delocalized state with zero momentum.
Near the point $|\zeta - \zeta_c(N)|\ll 1$
the quasi-momentum $q_0$ corresponding to the localized states equals
\begin{equation}
q_0\approx c_N \left( \zeta _c(N)-\zeta \right)^{1/2}\;,\label{eq:q0}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
c_N=\frac{\sqrt{12}\left(N^2-2\right)^{1/4}}{(N (1+ N))^{1/2}}\;.\label{eq:cL}
\end{equation}
Fig.~\ref{fig:mu-q-loc} shows the quasi-momentum as a function of $\zeta$ in the vicinity of the $\zeta_c$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{sup_figures/loc.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Quasi-momentum vs {$\boldsymbol\zeta$}.} Solid lines show the exact values of the real and imaginary parts of the quasi-momentum, dashed lines corresponds to the approximate solution (\ref{eq:q0}).}
\label{fig:q}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\label{eq:measure-q-O} Measuring the spectrum of quasi-energies and number of independent parameters}
Another method to measure the spectrum of quasi-energies is to measure the two-time density-density correlator of spin excitations. In the case of a single excitation this corresponds we start with an excitation on one of the $N$ sites, $\rho (0) = \ket{k}\bra{k}$. We then let the state evolve for $d$ applications of the open chain control sequence, and then measure the probability the excitation has moved to site $m$,
\begin{equation}
p_{md} = \bra{m}\rho(d t_{\mathrm{cycle}}) \ket{m}, \quad \rho(0) = \ket{k}\bra{k} \;.\label{eq:pmd}
\end{equation}
The advantage of this method is that it does not require applying any additional gates other then the periodic circuit itself. Also unlike the method described in Sec.~\ref{sec:measure-q} that requires microwave pulses the circuit $U_\mathrm{cycle}^{d}$ conserves number of excitations and therefore post-selection is possible.
The transition probability can be expressed in terms of the Floquet eigenstates and eigenvalues of the cycle unitary $U_\mathrm{cycle}$ (\ref{eq:eigen}) \begin{equation}\label{eq:pmks}
p_{md}=\left| \langle m|U_{\text{cycle}}^d|k\rangle \right| {}^2\equiv \left|\bra{m}{\mathfrak U}^d\ket{k}\right|^2 =\sum _{\alpha =1}^N \sum _{\beta =1}^N e^{i d\left(\omega _{\alpha }-\omega _{\beta
}\right)} \left\langle \left.\psi ^{\alpha }\right|m\right\rangle \left\langle m\left|\psi ^{\beta }\right.\right\rangle \left\langle \left.\psi
^{\beta }\right|k\right\rangle \left\langle k\left|\psi ^{\alpha }\right.\right\rangle\;
\end{equation}
Amongst the quasi-energy differences $\omega_\alpha-\omega_\beta$ there are only $N-1$ independent quantities that can be chosen, e.g., as $ \omega_{\alpha 1} = \omega_\alpha-\omega_1$ where $\{\omega_\alpha\}$ is a sorted array of quasi-energies.
The equation (\ref{eq:Uc2}) $U_{\text{\rm cycle}}^d=\mathfrak{R}\,\mathfrak{U}^{d }\mathfrak{R}^{-1}$ express the circuit unitary $U_{\rm cycle}^{d}$ in terms of the canonical form of the cycle
unitary ${\mathfrak U}$ that has the same set of eigenvalues as $U_{\rm cycle}$. It depends on the $N-1$ swap angles $\theta_j$, CZ phases $\phi_j$, and single qubit phases $\nu_j$. Therefore the quasi-energy differences $\omega_\alpha-\omega_1$ depend on $3N-3$ parameters as shown in Table \ref{eq:tab-param-O}. In a single excitation subspace the CZ phases are not important and the number of independent parameters is $2N-2$ (also no dependence
angles $\chi_j$)
\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{10pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Swap angles and CZ phases & Single-qubit phases &All parameters \\
$\{\theta_j,\,\phi_j\}_{j=1}^{N}$ & $\{\nu_j\}_{j=1}^{N} $ &\\
\hline
$2N-2$& $N-1$ &3$N-3$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Parameters that determine the quasi-energy differences for a periodic circuit in an open chain of qubits}
\end{table}
\label{eq:tab-param-O}
\endgroup
\section{Open Chain Parameter Estimation}\label{sec:fitting}
In the main text we estimate the unitary parameters of a ring of $\sqrt{\text{iSWAP}}$ gates by fitting exponentially decaying oscillations to a time series of expectation values. Here we consider a similar problem, but on an open chain instead of a ring. Instead of fitting a generic model, we will very carefully fit to a secular approximation to the Lindblad equation (\ref{eqn:general_linbald}, \ref{eqn:dephase_photon}), which describes single qubit $T_1$ and $T_{2\phi}$ processes. This secular approximation is found by following a procedure similar to that outlined in section \ref{sec:Secular-O}, resulting in the following equations that approximately govern the open system dynamics in the Schrodinger picture, where $\rho_{\alpha \beta} = \bra{\psi^{\alpha}} \rho \ket{\psi^{\beta}}$:
\iffalse
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
U_{m\alpha }^*(t)U_{m\beta }(t) \equiv g_{m, \alpha, \beta}(t) =& f_{m, \alpha, \beta}(t) e^{-i d (\omega_{\beta \alpha})} \\
g_{m, \alpha, \beta}(t) g_{m, \delta, \gamma}(t) =& f_{m, \alpha, \beta}(t) f_{m, \delta, \gamma}(t) e^{-i d (\omega_{\beta \alpha} - \omega_{\gamma \delta})} \: ,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $f(t)$ is a periodic function with a period of exactly $t_{\rm cycle}$. In the case where
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{eqn:fast_secular_cond}
\omega_{\beta \alpha} \gg & \Gamma t_{\rm cycle} \: \forall \: \alpha \neq \beta \\
\omega_{\beta \alpha} - \omega_{\gamma \delta} \gg & \Gamma t_{\rm cycle}\: \forall \: (\beta, \alpha) \neq (\delta, \gamma) \: ,
\end{split}
\end{align}
one may find a simple expression for the open system dynamics by smoothing Eq.~(\ref{eq:RI}) over an integer number of cycles as below
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:sec_smoothing}
\frac{1}{N t_{\rm cycle}}\int_{t_0}^{t_0 + N t_{\rm cycle}} \frac{\partial \tilde{\rho }_{\alpha \delta }(t)}{\partial t} d t = \frac{1}{N t_{\rm cycle}} \sum _{\beta , \gamma =0}^N \int_{t_0}^{t_0 + N t_{\rm cycle}} R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(t) \tilde{\rho }_{\beta
\gamma }(t) d t
\end{equation}
$\tilde{\rho }_{\alpha \delta }(t)$ is the interaction picture density matrix and will therefore be changing on the timescale of $T_1$ and $T_2$, which is several orders of magnitude slower than $t_{\rm cycle}$. On the other hand, assuming the conditions of equation \ref{eqn:fast_secular_cond}, terms that oscillate with the quasi-energy differences will average to 0 for a relatively small $N$. With this in mind, the integration has nearly no effect on the LHS of equation \ref{eqn:sec_smoothing}, and we can bring $\tilde{\rho }_{\beta \gamma }(t)$ out of the integral on the RHS. The only terms that remain on the RHS after smoothing have $\alpha = \beta$ or $(\beta, \alpha) = (\delta, \gamma)$, resulting in the following equations that separately govern the Schrodinger picture evolution of the diagonal and off-diagonal elements, respectively.
\fi
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:secular_diag}
\frac{d \rho _{\alpha \alpha} (t)}{d t} = \sum_{\beta=0}^N \rho_{\beta \beta}(t) W_{\beta \to \alpha} - \rho _{\alpha \alpha} (t) \sum_{\beta = 0}^N W_{\alpha \to \beta}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:secular_off_diag}
\rho _{\alpha \beta} (d t_{\rm cycle}) = \rho _{\alpha \beta}(0) e^{-i \omega_{\alpha \beta} d} e^{-Y_{\alpha \beta} d t_{\rm cycle}}, \alpha \neq \beta
\end{equation}
Note that we have also assumed that the initial state is in the 1-excitation subspace. $W_{\beta \to \alpha}$ and $Y_{\alpha \beta}$ are time-independent transition and decay rates, and are given below.
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:trans_rate}
W_{\beta \to \alpha} =
\begin{cases}
\sum_{m=1}^N 2 \Gamma_{2\phi}^{m} \overline{|U_{m \alpha} (t)|^2 | U_{m \beta}(t)|^2}, & \text{for } \alpha \neq \beta \neq 0 \\
\sum_{m=1}^N \Gamma_1^m \overline{|U_{m \beta}(t) |^2}, & \text{for } \alpha=0 \\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:decay_rate}
Y_{\alpha \beta} = \sum_{m=1}^N \left( \Gamma_{2\phi}^{m} + \frac{\Gamma_1^m}{2}\right) \left( \overline{|U_{m \alpha}(t)|^2} + \overline{|U_{m \beta}(t)|^2}\right) - 2 \Gamma_{2\phi}^m \overline{|U_{m \alpha}(t)|^2 |U_{m \beta}(t)|^2} \: ,
\end{equation}
where the overbar indicates averaging over one cycle. As can be seen in equation \ref{eqn:secular_diag}, the secular approximation solution yields a set of time-independent linear ODEs for the diagonal elements of the density matrix in the basis of the eigenvectors of the cycle unitary. This set of equations have a standard analytical solution that yeilds exponential decay according to the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a matrix of transition rates constructed using the $W_{\beta \to \alpha}$. In section \ref{sec:drift} we will show that this Markovian model well represents the dynamics of the Sycamore device while performing this experiment on relevant timescales.
Open chain unitary parameter estimation will be accomplished via the experiment described in section \ref{eq:measure-q-O}. We start with an excitation on one of the $N$ sites, $\rho (0) = \ket{k}\bra{k}$. We then let the state evolve for $d$ applications of the open chain control sequence, and then measure the probability the excitation has moved to site $m$,
\begin{equation}
p_{md} = \bra{m}\rho(d t_{\rm cycle}) \ket{m}, \quad \rho(0) = \ket{k}\bra{k} \: .
\end{equation}
We can collect a matrix of experimental probabilities $p^{\text{data}}$ from the Sycamore device. We can then simulate this sequence using the secular approximation model and collect $p^{\text{model}}(\Vec{\theta})$, where $\Vec{\theta}$ are the model parameters, as will be outlined explicitly in section \ref{sec:open_params}. Estimating $\Vec{\theta}$ is therefore achieved by fitting $p^{\text{model}}(\Vec{\theta})$ to $p^{\text{data}}$. $p^{\text{model}}_{dk}$ in the secular approximation is given explicity below,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
p^{\text{model}}_{dk} =& \sum_{\alpha, \beta} \rho_{\alpha \beta} (d t_{\rm cycle}) \braket{k}{\psi^{\alpha}} \braket{\psi^{\beta}}{k} \\
=& \sum_{\alpha} \rho_{\alpha \alpha} (d t_{\rm cycle}) |\braket{k}{\psi^{\alpha}}|^2 + \sum_{\alpha \neq \beta} \rho _{\alpha \beta}(0) e^{-i \omega_{\alpha \beta} d} e^{-Y_{\alpha \beta} d t_{\rm cycle}} \braket{k}{\psi^{\alpha}} \braket{\psi^{\beta}}{k} \\
\end{split}\label{eqn:psim}
\end{align}
Drawing analogy to equation \ref{eq:cmd0}, we can see that within the range of applicability of the secular approximation fitting equation \ref{eqn:psim} to experimental data will allow for the quasi-energies to be extracted to the Heisenberg limit, and uncertainty will be limited by decoherence instead of shot noise. This will be shown explicitly in section \ref{sec:stat_anal}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:sec_error} compares values of $p^{\text{model}}_{dk}$ computed using the secular approximation to those obtained via direct numerical simulation of the master equation for various initial conditions. The error introduced by the secular approximation for realistic values of $T_1$ and $T_{\phi}$ is on the $10^{-3}$ level, which makes it comparable to the expected deviation in experimental population measurements due to shot noise and other imperfections. This suggests the secular approximation will be more than good enough in practice for the fitting task we wish to accomplish here.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{sup_figures/secular_error_fig.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Numerically validating the secular approximation} Absolute error $\epsilon = |\text{Secular} - \text{Full}|$ for $\sqrt{\mathrm{iSWAP}}$ chains on 4-8 qubits for various initializations. The shaded reigon indicates the maximum and minimum recorded error over all initializations, while the solid line indicates the mean error.}
\label{fig:sec_error}
\end{figure}
The secular approximation developed here is useful for fitting experimental data. The solution is simple to compute, with the added benefit that it relies only on simple mathematical primitives such as matrix inversion and eigen-decomposition, allowing one to access first and higher order derivatives of the density matrix elements with respect to the solution parameters for free via a TensorFlow \cite{abadi2016tensorflow} implementation. This is useful for both optimization and statistical analysis, as will be described in section \ref{sec:stat_anal}.
Experimentally, $\bra{k}\rho(d t_{\rm cycle}) \ket{k}$ is estimated by measuring bitstrings in the computational basis. All qubits are measured simultaneously, such that $p^{\text{data}}_{dk}$ is evaluated for all values of $k$ at a single value of $d$ simultaneously. Therefore, if there are $D$ total values of $d$, the data is collected in $D$ packages, each package containing on the order of 10000 bitstrings which can be collected in a few seconds. The exact time required to collect these bitstrings depends on the length of the applied control sequence.
An example of a fit to $p^{\text{data}}$ is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:var} (a), with the relationship between the standard deviation of the $N-1$ estimated ``fundamental" quasi-energy differences and total fitting depth given in Fig.~\ref{fig:var} (b). As in the case of the ring in the main text and two qubits in section \ref{sec:two_q_floquet}, the quasi-energy differences of the open chain are measured with Heisenberg scaling, with a minimum standard deviation of approximately $7 \times 10^{-5}$ being achieved before the uncertainty starts to saturate due to decoherence.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sup_figures/var_fig.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Estimating open chain unitary parameters with Heisenberg scaling.} \textbf{a} Fit of a Lindblad equation open system model to log-spaced data. The nominal circuit is a 4-qubit $\sqrt{\mathrm{iSWAP}}$ chain, with all swap angles equal to $\pi/4$ and all single qubit phases equal to $0$, as described in section \ref{sec:chain_nominal}. One cycle has a real time duration of 64ns; each layer of two qubit gates is completed in 32ns. Error bars on the data points are $3 \sigma$ in each direction and were found via statistical bootstrapping of both the data and readout measurements. 50000 shots were taken per package. Data collection was completed over approximately 30 seconds of real time. \textbf{b}. Scaling of the uncertainty in the 3 fundamental quasi-energy differences with maximum number of cycles $D$. As expected, we achieve Heisenberg scaling out until a depth of approximately 300 and then start to observe the saturation predicted by equation \ref{eqn:sec_ll_hessian}. The calculation of the standard deviation was completed using both equation \ref{eqn:sec_ll_hessian} and statistical bootstrapping with 10000 re-samples. The two techniques agree well at all depths. $10^{-5}$ level standard deviations are observed for all 3 quasi-energy differences, with the lowest standard deviation observed being approximately $7 \times 10^{-5}$.}
\label{fig:var}
\end{figure}
The following sections will detail the procedure used to extract the open chain quasi-energy energy differences to this level of precision.
\subsection{Open System Model Parameterization}\label{sec:open_params}
The minimum set of independent parameters $\vec{\theta}$ of the secular approximation model must be identified to achieve a unique fit of the model to the data.
Through the quasi-energy difference dependence in equation \ref{eqn:secular_off_diag} it is clear that the secular approximation solution is dependant on all of the $2(N-1)$ parameters given in table \ref{eq:tab-param-O}.
At first glance it also seems that the solution would be sensitive to pulse shape parameters through the averages over pulses in equations \ref{eqn:trans_rate} and \ref{eqn:decay_rate}. However, in practice it was found that this dependence is extremely weak, and pulse shapes can fit using the nominal circuit unitary parameter values without being changed later in the fitting. Re-fitting pulse shapes to the corrected unitary parameters post-fitting typically only changes the population data on the $10^{-4}$ scale, which is an order of magnitude smaller than other known sources of error and therefore practically irrelevant. Therefore, the pulse-dependant terms can be considered to be fixed during fitting and do not add any free parameters to the model.
Equations \ref{eqn:trans_rate} and \ref{eqn:decay_rate} also contain $2N$ values of $\Gamma_1^m$ and $\Gamma_{2\phi}^{m}$. One may naively assume that they are all independent, but they generally are not. To see this, we analyze the sensitivity of the transition and decay rates to the vector $\Vec{x} = \begin{pmatrix} \Vec{\Gamma}_1 \\ \Vec{\Gamma}_{2\phi} \end{pmatrix}$ via the least-squares problem
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:gamma_lstq}
\mathcal{L} = \sum_{j \neq i} \left( Y_{ij} - \sum_{k=1}^{2n} A_{ij}^k x_k \right)^2 + \sum_{i \neq j} \left( W_{i \to j} - \sum_{k=1}^{2n} C_{ij}^k x_k \right)^2 \: ,
\end{equation}
where the coeffecient tensors $A_{ij}^k$ and $C_{ij}^k$ come from looking at structure of equations \ref{eqn:trans_rate} and \ref{eqn:decay_rate}. Differentiating with respect to each element in $x$ and setting the result equal to zero, we can form the system of equations $\Vec{L} = G \Vec{x}$, where $L$ is a length $2N$ vector with elements $L_l$ and $G$ is a $(2N, 2N)$ matrix with elements $G_{lk}$ given below.
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:sec_lstq_L}
L_l = \sum_{j \neq i} Y_{ij} A_{ij}^l + \sum_{j \neq i} W_{i \to j} C_{ij}^l
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:sec_lstq_G}
G_{lk} = \sum_{j \neq i} A_{ij}^k A_{ij}^l + \sum_{j \neq i} C_{ij}^k C_{ij}^l
\end{equation}
G is a block matrix consisting of averages over pulses,
\begin{align}\label{eqn:sec_g_block}
\begin{split}
G =& \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{2} + \left( \frac{n}{2} + \frac{1}{2} \right)A & (n-3)A + 2B + 1 \\\left( (n-3)A + 2B + 1 \right)^T & 2 + (2n - 10) A + 4B + 4B^T + 8C \end{pmatrix} \\
A_{gh} =& \sum_{\alpha=0}^n \left( \overline{|U_{h \alpha}(t)|^2} \: \overline{|U_{g \alpha}(t)|^2} \right)\\
B_{gh} =& \sum_{i=0}^n \overline{| U_{g \alpha}(t)|^2} \: \overline{|U_{h \alpha}(t)|^4} \\
C_{gh} =& \sum_{\alpha=0}^n \sum_{\beta \neq \alpha = 0}^n \overline{|U_{h \alpha} (t)|^2 |U_{h \beta}(t)|^2} \: \overline{| U_{g \alpha}(t)|^2 | U_{g \beta}(t)|^2} \: ,
\end{split}
\end{align}
for $g,h \in [1, N]$. G is a symmetric matrix, and therefore it's spectral decomposition, $G = \sum_{k=1}^{2N} \eta_k \Vec{g}_k \Vec{g}_k^T$ , describes the sensitivity of the secular approximation to different components of $\Vec{x}$. The linear combinations of $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_{2\phi}$ values that the solution is sensitive to are given by the eigenvectors of G that are associated with nonzero eigenvalues. The rank of G (or more loosely, how many eigenvalues of G are a substantial fraction of the largest eigenvalue) tells us in total how many free parameters are associated with the incoherent evolution in the secular approximation. Evaluating this eigendecomposition numerically, for the 4 qubit $\sqrt{\mathrm{iSWAP}}$ nominal circuit we find that $G$ has rank 4 (but dimension 8), with the numerical values of the four nonzero eigenvalues and associated eigenvectors given below. The four other eigenvalues were at least 5 orders of magnitude smaller than the largest one, and are likely only nonzero due to numerical noise.
\begin{align}\label{eqn:4_q_gamma_eig}
\begin{split}
\eta_k =& \begin{bmatrix} 13.21 & 0.94 & 0.71 & 0.14 \end{bmatrix}\\
\Vec{g}_k =& \begin{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 0.26 \\ 0.26 \\ 0.26 \\0.26 \\ 0.42 \\ 0.42 \\0.42\\0.42\end{pmatrix} & \begin{pmatrix}0.42 \\ 0.42\\0.42\\0.42\\-0.26\\-0.26\\-0.26\\-0.26\end{pmatrix}& \begin{pmatrix} 0.28 \\ -0.28\\-0.28\\0.28\\0.41\\-0.41\\-0.41\\-0.41\end{pmatrix}& \begin{pmatrix} -0.41 \\ 0.41\\0.41\\-0.41\\0.28\\-0.28\\-0.28\\0.28\end{pmatrix} \end{bmatrix} \\
\end{split}
\end{align}
There is significant structure in the spectrum of G. The largest 2 eigenvectors span the two dimensional space where $\Gamma_1^m = c_1$ and $\Gamma_{2\phi}^{m} = c_2$, which is very physically intuitive, as the overall strength of the incoherent effects should be the most important thing. The last two eigenvectors allow the edge and center values of $\Gamma_1^m$ and $\Gamma_{2\phi}^{m}$ to be different, which is an extremely interesting symmetry.
In general, for $\sqrt{\mathrm{iSWAP}}$ chains on more than 4 qubits, the rank of G is still always exactly n. Changing the swap angles and single qubit phases away from nominal circuit values increases the rank of G. The spectrum of G should be examined numerically for every different circuit one wants to characterize.
In summary, for the nominal circuit open-system fitting problem on $N$ qubits, we will have $2(N-1)$ coherent parameters and $N$ incoherent parameters. The 4 qubit instance therefore has 10 total free parameters.
\subsection{Analysis of Drift}\label{sec:drift}
In this work, we generally rely on Markovian models to fit experimental data and extract unitary parameters. In the main text we fit an exponentially decaying oscillation, which is the correct form for a ring seeing a Markovian enviroment in the limit of large disorder, as justified in section \ref{sec:open_sys-ring}. In the case of the open chain, we directly fit a secular approximation to the Lindblad equation to data. The validity of these Markovian models when fitting to the Sycamore device must be studied, as one typically expects time-correlated noise to appear that would break this assumption.
There are two approaches one could take in studying this. The first is to analyze the fit of the Markovian model to the data in detail; if the fit is good there cannot be signifigant drift in the data, as the model has no way to adjust for time-variance. To study this, an experiment similar to that shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:var} is completed, with the data being taken with linear instead of logarithmic scaling to increase density and collection time. Results of fitting to this data are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fit}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{sup_figures/fit_fig_draft_1.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Fitting the open system model to 4 qubit population data.} \textbf{a} Visualization of the fitting results for site 1 of 4. Data was collected at every depth between 0 and 200, meaning there are in total 800 elements in $p^{\text{data}}$ to fit the 10 parameter model to. 10000 shots were taken per data package. Each data package was collected in a few seconds, implying the total time to take this data was 5 - 10 minutes. \textbf{b} Cumulative distribution of the fitting residuals for all of the 4 sites. We see that approximately $55\%$ of the residuals are smaller than the median value of the standard error of the data points. The error in the secular approximation is also generally on the $10^{-3}$ level, suggesting that this fit is practically perfect and that the Markovian model well represents the performance of this device during this experiment.}
\label{fig:fit}
\end{figure}
The fit is very high quality. Approximately $60\%$ of the residuals are at or below the level of shot noise, which happens to be of similar scale to the average error introduced by the secular approximation in the 4 qubit case, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sec_error} b. The implication of this is that the Lindblad equation \ref{eqn:general_linbald} is an excellent model for the Sycamore device running this experiment. This is quite striking, as this implies that the environment truly appears Markovian to the device during this experiment, and that time-correlated noise sources are not effecting it on a scale we can resolve.
Drift can also be analyzed on the timescale of individual data packages. Over a single package, the circuit parameters are nominally constant, and each bitstring in the timeseries should look like it is sampled from the same underlying distribution. Along these lines, rigorous techniques have been developed for the analysis of bitstring timeseries, such as the frequency domain hypothesis test developed in Ref.~\cite{proctor2020detecting}. However, these techniques are complicated to implement and ultimately provide much more information than we desire. Currently, we only want to test for the existence of drift, and we are not yet interested in the details of its frequency content or otherwise. As such, we propose a very basic protocol here that is capable of answering this simple question.
Consider the timeseries of $M$ bitstrings $y = [b_0, b_1, ..., b_M]$. This timeseries can be split into $k$ equal-sized chunks of size $m < M$. We can then ask the statistical question if all $k$ chunks appear to have been sampled from the same distribution. The chunk size m serves as a psuedo-frequency; using a smaller chunk size will allow us to look for drift at higher frequencies, however statistical uncertainty will be larger, lowering resolution.
There are several statistical tests that could be applied to this problem. A non-parameteric test is required, as the sampling distribution for a quantum computer does not at all resemble a normal distribution or other simple forms. The Kruskal-Wallis (KW) test \cite{kruskal} is an obvious candidate. The null hypothesis of this test is that all of the groups of samples come from distributions with the same median, which is a reasonable thing to look at when studying drift. The outcome of applying this test for various values of $m$ to the first 75 depths of the linearly spaced data show in Fig.~\ref{fig:fit} is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:drift} a.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sup_figures/drift_fig.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Analysis of drift on the timescale of seconds.} \textbf{a}. Raw results of the Kruskal-Wallis test applied to experimental data. Results are shown out to depth 75, but the test was run on the full dataset out to depth 200. From this we see that no exceptionally small p-values are reported. \textbf{b} Plot of the cumulative distribution of the obtained p-values, for both the real experimental data set and a truly drift-less open system simulation. The test was completed for 200 depths and 4 different chunk sizes, so there are in total 800 points in the distribution. We see that the p-values generated using both the real and simulated datasets form a uniform distribution, which suggests that the null hypothesis is true and there is not evidence of drift in the data. The data and simulation distributions are also nearly coincident, which further supports this claim.}
\label{fig:drift}
\end{figure}
The way these p-values are distributed tells us if there is drift in the bitstrings or not. If the null is true and a statistical test has been used correctly (it's assumptions have been met), by the definition of a p-value one expects p-values to be uniformly distributed. As a test of this, we plot the distribution of p-values found by applying the previously described procedure to data generated by an open system simulation. The results of this are shown by the blue curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:drift} b. We see that the CDF of the p-values is nearly exactly linear, as expected. We then plot the distribution of p-values obtained from running the procedure on real data, as shown by the orange curve. we find that this distribution is also uniform and is almost indistinguishable from the distribution generated using simulated data (up to shot noise at very small p-values). This very strongly suggests that the null is true and that there is no statistically significant drift on the timescale of a single package. Combining this with the excellent fitting results shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fit}, it seems that for one reason or another this experiment does not experience drift on the timescale of several minutes.
\subsection{Statistical Analysis of Parameter Estimates}\label{sec:stat_anal}
In any parameter estimation task, there are always two independent measures of success; bias and variance. Bias describes the difference in the mean value of an estimator and the actual parameter. It is desirable for an estimator $\hat{\theta}$ of the underlying parameter $\theta$ to be unbiased, eg $E(\hat{\theta} - \theta) = 0$. In practice, it is of course impossible to measure bias. Doing this would require knowledge of the true underlying distribution of $\theta$, which is generally what we are trying to measure in the first place. Bias can be avoided by choosing a model that is a good fit for the data being considered. The fit achieved with the open system model in Fig.~\ref{fig:fit} provides strong evidence that the parameter estimates achieved using this technique are unbiased on the $10^{-3}$ scale, as it it hard to imagine how the bias in parameter estimation could be substantially larger than the average residual in the fit of a minimal physical model.
The variance of a parameter estimate measures only statistical uncertainty and has nothing to do with the underlying distribution. As such, it can be rigorously analyzed and quantified. The variance of an estimator is given by $\sigma^2 = E\left((\hat{\theta} - \Bar{\hat{\theta}})^2\right)$. By the central limit theorem, the standard deviation $\sigma$ of a parameter estimate will typically scale with $1/\sqrt{n}$, where $n$ is the number of samples used in making the estimate. As mentioned in the main body and in previous work \cite{zhang2020}, the novelty of floquet calibration is that parameters are extracted at the Heisenberg limit; the scaling of the standard deviation with number of samples should exceed the central limit theorem and scale with $1/n$ instead of $1/\sqrt{n}$. This scaling will be carefully established for this open chain control sequence in the following work.
First, it is important to establish that we actually expect to be able to extract the quasi-energy differences, and not the parameter values themselves, with Heisenberg scaling. To see this, it is simplest to consider the populations that would result from the unitary evolution of some initial state $\ket{k}\bra{k}$, as in equation \ref{eq:pmks}. The populations are tied to the parameter values through explicit dependence on both the floquet eigenvectors $ \ket{\psi^{\alpha}}$ and the quasi-energy differences $\omega_{\alpha \beta}$. However, only the dependance on the quasi-energy differences scales with the depth of the circuit $d$. Therefore, the sensitivity of the populations to perturbations in the parameters only grows with depth though the quasi-energies. Noting that the entire quasi-energy difference matrix can be constructed from $N-1$ "fundamental" quasi-energy differences $\omega_{\beta 1}$, we should be able to learn $N-1$ linear combinations of the $2(N-1)$ unitary parameters with Heisenberg scaling from a single set of populations. This same argument can be made looking at the open system model presented in equation \ref{eqn:secular_diag}.
To solidify this argument we consider evaluating the variance of the parameter estimate though the inverse of the information matrix. Given a vector of parameters $\Vec{\theta}$, one may obtain the variance-covariance matrix of a maximum likelihood estimate of $\Vec{\theta}$ through the inverse of the hessian of the log likelihood function. The log-likelihood estimator for this problem is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:ll_estimator}
\mathcal{L}(\Vec{\theta}) = \sum_{d=0}^D N_{d} \sum_{k=0}^n p^{\text{data}}_{dk} \ln\left( p^{\text{model}}_{dk}(\Vec{\theta})\right) \: ,
\end{equation}
with $N_d$ being the number of bitstrings collected at depth $d$ and the matrix $P_{dk}$ as defined in section \ref{sec:fitting}. $p^{\text{model}}_{dk}$ in the secular approximation is given explicitly
The variance-covariance matrix $\mathrm{var}(\Vec{\theta})$ is then given by
\begin{align}\label{eqn:fisher_var}
\begin{split}
\mathrm{var}(\Vec{\theta})_{kj} = \left(-E\left(\pdv{\mathcal{L}(\Vec{\theta})}{\theta_j,\theta_k}\right)\right)^{-1} \: .
\end{split}
\end{align}
In practice, it is easiest to simply evaluate this expression directly in TensorFlow to calculate the variance of the obtained parameter estimates. However, further analytical analysis is useful for gaining an understanding of the general behavior of this function. A simple expression can be developed by realizing that Eq.~\ref{eqn:psim} is only strongly coupled to the quasi-energy differences via the oscillating term $e^{-i \omega_{\alpha \beta} d}$; coupling through the transition and decay coeffecients is approximately $10^{-5}$ times weaker due to the $\Gamma$ prefactors and is therefore irrelevant when considering second derivatives. Following this logic, one can arrive at the below expression for the Hessian of the log-likelihood function with respect to the fundamental quasi-energy differences in the open system case.
\begin{align}\label{eqn:sec_ll_hessian}
\begin{split}
\pdv{\mathcal{L}(\Vec{\omega})}{\omega_{\beta 1}, \omega_{\alpha 1}} \approxeq & -4 \sum_{d=0}^D d^2 N_d \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{f(\alpha, \beta, k, d)}{p^{\text{model}}_{dk}} e ^ {-d t_{\mathrm{cycle}} (Y_{\alpha 1} + Y_{\beta 1})} \\
\end{split}
\end{align}
Where $f(\alpha, \beta, k, d)$ is a function whose magnitude does not scale with d,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:hessian_constant}
f(\alpha, \beta, k, d)= \mathrm{Im}\left( \bra{\psi^{\alpha}} \rho(0) \ket{\psi^1} \braket{k}{\psi^{\alpha}} \braket{\psi^1}{k} e^{-i \omega_{\alpha 1} d t_{\mathrm{cycle}}}\right) \mathrm{Im}\left( \bra{\psi^{\beta}} \rho(0) \ket{\psi^1} \braket{k}{\psi^{\beta}} \braket{\psi^1}{k} e^{-i \omega_{\beta 1} d t_{\mathrm{cycle}}}\right) \: .
\end{equation}
For data collected with sparsely sampled depths, equation \ref{eqn:sec_ll_hessian} scales with $D^2$ when the depth is sufficiently small such that $e ^ {-d t_{\rm cycle} (Y_{\alpha 1} + Y_{\beta 1})} \approxeq 1$. In this regime, the variance-covariance matrix will scale with $\frac{1}{D^2}$ and the standard deviations of the quasi energies will scale with $\frac{1}{D}$. This is the desired Heisenberg scaling. Beyond this regime, the variance will begin to increase due to incoherent effects. There is therefore an optimal depth that will allow for estimation of the parameters at the quantum limit, as observed in the two qubit case in section \ref{sec:two_q_floquet} and Ref. \cite{zhang2020}.
If one repeats the above analysis but takes the hessian with respect to the $2(N-1)$ unitary parameters directly, they will find that only $N-1$ of it's eigenvalues have the desired $D^2$ scaling. The eigenvectors associated with these eigenvalues represent the $N-1$ linear combinations of the $2(N-1)$ unitary parameters that can be learned from a single experiment with Heisenberg scaling. Alternatively, these linear combinations can be found more simply as the rows of the Jacobian of the fundamental quasi-energy differences with respect to the parameters.
\subsection{Readout Correction}
A readout correction procedure is applied to the bitstrings in each package to estimate the probabilities. As discussed in the main text, this is not strictly necessary as the parameter information is encoded in the frequency domain. However, completing this process removes an imperfection from the open system model, reducing the number of experimental imperfections that need to be studied if the fit to the data is imperfect. We assume that readout error is a classical process, and it can therefore be inverted by solving the constrained quadratic problem given below.
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:readout_correct}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} =& |A \Vec{v}^{prep} - \Vec{v}^{meas}|^2 \\
v^{prep}_k > & 0 \\
\sum_k v^{prep}_k =& 1\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$\Vec{v}^{prep}$ is a length $n+1$ vector containing the probabilities $\bra{m} \rho \ket{m}$ for $m \in [0, n]$. $\Vec{v}^{meas}$ is a sparse vector of computational basis measurement probabilities with at most $N$ entries given a package of $N$ bitstrings. $A$ is therefore a sparse matrix which can be measured efficiently by sequentially preparing the ground state and the single excitation states and measuring in the computational basis. Unlike most NISQ experiments, because we work in the 0-and-1 excitation subspace the dimension of $\Vec{v}^{prep}$ grows linearly instead of exponentially and the matrix $A$ can be measured without any assumptions about spatial correlation in the readout error. Therefore, this process will be optimal up to statistical error and quanutum effects in the readout, such as AC stark shifts.
\newpage
\section{Band-structure demonstration with 30 qubits}\label{sec:thirty_qubit_data}
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics{sup_figures/scaling_data.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Measuring the single-particle band-structure with 30 qubits. a} Schematic of the 54-qubit Sycamore processor. Qubits are shown as gray crosses and tunable couplers as blue squares. Thirty of the qubits are isolated to form a one-dimensional ring. \textbf{b} Schematic showing the control sequence used in this experiment. Each large vertical gray box indicates a cycle of evolution which we repeat many times. Each cycle contains two sequential layers of $\surd{\text{i}}\text{SWAP}$ gates (blue). \textbf{c} Raw data measured in this experiment. Each qubit is measured in the x-basis and the data is plotted as a function of the position of the qubit along the ring and the number of cycles. \textbf{d} A Fourier-transform of the data is taken along both the x-axis and the y-axis revealing the single-particle band-structure. By taking a Fourier-transform in position, we arrive at a signal with only a single frequency (each vertical column). This greatly simplifies the data analysis over the method in the main text where all of the frequencies needed to be extracted from a single signal.}
\label{fig:30q_data}
\end{figure} |
\section{Introduction}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure1_1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The pipeline of the proposed multi-view fusion framework. Feature maps are extracted from multiple camera views, aligned on the ground-plane, and fused to obtain the scene-level ground-plane density map.
\abc{The scene map is shown for reference.}
}
\label{fig:abstract_pipepline}
\end{figure}
\par Crowd counting aims to estimate the number of the people in images or videos. It has a wide range of real-world applications, such as crowd management, public safety, traffic monitoring or urban planning \citep{sindagi2018survey}. For example, crowd counting can detect overcrowding on the railway platform and help with the train schedule planning. Furthermore, the estimated crowd density map provides spatial information of the crowd, which can benefit other tasks, such as human detection \citep{eiselein2013enhancing, kang2018beyond, ma2015small} and tracking \citep{kang2018beyond, ren2018fusing, rodriguez2011density}.
\par Recently, with the strong learning ability of deep neural networks (DNNs), density map based crowd counting methods have achieved outstanding performance on the existing counting datasets \citep{cao2018scale, idrees2018composition, sindagi2017generating}, where the goal is to count the crowd in a single image. However, a single image view is not adequate to cover a \emph{large} and \emph{wide} scene, such as a large park or a long train platform. For these wide-area scenes, a single camera view cannot capture the whole scene in adequate detail for counting, either because the scene is too large (wide) to fit within the field-of-view of the camera, or the scene is too long so that the resolution is too low in faraway regions. Furthermore, a single view cannot count regions that are still within the scene, but are totally occluded by large objects (\emph{e.g.}, trees, large vehicles, building structures). Therefore, to solve the wide-area counting task requires multiple camera views with overlapping field-of-views, which combined can cover the whole scene and can see around occlusions. The goal of wide-area counting is then to use multiple camera views to estimate the crowd count of the whole scene.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{Figure1_2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The pipeline of our late fusion model and na\"ive early fusion model for multi-view counting. In the late fusion model, single-view density maps are fused. In the na\"ive early fusion model, single-view feature maps are fused.
}
\label{fig:two_models}
\end{figure*}
\par Existing multi-view counting methods rely on foreground extraction techniques and hand-crafted features. Their crowd counting performance is limited by the effectiveness of the foreground extraction, as well as the representation ability of hand-crafted features. Considering the strong learning power of DNNs as well as the performance progress of single view counting methods using density maps, the feasibility of end-to-end DNNs-based multi-view counting methods should be explored.
\par In this paper, we propose a DNNs-based multi-view counting method that extracts information from each camera view and then fuses them together to estimate a scene-level ground-plane density map (see Fig.~\ref{fig:abstract_pipepline}). The method consists of 3 stages: 1) \emph{Information extraction} -- single view feature maps are extracted from each camera image with DNNs; 2) \emph{Information alignment} -- using the camera geometry, the feature maps from all cameras are projected onto the ground-plane in the 3D world so that the same person's features are approximately aligned across multiple views, and properly normalized to remove projection effects; 3) \emph{Information fusion} -- the aligned single-view projected feature maps are fused together and used to predict the scene-level ground-plane density map.
\par We propose three versions of our multi-view framework that differ in the kind of information that is fused. First, in our late-fusion model (see Fig.~\ref{fig:two_models} top), view-level density maps are predicted for each camera view, projected to the ground-plane, and fused for estimating the scene-level density map. We also propose a post-projection normalization method that removes the projection effect that distorts the sum of the density maps (and thus the count). Second, in our na\"ive early fusion model (see Fig.~\ref{fig:two_models} bottom), convolutional feature maps are extracted from each camera view, projected to the ground-plane and fused to predict the scene-level density map. Third, to handle the scale variations of the same person across camera views, our multi-view multi-scale (MVMS) early fusion model (see Fig.~\ref{fig:MVMS_model}) extracts features with consistent scale across corresponding locations in the camera views before applying projection and fusion. We consider 2 approaches for selecting the suitable scales, based on distances computed from the camera geometry. To further improve the multi-view fusion performance, a rotation selection module is added in the multi-view fusion step (denoted as MVMSR).
\par The existing multi-view datasets that can be used for multi-view counting are PETS2009 \citep{ferryman2009pets2009} and DukeMTMC \citep{ristani2016MTMC}. However, PETS2009 is not a wide-area scene as it focuses on one walkway, while DukeMTMC is a wide-area scene but does not contain large crowds. To address these shortcomings, we collect a new wide-area dataset from a busy street intersection, which contains large crowds, more occlusion patterns (\emph{e.g.}, buses and cars), and large scale variations. This new dataset more effectively tests multi-view crowd counting in a real-world scene.
\par In summary, the main contributions of the paper are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We propose an end-to-end trainable DNNs-based multi-view crowd counting framework, which fuses information from multiple camera views to obtain a scene-level density map.
\item We propose 3 fusion models based on our multi-view framework (late fusion, na\"ive early fusion, and multi-view multi-scale early fusion), which achieve better counting accuracy compared to baseline methods.
\item \add{We propose a rotation selection module based on rotation equivariant networks to further improve the multi-view fusion by considering the geometric properties of the average-height projection.}
\item We collect a real-world wide-area counting dataset consisting of multiple camera views, which will advance research on multi-view wide-area counting.
\end{enumerate}
\par The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, existing single-view and multi-view counting methods are reviewed, and the rotation neural networks are introduced. In Section 3, the proposed two DNNs-based multi-view counting models (both late fusion and na\"ive early fusion model) are presented. In Section 4, the multi-view multi-scale early fusion model with scale selection and rotation selection module is presented. In Section 5, we conduct experiments on multi-view counting datasets.
\section{Related Work}
\par In this section, we review methods for crowd counting from single-view and multi-view cameras, as well as rotation equivariant/invariant networks.
\subsection{Single-view counting}
\sssection{Traditional methods.}~
Traditional single-view counting methods can be divided into 3 categories \citep{Chen2013Crowd, sindagi2018survey}: detection, regression, and density map methods. Detection methods try to detect each person in the images by extracting hand-crafted features \citep{viola2004robust, sabzmeydani2007detecting, wu2007detection} and then training a classifier \citep{joachims1998text, viola2005detecting, gall2011hough} using the extracted features. However, the detection methods do not perform well when the people are heavily occluded, which limits their application scenarios. Regression methods extract image features \citep{chan2008privacy, cheng2014recognizing, junior2010crowd, krizhevsky2012imagenet} and learn a mapping directly to the crowd count \citep{chan2012counting,chen2012feature, paragios2001mrf, marana1998efficacy}. However, their performance is limited by the weak representation power of the hand-crafted low-level features. Instead of directly obtaining the counting number, \cite{lempitsky2010learning} proposed to estimate density maps, where each pixel in the image contains the local crowd density, and the count is obtained by summing over the density map. Traditional density map methods learn the mapping between the hand-crafted local features and the density maps \citep{lempitsky2010learning, pham2015count, wang2016fast, xu2016crowd}.
\sssection{DNNs-based methods.} DNNs-based crowd counting has mainly focused on density map estimation. The first networks used a standard CNN \citep{zhang2015cross} to directly estimate the density map from an image.
Scale variation is a critical issue in crowd counting, due to perspective effects in the image \citep{Yan_2019_ICCV, Liu_2019_ICCV, Xu_2019_ICCV}. \cite{zhang2016single} proposed the multi-column CNN (MCNN) consisting of 3 columns of different receptive field sizes, which can model people of different scales. \cite{sam2017switching} added a switching module in the MCNN structure to choose the optimal column to match the scale of each patch.
\cite{onoro2016towards} proposed to use the patch pyramid as input to extract multi-scale features. Similarly, \cite{Kang2018Crowd} used an image pyramid with a scale-selecting attention block to adaptively fuse predictions on different scales.
\par Recently, more sophisticated network structures have been proposed and extra information is explored to advance the counting performance
\citep{shi2018crowd, idrees2018composition, Wang2019Learning, ranjan2018iterative, cao2018scale, li2018csrnet,
liu2018decidenet, shen2018crowd, Jiang2019Crowd, Liu2019Context}.
\cite{sindagi2017generating} incorporated global and local context information in the crowd counting framework, and proposed the contextual pyramid CNN (CP-CNN).
\cite{cao2018scale} extracted multi-scale features with a scale aggregation module and generated high-resolution density maps by using a set of transposed convolutions.
\cite{idrees2018composition} proposed composition loss, implemented through multiple dense blocks after branching off the base networks.
\cite{li2018csrnet} replaced pooling operations in the CNN layers with dilated kernels to deliver larger reception fields and achieved better counting performance.
\cite{kang2017incorporating} proposed an adaptive convolution neural network (ACNN) that uses side information (camera angle and height) to include context into the counting framework.
\cite{Lian2019Density} proposed a regression guided detection network (RDNet) for RGB-D crowd counting.
\cite{Liu2019Recurrent} proposed Recurrent Attentive Zooming Network to zoom high density regions for higher-precision counting and localization.
\par All these methods are using DNNs to estimate a density map \abc{on the image plane} of a single camera-view, with different architectures improving the performance across scenes and views. In contrast, in this paper, we focus on fusing multiple camera views of the same scene to obtain a ground-plane density map in the 3D world. \nabc{These single-view methods serve as the backbone single-view feature extractors for our multi-view fusion networks.}
\subsection{Multi-view counting}
\par Existing multi-view counting methods can be divided into 3 categories: detection/tracking, regression, and 3D cylinder methods. The detection/tracking methods first perform detection or tracking on each scene and obtain single-view detection results. Then, the detection results from each view are integrated by projecting the single-view results to a common \abc{coordinate system}, \emph{e.g.}, the ground plane or a reference view. The count of the scene is obtained by solving a correspondence problem \citep{dittrich2017people, li2012people, ma2012reliable, Maddalena2014people}.
Regression based methods first extract foreground segments \abc{from each view}, then build the mapping relationship of the segments and the count number with a regression model \citep{Ryan2014Scene, Tang2014Cross}. 3D cylinder-based methods try to find the people's locations in the 3D scene by minimizing the gap between the people's 3D positions projected into the camera view and the single view detection \citep{Ge2010Crowd}.
\par These multi-view counting methods are mainly based on hand-crafted low-level features and regression or detection/tracking frameworks. Regression-based methods only give the global count, while detection/tracking methods cannot cope well with occlusions when the scene is very crowded. In contrast to these works, our approach is based on predicting the ground-plane density map in the 3D world by fusing the information across camera views using DNNs. Two advantages of our approach are the abilities to learn the feature extractors and fusion stage in end-to-end training, and to estimate the spatial arrangement of the crowd on the ground plane. While the previous methods are mainly tested on PETS2009, which only contains low/moderate crowd numbers on a walkway, here we test on a newly collected dataset comprising a real-world scene of a street intersection with large crowd numbers, vehicles, and occlusions.
\par A preliminary conference version of this work appears in \cite{zhang2019wide}.
This paper contains the following extensions: 1)
more details about the scale selection module are added, specifically the rationale of the multi-view scale selection guided by the distance map;
2) a new rotation selection module is proposed to consider the stretching effect of the fixed average-height projection, which further boosts the performance compared to the model in \cite{zhang2019wide};
3)
\add{more experiments and ablation studies, including experiments showing how multi-cameras improve single-view counting performance for each multi-camera counting methods, experiments with more backbone networks, comparison results with different module settings and methods and on another test set in DukeMTMC.}
\subsection{Rotation equivariant/invariant networks}
Rotation equivariance or invariance relates to the DNNs' robustness to rotation changes \nabc{of the input image}. Rotation equivariance means the output is accordingly rotated if the input is rotated, which is useful for the dense prediction tasks, like semantic segmentation or density map estimations. Rotation invariance means the output is invariant no matter how the input is rotated, which is useful for classification tasks.
\par
To enhance the networks' robustness to rotations, the easiest method is to use the data augmentation, namely rotating the original examples multiple times and training the network on the rotated versions.
\cite{Jaderberg2015Spatial} introduced the Spatial Transformer which can spatially manipulate data within the network, giving neural networks the ability to actively spatially transform feature maps.
Rotation equivariant and invariant networks have also been proposed to improve the rotation robustness.
\cite{laptev2016ti} uses multiple rotated examples as inputs into a shared network to extract features at multiple rotations, and then uses a max-pooling layer among these features to obtain rotation-invariant features.
In addition to image rotating, feature maps can also be rotated.
For example, \cite{dieleman2016exploiting} and \cite{cohen2016group} obtained rotation robustness by rotating the feature maps 3 times, by 90 degree each time, and then used average or max-pooling operations.
Besides images and feature maps, rotation robustness can also be obtained by rotating the kernel/filter.
\cite{gao2017efficient} provided an example of how to use rotated kernels,
but the weakness of their method is that the kernel size is fixed (3*3), and rotation angle is limited (45 degree each time, not arbitrary). \cite{marcos2017rotation} performed arbitrary rotations and the orientation pooling was used instead of max pooling to get the rotation-equivariance. \cite{weiler2018learning} proposed the steerable filter CNNs, which employed steerable filters to compute orientation dependent responses without suffering interpolation artifacts from filter rotation, and used group convolutions for an equivariant mapping. Recently, rotation equivariant/invariant networks have been utilized in 3D recognition tasks, such as CubeNet \citep{worrall2018cubenet}, ClusterNet \citep{chen2019clusternet}.
In contrast to these methods that aim to obtain robustness to rotations, we use the rotation equivariant/invairant networks to \nabc{negate the effects of the projection operation from the camera-view to the ground-plane.}
\nabc{Specifically, the multi-rotated filters are used to reduce the influence of the average-height projection on the extracted features, which improves the multi-view fusion counting performance.}
\section{Multi-View Counting via Multi-View Fusion}
\par For multi-view counting, we assume that the cameras are fixed, the camera calibration parameters (both intrinsic and extrinsic) are known, and that the camera frames across views are synchronized. Given the set of multi-view images, the goal is to predict a scene-level density map defined on the ground-plane of the 3D scene (see Fig. \ref{fig:abstract_pipepline}). The \abc{ground-truth} ground-plane density map is obtained in a similar way as the traditional camera-view density map -- the ground-plane annotation map is obtained using the ground-truth 3D coordinates of the people, which is then convolved by a fixed-width Gaussian kernel to obtain the density map \nabc{on the ground-plane}.
\par
In the following two sections, we propose three fusion approaches for multi-view counting:
1) the {\em late fusion} model projects camera-view density maps onto the ground plane and then fuses them together, and requires a projection normalization step;
2) the {\em na\"ive early fusion} model projects camera-view feature maps onto the ground plane then fuses them;
3) to handle inter-view and intra-view scale variations, the {\em multi-view multi-scale early fusion} model (MVMS) selects features scales to be consistent across views when projecting to the same ground-plane point, \nabc{and uses rotation selection to handle rotation effects of the projection (MVMSR).}
We first present the common components, and then the 3 fusion models.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{FCN-7} \\ \hline
Layer & Filter \\ \hline
conv 1 & $16\! \times\! 1\! \times\! 5\! \times\! 5$ \\
conv 2 & $16\! \times\! 16\! \times\! 5\! \times\! 5$ \\
pooling & $2\! \times\! 2\! $ \\
conv 3 & $32\! \times\! 16\! \times\! 5\! \times\! 5$ \\
conv 4 & $32\! \times\! 32\! \times\! 5\! \times\! 5$ \\
pooling & $2\! \times\! 2\! $ \\
conv 5 & $64\! \times\! 32\! \times\! 5\! \times\! 5$ \\
conv 6 & $32\! \times\! 64\! \times\! 5\! \times\! 5$ \\
conv 7 & $1\! \times\! 32\! \times\! 5\! \times\! 5$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
&
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Fusion} \\ \hline
Layer & Filter \\ \hline
concat & - \\
conv 1 & $64\! \times\! n\! \times\! 5\! \times\! 5$ \\
conv 2 & $32\! \times\! 64\! \times\! 5\! \times\! 5$ \\% \hline
conv 3 & $1\! \times\! 32\! \times\! 5\! \times\! 5$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{tabular}
\caption {FCN-7 backbone and fusion module.
The Filter dimensions are output channels, input channels, and filter size ($w\! \times\! h$).
}
\label{table:FCN-7_fusion_module}
\end{table}
\subsection{Backbone for camera views}
\par A fully-convolutional network (denoted as FCN-7) is used on each camera view to extract image feature maps or estimate a corresponding view-level density map. The FCN-7 settings are shown in Table \ref{table:FCN-7_fusion_module}.
For the ablation study, CSR-Net is also used as backbone (see Section \ref{text:CSRnet}).
\subsection{Image to ground-plane projection}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure3_1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The projection module to transform camera-view maps to a ground-plane representation. Here the camera-view map is visualized as a density map.}
\label{fig:projection}
\end{figure}
\par As we assume that the intrinsic and extrinsic parameters of the cameras are known, the projection from a camera's 2D image space to a 3D ground-plane representation can be implemented as a differentiable fixed-transformation module (see Fig.~\ref{fig:projection}). The 3D height (z-coordinate) corresponding to each image pixel is unknown. Since the view-level density maps are based on head annotations and the head is typically visible even during partial occlusion, we assume that each pixel's height in the 3D world is a person's average height (1750 mm). The camera parameters together with the height assumption are used to calculate the correspondence mapping $\cal P$ between 2D image coordinates and the 3D coordinates on the 3D average-height plane. Finally, the Sampler from the Spatial Transformer Networks \citep{Jaderberg2015Spatial} is used to implement the projection, resulting in the ground-plane representation of the input map.
\subsection{Late fusion model}
\par The main idea of the late fusion model is to first estimate the crowd density maps in each camera view, and then fuse them together to obtain the scene-level density map. In particular, the late fusion model consists of 3 stages (see Fig.~\ref{fig:two_models} top): 1) estimating the camera-view density maps using FCN-7 on each view; 2) projecting the density maps to the ground-plane representation using the projection module; 3) concatenating the projected density maps channel-wise and then applying the Fusion module to obtain the scene-level density map. The network settings for the fusion network are presented in Table \ref{table:FCN-7_fusion_module}.
\sssection{Projection Normalization.} One problem is that the density map is stretched during the projection step, and thus the sum of the density map changes after the projection. Considering that the density map is composed of a sum of Gaussian kernels, each Gaussian is stretched differently depending on its location in the image plane. To address this problem, we propose a normalization method to ensure that the sum of each Gaussian kernel remains the same after projection (see Fig.~\ref{fig:normalization}). In particular, let $(x_0, y_0)$ and $(x, y)$ be the corresponding points in the image plane and the 3D world ground-plane representation. The normalization weight $w_{xy}$ for ground-plane position $(x, y)$ is
\begin{align}
w_{xy} = \frac{\sum_{i,j}{D_{x_0, y_0}{(i, j)}}}{\sum_{m,n}{{\cal P}(D_{x_0, y_0}{(m, n)})}},
\end{align}
where $D_{x_0, y_0}$ denotes an image-space density map containing only one Gaussian kernel centered at $(x_0, y_0)$, $\cal P$ is the projection operation from image space to ground plane representation, and $(i, j)$ and $(m, n)$ are the image coordinates and ground-plane coordinates, respectively. The normalization map $W = [w_{xy}]$ for each camera is element-wise multiplied to the corresponding projected density map before concatenation. As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:normalization}, after normalization, the summation of the projected density map remains similar to that of the original view-level density map.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure3_2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The projection normalization process for the late fusion model.
\abc{{\em Sum} is the sum of the whole density map, while {\em Sum}(\textcolor{red}{$\odot$})} is the sum over the circled region.
}
\label{fig:normalization}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure1_3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption
\add{The pipeline of multi-view multi-scale early fusion model (MVMS) with rotation selection module (MVMSR).}
First, multi-scale feature maps are extracted with an image pyramid. The multi-scale feature maps are up-sampled to the same size. The scale selection module (the dotted box) ensures the scales of features \abc{that represent the same ground-plane point} are consistent across all views. The scale-consistent features are projected to the average-height plane and then fused to obtain the scene-level density map. Two kinds of scale selection strategies (the two dotted boxes on the right) are utilized: the fixed scale selection uses the distance information relative to a reference distance, and learnable scale selection makes the reference distance a learnable parameter. For MVMSR, a rotation selection module is added after the projection step and before the fusion step in order to remove mis-aligned rotations caused by the projection step.
}
\label{fig:MVMS_model}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Na\"ive early fusion model}
\par The na\"ive early fusion model directly fuses the feature maps from all the camera-views to estimate the ground-plane density map. Similar to the late fusion model, we implement the early fusion model by replacing the density map-level fusion with feature-level fusion (see Fig.~\ref{fig:two_models} bottom). Specifically, the na\"ive early fusion model consists of 3 stages: 1) extracting feature maps from each camera view using the first 4 convolution layers of FCN-7; 2) projecting the image feature maps to the ground-plane representation using the projection module; 3) concatenating the projected feature maps and applying the Fusion module to estimate the scene-level density map. Note that the projection normalization step used in the late fusion model is not required for the early fusion model, since feature maps do not have the same interpretation of summation yielding a count.
\section{Multi-view multi-scale early fusion model}
\par Intra-view scale variations are an important issue in single-view counting, as people will appear with different sizes in the image due to perspective effects. Using multiple views increases the severity of the scale variation issue; in addition to intra-view scale variation, multi-view images have inter-view scale variations, where the same person will appear at different scales across multiple views. This inter-view scale variation may cause problems during the fusion stage as there are a combinatorial number of possible scales appearing across all views, which the network needs to be invariant to. To address this problem, we extract feature maps at multiple scales, and then perform scale selection so that the projected features are at consistent scales across all views (\emph{i.e.}, a given person's features are at the same scale across all views).
\par Our proposed multi-view multi-scale (MVMS) early fusion architecture is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:MVMS_model}. The MVMS fusion model consists of 4 stages: 1) extracting multi-scale feature maps by applying the first 4 convolution layers of FCN-7 on an image pyramid for each camera view; 2) upsampling all the feature maps to the largest size, and then selecting the scales for each pixel in each camera-view according to the scene geometry; 3) projecting the scale-consistent feature maps to the ground-plane representation using the projection module; 4) fusing the projected features and predicting a scene-level density map using the fusion module. We consider 2 strategies for selecting the consistent scales, fixed scale selection and learnable scale selection.
\par To further boost the multi-view fusion process, a rotation selection module is added before the fusion step in the MVMS model, denoted as \emph{MVMSR}. In the rotation selection module, the projected feature maps are convolved with multiple rotated versions of the filters, and then combined by selecting among the rotated features based on the camera geometry.
\subsection{Scale selection module}
In the camera pinhole model, an object's scale in an image is influenced by the object's distance to the camera (see Fig.~\ref{fig:camera_pinhole}). Therefore, the distance-to-camera information can be used to select the scale in an image pyramid to achieve scale consistency across multiple views. A distance map of each view can be calculated from the camera extrinsic parameters and the average person height. The projection operation ${\cal P}(x_0, y_0, h_{avg})$ is the projection \nnabc{of the image view coordinate $(x_0, y_0)$ to the 3D world coordinates on the average height plane $h_{avg}$}.
Then the distance-to-camera $d(x_0,y_0)$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:distance_map}) \nnabc{is calculated by
transforming to the camera coordinate system, where the camera center is the origin,}
\begin{align}
d(x_0, y_0) = ||R{\cal P}(x_0, y_0, h_{avg}) + T||,\label{eq:distance_map}
\end{align}
\nnabc{where $R$ and $T$ are the camera extrinsic parameters, \zq{rotation matrix and translation, respectively.}}
Next we show how to use the distance information to compute the scale according to the pinhole camera model.
Consider an image pyramid with zoom factor $z$ between neighboring scales.
Let $H$ be the height of the object in the 3D world ($H = h_{avg}$ here), and define $h_r$ as the height of the object on the image (at scale 0) when the object is at a reference distance $d_r$ from the camera.
The same object appears in the image with a different height $h_i$ when it is at distance $d_i$ from the camera.
According to camera pinhole model, we have $d_i/d_r = h_r/h_i$. In the image pyramid, the object's height is ${z^{S_r}}h_r$ in image scale $S_r$ (at distance $d_r$) and ${z^{S_i}}h_i$ in image scale $S_i$ (at distance $d_i$). Thus, to achieve scale consistency, where the heights are equal in the selected image scales, we require that
\begin{align}
{z^{S_r}}h_r = {z^{S_i}}h_i.
\end{align}
Solving for $S_i$, we obtain the scale required for the object at distance $d_i$ to be consistent with the object at reference distance $d_r$ and at reference scale $S_r$,
\begin{align}
S_i = S_r - \log_z(d_i/d_r). \label{eq:scale_sel_raw}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{camera_pinhole.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The relationship between distance-to-camera and object scale in a camera pinhole model.}
\label{fig:camera_pinhole}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{PETS2009_distance_map.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Visualization of camera distance maps of PETS2009.}
\label{fig:distance_map}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Fixed scale-selection}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{PETS2009_scale_selection.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The fixed and learnable scale selection masks for PETS2009.}
\label{fig:scale_selection_mask}
\end{figure}
The fixed scale selection strategy is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:MVMS_model} (bottom-left). For a given camera, let $\{F_0, \cdots , F_n\}$ be the set of feature maps extracted from the image pyramid, and then upsampled to the same size. Here $F_0$ is the original scale and $F_n$ is the smallest scale. A distance map is computed according to (\ref{eq:distance_map}) for the camera-view, where $d(x_0,y_0)$ is the distance between the camera's 3D location and the projection of the point $(x_0, y_0)$ into the 3D-world (on the average height plane). A scale selection map $S$, where each value corresponds to the selected scale for that pixel, is computed according to (\ref{eq:scale_sel_raw}),
\begin{align}
S(x_0, y_0) = S_{r} - \lfloor \log_z{\frac{d(x_0, y_0)}{d_r}} \rfloor,
\end{align}
where
$\lfloor \cdot \rfloor$ is the floor function. $d_r$ and $S_r$ are the reference distance and the corresponding reference scale number, which are the same for all camera-views. In our experiments, we set the reference distance $d_r$ as the distance value for the center pixel of the first view, and $S_r$ as the middle scale of the image pyramid. Given the scale selection map $S$, the feature maps across scales are merged into a single feature map, $F = \sum_{i} \mathbbm{1}(S=i) \otimes F_i$, where $\otimes$ is element-wise multiplication, and $\mathbbm{1}$ is an element-wise indicator function.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{rotation_effect.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Rotation distortion of projected features caused by the average-height projection (using the original image for visualization).}
\label{fig:rotation_effect}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{rotation_selection.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The rotation selection layer. The same kernel is padded, rotated and then convolved with the projected features. The rotation selection mask is used to select and fuse the multi-rotated features.}
\label{fig:rotation_selection_layer}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Learnable scale-selection}
The fixed scale selection strategy requires setting the reference distance and reference scale parameters. To make the scale selection process more adaptive to the view context, a learnable scale-selection model is considered (see Fig.~\ref{fig:MVMS_model} (bottom-right)),
\begin{align}
S(x_0, y_0) = b + k \log_z{\frac{d(x_0, y_0)}{d_r}},
\end{align}
where the learnable parameter $b$ corresponds to the reference scale, and $k$ adjusts the reference distance. The learnable scale selection can be implemented as a 1$\times$1 convolution on the log distance map. Then, a soft scale selection mask $M_i$ for scale $i$ can be obtained,
\begin{align}
M_{i}(x_0, y_0) = \frac{e^{-(S(x_0, y_0)-i)^2}}{\sum_{j=0}^{n}e^{-(S(x_0, y_0)-j)^2}}.
\end{align}
The scale consistent feature map is then
\begin{align}
F = \sum_{i} M_i \otimes F_i.
\end{align}
The fixed and learnable scale selection masks for PETS2009 are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scale_selection_mask}.
The fixed scale selection produces binary masks and learnable scale selection produces soft masks. The learnable scale selection gives more freedom for the networks to fuse the multi-scale features, especially on the edges of each scale's masks.
\subsection{Rotation selection module}
\par
In the projection module, the average-height assumption is utilized in which all pixels in each view are assumed to have the average height. The average-height projection is applicable due to the head annotations in the datasets. On the other hand, the average height projection makes the feature patterns stretched along the view ray. Therefore, the features are ``rotated'' to the view ray direction after the projection (see Fig.~\ref{fig:rotation_effect}). To further improve the multi-view fusion, a rotation selection module is proposed and used before the multi-view fusion step in order to counteract this phenomenon.
The rotation selection layer is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:rotation_selection_layer}, where ``tall'' aspect-ratio kernels ($k_1$ by $k_2$) are adopted due to the stretched patterns. First, the kernel is padded to be square to ensure the feasibility of the arbitrary rotation of the kernel, where the square size is $\lceil \sqrt{2}\max(k_1, k_2) \rceil$. Second, the kernels are rotated over a range of angles $\{r_0, r_1, \cdots, r_m\}$ (decided by the rotation selection map, see next paragraph), which can be implemented using the Sampler from \citep{Jaderberg2015Spatial}. Third, each rotated kernel is convolved with the projected feature maps, resulting in multi-rotated features $\{F_0, ..., F_m\}$. Finally, the multi-rotated features are selected
and fused with rotation selection masks.
The rotation selection mask is calculated with the camera parameters on the \zq{average-height} plane.
Suppose $W_c = (x_c, y_c)$ are the coordinates on the scene-level plane (after projection), and the $(R,T)$ are the camera extrinsic parameters. Therefore, the camera location is $O = -{R^T}T$, and the corresponding view ray is along $\overrightarrow{OW_c}$. The rotation angle $r(x_c, y_c)$ is the angle between the unit vector $(0, 1)$ along $y$ direction and $\overrightarrow{OW_c}$. After the rotation angle map $r(x_c, y_c)$ is calculated, it is then quantized by $q$ degree into the rotation range $\{r_0, r_1, ..., r_m\}$. The rotation selection mask for rotation angle $r_i$ is $\mathbbm{1}(r=r_i)$, and the fused features are $F = \sum_{i} \mathbbm{1}(r=r_i) \otimes F_i$. Examples of the rotation selection masks are presented in the second row of Fig.~\ref{fig:rotation_selection_mask}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{rotation_selection_example.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Examples of the rotation selection masks for PETS2009. The first row shows the angle maps for each view, which show the rotation angle for each pixel. Brighter color means larger rotation angles. The second row shows the quantized angle maps, where a finite number of rotation angles are used to reduce computation complexity.}
\label{fig:rotation_selection_mask}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Training details}
\par
A two-stage procedure is used to train the model. The first stage trains the main scene-level density map estimation task as well as auxiliary view-level density map estimation tasks.
The auxiliary task for late fusion consists of auxiliary losses applied between the predicted and GT density maps for each view.
The auxiliary task for early fusion uses an auxiliary branch of 3 layers of FCN to predict density maps for each view, followed by an auxiliary loss on the view-level predicted density maps. The learning rate is set to 1e-4. In the second stage, the auxiliary view-level density map estimation tasks are removed, leaving only the scene-level task. FCN-7 (either density map estimator or feature extractor) is fixed and the fusion and scale selection parts are trained. The loss function is the pixel-wise squared error between the ground-truth and predicted density maps. The learning rate is set to 1e-4, and decreases to 5e-5 during training. \abc{After training the two stages, the model is fine-tuned end-to-end.}
The training batch-size is set to 1 in all experiments.
\section{Datasets and Experiment Setup}
In this section we introduce the 3 multi-view counting datasets and the experiment settings.
\subsection{Datasets}
We test the proposed multi-view counting framework on two existing datasets, PETS2009 and DukeMTMC, and our newly collected CityStreet dataset. Table \ref{table:datasets} provides a summary, and Fig. \ref{fig:datasets} shows examples.
\sssection{PETS2009:}~PETS2009 \citep{ferryman2009pets2009} is a multi-view sequence dataset containing crowd activities from 8 views. The first 3 views are used for the experiments, as the other 5 views have low camera angle, poor image quality, or unstable frame rate. To balance the crowd levels, we use sequences S1L3 (14\_17, 14\_33), S2L2 (14\_55) and S2L3 (14\_41) for training (1105 images in total), and S1L1 (13\_57, 13\_59), S1L2 (14\_06, 14\_31) for testing (794 images). The calibration parameters (extrinsic and intrinsic) for the cameras are provided with the dataset. To obtain the annotations across all views, we use the View 1 annotations provided by \cite{leal2015motchallenge} and project them to other views, followed by manual annotations to get all the people heads in the images.
\sssection{DukeMTMC:}~DukeMTMC \citep{ristani2016MTMC} is a multi-view video dataset for multi-view tracking, human detection, and ReID. The multi-view video dataset has videos from 8 synchronized cameras for 85 minutes with 1080p resolution at 60 fps. For our counting experiments, we use 4 cameras that have overlapping fields-of-view (cameras 2, 3, 5 and 8). The synchronized videos are sampled every 3 seconds, resulting in 989 multi-view images. The first 700 images are used for training and the remaining 289 for testing.
\zq{Using the same sampling method for creating the DukeMTMC training set, 200 multi-view frames are extracted from DukeMTMC Test Hard set for extra evaluation.}
Camera extrinsic and homography parameters are provided by the dataset. In the original dataset, annotations for each view are only provided in the view ROIs, which are all non-overlapping on the ground-plane. Since we are interested in overlapping cameras, we project the annotations from each camera view to the overlapping areas in all other views. Region R2 (see Fig. \ref{fig:datasets}) is excluded during the experiment, since there are no annotations provided there.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure4_1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Examples from 3 multi-view counting datasets. The first column shows the camera frames and annotations. The second column shows the camera layout and scene-level ground-plane density maps.
}
\label{fig:datasets}
\end{figure*}
\sssection{CityStreet:} We collected a multi-view video dataset of a busy city street in Hong Kong using 5 synchronized cameras. The videos are about 1 hour long with 2.7k ($2704\!\times\!1520$) resolution at 30 fps. We select Cameras 1, 3 and 4 for the experiment (see Fig.~\ref{fig:datasets} bottom).
\abcn{The cameras' intrinsic and extrinsic parameters are estimated using the calibration algorithm from \cite{zhang2000flexible}}.
500 multi-view images are uniformly sampled from the videos, and the first 300 are used for training and remaining 200 for testing.
The ground-truth 2D and 3D annotations are obtained as follows.
\zq{The head positions of the first camera-view are annotated manually, and then projected to other views and adjusted manually.
Next, for the second camera view, new people (not seen in the first view), are also annotated and then projected to the other views.
This process is repeated until all people in the scene are annotated and associated across all camera views.}
Our dataset has larger crowd numbers (70-150), compared with PETS (20-40) and DukeMTMC (10-30).
Our dataset also contains more crowd scale variations and occlusions due to vehicles and fixed structures.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{\hspace{0.2cm}}c@{\hspace{0.2cm}}c@{\hspace{0.2cm}}c@{\hspace{0.2cm}}c@{}}
\hline
Dataset & resolution & view & train / test & crowd \\
\hline
PETS2009 & $768\!\times\!576$ & 3 & 1105 / 794 & 20-40 \\
DukeMTMC &$1920\!\times\!1080$ & 4 & 700 / 289 & 10-30 \\
CityStreet &$2704\!\times\!1520$ & 3 & 300 / 200 & 70-150 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The comparison of three multi-view datasets.}
\label{table:datasets}
\end{table}
\sssection{Experiment settings:} The image resolutions ($w\! \times\! h$) used in the experiments are: $384\!\times\!288$ for PETS2009, $640\!\times\!360$ for DukeMTMC, and $676\!\times\!380$ for CityStreet. The resolutions of the scene-level ground-plane density maps are: $152\!\times\!177$ for PETS2009, $160\!\times\!120$ for DukeMTMC and $160\times192$ for CityStreet. For the detection baseline, the original image resolutions are used (Faster-RCNN will resize the images).
\subsection{Experiment setup}
\sssection{Methods:} We test our multi-view fusion models, denoted as ``Late fusion'', ``Na\"ive early fusion'', ``MVMS'' (multi-view multi-scale early fusion), \nabc{and ``MVMSR'' (MVMS with rotation selection)}. The late fusion model uses projection normalization. MVMS uses learnable scale selection, and a 3-scale image pyramid with zoom factor of 0.5. \add{MVMSR uses 3 rotation selection layers with quantization angle $q = 10^{\circ}$, $45^\circ$ and $45^\circ$ for PETS2009, DukeMTMC and CityStreet, respectively}. These settings will be tested later in the ablation study.
\par For comparisons, we test two baseline methods. The first baseline is a simple approach to fusing camera-view density maps into a scene-level count, denoted as ``Dmap weighted'', which is an adaptation from \cite{Ryan2014Scene}. First FCN-7 is applied to get the density map $D_i$ for each camera-view. The density maps are then fused into a scene-level count using a weight map $W_i$ for each view,
\begin{align}
C = \sum_i \sum_{x_0,y_0} W_i(x_0,y_0) D_i(x_0,y_0),
\end{align}
where the summations are over the camera-views and the image pixels. The weight map $W_i$ is constructed based on how many views can see a particular pixel. In other words, $W_i(x_0, y_0) = 1 / t$, where $t$ is the number of views that can see the projected point ${\cal P}(x_0,y_0)$. Note that \cite{Ryan2014Scene} used this simple fusion approach with traditional regression-based counting (in their setting, the $D_i$ map is based on the \abc{predicted counts for crowd blobs}).
Here, we are using recent DNN-based methods and crowd density maps, which outperform traditional regression-based counting, and hence form a stronger baseline method compared to \cite{Ryan2014Scene}.
The second baseline is using human detection methods and person re-identification (ReID), denoted as ``Detection + ReID''. First, Faster-RCNN \citep{ren2015faster} is used to detect humans in each camera-view. Next, the scene geometry constraints and the ReID method LOMO 2015 \citep{liao2015person} are used to associate the same people across views. Specifically, each detection box's top-center point in one view is projected to other views, and ReID is performed between the original detection box and detection boxes near the projected point in other views. Finally, the scene-level people count is obtained by counting the number of unique people among the detection boxes in all views. The bounding boxes needed for training are created with the head annotations and the perspective map of each view.
\sssection{Evaluation:}
The mean absolute error (MAE) and normalized (relative mean) absolute error (NAE) are used to evaluate multi-view counting performance, comparing the scene-level predicted counts and the ground-truth scene-level counts. In addition, we also evaluate the MAE of the predicted counts in each camera-view. The ground-truth count for each camera-view is obtained by summing the ground-truth scene-level density map over the region covered by the camera's field-of-view.
Note that people that are totally occluded from the camera, but still within its field-of-view, are still counted.
\begin{table*}
\footnotesize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|ccc}
\hline
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{PETS2009 \citep{ferryman2009pets2009}}\\
\hline
Method (camera) & Scene & C1 & C2 & C3 \\
\hline
Dmap (camera 1) & 11.16 / 0.377 & 3.37 / 0.170 & - & - \\
Dmap (camera 2) & 9.09 / 0.308 & - & 5.59 / 0.222 & - \\
Dmap (camera 3) & {7.28 / 0.253} & - & - & {5.84 / 0.216} \\
Dmap weighted (multiview) & 7.51 / 0.261 & {2.63 / 0.127} &{5.56 / 0.217} & 6.18 / 0.229 \\
\hline
Detection+ReID (camera 1) & 17.24 / 0.545 & 8.60 / 0.358 & - & - \\
Detection+ReID (camera 2) & 15.54 / 0.485 & - & 11.19 / 0.393 & - \\
Detection+ReID (camera 3) & 16.33 / 0.503 & - & - & 14.61 / 0.472 \\
Detection+ReID (multiview) & {9.41 / 0.289} & {4.99 / 0.205} & {7.33 / 0.252} & {9.54 / 0.309} \\
\hline
Late fusion (multiview) & 3.92 / 0.138 & 2.62 / 0.143 & 3.17 / 0.137 & 3.97 / 0.150 \\
Na\"ive (multiview) & 5.43 / 0.199 & 2.37 / 0.124 & 4.27 / 0.179 & 4.92 / 0.192 \\
MVMS (multiview) & \textbf{3.49 / 0.124} &\textbf{1.66 / 0.084} & 2.58 / 0.103 & \textbf{3.46 / 0.127} \\
MVMSR (multiview) & 3.84 / 0.135 &1.97 / 0.103 & \textbf{2.54} / \textbf{0.100} & 3.77 / 0.136 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Comparison of the scene-level (left) and the single-view counting (right) measured with mean absolute error and relative mean absolute error (MAE / NAE) on PETS2009. Column ``Scene'' denotes the scene-level counting error. Columns ``C1'', ``C2'' and ``C3'' refer to the single-view counting error for the region within the field-of-view of cameras 1, 2 and 3. ``camera'' indicates the camera(s) used for counting. The late fusion model uses projection normalization, and MVMS and MVMSR uses learnable scale selection.
}
\label{table:PETS2009_results}
\end{table*}
\section{Experiment Results}
In this section, the scene-level counting performance of the proposed DNN-based multi-view fusion methods are evaluated against other multi-camera counting methods. We also demonstrate the single-view counting performance using multi-view cameras.
In terms of both evaluation perspectives, the proposed method can achieve better counting results on all 3 multi-view counting datasets.
\subsection{Scene-level counting performance}
In this section, we test the proposed multi-view counting models in terms of scene-level counting performance on the 3 multi-view counting datasets, PETS2009 \citep{ferryman2009pets2009}, DukeMTMC \citep{ristani2016MTMC} and CityStreet.
The results are presented in Tables \ref{table:PETS2009_results}, \ref{table:DukeMTMC_results}, and \ref{table:CityStreet_results}, and examples shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:results_visualization}.
\subsubsection{PETS2009}
\par
The scene-level counting results on PETS2009 are shown in column ``Scene'' of Table \ref{table:PETS2009_results}. On PETS2009, our proposed multi-view fusion models achieves better results than the two comparison methods. Detection+ReID performs worst on this dataset because the people are close together in a crowd, and occlusion causes severe misdetection. Among our three multi-view fusion models, na\"ive early fusion performs worse, which suggests that the scale variations in multi-view images limits the performance. Furthermore, MVMS performs much better than other models, which shows the multi-scale framework with scale selection strategies can improve the feature-level fusion to achieve better performance.
\par The performance of using one camera for the scene-level counting task is not as good as using multi-cameras.
In particular, using Dmap with cameras 1 or 2 performs poorly due to the limited field-of-view.
Dmap using camera 3 achieves slightly better performance than using multi-cameras (Dmap weighted) because most people can already be seen in camera 3. This also suggests that ``Dmap weighted'' cannot fuse the multi-view information well. Nonetheless, our fusion methods all outperform the Dmap weighted, demonstrating the efficacy of the projection and fusion stages. Finally, using multiple cameras to count with ``Detection+ReID'' improves the performance over single cameras, but still has higher error than our fusion methods.
We next compare our method with a traditional multi-view counting method ``Hybrid" \citep{dittrich2017people}, which is presented in Table \ref{table:comprison_traditional}. \cite{dittrich2017people} proposed two approaches (head detector and count regression) by fusing hand-crafted features (corner points or Harr feature) from multiple cameras for multi-view counting. Similar to \cite{dittrich2017people}, we use PETS2009 S1L1 13\_57 (view 1 and 2) for training and 13\_59 (view 1 and 2) for testing. Our fusion models all achieve better performance than the multi-view counting method based on traditional hand-crafted low-level features, and MVMS with learnable scale selection achieves the best scene-level counting performance.
\begin{table*}
\footnotesize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|cccc}
\hline
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{DukeMTMC \citep{ristani2016MTMC}}\\
\hline
Method (camera) & Scene & C2 & C3 & C5 & C8 \\
\hline
Dmap (camera 2) & 5.19 / 0.613 & 0.62 / 0.282 & - & - & - \\
Dmap (camera 3) & 8.03 / 1.000 & - & 0.91 / 0.516 & - & - \\
Dmap (camera 5) & 6.72 / 0.836 & - & - & 0.98 / 0.476 & - \\
Dmap (camera 8) & {1.93 / 0.266} & - & - & - & 1.41 / 0.243 \\
Dmap weighted (multiview) & 2.12 / 0.255 & 1.024 / 0.426 & {0.79 / 0.647} & {0.89 / 0.663} &{1.30 / 0.201} \\
\hline
Detection+ReID (camera 2) & 3.51 / 0.425 & 2.06 / 1.031 & - & - & - \\
Detection+ReID (camera 3) & 7.20 / 0.890 & - & {\textbf{0.25 / 0.132}} & - & - \\
Detection+ReID (camera 5) & 6.38 / 0.782 & - & - & {0.96 / 0.524} & - \\
Detection+ReID (camera 8) & 5.10 / 0.620 & - & - & - & 3.58 / 0.541 \\
Detection+ReID (multiview) & {2.20 / 0.342} & {0.74 / 0.419} & 0.55 / 0.525 & 1.82 / 2.27 & {3.04 / 0.439} \\
\hline
Late fusion (multiview) & 1.27 / 0.198 & \textbf{0.49} / 0.283 & 0.77 / 1.900 & 0.39 / 0.589 & 1.15 / 0.215 \\
Na\"ive (multiview) & 1.25 / 0.220 & 0.68 / 0.281 & 0.36 / 1.169 & 0.34 / 0.526 & 1.24 / 0.256 \\
MVMS (multiview) & 1.03 / 0.170 & 0.52 / 0.341 & 0.38 / 0.736 & 0.32 / \textbf{0.452} & 0.97 / 0.191 \\
MVMSR (multiview) & \textbf{1.01} / \textbf{0.144} & 0.51 / \textbf{0.269} & 0.27 / 0.795 & \textbf{0.31} / 0.479 & \textbf{0.92} / \textbf{0.154} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Comparison of the scene-level (left) and the single-view counting (right) using mean absolute error and relative mean absolute error (MAE / NAE) on DukeMTMC. See the caption of Table \ref{table:PETS2009_results} for further description.
}
\label{table:DukeMTMC_results}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\footnotesize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|ccc}
\hline
Dataset & \multicolumn{4}{c}{CityStreet}\\
\hline
Method (camera) & Scene & C1 & C3 & C4 \\
\hline
Dmap (camera 1) & 12.50 / 0.14 & 10.16 / 0.126 & - & -2 \\
Dmap (camera 3) & 17.94 / 0.199 & - & 12.55 / 0.153 & - \\
Dmap (camera 4) & 23.15 / 0.265 & - & - & 21.56 / 0.249 \\
Dmap weighted (multiview) & {11.10 / 0.121} &{9.58 / 0.113} & {12.43 / 0.151} & {15.62 / 0.176} \\
\hline
Detection+ReID (camera 1) & 45.80 / 0.513 & 41.38 / 0.483 & - & - \\
Detection+ReID (camera 3) & 40.87 / 0.453 & - & 32.94 / 0.391 & - \\
Detection+ReID (camera 4) & 30.03 / 0.323 & - & - & 28.57 / 0.311 \\
Detection+ReID (multiview) & {27.60 / 0.385} & {33.41 / 0.382} & {17.68 / 0.209} & {24.80 / 0.267} \\
\hline
Late fusion (multiview) & 8.12 / 0.097 & 8.14 / 0.105 & 7.72 / 0.102 & 8.08 / 0.096 \\
Na\"ive (multiview) & 8.10 / 0.096 & 8.13 / 0.104 & 7.62 / 0.101 & 7.89 / 0.093 \\
MVMS (multiview) & 8.01 / 0.096 & 7.99 / 0.105 & 7.63 / 0.106 &7.91 / 0.097 \\
MVMSR (multiview) & \textbf{7.37} / \textbf{0.090} & \textbf{7.39} / \textbf{0.097} & \textbf{7.02} / \textbf{0.097} & \textbf{7.27} / \textbf{0.089} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Comparison of the scene-level and the single-view counting using mean absolute error and relative mean absolute error (MAE / NAE) on CityStreet. See the caption of Table \ref{table:PETS2009_results} for further description.
}
\label{table:CityStreet_results}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\hline
Method & MAE \\
\hline
Hybrid \citep{dittrich2017people} & 2.03 \\
Late fusion (w/ PN) & 1.53 \\
Naive early fusion & 1.57 \\
MVMS (learnable) & \textbf{1.44} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Experiment results on PETS S1L1 (views 1 and 2) comparing with a traditional multi-view method. `PN' means projection normalization.}
\label{table:comprison_traditional}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\hline
Method & MAE \\
\hline
Dmap weighted& 4.17 \\
Detection+ReID & 5.88 \\
Late fusion (w/ PN) & \textbf{2.73} \\
Late fusion (w/o PN) & 2.75 \\
Na\"ive early fusion & 2.82 \\
MVMS (fixed scale selection) & 2.96 \\
MVMS (learnable scale selection) & 2.81 \\
MVMSR (learnable scale selection) & 2.88 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Experiment results on DukeMTMC Test Hard set.}
\label{table:DukeMTMC_Test_Hard_set}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{DukeMTMC}
\par
The scene-level counting results on DukeMTMC are shown in Table \ref{table:DukeMTMC_results} (``Scene'' column). On DukeMTMC, our multi-view fusion models achieve better performance than comparison methods at the scene-level counting task. Due to lower crowd numbers in DukeMTMC, the performance gap among the 3 fusion models is not large -- MVMS and MVMSR still perform best and MVMSR is slightly better than MVMS. Furthermore, results from comparison methods also show that using a single camera is not adequate for the scene-level counting task. Dmap with a single camera 8 performs slightly better than using multi-cameras (Dmap weighted) due to the large field-of-view of camera 8, and the limitations of the weighted fusion.
Finally, the scene-level counting results on the DukeMTMC Test Hard set, which contains more crowds, are presented in Table \ref{table:DukeMTMC_Test_Hard_set}.
Our fusion model achieves better scene-level counting results than the baselines. Among our methods, late fusion has slightly lower error than MVMS.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{l|c@{\hspace{0.25cm}}c@{\hspace{0.25cm}}c@{\hspace{0.25cm}}c|c@{\hspace{0.25cm}}c@{\hspace{0.25cm}}c@{\hspace{0.25cm}}c@{\hspace{0.25cm}}c|c@{\hspace{0.25cm}}c@{\hspace{0.25cm}}c@{\hspace{0.25cm}}c}
\hline
Dataset & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{PETS2009} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{DukeMTMC} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{CityStreet}\\
\hline
Region & C1 & C2 & C3 & Scene & C2 & C3 & C5 & C8 & Scene & C1 & C3 & C4 & Scene \\
\hline
Late fusion (w/ PN) & \textbf{2.62} & \textbf{3.17} & \textbf{3.97} & \textbf{3.92}
& \textbf{0.49} & 0.77 & \textbf{0.39} & \textbf{1.15} & \textbf{1.27}
& \textbf{8.14} & \textbf{7.72} & \textbf{8.08} & \textbf{8.12} \\
Late fusion (w/o PN) & 2.75 & 3.86 & 4.37 & 4.22
& 0.63 & \textbf{0.73} & 0.51 & 1.31 & 1.43
& 9.89 & 9.60 & 9.82 & 9.87 \\
\hline
MVMS (fixed) & 1.74 & \textbf{2.57} & 3.81 & 3.82
& 0.65 & \textbf{\textbf{0.46}} & \textbf{0.88} & 1.44 & 1.09
& 8.11 & 7.83 &8.32 & \textbf{7.80} \\
MVMS (learnable) & \textbf{1.66} & 2.58 & \textbf{3.46} & \textbf{3.49}
& \textbf{0.63} & 0.52 & 0.94 & \textbf{1.36} & \textbf{1.03}
& \textbf{7.99} & \textbf{7.63} & \textbf{7.91} & 8.01 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Ablation study (MAE) comparing the late fusion model with and without projection normalization (PN), and MVMS with fixed or learnable scale selection.}
\label{table:Normalization_study}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{CityStreet}
\par
The scene-level counting results on CityStreet are shown in Table \ref{table:CityStreet_results} (``Scene'' column). On CityStreet, our multi-view fusion models achieve better results than the comparison methods. Compared to PETS2009, CityStreet has larger crowds and more occlusions and scale variations. Therefore, the performances of the baseline methods decreases significantly, especially Detection+ReID. Our MVMSR model achieves much better performance on CityStreet than all other models. The reason is the 3 views of the CityStreet dataset have larger view angle change than the other two datasets, which can better demonstrate the effectiveness of the rotation selection in the multi-view fusion process. Furthermore, similar to the other two datasets, using multi-cameras achieves better scene-level counting performance than using a single camera.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Results_visualization.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The visualization results of the proposed multi-view fusion counting methods on PETS2009, DukeMTMC and CityStreet.}
\label{fig:results_visualization}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Single-view counting performance}
\par
We next evaluate the single-view counting performance, which is the people count within the single-camera's field-of-view. Here we mainly aim to show that multi-view information can improve single-view counting over using a single camera.
\sssection{PETS2009:} The single-view counting results on PETS2009 are shown in Table \ref{table:PETS2009_results}. Columns `C1', `C2', and `C3' correspond for single-view counting in regions
within the fields-of-view of cameras 1, 2, and 3, respectively. On PETS2009, our 3 multi-view fusion models can achieve better results than the two comparison methods in terms of all single-camera counting, which demonstrates that the proposed multi-view fusion DNNs can well integrate the information from multi-views to improve the counting performance in different regions. Furthermore, MVMS performs much better than other models, which also shows the multi-scale framework with scale selection strategies can improve the feature-level fusion to achieve better performance. Finally, the comparison methods' single-view counting performance can also be improved with the aid of other cameras.
\sssection{DukeMTMC:}
On DukeMTMC, our multi-view fusion models can achieve better performance than comparison methods on most camera-views (see Table \ref{table:DukeMTMC_results}). Detection+ReID achieves the best result on camera 3 because this camera is almost parallel to the horizontal plane, has low people count, and rarely has occlusions, which is an ideal operating regime for the detector. Finally, the single-view counting performance is mostly improved with the aid of multi-cameras.
\sssection{CityStreet:}
On CityStreet (see Table \ref{table:CityStreet_results}), our 3 multi-view fusion models achieve better results than the comparison methods. Due to severe occlusions and scale changes, the Detection+ReID methods perform badly, even with the aid of other cameras. However, using multi-cameras still improves the single-view counting performance, and our methods are the most effective at multi-view fusion.
\subsection{Ablation studies}
We next present ablation studies on the various components of our fusion pipeline.
\subsubsection{Normalization in the late fusion model}
\par We perform an ablation study on the late fusion model with and without the projection normalization step, and the results are presented in Table \ref{table:Normalization_study} (top). Using projection normalization reduces the error of the late fusion model, compared to not using the normalization step.
\nnabc{This demonstrates the importance of maintaining the total count when projecting the density map into the ground-plane representation.}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
Dataset & fixed discrete & fixed soft & learnable soft \\
\hline
PETS2009 & 3.82 & 3.59 & 3.49 \\
CityStreet & 7.80 & 8.55 & 8.01 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{MAE comparison of MVMS model selection module settings: fixed scale selection with discrete mask or soft-mask, and learnable scale selection with soft-mask.
}
\label{tab:fixed_soft}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
$q$ & $60^{\circ}$ & $45^{\circ}$ & $22.5^{\circ}$ & $15^{\circ}$ \\
\hline
CityStreet & 7.79 & 7.37 & 7.50 & 7.43 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The ablation study on quantization angle $q$ of the rotation module in MVMSR for scene-level counting performance (MAE) on CityStreet.}
\label{tab:quantization_angle_q}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
Method & FCN-7 & CSR-Net \\
\hline
Dmap weighted & 11.10 & 9.36 \\
Late fusion (w/ PN) & 8.12 & 8.36 \\
Na\"ive early fusion & 8.10 & 8.19 \\
MVMS & 8.01 & 7.89 \\
MVMSR & 7.37 & 8.04 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of FCN-7 and CSR-Net backbones for scene-level counting performance (MAE) on CityStreet.}
\label{tab:csr-net}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Scale selection in the MVMS}
\par We perform an ablation study on the scale-selection strategy of MVMS, and the results are presented in Table \ref{table:Normalization_study} (bottom). Most of the time the learnable scale-selection strategy can achieve lower error than fixed scale-selection. We note that using MVMS with fixed scale-selection strategy still outperforms the na\"ive early fusion, which performs no scale selection. Thus obtaining features that have consistent scales across views is an important step when fusing the multi-view feature maps.
\par
The proposed two scale selection modules use different mask methods: discrete mask for fixed scale selection and soft-mask for learnable scale selection.
We perform another ablation study on fixed scale selection using the soft-mask, which is presented in Table \ref{tab:fixed_soft}. When using soft-masks, learnable scale selection still outperforms fixed scale selection.
\subsubsection{\add{Rotation selection quantization angle in MVMSR}}
\par \add{We performed an ablation study on the quantization angle $q$ in the rotation selection module of MVMSR (FCN-7 backbone) on CityStreet, and the results are presented in Table \ref{tab:quantization_angle_q}. The choice of the quantization angle $q$ involves the balance between the benefit of rotation selection and the extra learning complexity caused by the multi-rotations of the features. $q = 45^{\circ}$ has the best performance compared to larger and smaller quantization angles on CityStreet.}
\subsubsection{Backbone for MVMS and MVMSR}
\label{text:CSRnet}
We compare different feature extraction backbones in the proposed multi-view counting framework: our FCN-7 and CSR-Net
\citep{li2018csrnet}, \nabc{which uses dilated convolutions.}
The counting results of the 4 fusion models on CityStreet are presented in Table \ref{tab:csr-net}.
Using the CSR-Net backbone gives slightly better results for MVMS, compared to the FCN-7 backbone. However, the performance gap between CSR-Net and FCN-7 is larger for Dmap weighted, indicating that the single-view density maps of CSR-Net are more accurate.
\nabc{This suggests that the scale-selection module in MVMS is sufficient for handling scale changes in multi-view counting, and the benefits of using dilated convolutions to handle single-view scale changes are diminished.}
Finally, the improvement of MVMS over late/na\"ive fusion when using CSR-Net is consistent with FCN-7.
\subsubsection{Detection+ReID with Detection or ReID ground-truth}
\par
In crowd scenes, detection methods are limited by severe occlusions among the crowd, while ReID methods are hindered by detection errors, partial occlusions, scale changes between cameras, and low image-patch resolution.
To illustrate the difficulties, we use the ground-truth inter-camera associations (\emph{i.e.}, the best possible ReID) on the people detections and get counting MAE 30.3 on CityStreet, which is worse than our density-map fusion methods.
Likewise, we apply ReID on the ground-truth person boxes (\emph{i.e.}, the best possible detector), and get counting MAE 13.7. Integrating multi-view detection and ReID for multi-view crowd counting would be interesting future work, and our dataset could serve as a test-bed.
\section{Conclusion}
\par In this paper, we propose a DNNs-based multi-view counting framework that fuses camera-views to predict scene-level ground-plane density maps for wide-area crowd counting. Both late fusion of density maps and early fusion of feature maps are studied. For late fusion, a projection normalization method is proposed to counter the effects of stretching caused by the projection operation. For early fusion, a multi-scale approach is proposed that selects features that have consistent scales across views. We also propose a rotation selection module to handle rotated features introduced by the projection operation. To advance research in multi-view counting, we collect a new dataset of large scene containing a street intersection with large crowds. Experiments show that our proposed multi-view counting framework can achieve better counting results than other methods.
In this paper, we have assumed that the cameras are fixed and camera parameters are known. Adapting our framework to moving cameras and unknown camera parameters (using the full spatial transformer net) is interesting future work.
In addition, we have trained and tested the network on each dataset individually. Another interesting future direction is on {\em cross-scene} multi-view counting, where the scenes in the test set are distinct from those in the training set -- however, this requires more multi-view scenes to be collected.
\begin{acknowledgements}
This work was supported by grants from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region, China (Project No. [T32-101/15-R] and CityU 11212518), and by a Strategic Research Grant from City
University of Hong Kong (Project No. 7004887). We are grateful for the support of NVIDIA Corporation with the
donation of the Tesla GPU used for this research.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{spbasic}
|
\section{Introduction}
There has been over forty years since D.~Freedman predicted the coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering process~(CE$\nu$NS)~\cite{PhysRevD.9.1389}.
In the weak neutral current, the $\nu+A \rightarrow \nu+A$ elastic scattering process should have a sharp coherent forward peak for $qR\ll1$.
Here, $q$ is the absolute momentum transfer from the neutrino to the nucleus, and $R$ is the weak nuclear radius.
The CE$\nu$NS is dominated interaction for neutrinos with energies less than $\sim$100~MeV.
It has been firstly observed at a $6.7\sigma$ confidence level with a CsI[Na] detector in the COHERENT experiment~\cite{Akimov:2017ade}.
It used pulsed neutrinos from the Spallation Neutrino Source~(SNS).
Later on, the $\nu$-Ar coherent scattering is also detected by the COHERENT experiment using a single phase liquid argon detector~\cite{Akimov:2020pdx}.
Since the neutrinos are produced in the pion-decay-at-rest process, the nuclei recoil energy concentrates in a range of several to tens of keV~(keV$_{\rm nr}$).
Given the high cross section and the unique properties of the CE$\nu$NS process, many studies have been carried out using the COHERENT data.
For example, the weak mixing angle is measured at the low momentum transfer~\cite{Cadeddu:2018izq}.
The average CsI neutron density distribution is obtained~\cite{Cadeddu:2018rlm}.
When endowed with mass and electromagnetic properties, the neutrino magnetic moment $\mu_{\nu}$~\cite{Kosmas:2017tsq} and the neutrino charge radius~\cite{Cadeddu:2018dux} are limited.
On the other hand, via the CE$\nu$NS process, astrophysical neutrinos create an unavoidable background in the experiments searching for the WIMP dark matter~\cite{Aprile:2016pmc,Zhang:2018xdp,DarkSide20k}, that is the 'neutrino floor'.
In addition, the search for low-mass WIMP using the ionization signal only has drawn more and more attention~\cite{Agnes:2018ves,Aprile:2019jmx,Akerib:2020aws}.
Understanding the response of LXe and LAr from sub-keV to several keV nuclear recoil energies is crucial to the search for light dark matter via this approach.
Given such abundant physics topics, many experiments are on projecting or proceeding~\cite{Papoulias:2019xaw}.
Larger detectors with lower detection threshold will be employed in the COHERENT experiment~\cite{jason_newby_2020_4134026}.
On the other hand, experiments using the strongest artificial neutrino source on the Earth, i.e., the nuclear reactors, are growing quickly, such as CONNIE~\cite{Aguilar-Arevalo:2019jlr}, MINER~\cite{Agnolet:2016zir}, CONUS~\cite{Bonet:2020awv}, and Red-100~\cite{Akimov:2019ogx}.
Compared to the neutrinos with energies of a few tens MeV at SNS, the 2~MeV average energy of reactor antineutrinos requires a significant reduction of the detection threshold.
Thus, the corresponding detectors used in the above experiments are the cryogenic Ge/Si detector, or the dual-phase Xe Time Projection Chamber~(TPC).
In this paper, we propose an experiment to measure the coherent scattering between reactor $\overline{\nu}_{e}$'s and argon nuclei using a dual-phase argon TPC at Taishan, referred to as Taishan Coherent Scattering Experiment here after.
The Taishan Coherent Scattering Experiment will use 200~kg argon as target and will be located side-by-side with the JUNO-TAO experiment~\cite{Abusleme:2020bzt}, which aims to precisely measure the reactor $\overline{\nu}_{e}$~spectrum using a ton-scale liquid scintillator detector with a percent level energy resolution.
The antineutrino flux is approximately 6$\times10^{12}$~cm$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$ at this location, and the vertical overburden is about 5~meters of water equivalent~(m.w.e.)~\cite{Abusleme:2020bzt}.
The TPC size is limited primarily by the size of the elevator to enter the lab.
Thus, the maximum fiducial argon mass is 200~kg.
There are many advantages of using argon in the detection of CE$\nu$NS.
As a noble element detector, the target mass is easy to reach hundreds of kilograms.
This leads to much larger statistics compared to the kg-scale Ge/Si detectors.
Although the $\nu-$Xe CE$\nu$NS cross section is about 16 times larger than that of $\nu-$Ar, due to the mass of an argon nucleus is approximately 3.4 times smaller than xenon, the larger nuclear recoil energy leads to much easier detection in argon.
The large CE$\nu$NS sample not only allows to measure the weak mixing angle $\sin\theta_W$ using the reaction rate, but also opens a door to explore more physics using the spectral shape, for example, constraining the neutrino magnetic momentum, and measuring the ionization electron yield at keV$_{\rm nr}$ energy range.
The major problem of using argon is the intrinsic 1~Bq/kg $^{39}$Ar decays in the atmospheric argon~(AAr).
A possible solution is to use the depleted underground argon~(UAr)~\cite{Agnes:2015ftt}.
As a feasibility study, we will use a 0.7~mBq/kg $^{39}$Ar decay rate in the following sections.
The paper is structured as follows:
Sec.~\ref{layout} presents the conceptual design of the low threshold Argon TPC detector.
Sec.~\ref{background} focuses on the background simulation and the design of shielding.
Sec.~\ref{sensitivity} presents the study of expected sensitivities.
A short summary and prospects are discussed in Sec.~\ref{summary}.
\section{Conceptual design of Taishan Coherent Scattering Experiment}
\label{layout}
In the Standard Model, the differential cross section of CE$\nu$NS is expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sigma}
\frac{d\sigma}{dT_{N}}\left ( E_{\nu}, T_{N}\right )\simeq \frac{G_{F}^{2}}{4\pi}MQ^2_W
\times \left( 1-\frac{MT_{N}}{2E_{\nu}^{2}} \right )F^{2}_W(q^2),
\end{equation}
where $E_{\nu}$ is the energy of the neutrino, $G_F$ is the Fermi constant, $M$ is the nucleus mass, and $T_N$ is the nuclear recoil energy. The weak charge $Q_W$ is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:qw}
Q_W = N-(1-4\times\sin\theta_W)\cdot Z,
\end{equation}
where $N$ and $Z$ are the numbers of neutrons and protons in the nucleus, and $\theta_W$ is the Weinberg mixing angle.
The weak form factor $F^{2}_W(q^2)$ is taken as 1 due to the low $q$ values in the scattering between reactor $\overline{\nu}_{e}$'s and nuclei~\cite{Payne:2019wvy}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Spectrum.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:Spectrum} Recoil energy spectra of Ar and Xe nuclei in the reactor $\overline{\nu}_{e}$~CE$\nu$NS reaction.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Using the reactor neutrino spectra in the 2-8 MeV range provided in Refs.~\cite{Mueller:2011nm,Huber:2011wv} and applying an exponential extrapolation for spectra below 2~MeV, the nuclear recoil energy spectra of Ar are calculated and shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Spectrum}.
The $\overline{\nu}_{e}$-Ar CE$\nu$NS reactions from neutrinos in sliced energy ranges~(0-1~MeV; 1-1.8~MeV; 1.8-3~MeV; 3-10~MeV) are also drawn for better illustration.
The detection of reactor $\overline{\nu}_{e}$'s with energies smaller than 1.8~MeV, i.e., below the threshold of the inverse-beta-decay reaction, is quite difficult.
Because the nuclear recoil energy is less than 0.15~keV$_{\rm nr}$ where the electron yield is about ${\rm 6.4~e^{-}/keV_{nr}}$ , corresponding to a single ionization electron.
In the energy region above 0.2~keV$_{\rm nr}$, the signals are dominated by $\overline{\nu}_{e}$'s with energies larger than 3~MeV.
This puts a stringent requirement on lowering the detection threshold to sub-keV$_{\rm nr}$.
The dual-phase TPC using argon or xenon suits such low energy detection.
An obvious advantage of argon is the smaller nucleus mass than xenon.
The signal rate on argon is larger than that on xenon with the same target mass when the recoil energy is larger than 0.17~keV$_{\rm nr}$.
To estimate a feasible detection threshold, we take the experience from the DarkSide-50 and the Red-100 experiments.
The DarkSide-50 dual-phase argon TPC has achieved the detection of single ionization electron and the analysis of energy threshold above 4 ionization electrons.
The latter value corresponds to approximately 0.5~keV$_{\rm nr}$~\cite{Agnes:2018ves}.
The Red-100 experiment has performed the first ground-level laboratory test of the dual-phase xenon TPC and proved the feasibility of a threshold of 4 ionization electrons~(about 0.6~keV$_{\rm nr}$ in xenon)~\cite{Akimov:2017hee, Akimov:2019ogx,Khaitan:2018wnf}.
Thus, we will use 4 ionization electrons~(about 0.5~keV$_{\rm nr}$ in argon) as the analysis threshold in the following studies.
The proposed Taishan Coherent Scattering Experiment will be located side-by-side with the JUNO-TAO experiment in the Taishan Nuclear Power Plant.
There are two reactor cores in operation now.
Each of them has a thermal power of 4.6~GW.
The experiment will be in a basement of an elevation of –9.6 meters, in which the measured cosmic-ray muon flux is one third of that at the ground level.
The argon TPC is approximately 35~m to one reactor core and is 253~m to another one.
The entrance to the laboratory relies on an elevator with a width of 1.39~m and a height of 1.99~m.
Thus, the size of TPC together with the outer shielding and insulation materials is limited to 1.4~m and the total fiducial mass is about 200~kg.
In addition, the height of the detector, including the shield, should be less than 3.85~m due to the limitation of experimental hall space.
Figure~\ref{fig:TPC} shows the conceptual design of the dual-phase argon TPC detector.
The most inner region is the sensitive argon target~(SensAr).
A cylindrical acrylic vessel~(57~cm height, 57~cm diameter) is used to hold ${\rm \sim 200~kg}$ liquid argon.
A drift electric field is applied in the vertical direction by the high votage on the copper rings.
A gas argon layer with a height of 1.5~cm is above the liquid argon.
A luminescent electric field is applied in the gas region for the single ionization electron detection.
The energy deposition in liquid argon produces photons and free electrons.
The photons are promptly detected by photosensors and are commonly named as S1.
The free electrons will drift to the gas layer in the vertical electric field.
Then, one electron could generate an electroluminescence signal named as S2.
The S2 photoelectron (p.e.) yield can reach 23$\pm$1 ${\rm p.e./e^{-}}$~\cite{Agnes:2018ves}.
The time between S1 and S2 is the drift time corresponds to the time it takes for electrons to move from the action point to the gas phase.
The electron drift speed is related to the strength of the drift electric field~\cite{Carugno:1990kd}.
In the reactor $\overline{\nu}_{e}$-Ar CE$\nu$NS reaction, it is great difficulty to detect S1.
For the argon detector, the better light yield is about ${\rm 10~PE/keV_{ee}}$ for S1. So the S1 is few and even zero PE in the ${\rm sub-keV_{nr}}$ considering the quenching factor.
Thus, the experiment would rely on S2 only.
A set of photosensor array is equipped on the top and the bottom of the TPC.
The photon sensitive coverage is ${\rm 30\%}$ similar to that of DarkSide-50.
To simulate the background, 44*2 Hamamatsu R-11065 PMTs are used as the photon sensor array.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{TPC.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:TPC} Conceptual design of the dual-phase argon TPC at Taishan. The veto liquid argon detector is of great importance to tag the multiple scattering $\gamma$'s and neutrons.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Veto and shielding design}
\label{background}
Although the number of CE$\nu$NS signals could reach 1,000 per day in the 200~kg argon target above a detection threshold of 4 ionization electrons, the signals could be easily washed out by the backgrounds from cosmic ray muons~(about 60~Hz/m$^2$) and ambient radioactivity decays.
To design the veto and shielding, lots of simulation are carried out using Geant4~\cite{Geant4}.
The ambient radioactivity and cosmic ray muons are simulated.
The concentrations of $^{238}$U, $^{232}$Th, and $^{40}$K in the materials are listed in Table~\ref{tab1:impurities}.
The muon generators are taken from the JUNO-TAO simulation~\cite{Abusleme:2020bzt}.
The veto and shielding design is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Neardetector}.
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline
material & weight & Data source & ${\rm ^{238}U~mBq/kg}$ & ${\rm ^{232}Th~mBq/kg}$ & ${\rm ^{40}K~mBq/kg}$ \\
\hline
Lead & 101~t & radiopurity.org & 60 & \_ & 14 \\
PP & 32~t & radiopurity.org & 9.84 &0.569 & \textless{3.1} \\
Acrylic & (814+190)~kg & JUNO-TAO & \textless{0.0123} & ${\rm \textless{4.07\times 10^{-3}}}$ & ${\rm \textless{3.1\times 10^{-5}}}$ \\
Copper ring & 40~kg & DarkSide-50 & \textless{0.06} & \textless{0.02} &0.12 \\
3" PMT R11065 & ${\rm 44\times2}$ & Darkside-50 & 5.2~mBq/PMT & 13.4~mBq/PMT & 37.1~mBq/PMT \\
concrete & 400~t & JUNO-TAO & ${\rm 5.8\times 10^{4}}$ &${\rm 7.9\times 10^{4}}$ &${\rm 7.8\times 10^{5}}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ \label{tab1:impurities} Concentrations of radioactive impurities of materials.}
\end{table*}
The outermost layer is plastic scintillator with 5~cm thickness to tag cosmic ray muons.
The inner brown layer stands for 15~cm lead to shield the ambient radioactivity from hall.
Then, a polypropylene layer acts as thermal insulation and also can shield neutrons generated by muons.
With 90~cm polypropylene, the acrylic vessel can keep -186~$^{\rm o}$C stably.
There are two liquid argon detectors, the outer liquid argon detector is served as a veto detector, instrumented with photosensors and named as the VetoAr, and the inner detector is the aforementioned dual-phase liquid argon TPC, used to detect $\overline{\nu}_{e}$'s and named as the SensAr.
The VetoAr not only passively shields the SensAr from radioactivity from outer materials or hall concrete, but also can tag the multiple scattering $\gamma$s or neutrons.
Once the VetoAr observes an energy deposit, a 600~$\mu$s veto window could be applied to the SensAr according to the maximum drift time of electrons from the TPC bottom to the top.
Since most of backgrounds are from gammas, a quenching factor of 0.25~\cite{Gastler:2010sc} is used to convert the nuclear recoil energy and the electron energy, that is, 1~keV$_{\rm ee}$ = 4~keV$_{\rm nr}$.
In the following sections, the backgrounds are provided in the energy range of 0 to 1~keV$_{\rm ee}$, corresponding to 0 to 4~keV$_{\rm nr}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Near.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:Neardetector} Conceptional design of veto and shielding of the Taishan Coherent Scattering Experiment.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Natural radioactivity}
\subsubsection{Backgrounds from the hall}
In the simulation of the natural radioactive decays in the concrete of the hall, the simulation generators including the ${\rm \gamma/\alpha/e^{-}}$ from radioactive decay are placed in the shell extending 30~cm into the inner wall.
According to simulation results, the gamma rays beyond the 30~cm are almost impossible to transport into the sensitive argon.
Figure~\ref{fig:HallSPectrum} shows the energy spectrum in the SensAr after shielded by 15~cm lead and other inner materials.
The background level is about ${\rm 0.22~/day/kg/keV_{ee}}$ in the 0 to 1~keV$_{\rm ee}$ energy region.
Considering the 101~t weight of the 15~cm lead, different thicknesses of lead are also simulated, listed in Table~\ref{tab:HallLead}.
It can be found that the 15~cm lead is difficult to reduce.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{HallSPectrum.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:HallSPectrum} The deposit energy spectrum in the SensAr from natural radioactivity decays in the hall concrete after shielded by 15~cm lead and other detector materials.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
Lead Thickness. & 15~cm & 13~cm & 10~cm \\
\hline
Background & 0.22 & 0.91 & 5.37 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:HallLead} Background level~(/day/kg/keV$_{\rm ee}$) in the SensAr from the hall concrete after shielded by different thickness of lead.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
In addition to the gammas, fast neutrons could be produced via the $(\alpha,n)$ reaction and in the $^{238}$U spontaneous fission, named as radiogenic neutrons.
The neutron flux from Hall is estimated as ${\rm 2.0 \times 10^{-6}~/cm^{2}/s}$~\cite{Bungau:2005xp}, and the average neutron kinetic energy is about 1.7~MeV.
The attenuation length of neutron is about 6.8~cm in the material that contains ${\rm 10\%}$ hydrogen.
After about ${\rm 90~cm}$ polypropylene, the neutron flux could be reduced by ${\rm 10^{6}}$.
Thus, the radiogenic neutron contributes only a few background per day that can be ignored.
\subsubsection{Backgrounds from the detector material}
The background contributions in the SensAr from major detector components are listed in Table~\ref{tab1:bkgnatural}.
If the energy deposit in the VetoAr is larger than 0.1~MeV, this event triggers the veto argon detector, and a subsequent 600~$\mu$s veto window is applied in the sensitive detector.
Here list the statistics of radioactivity counts ${\rm ( E_{\rm dep}~\textgreater{}~0.1~keV)}$ and also list the count of the energy interval ${\rm (0.1~keV~\textless{}~E_{\rm dep}~\textless{}~1~keV)}$. The radioactivity from material could be vetoed by veto argon detector.
The threshold in the veto detector is also varied, and the corresponding veto efficiency is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:VetoEfficiency}.
The different color mean different material.
For higher veto efficiency and lower trigger, an energy threshold of 0.1~MeV is recommended.
The "${\rm E_{dep}}$" is the energy deposit in the sensitive argon.
The total trigger rate will be about 2~Hz in the sensitive detector.
With the help of the VetoAr, the background in the energy range of interest is only 18 per day in SensAr, much smaller than the 1,000 signals.
\begin{table*}[h]
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Material} & Lead & PP & OutAcrylic & InnerAcrylic & Cage & PMTs & Total \\ \hline
E$_{\rm dep}$~\textgreater{}~0.1~keV & & 34753 & 60060 & 40 & 251 & 28580 & 50596 & 174280 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-9}
0.1~keV~\textless{}~E$_{\rm dep}$~\textless{}~1~keV & \multirow{-2}{*}{No veto}
& 11.2 & 25.9 & 0 & 0.14 & 10.4 & 26.5 & 74.2 \\ \hline
E$_{\rm dep}$~\textgreater{}~0.1~keV & & 14576 & 19658 & 5.5 & 172 & 13357 & 14990 & 62758 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-9}
0.1~keV~\textless{}~E$_{\rm dep}$~\textless{}~1~keV & \multirow{-2}{*}{After veto}
& 4.1 & 4.7 & 0 & 0.1 & 3.3 & 5.6 & 17.8 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Dead time}
& ${\rm 1.1\%}$ & ${\rm 1.4\%}$ & ${\rm 0.0\%}$ & ${\rm 0.25\%}$ & ${\rm 0.1\%}$ & ${\rm 0.2\%}$ & ${\rm 3.0\%}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab1:bkgnatural} Background rates in the SensAr per 200~kg per day. The veto means a larger than 0.1~MeV energy deposit is found in the VetoAr, then, a subsequent 600~$\mu$s veto is applied in the SensAr.}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{VetoEfficiency.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:VetoEfficiency} Veto efficiency with respect to the energy threshold in the veto argon detector}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Another crucial background comes from the intrinsic $^{39}$Ar and $^{85}$Kr decays in the argon.
%
It is well known that the $^{39}$Ar concentrations in the argon from atmosphere~(AAr) or underground~(UAr) are quite different as shown in Table~\ref{tab1:ArKr}~\cite{Agnes:2015ftt,Agnes:2014bvk}.
%
If the AAr is used in the SensAr, the number of $^{39}$Ar decays in the energy of interest could reach 40 times of the signal.
Thus, UAr is a must for the detection of CE$\nu$NS using reactor $\overline{\nu}_{e}$'s.
In this case, the background rate is 25 per day per 200~kg in the energy range of interest.
If the AAr is used in VetoAr, the dead time could reach more than 50\%.
\begin{table}[h]
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
\hline
$^{39}$Ar in underground Ar & 0.73$\pm$0.11~mBq/kg \\ \hline
$^{39}$Ar in atmospheric Ar & (1.01$\pm$0.08)$\times 10^3$~mBq/kg \\ \hline
$^{85}$kr in Ar & 2.05$\pm$0.13~mBq/kg \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab1:ArKr} Intrinsic radioactivity in liquid argon. The data are taken from Refs.~\cite{Agnes:2015ftt,Agnes:2014bvk}.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{BeforeNatural.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{AfterNatural.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:AfterNatural} Backgrounds from materials before~(left) and after~(right) implementing the veto of VetoAr.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As a short summary, the energy spectra of backgrounds from materials are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:AfterNatural}.
The residual backgrounds are dominated by the intrinsic $^{39}$Ar and $^{85}$Kr decays.
A lower $^{85}$Kr concentrations could be achieved using the distillation at low temperature.
\subsection{Cosmic ray muons}
Although most of the hadronic components of cosmic rays have been absorbed, the muons with a rate of $\sim$60~Hz/m$^2$ in the experimental hall would contribute significant backgrounds if they are not well tagged.
In the conceptual design, two detectors are employed to tag the muons.
The first one is a layer of plastic scintillator with 5~cm thickness as the outmost tag.
The VetoAr detector is used to tag muons close to the sensitive argon TPC as Fig.~\ref{fig:Neardetector}.
Table~\ref{tab1:rate} summarizes the rates and veto efficiency of muons and secondary particles in different detectors.
Figure~\ref{fig:TimeArgon} shows the time interval distribution between the energy deposit in SensAr and the corresponding muon.
Black line shows the all events in SensAr; blue line shows the residual events after the veto of plastic scintillator; red line shows the residual events after the vetof of VetoAr.
For illustration, the time interval longer than ${\rm 30~\mu s}$ is filled in the bin of ${\rm 29~\mu s}$.
There are two typical cases to discuss.
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\footnotesize
\\ \hline
Detector & Plastic & Veto &Sensitive \\
& scintillator &argon &argon \\\hline
Rate.~Hz & 3421 & 325 & 106 \\ \hline
veto efficiency.~\% & 95.7\% & 97.8\% & - \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ \label{tab1:rate} Rates and veto efficiency of cosmic ray muons and their secondary particles in different detectors.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{TimeArgon.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:TimeArgon} Time distribution to last muon of energy deposit in SensAr. Black line shows the all events in SensAr; blue line shows the residual events after the veto of plastic scintillator; red line shows the residual events after the veto of VetoAr.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
{\textbf I.} Muons passing through or stopped in the SensAr or VetoAr.
Once a large energy deposit is found in the two detectors, a subsequent 600~$\mu$s veto window is applied in the SensAr.
Neutrons or radioactive nuclei could be produced in the interaction of cosmic ray muon and detector materials, such as radioisotopes of S/Cl/Ar/K.
The energetic particles generated in the neutron capture and the nuclei decays form the long tail in the time interval distribution.
The 600~$\mu$s veto window removes most of neutrons and muon decay signals.
The events with longer life are difficult to be vetoed.
The VetoAr could reduce significantly such background because a $\gamma$ from the decay of cosmogenic isotopes could deposit energy both in the VetoAr and SenAr detectors, shown as the red line in Fig.~\ref{fig:TimeArgon}.
{\textbf II.} For muons only passing through the plastic scintillator detector, the plastic scintillator could tag them with a very high efficiency.
Due to the 3400~Hz trigger rate of the plastic scintillator detector, the subsequent correlation time window with the argon detectors could set only to 1 to 10~$\mu$s.
It could help to classify the events in the argon detectors, as cosmic ray muons contribute the largest trigger rate in the argon detectors, as listed in Table~\ref{tab1:rateSum}.
\subsection{Summary of background rates and the detector live time}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
& Concrete of Hall & Material & Muon & Total \\ \hline
Rate in SensAr~(\textgreater{}~0.1~keV$_{\rm ee}$) & 1.1~Hz & 2.6~Hz & 106~Hz & 109.7~Hz \\ \hline
Rate in VetoAr~(\textgreater{}~0.1~MeV$_{\rm ee}$)& -- & 53~Hz+(711~Hz) & 325~Hz & 378~Hz+(711~Hz) \\ \hline
Dead time & -- & ${\rm 3.2\%~+~(42\%)}$ & ${\rm 19.5\%}$ & ${\rm 22.5\%~+~(42.0\%)}$ \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Bkg after veto in 0.1-1~keV$_{\rm ee}$ \\ /keV/kg/day\end{tabular} & 0.22 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.09~+~0.12~+~0.38 \\ Materials+$^{39}$Ar+$^{85}$Kr\end{tabular} & 0.61 & 1.42 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab1:rateSum} Summary of background rates, and the veto dead time. The numbers in the brankets stands for the case that the air argon is used in the veto argon detector.}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
Table~\ref{tab1:rateSum} lists the summary of background rates and dead time.
The veto time window is 600~$\mu$s in SensAr once the VetoAr observes an energy deposit larger than 0.1~MeV.
This design significantly reduces the background in the SensAr.
A 10$\mu$s correlation window will be used between the argon detectors and the plastic scintillator detector.
A crucial requirement is that the argon of SensAr must be low radioactivity underground one.
Using UAr in the VetoAr is not necessary, but it can save the 42\% dead time as the value in the brankets.
Moreover, the low trigger rate in VetoAr by using underground argon can help set up an online anti-coincidence to reduce the amount of data.
After shielding and veto, the background level is about 1.424~event/kg/keV/day in 0.1-1~keV$_{\rm ee}$.
\section{ Expected sensitivity of the Taishan Coherent Scattering Experiment}
\label{sensitivity}
With the $\sim$1,000 CE$\nu$NS signals per day of the Taishan Coherent Scattering Experiment above the 0.5~keV$_{nr}$ threshold, many physics topics can be studied, for example, the weak mixing angle at low momentum transfer and the neutrino magnetic moment, etc.
Moreover, the reactor $\overline{\nu}_{e}$'s, with 2\%$\sim$3\% spectrum shape precision measured in Ref.~\cite{An:2016srz}, provide a powerful tool to study the ionization electron yield at keV$_{\rm nr}$ energy range.
This will benefit the search of low-mass WIMP dark matter, in particular for the analyses using the ionization signal only~\cite{Aprile:2019xxb,Agnes:2018ves}.
A synergy between the neutrino detector and the dark matter detector is foreseen.
Some discussions are presented in this section.
To perform these analyses, a simplified detector response is added to the signal and background spectra.
The first step is to convert the nuclear recoil energy and the electron energy to the number of ionization electrons~(N$_{e^-}$).
The ionization electron yield~(Y$_{e^-}$) refers to the results in Ref.~\cite{Agnes:2018ves}.
As mentioned above, a quenching factor of 0.25 is used between keV$_{\rm ee}$ and keV$_{\rm nr}$.
The N$_{e^-}$ distribution is assumed to follow the Poisson distribution.
The electron extraction efficiency is set to 100\%.
Figure~\ref{fig:specee} shows the CE$\nu$NS signal and background spectra in the unit of ionization electrons.
To get a good signal to background ratio, the energy region of interest is selected to 4 to 11~$e^-$.
The 4~$e^-$ is chosen to get rid of the backgrounds released by impurities after a large energy deposit.
In the 4 to 11~$e^-$ energy range, the number of signals and background events is 955 and 153, respectively, per day per 200~kg argon.
In the future, the background can be measured $in$-$situ$ using the reactor on-off information.
According to the reactor running status, there would be an one-month reactor off period per year.
The background can be measured to a statistic of N$_{\rm bkg}~=~153/{\rm day} \times 30~{\rm days} = 4590$.
This corresponds to a statistical uncertainty of $\sigma_{bkg}~=~1/\sqrt{N_{bkg}/N_{bin}}~=~4.2\%$ per ionization electron bin.
This number will be used in the following analyses.
The systematic uncertainties consist of the trigger efficiency, the target mass, and the reactor $\overline{\nu}_{e}$~rate and spectrum.
According to Ref.~\cite{Agnes:2018ves}, the trigger efficiency has reached to 100\% at 4 ionization electrons.
Since all the sensitive argon is hold in the acrylic vessel, no fiducial volume cut is used, the target mass uncertainty only arises from the liquid level instability.
The $\overline{\nu}_{e}$~prediction will benefit from the reactor neutrino experiments using the IBD channel~\cite{An:2016srz,Abusleme:2020bzt,Andriamirado:2020erz,AlmazanMolina:2020jlh}.
Thus, 1\%~(aggressive) and 3\%~(conservative, nominal) bin-to-bin correlated uncertainties will be tested.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{specee.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:specee} Spectra of CE$\nu$NS signals and simulated background, taken a simplified detector response into consideration.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{DiffSinMuYe.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:DiffSinMuYe} Ratios of spectra with different parameter values to norminal spectrum. Details are found in the text.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The measured CE$\nu$NS spectrum in terms of the number of ionization electrons is sensitive to several parameters.
Here, we take the weak mixing angle $\sin^2\theta_W$, the neutrino magnetic moment $\nu_\mu$, and the ionization electron yield Y$_{e_-}$ for illustration.
The nominal value of $\sin^2\theta_W$ is set to 0.2386 according to the Particle Data Group~\cite{Zyla:2020zbs}, $\nu_\mu$ is set to 0, and Y$_{e^-}$ to 7 per keV$_{\rm nr}$.
Then, three spectra are generated by changing one parameter and keeping the other two unchanged.
Their ratios to the nominal spectrum are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:DiffSinMuYe}.
The weak mixing angle $\sin^2\theta_W$ changes the number of events in all the bins by the same ratio.
An obvious upward trend is found when Y$_{e^-}$ is enlarged by 10\%.
It means the Y$_{e^{-}}$ can be extracted by fitting the measured spectrum shape with the high statistics data.
This provides a unique probe to calibrate the ionization electron yield in sub-keV$_{\rm nr}$ energy range, in which there is no suitable neutron source up to now.
Finally, if a non-zero $\nu_\mu$ value is introduced, a downward trend is found, since the CE$\nu$NS cross section will be plus the term:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sigmamu}
{\rm \frac{d\sigma _{\mu_{\nu}}}{dT_{N}}\left ( E_{\upsilon }, T_{N}\right )=\frac{\pi\alpha ^{2}}{m_{e}^{2}}\left | \frac{\mu_{\nu}}{\mu_{B}} \right |^{2}\frac{Z^{2}}{T_{N}}\left ( 1-\frac{T}{E_{\nu}}+\frac{T^{2}}{4E^2_{\nu}} \right )}.
\end{equation}
To obtain a expected sensitivity for the parameters, a $\chi^{2}$ function is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:chi}
{\rm \chi ^{2} = \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{\min}\sum_{i=4e^{-}}^{i=11e^{-}}\left(\frac{\left ( N_{data}^{i}-N_{Fit}^{i}\left ( 1+\alpha \right )-Bkg^{i} \right )^{2}}{N_{data}^{i} + \beta^i\times Bkg^{i}} \right )}
{\rm +\left ( \frac{\alpha }{\sigma _{\alpha }} \right )^{2}},
\end{equation}
where ${\rm N_{data}^{i}}$ is the measured candidates in the $i$th bin, and ${\rm N_{data}^{i}}$ is the predicted number of CE$\nu$NS signals.
The exposure is set to 200~kg$\cdot$year.
The ${\rm Bkg^{i}}$ is the number of background in the $i$th bin, and can be estimated using the reactor off data as mentioned above.
Thus, the 4.6\% background uncertainty is treated as bin-to-bin uncorrelated as $\beta^i$ in the denominator.
The nuisance parameter $\alpha$ stands for the systematic uncertainty, and 3\% is used conservatively as the nominal value.
The results with 1\% systematic uncertainty are also shown in the plots.
By minimizing the $\chi^{2}$ function, the expected sensitivities of $\sin^2\theta_W$ and $\mu_{\nu}$ are obtained and shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:weakanglechis}.
The 90\% C.L. of $\sin^2\theta_W$ is 0.232 to 0.246 at keV energy transfer.
The upper limit of the neutrino magnetic moment is ${\rm \mu_{\nu}/\mu_{B}~\textless{}6.6\times 10^{-11}}$.
As a comparison, the best measurement of $\sin^2\theta_W$ at low energy transfer is the atomic parity violation~(APV) experiment, $0.238\pm 0.005$~(1$\sigma$)~\cite{Cadeddu:2019eta}.
From the COHERENT experiment, the value of $\sin^2\theta_W$ is $0.26^{+0.04}_{-0.03} (1\sigma)$~\cite{Cadeddu:2020lky}.
The best limit for $\mu_{\nu}$ is ${\rm \mu_{\nu}~\textless{}2.9\times 10^{-11}\mu_{B}}$ measured by GEMMA~\cite{GEMMA}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{weakanglechis.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{magneticchis.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:weakanglechis} The expected sensitivity of the weak mixing angle $\sin^2\theta_W$~(left) and of the neutrino magnetic moment $\mu_\nu$~(right).}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It should be noted that above sensitivities are obtained by fixing one parameter and minimizing the other one.
For example, $\mu_{\nu}$ is fixed to 0 when studying $\sin^2\theta_W$.
Similarly, $\sin^2\theta_W$ is fixed at the nominal value when searching for the upper limit of $\mu_{\nu}$.
In the future, a joint fitting of $\sin^2\theta_W$, $\mu_{\nu}$, and Y$_{e^{-}}$ can be performed based on the large CE$\nu$NS data set.
\section{Summary}
\label{summary}
In this paper, we have put forward a 200~kg dual-phase argon time projection chamber to detect the CE$\nu$NS from the Taishan nuclear reactor.
The outer shielding and the active veto are designed.
The backgrounds from ambient radioactivity and cosmic-ray muons are simulated.
With the help of a single-phase argon detector surrounding the dual-phase TPC, the background level is 153 per day in the energy range of interest.
This compares to a CE$\nu$NS signal rate of 955 per day.
With the large data set, the expected sensitivities of the weak mixing angle $\sin^2\theta_W$, the neutrino magnetic moment $\nu_\mu$ are presented.
In addition, a synergy between the reactor antineutrino CE$\nu$NS experiment and the WIMP dark matter experiment is foreseen, not only in the better understanding of the neutrino floor, but also in the understanding of the detector response at keV nuclear recoil energy range.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Acknowledgement}
The study is supported by National Key R\&D Program of China (2016YFA0400304) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (11975244).
The authors would like to thank Yufeng Li, Yiyu Zhang, and Yi Wang for the helpful discussion.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
\input{sections/intro}
\section{Background and Related Works}
\input{sections/back_relworks}
\section{Methodology}
\input{sections/methodology}
\section{Experiments}
\input{sections/experiments}
\section{Discussion}
\input{sections/discussion}
\subsection{Future Work}
\input{sections/futurework}
\section{Conclusion}
\input{sections/conclusion}
\bibliographystyle{splncs04}
\subsection{Ship Detection}
\input{sections/back_rel/ship}
\subsection{Distributed Scheduling}
\input{sections/back_rel/dist_sched}
\subsection{Architecture}
\input{sections/back_rel/architecture}
\subsection{Clusters}
\input{sections/back_rel/clusters}
\subsection{Tasks}
\input{sections/back_rel/tasks}
\subsection{Task Allocation Through The Scheduler}
\input{sections/back_rel/task_allocation}
\subsection{Cloud-Based Scheduling}
\input{sections/back_rel/cloud_based_sched}
\subsection{Distributed Deep Learning Scheduling}
\input{sections/back_rel/dl_sched}
\subsection{Stragglers}
\input{sections/back_rel/stragglers}
\subsection{Parameter Server}
\input{sections/back_rel/ps}
\subsubsection{Custom U-Net}
\input{sections/methodology/unet}
\subsection{RedisAI as a Data Server}
\input{sections/methodology/redisai}
\subsubsection{Single-Node Architecture}
\input{sections/methodology/sn}
\subsubsection{Parameter Server Variant Architecture}
\input{sections/methodology/psv}
\subsection{Data Serving}
\input{sections/experiments/redisai}
\subsubsection{Single-Node Experiments}
\input{sections/experiments/sn}
\subsubsection{Parameter Server Variant Experiment}
\input{sections/experiments/psv}
\subsection{System Completion}
\input{sections/experiments/sys}
\subsubsection{Theia MRC Predictions}
\input{sections/experiments/target}
Three experiments with the SN architecture produced a 92\% accuracy and one experiment with the PSv reaching 86\% ship detection accuracy.
Though lower accuracy, the accuracy scoring was opposite on the target dataset with SN being lower than the PSv.
A multitude of systematic metrics were recorded during the training process.
\subsection{Data Serving}
\input{sections/discussion/redisai}
\subsection{Single-Node}
\input{sections/discussion/sn}
\subsection{Parameter Server Variant}
\input{sections/discussion/psv}
\subsection{Cost}
\input{sections/discussion/cost}
\subsubsection{Training Dataset}
The term layers and channels are synonymous in regard to the following description about the datasets.
A 48 thousand chip dataset was re-sasmpled to five-meter and quartered to a (3,384,384) chip (RGB) that each contained a ship and was taken by the SPOT-5 satellite \cite{spot-5}; originally built by AirBus \cite{airbus}.
Only 1.035e-6\% of the overall dataset contains ships which is a severe class imbalance.
The remaining percentage of pixels are no-ship.
To combat the imbalance, a Focal Dice Loss was implemented for the model which focuses more on the smaller classes within data for object segmentation \cite{focaldiceloss}.
Originally the dataset contained 48 thousand ship chips and 128 thousand non-ship chips of shape (3,768,768).
However, regarding ship and no-ship as the classes, the original dataset was severely imbalanced.
As of this, the 128 thousand non-ship chips were discarded and the remaining 48 thousand were segmented into quarters - resulting in the 63 thousand chips of shape (3,384,384) that each contained ships.
The chips were quartered and not resized as to retain the correct resolution.
Only 1.035e-6\% of the overall dataset contains ships which is a severe class imbalance.
The remaining percentage of pixels are no-ship.
To combat the imbalance, a Focal Dice Loss was implemented for the model which focuses more on the smaller classes within data for object segmentation \cite{focaldiceloss}.
Additionally, the dataset underwent a random augmentation: vertical and horizontal flipping, or no augmentation during training.
\subsubsection{Target Dataset}
A 79 chip target dataset is built using the optical imagery generated by Theia, the MRC satellite optical camera \cite{UC_theia} and is provided by industry partner UrtheCast, Vancouver, B.C. taken by their Theia MRC satellite over Burrard Inlet, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
It is a five meter resolution camera, meaning that each pixel represented five meters on the ground.
This dataset consisted of 79 chips that were built from an MRC scene over Burrard Inlet, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Each datapoint in the target dataset was built into the shape (3,384,384).
Theia MRC data has never been used for this use-case (ship detection).
This dataset was used for testing against an unseen satellite dataset in order to determine the generalizable capabilities of the trained model.
Like the training/validation dataset, the ship class is severely imbalanced and only accounts for 0.2508\% of the dataset.
\subsection{Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAG) Task Scheduling In Heterogeneous received}
During prediction, production models will most likely be served in an app on a scalable cluster.
This cluster can be either on a heterogeneous or homogeneous system and tasks will be allocated with the above type algorithms.
However, Machine/Deep Learning task allocation during training are more specifically scheduled depending on the architecture of the framework.
Framework architectures may be decentralized, such as AllReduce, or centralized, such as the Parameter Server.
The following two algorithms are focused on the Parameter Server architecture.
They aim to reduce the limitations imposed by straggling workers (workers that have fallen behind the others progress rate).
Such algorithms include Cyclic or Staircase Scheduling \cite{Amiri_2019}.
|
\section{Hybrid Framework -- MIHO}\label{sec:approach}
With respect to the proposed CPF (\S\ref{sec:cpf}), our approach MIHO models the hand-object interaction in three stages, namely HoNet (\S\ref{honet}), PiCR (\S\ref{picr}), and GeO (\S\ref{geo}).
As shown in Fig.\ref{fig:pipeline}, firstly, given an RGB image $\mathcal{I}$,
HoNet predicts a coarse pose of hand mesh $\mathcal{V}^{h} = \{\bm{v}_i^h \in \mathbb{R}^3 \ | \ i \le N_h \}$ and object mesh $\mathcal{V}^{o} = \{\bm{v}_j^o \in \mathbb{R}^3 \ | \ j \le N_o \}$, where $N_h$ and $N_o$ are the number of the vertex of hand and object respectively.
Then, PiCR learns to construct the CPF and collect the elastic energy $E_{\rm{elast}}$ in it.
Finally, GeO minimizes $E_{\rm{elast}}$ in CPF to yield the refined HO meshes ${^*\mathcal{V}}^{o}$, ${^*\mathcal{V}}^{h}$.
\subsection{Hand-object Pose Estimation Network, HoNet}\label{honet}
The HoNet first predicts coarse poses of HO meshes by the baseline model \textit{MeshRegNet} as in \cite{hasson2020leveraging}.
The outcomes from the baseline comprise in total 37 coefficients: object 6D pose $\bm{P}_o \in \mathfrak{se}(3)$ $(\mathbb{R}^6)$, hand wrist 6D pose $\bm{P}_w \in \mathfrak{se}(3)$, PCA components of MANO pose $\bm{\theta}_{\rm{pca}} \in \mathbb{R}^{15}$ and shape $\bm{\beta} \in \mathbb{R}^{10}$. With these coefficients, HoNet could place the HO meshes into camera frame. Details of the baseline can be referred to \cite{hasson2020leveraging}.
\subsection{Pixel-wise Contact Recovery Module, PiCR}\label{picr}
With the coarse meshes of hand and object in HoNet, PiCR learns to recover the CPF by firstly paring the hand anchors and object vertices into HO affinity pairs and then regressing the spring elasticities that describe the affinities. To achieve this, PiCR yields three cascaded outcomes:
1) \textit{Vertex Contact} (\vC{}) decides which vertices on object are in contact with hand; 2) \textit{Contact Region} (\cR{}) decides the subregion that is most likely to contact with those vertices in \vC{}; 3) \textit{Anchor Elasticity} (\aE{}) represents the elasticities of the \textit{attractive} springs. With \vC, \cR, and \aE, we can then recover the CPF as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:vccrae}.
\setlength{\textfloatsep}{15pt
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/picr.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of assigning \textit{Vertex Contact}, \textit{Contact Region} and \textit{Anchor Elasticity} onto object surface.}
\label{fig:vccrae}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0.5em}\noindent\textbf{Vertex Contact.}
PiCR' s first outcome \vC{} $\in \mathbb{R}^{N_o}$ stands for the contact probability of object vertices. More specifically, \vC{}$[j]$ is a probability that implies the $j$-th object vertex $\bm{v}^o_j$ is in contact with hand.
The loss function of \vC{} is defined as a binary focal loss \cite{Lin2017focal}:
\begin{equation}
\setlength\abovedisplayskip{5pt
\setlength\belowdisplayskip{5pt}
\mathcal{L}_{VC} = - \sum_j^{N_o} \mathds{1}^{img}_j * \alpha_j(1 - f_j)^{\gamma} \log(f_j)
\label{vertex_contact_loss}
\end{equation}
where $f_j = p_j$ if the \textit{gt.} $\hat{\bm{v}}^o_j$ belongs to any HO affinity, otherwise $f_j = (1 - p_j)$, and the $p_j$ is the predicted probability at \vC{}$[j]$. $\mathds{1}^{img}_j$ denotes whether the vertex $\bm{v}^o_j$ is projected inside the image. $\alpha_j$ is inverse class frequency and $\gamma$ is empirically set to $2$.
\vspace{0.5em}\noindent\textbf{Contact Region.}
PiCR's second outcome \cR{} $\in \mathbb{R}^{N_o \times 17}$ stands for the subregion probabilities of object vertices.
More specifically, for the $j$-th query, \cR{}$[j]$ contains $17$ probabilities that indicates $\bm{v}^o_j$ 's affinity toward $17$ hand subregions.
The loss function $\mathcal{L}_{CR}$ is defined as a multi-class focal loss.
\begin{equation}
\setlength\abovedisplayskip{5pt
\setlength\belowdisplayskip{5pt}
\mathcal{L}_{CR} = - \sum_j^{N_o} \mathds{1}^{VC}_j * \mathds{1}^{img}_j * ( 1 - m_j)^{\gamma} \log(m_j)
\label{contact_region_loss}
\end{equation}
where the $m_j = \sum(p_j * t_j)$ in which $p_j =$ \cR{}$[j]$ $\in \mathbb{R}^{17}$ is the predicted per-subregion probabilities through \textit{softmax}, and $t_j \in \mathbb{R}^{17}$ is the \textit{gt.} subregion affinity of $\hat{\bm{v}}^o_j$ as a one-hot vector. $\mathds{1}^{VC}_j$ denotes that the \textit{gt.} \vC{} of $\hat{\bm{v}}^o_j$ is positive.
\vspace{0.5em}\noindent\textbf{Anchor Elasticity.} PiCR's third outcome \aE $\in \mathbb{R}^{N_o}$ stands for the predicted elasticity of \textit{attractive} springs $k^{\rm{atr}}$. More specifically, $\aE{}[j]$ is the elasticity $k_{ij}^{\rm{atr}}$ of an \textit{attractive} spring that connects $\bm{v}^o_j$ to its affinitive anchor $\bm{a}_i$ in the predicted subregion: $argmax(\cR{}[j])$.
The loss function $\mathcal{L}_{AE}$ is defined as a binary cross-entropy (BCE):
\begin{equation}
\setlength\abovedisplayskip{5pt
\setlength\belowdisplayskip{5pt}
\vspace{-0.3em}
\mathcal{L}_{AE} = \sum_j^{N_o} \mathds{1}^{VC}_j * \mathds{1}^{img}_j * \textit{BCE}(\: k_{ij}^{\rm{atr}}, \: \hat{k}_{ij}^{\rm{atr}})
\label{anchor_elasti_loss}
\end{equation}
where the $\hat{k}_{ij}^{\rm{atr}}$ is the \textit{gt.} elasticity described in \S\ref{sec:cpf}.
With the predicted \vC{}, \cR{} and \aE{}, as well as the coarse meshes $\mathcal{V}^{o}, \mathcal{V}^{h}$ in HoNet,
PiCR finally recovers the CPF and collects the elastic energy $E_{\rm{elast}}$ as described in Algm.\ref{alg:construct-potential-field}. We empirically set the probability threshold of \vC{}: $t_{\rm{vc}} = 0.8 $ and the distance threshold: $t_{\rm{rpl}} = 20\ mm$.
\setlength{\textfloatsep}{5pt
\begin{algorithm}[t] \label{alg:construct-potential-field}
\begin{small}
\caption{Procedure of recovering CPF}
\KwIn{$\mathcal{V}^o, \mathcal{V}^h, \vC{}, \cR{}, \aE{}$}
\KwOut{$E_{\rm{elast}}$: elastic energy}
recovery anchors: $\mathcal{A} \leftarrow linear\_interpolation(\mathcal{V}^h) $\;
\ForEach{$j \in \{j \ |\ j \le N_o, \vC{}[j] > t_{\rm{vc}}\}$}
{
recover subregion id: $r \leftarrow argmax(\cR{}[j])$\;
\ForEach{$\bm{a}_i \in \mathcal{A}_r$ \textup{ (anchors in subregion $r$)}}
{
recover elasticity: $k_{ij}^{\rm{atr}} \leftarrow \aE{}[j]$\;
$E_{\rm{elast}} \ +\leftarrow \frac{1}{2} * k_{ij}^{\rm{atr}} \big \| \bm{a}_i - \bm{v}_j^o \big \|_2^2 $\;
}
\ForEach{ $i \in \{ i\ |\ i \le N_h, \big \| \bm{v}_i^h - \bm{v}_j^o \big \|_2^2 \le t_{\rm{rpl}} \}$ }{
$E_{\rm{elast}} \ +\leftarrow \frac{1}{2} * k_{ij}^{\rm{rpl}} \big | \exp (- (\bm{v}_i^h - \bm{v}_j^o) \cdot \mathbf{n}_j^o ) \big |^2$\;
}
}
\end{small}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{0.5em}\noindent\textbf{PiCR's Framework.} The proposed PiCR consists of a backbone $b$ that extracts features from image, an encoder $p$ that converts image features to object vertex features, and 3 heads $h_{\rm{vc}}$, $h_{\rm{cr}}$ and $h_{\rm{ae}}$ which sequentially convert those features into \vC{}, \cR{}, and \aE{}.
As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:pipeline}, the process of feature extraction in PiCR can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\setlength\abovedisplayskip{8pt
\setlength\belowdisplayskip{8pt}
\mathcal{F}^\prime = \Big [ f \big ( \pi(\mathcal{V}^o), b(\mathcal{I}) \big ), z(\mathcal{V}^o) \Big ]; \quad \mathcal{F}=p(\mathcal{F}^\prime)
\label{picr function}
\end{equation}
where $b(\cdot)$ is the hourglass networks \cite{newell2016stacked}, $\pi(\cdot)$ is the perspective camera projection, and $f(\cdot)$ stands for aligning $\mathcal{V}^o$ 's 2D projection $\pi(\mathcal{V}^o)$ with the image features $b(\mathcal{I})$ through bilinear sampling. Inspired from Eq.(1) in \cite{saito2019pifu}, we also append the object's root-relative $z$ value $z(\mathcal{V}^o)$ at the end of $f(\cdot)$ to form the pixel-wise features $\mathcal{F}^\prime$.
Next, a PointNet \cite{qi2017pointnet} encoder $p(\cdot)$ is adopted to convert $\mathcal{F}^\prime$ to its point-wise features $\mathcal{F}$.
The process of three PiCR's heads can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\setlength\abovedisplayskip{8pt
\setlength\belowdisplayskip{8pt}
\vC{} = h_{\rm{vc}}(\mathcal{F});\ \cR{} = h_{\rm{cr}}(\vC{}, \mathcal{F});\ \aE{} = h_{\rm{ae}}(\cR{}, \mathcal{F})
\label{picr function 2}
\end{equation}
where all the heads are presented as multi-layer perceptrons. We provide implementation details in \textit{Supp} \ref{sec:more_impl_details}.
\subsection{Grasping Energy Optimizer, GeO}
\label{geo}
The fitting part: Grasping Energy Optimizer (GeO) aims to refine the HO pose \wrt the recovered CPF.
For the object part, we adjust its 6D pose $\bm{P}_o \in \mathfrak{se}(3)$.
For the hand part, we jointly adjust the A-MANO' s 15 joint rotations $\{ \bm{R}_{j} \in \mathfrak{so}(3)\ |\ j \le 15 \}$ and a wrist pose $\bm{P}_w \in \mathfrak{se}(3)$.
In order to mitigate the abnormal hand posture during optimization, we also define an anatomical cost function $\mathcal{L}_{\rm{anat}}$ that penalizes the unwanted axial components and angular values of the $15$ rotations in the proposed \textit{twist-splay-bend} coordinate frame.
First, for the joints along hand kinematic tree, we penalize the component of rotation axis $\mathbf{a}^{rot}$ on \textit{twist} direction: $\mathbf{n}^{twist}$, since any component that causes the finger twisting along its pointing direction is prohibited. Second, for the joints that do not belongs to 5 knuckles, we also penalize the component of $\mathbf{a}^{rot}$ on \textit{splay} direction: $\mathbf{n}^{splay}$. Last, we penalize the rotation angle $\phi^{bend}$ that revolves about the \textit{bend} axis if it is greater than $\pi/2$. The total anatomical cost can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\setlength\abovedisplayskip{8pt
\setlength\belowdisplayskip{5pt}
\begin{small}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm{anat}} = &\sum_{j \in {\rm{all}}}\mathbf{a}^{rot}_{j} \cdot \mathbf{n}^{twist}_{j} + \sum_{j \notin \rm{knuck}}{\mathbf{a}_j^{rot} \cdot \mathbf{n}_j^{splay}}\\
+ &\sum_{j \in \rm{all}} \max \left ((\phi_j^{bend} - \frac{\pi}{2}), 0 \right )
\label{hand_loss}
\end{aligned}
\end{small}
\end{equation}
We also penalize the offset of the refined hand-object vertices $^*\mathcal{V}^{o}$, $^*\mathcal{V}^{h}$ from their initial estimation ${\mathcal{V}}^{h}$, ${\mathcal{V}}^{o}$ in form of \textit{l2} distance: $\mathcal{L}_{\rm{offset}}$. We implement GeO in PyTorch with Adam solver. The whole optimization process can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{^*\mathcal{V}}^{o}, {^*\mathcal{V}}^{h} \longleftarrow \mathop{argmin}_{\bm{P}_o, \bm{P}_w, \bm{R}_j} (E_{\rm{elast}} + \mathcal{L}_{\rm{anat}} + \mathcal{L}_{\rm{offset}})
\label{offset_loss}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\section{Anatomically Constrained A-MANO}
\label{sec:k_mano}
The proposed A-MANO inherits from a parametric skinning hand model, MANO \cite{romero2017embodied}, which drives an articulated hand mesh with pose parameters $\bm{\theta}$ and shape parameters $\bm{\beta}$. $\bm{\theta} \in \mathbb{R}^{15 \times 3}$ is 15 joint rotations along the hand kinematic tree. And $\bm{\beta} \in \mathbb{R}^{10}$
represents the PCA components of hand shape. The main differences of A-MANO from MANO are: 1) the restriction on the joints' rotation axes and angles within the \textit{twist-splay-bend} frame; 2) the \textit{anchor} representation in the subdivision of hand region.
\vspace{-0.8em}\paragraph{The \textit{Twist-splay-bend} Frame.} Fitting on 15 joint rotations of MANO requires high DoFs regression which may cause abnormal hand posture as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:monster}.
Since the human hand can be modeled in a kinematic tree, and the majority of the joints only have one DoF about the \textit{bend} axis, we can impose constraints over the rotation about the unwanted axes. Therefore the proposed \textit{twist-splay-bend} Cartesian coordinate frame can be assigned to each joint along the kinematic tree. The frame' s $x,y,z$ axes are coaxial to the 3 revolute directions: \textit{twist}, \textit{splay}, and \textit{bend} direction on the basis of hand anatomy (Fig. \ref{fig:handkin} right). Then we can impose axial constraints in the \textit{twist} and \textit{splay} axes, and impose angular constraints w.r.t the \textit{bend} angle. Details of the \textit{twist-splay-bend} frame are elaborated in \textit{Supp} \ref{sec:coordinates}.
\vspace{-0.8em}\paragraph{Anchors.} Since the hand mesh of different subjects are almost identical in the subdivision of hand region (\eg phalanges), we can interpolate several representative points (later we call it \textit{anchors}) on hand mesh to largely reduce the number of HO vertex pairs. Instead of attaching springs from object mesh to all the affinitive vertices on hand mesh, we only attach them on the several hand subregion centers, as we call it \textit{anchors} (Fig. \ref{fig:handkin} left). According to the statistics \cite{hasson2019learning, brahmbhatt2020contactpose} on the contact frequency of different hand parts, we first divide the full hand palm into 17 subregions: 3 for each phalange of 5 fingers, 1 for metacarpals, and another for carpals.
Then, we interpolate up to 4 anchors for each subregion. We ignore all the vertices on the back side of the hand. Details of subregion division and anchors interpolation are described in \textit{Supp} \ref{sec:subregion}, \ref{sec:ancohor_selection}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig/pipeline.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\textbf{The architecture of the hybrid model MIHO.} The MIHO consists of three submodules: the first HONet estimates coarse poses of HO meshes, the second PiCR learns to recover the CPF and the last GeO retrieves the refined poses based on the CPF.}\vspace{-0.5em}
\label{fig:pipeline}
\end{figure*}
\section{Contact Potential Field}
\label{sec:cpf}
\paragraph{Contact as Spring-Mass System.} A single contact is modeled as a spring-mass system which consists of a spring and two mass points on each side (hand and object). When the spring is at its rest position, it does not store energy, whilst it is stretched or compressed, according to Hooke's Law\footnote {\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookes_law}}, it will store the elastic potential energy with the form: $\frac{1}{2}k|\bm{\Delta l}|^2$, where $k$ is the spring elasticity, and $|\bm{\Delta l}|$ is a certain ``\textit{distance}'' metric \wrt the spring's rest position.
In CPF, we define two types of spring: \textbf{\textit{attractive}} spring and \textbf{\textit{repulsive}} spring. The goal of \textit{attractive} spring is to pull the hand vertex $\bm{v}^h$ toward the object vertex $\bm{v}^o$ based on a given HO vertex pair affinity. And the goal of \textit{repulsive} spring is to push the $\bm{v}^h$ away from $\bm{v}^o$ along the $\bm{v}^o$ 's normal if the $\bm{v}^h$ is in the vicinity of $\bm{v}^o$.
Apart from these definitions, we should also point out that the \textit{attractive} spring is bound with a certain pair of HO vertex affinity, while the \textit{repulsive} spring only takes effect in the neighborhood of HO vertex pairs at some point.
\vspace{0.3em}\textbf{\textit{- Attractive Spring.}}
We define the rest length of \textit{attractive} spring as $0$ in which the hand vertex and object vertex are in perfect contact,
and the \textit{distance} metric $|\bm{\Delta l}|$ as Euclidean distance. Given a HO affinity that includes a vertex pair: $\bm{v}^h_i$ and $\bm{v}^o_j$, the $|\bm{\Delta l}^{\rm{atr}}_{ij}|$ is equal to $\left \| \bm{v}^h_i - \bm{v}^o_j \right \|_2$. The potential energy of the current \textit{attractive} spring is given by:
\begin{equation}
\setlength\abovedisplayskip{5pt
E^{\rm{atr}}_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} k^{\rm{atr}}_{ij} * \left \| \bm{\Delta l}^{\rm{atr}}_{ij} \right \|_2^2
\setlength\belowdisplayskip{5pt}
\label{atr_spring}
\end{equation}
\vspace{0.3em}\textbf{\textit{- Repulsive Spring.}} We hope that the repulsion energy is high when $\bm{v}^h_i$ is penetrating or in the vicinity of $\bm{v}^o_j$, but gradually decays as the $\bm{v}^h_i$ moves away from the object, and finally becomes negligible at certain distance.
Given a proximate HO vertex pair: $\bm{v}^h_i$ and $\bm{v}^o_j$, We define a repulsive spring to model this behavior.
Supposing that the \textit{repulsive} spring has the rest position at $+\infty$ away along the object normal $\mathbf{n}^o_j$. We adopt a heuristic \textit{distance} metric $|\bm{\Delta l}| = e^{-|\bm{\Delta l}^{\rm{rpl}}_{ij}|} - e^{-\infty} = e^{-|\bm{\Delta l}^{\rm{rpl}}_{ij}|}$, where $|\bm{\Delta l}^{\rm{rpl}}_{ij}| = (\bm{v}_i^h - \bm{v}_j^o) \cdot \mathbf{n}_j^o$ is the projection of the $(\bm{v}_i^h - \bm{v}_j^o)$ on the object normal $\mathbf{n}_{j}^{o}$. Thus, the potential energy of the current \textit{repulsive} spring is
\begin{equation}
\setlength\abovedisplayskip{5pt
\setlength\belowdisplayskip{5pt}
E^{\rm{rpl}}_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} k^{\rm{rpl}}_{ij} * \big (e^{- |\bm{\Delta l}^{\rm{rpl}}_{ij}|} \big )^2
\end{equation}
In literature, adopting repulsive effect along surface normal can be found in \cite{brahmbhatt2019contactgrasp, hampali2020honnotate}. \cite{hampali2020honnotate} (Eq. 10) also discussed that $e^{-(\cdot)}$ is an efficient heuristic concerning sub-sampled set of vertices.
\vspace{-0.8em}\paragraph{Grasping inside Contact Potential Field.}
By collecting all the \textit{attractive} and \textit{repulsive} springs, to form a natural grasp is equivalent to minimize the elastic energy:
\begin{equation}
\setlength\abovedisplayskip{5pt
\setlength\belowdisplayskip{5pt}
E_{\rm{elast}}=\sum_{i}\sum_{j}(E^{\rm{atr}}_{ij} + E^{\rm{rpl}}_{ij})
\label{rpl_spring}
\end{equation}
As discussed in \S\ref{sec:k_mano}, the hand vertices can be simplified to subregion $anchors$, which will largely relax the difficulty of learning and fitting inside the CPF. Thus, for \textit{attractive} spring, we replace the $\bm{\Delta l}_{ij}$ in Eq.\ref{atr_spring} to $\bm{\Delta l}^\prime_{ij}=\bm{a}_i-\bm{v}^o_j$, where $\bm{a}_i$ is the closest anchor to $\bm{v}^h_i$. Besides, we would like to have the repulsion force be only applied to those HO affinity pairs that are of vertices in vicinity. Thus we set zero the repulsion energy when the vertex distance $\| \bm{v}_j^o - \bm{v}_i^h \|_2$ is greater than a threshold $t_{\rm{rpl}} = 20 \ mm$.
\vspace{-0.8em}\paragraph{Annotation of the \textit{Attractive} Springs ($k^{\rm{atr}}$).} While the attraction energy is bound with certain HO affinities, the repulsion energy is rather ambient and affinity-agnostic.
To integrate the CPF into learning framework, we only consider the $k_{ij}^{\rm{atr}}$ as the prediction of neural network.
To enable this, network shall have the abilities of 1) pairing the hand anchors and object vertices into HO affinity pair, \eg $(\bm{a}_i, \bm{v}^o_j)$; and 2) regressing the intensity of those affinity pairs, \eg $k_{ij}^{\rm{atr}}$. These require annotation of the \textit{attractive} springs $k^{\rm{atr}}$.
Given the ground-truth (\textit{gt.}) HO pose and their mesh model, we automatically annotate each $k_{ij}^{\rm{atr}}$ based on a heuristic of the $(\bm{a}_i, \bm{v}^o_j)$ pair distance. Since each $\bm{a}_i$ may be included in several affinity pairs, we hope the attraction energy stored in each spring at \textit{gt.} HO pose is well balanced. Thus we assign the \textit{gt.} $\hat{k}^{\rm{atr}}_{ij}$ a value that is inverse-proportional to the \textit{gt.} $|\bm{\Delta} \hat{\bm{l}}^{\rm{atr}}_{ij}|$. In order to train the network, we also bound the magnitude of $\hat{k}^{\rm{atr}}_{ij}$ by $0$ and $1$. Here we only provide a glimpse of the annotation heuristic of $\hat{k}^{\rm{atr}}_{ij}$:
\begin{equation}
\setlength\abovedisplayskip{5pt
\setlength\belowdisplayskip{5pt}
\hat{k}^{\rm{atr}}_{ij} = 0.5 * \cos \big (\frac{\pi}{s} * |\bm{\Delta} \hat{\bm{l}}^{\rm{atr}}_{ij} | \big ) + 0.5
\end{equation}
Empirically, we set the scale factor $s = 20 \ mm$ and reject those HO affinities with \textit{gt.} $|\bm{\Delta} \hat{\bm{l}}^{\rm{atr}}_{ij}| \ge 20 \ mm$.
As for the elasticity of \textit{repulsive} spring, we empirically set all ${k}_{ij}^{\rm{rpl}}$ to $1 \times 10^{-3}$. Detailed analysis of the \textit{gt.} $\hat{k}^{\rm{atr}}$ and the attraction-repulsion equilibrium are provided in \textit{Supp} \ref{sec:elast_energy_analysis}, \ref{sec:anchor_assignment},
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we propose a novel contact representation named CPF and a learning-fitting hybrid framework MIHO to help modeling hand and object interaction. Comprehensive evaluations show that our methods, while being able to recover precise hand-object pose, can also effectively 1) avoid interpenetration and control disjointedness, and 2) prevent abnormality in hand pose. We hope CPF can serve as an effective contact representation for future works on hand-object interaction.
Later, we also plan to develop for an object-agnostic representation of CPF, for the interaction in general cases.
\section{Related Work}
\vspace{0.2em}\noindent\textbf{3D Hand Reconstruction.}
Most of the existing 3D hand reconstruction methods \cite{boukhayma20193d, zhou2020monocular, baek2019pushing} adopted a parametric skinning hand, \eg MANO \cite{romero2017embodied} as a template. To drive MANO, it is crucial to obtain joint rotation along hand kinematic tree. Boukhayma \etal \cite{boukhayma20193d} firstly proposed to regress the PCA components of the rotations.
Later, directly regressing the full rotations from 3D positions \cite{zhou2020monocular,yang2020bihand} has shown better performance. However, those high DoF regression is prone to pose abnormality. Thus, Spurr \etal \cite{spurr2020weakly} exploited biomechanical constraints over hand joints in training scheme. Different from \cite{spurr2020weakly}, we apply rotation constraints over the axes and angles in the proposed \textit{twist-splay-bend} coordinate frame.
\vspace{0.2em}\noindent\textbf{Hand-object Pose Estimation.}
In a wide range of topics in modeling hand-object interaction, the most commonly referred one is HO pose estimation \cite{hasson2019learning, hasson2020leveraging, doosti2020hope, gao2019graph, tekin2019h+}. In this regard, the earlier methods focused on either hand \cite{rogez20143d, romero2009monocular, tzionas2016capturing} or object \cite{tzionas20153d} pose alone, or estimated hand in grasping pose with knowing object shape prior \cite{feix2014analysis, cai2016understanding, cai2017ego, choi2017robust}. Jointly estimating hand and object pose was firstly presented by Romero \etal \cite{romero2010hands} via searching for nearest neighbors in a large database. Recently, learning-based frameworks have emerged in this area. Hasson \etal \cite{hasson2019learning,hasson2020leveraging} proposed two learning frameworks to recover hand-object meshes, one by synthesizing HO data under manipulation \cite{hasson2019learning} and the other by exploiting photometric consistency over video sequence \cite{hasson2020leveraging}. Doosti \etal \cite{doosti2020hope} employed the graph neural networks \cite{gao2019graph} to lift the 2D HO keypoints into 3D space. Tekin \etal \cite{tekin2019h+} adopted 3D YOLO \cite{redmon2017yolo9000} to predict HO pose in one stage. Korrawe \etal \cite{karunratanakul2020grasping} recovered HO model in a form of Signed Distance Function \cite{park2019deepsdf}.
\vspace{0.2em}\noindent\textbf{Contact Heuristic.}
Exploiting contact heuristic in hand-object interaction can be traced back to several decades before \cite{rijpkema1991computer, elkoura2003handrix, liu2009dextrous}.
Early works utilized some shape-specified contact physics (\eg cones and blocks \cite{rijpkema1991computer}) or predefined grasp \cite{liu2009dextrous} as prior.
Studies on capturing \cite{kry2006interaction} or imitating \cite{borst2005realistic} HO interaction also leveraged contact to satisfy the reality.
Later, the studies on grasping synthesis \cite{ye2012synthesis, garcia2020physics, kokic2020learning} and tracking \cite{oikonomidis2011full, kyriazis2013physically} turned to physical simulators to circumvent model's intersection.
Multi-point contact formulation was proposed in \cite{kim2015physics, holl2018efficient, antotsiou2018task}, which we found useful when applying physical constraints, \eg \cite{kim2015physics, holl2018efficient} used contact points to resolve penetration. For unified attraction and repulsion, most works employed heuristic such as proximity metric \cite{hasson2019learning, antotsiou2018task, tzionas2016capturing}, signed distance function \cite{karunratanakul2020grasping, brahmbhatt2019contactgrasp}, predefined contact pattern \cite {rogez2015understanding, brahmbhatt2019contactgrasp}, or turned to simulator \cite{kokic2019learning, kokic2020learning} for simplicity. Recently, Antotsiou \etal \cite{antotsiou2018task} refined the grasp by attracting fingers to its nearest point on object surface w.r.t distance-based energy. Hasson \etal \cite{hasson2019learning} applied well-designed interaction losses which are also based on proximity metric. Although our method differs from all of the previous methods in terms of contact heuristic, we consider that both \cite{antotsiou2018task} and \cite{hasson2019learning} are still strong baselines. Thus we will compare our contact heuristic with theirs.
\section{Introduction}
It is essential to model hand-object interaction from a single image for understanding the human activities, in which simulating a physically plausible grasp is also crucial for VR$/$AR, teleoperation, and grasping applications.
Given an image as input, the problem aims to not only estimate proper hand-object pose but also to recover a natural grasp configuration.
While estimating hand \cite{moon2020deephandmesh, kulon2020weakly, zhou2020monocular, boukhayma20193d, ge20193d, yang2020bihand} or object \cite{groueix2018papier, hasson2020leveraging, fan2017point,
wang2018pixel2mesh, wu2017marrnet} alone has made a considerable success over the past decades,
simultaneously estimating hand-object pose \cite{hasson2019learning, tekin2019h+, hasson2020leveraging, kokic2019learning, doosti2020hope} with interaction has only emerged in the past few years.
Previous works on joint hand-object estimation usually treat the contact as a result of the correct pose estimation \cite{hasson2020leveraging, kokic2020learning, rogez2015understanding}.
Apparently, if the hand and object can be perfectly recovered, the contact between them will also be satisfied. Yet, such perfection cannot be achieved in practice.
Since contact can provide rich cues to guide accurate pose and natural grasp, more attention has been recently drawn to the contact modeling \cite{brahmbhatt2019contactdb, brahmbhatt2020contactpose} and contact representation \cite{karunratanakul2020grasping, brahmbhatt2019contactgrasp}.
And several contact datasets \cite{brahmbhatt2019contactdb, brahmbhatt2020contactpose, GRAB:2020} have been released to the community.
However, a solution of properly integrating contact modeling into the current hand-object pose estimation pipeline has remained an open research question.
The existing methods either exploit distance-based attraction and repulsion \cite{hasson2019learning, karunratanakul2020grasping} to mitigate disjointedness and interpenetration, or refine the predicted pose in virtue of physics simulators \cite{kokic2019learning, kokic2020learning, garcia2020physics}. While the both solutions are considered to be irrelevant to contact \textit{semantics}, which we will explain later, the latter solutions also lack flexibility on hand pose and shape.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/cpf.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5em}\caption{\textbf{Illustration of the proposed Contact Potential Field.} The contacts between hand and object vertices are modeled as the attractive (right) and repulsive (left) springs that connect paired vertex on them.} \vspace{-1.0em}
\label{fig:capture}
\label{fig:cpf}
\end{figure}
To model the contact, we propose an explicit representation named \textbf{C}ontact \textbf{P}otential \textbf{F}ield (\textbf{CPF}, \S\ref{sec:cpf}). It is built upon the idea that the contact between a hand and an object mesh under grasp configuration is multi-point contact, which involves multiple hand-object vertex pair affinities. These affinities are regarded as the contact \textit{semantics}, which depict the pairing of the hand-object vertices that come into contact with each other during the interaction.
When noisy predicted hand and object are disjointed from each other, we shall apply an attraction to pull these vertex pairs close; While the hand and object are intersected, we shall have a repulsion to push them away.
Contacts of those affinitive vertex pairs are the result of equilibrium between the attraction and repulsion.
In this paper, we treat each contacting HO vertex pair as a spring-mass system.
First, the two end-points of spring is a counterpart of the two HO vertices in affinity.
Second, the spring's elastic property is another counterpart of the intensity of the vertex pair affinity.
In this way, we can model the HO interaction with a potential field, as we call it CPF,
which is determined by minimal elastic energy at the grasp position.
Therefore, estimating the HO pose under contact is equivalent to minimizing the elastic energy inside CPF.
Representing contact as CPF has two main advantages.
First, compared with contact heuristic with proximity metrics \cite{antotsiou2018task, tzionas2016capturing} or distance field \cite{karunratanakul2020grasping, brahmbhatt2019contactgrasp},
CPF is able to assign per-vertex contact \textit{semantics} (contact points on different hand part) to object mesh.
Second, by minimizing the elastic energy, CPF can uniformly avoid interpenetration and control the disjointedness. Based on CPF, we also propose a novel learning-fitting hybrid framework namely for \textbf{M}odeling the \textbf{I}nteraction of \textbf{H}and and \textbf{O}bject, as we call it \textbf{MIHO} (\S\ref{sec:approach}).
Another problem with the existing methods is the representation of the hand model.
Most researches adopted a skinning model, MANO \cite{romero2017embodied}, to represent hand.
MANO is considered to be flexible and deformable with its pose and shape parameters.
However, fitting on these high DoFs parameters is prone to anatomical abnormality. Researches in the robotics community adopted a dexterous hand \cite{kokic2020learning, garcia2020physics} in the off-the-shelf grasping software \cite{miller2004graspit}, which can almost guarantee a valid pose.
But the rigidity of those rod-like hand is less suitable for applications in CV$/$CG.
To make the best of both worlds, we propose a novel anatomically constrained hand model namely A-MANO (\S\ref{sec:k_mano}). It inherits the formulation of the skinning model and constrains the hand joints' rotation within a proposed \textit{twist-splay-bend} frame (Fig. \ref{fig:handkin}).
For evaluation, we report our scores on FHB \cite{garcia2018first} and HO3D \cite{hampali2020honnotate, hampali2019ho} dataset in terms of reconstruction and physical quality metrics. Note that, the ground truth of FHB is noisy and suffers from severe interpenetration \cite{karunratanakul2020grasping}. Since our method can avoid the penetration in the first place, our results are more visually and physically plausible. Therefore, we argue that, in this dataset, a higher reconstruction score does not necessarily benchmark the performance of the method.
While on HO3D, we achieve state-of-the-art performance on both reconstruction and physical metrics. The contributions of this paper are as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\vspace{-0.5 em}\item We highlight contact in the hand-object interaction modeling task by proposing an explicit representation named CPF.
\vspace{-0.5 em}\item We introduce A-MANO, a novel anatomical-constrained hand model that helps to mitigate pose's abnormality during optimization.
\vspace{-0.5 em}\item We present a novel framework, MIHO, for modeling hand-object interaction. It can achieve state-of-the-art performance on several benchmarks.
\end{itemize}
\section{Experiments and Results}
\subsection{Datasets}
\label{sec:dataset}
We would like to train and evaluate MIHO \wrt the real-world dataset that involves human hand interacting with textured object.
In the community, there exist mainly four datasets that contain images and ground-truth 3D HO annotation, namely ObMan \cite{hasson2019learning}, FHB \cite{garcia2018first} and HO3D \cite{hampali2019ho, hampali2020honnotate} and ContactPose \cite{brahmbhatt2020contactpose}. However, only FHB and HO3D satisfy our requirements in this study.
\vspace{-0.8em}\paragraph{First-person Hand Action Benchmark, FHB.} FHB is a first-person RGBD video dataset of hand in manipulation with objects. The ground-truth of hand poses was captured via magnetic sensors. In our experiments, we use a subset of FHB that contains 4 objects with a scanned model and pose annotation. We adopt the \textit{action} split following the protocol given by \cite{hasson2020leveraging,tekin2019h+}, and filter out the samples with a minimum HO distance greater than 5 $mm$, which yields us 7223 samples for training and 7373 for testing.
\vspace{-0.8em}\paragraph{HO3D.}
\label{ho3d}
HO3D is another dataset that contains precise hand-object pose during the interaction. Due to historical reasons, there is two versions of HO3D, namely v1 \cite{hampali2019ho} and v2 \cite{hampali2020honnotate}. In our experiments, we mainly compare our methods with the baseline \cite{hasson2020leveraging} on HO3Dv1, but also conduct several comparisons with the recently released pre-trained model of \cite{hasson2020leveraging} on HO3Dv2. Similar to FHB, we filter out samples with distance threshold 5$mm$. It's also worth mentioning that, since our method requires a known object model, as well as a stable grasping configuration, nearly 5448 samples in HO3Dv2 test set are not suitable for our methods to report. Therefore, we manually select 6076 samples in HO3dv2 test set to compare MIHO with \cite{hasson2020leveraging}. We call this split by HO3Dv2$^-$. Besides, training HO3Dv1 in previous methods \cite{hampali2019ho, hasson2020leveraging} requires an extra synthetic dataset that is not publicly available. Thus we manually augment the HO3Dv1 training set (referred as HO3Dv1$^+$) and reproduce the results (referred as \cite{hasson2020leveraging}$^+$) comparable with those in \cite{hasson2020leveraging}. Details of HO3Dv2$^-$ selection and the augmentation procedures are provided in \textit{Supp} \ref{sec:ho3d_selection}, \ref{sec:ho3d_data_augmentation}.
\subsection{Metrics}
\label{sec:metrics}
Modeling the HO interaction requires not only a proper pose of both hand and object but also a natural grasp configuration. Here, we report 5 metrics in total that cover both reconstruction and grasp quality. Note that, since considering either of those metrics alone may yield misleading comparison, we consider them \textbf{together} for evaluation.
\noindent\textbf{MPVPE.} We compute the mean per vertex position error for both hand and object in camera space to assess the quality of pose estimation.
\noindent\textbf{Penetration Depth (PD).} To measure how deep that the hand is penetrating the object's surface, we calculate the penetration depth that is the maximum distance of all the penetrated hand vertices to their closest object surface.
\noindent\textbf{Solid Intersection Volume (SIV).} To measure how much space intersection that occurs during estimation, we voxelize the object mesh into $80^3$ voxels, and calculate the sum of the voxel volume inside the hand surface.
\noindent\textbf{Disjointedness Distance (DD).} We also encourage stable HO contact, which can be depicted as attracting fingertips onto the object surface. Therefore, we define the disjointedness metrics as the average distance of hand vertices in 5 fingertips region to their closet object surface.
\noindent\textbf{Simulation Displacement (SD).} We further evaluate the grasp stability in a modern physics simulator \cite{coumans2017pybullet}. We measure the average displacement of object's center over a fixed time period by holding the hand steadily and applying gravity to the object \cite{hasson2019learning}.
\subsection{Comparison with State-of-the-Arts}
For the FHB dataset, we compare our methods with the previous SOTA \cite{hasson2020leveraging, hasson2019learning} of hand-object reconstruction. For \cite{hasson2020leveraging}, we select the results under the setting of full data supervision. Since \cite{hasson2020leveraging} didn't exploit any repulsion and attraction loss during training, direct comparisons on intersection and disjointedness may not be convincing enough. While the contact losses were considered in another work named ObMan \cite{hasson2019learning}, it only represented the genus 0 object mesh as a deformable icosphere, which is also not directly comparable with ours (known object model). To ensure rational comparisons, we migrate the \textit{repulsion loss} and \textit{attraction loss} from ObMan to the \textit{MeshRegNet} in \cite{hasson2020leveraging}, and reproduce the results on par with it. We call this adaptation: ObMan$^*$. For the HO3Dv1 dataset, we compare our results with the reproduced \cite{hasson2020leveraging}$^+$.
We report our results under two experimental settings: 1) \textbf{\textit{hand-alone}} that fixes the object at the initial prediction in HoNet, and only optimizes the hand pose in GeO; 2) \textbf{\textit{hand-object}} that jointly optimizes the hand and object poses in GeO. In Tab.\ref{tab:benchmark} we show our comparisons with the previous SOTA in all 5 metrics. For FHB dataset, as analyzed in \cite{brahmbhatt2020contactpose}, its ground-truth suffers from frequent interpenetration. We find that lower vertex error does not necessarily benchmark a higher reconstruction quality. Indeed, as shown in Tab.\ref{tab:benchmark} (col. 4, 5), either ground-truth or \cite{hasson2020leveraging} reveals substantial solid intersection volume, penetration depth and disjointedness. We find that MIHO outperforms \cite{hasson2020leveraging} by a margin of 3.71 $mm$ in penetration depth, 9.34 $cm^3$ in solid intersection volume, and 14.99 $mm$ in disjointedness distance, while only suffers from minor performance cost in hand MPVPE of 2.03 $mm$ and object MPVPE of 0.51 $mm$. In the mean time, our simulation displacement also demonstrates the stability of our predicted grasp.
These are consistent with our expectation that the CPF can by nature repulse intersection away and attract disjointedness to touch.
As for HO3Dv1 testing set, our method also outperformed the previous SOTA over the most metrics. In terms fo simulation displacement, we found \cite{hasson2020leveraging}$^+$ slightly outperforms us by 1.98 $mm$. Based on our inspection in the Bullet \cite{coumans2017pybullet} simulator, their stability are mainly attributed to the forces resulting from the intersection that balance each other. Visual comparisons are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:qualitative_comparison}.
As for HO3Dv2, since we only test MIHO on the subset: HO3Dv2$^-$, our results are not directly suitable for submitting to its online evaluation server. Thus, we only report the object 3D vertex errors on HO3Dv2$^-$ based on the given annotation. We firstly align the predicted object vertex to the predicted hand wrist joint, then compute the \textit{wrist-relative} object vertex error with those in ground-truth. Detailed comparisons are in Tab. \ref{tab:benchmark} (col. 11, 12).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0 \linewidth]{fig/simple_heuristic.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5em}\caption{Comparisons of MIHO with simple contact heuristic.}
\label{fig:heuristic}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9 \linewidth]{fig/monster.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5em}\caption{Example to illustrates the efficacy of our proposed A-MANO with anatomical constraints ($\mathcal{L}_{\rm{anat}}$).} \vspace{0.5em}
\label{fig:monster}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Ablation Study}
\label{sec:ablation}
In this experiment, we further evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed CPF and A-MANO. In the main text, we include three of the most representative studies. The ablation studies are mainly conducted on the FHB test set with \textit{action} split. For more studies on 1) impact from the magnitude of $k^{\rm{rpl}}$; 2) A-MANO with PCA pose; 3) unwanted twist correction; please visit \textit{Supp} \ref{sec:more_ablation_study}.
\vspace{0.8em}\noindent\textbf{Comparison with simple Distance-based Contact Heuristics. } To show the superiority of the CPF over the distance-based contact heuristics, we compare the fitting stage of MIHO with two simple yet strong baselines:
(a) \textit{Vanilla Contact} that removes the $E_{\rm{elast}}$ term in Eq. \ref{offset_loss} and purely attracts the anchors on fingertips to its nearest object vertex (similar to \cite{antotsiou2018task}) in a given threshold which we set as 20 $mm$; (b) \textit{ObMan Contact} that replaces $E_{\rm{elast}}$ in Eq. \ref{offset_loss} by the well-designed interaction losses in ObMan \cite{hasson2019learning}. All the three experiments start from the same HO pose predicted by HoNet (\S\ref{honet}). We show in Tab. \ref{table:ablation_contact_heuristic} that by exploiting CPF, MIHO can surpass the simple baselines on most of the metrics. Note that, since both (a) and (b) directly optimize the disjointedness term, their results show better resistance on it.
The last column in Tab. \ref{table:ablation_contact_heuristic} shows that our methods can save average time per iteration by 46\% compared with \textit{ObMan Contact}.
We also conduct two qualitative comparisons in Fig. \ref{fig:heuristic}. The first one shows that CPF can learn the contact \textit{semantics} to guide the optimization that better matches visual cues, whereas the \textit{Vanilla Contact} fails to form a valid grasp. The second shows that CPF can maintain subtle interaction, as no attraction will be applied on those non-affinitive vertex pairs (see ring and pinky fingers when unscrewing the juice cap).
\vspace{0.8em}\noindent\textbf{Effectiveness of \textit{Repulsive} Springs.} To measure the efficacy of \textit{repulsive} springs in CPF, we remove all the repulsion energy $E^{\rm{rpl}}$ induced by them, leaving the attraction as the unique type of energy applied on hand and object. As we expected, the result in Tab. \ref{table:ablation} witnesses the accumulation of PD and SIV.
To note, even without the \textit{repulsive} springs, we still witness a remarkable improvement of PD and SIV over the FHB ground-truth. This is attributed to the repulsive behavior of the \textit{attractive} springs: when hand is inside the object surface, the energy stored in the \textit{attractive} springs will act as repulsion that pushes out the hand.
\vspace{0.8em}\noindent\textbf{Effectiveness of the Anatomical Constraints.} We further highlight the efficacy of adopting the anatomical constraints. We conduct a contrastive experiment whose only difference is the absence of $\mathcal{L}_{\rm{anat}}$. Both experiments start from a zero (flat) hand and minimize the $E_{\rm{elast}}$ based on the same predicted CPF. We show in Fig. \ref{fig:monster} that the anatomical constraints are able to effectively prevent abnormality during the optimization.
\begin{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|ccccc|c}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Settings} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{{Scores}} & \multirow{2}{*}{$t_{\rm{iter}}$($ms$)} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-6}
& HE $\downarrow$ & OE $\downarrow$ & PD $\downarrow$ & SIV $\downarrow$ & DD $\downarrow$ \\
\midrule
\textbf{MIHO} (ours full) & 19.54 & 21.57 & 16.92 & 11.76 & 22.41 & 55.77 \\
(a) Vanilla Contact & 24.01 & 24.29 & 18.36 & 15.64 & 16.32 & 45.40 \\
(b) ObMan Contact & 22.15 & 22.54 & 15.13 & 16.20 & 11.97 & 103.41 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\caption{Ablation study on the different contact heuristics. HE, OE stands for 3D hand and object vertex error. PD, SIV and DD are the abbreviation of metrics in \S\ref{sec:metrics}}
\label{table:ablation_contact_heuristic}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|ccc}
\toprule
Settings & PD$\downarrow$ & SIV$\downarrow$ & DD$\downarrow$\\
\midrule
\textbf{with $E^{\rm{rpl}}$} (ours full) & 16.92& 11.76& 22.41 \\
without $E^{\rm{rpl}}$ & 17.79 & 13.76 & 20.27\\
\textit{gt.} FHB & 19.55 & 20.41 & 37.28 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Ablation study on the \textit{repulsive} springs.}\vspace{0.5em}
\label{table:ablation}
\end{table}
\section*{Appendix}
\label{sec:appdx}
In the supplemental document, we provide:
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\item [\S\ref{suppsec:a-mano}] Anatomically Constrained A-MANO.
\item [\S\ref{suppsec:springs}] Detailed Analysis of the Spring's Elasticity.
\item [\S\ref{suppsec:ho3d}] Detailed Analysis of the HO3D Dataset.
\item [\S\ref{suppsec:expm}] More Experiments and Results.
\item [\S\ref{suppsec:morequal}] More Qualitative Results.
\end{itemize}
\begin{appendix}
\section{Anatomically Constrained A-MANO}\label{suppsec:a-mano}
\subsection{Derivation of \textbf{\textit{Twist-splay-bend}} Frame.}\label{sec:coordinates}
In this section, we introduce the proposed \textit{twist-splay-bend} frame of A-MANO. Both the original MANO \cite{romero2017embodied} and our A-MANO hand model are driven by the relative rotation at each articulation. To mitigate the pose abnormality, we apply constraints on the rotation \textit{axis-angle}\footnote{ Rotation cay be represented as rotating along an \textit{axis} by an \textit{angle}.}.
We intend to decompose the rotation \textit{axis} into three components to the three axes of a Euclidean coordinate frame,
in which each component depicts the proportion of rotation along that axis.
Obviously, there have infinity choices of the three orthogonal axes.
MANO adopts 16 identical coordinate frames whose 3 orthogonal axes are not coaxial to the direction of the hand kinematic tree (Fig. \ref{fig:axis_adaptation} left).
Different from MANO, we follow the Universal Robot Description Format (URDF) \cite{lynch2017modern} that describe each articulation along the hand kinematic tree as a revolute joint\footnote{\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolute_joint}}.
Nevertheless, a revolute joint only has one degree of freedom, which is not enough to drive the motion of a real hand.
Thus, we assign each articulation with three revolute joints, named as \textit{twist}, \textit{splay} and \textit{bend} (Fig. \ref{fig:axis_adaptation} right),
Here, we elaborate the conversion from the MANO's all identical coordinate system of to our \textit{twist-splay-bend} frame in three steps.
For each articulation, we first compute the \textit{twist} axis as the vector from the child of the current joint to itself.
Then we employ MANO's $y$ (up) axis and derive the \textit{bend} axis that is calculated from cross product on the \textit{twist} and $y$ axes.
Finally, we obtain the \textit{splay} axis by applying cross product on the \textit{bend} and \textit{twist} axes.
We illustrate the above procedures in Fig. \ref{fig:axis_generation}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig/axis_adaptation.pdf}
\caption{Visual comparison of MANO' s coordinate system to the proposed \textit{twist-splay-bend} system.}
\label{fig:axis_adaptation}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/axis_generation.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of converting MANO' s coordinates system to the proposed \textit{twist-splay-bend} system.}
\label{fig:axis_generation}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Hand Subregion Assignment} \label{sec:subregion}
As introduced in main text \S \ref{sec:k_mano} (Anchors.), we divide the hand palm into 17 subregions, and interpolate the vertices in each subregion into representative \textit{anchor} /\ \textit{anchors}. In this part, we will firstly discuss how we assign hand vertices to several subregion.
According to hand anatomy, the linkage bones consists of carpal bones, metacarpal bones, and phalanges, where phalanges can be further divided into three kinds: proximal phalanges, intermediate phalanges, and distal phalanges.
Here we assume the link between MANO joints are a counterpart of linkage bones on hand.
We now assign the vertices of MANO into 17 subregions based on the linkage bones.
The subregions' names and abbreviations are defined in Fig. \ref{fig:region_assignment}.
For clarity, we number the MANO links from 1 to 20 as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:anchor_coorespond} (left).
To assign the MANO vertices to its corresponding region, we need firstly assign the vertices to the link that lies inside the region.
This is achieved by \textit{control points}. For link 0-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17-20, we set one control point at the midpoint of the link's ends, while for link 4, 8, 12, and 16, we set two control points at the upper and lower third of the link's ends. For clarity, we also number the control points from 0 to 23 as shown in Fig.\ref{fig:anchor_coorespond} (middle).
After a list of control points are obtained, we label each hand vertex to one of these control points by querying which control point it has the least distance from.
Finally, we merge the vertices that belong to control points 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 to derive subregion of \textbf{\color[RGB]{144,78,150}Palm Metacarpal}, and merge those vertices that belong to control points 4, 9, 14, 19 to derive subregion of \textbf{\color[RGB]{40,76,121}Carpal} .
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{fig/region_assignment.pdf}
\caption{Hand subregions with names and abbreviations.}
\label{fig:region_assignment}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{fig/anchor_coorespond.pdf}
\caption{Left: joint links with ID; Middle: control points with ID; Right: anchors}
\label{fig:anchor_coorespond}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Hand Anchor Selection}\label{sec:ancohor_selection}
Here we elaborate on how we select the \textit{anchors} based on the subregions and their control points.
To ensure these anchors can be used in a common optimization framework and keep their representative power during the process of optimization, we propose the following three protocols:
\begin{enumerate*}[label={\alph*)},font={\bfseries}]
\item Anchors should be located on the surface of the hand mesh.
\item Anchors should distribute uniformly on the surface of the region it represents.
\item Anchors can be derived from hand vertices in a differentiable way.
\end{enumerate*}
Anchors are located on the surface of hand mesh (protocol \textbf{a}), so they must be located on some certain faces of the hand mesh.
We can use the vertices of the face on which hand anchors reside to interpolate the anchors' position.
Suppose the hand mesh has the form of $\mathbf{M}=(\mathbf{V},\mathbf{F})$,
where $\mathbf{V}$ is a set of all vertices and $\mathbf{F}$ is a set of all faces.
Considering one face $\bm{f} \in \mathbf{F}$ of mesh whose vertices are stored in order: $\bm{f} = \{i_k\}, \bm{v}_k = \mathbf{V}[i_k], k\in\{1,2,3\}$.
We can get two edges of that face: $\bm{e}_1 = \bm{v}_2 - \bm{v}_1, \bm{e}_2 = \bm{v}_3 - \bm{v}_1$.
Then the local position of the anchor $\tilde{\bm{a}}$ inside the face can be represented by linear interpolation of $\bm{e}_1$ and $\bm{e}_2$: $\tilde{\bm{a}} = x_1 \bm{e}_1 + x_2 \bm{e}_2$, where the $x_1, x_2$ are some weights.
Finally, the global position of the anchor $\bm{a}$ will be $\bm{a} = \bm{v}_1 + \tilde{\bm{a}} = \bm{v}_1 + x_1 \bm{e}_1 + x_2 \bm{e}_2 = (1 - x_1 - x_2) \bm{v}_1 + x_1 \bm{v}_2 + x_2 \bm{v}_3$.
During the optimization process, we can use the precomputed face $\bm{f}$ and weights $x_1, x_2$, along with the predicted hand vertices $\mathbf{V}$ to calculate the position of all the anchors.
As the anchor is a linear combination of hand vertices, any loss that is applied to the anchors' position can be backpropagated to the vertices on the MANO surface, making the anchor-bases hand mesh differentiable.
We utilize control points introduced in \S\ref{sec:subregion} to derive anchors.
Since the anchor selection is independent of hand's configuration, we adopt a flat hand in the canonical coordinate system.
As illustrated in Fig.\ref{fig:anchor_coorespond} (middle, right), the control points are roughly uniformly distributed in each subregion. Each control point will correspond to an anchor of that subregion. The \textbf{\color[RGB]{40,76,121}Carpal} is an only exception: we select only 3 over 5 (ID: 5, 10, 20) of the control points in the subregion of \textbf{\color[RGB]{40,76,121}Carpal} for anchor derivation.
To derive an anchor from a control point, we need to get one face (consist of 3 integers) and two weights.
\begin{enumerate*}[label={\arabic*)},font={\bfseries}]
\item \textbf{\textit{Non-tip regions}. } For non-tip regions, we cast a ray that is originated from each control point in a certain subregion, and pointing to the palm surface.
We retrieve the first intersection of the ray with hand mesh. This intersection will be the anchor that correspond to the control point, also the subregion.
\item \textbf{\textit{Tip regions}. } For tip regions, we would select three anchors of each control point to increase the density of anchors in that subregion, as tip involves more contact information during manipulation. For the control point in tip subregions, we first cast a ray originated from the control point and get the intersection point on the hand mesh. Then a cone is created with the control point as apex, the intersection point as the base center, and a base radius.
The base radius is estimated by the maximum distance of vertices in the subregion to their control point. Three generatrices equally distributed on cone surface are selected as new ray casting directions. We cast three rays from the control point in the direction of the three generatrices and retrieve the intersection points with hand mesh. These intersection points will be selected as anchors to that control point in the fingertip regions.
\end{enumerate*}
\section{Spring's Elasticity}\label{suppsec:springs}
\subsection{Elastic Energy Analysis}\label{sec:elast_energy_analysis}
Here we illustrate elastic energy between a pair of points $\bm{v}_i^h$ and $\bm{v}_j^o$, denoting one vertex on hand surface and another vertex on object surface respectively. The vertex on object surface binds with a vector $\mathbf{n}_j^o$ representing the normal direction at this vertex (also the direction of repulsion).
Then we compute the offset vector $\bm{\Delta l}_{ij}^{\rm{atr}} = \bm{v}_i^h - \bm{v}_j^o$, and the projection of the offset vector on object normal $\mathbf{n}_j^o$: $| \bm{\Delta l}_{ij}^{\rm{rpl}} | = (\bm{v}_i^h - \bm{v}_j^o) \cdot \mathbf{n}_j^o$. $| \bm{\Delta l}_{ij}^{\rm{rpl}} |$ is positive if $\bm{v}_i^h$ falls outside the object, and negative if $\bm{v}_i^h$ falls inside the object.
We use an exponential function here to provide magnitude and gradient heuristic for optimizer:
\begin{enumerate*}[label={\alph*)},font={\bfseries}]
\item the less $|\bm{\Delta l}_{ij}^{\rm{rpl}}|$ is, the more $\bm{v}_i^h$ penetrates into the object. The gradient of repulsive energy will be an exponential increasing function of $\bm{\Delta l}_{ij}^{\rm{rpl}}$.
\item when $\bm{v}_i^h$ intersects into the object, both the repulsion and the attraction will push $\bm{v}_i^h$ towards the surface; when $\bm{v}_i^h$ is outside the object, the attraction and repulsion will point to opposite directions, leading to a balance point outside but in the vicinity to the object's surface.
We provide an intuitive illustration in Fig. \ref{fig:attract-repulsion_balance}.
\end{enumerate*}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig/attract-repulsion_balance.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of the elastic energy \wrt a pair of hand-object vertices. }
\label{fig:attract-repulsion_balance}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Anchor Elasticity Assignment}\label{sec:anchor_assignment}
As discussed in main text \S \ref{sec:cpf} (Annotation of the Attractive Springs), we treat the elasticity of the \textit{attractive} spring as the network prediction.
Here, we shall provide the annotation heuristics of the \textit{attractive} spring $\hat{k}^{\rm{atr}}$
First, we set the anchor $\bm{a}_i$ - vertex $\bm{v}^o_j$ pair with ground-truth distance $| \bm{\Delta} \hat{\bm{l}}^{\rm{atr}}_{ij} | > 20 mm$ as invalid contact and has $\hat{k}^{\rm{atr}}_{ij}=0$.
Second, for those anchor-vertex pairs within the distance threshold 20 $mm$, an inverse-proportional $\hat{k}^{\rm{atr}}_{ij}$ is assigned according to the $|\bm{\Delta} \hat{\bm{l}} ^{\rm{atr}}_{ij}|$:
\begin{equation}
\hat{k}^{\rm{atr}}_{ij} = 0.5 * \cos \big (\frac{\pi}{s} * |\bm{\Delta} \hat{\bm{l}}^{\rm{atr}}_{ij} | \big ) + 0.5
\end{equation}
where the scale factor $s = 20 \ mm$.
To note, we do not have a strict requirement on the function of $\hat{k}^{\rm{atr}}_{ij}$. Any other functions should also work when satisfying:
\begin{enumerate*}[label={\alph*)},font={\bfseries}]
\item $k = 1$ when $|\bm{\Delta l}|=0$;
\item $k$ is inverse proportional to $|\bm{\Delta l}|$ in the range of 0 to 20 $mm$;
\item $k$ is bounded by 0 and 1. The choice of cosine function is simply due to its smoothness.
\end{enumerate*}
\section{HO3D Dataset}\label{suppsec:ho3d}
\subsection{Analysis and Selection}\label{sec:ho3d_selection}
As we mentioned in the main text \S \ref{sec:dataset}, several samples in the HO3D testing set do not suit for evaluating MIHO. Firstly, since GeO requires the predicted 6D pose of the known objects, all the grasps of the \textit{pitcher} have to be removed. Secondly, many interactions of hand and objects in the testing set are not stable. For example, sliding the palm over the surface of a \textit{bleach cleanser bottle}, may cause a strange contact and mislead the optimization in GeO. Therefore, we only select the grasps that can pick up the objects firmly. We show several unsuitable samples in Fig. \ref{fig:unsuitable_samples}. Table.\ref{table:ho3dv2} shows our final selection on HO3Dv2 test set, as we called HO3Dv2$^-$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/unsuitable_samples.pdf}
\caption{Unsuitable samples in HO3Dv2 testing set.}
\label{fig:unsuitable_samples}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{small}
\centering
\begin{tabular}[width=\columnwidth]{c|c}
\toprule
Sequences & Frame ID \\
\midrule
SM1 & All \\
MPM10-14 & 30-450, 585-685 \\
SB11 & 340-1355, 1415-1686 \\
SB13 & 340-1355, 1415-1686 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{10 pt}\caption{\textbf{HO3Dv2$^-$ selection.} We select 6076 samples in the HO3Dv2 test set to evaluate MIHO.}
\label{table:ho3dv2}
\end{small}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/data_augmentation.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{HO3D \cite{hampali2019ho} Dataset augmentation.} We demonstrate the process of generating synthetic training images. $\mathcal{R}$ stands for the random transformation. }
\label{fig:data_augmentation}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Data Augmentation}\label{sec:ho3d_data_augmentation}
We augment the training sample in HO3Dv1 in terms of poses and grasps.
\begin{enumerate*}[label={\alph*)},font={\bfseries}]
\item To generate more poses, we firstly randomize a disturbance transformation to the hand and object poses in the object canonical coordinate system. Then, we apply the disturbance on the hand and object meshes and render these meshes to image by a given camera intrinsic.
\item To generate more grasps, we fit more stable grasps around the object. Specifically, as we show in Fig. \ref{fig:data_augmentation}, the generation procedure is achieved by 2 steps: 1) Manually move the hand around the tightest bounding cuboid of the object. 2) Refine the hand pose in the proposed GeO. Since the \textit{attractive} springs in CPF are unavailable here, we replace the attraction energy in main text Eq. 3 with the $\mathcal{L}_A$ in \cite{hasson2019learning} Eq. 4, and retain the repulsion energy and the anatomical cost. The optimization process of grasping generation can be expressed as:
\end{enumerate*}
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{\hat{V}}}^{h} \longleftarrow \mathop{argmin}_{(\bm{P}_w , \bm{R}_j)} (\mathcal{L}_{A} + E^{\rm{rpl.}} + \mathcal{L}_{\rm{anat}})
\label{aug_GeO}
\end{equation}
\section{Experiments and Results}\label{suppsec:expm}
\subsection{Implementation Details}\label{sec:more_impl_details}
In this section we provide more implementation details about the HoNet, PiCR, and GeO module.
\paragraph{HoNet.} The HoNet module employs ResNet-18 \cite{he2016deep} backbone initialized with ImageNet \cite{deng2009imagenet} pretrained weights.
For FHB and HO3Dv2 dataset, we use the pretrained weights released from \cite{hasson2020leveraging}. For the HO3Dv1 dataset, we train the HoNet with Adam solver and a constant learning rate of $5\times 10^{-4}$ in total 200 epochs.
\paragraph{PiCR.}
The PiCR module employs a Stacked Hourglass Networks \cite{newell2016stacked} (with 2 stacks) as backbone, a PointNet \cite{qi2017pointnet} as the point encoder, and three multi-layer perceptrons as heads.
The image features yield from the two hourglass stacks are gathered together and sequentially fed into the PointNet encoder and three heads. While the loss is computed over the sum of two rounds prediction, both PointNet encoder and the three heads have only one instance throughout PiCR module. At the evaluation stage, we only use the image features from the last hourglass stack to get the prediction from three heads.
We train the PiCR module with two stages.
\begin{enumerate*}[label={\arabic*)},font={\bfseries}]
\item \textbf{\textit{Pretraining.}} We pretrain the PiCR module with the input image and the ground-truth object mesh in camera space. The ground-truth object mesh are disturbed by a minor rotation and translation shift. We employ Adam solver with an initial learning rate of $1 \times 10^{-3}$, decaying 50\% every 100 epochs. The total epochs during pretraining stage is 200.
\item \textbf{\textit{Fine-tuning.}} At the fine-tuning stage, we feed PiCR module with the object vertices predicted from HoNet. The HoNet's weights is freezed during PiCR fine-tuning. We employ Adam solver and set the initial learning rate in fine-tuning stage as $5\times 10^{-4}$, decayed to 50\% every 100 epochs, and finished at 200 epochs.
\end{enumerate*}
In both stages, we set the training mini-batch size to 8 per GPU, and a total of 4 GPUs are used.
\paragraph{GeO.}
The GeO is a fitting module based on the non-linear optimization. For each sample, we minimize the cost function in 400 iterations, with a initial learning rate of $1\times 10^{-2}$, reduced on plateau that the cost function has stopped decaying in 20 consecutive iterations.
We implement GeO in PyTorch thanks for its auto derivative, and an Adam solver is employed when updating the arguments. To note, GeO can also support any other optimization toolbox.
\subsection{Ablation Study}\label{sec:more_ablation_study}
As referred in main text \S \ref{sec:ablation} (Ablation Study), this section contains another three ablation studies. all the following experiments are under the \textit{\textbf{hand-object}} setting.
\paragraph{The Impact of the $k^{\rm{rpl}}$. }
While the elasticity $k^{\rm{atr}}$ of the \textit{attractive} springs are predicted in PiCR, the elasticity
$k^{\rm{rpl}}$ of those \textit{repulsive} strings are empirically set to $1 \times 10 ^{-3}$.
In order to measure the impact of the magnitude of $k^{\rm{rpl}}$ on repulsion, we test our GeO with seven experiment settings in which the $k^{\rm{rpl}}$ is set to $\{ 0.2,\ 0.6,\ 1.0,\ 1.4,\ 2.0,\ 4.0,\ 8.0\} \times 10^{-3}$, respectively. The experiment with $k^{\rm{rpl}} = 1 \times 10^{-3}$ is in accord with the default experiment in main text. As shown in Tab. \ref{table:ablation_rpl}, while the large $k^{\rm{rpl}}$ can reduce the solid interpenetration volume, it may also push the attraction apart thus is not preferable in the reconstruction metrics: hand MPVPE and object MPVPE.
\begin{table}[h]
\rowcolors{4}{Gray}{}
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{$k^{\rm{rpl}}$} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{{Scores}} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-6}
& HE $\downarrow$ & OE $\downarrow$ & PD $\downarrow$ & SIV $\downarrow$ & DD $\downarrow$ \\
\midrule
$2.0\times10^{-4}$ & 19.49 & 21.57 & 17.77 & 13.22 & 20.85 \\
$6.0\times10^{-4}$ & 19.51 & 21.57 & 17.22 & 12.40 & 21.63 \\
$\mathbf{1.0\times10^{-3}}$ & \textbf{19.54} & \textbf{21.57} & \textbf{16.92} & \textbf{11.76} & \textbf{22.41} \\
$1.4\times10^{-3}$ & 19.59 & 21.58 & 16.75 & 11.00 & 23.24 \\
$2.0\times10^{-3}$ & 19.69 & 21.59 & 16.41 & 10.09 & 24.55 \\
$4.0\times10^{-3}$ & 20.03 & 21.63 & 15.09 & 7.65 & 29.33 \\
$8.0\times10^{-3}$ & 20.95 & 21.92 & 12.86 & 4.27 & 40.79 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{footnotesize}
\caption{\textbf{Ablation results:} the impact of the magnitude of $k^{\rm{atr}}$. HE stands for hand mean per vertex position error ($mm$); OE stands for object mean per vertex position error ($mm$); PD stands for penetration depth ($mm$); SIV stands for solid intersection volume ($cm^3$); D stands for disjointedness distance ($mm$).}
\label{table:ablation_rpl}
\end{table}
\paragraph{A-MANO with PCA Pose.}
Since the MANO can also be driven by the PCA components of joint rotation, we further conduct experiments to demonstrate the superiority of our full MANO ( MANO with 15 relative joint rotations) over the PCA MANO (MANO with 15 PCA components of rotations). Tab. \ref{table:ablation_pca} shows that our full MANO can achieve a notable decrease in the hand MPVPE. We attribute this to the fact that the PCA MANO tends to recovery a hand that is inclined to the mean flat pose, while our full version imposes higher flexibility on the hand pose.
However, fitting on the 15 rotations in forms of $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ brings $15 \times 3 = 45$ degree of freedoms, which is less stable against pose abnormality. Hence in order to fully exploit the advantages when fitting on the rotations of 15 joints, we have to combine the anatomical constrains with it.
\begin{table}[h]
\footnotesize
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Settings} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{{Scores}} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-6}
& HE $\downarrow$ & OE $\downarrow$ & PD $\downarrow$ & SIV $\downarrow$ & DD $\downarrow$ \\
\midrule
\textbf{Full MANO} & \textbf{19.54} & \textbf{21.57} & \textbf{16.92} & \textbf{11.76} & \textbf{22.41} \\
PCA MANO & 23.32 & 24.41 & 22.47 & 11.90 & 26.72 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\textbf{Ablation results:} the MANO with PCA pose.}
\label{table:ablation_pca}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Unwanted Twist Correction.}
In this part, we show the effectiveness when fitting the 15 rotations with anatomical constrains. We observe an unwanted twist of thumb in the ground-truth pose of HO3Dv1 testing set. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:twist_correction}, since A-MANO imposes constraints on the \textit{twist} component of the rotation axis, it can achieve a more visually pleasing result in such case.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig/twist_correction.pdf}
\caption{Example to show that our A-MANO can mitigate the unwanted twist (see thumb) exhibited in ground-truth. }
\label{fig:twist_correction}
\end{figure}
\section{More Qualitative Results}\label{suppsec:morequal}
We demonstrate the qualitative results of MIHO in Fig. \ref{fig:full_qualitative} on both the FHB \cite{garcia2018first} and HO3D dataset \cite{hampali2020honnotate}. Note that the ground truth of the test set in HO3Dv2$^{-}$ \cite{hampali2020honnotate} is not available.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.93\linewidth]{fig/full_qualitative.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Qualitative results on FHB \cite{garcia2018first}, HO3Dv1\cite{hampali2019ho} and HO3Dv2$^{-}$ \cite{hampali2020honnotate} datasets.} The last row shows the failure cases.}
\label{fig:full_qualitative}
\end{figure*}
\end{appendix}
|
\section{Introduction}
In~\cite{DKU19}, we investigated, for elements of finite von Neumann algebras, the relationship between
\textit{spectrality} of an operator, in the sense of Dunford~\cite{D54}, and the angles between certain invariant subspaces of the operator.
We thereby showed that the circular free Poisson operators, introduced in~\cite{DH01}, cannot be spectral.
This class includes Voiculescu's circular operator.
The aforementioned invariant subspaces of the operator are the {\em Haagerup--Schultz} subspaces~\cite{HS09}.
The circular free Poisson operators belong to a class of operators called the DT-operators, introduced in~\cite{DH04a}.
In this paper, we will investigate angles between Haagerup--Schultz subspaces of a different set of DT-operators, whose Brown measures satisfy certain properties, and thereby show that also these operators cannot be spectral.
More specifically, those whose Brown measures are radially symmetric but which have ``blow-ups'' of a particular sort (see Theorem~\ref{thm:unza_measures})
are not spectral.
Our proof uses new estimates on norms, conditional expectations and traces of powers of algebra-valued circular operators.
This paper is organized as follows: Section~\ref{sec:prelim} contains a brief review of some elements of spectral operators and Haagerup-Schultz projections.
Section~\ref{sec:angles} is a summary of our previous work on the relationship between spectrality and the angles between Haagerup-Schultz projections.
Section~\ref{sec:DTops} contains an introduction to DT-operators and proof of an upper triangular model for DT-operators.
In Section~\ref{sec:Bcirc} we consider $B$-valued circular operators when $B$ is a commutative C$^*$-algebra and prove some norm estimates involving them.
In Section~\ref{sec:nonspec}, we estimate the angles between certain Haagerup-Schultz subspaces for suitable DT-operators, and use this to show
that they cannot be spectral.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:prelim}
\subsection{Spectral operators}
Spectral operators were introduced by Dunford \cite{D54} as a generalization of normal operators. Normal operators have a associated projection-valued spectral measure which behaves well with respect to the spectrum. Spectral operators are those which have a well-behaved idempotent-valued spectral measure. To be precise,
\begin{defi}
An operator $T$ on a Hilbert space $\HEu$ is said to be {\em spectral} if there exists a map $E$ which sends Borel subsets of
$\Cpx$ to operators in $\HEu$, which satisfies the following criteria:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $ E(\Cpx) = 1 $
\item $ E(B_1 \cap B_2) = E(B_1) E(B_2)$, for all Borel sets $B_1,B_2$.
\item $ E( \cup_{i=1}^\infty B_i ) = \sum_{i=1}^\infty E(B_i)$ whenever $B_i$ are pairwise disjoint Borel sets in $\Cpx$, and the sum on the right converges in the strong operator topology.
\item $\sup\{\norm{E(B)} : B \text{ Borel in } \Cpx\} < \infty$.
\item $E(B)T=TE(B)$ for all Borel sets $B$.
\item For all Borel subsets $B$ of $\Cpx$, the spectrum of $T$ restricted to the range of $E(B)$ is contained in the closure of $B$:
$$ \sigma( T \restrict _{E(B) \HEu}) \subseteq \overline{B}. $$
\end{enumerate}
\end{defi}
Dunford showed that spectral operators have the following equivalent characterisation. This is a generalization of the well-known result that every matrix is similar to sum of a nilpotent matrix and a diagonal matrix that commute.
\begin{prop}[Dunford]
The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $T \in B(\HEu)$ is a spectral operator.
\item There exist operators $S,N,Q \in B(\HEu)$ such that $S$ is invertible, $N$ is normal, $Q$ is quasinilpotent, $NQ=QN$, and
$$ S T S^{-1} = N + Q. $$
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\subsection{Brown measure and Haagerup-Schultz projections}
Throughout the rest of this paper, $(\Mcal,\tau)$ will refer to a von Neumann algebra equipped with a faithful normal tracial state $\tau$.
If $N \in \Mcal$ is a normal operator, the projection-valued measure associated with $N$ gives rise to a probability measure on $\Cpx$, given by taking the trace of the corresponding projections.
L.~ Brown in~\cite{B83} constructed a probability measure $\mu_T$ on $\Cpx$ associated to an arbitrary operator $T$ in $\Mcal$.
The Brown measure $\mu_T$ is just the trace of spectral measure if $T$ is normal.
The Brown measure behaves well with respect to the holomorphic functional calculus of $T$.
For details of the construction, and further properties, see~\cite{B83} and~\cite{HS07}.
In~\cite{HS09}, Haagerup and Schultz constructed invariant projections for arbitrary operators in a finite von Neumann algebra.
These subspaces implement a sort of decomposition according to Brown measure.
\begin{thm}[\cite{HS09}]\label{thm:hs-proj}
Let $T$ be an operator in a finite von Neumann algebra $(\Mcal,\tau)$ and $B\subseteq \Cpx$ be a Borel set. Then there exists a unique projection $P(T,B) \in \Mcal$ such that the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\tau(P(T,B))=\mu_T(B)$.
\item $P(T,B)\HEu$ is an invariant subspace for $T$.
\item The Brown measure of $TP(T,B)$, when computed in the corner \linebreak
$P(T,B)\Mcal P(T,B)$, is concentrated in $B$.
\item The Brown measure of $(1-P(T,B))T$, when computed in the corner $(1-P(T,B))\Mcal (1-P(T,B))$, is concentrated in $B^c$.
\item\label{it:hs-invt} If $Q$ is any $T$-invariant projection with the property that the Brown measure of $TQ$ (computed in $Q\Mcal Q$) is concentrated in $B$, then $Q\leq P(T,B)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
For discs and complements of discs, the Haagerup-Schultz projections have the following explicit form (see~\cite{HS09}):
\begin{prop}\label{prop:hsproj-disc}
Let $T\in (\Mcal,\tau)$, and $r>0$. Let $r \Dbb$ denote the open disc of radius $r$ centered at $0$. Then
\begin{gather*}
P(T,\overline{r\Dbb})\HEu = \left \lbrace \xi \in \HEu: \exists \xi_n \in \HEu, \lim_n \xi_n = \xi, \limsup_n \norm{T^n\xi_n}^{1/n} \leq r \right \rbrace \\
P(T,(r\Dbb)^c)\HEu =\left\lbrace \eta \in \HEu: \exists \, \eta_n \in \HEu, \lim_{n \to \infty} T^n \eta_n = \eta, \limsup_n \norm{\eta_n}^{1/n} \leq \frac{1}{r} \right \rbrace_.
\end{gather*}
\end{prop}
The Haagerup-Schultz projections also respect lattice operations (see~\cite{Sch06} or Section~3 of~\cite{CDSZ17}).
\begin{prop}\label{prop:hsproj-lattice}
Let $T \in (\Mcal,\tau)$, and $B_1,B_2,\ldots \subseteq \Cpx$ be Borel sets. Then
\begin{align*}
P(T, \bigcup_{i\ge1}B_i ) &= \bigvee_{i\ge1}P\left(T,B_i\right) \\
P(T, \bigcap_{i\ge1} B_i ) &= \bigwedge_{i\ge1} P\left(T,B_i\right).
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
Note that the above relations imply that $P(T,B)\wedge P(T,B^c)=0$ and $P(T,B)\vee P(T,B^c) = 1$.
In general, $P(T,B)$ and $P(T,C)$ do not commute, unless one of $B$ and $C$ is a subset of the other.
The projections also behave well with respect to compressions and similarities (see Theorems 2.4.4 and~12.3 in~\cite{CDSZ17}).
\begin{thm}\label{prop:hsproj-sim}
Let $Q \in \Mcal$ be a non-zero, $T$-invariant projection and let $A\in \Mcal$ be invertible.
Then, for all Borel sets $B \subseteq \Cpx$, we have
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $P(T,B) \wedge Q = P^{(Q)}(TQ,B)$,
\item $\mu_{ATA^{-1}} = \mu_T$,
\item $P(ATA^{-1},B)\HEu = \overline{AP(T,B)\HEu}$,
\end{enumerate}
where $P^{(Q)}$ denotes the Haagerup-Schultz projection computed in the compression $Q\Mcal Q$.
\end{thm}
Haagerup and Schultz also showed the following equivalence:
\begin{prop}[\cite{HS09}]\label{prop:sotqn}
Let $T\in (\Mcal,\tau)$.
Then the Brown measure $\mu_T$ has support equal to $\{0\}$ if and only if
$$ \text{s.o.t.-}\lim_{n\to \infty} (T^{*n} T^n)^{1/2n} = 0, $$
where the limit is in the in the strong operator topology.
\end{prop}
By analogy with the quasinilpotent case, we call an operator with Brown measure concentrated at $\{0\}$ an s.o.t-quasinilpotent operator.
\section{Angles between projections and spectrality}
\label{sec:angles}
In previous work \cite{DKU19}, we showed a relationship between the angles between Haagerup-Schultz projections and the spectrality of the operator.
\begin{defi}
For closed, nonzero subspaces $V$ and $W$ of a Hilbert space $\HEu$, we define the {\em angle} between them to be
$$ \alpha(V,W) = \inf \{ \text{angle}(v,w): v \in V,\, w \in W,\, v \neq 0,\, w \neq 0\}. $$
For nonzero projections $P,Q \in B(\HEu)$, $\alpha(P,Q)$ will denote the angle between the spaces $P\HEu$ and $Q\HEu$.
\end{defi}
From consideration of the unital C$^*$-agebra generated by two projections (see~\cite{RS89} or~\cite{BS10}) it is known that the cosine of the angle between $P\HEu$ and $Q\HEu$ is equal to the maximum element of the spectrum of $PQP$.
Thus, $\alpha(P,Q)$ is well defined for projections $P$ and $Q$ in a unital C$^*$-algebra, independently of the way the C$^*$-algebra is unitally represented on a Hilbert space.
\begin{defi}
For an operator $T \in \Mcal$, let $\alpha(T)$ denote the infimum of the angles between complementary Haagerup-Schultz projections of $T$.
That is,
$$ \alpha(T)\coloneqq\inf_{\substack{B \subseteq \Cpx,\,B \text{ Borel},\\ 0<\mu_T(B)<1}} \alpha(P(T,B),P(T,B^c)). $$
We may also write $\alpha_\Mcal(T)$ for $\alpha(T)$, in order to emphasize the von Neumann algebra we consider.
We say $T$ has the {\em uniformly non-zero angle property} (or UNZA property) if $\alpha(T)>0$.
\end{defi}
In \cite{DKU19}, we showed that operators having the UNZA property are those that are similar to the sum a of a normal operator and a commuting s.o.t.-quasinilpotent operator.
\begin{thm}[\cite{DKU19}]\label{thm:angle-sotqn}
Let $T\in \Mcal$. Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $T$ has the UNZA property.
\item There exist $S, Q, N \in \Mcal$, with $S$ invertible, $NQ=QN$, $N$
normal, $Q$ s.o.t.quasinilpotent, and
$$ S T S^{-1} = N + Q. $$
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{cor}[\cite{DKU19}]
Let $T\in\Mcal$.
Then $T$ is spectral if and only if $T$ is decomposable and has the UNZA property.
\end{cor}
\section{DT-operators}
\label{sec:DTops}
We now turn to the study of DT-operators, which were
introduced in~\cite{DH04a}.
These are elements of a von Neumann algebra $\Mcal$ equipped with a normal faithful tracial state $\tau$,
of the form $Z=D+cT\in\Mcal$, where $D$ belongs to a copy $\Dc$ of $L^\infty[0,1]$ in $\Mcal$
(whereon $\tau$ is given by integration with respect to Lebesgue measure), $c>0$ and $T$ is
the quasinilpotent DT-operator, that is constructed in a particular way from $\Dc$ and a semicircular element $X$
that is free from $\Dc$, by ``cutting out the upper triangle'' of $X$.
We call $Z$ a $\DT(\mu,c)$-operator, where $\mu$ is the distribution of $D$ with respect to $\tau$.
Moreover, any element of a tracial von Neumann algebra having the same $*$-moments as $Z$ is called a $\DT(\mu,c)$-operator.
The DT-operators also arise as limiting $*$-distributions of certain upper triangular random matrices.
The following is is a synthesis of results taken from~\cite{DH04a}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:d+t}
Let $X \in (\Mcal,\tau)$ be a semicircular operator with $\tau(X^2)=1$, $\tau(X)=0$, and let $$\lambda:L^\infty([0,1]) \to \Mcal$$ be a normal, unital, injective $*$-homomorphism such that $X$ and the image of $\lambda$ are free with respect to $\tau$.
Then, there exists an operator $T \in \Mcal$, constructed from $X$ and $\lambda$ is a prescribed way and written $T=\UT(X,\lambda)$, such that the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item For all $0<t<1$,
$$ T \lambda(1_{[0,t]}) = \lambda(1_{[0,t]}) T \lambda(1_{[0,t]}). $$
\item $X = T + T^*$.
\item For all $0<t<1$, $\lambda(1_{[0,t]})T\lambda(1_{[t,1]}) = \lambda(1_{[0,t]})X\lambda(1_{[t,1]})$.
\item If $f \in L^\infty([0,1])$, $c>0$, and $D=\lambda(f)$, then $D+cT$ is a $\DT(\mu,c)$ operator, where $\mu$ is the push-forward of the Lebesgue measure by $f$.
\item $T$ is quasinilpotent.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
We call $T$ the {\em quasinilpotent $\DT$-operator}.
The following is a generalization of part of Theorem~4.12 of~\cite{DH04a}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:dt-ut}
Let $c>0$, and $\mu,\mu_1,..\mu_n$ be compactly supported Borel probability measures on $\Cpx$ such that $\mu$ is a convex combination of $\mu_i$:
$$ \mu =\sum_{i=1}^n t_i \mu_i $$
for some $0<t_i<1$ such that $\sum_it_i=1$.
Then there is an example of a $\DT(\mu,c)$-operator $Z$ in a von Neumann algebra $\Mcal$
with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\Mcal$ has a $*$-subalgebra $\Nc$ and a semicircular element $X$ normalized so that $\tau(X^2)=1$ and such that $\Nc$ and $\{X\}$ are free.
\item There are projections $p_1,\ldots,p_n$ in $\Nc$ so that $\tau(p_j)=t_j$ and $p_1+\cdots+p_n=1$.
\item For each $j$, there is a $\DT(\mu_j,c\sqrt{t_j})$-operator $a_j\in p_j\Nc p_j$, with respect to the renormalized trace $t_i^{-1}\tau$
\item Letting $b_{ij}=cp_iXp_j$ for each $i<j$,
\[
Z=\sum_{j=1}^n a_j+\sum_{1\le i<j\le n}b_{ij}
=\begin{pmatrix}
a_1 & b_{12} & \cdots & \cdots & b_{1n} \\
0 & a_2 & b_{23} & & \vdots \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\vdots && 0 & a_{n-1} & b_{n-1,n} \\[1.5ex]
0& \cdots & \cdots & 0 & a_n
\end{pmatrix}_,
\]
where we have used the natural matrix notation with respect to the projections $p_1,\ldots,p_n$.
\end{enumerate}
Furthermore, if there is a Borel set $B\subseteq\Cpx$ so that $\mu_1$ is concentrated in $B$
and, for each $2\le j\le n$, $\mu_j$ is concentrated in $B^c$,
then $p_1=P(Z,B)$.
\end{thm}
The proof uses the following result, which follows immediately from Voicu\-lescu's random matrix results~\cite{V91}
by an argument, pioneered by Voiculescu, that is well known and which we omit.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:semic}
Suppose $\Dc$ is a copy of $L^\infty([0,1])$ in $\Mcal$
and
$X,\tilde{X}$ are semicircular elements in $\Mcal$, with $\tau(X^2)=\tau(\tilde{X}^2)=1$, such that $(\{X\},\{\tilde{X}\},\Dc)$ is a free family.
Let $p_1,\ldots,p_N\in\Dc$ be projections with $\sum p_i = 1$.
Then
\[
Y=\sum_{i=1}^N p_i X p_i + \sum_{i<j} \left( p_i \tilde{X} p_j + p_j \tilde{X} p_i \right)
\]
is a semicircular element in $\Mcal$, with $\tau(Y^2)=1$.
Moreover, $\{Y\}$ and $\Dc$ are free.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:dt-ut}]
This imitates some of the proof of Theorem 4.12 in \cite{DH04a}, using Lemma \ref{lem:semic}.
Take a von Neumann algebra $\Mcal$ with a trace-preserving, normal, injective *-homomorphism, $\lambda:L^\infty([0,1])\to \Mcal$
and having
$X,\Xt \in \Mcal$, centered semi-circular elements such that $\tau(X^2)=\tau(\Xt^2)=1$ and
\[
\{ X\},\,\{\Xt\} ,\lambda(L^\infty([0,1]))
\]
is a free family.
Choose $0=s_0<s_1<\cdots s_{n}=1$ such that $s_{i}-s_{i-1}=t_i$, for $1\leq i \leq n$, and let $p_i = \lambda(1_{[s_{i-1},s_i]})$.
Then the $p_i$ are projections and $\tau(p_i)=t_i$.
From Lemma \ref{lem:semic},
\[ Y = \sum_{i=1}^n p_i \Xt p_i + \sum_{i \neq j} p_i X p_j \]
is a semicircular element with $\tau(Y^2)=1$, and $Y$ is free from $\lambda(L^\infty([0,1])$.
For $1\le i\le n$, let $\lambda_i:L^\infty([0,1])\to p_i\Mcal p_i$ be the unital $*$-homomorphism given by $\lambda_i(f)=\lambda(g)$ where
\[
g(x)=\begin{cases}
f((x-s_{i-1})/t_i),& s_{i-1}\le x\le s_i \\
0,&\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
Let $f_i\in L^\infty([0,1])$ be such that the push-forward under $f_i$ of Lebesgue measure is $\mu_i$ and let $f\in L^\infty([0,1])$ be defined by
\[
\lambda(f)=\lambda_1(f_1)+\cdots+\lambda_n(f_n).
\]
Then the push-forward of Lebesgue measure under $f$ is $\mu$.
Let $T=\UT(Y,\lambda)$ be the operator from Theorem \ref{thm:d+t} corresponding to $Y$ and $\lambda$.
Let $Z=\lambda(f)+T$.
Then $Z$ is a $\DT(\mu,1)$-operator.
Let $\Nc$ be the von Neumann algebra generated by $\lambda(L^\infty([0,1]))$ and $\Xt$, so that $\Nc$ and $\{X\}$ are free.
Let $a_i=p_iZp_i=\lambda_i(f_i)+p_iTp_i$ and, for $i<j$, let $b_{ij}=p_iTp_j$.
Note that $p_iTp_i=p_i\UT(\Xt,\lambda)p_i\in\Nc$ and $b_{ij}=p_iXp_j$.
By Lemma~4.10 of~\cite{DH04a}, $p_iTp_i=\UT(p_i\Xt p_i,\lambda_i)$,.
We have that $\lambda_i(L^\infty([0,1]))$ and $p_i\Xt p_i$ are free.
Moreover, $p_i\Xt p_i$ is with respect to the trace $\tau(p_i)^{-1}\tau\restrict_{pi\Ncal p_i}$ a
semicircular element with second moment $\tau(p_i)=t_i$.
It follows that $a_i$ is a $\DT(\mu_i,\sqrt{t_i})$-element in $p_i\Ncal p_i$ with respect to this trace.
Thus, we have
\[ D+c T = \sum_{i=1}^n a_i + \sum_{1<i<j<n} b_{ij} \]
as required.
For the last statement, since the Brown measure of $a_1$ is concentrated in $B$, it follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:hs-proj}(\ref{it:hs-invt})
that $p\le P(Z,B)$.
However, $\tau(p)=t_1=\mu(B)=\tau(P(Z,B))$, so we have equality.
\end{proof}
The following result is a consequence of the upper-triangular decomposition theorem and the properties of Haagerup--Schultz projections that are described in Theorem~\ref{thm:hs-proj}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:dt-properties}
Let $T$ be a $\DT(\mu,c)$ operator. Then,
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item The Brown measure of $T$ is $\mu$.
\item $T$ is a decomposable operator, and $\sigma(T)=\text{supp}(\mu)$.
\item If $B\subseteq \Cpx$ is a Borel set with $\mu(B)\neq 0$, and $p=P(T,B)$ is the corresponding Haagerup-Schultz projection, then $Tp$ is also a DT-operator. To be precise,
$Tp$ is a $\text{DT}(\mu(B)^{-1}\mu\restrict_B, c\sqrt{\mu(B)})$ operator in $p\Mcal p$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\section{$B$-valued circular operators where $B$ is commutative}
\label{sec:Bcirc}
Let $B$ be a unital C$^*$-algebra.
A $B$-valued C$^*$-noncommutative probability space is a pair $(A,E)$, where $A$ is a unital C$^*$-algebra containing a unital copy of $B$ and where $E:A\to B$
is a conditional expectation.
Given $a\in A$, the {\em $B$-valued $*$-moments} of $a$ are the maps that catalog all of the information about the values of expectations
of the form $E(a^{\eps(1)}b_1a^{\eps(2)}\cdots b_{n-1}a^{\eps(n)})$,
for $n\in\Nats$, $\eps(1),\ldots,\eps(n)\in\{1,*\}$ and $b_1,\ldots,b_{n-1}\in B$.
Speicher~\cite{Sp98} developed the theory of {\em $B$-valued cumulants} in terms of which the $B$-valued $*$-moments of elements of $A$ can be written.
The notion of a {\em $B$-valued circular operator} was introduced in~\cite{SS01}.
It is an element $a\in A$ such that the $B$-valued cumulants of $(a,a^*)$ vanish except for the balanced ones of order $2$.
(See~\cite{SS01} or~\cite{BD18} for details).
This section is directed toward making some norm estimates involving $B$-valued circular operators where $B$ is commutative.
It ends with an application to $\DT$-operators.
It is important to note that the quasinilpotent DT-operator $T$ is $B$-valued circular for $B=C([0,1])$.
In~\cite{S03}, Piotr {\'S}niady proved some important results about $T$,
or, more correctly, about a certain $B$-valued circular operator for $B=L^\infty([0,1])$ (or, equally well, for $B=C([0,1])$).
(A full proof that $T$ is $B$-valued circular is found in the appendix of~\cite{DH04b}.)
Here, $B$ is identified with $\lambda(C([0,1]))$ via $\lambda$ and we
consider the $B$-valued C$^*$-noncommutative probability space with $\tau$-preserving conditional expectation from the C$^*$-algebra generated by $X$ and $B$ onto $B$.
Throughout this section $B$ will be a commutative, unital C$^*$-algebra and $(A,E)$ a $B$-valued C$^*$-noncommutative probability space.
A $B$-valued circular element is $T\in A$ with $E(T)=0$
and such that the only nonvanishing noncrossing cumulants of the pair $(T_1,T_2)=(T,T^*)$ are the completely positive maps
from $B$ to $B$, given by
$\alpha_{1,2}(b)=E(TbT^*)$ and $\alpha_{2,1}(b)=E(T^*bT)$.
These are positive maps from $B$ to $B$ and must satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{eq:|b|}
|\alpha_{1,2}(b)|\le\alpha_{1,2}(|b|),\qquad|\alpha_{2,1}(b)|\le\alpha_{2,1}(|b|).
\end{equation}
Indeed, if $\phi$ is a state of $B$, then $\phi\circ\alpha_{1,2}$ is a positive linear functional on $B$ and is given by integration with respect to a measure on the spectrum of $B$,
so satisfies
\[
|\phi\circ\alpha_{1,2}(b)|\le\phi\circ\alpha_{1,2}(|b|).
\]
By way of notation, given a finite sequence $\eps(1),\eps(2),\ldots,\eps(n)\in\{1,*\}$, we will say the sequence is {\em balanced} if
there are as many $*$'s as $1$'s, namely, if
\[
\#\{j: \eps(j)=1\}=\frac n2.
\]
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:EXeps-pos}
Let $B$ be a commutative, unital C$^*$-algebra
and let $T$ be a $B$-valued circular element in some $B$-valued C$^*$-noncommutative probability space $(A,E)$.
Then for all $\eps(1),\ldots,\eps(n)\in\{1,*\}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:EXeps-pos}
E(T^{\eps(1)}T^{\eps(2)}\cdots T^{\eps(n)})\ge0.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If the sequence $\eps(1),\ldots,\eps(n)$ is not balanced, then from the moment-cumulant formula, the expectation on the left hand side of~\eqref{eq:EXeps-pos}
is zero.
So we may assume the sequence is balanced.
Let $\alpha_{1,2}$ and $\alpha_{2,1}$ be the cumulant maps for $T,T^*$.
We proceed by induction on $n$.
The case $n=2$ follows by positivity of the maps $\alpha_{1,2}$ and $\alpha_{2,1}$.
For the induction step, suppose $n\ge4$.
Let $J$ be the set of all $j\in\{2,3,\ldots,n\}$ such that $\eps(j)\ne\eps(1)$ and the sequence $\eps(1),\ldots,\eps(j)$ is balanced.
Suppose for the moment $\eps(1)=1$.
Then by the moment-cumulant formula, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:EXeps-sum}
E(T^{\eps(1)}\cdots T^{\eps(n)})=\sum_{j\in J}\alpha_{1,2}\big(E(T^{\eps(2)}\cdots T^{\eps(j-1)})\big)E(T^{\eps(j+1)}\cdots T^{\eps(n)}).
\end{equation}
Using the induction hypothesis, the positivity
of the map $\alpha_{1,2}$ and the commutativity of $B$, we see that for each $j\in J$ the corresponding term in the sum~\eqref{eq:EXeps-sum}
is positive and, hence, we get $E(T^{\eps(1)}T^{\eps(2)}\cdots T^{\eps(n)})\ge0$.
The situation when $\eps(1)=*$ is the same but with $\alpha_{2,1}$ replacing $\alpha_{1,2}$ in~\eqref{eq:EXeps-sum}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:|b|}
Let $B$ be a commutative, unital C$^*$-algebra and suppose $T$ is a $B$-valued circular element in a C$^*$-noncommutative probability space $(A,E)$.
Then for every $n\in\Nats$, $\eps(1),\ldots,\eps(n)\in\{1,*\}$ and $b_1,\ldots,b_n\in B$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:|E|bdd}
\big|E(T^{\eps(1)}b_1T^{\eps(2)}b_2\cdots T^{\eps(n)}b_n)\big|\le\left(\prod_{j=1}^n\|b_j\|\right)E(T^{\eps(1)}T^{\eps(2)}\cdots T^{\eps(n)}).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha_{1,2}$ and $\alpha_{2,1}$ be the cumulant maps for the pair $(T_1,T_2)=(T,T^*)$, given by
\[
\alpha_{1,2}(b)=E(TbT^*),
\qquad
\alpha_{2,1}(b)=E(T^*bT).
\]
Note that, if the sequence $\eps(1),\ldots,\eps(n)$ is not balanced, then both sides of~\eqref{eq:|E|bdd} are zero, so we assume the sequence is balanced
and we proceed to prove~\eqref{eq:|E|bdd} by induction on $n$.
For the case $n=2$,
using~\eqref{eq:|b|} we get
\begin{multline*}
|E(T^{\eps(1)}b_1T^{\eps(2)}b_2)|=|E(T^{\eps(1)}b_1T^{\eps(2)})|\,|b_2| \\
\le E(T^{\eps(1)}|b_1|T^{\eps(2)})\,|b_2|\le\|b_1\|\,\|b_2\|\,E(T^{\eps(1)}T^{\eps(2)}).
\end{multline*}
For the induction step, let $n\ge4$ and suppose $\eps(1)=1$.
Letting $J$ be as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:EXeps-pos}, using the moment-cumulant formula for $T$,
equation~\eqref{eq:|b|} and the induction hypothesis,
we have
\begin{align*}
&\big|E(T^{\eps(1)}b_1T^{\eps(2)}b_2\cdots T^{\eps(n)}b_n)\big| \\
&=\left|\sum_{j\in J}\alpha_{1,2}\big(b_1E(T^{\eps(2)}b_2\cdots T^{\eps(j-1)}b_{j-1})\big)b_jE(T^{\eps(j+1)}b_{j+1}\cdots T^{\eps(n)}b_n)\right| \displaybreak[1] \\[1ex]
&\le\sum_{j\in J}\big|\alpha_{1,2}\big(b_1E(T^{\eps(2)}b_2\cdots T^{\eps(j-1)}b_{j-1})\big)\big|\,\|b_j\|\,\big|E(T^{\eps(j+1)}b_{j+1}\cdots T^{\eps(n)}b_n)\big|
\displaybreak[1] \\
&\le\sum_{j\in J}\alpha_{1,2}\big(\big|b_1E(T^{\eps(2)}b_2\cdots T^{\eps(j-1)}b_{j-1})\big|\big)\,\left(\prod_{i=j}^n\|b_i\|\right)E(T^{\eps(j+1)}\cdots T^{\eps(n)})
\displaybreak[2] \\
&\le\sum_{j\in J}\alpha_{1,2}\big(\|b_1\|\big|E(T^{\eps(2)}b_2\cdots T^{\eps(j-1)}b_{j-1})\big|\big)\,\left(\prod_{i=j}^n\|b_i\|\right)E(T^{\eps(j+1)}\cdots T^{\eps(n)})
\displaybreak[1] \\
&\le\sum_{j\in J}\alpha_{1,2}\big(\left(\prod_{i=1}^{j-1}\|b_i\|\right)E(T^{\eps(2)}\cdots T^{\eps(j-1)})\big)\,\left(\prod_{i=j}^n\|b_i\|\right)E(T^{\eps(j+1)}\cdots T^{\eps(n)})
\displaybreak[1] \\
&=\left(\prod_{i=1}^{n}\|b_i\|\right)\sum_{j\in J}\alpha_{1,2}\big(E(T^{\eps(2)}\cdots T^{\eps(j-1)})\big)\,E(T^{\eps(j+1)}\cdots T^{\eps(n)}) \\
&=\left(\prod_{i=1}^{n}\|b_i\|\right)E(T^{\eps(1)}\cdots T^{\eps(n)}).
\end{align*}
When $\eps(1)=*$, the proof is the same but with $\alpha_{2,1}$ replacing $\alpha_{1,2}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:norms}
Let $B$ be a commutative, unital C$^*$-algebra and suppose $T$ is a $B$-valued circular element in a C$^*$-noncommutative probability space $(A,E)$
with $E$ faithful.
Then for every $n\in\Nats$and $\eps(1),\ldots,\eps(n)\in\{1,*\}$ and all $b_1,\ldots,b_n\in B$, we have
\[
\|T^{\eps(1)}b_1T^{\eps(2)}b_2\cdots T^{\eps(n)}b_n\|\le\left(\prod_{j=1}^n\|b_j\|\right)\|T^{\eps(1)}T^{\eps(2)}\cdots T^{\eps(n)}\|.
\]
In particular, if $T$ is quasinilpotent and $b_1,b_2\in B$, then $b_1Tb_2$ is quasinilpotent.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We may without loss of generality assume that $A$ and $B$ are countably generated, and, thus, separable.
Let
\[
W=T^{\eps(1)}b_1T^{\eps(2)}b_2\cdots T^{\eps(n)}b_n,\qquad V=T^{\eps(1)}T^{\eps(2)}\cdots T^{\eps(n)}
\]
and let $m=\left(\prod_{j=1}^n\|b_j\|\right)$.
For any element $x\in A$, we have
\[
\|x\|=\limsup_{n\to\infty}\|E((x^*x)^n)\|^{1/2n}.
\]
Indeed, if $\phi$ is a faithful state on $B$, then $\phi\circ E$ is a faithful state on $A$, and we have
\[
\|x\|=\limsup_{n\to\infty}\big(\phi\circ E((x^*x)^n)\big)^{1/2n}.
\]
But
\[
\phi\circ E((x^*x)^n)\le \|E((x^*x)^n)\| \le \|x\|^{2n}.
\]
Applying Lemma~\ref{lem:|b|}, for every $n\in\Nats$ we get
\[
E((W^*W)^n)\le m^{2n}E((V^*V)^n)
\]
and we conclude $\|W\|\le m\|V\|$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Z2norm}
Let $B$ be a commutative, unital C$^*$-algebra and suppose $T$ is a quasinilpotent $B$-valued circular element.
Take $Z=b+T$, where $b\in B$ is invertible.
Then $Z$ is invertible and for all $n\in\Nats$, we have
\[
E( (Z^{n})^* Z^n ) \ge (b^{n})^* b^n
\]
\[
E((Z^{-n})^*Z^{-n})\ge(b^{-n})^*b^{-n}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To prove the first inequality, we first expand $Z^n$ as follows:
\[
Z^n = b^n + \sum_{p=1}^n \sum_{\substack{q_0,\ldots,q_p\ge0\\q_0+\cdots+q_p=n-p}}b^{q_0} T b^{q_1}\cdots T b^{q_p}.
\]
Since $T$ is $B$-circular,
\[
E(b_0 T b_1 T b_2 \cdots T b_p) = 0
\]
for all $p \in \Nats$ and $b_0,...b_p \in B$.
If we let $Y_n = Z^n - b^n $, we have
$E(b_0 Y_n) = 0$, for every $b_0 \in B$.
We then have
\begin{align*}
E( (Z^n)^* Z^n )&= E( (b^n)^*b^n) + E( (b^n)^* Y_n) + E(Y_n^*b^n) + E(Y_n^*Y_n) \\
&= (b^n)^* b^n + E(Y_n^*Y_n) \geq (b^n)^* b^n.
\end{align*}
The proof of the second inequality is largely along the same lines, using the power series expansion for $Z^{-1}$.
We have
$Z=b(1+b^{-1}T)$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:norms}, $b^{-1}T$ is quasinilpotent.
Therefore, $Z$ is invertible and its inverse has the power series expansion
\[
Z^{-1}=(1+b^{-1}T)^{-1}b^{-1}=b^{-1}+\sum_{k=1}^\infty(-1)^k(b^{-1}T)^kb^{-1},
\]
which converges in norm.
Let $Y_1=Z^{-1}-b^{-1}$ be the summation found above.
By using the power series expansion for $Y_1$ and the fact that $T$ is $B$-circular, we see
\[
E(b_0Y_1b_1Y_1b_2\cdots Y_1b_p)=0
\]
for all $p\in\Nats$ and $b_0,b_1,\ldots,b_p\in B$.
We have
\[
Z^{-n}=b^{-n}+\sum_{p=1}^n\sum_{\substack{q_0,\ldots,q_p\ge0\\q_0+\cdots+q_p=n-p}}b^{-q_0}Y_1b^{-q_1}\cdots Y_1b^{-q_p}.
\]
Let $Y_n=Z^{-n}-b^{-n}$ be the summation found above.
Then we have $E(bY_n)=0$ for every $b\in B$.
Thus, we have
\begin{multline*}
E((Z^{-n})^*Z^{-n})=(b^{-n})^*b^{-n}+E((b^{-n})^*Y_n)+E(Y_n^*b^{-n})+E(Y_n^*Y_n) \\
=(b^{-n})^*b^{-n}+E(Y_n^*Y_n)\ge(b^{-n})^*b^{-n}.
\end{multline*}
\end{proof}
Now we get the following 2-norm estimates for powers of a DT-operator $Z$.
For $0< r<s$, we let $A(r,s)$ be the closed annulus with radii $r$ and $s$.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:Znorms}
Let $Z$ be a DT-operator whose spectrum is contained in the closed annulus $A(r,s)$ and let $k\ge1$ be a natural number.
Then
\[
\tau((Z^k)^*Z^k) \geq r^{2k},\qquad \tau((Z^{-k})^*Z^{-k})\geq s^{-2k}.
\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We have $Z=b+cT$ where $T$ is the quasinilpotent DT-operator and $b$ is a normal operator whose spectrum lies in the closed annulus $A(r,s)$.
Since the conditional expectation $E$ is $\tau$--preserving, from Lemma~\ref{lem:Z2norm} we have
\begin{align*}
\tau((Z^{k})^*Z^k)&=\tau\circ E(((Z^{k})^*Z^k) \geq \tau((b^k)^*b^k)\ge r^{2k},\\
\tau((Z^{-k})^*Z^{-k})&=\tau\circ E((Z^{-k})^*Z^{-k})\geq\tau((b^{-k})^*b^{-k})\geq s^{-2k}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\section{Some non-spectral DT-operators}
\label{sec:nonspec}
In \cite{DKU19}, we showed that all operators in a class which includes Voiculescu's circular operator fail to have the UNZA property, and hence are examples of non-spectral operators.
We can now extend this result to a broader class.
The idea is to use the upper-triangular model for DT-operators from Theorem~\ref{thm:dt-ut} and the trace estimates in Corollary~\ref{cor:Znorms},
along with the explicit form of Haagerup-Schultz projections
for annuli from Proposition~\ref{prop:hsproj-disc}, to construct arbitrarily close vectors belonging to complementary Haagerup-Schultz projections.
In order to estimate the minimal angle of an operator, it is useful to cut it down by a projection. Restricting an operator to a Haagerup-Schultz projection can only increase the minimum angle between its subspaces.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:sub-angle}
For an operator $T \in \Mcal$, and a Borel set $B\subset \Cpx$, let $p=P(T,B)$, and consider $Tp=pTp\in p\Mcal p$. Then, for a Borel set $C \subseteq \Cpx$,
\[
\alpha_{p\Mcal p}(P(Tp,C),P(Tp,C^c)) \geq \alpha(P(T,C),P(T,C^c)),
\]
so
\[
\alpha_{p\Mcal p}(Tp)\geq \alpha(T).
\]
In particular, if $Tp$ fails to have the UNZA property, then so does $T$.
\begin{proof}
This follows from Theorem~\ref{prop:hsproj-sim} and Proposition~\ref{prop:hsproj-lattice}.
We have
\[
P_{p \Mcal p} (Tp, C) = P(T,C) \wedge P(T,B) = P(T,B\cap C) \leq P(T,C)
\]
and
\[
P_{p \Mcal p} (Tp, C^c) = P(T,C^c) \wedge P(T,B) = P(T,B\cap C^c) \leq P(T, C^c )
\]
so the angles obey the inequality above.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
We are now ready to estimate the angles between some Haagerup-Schultz subspaces of DT-operators with suitable Brown measures.
We will frequently use the notation $A(r,s)$ for the closed annulus with radii $r<s$, centered at the origin.
When $r=0$, this equals the closed disk of radius $s$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:dtangle}
Let $0\leq r<r'<s'<s$ and $c>0$.
Let $Z$ be a $\DT(\mu,c)$-operator whose measure $\mu$ is radially symmetric and concentrated in the union of the annuli $A(r,r')$ and $A(s',s)$.
Let $t=\mu(A(r,r'))$, and assume $0<t<1$.
Then
\begin{equation}
\cos(\alpha(Z))
\geq \left(1+\frac{s^2-r^2}{c^2\max(t,1-t)} \right)^{-1/2}
\geq \left(1+\frac{2 (s^2-r^2)}{c^2} \right)^{-1/2}_.
\label{eq:aZlbd}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ denote the renormalized restrictions of $\mu$ to $A(r,r')$ and $A(s',s)$ respectively.
From the upper-triangular model found in Theorem \ref{thm:dt-ut}, there exists
an example of a $\DT(\mu,c)$ operator
\[ Z = \left( \begin{matrix} Z_1 & c p X (1-p) \\ 0 & Z_2 \end{matrix} \right), \]
where
$p \in \Mcal$ is a projection with $\tau(p)=t$, $Z_1 \in p\Mcal p$ is a $\DT(\mu_1,c\sqrt t)$-operator, $Z_2 \in (1-p)\Mcal(1-p)$ is a $\DT(\mu_2,c\sqrt{1-t})$-operator and $X$ is a semicircular operator with $\tau(X^2)=1$
and so that $X$ and $\{Z_1,Z_2,p\}$ are $*$-free.
Regard $Z$ as an operator acting on the Hilbert space $\HEu=L^2(\Mcal) =L^2(\Mcal,\tau)$.
For $x \in \Mcal$, let $\hat{x}$ denote the corresponding vector in $L^2(\Mcal)$.
Since DT operators have spectra equal to the supports of their Brown measures, $Z_2$ is invertible in $(1-p)\Mcal (1-p)$.
Let $\eps>0$. From the spectral radius formula, we have, for $k$ large enough,
\[ \| Z_1 ^k \| \leq (1+\eps) (r')^k , \qquad \|Z_2^{-k}\| \leq (1+\eps) (s')^{-k}_. \]
Since $r'<s'$, it follows that the series
\[
\sum_{k=0}^n Z_1^k \left(c p X (1-p) \right) Z_2^{-k-1}
\]
converges in operator norm to $Y \in \Mcal$. Since $pZ_1=Z_1$ and $Z_2(1-p)=Z_2$, a direct computation shows
\[ S = \begin{pmatrix} p & Y \\ 0 & 1-p \end{pmatrix} \]
is invertible in $\Mcal$, with inverse
\[ S^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix} p & -Y \\ 0 & 1-p \end{pmatrix}_. \]
Moreover,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SZSinv}
S \begin{pmatrix} Z_1 & 0 \\ 0 & Z_2 \end{pmatrix} S^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} Z_1 & cpX(1-p) \\ 0 & Z_2 \end{pmatrix}_.
\end{equation}
Since $\sigma(Z_1)\subseteq A(r,r')$ and $\sigma(Z_2)\subseteq A(s',s)$ (where the spectra are computed in the corners $p\Mcal p$ and $(1-p)\Mcal (1-p)$ respectively), we have
\begin{gather*}
P\left( \begin{pmatrix} Z_1 & 0 \\ 0 & Z_2 \end{pmatrix}, A(r,r') \right) = p\HEu, \\
P\left( \begin{pmatrix} Z_1 & 0 \\ 0 & Z_2 \end{pmatrix}, A(s',s) \right) = (1-p)\HEu.
\end{gather*}
Using equation \eqref{eq:SZSinv} and Proposition \ref{prop:hsproj-sim}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Arr'}
P(Z, A(r,r')) \HEu = S P\left( \begin{pmatrix} Z_1 & 0 \\ 0 & Z_2 \end{pmatrix}, A(r,r') \right) \HEu = S (p\HEu) = p\HEu,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{multline}
P(Z,A(s',s))\HEu = S P\left( \begin{pmatrix} Z_1 & 0 \\ 0 & Z_2 \end{pmatrix}, A(s',s) \right) \HEu = S(1-p)\HEu \\ = \left \{ \begin{pmatrix} Y \eta \\ \eta \end{pmatrix}: \eta \in (1-p)\Mcal \right \}_. \label{eq:As's}
\end{multline}
Let $\eta = \widehat{1-p}$. Then
\[ Y\eta = \sum_{k=0}^\infty Z_1^k cpX(1-p) Z_2^{-k-1} \widehat{1-p}_. \]
From the radial symmetry of $\mu_1$, it follows that $Z_1$ and $\lambda Z_1$ have the same $*$-moments for every complex number $\lambda$ of modulus $1$.
Thus, $\tau((Z_1^j)^*Z_1^k)=0$ whenever $k$ and $j$ are nonnegative integers with $j\ne k$.
Now using $*$-freeness of $X$ and $\{Z_1,Z_2,p\}$, we calculate, for $0\le m\le n$,
\begin{align}
&\left\| \sum_{k=0}^n Z_1^kcpX(1-p)Z_2^{-k-1}\widehat{(1-p)}\right\|_2^2 \notag \\
&=c^2 \sum_{0\le k_1,k_2\le n}\tau(\big(1-p)(Z_2^{-k_1-1})^*(1-p)Xp(Z_1^{k_1})^*Z_1^{k_2}pX(1-p)Z_2^{-k_2-1}\big) \notag \\
&=c^2 \sum_{0\le k_1,k_2\le n}\tau(1-p)\tau_{(1-p)}((Z_2^{-k_1-1})^*Z_2^{-k_2-1})\tau(X^2)\tau(p(Z_1^{k_1})^*Z_1^{k_2}p) \notag \\
&=c^2 \tau(p)\tau(1-p)\sum_{k=0}^n\tau_{(1-p)}((Z_2^{-k-1})^*Z_2^{-k-1})\tau_p((Z_1^k)^*Z_1^k). \label{eq:sumnorm}
\end{align}
From Corollary~\ref{cor:Znorms}
we have, for all $k\ge0$,
\begin{gather*}
\tau_{(p)} \left( Z_1^{*k} Z_1^k \right) \geq r^{2k}, \\
\tau_{(1-p)} \left( (Z_2^{*})^{-k-1} Z_2^{-k-1} \right) \geq s^{-2k-2}.
\end{gather*}
So using~\eqref{eq:sumnorm} we get
\begin{equation}
\| Y\eta \|_2^2 \geq c^2 t (1-t) \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{s^2} \left(\frac{r}{s}\right)^{2k} = \frac{c^2 t(1-t)}{s^2 -r^2}. \label{eq:xiunder}
\end{equation}
From \eqref{eq:Arr'} and \eqref{eq:As's}, we have
\[ \left( \begin{matrix}Y \eta \\ \eta \end{matrix} \right) \in P(Z,A(s',s)), \qquad \left( \begin{matrix} Y \eta \\ 0 \end{matrix} \right) \in P(Z,A(r,r')). \]
Computing the cosine of the angle between $ \left( \begin{matrix}Y \eta \\ \eta \end{matrix} \right)$ and $ \left( \begin{matrix} Y \eta \\ 0 \end{matrix} \right)$ gives
\begin{multline*}
\cos \left( \alpha(P(Z,A(r,r')),P(Z,A(s',s)) \right) \geq \frac{ \| Y \eta \| }{((1-t)+\| Y \eta \|^2)^{1/2}} \\
=\left(1+\frac{1-t}{\|Y \eta\|^2}\right)^{-1/2}.
\end{multline*}
Now using the lower bound~\eqref{eq:xiunder}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cosalphat}
\cos(\alpha(Z)) \geq \left(1+\frac{s^2-r^2}{c^2 t}\right)^{-1/2}_.
\end{equation}
In a similar fashion we find also an example of a $\DT(\mu,c)$ operator
\[ Z = \left( \begin{matrix} Z_2 & c (1-p) X p \\ 0 & Z_1 \end{matrix} \right), \]
where
$p \in \Mcal$ is a projection with $\tau(1-p)=1-t$, $Z_1 \in p\Mcal p$ is a $\DT(\mu_1,c \sqrt t)$-operator, $Z_2 \in (1-p)\Mcal(1-p)$ is a $\DT(\mu_2,c \sqrt{1-t})$-operator and $X$ is a semicircular operator with $\tau(X^2)=1$
and so that $X$ and $\{Z_1,Z_2,p\}$ are $*$-free.
With $Y= -\sum_{k=0}^\infty Z_2^{-k-1} (1-p)Xp Z_1^k$, and
\[
S = \begin{pmatrix} (1-p) & Y \\ 0 & p \end{pmatrix}_,
\]
we have
\[
S \begin{pmatrix} Z_2 & 0 \\ 0 & Z_1 \end{pmatrix} S^{-1} = Z
\]
so by similar reasoning, we get
\[ \left( \begin{matrix}Y \widehat{p} \\ \widehat{p} \end{matrix} \right) \in P(Z,A(r,r')), \qquad \left( \begin{matrix} Y \widehat{p} \\ 0 \end{matrix} \right) \in P(Z,A(s',s)). \]
Then this gives us the estimate
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cosalpha1-t}
\cos(\alpha(Z)) \geq \left(1+\frac{s^2-r^2}{c^2 (1-t)}\right)^{-1/2}_.
\end{equation}
Combining equations \eqref{eq:cosalphat} and \eqref{eq:cosalpha1-t} gives us the required bound.
\end{proof}
This lemma allows us to show that many $\DT$-operators are not spectral.
For ease of notation, when $r\le0$ and $s>0$, $A(r,s)$ will denote the closed disc $A(0,s)$, and $A(s,s)$ will denote the circle of radius $s$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:unza_measures}
Let $c>0$, and let $\mu$ be a radially symmetric, compactly supported Borel probability measure on $\Cpx$, such that there exists $x_0\geq 0$ with
\[
\lim_{\delta \to 0^+} \frac{ \mu(A(x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)\setminus A(x_0,x_0))}{\delta} = \infty.
\]
Let $Z$ be a $\DT(\mu,c)$ operator. Then $Z$ fails to satisfy the UNZA property, and hence is not spectral.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $N \in \mathbb{N}$. Choose $\eps>0$ such that for all $\delta\in(0,\eps]$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:muA} \frac{\mu(A(x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)\setminus A(x_0,x_0))}{\delta } > N. \end{equation}
Let $r =\max\{0,x_0-\eps\}$ and $s=x_0+\eps$.
Since $\mu(A(x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta))>0$ for all $\delta\leq \eps$, we have
\[
\sup\{ x \in (r,s): \mu(A(r,x))=0 \} \leq x_0
\]
and
\[
\inf\{ x \in (r,s): \mu(A(x,s))=0 \} \ge x_0. \]
Further, these two quantities cannot both be equal to $x_0$, as this would violate equation \eqref{eq:muA}. Using this fact, and the fact that the set of circles centered at $0$ with positive $\mu$-measure is countable, we may choose $x_\eps \in (r,s)$ such that
$\mu(A(r,x_\eps))\neq 0$, $\mu(A(x_\eps,s))\neq 0$, and $\mu(A(x_\eps,x_\eps))=0$.
From~\eqref{eq:muA} with $\delta=\eps$, we have $\mu(A(r,s)\setminus A(x_0,x_0))>\eps N$.
Since $\mu(A(x_\eps,x_\eps))=0$, we may now choose $r',s'$, with $r<r'<x_\eps<s'<s$, such that
\[ \mu(A(r,r'))>0 ,\quad \mu(A(s',s))>0, \]
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:muB}
\mu(A(r,r')\cup A(s',s)) > \eps N.
\end{equation}
Let $B$ be the set $A(r,r')\cup A(s',s)$, $q=P(Z,B)$ and let $\tilde{Z}$ be the restriction $Zq$. Let $\tilde{\mu}$ be the renormalized restriction of $\mu$ to $B$.
From Theorem \ref{thm:dt-properties}, $Zq$ is a $\DT(\tilde{\mu},c\sqrt{\mu(B)})$ operator.
Applying Lemmas~\ref{lem:dtangle} and~\ref{lem:sub-angle} now gives us the estimate
\[ \cos(\alpha(Z)) \ge \cos(\alpha(\tilde{Z})) \ge \left(1 + \frac{2(s^2-r^2)}{c^2 \mu(B)} \right)^{-1/2}_.\]
Since $x_0$ is in the support of $\mu$ we have $x_0 \leq \norm{Z}$.
Consequently, when $x_0-\eps>0$, we get $ s^2 - r^2 = 4 x_0 \eps \leq 4 \eps \norm{Z}$.
On the other hand, if $x_0-\eps\le 0$, then
\[ s^2 - r^2 = (x_0+\eps)^2 -0 \le 4 \eps^2 \le 4 \eps \norm{Z},
\]
since we may safely assume that $\eps<\norm{Z}$.
Hence, using~\eqref{eq:muB}, we get
\[ \frac{2(s^2-r^2)}{c^2 \mu(B)} \le \frac{8 \norm{Z}}{c^2} \frac{1}{N}_. \]
Letting $N$ be arbitrarily large shows that $\cos(\alpha(Z))$ is arbitrarily close to $1$, which implies $\alpha(Z)=0$, and $Z$ fails to have the UNZA property.
\end{proof}
There are many examples of measures which satisfy the concentration hypothesis of Theorem \ref{thm:unza_measures}.
\begin{example}
Let $a \geq 0$. Let $\mu$ be a radially symmetric Borel probability measure supported on the union of the circles $C_n$ of radius $a+1/n$ ($n \in \Nats$), with $\mu(C_n)=w_n$. If
\[ \lim_{n \to \infty} n \sum_{k=n}^\infty w_k = \infty,\]
then $\mu$ satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem \ref{thm:unza_measures}, so if $Z$ is a $\DT(\mu,1)$ operator, $Z$ is non-spectral. This happens, for instance, when $w_n$ is asymptotically proportional to $n^{-b}$, for some $1<b<2$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Let $f$ be a non-zero, compactly supported, Lebesgue integrable function on $[0,\infty)$. Assume that there is a point $x_0 \in [0,\infty)$ such that
\[ \lim_{\eps \to 0} \frac{1}{\eps} \int_{x_0-\eps}^{x_0+\eps} |f(x)|\, dx = \infty.
\]
Let $\mu$ be a radially symmetric measure on $\Cpx$ defined by
\[ \mu(A(r,s)) = \frac{1}{\norm{f}_1} \int_r^s |f(x)|\, dx.\]
Then $\mu$ satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem~\ref{thm:unza_measures}. For instance, this happens with $x_0=0$
when $f(x)=x^{-a}$ near $0$, for some $0<a<1$.
\end{example}
\begin{rem}\label{rmk:cFP}
It is interesting that the hypothesis of Theorem~\ref{thm:unza_measures} does not hold for the circular free Poisson operators,
whose Brown measures are uniform (Lebesgue) measures on their supports, which are disks or annuli centered at the origin.
The proof, found in~\cite{DKU19}, that the circular free Poisson operators fail to satisfy the UNZA property depended on quite precise
knowledge about certain $*$-moments of the circular free Poisson operators and their inverses.
Comparing the result for circular free Poisson operators with Theorem~\ref{thm:unza_measures}, we have
the coincidence of failure of the UNZA property for DT-operators whose Brown measures have quite diverse behaviors, by somewhat different methods of proof.
This suggests that failure of the UNZA property might occur for many more DT-operators than those treated here or in~\cite{DKU19}.
\end{rem}
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{T}{he} development of deep learning technology has promoted the successful application of deep neural networks (DNNs) in various fields, such as image classification \cite{[c10],[c11]}, computer vision \cite{[c12],[d1]}, natural language processing \cite{[c13],[d2]}, etc. In particular, convolutional neural networks (CNNs), as one of typical DNNs, have shown perfect performance in image classification. However, much evidence showed that CNNs are extremely vulnerable to \textit{adversarial examples} \cite{[a1]}. An adversarial example is crafted from a clean example by adding well-designed perturbations that are almost imperceptible to human eyes but can easily fool a classifier. Though adversarial examples will lead misclassification, it as well provides a deep insight into the behaviors of CNNs \cite{[m]}. Goodfellow et al. \cite{[m]} argued that the primary cause of the adversarial instability is the linear nature and the high dimensionality of CNNs. Later work \cite{[c15]} studied the linearity hypothesis further and argued that adversarial examples exist when the classification boundaries lie close to the manifold of sampled data. D. Su et al. \cite{su2018robustness} empirically found out the trade-off between accuracy and robustness and revealed that the robustness may be at the cost of accuracy.
Recently, a variety of methods were proposed to craft adversarial examples, such as L-BFGS \cite{[a1]}, FGSM \cite{[m]}, I-FGSM \cite{[a3]}, PGD \cite{[a4]}, and C\&W \cite{[h]}, etc. These methods perturbed all the pixels in an image. At the same time, some methods only perturbed several pixels or a region of the image, such as JSMA \cite{[c3]}, One-pixel \cite{[c2]}, Adversarial Patch \cite{[c24]} and LaVAN \cite{[c25]}. However, since these techniques directly perturbed all pixels without considering semantic information, too many redundant perturbations are introduced in the irrelevant regions, e.g., back-ground. On the contrary, we attempt to generate more effective adversarial examples at semantic levels --- imperceptible adversarial patch, as shown in Fig. \ref{figa1}.
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.5cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm,height=3cm]{fig1_3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Left: the original natural image predicted as “black swan” with 75\% confidence. Middle: adversarial patch noise. Right: the adversarial image misclassified as “crampfish” with 70\% confidence, in which we can not observe the adversarial patch.}
\label{figa1}
\end{figure}
Our method attempts to utilize the state-of-the-art explanation \cite{[a12],[a11]} of CNNs to locate a proper perturbed region. Although the intrinsic mechanisms of CNNs are not fully understood by humans, some recent works have demonstrated more interesting clues \cite{[a12],[a11],[a13]}. These state-of-the-art explanations inspire us to craft local region perturbations in an interpretable way. Especially, the “attention mechanism” \cite{[c14]} inspires us to believe that not every region in an image makes the same contribution to the classification of CNNs, which is confirmed by \cite{[a12]} and \cite{[a11]}. Therefore, if we find a sensitive region for classification and add perturbations to the region, it will be more effective to fool the classifier with fewer perturbations than previous methods \cite{[k]}. This special region is considered as a subspace of input feature space, which is referred to as a \textit{contributing feature region} (CFR) in this paper. Specifically, we design a soft mask matrix to represent CFR for finely characterizing the contributions of each pixel. Based on this soft mask, we develop a new objective function to search for optimal perturbations in CFR.
Although some local perturbations were proposed like JSMA \cite{[c3]} and One-pixel attacks \cite{[c2]}, they did not take account of the correlation between the neighboring pixels, i.e., the perturbed pixels may not form a continuous region. Meanwhile, some local continuous region attacks were proposed, which are named as patch attacks \cite{[c24],[c25]} or sticker attacks \cite{[c23]}. Our method also belongs to patch attacks. However, our method is different from those existing patch attacks in three aspects. The first is that the shape of patches or stickers is regular, while our CFR’s shape is arbitrary. The second is that the location of patches or stickers is optionally determined by the adversary, while our CFR is located by the explanation of CNNs at a semantic level. Finally, the perturbation magnitude of patches and stickers is not constrained, while our method limits the perturbations within a tiny bound to be imperceptible to human eyes.
Furthermore, our work is different from image semantic segmentation \cite{[d3]} because our method pays more attention to the regions contributing to classification, while image segmentation is to find the object edge. In other words, we start with the network explanation while image segmentation focuses on the object itself. Recently, C. Xie et al. \cite{[c22]} crafted adversarial examples to fool semantic segmentation and object detection, while Z. Gu et al. \cite{[c16]} leveraged the YOLO detector to locate regions sensitive to the added perturbations. Essentially, their methods did not fully utilize the network explanation. Besides, the size of our CFR is far smaller than the region obtained by object detectors. W. Wu et al. \cite{wu2020boosting} utilize the attention mechanism to investigate the transferability of adversarial examples across multi-models in black-box settings, while our goal is to improve the attack success rate with imperceptible patch perturbations in both white-box and black-box settings.
The main contributions can be summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a visually imperceptible adversarial patch attack, which combines network explanations and optimization techniques to achieve a good tradeoff between intensity and imperceptibility. Compared to previous patch attacks, the advantage of our method lies in two aspects. First, the magnitude of perturbations is substantially reduced, which is almost imperceptible to humans. Second, the patch position is optimized by the attention mechanism at a semantic level.
\item Our work shows that the adversarial patch located by network explanations can effectively fool CNNs, which reveals that the CNN has an attention mechanism similar to humans. It provides a crucial clue for exploration of effective countermeasure against adversarial examples in the future.
\item Extensive experiments are conducted on CIFAR-10 and ILSVRC2012, which demonstrate that CFR patch attack consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods no matter in white-box or black-box settings. In brief, compared with the recently proposed patch attacks, the patch crafted by our method is imperceptible; among all the global attacks, the magnitude of our perturbations is the smallest.
\end{itemize}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section highlights the related works in various adversarial attacks, including global perturbations and local perturbations at pixel levels. Then we describe our method to craft perturbations on CFRs in Section \ref{sec3}, and the experimental results are shown in Section \ref{sec4}. Finally, we conclude the paper in Section \ref{sec5}.
\section{Related Work}
In this section, we introduce some related work in adversarial attacks according to the perturbed regions. These attacks are divided into global adversarial attacks and local adversarial attacks. Our approach proposed in this paper belongs to the latter. However, different from previous local attacks at the pixel level, we add perturbations to some semantic regions through network explanations. The global adversarial attacks at the pixel level are introduced in Section \ref{sec2.1}, and the local adversarial attacks at the pixel level are presented in Section \ref{sec2.2}.
\subsection{Global Adversarial Attacks at Pixel Levels}
\label{sec2.1}
C. Szegedy et al. \cite{[a1]} first found that DNNs are vulnerable to adversarial examples, and they proposed a box-constrained optimal perturbation method called L-BFGS. Since L-BFGS used an expensive linear search method to find the optimal perturbation, it was time-consuming and impractical. I. J. Goodfellow et al. \cite{[m]} proposed FGSM (Fast Gradient Sign Method) to generate adversarial examples. This method only performed an one-step gradient update along the direction of the sign of gradient at each pixel, so the computation cost was extremely lower. However, the generated adversarial example may not have the best performance since it is only a roughly approximation. As shown in \cite{[a3]}, an one-step attack like FGSM is easy to transfer across multi-models but also defensilbe. On the basis of FGSM, many other improved methods were proposed, such as I-FGSM \cite{[c17]}, in which iteration was applied to FGSM to generate adversarial examples. F. Tramèr et al. \cite{[c18]} found that FGSM with adversarial training was more robust to white-box attacks than black-box attacks due to gradient masking. They proposed a RAND-FGSM, which added random noise when updating the adversarial examples to defeat adversarial training. Y. Dong et al. \cite{[c19]} proposed MI-FGSM, assuming that the gradients of each iteration were not only related to the current gradients, but also related to the gradients of the previous iteration. More recently, M-DI$^{2}$-FGSM \cite{[c8]} based on MI-FGSM was proposed to improve transferability in black-box attacks.
Besides these FGSM series of attacks, a variety of other improved algorithms have been proposed. S.-M. Moosavi-Dezfooli et al. \cite{[c20]} proposed Deepfool to find the closest distance from the original input to the decision boundary of adversarial examples. To overcome the non-linearity in the high dimension space, they performed an iterative attack with a linear approximation. DeepFool provided less perturbation compared with FGSM. N. Carlini and D. Wagner \cite{[h]} proposed the C\&W method to defeat defensive distillation. C\&W considered three forms of perturbation constraints ($\ell_{0}$, $\ell_{1}$ and $\ell_{\infty}$ norm of the added perturbations) and adjusted the added perturbations with the optimization method. As far as we know, C\&W is one of the most powerful attacks at the pixel level. All of these works achieve some significant progress, however, they do not fully take into account the semantic of images, which will bring more redundant perturbations to pixels.
\vspace{-0.369cm}
\subsection{Local Adversarial Attacks at Pixel Levels}
\label{sec2.2}
Different from manipulating each image pixel for misclassification, several methods are proposed to perturb multiple pixels, which are called local adversarial attacks in this paper. A classic method is JSMA proposed by N. Papernot et al. \cite{[c3]} for targeted attacks. They perturbed a small number of pixels by a constant offset in each iteration step that maximizes the saliency map. However, JSMA has the disadvantage of over-modifying the value of the pixels, making the added perturbations easily perceived by the naked eye, and its adversarial strength is weak \cite{[c1]}. J. Su et al. \cite{[c2]} proposed the One-pixel attack method that successfully deceived the DNNs by modifying the value of a single pixel. Although this method is better for low-resolution images (such as CIFAR-10), the attack success rate for high-resolution images will be greatly reduced (such as ImageNet), and the cost is very large with the $\ell_{1}$ distortion \cite{[c4]}.
While the pixels perturbed by JSMA are usually nonadjacent, while in another method the pixels perturbed are in a continuous region. I. Evtimov et al. \cite{[c23]} proposed a sticker attack that added noise patches as rectangular patterns on the top of traffic signs. T. B. Brown et al. \cite{[c24]} presented a method called Adversarial Patch to create universal, robust, targeted adversarial image patches in the real world. Our method is different from them in three aspects. First, the size of the patch in Adversarial Patch is determined manually while in our method it is determined by CFR automatically. Second, the patch location of Adversarial Patch can be random in the image, while the position in our method is located through Grad-CAM \cite{[a12]} at the semantic level. Finally, the patches are recognizable in Adversarial Patch, while our patches are imperceptible. D. Karmon et al. \cite{[c25]} suggested LaVAN that generate localized adversarial noises that cover only 2\% of the pixels in the image, none of them cover the main object. Besides, it is transferable across images and locations, and can successfully fool a state-of-the-art Inception v3 model with very high success rates. Although these stickers and patch attacks have demonstrated powerful strength and can easily bypass existing defense approaches, there is no constraint on noise and they can be observed easily. Moreover, the location of stickers or patches is randomly determined by the adversary. Z. Gu et al. \cite{[c16]} leveraged the YOLO detector to locate sensitive regions for perturbations. In contrast, the goal of our method is to locate a sensitive region through network explanations and add imperceptible perturbations.
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec3}
\subsection{Preliminary}
A CNN can be generally expressed as a mapping function $f(X, \theta): \mathbb{R}^{m} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{C}$, where $X \in \mathbb{R}^{m}$ is an input variable, $\theta$ denotes all the parameters and $C$ is the number of classes. Typically, A CNN is comprised of convolutional layers with some method of periodic downsampling (either through pooling or stride convolutions). Let $Z$ be the output vector of the penultimate layer, namely the Logits layer. This defines a mapping function: $X \mapsto Z$. The last layer of the CNN is a softmax layer. Then the softmax function can be expressed as $S(Z)_{j}=\exp(Z_{j}) / \sum_{i=1}^{C} \exp (Z_{i})$, where $Z_i$ is the $i$-$th$ element of $Z$, and $i \in [C]$, $[C]=\{1,...,C\}$ is a set of class labels. Thus the CNN can be expressed as $f(X)=S\left(W_{s} Z+b_{s}\right)$, where $W_{s}$ and $b_{s}$ are the weight matrix and bias vector of the softmax layer respectively. Given an input $X$ with the ground-truth class label $y$, the predicted class label of $X$ can be expressed as $\hat{y}=\arg \max _{i\in [C]} f(X)_{i}$. An adversarial example can be represented as $X^{\prime}=X+\delta$, where $X$ is a clean nature image, and $\delta$ is the perturbation. To obtain imperceptible perturbations, $\delta$ is always constrained by a $p$-norm, $\|\delta\|_{p} \leq \epsilon$, where $p=\ell_{0}, \ell_{2}$ or $\ell_{\infty}$ and $\epsilon$ is the perturbation bound.
\subsection{Threat Model}
In general, the method used to generate adversarial examples needs some proper assumptions. These assumptions consist of a so-called threat model. X. Yuan et al. \cite{[c26]} presented a deep learning threat model in two dimensions. The first dimension is the adversarial goal including \textit{targeted attacks} and \textit{untargeted attacks} according to the adversarial specificity. The second dimension is the attacker ability defined by the amount of information that the attacker can obtain from target CNNs, which are divided into two categories, i.e., \textit{white-box} attacks and \textit{black-box} attacks.
\textbf{Adversarial Goal:} For untargeted attacks, the adversarial example $X^{\prime}$ satisfies $y^{\prime} \neq y$, i.e., $y^{\prime}$ can be any class label except $y$ (the ground-truth label of $X$), where $y^{\prime}=\arg \max _{i \in [C]} f\left(X^{\prime}\right)_{i}$. For targeted attacks, we specify a target class label $y^{*}$ , and the adversarial example $X^{\prime}$ must satisfy $y^{*}=\arg \max _{i \in [C]} f\left(X^{\prime}\right)_{i}$ and $y^{*} \neq y$. In this paper, we mainly focus on untargeted attacks that are suitable for further adversarial training as a countermeasure.
\textbf{Adversarial Capabilities} are defined by the amount of information that the adversary has about the target classifier. The so-called white-box attack means that the adversary has almost all the information about the target CNN, including training data, activation functions, network topologies, and so on. The black-box attack, however, assumes that the attacker has no way to access the internal information of the pretrained CNN, except the output of the model including the label and confidence. In this paper, we assume white-box settings as the same as PGD, C\&W, etc. Nevertheless, all white-box attacks can be employed to lunch black-box attacks through a substitute model as described in \cite{[c27]}.
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
In this paper, we attempt to add perturbations to a local region instead of the whole image. To formalize the problem of this patch attack, let $X_{r}$ denote the region to which the perturbation $\delta_{r}$ is added. Note that $X_{r}$ is generally not a regular region. For the convenience of calculation, we introduce a binary matrix $M$ to represent the shape of $X_{r}$. Here $M$ is, in general, a 0-1 matrix:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq1}
M(i, j)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1 & X(i, j) \in X_{r}, \\
0 & \text { otherwise },
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $X(i, j)$ is a pixel at the cell $(i,j)$ of $X$. Thus we can transfer $X_{r}$ to a matrix by $X \odot M$, where $\odot$ is the Hadmard product. Accordingly, $\delta_{r}$ can be represented by $\delta \odot M$, where $\delta$ is a global perturbation. Thus, obtaining an optimal $\delta_{r}$ can be modeled as the following constrained optimization problem:
\begin{alignat}{2}
\label{eq2}
\min \quad & \|\delta \odot M\|_{p}, & \\
\mathrm{s.t.} \quad & f(X+\delta \odot M) \neq y, \,
\nonumber \\
& X+\delta \odot M \in[0,1]^{m} \, \nonumber .
\end{alignat}
However, solving the problem (\ref{eq2}) is non-trivial. Instead, we obtain perturbations by maximizing the loss function as doing in most previous work:
\begin{alignat}{2}
\label{eq3}
\max \quad & J\left(X+\delta \odot M, y\right),& \\
\mathrm{s.t.} \quad & \ X+\delta \odot M \in[0,1]^{m} \, \nonumber ,
\end{alignat}
where $J$ is a loss function. Although problem (\ref{eq3}) is not fully equivalent to (\ref{eq2}) and thus may not guarantee all obtained perturbations to flip the class label, its advantage is to fast find a possible perturbation within the constrained range like FGSM. We think solving problem (\ref{eq3}) depends on two aspects. The one is to locate $X_{r}$, i.e., identifying the binary matrix $M$, as described in Section \ref{sec3.3}; the other is to find a proper loss function to solve problem (\ref{eq3}), as demonstrated in Section \ref{sec3.4}.
\subsection{Contributing Feature Regions (CFRs)}
\label{sec3.3}
Suppose the input image $X\in \mathbb{R}^{m}$ is forward propagated through the CNN, and the final convolutional layer outputs the high-level feature map $A$ of the image, where $A^{(k)} \in \mathbb{R}^{u \times v}$ represents the feature map of the $k$-$th$ convolutional kernel with the size of $u \times v$. Next, $A$ passes through the fully connected layers and finally outputs a confidence vector $Z$. Let $Z_{c}$ represent the logits of the $c$-$th$ class. A larger value of $Z_{c}$ indicates $X$ is predicted to the $c$-$th$ class with a greater probability. To this end, we compute the gradient of $Z_{c}$ with respect to $A^{(k)}$, i.e., $\partial Z_{c} / \partial A^{(k)}$ to measure the classification prediction importance of the $k$-$th$ convolutional kernel to the $c$-$th$ class. Furthermore, we adopt the global average pooling operation to calculate the weight $\lambda_{c}^{(k)}$ of the $k$-$th$ convolutional kernel:
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{c}^{(k)}=\frac{1}{u\times v} \sum_{p} \sum_{q} \frac{\partial Z_{c}}{\partial A_{p q}^{(k)}},
\end{equation}
where $A_{p q}^{(k)}$ is the activation at the cell $(p, q)$ of the $k$-$th$ convolutional kernel. Thus, we obtain a feature activation map $\sum_{k} \lambda_{c}^{(k)} A^{(k)}$ for the $c$-$th$ class. Considering that only the positive elements in $\sum_{k} \lambda_{c}^{(k)} A^{(k)}$ have a positive effect on the classification, the result is further reactivated by ReLU to remove the influence of negative elements, and the final activation map of the $c$-$th$ class is obtained:
\begin{equation}
L_{c}=\operatorname{ReLU } \left(\sum_{k} \lambda_{c}^{(k)} A^{(k)}\right).
\end{equation}
In fact, in our work the $c$-$th$ class is the ground-truth class label $y$ of $X$. Then, we substitute $y$ for $c$. For further distinguishing the contribution of each pixel in CFR, we design a soft-mask $\tilde {M}$ instead of using the traditional binary hard-mask in Eq. (\ref{eq1}):
\begin{equation}
\tilde {M}(i, j)=\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\frac{L_{y}(i, j)}{ \sum\limits_{m}\sum\limits_{n} L_{y}(m, n)} \quad L_{y}(i, j) \geq \tau, L_{y}(m, n) \geq \tau, \\
0 \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \text { otherwise },
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $\tau$ is a threshold.
\subsection{Generate Perturbations for CFRs}
\label{sec3.4}
After locating CFR, we further generate the local perturbation $\delta_{CFR}$ on CFR. We design a new loss function to implement problem (\ref {eq3}), which consists of two parts: (1) a cross-entropy loss function $J_{CE}$ for generating adversarial examples, and (2) an $\ell_{2}$ regularization function to restrict the perturbation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq7}
J=J_{CE}+\beta \frac{1}{\left\|\delta \odot \tilde {M}\right\|_{2}},
\end{equation}
where $\beta$ is a hyper-parameter to control the degree of distortion (we set $\beta=1$) and $\delta \odot \tilde {M}$ represents $\delta_{CFR}$. In theory, $\ell_{0}$ or $\ell_{\infty}$ can also be used for regularization. However, we notice that the $\ell_{0}$ norm is non-differentiable and hard to caculate for the standard gradient descent algorithm. Besides, the $\ell_{\infty}$ norm only focuses on the largest value in $\delta_{CFR}$, it easily fluctuates between two sub-optimal solutions during the gradient descent process \cite{[h]}.
Remind the original cross-entropy loss function $J_{CE}=-\log S_{y}$, where $S_{y}=\exp(Z_{y}) / \sum_{i=1}^{C} \exp(Z_{i})$. In adversarial settings, we aim to maximize $J_{CE}$ to obtain an adversarial example. However, when $S_{y}$ tends to approach $1$, $J_{CE}$ is close to $0$. Thus, the update of $\delta_{CFR}$ has minimal impact on $J_{CE}$, which is undesirable to us. To avoid this situation, we introduce a hyper-parameter $T$ ($T>0$) called \textit{inverse temperature} inspired by the distillation idea \cite{[c9]}. In \cite{[c9]}, they leverage $T$ to smooth the confidence distribution of classes, while we use it to maintain the impact of loss during the back-propagation. Then $J_{CE}$ is modified as follows:
\begin{equation}
J_{CE}^{\prime}=\frac{-\log \left(S_{y}\right)}{T},
\end{equation}
where $S_{y} \in(0,1)$ and $\log \left(S_{y}\right) \in(-\infty, 0)$. If $0<T<1$, the lower bound of $\log \left(S_{y}\right) / T$ is magnified and $-\log \left(S_{y}\right) / T$ becomes larger, that is, $J_{CE}^{\prime}$ becomes larger. If $T>1$, the lower bound of $\log \left(S_{y}\right) / T$ is reduced and $-\log \left(S_{y}\right) / T$ becomes smaller, that is, $J_{CE}^{\prime}$ gets smaller. Our goal is to maximize $J_{CE}^{\prime}$, so we set $0<T<1$. Thus we redefine problem (\ref{eq7}) as follows:
\begin{alignat}{2}
\label{eq8}
\max \quad &J_{CE}^{\prime}+\beta \frac{1}{\left\|\delta \odot \tilde {M}\right\|_{2}}, & \\
\mathrm{s.t.} \quad &X+\delta \odot \tilde{M }\in[0,1]^{m} \,
\nonumber .
\end{alignat}
Finally, we use the hill climbing algorithm to solve problem (\ref{eq8}) as shown in Algorithm 1.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Crafting Adversarial Patch Examples
{\textbf{Input:} A clean image $(X,y)$, the iterations $N$, step size $\eta$, degree of distortion $\beta$, threshold $\tau$, and inverse temperature $T$}\\
{\textbf{Output:} An adversarial example $X^{\prime}$}
\begin{algorithmic}[1
\STATE initialize $\delta$ \\
// $K$ is the number of feature maps in the last layer of convolution layers \\
\STATE $\lambda_{y}^{(k)} \leftarrow \frac{1}{u \times v} \sum_{p} \sum_{q} {\partial Z_{y}}/{\partial A_{p q}^{(k)}}$, $k=1 \ldots K$ \\
\STATE $L_{y} \leftarrow \operatorname{ReLU}\left(\sum_{k} \lambda_{y}^{(k)} A^{(k)}\right)$ \\
// Get a CFR, $i=0 \ldots u$, $j=0 \ldots v$
\STATE \textbf{if} $L_{y}(i, j) \geq \tau$ \textbf{and} $L_{y}(m, n) \geq \tau$ \textbf{then} \\
\STATE \qquad $\tilde{M}(i, j) \leftarrow {L_{y}(i, j)}/{\sum_{m} \sum_{n} L_{y}(m, n)}$ \\
\STATE \textbf{else} \\
\STATE \qquad $\tilde{M}(i, j) \leftarrow 0$ \\
\STATE \textbf{end if}
\STATE \textbf{for} $t=1 \ldots N$ \textbf{do}\\
\STATE \qquad $ J \leftarrow J_{CE}^{\prime}+\beta / {\left\|\delta_{t} \odot \tilde {M}\right\|_{2}}$\\
// Update $\delta$
\STATE \qquad $\delta_{t+1} \leftarrow\left(\delta_{t}+\nabla_{\delta_{t}}J\times \eta \right) \odot \tilde {M}$ \\
\STATE \qquad $X^{\prime}_{t+1} \leftarrow \text{Clip}(X+\delta_{t+1}, 0, 1)$ \\
\STATE \textbf{end for}\\
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec4}
In this section, we first describe the datasets, models, and metrics used in our experiment. Then we show the impact of CFR on classification by simply setting CFR to 0. The results confirm that CFR plays a critical role in classification. For intuition, we visualize the adversarial examples and their perturbations of various methods. In white-box settings, we use ASR, SSIM, and $\ell_{p}$ to make a comparison between our method and the classic global attacks such as PGD and C\&W, and local attacks such as JSMA, One-pixel. In addition, two recent patch attacks Adversarial Patch and LaVAN are aslo compared with our method. Considering the above experiments are conducted on non-protected models, we further investigate the effect of our method on protected models. Furthermore, we compare the transferability of our method with other attacks in black-box settings. Finally, several key hyper-parameters are discussed in this paper.
\subsection{Experiment Setup}
\textbf{Datasets and Models.} We validate our method on two benchmark datasets CIFAR-10 \cite{[a20]} and ILSVRC2012 \cite{[a17]}. CIFAR-10 consists of 60,000 images with the size of $32 \times 32$, including 10 categories and each with 6,000 images, in which 50,000 images are used for training and 10,000 images for tests. ILSVRC2012 contains 1,000 categories, in which 1,200 thousand images are used for training, and 50,000 images for tests. All the images we use to generate adversarial examples are correctly classified by all models, which can guarantee all the misclassified examples are adversarial examples. Two popular CNNs VGG \cite{[c11]} and ResNet \cite{[c12]} are selected for our experiment. According to their number of layers, they are further divided into VGG-11, VGG-13, VGG-16, ResNet-18, ResNet-34, and ResNet-50.
\textbf{Evaluation Metrics.} We use (1) the attack success rate (ASR) to measure the power of the adversarial examples, (2) the $\ell_{p}$ norm to measure the perturbation amplitude, and (3) the structural similarity (SSIM) index as a measurement of image similarity because human visual perception is highly sensitive to the structural information of an image \cite{[d9]}.
(1) \textbf{ASR:} Given $n$ clean images correctly classified by a CNN, the corresponding adversarial examples are obtained by a special generating method. Suppose $X_{i}$ represents the $i$-$th$ clean image, its ground-truth label is $Y_{i}$, and $X_{i}^{\prime}$ is its corresponding adversarial image. Then ASR can be obtained by the following formula:
\begin{equation}
ASR=100 \times \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{I}\left[\arg \max _{j\in [C]} f\left(X_{i}^{\prime}\right)_{j} \neq Y_{i}\right],
\end{equation}
\vspace{0.15cm}
where $\mathbb{I}[\cdot]$ is an indicator function and $[C]=\{1,...,C\}$ is a set of class labels.
(2) \textbf{SSIM:} Given a clean image $X$ and its corresponding adversarial image $X^{\prime}$, $\operatorname{SSTM}\left(X, X^{\prime}\right)$ measures the similarity between $X$ and $X^{\prime}$. A larger $\operatorname{SSIM}\left(X, X^{\prime}\right)$ indicates a higher similarity between the two images.
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{SSIM}\left(X, X^{\prime}\right)=\left[l\left(X, X^{\prime}\right)\right]^{\alpha}\left[c\left(X, X^{\prime}\right)\right]^{\beta}\left[s\left(X, X^{\prime}\right)\right]^{\gamma},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma>0$, $l\left(X, X^{\prime}\right)$ is brightness comparison, $c\left(X, X^{\prime}\right)$ is contrast comparison, and $s\left(X, X^{\prime}\right)$ is structure comparison:
\begin{equation}
l\left(X, X^{\prime}\right)=\frac{2 \mu_{X} \mu_{X^{\prime}}+c_{1}}{\mu_{X}^{2}+\mu_{X^{\prime}}^{2}+c_{1}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
c\left(X, X^{\prime}\right)=\frac{2 \sigma_{X X^{\prime}}+c_{2}}{\sigma_{X}^{2}+\sigma_{X^{\prime}}^{2}+c_{2}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
s\left(X, X^{\prime}\right)=\frac{\sigma_{X X^{\prime}}+c_{3}}{\sigma_{X} \sigma_{X^{\prime}}+c_{3}},
\end{equation}
where $\mu_{X}$ and $\mu_{X^{\prime}}$ represent the average of $X$ and $X^{\prime}$ respectively, $\sigma_{X}$ and $\sigma_{X^{\prime}}$ represent the standard deviation of $X$ and $X^{\prime}$ respectively, $\sigma_{X X^{\prime}}$ represents the covariance of $X$ and $X^{\prime}$, and $c_{1}$, $c_{2}$, and $c_{3}$ are constants.
\subsection{Impact of CFR on Classification}
\label{IV-B}
We first evaluate the impact of CFR on the classifier through two groups of special adversarial images. The images in one group keep the pixels in CFR unchanged while the rest of the pixels are set to 0, which is denoted as Adv-CFR. On the contrary, the images in the other group keep the pixels unchanged other than CFR that is set to 0, which is denoted as Adv-non-CFR. These special adversarial images are crafted from 10,000 clean images on CIFAR-10 and the threshold $ \tau=0.2$ is adopted. Fig. \ref{figa2} shows the examples of Adv-CFR and Adv-non-CFR. These examples of Adv-CFR and Adv-non-CFR are tested on VGG and ResNet, and the results are shown in Fig. \ref{figa3}. Compared to the original clean images, the accuracy of Adv-CFR decreases by no more than 3\%, however, the accuracy of Adv-non-CFR decreases by at least 60\%. The result shows that though the size of CFR is smaller than non-CFR, it yet plays a key role in classification. Therefore, the adversary modifying CFR is effective than modifying other regions to fool a classifier.
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.8cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.8cm,height=4.8cm]{fig2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Two groups of special adversarial images: Adv-CFR and Adv-non-CFR.}
\label{figa2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.5cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,height=4cm]{fig3.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Accuracy of different models with clean images, Adv-CFR, and Adv-non-CFR examples}
\label{figa3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.5cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=4.8cm]{fig4.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison of perturbations and adversarial examples generated by PGD, C\&W, and our method on CIFAR-10 (all these three methods are constrained by $\ell_{2}=2$).}
\label{figa4}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Visualizing Adversarial Attacks}
To intuitively illustrate the adversarial examples and their perturbations, we present them in Fig. \ref{figa4}, \ref{figa5}, and \ref{figa6}. We first compare our CFR patch with global pixel perturbations PGD and C\&W on CIFAR-10 (see Fig. \ref{figa4}) and ILSVRC2012 (see Fig. \ref{figa5}). On CIFAR-10, the average SSIM of PGD is 0.94 and C\&W is 0.96, while our method is 0.99. On ILSVRC2012, the average SSIM of PGD is 0.91 and C\&W is 0.95, while our method is 0.99. Remind that a higher SSIM indicates a higher similarity between the images. It can be seen that the images with our patch perturbations are perfectly closer to the original clean images than those global perturbed images.
\begin{figure*}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.5cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=16cm,height=11cm]{fig5.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{ Comparison of perturbations and adversarial examples generated by PGD, C\&W, and our method on ILSVRC2012 (all these three methods are constrained by $\ell_{2}=15$).}
\label{figa5}
\end{figure*}
Two recent patch attack methods—Adversarial Patch, denoted as Adv. Patch \cite{[c24]} and LaVAN \cite{[c25]} are compared with our method on ILSVRC2012. We do not conduct patch attacks on CIFAR-10 due to its low resolution and small size. For Adversarial Patch, we use the same experimental setting as \cite{[c24]} that the adversarial patch covers 10\% of pixels. For LaVAN, which is an improved version of Adversarial Patch, we follow the same implementation as \cite{[c25]} where the adversarial patch only covers 3\% pixels. Fig. \ref{figa6} presents the patches, adversarial examples, and SSIM of the above methods. Obviously, the patch crafted by Adv.Patch and LaVAN can be easily detected by humans. It can also be confirmed by SSIM that our method is ultimately close to 1, which is higher than Adv.Patch and LaVAN, and indicates the adversarial image crafted by our method is perfectly imperceptible to humans.
\begin{figure*}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.5cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm,height=10.5cm]{fig6.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{ SSIMs of three patch attacks on ILSVRC2012. The penultimate row visualizes the patch perturbation generated by our method.}
\label{figa6}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{asr, ssim, and $\ell_{p}$ distortion of various attacks}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4mm}
\label{table1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\toprule
Dataset & Attack Methods & ASR & SSIM & $\ell_{0}$ & $\ell_{1}$ & $\ell_{2}$ &$\ell_{\infty}$ \\ \hline
\multirow{5}{*}{CIFAR-10} & PGD & 93.18\% & 0.94 & 3,060 & 144.79 & 2.85 & 0.06 \\
& C\&W & 97.44\% & 0.96 & 3,072 & 18.11 & 0.49 & 0.05 \\
& JSMA & 90.33\% & 0.71 & 335 & 856.11 & 28.04 & 1.00 \\
& One-pixel & 80.77\% & 0.99 & 15 & 24.89 & 7.03 & 1.00 \\
& Ours & 99.89\% & 0.99 & 2,333 & 10.28 & 0.40 & 0.07 \\ \hline \vspace{2mm}\\[-5mm]\hline
\multirow{7}{*}{ILSVRC2012} & PGD & 97.70\% & 0.91 & 168,919 & 5,451.51 & 14.92 & 0.06 \\
& C\&W & 99.33\% & 0.95 & 200,256 & 299 & 1.13 & 0.11 \\
& JSMA & 90.00\% & 0.94 & 447 & 75,375.33 & 194.35 & 1.00 \\
& One-pixel & 40.56\% & 0.99 & 15 & 29.43 & 8.69 & 1.00 \\
& Adv.Patch & 99.48\% & 0.90 & 14,700 & 8,223.06 & 70.57 & 1.00 \\
& LaVAN & 95.10\% & 0.96 & 7,500 & 5,985.29 & 73.53 & 1.00 \\
& Ours & 99.80\% & 0.99 & 98,431 & 168 & 1.33 & 0.08 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Comparison among Adversarial Attacks}
To further evaluate the performance of our method, we report ASR, SSIM, and the $\ell_{p}$ distortion of different attack methods in Table \ref{table1}. ResNet-18 and VGG-19 are leveraged to run on CIFAR-10 and ILSVRC2012 respectively. Six classic adversarial attack methods are compared with our method. For PGD, the perturbation bound $\epsilon=16/255$, the step size $\alpha=2/255$, and 20 iterations are adopted. For C\&W, the constant $c=1$, learning rate $lr=0.01$ and 1,000 iterations are adopted. Besides the global attacks PGD and C\&W, two local attacks JSMA and One-pixel attack are also considered. For JSMA, we set intensity variations $\theta=0.3$. For the One-pixel attack, we adopt five pixel-modification.
It can be seen from Table \ref{table1} that our method outperforms other classic methods. We achieve 99.89\% ASR on CIFAR-10 and 99.80\% ASR on ILSVRC2012, which exceeds the state-of-the-art C\&W. We further analyze the distortion of adversarial examples with different methods. Among these methods, our method and One-pixel achieve the highest value of SSIM. It is not surprise that One-pixel performs well because its constraint $\ell_{0}$ is only 15, which means only 5 pixels are modified. However, the number of modified pixels of our method is far more than that of One-pixel and JSMA. It seems contradict to the value of SSIM achieved by our method. We will further explain the reason through $\ell_{1}$, $\ell_{2}$ and $\ell_{\infty}$ norms. As we known, $\ell_{1}$ represents the sum of the absolute value of a perturbation on each pixel. In Table \ref{table1}, $\ell_{1}$ of ours is the smallest on CIFAR-10, and rank only second to One-pixel on ILSVRC2012, which means our total perturbations is the smallest. Similarly, $\ell_{2}$ and $\ell_{\infty}$ of ours is the smallest on CIFAR-10 and the second smallest on ILSVRC2012, where $\ell_{2}$ measure the move distance of an adversarial example from its original example and $\ell_{\infty}$ means the largest change in the total pixels. As a result, these metrics finely explain the reason for the largest SSIM achieved by our method. In conclusion, our method is powerful (higher ASR), as well as imperceptible (higher SSIM).
\subsection{Transferability}
\label{IV-E}
Transferability is an important property of adversarial examples, that is, the adversarial examples fooling one model can also fool other models \cite{[a22]}. This property is used to investigate the black-box attack ability of adversarial examples. In this section, we compare the transferability of our CFR patch examples with the other classic adversarial examples in black-box settings. In these methods, PGD, M-DI$^2$-FGSM, and C\&W are global adversarial attacks, while Adversarial Patch and LaVAN are local adversarial attacks. Note that the model for crafting adversarial examples is referred to as a \textit{substitute model} (the first row of Table \ref{table2} and \ref{table3}) , while the model for testing adversarial examples is termed as a \textit{target model} (the first column of Table \ref{table2} and \ref{table3}) in this paper. When the substitute model is consistent with the target model, i.e., the case in the diagonal of Table, it is equivalent to a white-box attack. In this section, we focus on transferability and merely consider the case that the target model is different from the substitute model.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Transferability (represented by the ASR on the target model) on CIFAR-10. The first row is the target models and the first column is the substitute models. The second column represents various attack methods: PGD ($s=20$, $\epsilon=16/255$, $\alpha=2/255$), M-DI$^2$-FGSM ($s=20$, $\epsilon=16/255$, $\alpha=2/255$, $p=0.5$), C\&W ($c=1$, $lr=0.01$, $iterations=1,000$), and Ours ($\tau=0.2$, $T=0.1$, $\eta=10$, $N=20$, $\beta=1$).}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{6mm}
\label{table2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
Model & Attack & VGG-11 & VGG-13 & VGG-16 & ResNet-18 & ResNet-34 \\ \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{VGG-11} & PGD & 93.51\% & 65.17\% & 63.46\% & 55.18\% & 58.15\% \\
& M-DI$^2$-FGSM & 99.10\% & 90.69\% & \textbf{90.11\%} & \textbf{87.79\%} & 85.09\% \\
& C\&W & 93.94\% & 45.23\% & 46.46\% & 39.70\% & 49.25\% \\
& Ours & \textbf{99.92\%} & \textbf{91.00\%} & 86.97\% & 86.12\% & \textbf{85.69\%} \\ \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{VGG-13} & PGD & 61.33\% & 95.81\% & 75.08\% & 61.36\% & 58.91\% \\
& M-DI$^2$-FGSM & 74.47\% & 97.70\% & 80.11\% & 79.78\% & 75.38\% \\
& C\&W & 62.13\% & 95.72\% & 64.11\% & 61.95\% & 61.98\% \\
& Ours & \textbf{79.78\%} & \textbf{98.80\%} & \textbf{90.39\%} & \textbf{80.38\%} & \textbf{80.68\%} \\ \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{VGG-16} & PGD & 56.57\% & 71.72\% & 90.43\% & 58.59\% & 56.78\% \\
& M-DI$^2$-FGSM & 66.77\% & 83.94\% & 90.79\% & 70.84\% & 69.38\% \\
& C\&W & 51.52\% & 52.53\% & \textbf{96.97\%} & 40.40\% & 48.48\% \\
& Ours & \textbf{81.88\%} & \textbf{88.29\%} & 96.00\% & \textbf{75.00\%} & \textbf{77.08\%} \\ \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{ResNet-18} & PGD & 60.70\% & 62.52\% & 60.92\% & 93.18\% & 64.22\% \\
& M-DI$^2$-FGSM & 72.83\% & 82.12\% & 83.42\% & 94.60\% & 84.35\% \\
& C\&W & 61.28\% & 55.97\% & 54.88\% & 97.44\% & 56.24\% \\
& Ours & \textbf{85.09\%} & \textbf{84.18\%} & \textbf{85.03\%} & \textbf{99.89\%} & \textbf{89.59\%} \\ \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{ResNet-34} & PGD & 60.28\% & 64.56\% & 60.92\% & 68.47\% & 92.72\% \\
& M-DI$^2$-FGSM & 78.08\% & \textbf{87.78\%} & 88.89\% & 91.39\% & 98.60\% \\
& C\&W & 57.75\% & 47.40\% & 46.00\% & 48.59\% & 90.34\% \\
& Ours & \textbf{84.95\%} & 86.29\% & \textbf{89.00\%} & \textbf{90.95\%} & \textbf{99.96\%} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Transferability (represented by ASR on the target model) on ILSVRC2012. The first row is the target models and the first column is the substitute models. The second column represents various attack methods: PGD ($s=20$, $\epsilon=16/255$, $\alpha=2/255$), M-DI$^2$-FGSM ($s=20$, $\epsilon=16/255$, $\alpha=2/255$, $p=0.5$), C\&W ($c=1$, $lr=0.01$, $iterations=1,000$), C\&W ($c=1$, $lr=0.01$, $iterations=1,000$), and Ours ($\tau=0.2$, $T=0.1$, $\eta=20$, $N=20$, $\beta=1$).}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5.3mm}
\label{table3}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
Model & Attack & VGG-16 & VGG-19 & ResNet-34 & ResNet-50 & ResNet-101 \\ \hline
\multirow{6}{*}{VGG-16} & PGD & 99.16\% & 84.74\% & 61.55\% & 60.92\% & 51.81\% \\
& M-DI$^2$-FGSM & 99.72\% & 85.90\% & 60.46\% & 62.11\% & 52.58\% \\
& C\&W & 95.81\% & 80.44\% & 61.55\% & 61.45\% & 59.56\% \\
& Adv.Patch & 98.60\% & 35.78\% & 27.50\% & 24.40\% & 23.00\% \\
& LaVAN & 94.41\% & 55.48\% & 37.00\% & 27.70\% & 27.00\% \\
& Ours & \textbf{99.92\%} & \textbf{86.15\%} & \textbf{67.12\%} & \textbf{69.47\%} & \textbf{64.08\%} \\ \hline
\multirow{6}{*}{VGG-19} & PGD & 86.73\% & 97.70\% & 61.14\% & 57.63\% & 54.52\% \\
& M-DI$^2$-FGSM & \textbf{88.41\%} & 99.61\% & 56.11\% & 63.95\% & 54.13\% \\
& C\&W & 77.37\% & 99.33\% & 60.46\% & 60.26\% & 58.40\% \\
& Adv.Patch & 69.27\% & 93.03\% & 27.40\% & 24.50\% & 23.00\% \\
& LaVAN & 73.46\% & 94.87\% & 35.00\% & 35.60\% & 30.00\% \\
& Ours & 83.90\% & \textbf{99.80\%} & \textbf{73.51\%} & \textbf{67.89\%} & \textbf{66.67\%} \\ \hline
\multirow{6}{*}{ResNet-34} & PGD & 75.70\% & 75.87\% & 99.18\% & 68.68\% & 58.27\% \\
& M-DI$^2$-FGSM & 70.39\% & \textbf{76.20\%} & \textbf{99.50\%} & 82.37\% & 75.84\% \\
& C\&W & 74.16\% & 74.90\% & 92.53\% & 61.71\% & 58.40\% \\
& Adv.Patch & 19.47\% & 13.30\% & 98.31\% & 23.21\% & 37.04\% \\
& LaVAN & 24.44\% & 16.92\% & 96.88\% & 54.47\% & 46.90\% \\
& Ours & \textbf{75.92\%} & 74.86\% & \textbf{99.50\%} & \textbf{82.84\%} & \textbf{83.33\%} \\ \hline
\multirow{6}{*}{ResNet-50} & PGD & \textbf{75.70\%} & 70.60\% & 62.36\% & 99.47\% & 60.72\% \\
& M-DI$^2$-FGSM & 68.44\% & 69.35\% & \textbf{72.55\%} & 99.34\% & 84.37\% \\
& C\&W & 74.58\% & \textbf{75.59\%} & 61.82\% & 94.08\% & 57.75\% \\
& Adv.Patch & 19.41\% & 20.67\% & 40.00\% & 98.63\% & 44.06\% \\
& LaVAN & 24.58\% & 26.07\% & 46.74\% & 94.74\% & 51.03\% \\
& Ours & 70.68\% & 69.64\% & 71.77\% & \textbf{99.74\%} & \textbf{85.56\%} \\ \hline
\multirow{6}{*}{ResNet-101} & PGD & 74.30\% & 68.65\% & 60.19\% & 68.03\% & 99.48\% \\
& M-DI$^2$-FGSM & 61.87\% & 57.42\% & 69.84\% & \textbf{85.39}\% & 99.61\% \\
& C\&W & \textbf{77.51}\% & 74.90\% & 62.91\% & 61.05\% & 94.19\% \\
& Adv.Patch & 20.26\% & 28.30\% & 44.05\% & 60.09\% & 98.13\% \\
& LaVAN & 26.20\% & 31.31\% & 52.31\% & 68.82\% & 94.19\% \\
& Ours & 76.87\% & \textbf{76.06\%} & \textbf{80.41\%} & 81.13\% & \textbf{99.90\%} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
On CIFAR-10, ASR on the target models is shown in Table \ref{table2}, in which a higher value indicate higher transferability. For example, the adversarial examples generated by our method on the substitute model VGG-13, have the highest ASR on other target models, which indicates our method has higher transferability than other attack methods, including state-of-the-art M-DI$^2$-FGSM. Besides VGG-13, on the other substitute models, the adversarial examples generated by our method have the highest transferability in most cases. On ILSVRC2012, the similar conclusion is obtained (as shown in Table \ref{table3}). In summary, our patch perturbation crafted with network explanations has a more powerful attack ability in black-box settings. We speculate the possible reason is that different classifiers share the similar CFR of an object, which is consistent with the result shown in \cite{wu2020boosting}.
\subsection{ Adversarial Attacks on Protected Models}
The evaluation in Section \ref{IV-B}-\ref{IV-E} is conducted on the target model without protection. Now we further test the attack ability of our patch adversarial examples on protected models. We mainly focus on the model protected by adversarial training, because adversarial training is popularly considered as one of the most effective defenses \cite{shafahi2019adversarial}. Here we use Fast adversarial training \cite{[a16]} and PGD adversarial training \cite{[a4]}. For Fast adversarial training, we set the perturbation bound $\epsilon=8/255$, step size $\alpha=10/255$, and $epoch=20$ on CIFAR-10. Meanwhile, we set the perturbation bound $\epsilon=2/255$, step size $\alpha=2.5/255$, and $epoch=15$ on ILSVRC2012 respectively. For PGD adversarial training, we set 7 iteration steps, the step size $\alpha=2/255$, total perturbation bound $\epsilon=8/255$, and $epoch=15$. Finally, we obtain four protected models ResNet-18-Fast, ResNet-18-PGD, VGG-16-Fast, and VGG-16-PGD as target models.
For CIFAR-10, we compare our method with PGD and C\&W. For ILSVRC2012, we add two patch attacks Adv.Patch and LaVAN. Table \ref{table4} reports the results of the protected models under various attacks. We observe that adversarial training cannot achieve perfect performance against these attacks (ASR is higher than 50.00\%). Among them, our CFR patch attack outperforms other attacks in ASR. For example, our method can achieve 79.87\% ASR against VGG-16-Fast on ILSVRC2012.
\begin{table}
\caption{ASR of various attack methods on the protected models}
\label{table4}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\toprule
Dataset & Protected Models & Attack Methods & ASR \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{6}{*}{CIFAR-10}} & \multirow{3}{*}{ResNet-18-Fast} & PGD & 63.66\% \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & C\&W & 70.79\% \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & Ours & 79.00\% \\ \cline{2-4}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multirow{3}{*}{ResNet-18-PGD} & PGD & 57.57\% \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & C\&W & 65.71\% \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & Ours & 77.39\% \\ \hline \vspace{2mm}\\[-5mm] \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{10}{*}{ILSVRC2012}} & \multirow{5}{*}{VGG-16-Fast} & PGD & 65.99\% \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & C\&W & 66.11\% \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & Adv.Patch & 63.89\% \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & LaVAN & 67.11\% \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & Ours & 79.87\% \\ \cline{2-4}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multirow{5}{*}{VGG-16-PGD} & PGD & 63.50\% \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & C\&W & 57.72\% \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & Adv.Patch & 75.75\% \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & LaVAN & 65.00\% \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & Ours & 77.60\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Analysis of Hyper-Parameters}
\textbf{Iterations $N$ and inverse temperature $T$} are two dominant hyper-parameters in our algorithm, and here we investigate their effects on ASR. We observe that ASR tends to increase along with iterations $N$ in Fig. \ref{figa9}. When $N$=30, ASR of our method can almost reach 100\% on both datasets with a proper inverse temperature (e.g. $T$=0.1), which indicates that our objective function can find the global optimal adversarial examples with fine-tuned parameters. We further discuss the impact of inverse temperature $T$. As shown in Fig. \ref{figa9}, when $T>1$ or $T$ is too small, it will prevent our patch attack from achieving a higher ASR regardless of increasing iterations. Remind that the purpose of inverse temperature $T$ is to prevent the loss $J_{CE}^{\prime}$ from decreasing to 0 as shown in Section \ref{sec3.4}. Nevertheless, when $T>1$, $J_{CE}^{\prime}$ becomes smaller, which leads to a smaller ASR, e.g., when $T=2$, it achieves the lowest ASR. Similarly, the smaller $T$ makes $J_{CE}^{\prime}$ become so large that it deviates far from the original value and the optimal direction, which makes it hard to converge to the optimal solution. For instance, when $T<0.1$, the ASR of patch attacks presents a downward trend. In summary, a moderate value of $T$ is desirable, e.g., $T=0.1$ for ILSVRC2012.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[CIFAR-10]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{fig9_cifar10.png}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfigure[ILSVRC2012]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{fig9_imagenet.png}
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{The effect of iterations $N$ and inverse temperature $T$ on the ASR. (a) ResNet-18 network on the CIFAR-10 ($\tau=0.2$, $\eta=10$, $\beta=1$); (b) VGG-16 network on the ILSVRC2012 ($\tau=0.2$, $\eta=20$, $\beta=1$).}
\label{figa9}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Threshold $\tau$} is also a dominant hyper-parameter to determines the shape of CFRs, that is, the size of the range of added perturbations. We use $\ell_{0}$ norm to measure the number of perturbed pixels. Specifically, $\tau=0$ means all pixels in the image are perturbed. As shown in Fig. \ref{figa10}, ASR and $\ell_{0}$ are presented in the same figure with two independent vertical axes. We observe that increasing the threshold $\tau$ can decrease $\ell_{0}$ norm, i.e., the size of perturbed regions is reduced, however, it does not affect ASR of our patch attacks. The reason is that the most contributing pixels are maintained all the time despite the size of perturbed regions changed with $\tau$. In other words, it reconfirms that the classification is mainly determined by the most contributing pixels.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[CIFAR-10]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{fig10_cifar10.png}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfigure[ILSVRC2012]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{fig10_ImageNet.png}
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{The influence of the threshold $\tau$ on the ASR and the $\ell_{0}$ norm of perturbations. (a) ResNet-18 network on CIFAR-10 ($N=30$, $T=0.1$, $\eta=10$, $\beta=1$); (b) VGG-16 network on ILSVRC2012 ($N=30$, $T=0.1$, $\eta=20$, $\beta=1$).}
\label{figa10}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec5}
Extensive experiments conducted on CIFAR-10 and ILSVRC2012 show that our patch attack outperforms existing global region attacks and local region attacks. Specifically, our patch attack has a higher attack success rate in both white-box and black-box settings. The main reason is that CFR plays a critical role in classification, and CFR of the same object is shared by multiple classification models. In addition, our crafted perturbations on CFR are imperceptible to human eyes. This imperceptible property is very attractive, which can be finely extended to other fields. For example, in the future we will utilize this imperceptibility to explore new adversarial patch attack on medical image classification or segmentation, which requires very tiny perturbations to evade medical specialists. Meanwhile, we are going to develop new countermeasures against the CFR patches, such as smoothing CFR to filter adversarial perturbations.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work is supported by National Key R\&D Program of China ( No.2018YFB2100400), Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61972357), and Zhejiang Key R\&D Program (No. 2019C03135).
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Ultra-short radiation source in the mid-infrared (mid-IR) to terahertz (THz) range (1–150\,$\mu$m or 300–2\,THz) is highly desirable in numerous physics, material science, and biology applications \cite{Meckel2008, Forst2011, Popmintchev2012, Ghimire2011, Wolter2015, Vampa2015, Schubert2014, Hassan2016, Pupeza2020}. These ultra-short mid-IR/THz sources are ideal tools for pump-probe experiments in the “molecular fingerprint” region \cite{Meckel2008, Forst2011}, ultrafast X-ray high harmonic generation (HHG)\cite{Popmintchev2012}, coherent IR spectroscopy \cite{Auton1985, Matsubara2013}, time-resolved imaging of molecular structures \cite{Blaga2012}, and nanotip photoemission \cite{Wimmer2014}. Furthermore, intense single-cycle mid-IR/THz pulses are very useful in attosecond science applications, for instance, sub-femtosecond control and metrology of bound-electron dynamics in atoms \cite{Hassan2016}, generation of attosecond \cite{Silva2015} or even zeptosecond pulses \cite{Hernandez-Garcia2013}, and coherent control of lattice displacements through nonlinear phononics \cite{Forst2011}. Remarkable progress for generating such mid-IR/THz pulses has been made through various optical methods in nonlinear crystals or gases, such as optical parametric amplification (OPA) \cite{Fu2018,Sanchez2016}, difference-frequency generation (DFG) \cite{Pupeza2015,Krogen2017, Novak2018, Vicario2014}, optical rectification \cite{Sell2008,Junginger2010}, and two-color filamentation \cite{Fuji2015,Yoo2017}. Recent numerical and experimental studies show that plasmas can also be utilized as nonlinear optical media to generate ultra-short mid-IR/THz pulses with high efficiency \cite{Nie2018,Nie2020}. Unlike in traditional nonlinear crystals, there is no damage concerns for the power/intensity scaling in plasmas, which makes it possible to generate relativistically intense pulses in the mid-IR to THz spectral range.
In this paper we discuss numerical and experimental results on two different plasma techniques for frequency downshifting and upshifting of an IR laser to cover the entire mid-IR to THz band that covers wavelengths from 1-150\,$\mu$m (or frequencies from 300-2 THz). In Sec.\,\ref{sec2} we briefly describe the first plasma technique that uses frequency downshifting (or photon deceleration) in a nonlinear plasma wake. We first summarize our particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations and experiments on generating multi-millijoule, single-cycle pulses in the 3-20\,$\mu$m wavelength range with a specially prepared plasma density structure \cite{Nie2018,Nie2020}. In Sec.\,\ref{sec3} we extend this frequency downshifting scheme from LWIR to THz spectral range by replacing the drive laser with a picosecond 10\,$\mu$m CO$_2$ laser. In this case we have to use a different profile of the plasma density structure. By PIC simulations we show that sub-joule, terawatts, single-cycle THz pulses can be produced using a picosecond 10\,$\mu$m CO$_2$ drive laser. In Sec.\,\ref{sec4} we introduce the second plasma technique that frequency upshifts the incident IR laser pulse using a relativistic ionization front and show corresponding numerical results. In this scheme, a long-wavelength (e.g. 10\,$\mu$m CO$_2$ laser) pulse collides with a relativistic ionization front produced by photoionization of a column of gas using a short-wavelength (e.g. 800\,nm Ti:sapphire laser) pulse. The frequency change of the CO$_2$ laser pulse and the direction in which the upshifted radiation is observed is obtained by the double relativistic Doppler shift formulism using Lorentz transformations. It is found that the frequency can be tuned by simply tuning the gas and hence the plasma density.
\section{\label{sec2}Extreme Frequency downshifting in a nonlinear plasma wake (mid-IR to LWIR range)}
It is known that an ultra-short intense laser pulse can excite a nonlinear wake (density disturbance) while propagating through an underdense ($\omega_p<\omega_0$) plasma. Here $\omega_p=(4\pi n_p e^2/m)^\frac{1}{2}$ is the plasma frequency, $n_p$ is the plasma density, $m$ is the electron mass, $e$ is the electron charge, and $\omega_0$ is the laser frequency. If the laser’s normalized vector potential $a_0=eE/m\omega_0 c>2$ ($E$ is the electric field of the laser pulse and $c$ is the speed of light) and the pulse duration $\tau<\sqrt{2\pi /\omega_p}$, the ponderomotive force of the laser pulse eventually pushes out all the plasma electrons forward and outward, forming a 3D nonlinear wake \cite{Lu2006}. According to 1D nonlinear theory, the refractive index seen by the co-propagating laser photons varies as \cite{Sprangle1990,Sprangle1990a}: $\eta \simeq 1-\frac{\omega_p^2}{2\omega_0^2} \frac{1}{1+\phi}$, where $\phi=|e|\Phi/m c^2$ is the normalized scalar potential. The refractive index gradient $\frac{\partial\eta}{\partial \zeta}$ with $\zeta=t-z/c$ being the variable in the speed of light frame continuously alters the photon frequency via self-phase modulation (SPM) such that the instantaneous frequency is given by $\omega(t)=\omega_0-\omega_0 \int{\frac{\partial\eta}{\partial \zeta} dt}$ (or $\frac{1}{\omega} \frac{\partial \omega}{\partial t} =-\frac{\partial\eta}{\partial \zeta}$). Specifically, photons in the front of the wake where $\frac{\partial\eta}{\partial \zeta}$ is positive are frequency-downshifted, while photons in the tail of the wake where $\frac{\partial\eta}{\partial \zeta}$ is negative are frequency-upshifted, and the part in the central, near electron-free region experiences scarcely any frequency change (Fig.\,\ref{fig1}). Due to the negative group velocity dispersion (GVD) of the plasma, the longer wavelength photons generated by a positive refractive index gradient travel with a smaller group velocity ($v_g(\omega)\simeq c[1-\frac{\omega_p^2}{2\omega^2}]$) than the shorter wavelength photons. This is the reason why this phenomenon is also called photon acceleration/deceleration \cite{Sprangle1990, Sprangle1990a, Wilks1989,Esarey1990,Mori1997}. This mechanism has been used for pulse compression \cite{Tsung2002, Gordon2003,Faure2005} or as a diagnostic for the generation of wakes in plasmas \cite{Downer2018,Murphy2006,Shiraishi2013}.
When the laser pulse duration is roughly one plasma wavelength ($c\tau\simeq \lambda_\text{p}$, Fig.\,\ref{fig1}(a)), laser photons are frequency downshifted at the front and upshifted at the back of the pulse just as in usual SPM in fibers or neutral gases. However, when the laser pulse duration is much less than one plasma wavelength ($c\tau\ll \lambda_\text{p}$, Fig.\,\ref{fig1}(b)), the whole pulse resides at the very front of the wake and experiences only frequency downshifting (photon deceleration). This is so-called asymmetric SPM. Using this asymmetric SPM concept, the possibility of frequency downshifting near-IR drive pulses to mid-IR range in uniform-density plasmas was explored numerically \cite{Zhu2012,Zhu2013} and experimentally \cite{Pai2010,Schreiber2010,Streeter2018} in the last decade.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./Fig1.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig1}
Comparison of frequency downshifting for two different pulse durations. The plasma density is $4\times 10^{18}\,\text{cm}^{-3}$. The normalized vector potential is 3. The pulse duration is 40.0\,fs in (a) and 9.6\,fs in (b). The blue line, orange line, and dashed black line show the laser electric field, the refractive index gradient, and the refractive index, respectively.
}
\end{figure}
Recently, we have extended this concept to the LWIR range by using a tailored plasma structure \cite{Nie2018,Nie2020}. Using plasma theory, we found that there is an optimal pulse duration for efficient frequency downshifting\cite{Nie2018} expressed as $c\tau \simeq \frac{0.52\lambda_\text{p}}{a_0}$, where $\lambda_\text{p}$ is the plasma wavelength. In such an optimal case, the longitudinal profile of the laser pulse roughly overlaps with the longitudinal profile of the refractive index gradient so that the whole pulse experiences frequency downshifting with the optimum efficiency (Fig.\,\ref{fig1}(b)). For example, if $a_0=3$, $n_\text{p}=4\times 10^{18}\,\text{cm}^{-3}$, then the optimal pulse duration is 9.6 fs, which is the case shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig1}(b). Such short ($\sim$10\,fs) pulses with high intensity ($a_0\sim 3$) are very difficult to obtain even with the state-of-the-art techniques. To tackle this issue, we put forward a general solution that uses a tailored plasma structure that first compresses and then frequency downshifts commonly available longer ($\sim$30\,fs) Ti:sapphire laser pulses to the LWIR range \cite{Nie2018}. The plasma structure consists of two sections: a relatively low-density but longer uniform density region connected to a higher density but shorter density region by a sharp density up-ramp. The 3D OSIRIS \cite{Fonseca2002,Fonseca2008} simulation showed that the originally 30\,fs drive pulse is first compressed to $\sim$10\,fs (the optimal pulse duration for following frequency downshifting) in the first section, and then experiences rapid and efficient frequency downshifting in the second section. Using such a tailored plasma structure, multi-millijoule, near-single-cycle, relativistic pulses in the LWIR region are generated~\cite{Nie2018}. The central wavelength tunability in the range of 5-14\,$\mu$m is achieved by varying the peak density in the short high-density region.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{./Fig2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig2}
(a) Ideal plasma density profile for efficient frequency downshifting. (b) Measured plasma density profile produced by a movable blade covering a fraction of a gas jet. (c) Wavelength tunability in the range of 3-20\,$\mu$m. Reproduced with permission from Nie et al., Nat. Photonics 12, 489-494 (2018) (Copyright 2018 Springer Nature) and Nie et al., Nat. Comms. 11, 2787 (2020) (Copyright 2020 The Authors).
}
\end{figure}
We have experimentally demonstrated this frequency downshifting scheme by employing a tailored plasma structure scheme\cite{Nie2020}. A supersonic hydrogen gas jet target with an insertable blade was used to shock-induce a density spike \cite{Schmid2010,Gonsalves2011,Buck2013} in the gas flow to produce a similar density profile as we have described above as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig2}(a) and (b). In the experiment, an ultra-short (36$\pm$2\,fs FWHM), energetic (580$\pm$9\,mJ, 16\,TW), 810\,nm wavelength drive laser pulse \cite{Hung2014} passed through this tailored plasma structure, fully ionized the neutral gas and produced a highly nonlinear wake \cite{Lu2006}. The strong time-dependent plasma density gradients formed during the expulsion of the plasma electrons phase modulated the laser pulse downshifting the instantaneous frequency of the photons as explained earlier. The generated LWIR pulse was characterized by cross-correlation frequency-resolved optical gating (XFROG) \cite{Linden1998} method based on four-wave mixing (FWM) in argon gas. By optimizing the peak density of the sharp high-density section of the plasma structure, we have generated 3.4$\pm$1.1\,mJ, 32.0\,fs (FWHM), LWIR pulses with a central wavelength of 9.4\,$\mu$m, demonstrating the generation of relativistic, near single-cycle LWIR pulses. We also showed that the central wavelengths could be tuned in the range of 3–20\,$\mu$m by varying several experimental parameters, such as the gas density profile and laser energy. These data are summarized in Fig.\,\ref{fig2}(c) where we show the measured energy and the deduced peak $a_0$ of the frequency downshifted light from 3-20\,$\mu$m range.
\section{\label{sec3}Frequency downshifting in a nonlinear plasma wake (THz range)}
Now we extend this idea to obtain energetic THz radiation. Although research on generating intense ultra-short THz pulses has made great strides in the past decade, one of the current challenges facing THz technology is how to generate sub-joule, terawatts level, single-cycle THz pulses. Most existing methods, such as DFG \cite{Vicario2014}, optical rectification \cite{Sell2008,Junginger2010} and two-color filamentation \cite{Yoo2017}, rely on frequency conversion from commonly used near-infrared lasers. The major issue of these methods is the low conversion efficiency. One straightforward way to improve this problem is to use longer-wavelength drive laser. CO$_2$ laser is currently the most powerful LWIR ($\sim$10\,$\mu$m) laser close to THz spectral range. In recent years, multi-terawatt picosecond 10\,$\mu$m CO$_2$ lasers have been developed \cite{Haberberger2010,Polyanskiy2011}, that provides a better alternate path to nonlinear optics for generating intense ultra-short THz pulses.
The concept of frequency downshifting in plasmas described in Sec.\,\ref{sec2} can be extended to THz range if switching the drive lasers from Ti:sapphire lasers ($\sim$800\,nm) to CO$_2$ lasers ($\sim$10\,$\mu$m). Based on this idea, sub-joule, terawatts, single-cycle THz pulses can be generated by using a picosecond 10\,$\mu$m CO$_2$ laser to excite a nonlinear wake in a tailored plasma structure described in Sec.\,\ref{sec2}; however, the details of the plasma density structure are different.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{./Fig3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig3}
Quasi-3D OSIRIS simulation results on generation of sub-joule, terawatts, single-cycle THz pulses. (a) The tailored plasma density profile. (b,c) Evolution of pulse duration and spectrum with propagation distance in the plasma. (d) Final spectrum and filtered single-cycle THz spectrum. (e) The filtered single-cycle THz pulse.
}
\end{figure*}
Here, we present the PIC simulation results calculated by Quasi-3D OSIRIS code \cite{Lifschitz2009,Davidson2015}. The drive CO$_2$ laser pulse has an energy of 14.6\,J with pulse duration of 1\,ps (FWHM). It is focused to a spot size of $w_0=130.5\,\mu$m at the front of the tailored plasma structure. At the initial $a_0$ of 2, the laser spot size is matched to the plasma at a density of $1.3\times 10^{16}\,\text{cm}^{-3}$. However, with the increase of the plasma density, wake excitation leads to self-compression and self-focusing which increases the $a_0$ and decreases the laser spot size. In our simulation, the laser beam is seen to be self-guided in the wake throughout the whole propagation distance \cite{Ralph2009}. As discussed in the previous case, the tailored plasma structure in this case (Fig.\,\ref{fig3}(a)) also consists of two sections: the pulse compressor and the THz converter. The pulse compressor section is a long plasma up-ramp, which is different than the uniform density (flattop) profile of the pulse compressor section in the tailored structure (Fig.\,\ref{fig2}(a) and (b)) proposed in Sec.\,\ref{sec2}. The reason is that the normalized vector potential $a_0$ is lower and the pulse length (scaled to drive laser wavelength) is longer in this CO$_2$ drive laser case compared with the previous Ti:sapphire drive laser cases, which makes it more challenging to compress the CO$_2$ pulse. The long up-ramp plasma profile is designed to compress such a 1-ps drive pulse in an as short a distance as possible. At the beginning of the plasma, the plasma density should be low enough so that the plasma wavelength is longer than the original pulse length to avoid pulse splitting by overlapping with two wake buckets. As the laser pulse self-compresses, the plasma density increases accordingly to speed up pulse shortening and minimize the compression distance. In this way, such an up-ramp plasma profile compresses the originally 1-ps pulse to less than 100\,fs (Fig.\,\ref{fig3}(b), Fig.\,\ref{fig4}(b,e)).
Then in the THz converter section, the compressed drive laser is rapidly frequency-downshifted in a higher-density plasma region to generate the THz photons. The THz photons then slip backwards towards the center of the wake due to their much smaller group velocity. The central region of the wake is nearly devoid of plasma electrons ($\eta\sim1$) and thus serves as a perfect container for the THz pulse (Fig.\,\ref{fig4}(c,f)). Finally, the generated THz pulse has a pulse duration of 271\,fs (FWHM), corresponding to a single-cycle pulse for the central frequency of 3.4 THz. The estimated THz energy (1-5\,THz) is 293\,mJ, with conversion efficiency of $\sim$2\,\% and peak power as high as 1.1\,TW. Accordingly, the peak field of the THz pulse at the exit of plasma structure reaches as high as 2.3\,GV/cm.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{./Fig4.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig4}
Three snapshots showing the evolution of the laser pulse and wakefield. (a-c) The transverse electric field of the laser pulse and the plasma density distribution (a) at the beginning of the plasma structure , (b) at the end of pulse compressor, and (c) at the end of THz converter. (d-f) The Wigner spectrograms of the on-axis transverse electric field and laser envelope (orange dashed line) at the same position as in (a-c), respectively.
}
\end{figure*}
Furthermore, the output THz frequency can be tuned from 2-12\,THz by varying the plasma density and length in the THz converter section while keeping other parameters unchanged. From Fig.\,\ref{fig5}, one can see that the conversion efficiency roughly linearly scales with the output frequency, and the THz pulses in different frequency cases remain pulse duration at around single cycle or even sub cycle at lower frequency cases.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{./Fig5.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig5}
Conversion efficiency of frequency downshifting and optical cycles v.s. output central frequency.
}
\end{figure}
Although the driving laser pulse duration used here (1\,ps) is at present less than the shortest available CO$_2$ pulse duration (2\,ps)\cite{Polyanskiy2020}, a great deal of work is being carried out to shorten CO$_2$ pulses to 1-ps or even sub-ps pulse durations in the near future \cite{Panagiotopoulos2020,Tovey2019}. Even if using the currently available 2-ps CO$_2$ laser pulse, we can still use the same method with some adaptation. A plasma channel may be used to confine the laser beam in long propagation distance of the pulse compressor section, since the plasma density in the pulse compressor has to be lower and self-guiding at lower densities may not be possible.
\section{\label{sec4}Frequency upshifting by a relativistic ionization front}
Now, we introduce another plasma technique: frequency upshifting by a relativistic ionization front. This mechanism was first studied theoretically \cite{Lampe1978,Mori1991}, and then observed using microwave radiation colliding with an overdense ionization front \cite{Savage1992,Lai1996}. Here, we propose using this scheme to frequency upshift a 10\,$\mu$m CO$_2$ laser by colliding it with a relativistic ionization front produced by a short-wavelength ionizing laser pulse.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./Fig6.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig6}
Schematic of frequency upshifting of a CO$_2$ laser pulse by a relativistic ionization front produced by a short-wavelength ionizing laser.
}
\end{figure}
The proposed schematic is shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig6}. The ionizing laser with a frequency of $\omega_{ion}$ propagates into the neutral gas. It ionizes the neutral gas and produces a relativistic ionization front. To the lowest order, the front’s velocity $v_0$ is the group velocity of the ionizing laser in plasma. The CO$_2$ laser with a frequency of $\omega_i$ ($\omega_i \ll \omega_{ion}$) counter-propagates with the ionizing laser and collides with the ionization front. Then the frequency of the CO$_2$ laser is upshifted due to relativistic Doppler effect. Here, we use Lorentz transformations to investigate this problem. Switching from the laboratory frame to the ionization front frame, the incident CO$_2$ laser frequency of $\omega_i$ will be upshifted to $\omega_f\simeq 2\gamma_0 \omega_i$, where $\gamma_0=(1-\frac{v_0^2}{c^2} )^{-\frac{1}{2}}$. Depending on the plasma density of the ionization front, there are two possible regimes \cite{Mori1991}. When the plasma density is high enough so that $\omega_p > \omega_f$ ($\omega_p^2 > 2\omega_{ion}\omega_i$), it is in the overdense regime. The CO$_2$ laser will be reflected by the ionization front, and the frequency of the reflected wave in the lab frame is $\omega_r\simeq 4\gamma_0^2 \omega_i$.
When the plasma density $\omega_p < \omega_f$ ($\omega_p^2 < 2\omega_{ion}\omega_i$), it is in the underdense regime. The CO$_2$ laser will enter the ionization front, and the frequency of the transmitted wave is now $\omega_t=\gamma_0 (\omega_f-v_0 k_{tf})$, where $k_{tf}=\frac{1}{c} \sqrt{\omega_f^2-\omega_p^2}$ is the wavenumber of the transmitted wave in the ionization front frame. The transmitted frequency increases with the increase of the plasma density and is bounded by $\omega_{ion}$ (when $\omega_p^2 = 2\omega_{ion}\omega_i$). In the underdense limit ($\omega_p^2 \ll 2\omega_{ion}\omega_i$), the transmitted frequency and wavenumber are approximately $\omega_t\simeq \omega_i (1+\frac{\omega_p^2}{4\omega_i^2})$ and $k_t\simeq \frac{\omega_i}{c} (1-\frac{\omega_p^2}{4\omega_i^2})$. Interestingly, the transmitted wavenumber could be positive, zero, or negative. When the wavenumber is zero, the group velocity of the wave goes to zero and the wave will be absorbed by the plasma. When the wavenumber is negative, the wave will travel backwards in the laboratory frame, moving with a group velocity less than the velocity of the ionization front so that it is still transmitted in the ionization front frame.
As observed in a previous study \cite{Mori1991}, the underdense regime instead of the overdense regime is recommended in practical applications for two reasons. One is that the frequency upshift in the underdense regime is independent of $\gamma_0$, therefore not affected by the potential variation of $\gamma_0$ due to the variation of the group velocity of ionizing laser when ionizing the gas. The other advantage is that the plasma density needed is lower than the overdense case for the same incident and upshifted frequencies.
We have run a series of 2D OSIRIS\cite{Fonseca2002,Fonseca2008} simulations to show frequency tuning dependence on plasma density in the underdense regime. In our simulations, the ionizing laser is a 40-fs 800-nm Ti:sapphire laser with a focused spot size of 200\,$\mu$m and normalized vector potential $a_0=0.05$. The CO$_2$ laser pulse duration is 333\,fs here (to save simulation time) with a focused spot size of 100\,$\mu$m and normalized vector potential $a_0=0.05$. Hydrogen is used as the neutral gas. The Ti:sapphire laser can ionize the hydrogen gas but the CO$_2$ laser cannot since its peak intensity is below the tunneling ionization threshold intensity for hydrogen. The output wavelength can be tuned in the spectral range of 1-10\,$\mu$m by simply tuning the gas density as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig7}(a). In the underdense limit the reflected wave is very weak, thus transmission coefficient in the laboratory frame approaches unity and the pulse duration will be compressed due to the conservation of oscillation cycles \cite{Mori1991} if not considering later-on pulse stretching by dispersion. Therefore, the energy conversion efficiency approximately equals to the ratio of the output wavelength and the initial wavelength ($\eta\simeq\lambda_t/\lambda_i$) as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig7}(b).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{./Fig7.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig7}
Frequency upshifting in the underdense regime. (a) Output wavelength v.s. ionization front density. (b) Energy conversion efficiency v.s. output wavelength. The dashed line marks the boundary of $k = 0$.
}
\end{figure}
For the sake of completeness, we should also mention that physically it is the boundary conditions on $\bold{E}$ and $\bold{H}$ at the ionization front that give rise to the reflected and transmitted waves. In addition, the plasma ionization front can support currents. If the onset of ionization is sudden, the ionization front width is much less than the wavelength of the CO$_2$ . The plasma electrons are produced at rest, therefore the current density $\bold{J}=0$. Thereafter as the ionization front passes through the linearly polarized CO$_2$ laser pulse, its electric field gives rise to sinusoidal oscillations of current that in turn give rise to regions of static magnetic field at half the wavelength of the CO$_2$ laser. This so-called magneto-static mode \cite{Mori1991,Fiuza2010} is the third natural mode in an unmagnetized plasma in addition to the Bohm-Gross waves and ion acoustic waves. This mode has not been conclusively identified to date in plasmas because of the difficulty of producing a periodic arrangement of quasi-dc currents in plasmas. The interaction of an ionization front with a counter propagating electromagnetic wave as described here will allow one to generate the conditions necessary to excite this mode in addition to frequency upshifted light that is the topic of this paper.
\section{Conclusions}
In summary, we show in this paper that by using two different plasma techniques we can generate mid-IR/THz pulses that cover the entire bandwidth from 1-150\,$\mu$m (300-2 THz).
By using frequency downshifting of a Ti:sapphire laser in a nonlinear wake, the generation of relativistic, near single-cycle LWIR pulses tunable in 3-20\,$\mu$m range has already been demonstrated using a tailored plasma structure. Given that a few TW class, femtoseconds drive lasers in the near-IR are now commonplace, one expects this technique to be adopted in many laboratories to give intense, tunable LWIR pulses. Further extending this scheme into THz range is achieved by using a picosecond CO$_2$ driving laser instead of a Ti:sapphire laser. By PIC simulations, we show that sub-joule, terawatts, single-cycle THz pulses are generated and can be frequency tuned in the range of 2-12 THz. At relativistic intensities afforded by such mid-IR/THz sources it will now be possible to study laser wakefield and direct laser acceleration by long-wavelength drivers not only in plasmas but also in dielectric and semiconductor structures.
By using frequency upshifting of a CO$_2$ laser by colliding it with a relativistic ionization front, we show by PIC simulations that mid-IR pulses tunable in the spectral range of 1-10\,$\mu$m can be produced. The tunability is straightforward by simply tuning the gas density. Such mid-IR pulses with relatively lower intensities can be used for pump-probe experiments in the molecular fingerprint region\cite{Meckel2008, Forst2011}, high harmonic generation\cite{Popmintchev2012, Ghimire2011, Vampa2015}, and resonant or non-resonant nonlinear interactions in gases, solids, or biological systems\cite{Schubert2014, Hassan2016, Pupeza2020}.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) MURI (N00014-17-1-2075), AFOSR grant FA9550-16-1-0139, U.S. Department of Energy grant DE-SC0010064 and NSF grant 1734315. The simulations were performed on Sunway TaihuLight, Hoffman cluster at UCLA, and NERSC at LBNL.
\end{acknowledgments}
\section*{Data availability}
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
\section*{References}
\nocite{*}
|
\section{Useful identity}
\label{s:useful_identity}
A useful identity that appears in several calculations in the
paper is
\begin{equation}
\sum_i \frac{(x_i-\mu)^2}{\sigma_i^2}
= \sum_i \frac{x_i^2}{\sigma_i^2}
-\frac{x_{\rm opt}^2}{\sigma_{\rm opt}^2}
+\frac{(x_{\rm opt}-\mu)^2}{\sigma_{\rm opt}^2}\,,
\label{e:xopt_identity}
\end{equation}
where $x_{\rm opt}$ and $\sigma_{\rm opt}^2$ are defined by
\begin{equation}
\frac{x_{\rm opt}}{\sigma_{\rm opt}^2}
\equiv \sum_i \frac{x_i}{\sigma^2_i}\,,
\qquad
\frac{1}{\sigma_{\rm opt}^2}\equiv
\sum_i \frac{1}{\sigma^2_i}\,.
\end{equation}
One can think of $x_i$ and $\sigma_i$, where $i=1,2,\cdots, N$,
as a set of $N$ independent measurements and error bars of the
quantity $\mu$, whose value is to be determined from the measured data.
It is a well-known result that $x_{\rm opt}$ defined above is the
{\it minimal-variance unbiased estimator} of $\mu$ with variance
$\sigma_{\rm opt}^2$.
A proof of \eqref{e:xopt_identity} is the following:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\sum_i \frac{(x_i-\mu)^2}{\sigma_i^2}
&= \sum_i \frac{x_i^2}{\sigma_i^2}
-2\mu\sum_i \frac{x_i}{\sigma_i^2}
+\mu^2\sum_i \frac{1}{\sigma_i^2}
\\
&= \sum_i \frac{x_i^2}{\sigma_i^2}
-2\mu\frac{x_{\rm opt}}{\sigma_{\rm opt}^2}
+\frac{\mu^2}{\sigma_{\rm opt}^2}
\\
&= \sum_i \frac{x_i^2}{\sigma_i^2}
-\frac{x_{\rm opt}^2}{\sigma_{\rm opt}^2}
+\frac{(x_{\rm opt}-\mu)^2}{\sigma_{\rm opt}^2}\,,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we completed the square in $x_{\rm opt}$ and $\mu$
to get the last equality.
\section{Uncertainties in power spectrum estimates}
\label{s:psd_uncertainties}
In this appendix, we provide a brief summary of
uncertainties in power spectrum estimates.
The final result of this analysis justifies the
inclusion of the factor $(1+2/N_{\rm avg})$
in the expressions for the reduced likelihood
functions for both the white and colored
signal+noise models.
Our presentation follows that of an unpublished
internal LIGO technical note by Warren Anderson
(25 May 2004).
To simplify the notation a bit, we will use
$\bar P_1$, $\bar P_2$ to denote
two power spectrum estimators, representing
either the auto-correlations
$\bar\sigma_1^2$, $\bar\sigma_2^2$ for the
white signal+noise model
or the auto-correlated power spectra
$\bar P_{1I}(f_\ell)$, $\bar P_{2I}(f_\ell)$ for the
colored signal+noise model.
The number of averages used in the construction
of the power spectrum estimators is denoted by
$N_{\rm avg}$, which is proportional
to the number of data samples $N$ for the white
signal+noise models, or the number of
frequency bins $M$ averaged over for coarse graining
in a Welch power spectrum estimate~\cite{Welch:1967}
for the colored signal+noise models.
Since $\bar P_1$ and $\bar P_2$ are unbiased
estimators of $P_1$ and $P_2$, we can write
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bar P_1 = P_1 + \delta\bar P_1\,,
\\
\bar P_2 = P_2 + \delta\bar P_2\,,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\langle \delta\bar P_1\rangle=
\langle \delta\bar P_2\rangle= 0\,.
\end{equation}
The variance and covariance of the power spectrum
estimators are given by the quadratic expectation
values
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\langle(\delta\bar P_1)^2\rangle
= \langle \bar P_1^2\rangle - P_1^2
\equiv {\rm var}(\bar P_1)\,,
\\
&\langle(\delta\bar P_2)^2\rangle
= \langle \bar P_2^2\rangle - P_2^2
\equiv {\rm var}(\bar P_2)\,,
\\
&\langle\delta\bar P_1\delta\bar P_2\rangle
= \langle \bar P_1\bar P_2\rangle - P_1 P_2
\equiv {\rm cov}(\bar P_1\bar P_2)\,.
\label{e:var_def1}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Explicitly evaluating $\langle \bar P_1^2\rangle$, etc.,
using the identity
\begin{equation}
\langle a b c d\rangle
=\langle ab\rangle \langle cd\rangle
+\langle ac\rangle\langle bd\rangle
+\langle ad\rangle\langle bc\rangle
\end{equation}
for zero-mean, Gaussian random variables, leads to
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\langle(\delta \bar P_1)^2\rangle = {P_1^2}/{N_{\rm avg}}\,,
\\
&\langle(\delta \bar P_2)^2\rangle = {P_2^2}/{N_{\rm avg}}\,,
\\
&\langle\bar P_1\bar P_2\rangle = {P_h^2}/{N_{\rm avg}}\,.
\label{e:var_def2}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Since the power spectra appear in the full likelihood
function via the product of their inverses,
$1/\sigma_1^2\sigma_2^2$ or $1/P_{1I}(f_\ell) P_{2I}(f_\ell)$,
we need to calculate the expectation value
$\langle 1/\bar P_1 \bar P_2\rangle$.
So making a Taylor series expansion
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\bar P} = \frac{1}{P+\delta\bar P}
= \frac{1}{P}\left(1 - \frac{\delta\bar P}{P}
+ \frac{\left(\delta\bar P\right)^2}{P^2} - \cdots\right)
\end{equation}
for both $1/\bar P_1$ and $1/\bar P_2$, it follows that
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\bar P_1\bar P_2}
&= \frac{1}{P_1 P_2}
\left(1 - \frac{\delta\bar P_1}{P_1} + \frac{\left(\delta\bar P_1\right)^2}{P_1^2} - \cdots\right)
\left(1 - \frac{\delta\bar P_2}{P_2} + \frac{\left(\delta\bar P_2\right)^2}{P_2^2} - \cdots\right)
\\
&= \frac{1}{P_1 P_2}
\left(1
- \frac{\delta\bar P_1}{P_1}
- \frac{\delta\bar P_2}{P_2}
+ \frac{\left(\delta\bar P_1\right)^2}{P_1^2}
+ \frac{\left(\delta\bar P_2\right)^2}{P_2^2}
+ \frac{\delta\bar P_1\delta\bar P_2}{P_1 P_2}
- \cdots\right)\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Taking the expectation value of both sides of the above expression,
we find
\begin{equation}
\bigg\langle\frac{1}{\bar P_1 \bar P_2}\bigg\rangle
= \frac{1}{P_1 P_2}\left(1
+\frac{2}{N_{\rm avg}}
+\frac{1}{N_{\rm avg}}\frac{P_h^2}{P_1 P_2} - \cdots\right)
\simeq \frac{1}{P_1 P_2}\left(1
+\frac{2}{N_{\rm avg}}\right)\,,
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
where we have ignored cubic and higher-order terms in
$\delta\bar P_1$ and $\delta\bar P_2$, and assumed the
weak-signal approximation, $P_h^2/P_1 P_2\ll 1$, to get the
last approximately equality.
This result shows that $1/\bar P_1 \bar P_2$ is a
{\it biased} estimator of $1/P_1 P_2$.
Nonetheless, this bias can be removed by simply moving
the factor of $(1+2/N_{\rm avg})$ to the left-hand side,
so that
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\bar P_1 \bar P_2(1+2/N_{\rm avg})}
\end{equation}
is a unbiased estimator of $1/P_1 P_2$.
This is the replacement we make for $1/P_1 P_2$ in the
reduced likelihood functions in the main text, cf.~\eqref{e:unbiased_1/P2}.
\section{Alternative derivation of a reduced likelihood function}
\label{s:alternative_derivation}
In this appendix, we give an alternative derivation of the
likelihood function for a reduced signal+noise model, but
under different assumptions than those given in the
main text.
More specifically, we do not assume here that the GWB signal
is weak compared to the detector noise, nor do we use
estimators of
the auto-correlated power calculated from data segments
different from that being analyzed for the signal.
Rather we assume that: (i) the number of data points $N$
(or coarse-grained averages $M$) for a given data segment $I$
is sufficiently large that one can expand the likelihood
function around the maximum-likelihood estimators of
$\sigma_1^2$, $\sigma_2^2$, $\sigma_h^2$
(or $P_{1I}(f_\ell)$, $P_{2I}(f_\ell)$, $P_h(f_\ell)$)
to second order without loss of information; and
(ii) the data are informative for the auto-correlated power
$\sigma_1^2$, $\sigma_2^2$ (or $P_{1I}(f_\ell)$, $P_{2I}(f_\ell)$)
allowing us to evaluate the second-order likelihood function
at the values of
$\sigma_1^2$, $\sigma_2^2$ (or $P_{1I}(f_\ell)$, $P_{2I}(f_\ell)$)
that maximize the likelihood for {\it fixed} values of
$\sigma_h^2$ (or $P_h(f_\ell)$).
For concreteness, we give the derivation here in the context
of the white signal+noise model for two coincident and
coaligned detectors.
But it can be easily extended to the case of
colored data with non-stationary noise and
a non-trivial overlap function.
Our derivation follows that given in
\cite{Allen-et-al:2003_robust_bayesian}.
We start with the full
likelihood function \eqref{e:likefinal_white} for the white
signal+noise model, which we rewrite here as
\begin{equation}
p(d|\sigma^2_{n_1}, \sigma^2_{n_2}, \sigma_h^2)
=\exp\left[-\frac{N}{2}
f(\sigma_1^2, \sigma_2^2, \sigma_h^2| d)\right]\,,
\label{e:p=exp(f)}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{multline}
f(\sigma_1^2, \sigma_2^2, \sigma_h^2| d)=
2\ln(2\pi)+ \ln\left(\sigma_1^2\sigma_2^2-(\sigma_h^2)^2\right)
\\
\frac{1}{\left(\sigma_1^2 \sigma_2^2 -(\sigma^2_h)^2\right)}
\left(\hat\sigma_1^2 \sigma_2^2 + \hat\sigma_2^2\sigma_1^2
-2 \hat\sigma_h^2 \sigma_h^2\right)\,.
\end{multline}
In the above expressions,
$\sigma_1^2$, $\sigma_2^2$
are the total auto-correlated variances in the
two detectors, see \eqref{e:S1S2_def}, and
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\hat \sigma^2_1 \equiv \frac{1}{N}\sum_i d_{1i}^2\,,
\\
&\hat \sigma^2_2 \equiv \frac{1}{N}\sum_i d_{2i}^2\,,
\\
&\hat \sigma^2_h \equiv \frac{1}{N}\sum_i d_{1i} d_{2i}\,,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
are the maximum-likelihood estimators of
$\sigma_1^2$, $\sigma_2^2$, $\sigma_h^2$.
Assuming that $N$ is sufficiently large, we can
Taylor expand $f$ around its maximum-likelihood values
ignoring terms higher than second order in the
differences
$\sigma_1^2-\hat\sigma_1^2$,
$\sigma_2^2-\hat\sigma_2^2$,
$\sigma_h^2-\hat\sigma_h^2$.
Doing so gives
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
f(\sigma_1^2, \sigma_2^2, \sigma_h^2| d)\simeq
f(\hat \sigma_1^2, \hat \sigma_2^2, \hat \sigma_h^2| d)
+ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j}
\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_i\partial x_j}\bigg|_{\rm ML}
(x_i-\hat x_i)(x_j-\hat x_j)\,,
\label{e:f_approx}
\end{equation}
where $x_i\equiv (\sigma_1^2,\sigma_2^2,\sigma_h^2)$,
and
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_i\partial x_j}\bigg|_{\rm ML}
=\frac{1}{\left(\hat\sigma_1^2\hat\sigma_2^2-(\hat\sigma_h^2)^2\right)}
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
(\hat\sigma_2^2)^2 & (\hat\sigma_h^2)^2 & -2\hat \sigma_2^2\hat\sigma_h^2
\\
(\hat\sigma_h^2)^2 & (\hat\sigma_1^2)^2 & -2\hat \sigma_1^2\hat\sigma_h^2
\\
-2\hat\sigma_2^2\hat\sigma_h^2 & -2\hat\sigma_1^2\sigma_h^2
& 2\left(\hat\sigma_1^2\hat\sigma_2^2+(\hat \sigma_h^2)^2\right)
\\
\end{array}
\right]\,.
\label{e:d2f/dx2}
\end{equation}
Defining
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{ij}
\equiv \frac{N}{2}
\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_i\partial x_j}\bigg|_{\rm ML}\,,
\label{e:fisher}
\end{equation}
it follows that the inverse matrix
\begin{equation}
C_{ij}\equiv \left(\Gamma^{-1}\right)_{ij}
=\frac{1}{N}
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
2(\hat\sigma_1^2)^2 & 2(\hat\sigma_h^2)^2 & 2\hat \sigma_1^2\hat\sigma_z^2
\\
2(\hat\sigma_h^2)^2 & 2(\hat\sigma_2^2)^2 & 2\hat \sigma_2^2\hat\sigma_z^2
\\
2\hat\sigma_1^2\hat\sigma_h^2 & 2\hat\sigma_2^2\sigma_h^2
& \hat\sigma_1^2\hat\sigma_2^2+(\hat \sigma_h^2)^2
\\
\end{array}
\right]
\label{e:cov_fisher}
\end{equation}
is an estimator of the covariance matrix of the maximum-likelihood
estimators $\hat\sigma_1^2$, $\hat\sigma_2^2$, $\hat\sigma_h^2$.
To proceed further, we construct a {\it reduced} likelihood
function by assuming that the data are informative with respect
to the detector auto-correlations $\sigma_1^2$, $\sigma_2^2$.
This means that we can evaluate \eqref{e:f_approx} at the
values of $\sigma_1^2$, $\sigma_2^2$
that maximize \eqref{e:f_approx} for {\it fixed} values of
$\sigma_h^2$.
So, simultaneously solving the two equations
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial\sigma_1^2} = 0\,,
\qquad
\frac{\partial f}{\partial\sigma_2^2} = 0\,,
\end{equation}
for $\sigma_1^2$, $\sigma_2^2$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\sigma_1^2 = \hat\sigma_1^2 +
\frac{2\hat\sigma_1^2\hat\sigma_h^2}
{\left(\hat\sigma_1^2\hat\sigma_2^2 + (\hat\sigma_h^2)^2\right)}
(\sigma_h^2-\hat\sigma_h^2)\,,
\qquad
\sigma_2^2 = \hat\sigma_2^2 +
\frac{2\hat\sigma_2^2\hat\sigma_h^2}
{\left(\hat\sigma_1^2\hat\sigma_2^2 + (\hat\sigma_h^2)^2\right)}
(\sigma_h^2-\hat\sigma_h^2)\,.
\label{e:autocorrelations_reduced}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Denoting the RHSs of these expressions by
$\bar\sigma_1^2$, $\bar\sigma_2^2$, it follows that \eqref{e:f_approx} becomes
\begin{equation}
f(\sigma_1^2, \sigma_2^2, \sigma_h^2|d)\Big|_{\sigma_1^2 = \bar\sigma_1^2,\,
\sigma_2^2=\bar\sigma_2^2}\simeq
f(\hat\sigma_1^2, \hat\sigma_2^2, \hat\sigma_h^2|d)
+\frac{(\sigma_h^2-\hat\sigma_h^2)^2}
{\left(\hat\sigma_1^2\hat\sigma_2^2 + (\hat\sigma_h^2)^2\right)}\,.
\end{equation}
The corresponding reduced likelihood function is
\begin{equation}
p(d|\bar\sigma_1^2,\bar\sigma_2^2,\sigma_h^2) \equiv
p(d|\hat\sigma_1^2,\hat\sigma_2^2, \hat\sigma_h^2)\,
\exp\left[-\frac{N}{2}
\frac{(\sigma_h^2-\hat\sigma_h^2)^2}
{\left(\hat\sigma_1^2\hat\sigma_2^2 + (\hat\sigma_h^2)^2\right)}
\right]\,.
\label{e:reduced_like_alt}
\end{equation}
Thus, we see that $\hat\sigma_h^2$ together with $\hat\sigma_1^2$,
$\hat\sigma_2^2$ are sufficient statistics for $\sigma_h^2$ with variance
\begin{equation}
{\rm var}[\hat\sigma_h^2] = \left(\hat\sigma_1^2\hat\sigma_2^2 + (\hat\sigma_h^2)^2\right)/N\,.
\label{e:reduced_var_alt}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
A couple of remarks are in order:
(i) Nowhere in the above derivation did we assume that the power
in the GWB is small compared to the detector noise.
Thus, the reduced likelihood function \eqref{e:reduced_like_alt}
is valid for arbitrarily large GWB signals, which is relevant, for
example, for searches for a GWB using pulsar timing
arrays~\cite{Siemens-et-al:2013, arzoumanian2020nanograv}
or the proposed space-based interferometer
LISA~\cite{baker2019laser}; see e.g.,~\cite{Adams:2013qma}.
Equation \eqref{e:reduced_var_alt}
contains an extra term, $(\hat\sigma_h^2)^2$, compared to
\eqref{e:reduced_var_white}, which takes into
account the extra variance associated with the GWB, over and
above that which is already captured in the auto-correlations
$\hat\sigma_1^2$ and $\hat\sigma_2^2$.
(ii) Although we denoted the right-hand sides of
\eqref{e:autocorrelations_reduced}
by $\bar\sigma_1^2$, $\bar\sigma_2^2$, these expressions are not
the same as those used in the main text (see the discussion in
Sec.~\ref{s:white_reduced}), which were estimators of
$\sigma_1^2$, $\sigma_2^2$ constructed from data segments
{\it different} than that being analyzed for the signal.
The use of different data segments to estimate the auto-correlations
is necessary for LIGO-Virgo data, since the number of averages used
to estimate power spectra is not sufficiently large to beat down the
bias that arises from using the same data in both the numerator and
denominator of the exponential in \eqref{e:reduced_like_alt}.
(Recall that for the colored signal+noise model, the number of
averages is proportional to the number of
frequency bins $M$ that are averaged together for coarse-graining.)
For LIGO-Virgo data, one is restricted to $N_{\rm avg}$ of order at
most 50, due to the complexity of the detector noise (the need to take
the coarse-grained frequency resolution to be
$\delta f\sim 0.25~{\rm Hz}$) and its broad non-stationarity on
time scales of order minutes (ignoring shorter time-scale
instrumental glitches).
By using different data segments to estimate the auto-correlated
power, the bias goes away in the weak-signal limit, as shown
in Fig.~\ref{fig:pp_plot_white}.
But if the number of averages was sufficiently large, then one could
use the expression in \eqref{e:reduced_like_alt} as is.
\section{Sufficient statistics for cross-correlation searches
-- colored signal+noise models}
\label{s:CCsearches_colored}
Here we extend the analysis of the previous section to
a colored signal+noise model, starting with stationary
data in Sec.~\ref{s:colored_stationary} and then
discussing the complications introduced by non-stationary
noise in Sec.~\ref{s:colored_nonstationary}.
In Sec.~\ref{s:colored_reduced}, we simplify the
signal+noise model by again considering weak signals
and measured estimates of the auto-correlated power,
for which the frequency integrands of the
cross-correlation statistic and its variance
are sufficient statistics.
In Sec.~\ref{s:hybrid} we show that the
full Bayesian analysis is approximately equivalent to
LIGO-Virgo's hybrid frequentist-Bayesian analysis, and
in Sec.~\ref{s:comparison} we construct percentile-percentile
(pp) plots~\cite{pp_plot} to show that the reduced analyses
have proper statistical coverage.
(We do not assume that the detectors are coincident and
co-aligned in this section.)
\subsection{Colored signal+noise, stationary data}
\label{s:colored_stationary}
For the case where the detector noise and GWB signal are
colored, it simplest to work in the frequency domain,
since the Fourier components are {\it independent} of one
another (assuming the data are stationary over the
duration of the analysis segment).
Assuming multivariate Gaussian distributions as before,
the variances
$\sigma^2_{n_1}$, $\sigma^2_{n_2}$, $\sigma^2_h$,
for the white signal+noise
case are replaced by
{\it power spectral densitites}
$P_{n_1}(f)$, $P_{n_2}(f)$, $P_h(f)$,
defined by
\begin{equation}
\langle \tilde h(f)\tilde h^*(f')\rangle
= \frac{1}{2}\delta(f-f') P_h(f)\,,
\quad{\rm etc.},
\end{equation}
where $\tilde h(f)$ is the Fourier transform of the
signal component $h(t)$ of the time-series data.
The factor of $1/2$ is included to make these {\it one-sided}
power spectral densities, so that the total variance is
given by an integral of the power spectral density over
{\it positive frequencies},
$\sigma^2 = \int_0^\infty {\rm d}f\> P(f)$.
Although the above expressions are written in terms of
continuous functions of frequency, in practice we work
with frequency series, e.g., $P_h(f_k)$, where the
discrete frequencies take values $f_k \equiv k\Delta f$,
where $\Delta f \equiv 1/T$ and $k=0, 1, \cdots, N/2 -1$, for
a data segment of duration $T\equiv N\Delta t$.
For white data, $P(f) = 2\sigma^2\Delta t$ is constant between
$f=0$ and the Nyquist frequency $f_{\rm Nyq} \equiv 1/2\Delta t$.
Even though we are assuming here that the data are stationary,
it is convenient to divide the data from a large observation
period into segments, which we will label by $I=1,2,\cdots, N_{\rm seg}$.
The full likelihood function is then a product of the
likelihood functions for the individual segments
\begin{equation}
p(d|P_{n_1}, P_{n_2}, P_h)
= \prod_I p_I(d_I|P_{n_1}, P_{n_2}, P_h)\,,
\label{e:product-likelihood-colored-segment}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{multline}
p_I(d_I|P_{n_1}, P_{n_2}, P_h)
\\
= \prod_{k} \frac{1}{{\rm det}(2\pi \tilde C(f_k))}
e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha,\beta}
\tilde d_{\alpha I}^*(f_k)
\left(\tilde C(f_k)^{-1}\right)_{\alpha\beta}
\tilde d_{\beta I}(f_k)}\,.
\label{e:likelihood-colored-segment}
\end{multline}
In the above expression
\begin{equation}
\tilde C(f)
= \frac{T}{4}\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
P_1(f) & \gamma(f)P_h(f)
\\
\gamma(f)P_h(f) & P_2(f)
\end{array}
\right]
\label{e:Ctilde}
\end{equation}
is the covariance matrix of the data, with
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&P_1(f)\equiv P_{n_1}(f) + P_h(f)\,,
\\
&P_2(f)\equiv P_{n_2}(f) + P_h(f)\,,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
denoting the total auto-correlated detector
power spectral densities.
The inverse covariance matrix is simply
\begin{multline}
\tilde C(f)^{-1}
=\frac{4}{T}\frac{1}{(P_{1}(f)P_{2}(f) - \gamma^2(f)P_h^2(f))}
\\
\times\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
P_{2}(f) & -\gamma(f)P_h(f)
\\
-\gamma(f)P_h(f) & P_{1}(f)
\end{array}
\right]\,.
\end{multline}
Note that although the data depend on segment $I$,
the parameters $P_{n_1}$, $P_{n_2}$, $P_h$
do not, since we are assuming that the noise and
signal power spectra are the same in each segment.
The dimensionless function $\gamma(f)$, which appears
in the off-diagonal elements of the covariance matrix,
is the {\it overlap reduction function}, which
accounts for the relative position and orientation of the detectors
\cite{christensen92,Flanagan:1993}. The functional form of $\gamma(f)$ is not
relevant for the discussion that follows, other than the fact that $\gamma(f)$
equals unity for coincident and coaligned detectors in the long-wavelength limit.
If we want to estimate the values of the power
spectral densities
$P_{n_1}(f)$, $P_{n_2}(f)$, $P_h(f)$, at
{\it each} discrete (positive) frequency $f_k\equiv k\Delta f$,
then there are no simplying
sufficient statistics for this case as the data enter the
likelihood function only through the combinations
\begin{equation}
|\tilde d_{1I}(f_k)|^2\,,
\quad
|\tilde d_{2I}(f_k)|^2\,,
\quad
{\rm Re} \left(\tilde d_{1I}^*(f_k)\tilde d_{2I}(f_k) \right)\,,
\label{e:single-freq-estimators}
\end{equation}
which does not correspond to a reduction in the number of
data samples used in writing the likelihood function.
However, if the power spectra are expected to be smooth
over a {\it coarser} frequency resolution
$\delta f \equiv 1/\tau > \Delta f$,
where $\tau\equiv T/M$ is some
fractional part of the segment duration $T$, then there
is a reduction in the data combinations.
This is because the
relevant power spectra need only be estimated at fewer
discrete frequencies $f_\ell \equiv\ell\,\delta f$,
where $\ell = 0, 1,\cdots, (N/M)/2-1$.
(For typical LIGO-Virgo searches, $M$ is approximately 20.)
Hence the data combinations
\eqref{e:single-freq-estimators} can be averaged
over a subset of $M$ fine-grained frequencies $f_k$ centered at
$f_\ell$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde c_{11,I}(f_\ell)
&\equiv \frac{1}{M}\sum_{k=\ell-M/2}^{\ell+M/2-1}
|\tilde d_{1I}(f_k)|^2\,,
\\
\tilde c_{22,I}(f_\ell)
&\equiv \frac{1}{M}\sum_{k=\ell-M/2}^{\ell+M/2-1}
|\tilde d_{2I}(f_k)|^2\,,
\\
\tilde c_{12,I}(f_\ell)
&\equiv \frac{1}{M}\sum_{k=\ell-M/2}^{\ell+M/2-1}
{\rm Re} \left(\tilde d_{1I}^*(f_k) \tilde d_{2I}(f_k)\right)\,.
\end{aligned}
\label{e:coarse-grained-data}
\end{equation}
This leads to averaged (or {\it coarse-grained})
power spectral density estimators
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\hat P_{1I}(f_\ell)
\equiv \frac{2}{T}\,\tilde c_{11,I}(f_\ell)\,,
\\
&\hat P_{2I}(f_\ell)
\equiv \frac{2}{T}\,\tilde c_{22,I}(f_\ell)\,,
\\
&\hat P_{hI}(f_\ell)
\equiv \frac{2}{T}\,\frac{\tilde c_{12,I}(f_\ell)}{\gamma(f_\ell)}\,,
\label{e:coarse-grained-estimators}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
in terms of which the likelihood function \eqref{e:likelihood-colored-segment}
can be written:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{multline}
p_I(d_I|P_{n_1}, P_{n_2}, P_h)
=\prod_\ell
\frac{1}{(\pi T/2)^{2M}
(P_1(f_\ell)P_2(f_\ell) - \gamma^2(f_\ell)P_h^2(f_\ell))^{M}}
\\
\times
\exp\left\{-\frac{M}
{(1-\gamma^2(f_\ell)P_h^2(f_\ell)/P_1(f_\ell)P_2(f_\ell))}\left[
\frac{\hat P_{1I}(f_\ell)}{P_1(f_\ell)} + \frac{\hat P_{2I}(f_\ell)}{P_2(f_\ell)}
- 2 \gamma^2(f_\ell) \frac{P_h(f_\ell) \hat P_{hI}(f_\ell)}{P_1(f_\ell)P_2(f_\ell)}
\right]\right\}\,.
\label{e:likefinal_colored_coarsegrained}
\end{multline}
We note that estimating a power spectrum by subdividing a
segment of data into shorter duration subsegments is a
standard practice in signal processing~\cite{Welch:1967}.
Its a way to reduce the variance in the power spectrum
estimate at the expense of a coarser frequency resolution.
\end{widetext}
For this stationary case, we get a further level of data reduction
in the sufficient statistics,
as we can average the coarsed-grained power spectrum
estimators \eqref{e:coarse-grained-estimators} over the
number of segments.
By construction, these segment-averaged estimators will
give expected values of
$P_h(f_\ell)$, $P_1(f_\ell)$, $P_2(f_\ell)$
over the {\it whole} observation.
This is fine for stationary data.
But if the detector
noise levels can change from segment to segment, then
this simple averaging will fail to capture the
non-stationarity of the noise.
We have to do something different for this more complicated,
but realistic, scenario.
\subsection{Colored signal+noise, non-stationary data}
\label{s:colored_nonstationary}
For non-stationary detector noise, we have to increase the number
of model parameters from
$P_{n_1}(f_\ell)$, $P_{n_2}(f_\ell)$, $P_h(f_\ell)$ to
$P_{n_1I}(f_\ell)$, $P_{n_2I}(f_\ell)$, $P_h(f_\ell)$,
where $I=1,2,\cdots, N_{\rm seg}$, since the noise levels
can differ from segment to segment.
We are assuming here that the power spectrum of the
stochastic signal is stationary, which is not necessarily
the case for a ``popcorn-like" background, such as that
produced by stellar-mass binary black hole mergers~\cite{tbs_methods}.
The covariance matrix for this case is then
\begin{equation}
\tilde C_I(f_\ell)
=\frac{T}{4}
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
P_{1I}(f_\ell) & \gamma(f_\ell) P_h(f_\ell)
\\
\gamma(f_\ell) P_h(f_\ell) & P_{2I}(f_\ell)
\end{array}
\right]\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&P_{1I}(f)\equiv P_{n_1 I}(f) + P_h(f)\,,
\\
&P_{2I}(f)\equiv P_{n_2 I}(f) + P_h(f)\,,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
are the auto-correlated detector power spectra
for segment $I$.
Similar to what we found in
\eqref{e:likefinal_colored_coarsegrained}, the
corresponding likelihood function
for a single segment of data can be written as
\begin{widetext}
\begin{multline}
p_I(d_I|P_{n_1 I}, P_{n_2 I}, P_h)
=\prod_\ell
\frac{1}{(\pi T/2)^{2M}
(P_{1I}(f_\ell)P_{2I}(f_\ell) - \gamma^2(f_\ell)P_h^2(f_\ell))^{M}}
\\
\times
\exp\left\{-\frac{M}
{(1-\gamma^2(f_\ell)P_h^2(f_\ell)/P_{1I}(f_\ell)P_{2I}(f_\ell))}\left[
\frac{\hat P_{1I}(f_\ell)}{P_{1I}(f_\ell)} + \frac{\hat P_{2I}(f_\ell)}{P_{2I}(f_\ell)}
- 2 \gamma^2(f_\ell) \frac{P_h(f_\ell) \hat P_{hI}(f_\ell)}{P_{1I}(f_\ell)P_{2I}(f_\ell)}
\right]\right\}\,,
\label{e:likefinal_colored_nonstationary}
\end{multline}
where the estimators
$\hat P_{hI}(f_\ell)$, $\hat P_{1I}(f_\ell)$, $\hat P_{2I}(f_\ell)$ are
the same as in \eqref{e:coarse-grained-estimators}.
We emphasize that this likelihood differs from that in
\eqref{e:likefinal_colored_coarsegrained} only by our
assumption that the noise is not stationary, which is
reflected in the fact that the parameters $P_{1I}(f_\ell)$, $P_{2I}(f_\ell)$
carry $I$ indices.
Note that the above likelihood has the same form as the white noise case
\eqref{e:likefinal_white}, but with both frequency and segment dependence
in the estimators and parameters.
The full expression for the likelihood function involves
a further product over $I$, as specified in
\eqref{e:product-likelihood-colored-segment}.
\subsection{Reduced version of the colored, non-stationary
likelihood function}
\label{s:colored_reduced}
To simplify the above analysis, we will proceed as we did
in Sec.~\ref{s:white_reduced}, where we considered a reduced
signal+noise model and its corresponding likelihood by
replacing the auto-correlated power spectral densities
with measured estimates $\bar P_{1I}(f_\ell)$, $\bar P_{2I}(f_\ell)$,
and working in the weak-signal approximation where
$P^2_h(f_\ell)/\bar P_{1I}(f_\ell) \bar P_{2I}(f_\ell)\ll 1$.
For a given discrete frequency $f_\ell$ and data segment $I$,
the reduction in the likelihood function has exactly the same
form as the white noise case,
which allows us to immediately write down:
\begin{equation}
p_I(d_I|\bar P_{1I}, \bar P_{2I}, P_h)
=\prod_\ell
\frac{e^{-2M}}
{(\pi T/2)^{2M}(\bar P_{1I}(f_\ell) \bar P_{2I}(f_\ell)(1+2/N_{\rm avg}))^M}
\exp\left[\frac{\hat P_{hI}^2(f_\ell)}{2\bar\sigma^2_{hI}(f_\ell)}\right]
\exp\left[-\frac{(\hat P_{hI}(f_\ell)-P_h(f_\ell))^2}{2\bar\sigma^2_{hI}(f_\ell)}\right]\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\bar \sigma^2_{hI}(f_\ell) \equiv \frac{1}{2T\delta f}
\frac{\bar P_{1I}(f_\ell)\bar P_{2I}(f_\ell)}{\gamma^2(f_\ell)}
(1+2/N_{\rm avg})\,,
\label{e:reduced_var_colored}
\end{equation}
which is the leading-order expression for the variance of $\hat P_{hI}(f_\ell)$.
(Here we used the relation $M=T\delta f$ for the coarse-grained frequencies,
and we included the factor of $(1+2/N_{\rm avg})$ to account for imperfect
estimation of the detector auto-correlated power spectra $\bar P_{1I}(f_{\ell})$,
$\bar P_{2I}(f_\ell)$.)
Additionally,
since the parameter $P_h(f_\ell)$ shows up only in the last exponential,
we can use identity \eqref{e:xopt_identity} from Appendix~\ref{s:useful_identity}
to perform the product over the number of data segments, which translates
into a sum over $I$ inside the exponential:
\begin{equation}
\sum_I \frac{(\hat P_{hI}(f_\ell)-P_h(f_\ell))^2}{\bar\sigma^2_{hI}(f_\ell)}
= \sum_I \frac{\hat P_{hI}^2(f_\ell)}{\bar\sigma^2_{hI}(f_\ell)}
-\frac{\hat P_{h,{\rm opt}}^2(f_\ell)}{\bar\sigma_{h,{\rm opt}}^2(f_\ell)}
+\frac{(\hat P_{h,{\rm opt}}(f_\ell) -P_h(f_\ell))^2}{\bar\sigma^2_{h,{\rm opt}}(f_\ell)}\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\frac{\hat P_{h,{\rm opt}}(f_\ell)}{\bar\sigma^2_{h,{\rm opt}}(f_\ell)}
&\equiv\sum_I
\frac{2T\delta f\gamma(f_\ell)}{\bar P_{1I}(f_\ell)\bar P_{2I}(f_\ell)}
\frac{1}{(1+2/N_{\rm avg})}
\frac{2}{T}\frac{1}{M}\sum_{k=\ell-M/2}^{\ell+M/2-1}
{\rm Re}\left(\tilde d_{1I}^*(f_k) \tilde d_{2I}(f_k)\right)\,,
\label{e:Sh_opt_freq}
\\
\frac{1}{\bar\sigma^2_{h,{\rm opt}}(f_\ell)}
&\equiv\sum_I
\frac{2T\delta f\gamma^2(f_\ell)}{\bar P_{1I}(f_\ell)\bar P_{2I}(f_\ell)}
\frac{1}{(1+2/N_{\rm avg})}\,.
\label{e:varh_opt_freq}
\end{align}
Thus, summing over both $I$ and $\ell$:
\begin{multline}
p(d|\{\bar P_{1I}\}, \{\bar P_{2I}\}, P_h)
\\
=\prod_\ell
\frac{e^{-2MN_{\rm seg}}}
{(\pi T/2)^{2MN_{\rm seg}}
\prod_I(\bar P_{1I}(f_\ell) \bar P_{2I}(f_\ell))^M}
\exp\left[\frac{\hat P_{h,{\rm opt}}^2(f_\ell)}{2\bar\sigma_{h,{\rm opt}}^2(f_\ell)}\right]
\exp\left[-\frac{(\hat P_{h,{\rm opt}}(f_\ell) -P_h(f_\ell))^2}{2\bar\sigma^2_{h,{\rm opt}}(f_\ell)}\right]\,.
\label{e:likefinal_colored_reduced}
\end{multline}
This is our main result.
Note that it has the same basic form as \eqref{e:likefinal_white_reduced},
which we derived for the white signal+noise case.
Thus, given some choice for the prior probability $p(P_h(f_\ell))$,
the posterior distribution for $P_h(f_\ell)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
p(P_h(f_\ell)|d, \{\bar P_{1I}(f_\ell)\}, \{\bar P_{2I}(f_\ell)\})
\propto
\exp\left[-\frac{(\hat P_{h,{\rm opt}}(f_\ell) -P_h(f_\ell))^2}{2\bar\sigma^2_{h,{\rm opt}}(f_\ell)}\right]
\,p(P_h(f_\ell))\,.
\end{equation}
This expression for the posterior shows that
$\hat P_{h,{\rm opt}}(f_\ell)$ and $\bar\sigma_{h,{\rm opt}}^2(f_\ell)$ given by
\eqref{e:Sh_opt_freq} and \eqref{e:varh_opt_freq} are sufficient
statistics for this
colored signal+noise, non-stationary analysis, assuming weak signals
and measured estimates of the auto-correlated power in two detectors
for each data segment.
\end{widetext}
In Figure~\ref{fig:compareWhiteColoredReduced}, we compare recoveries of
the amplitude of the GWB using the full and reduced versions of the
Bayesian likelihood functions appropriate for both white and colored data.
The simulated data are the same as that from the previous section, consisting
of a white GWB signal injected into white detector noise, for two coincident
and coaligned detectors.
For the reduced likelihood functions, the detector autocorrelated power were
estimated from an additional simulated data segment.
We see that all analyses agree very well, demonstrating that the
mathematical derivations capture the behavior of the fully-Bayesian
analysis in practice.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{compareWhiteColoredReduced}
\caption{Recovered posterior distributions for the amplitude of the
GWB as obtained from the full and reduced versions of the Bayesian
likelihood functions appropriate for both white and colored data.
The simulated data consisted of a white signal and white detector noise.}
\label{fig:compareWhiteColoredReduced}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{fig:ColoredInjectionComparison}, we compare recoveries
of the GWB amplitude and spectral index using the full and reduced
versions of the Bayesian likelihood function appropriate
for a colored signal+noise model.
For the full likelihood, we parameterize both the GWB signal and
detector noise as power laws of the form
\begin{equation}
P_h(f)= A \left(\frac{f}{f_{\rm ref}}\right)^\beta\,,
\qquad{\rm etc.}\,,
\end{equation}
where the $A$ is the amplitude, $\beta$ is the spectral index,
and $f_{\rm ref}$ is a reference frequency.
(The amplitude and spectral indices for the detector noise
will differ, in general, from those for the GWB.)
For this simulation the injected noise power spectra have
$A_{n_1}=A_{n_2}=0.125$, and $\beta_1=\beta_2=0.5$,
while the injected signal has $A=A_{n_1}/2$, $\beta=0$ (i.e., it
is white).
For the reduced likelihood function, the detector
auto-correlated
power were estimated from coarse-grained power spectral density
estimators applied to an additional simulated data segment.
\begin{figure*
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{corner}
\caption{Recovered posterior distributions obtained from
the full and reduced likelihood functions for a colored signal+noise model.
The simulated data consisted of a white GWB signal injected into
power-law detector noise.
The solid red lines show the injected values of the GWB
amplitude and spectral index.}
\label{fig:ColoredInjectionComparison}
\end{figure*}
Finally, we note that by using sufficient statistics, one
improves the computational efficiency of a search relative
to a fully-Bayesian analysis that works with the raw
{\it uncombined} time-domain (or frequency-domain) data samples.
For example,
for a stationary GWB, one can reduce the number of likelihood
evaluations by a factor of $MN_{\rm seg}$, where
$M\sim 10$-20 corresponds to coarse-graining, and
$N_{\rm seg}\sim 10^5$ comes from averaging six months of data
split into approximately one-minute data segments.
One simply precomputes the sufficient statistic data combinations
\eqref{e:Sh_opt_freq} and \eqref{e:varh_opt_freq},
and performs Bayesian inference (e.g., MCMC sampling) for the
corresponding likelihood function \eqref{e:likefinal_colored_reduced}.
\begin{widetext}
\subsection{Connection to LIGO's hybrid frequentist-Bayesian analysis}
\label{s:hybrid}
We can use the reduced-form of the likelihood
\eqref{e:likefinal_colored_reduced}
to search for GWB signals described by the power spectral density $P_h(f)$.
But to make connection with the literature on GWBs, we should parametrize
the background in terms of the (dimensionless) energy density spectrum~\cite{Allen_Romano_1999}:
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\rm gw}(f) \equiv
\frac{1}{\rho_c}\frac{{\rm d}\rho_{\rm gw}}{{\rm d}\ln f}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_c$ is the energy density needed to close the universe.
Then
\begin{equation}
P_h(f) = \frac{3H_0^2}{10\pi^2} \frac{\Omega_{\rm gw}(f)}{f^3}\,,
\end{equation}
which differs from the one-sided strain spectral density
$S_h(f)= (3 H_0^2/2\pi^2)\Omega_{\rm gw}(f)/f^3$ by a
factor of $1/5$, since we are interested here in the strain
response of a laser interferometer with a $90^\circ$ opening angle
between the arms~\cite{RomanoCornish}.
Thus, we can rewrite the likelihood function \eqref{e:likefinal_colored_reduced} in
terms of $\Omega_{\rm gw}(f)$ and its optimal estimator $\hat\Omega_{\rm gw}(f)$ as
\begin{multline}
p(d|\{\bar P_{1I}\}, \{\bar P_{2I}\},\Omega_{\rm gw})
\\
=\prod_\ell
\frac{e^{-2MN_{\rm seg}}}
{(\pi T/2)^{2MN_{\rm seg}}
\prod_I(\bar P_{1I}(f_\ell) \bar P_{2I}(f_\ell))^M}
\exp\left[\frac{\hat \Omega_{\rm gw}^2(f_\ell)}
{2\bar\sigma_{\rm gw}^2(f_\ell)}\right]
\exp\left[-\frac{(\hat\Omega_{\rm gw}(f_\ell)
-\Omega_{\rm gw}(f_\ell))^2}{2\bar\sigma^2_{\rm gw}(f_\ell)}\right]\,,
\label{e:likefinal_PE}
\end{multline}
where
\begin{align}
\frac{\hat\Omega_{\rm gw}(f_\ell)}{\bar\sigma^2_{\rm gw}(f_\ell)}
&\equiv\sum_I
\frac{2T\delta f}{\bar P_{1I}(f_\ell)\bar P_{2I}(f_\ell)}
\left(\frac{3H_0^2}{10\pi^2}\frac{\gamma(f_\ell)}{f_\ell^3}\right)
\frac{1}{(1+2/N_{\rm avg})}
\frac{2}{T}\frac{1}{M}\sum_{k=\ell-M/2}^{\ell+M/2-1}
{\rm Re}\left(\tilde d_{1I}^*(f_k) \tilde d_{2I}(f_k)\right)\,,
\label{e:Omega_gw_opt_freq}
\\
\frac{1}{\bar\sigma^2_{\rm gw}(f_\ell)}
&\equiv\sum_I
\frac{2T\delta f}{\bar P_{1I}(f_\ell)\bar P_{2I}(f_\ell)}
\left(\frac{3H_0^2}{10\pi^2}\frac{\gamma(f_\ell)}{f_\ell^3}\right)^2
\frac{1}{(1+2/N_{\rm avg})}\,.
\label{e:var_gw_opt_freq}
\end{align}
This is the form of the likelihood function that you'll find in
the LIGO-Virgo GWB literature, e.g., \cite{StochPE},
which serves as the starting point
for subsequent Bayesian parameter estimation analyses.
We can go one step further if we fix the spectral shape
of the GWB, and focus attention on estimating only its
amplitude at some reference frequency $f_{\rm ref}$, where
we normalize the spectral shape to have unit value.
(Typically $f_{\rm ref}=25~{\rm Hz}$ for LIGO-Virgo stochastic analyses.)
For example, for a power-law background with spectral index
$\alpha$, we have
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\rm gw}(f) \equiv \Omega_\alpha
\left(\frac{f}{f_{\rm ref}}\right)^\alpha\,,
\end{equation}
(note that there is no implied sum over $\alpha$ in the above equation).
The spectral index of $\Omega_{\rm gw}(f)$ is related to the spectral index of $P_{h}(f)$ defined in the previous section by $\alpha=\beta+3$.
Then we can perform the product over frequencies $f_\ell$, again
using identity \eqref{e:xopt_identity} from Appendix~\ref{s:useful_identity}
to do the relevant sum of the argument of the exponential.
This yields a likelihood function and posterior distribution for
the amplitude $\Omega_\alpha$ that are both proportional to
\begin{equation}
\exp\left[-\frac{(\hat\Omega_\alpha -\Omega_\alpha)^2}{2\bar\sigma^2_\alpha}\right]\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\frac{\hat \Omega_\alpha}{\bar\sigma^2_\alpha}
&\equiv\sum_I
\frac{2T\delta f}{\bar P_{1I}(f_\ell)\bar P_{2I}(f_\ell)}
\left(\frac{3H_0^2}{10\pi^2}\frac{\gamma(f_\ell)}{f_{\rm ref}^3}
\left(\frac{f_\ell}{f_{\rm ref}}\right)^{\alpha-3}\right)
\frac{1}{(1+2/N_{\rm avg})}
\frac{2}{T}\frac{1}{M}\sum_{k=\ell-M/2}^{\ell+M/2-1}
{\rm Re}\left(\tilde d_{1I}^*(f_k) \tilde d_{2I}(f_k)\right)\,,
\label{e:Omega_alpha}
\\
\frac{1}{\bar\sigma^2_\alpha}
&\equiv\sum_I
\frac{2T\delta f}{\bar P_{1I}(f_\ell)\bar P_{2I}(f_\ell)}
\left(\frac{3H_0^2}{10\pi^2}\frac{\gamma(f_\ell)}{f_{\rm ref}^3}
\left(\frac{f_\ell}{f_{\rm ref}}\right)^{\alpha-3}\right)^2
\frac{1}{(1+2/N_{\rm avg})}\,.
\label{e:var_alpha}
\end{align}
Note that the factor
\begin{equation}
Q(f)\equiv
\frac{3H_0^2}{10\pi^2}\frac{\gamma(f_\ell)}{f_{\rm ref}^3}
\left(\frac{f_\ell}{f_{\rm ref}}\right)^{\alpha-3}
\frac{1}{\bar P_{1I}(f_\ell)\bar P_{2I}(f_\ell)}\,,
\end{equation}
which multiplies the correlated data in \eqref{e:Omega_alpha},
is proportional to
the standard expression for the {\it optimal filter} in the frequency
domain, see e.g.,~\cite{Allen_Romano_1999, RomanoCornish}.
\end{widetext}
\subsection{Rigorous comparison}
\label{s:comparison}
As a check on the results of the previous section, we produce several
percentile-percentile (pp) plots \cite{pp_plot} to verify that the LIGO-Virgo
hybrid frequentist-Bayesian analysis has good statistical coverage.
To generate a pp plot, we first perform $N=300$ injections and recover the
injection with different likelihood functions, as described below. For each recovery, we
record the percentile of the posterior distribution at which the injected value
lies. We then plot the cumulative distribution function of the percentiles,
along with a 90\% credible interval determined using order statistics showing
the expected range of the cumulative distribution for each percentile value. If
the methods we use are unbiased, then the cumulative distribution should lie
within the 90\% credible interval, close to a diagonal line. Deviations from
this line indicate poor coverage, showing the method is biased.
First, we consider a set of white signal+noise injections.
We generate 300
noise and signal realizations, and recover the signal amplitude using the
full Bayesian likelihood,
reduced likelihood for a white signal+noise model,
and also the LIGO-Virgo hybrid frequentist-Bayesian analysis.
As emphasized previously, for the reduced likelihood, it is important to use data segments different
from the analysis segment to estimate the auto-correlated power
in the two detectors, in order to avoid a bias in the recovered parameters.
To illustrate
the importance of this point, we recover the signal using the reduced likelihood
analysis in two different ways: (i) using data segments different from the
analysis segment to estimate the auto-correlated power, and
(ii) using the same data segment as the analysis segment for
estimating the auto-correlated power.
We show the results of those analyses in Figure~\ref{fig:pp_plot_white}.
The analysis using the same data segment as the analysis segment
to estimate the auto-correlated power is clearly biased.
On the other hand, the full likelihood analysis, the reduced likelihood analysis and
the LIGO-Virgo stochastic analysis, the latter two of which use data segments
different from the analysis segment to
estimate the auto-correlated power, all show good coverage.
These analyses are not identical, however,
due to different conditioning of the data. In particular, the LIGO-Virgo
analysis computes the cross-correlation using 50\% overlapping Hann windows,
and estimates the auto-correlated
power by averaging Welch estimators from adjacent data segments.
In contrast, for our simple reduced likelihood analysis,
we do not window the data (which is okay for white data), and use a single
additional data segment for estimating the auto-correlated power.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{pp_plot_White.png} \caption{White signal+noise
analysis. The pp plot compares recoveries of the amplitude by the full likelihood, reduced
likelihood and LIGO-Virgo stochastic analyses, showing that they both have good Bayesian
coverage. The latter two analyses are not identical because of different choices made
in conditioning the data. The dotted line shows the bias obtained when using
the reduced likelihood analysis if the same data segment as the analysis segment
is used to estimate the auto-correlated power in the two detectors.}
\label{fig:pp_plot_white}
\end{figure}
Second, we perform a more realistic set of colored signal+noise injections,
and recover the signal with the LIGO-Virgo stochastic analysis. In
these injections, the theoretical noise power spectra are kept the same,
although the noise realization changes in every injection. The amplitude of
$P_h(f)$ at a reference frequency of 1~Hz is fixed, but we draw the
spectral index from a uniform prior probability
distribution ranging from $-3$ to $3$. We use the same prior on
the spectral index to perform the recovery. The realization of the GWB signal
changes in every injection. We perform two sets of 300 injections. In the
first set, the amplitude of $P_h(f)$ is set to be 1/8 of the amplitude of
$P_n(f)$ at the reference frequency in each segment, which is consistent with
the weak-signal approximation. In the second set, the amplitude of the signal is
set to 2 times the amplitude of the noise at the reference frequency in each
segment, which violates the weak-signal approximation.
In the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:pp_plots_colored}, we show the spectrum
associated with one injection in the weak-signal regime, along with the
injected noise and GWB signal spectra. In the bottom panel, we show the results
of the pp plot analysis for both strong and weak-signal amplitudes.
The recovery of both the amplitude and spectral index for weak signals
lie within the 90\% uncertainty, demonstrating good Bayesian
coverage. On the other hand, the recovery of the amplitude and spectral index
for strong signals lies outside the 90\% region. This is expected,
given that strong signals violate the weak-signal approximation, which was
used to derive the approximate equivalence of the LIGO-Virgo stochastic
analysis and the fully-Bayesian approach.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{spectrum}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{pp_plot_ColoredInj.png}
\caption{Colored signal+noise analysis. In the top panel, we show the injected noise
power spectrum $P_n(f)$ (the same for both detectors)
and the injected GWB power spectrum $P_h(f)$, along with the optimal
estimator $\hat{P}_{h,{\rm opt}}(f)$ and its uncertainty $\bar{\sigma}_{h,\rm
opt}(f)$ for one segment in one realization.
In the bottom panel, we show a pp
plot generated by performing 300 strong-signal and
300 weak-signal injections and recoveries.
We see that when the weak-signal approximation is satisfied,
the LIGO-Virgo stochastic analysis has excellent Bayesian coverage. Outside of
the weak-signal approximation, the coverage is less good, as expected.}
\label{fig:pp_plots_colored}
\end{figure}
\section{Sufficient statistics for cross-correlation searches
-- white signal+noise models}
\label{s:CCsearches_white}
Here we extend the calculations of the previous section to
cross-correlation searches for stochastic gravitational waves.
We restrict our attention in Sec.~\ref{s:white} to a
white signal+noise model, assuming stationary signal and noise
(see also Sec.~4 of Ref.~\cite{RomanoCornish}).
In Sec.~\ref{s:white_reduced}, we consider a {\it reduced}
version of this model, where we assume weak signals relative
to the detector noise and use measured estimates of the
auto-correlated power in each detector, as opposed to
having these as model parameters to be determined by the search.
Our analysis of the white noise case contains all of the
important steps present in the colored noise case that we
shall discuss in Sec.~\ref{s:CCsearches_colored}, but with
considerably less complication.
\subsection{White signal+noise, stationary data}
\label{s:white}
To start, let us consider two coincident and coaligned
detectors with uncorrelated noise.
We take both the detector noise and correlated stochastic
signal to be Gaussian, stationary and white.
We denote the variances by
$\sigma_{n_1}^2$, $\sigma_{n_2}^2$, $\sigma_h^2$, respectively.
We will not assume that we know the noise variances a~priori,
so we will try to recover $\sigma^2_{n_1}$ and $\sigma^2_{n_2}$ in addition
to $\sigma^2_h$.
Then the likelihood function is given by
\begin{equation}
p(d|\sigma^2_{n_1},\sigma^2_{n_2}, \sigma_h^2)
=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\det(2\pi C)}}\, e^{-\frac{1}{2} d^T C^{-1} d}\,,
\label{e:likelihood_white}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
C
\equiv \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
(\sigma^2_{n_1} +\sigma^2_h)\,\mathds{1}_{N\times N} & \sigma^2_h\,\mathds{1}_{N\times N}
\\
\sigma^2_h\,\mathds{1}_{N\times N} & (\sigma^2_{n_2} +\sigma^2_h)\,\mathds{1}_{N\times N}
\\
\end{array}
\right]
\label{e:C_white}
\end{equation}
is the covariance matrix and
\begin{equation}
d^T C^{-1} d
\equiv \sum_{\alpha,\beta} \sum_{i,j}
d_{\alpha i} \left(C^{-1}\right)_{\alpha i,\beta j} d_{\beta j}\,.
\label{e:argexp_white}
\end{equation}
The indices $i, j=1,2,\cdots, N$ label individual time samples, and
$\alpha, \beta=1,2$ label the two detectors.
The joint posterior distribution for the signal and noise variances is
\begin{multline}
p(\sigma^2_{n_1}, \sigma^2_{n_2},\sigma^2_h|d)
=\frac{p(d|\sigma^2_{n_1}, \sigma^2_{n_2}, \sigma_h^2)\>
p(\sigma^2_{n_1}, \sigma^2_{n_2}, \sigma_h^2)}{p(d)}\,,
\label{e:posterior}
\end{multline}
where $p(\sigma^2_{n_1}, \sigma^2_{n_2}, \sigma_h^2)$ is the joint prior probability
distribution, and
\begin{multline}
{p(d)}=
\int {\rm d} \sigma^2_{n_1}\int {\rm d} \sigma^2_{n_2} \int {\rm d} \sigma^2_h\>
\\
\times
p(d|\sigma^2_{n_1}, \sigma^2_{n_2}, \sigma_h^2)
p(\sigma^2_{n_1}, \sigma^2_{n_2}, \sigma_h^2)
\end{multline}
is the evidence for this signal+noise model.
It is easy to show that the maximum-likelihood estimators for the
parameters $\sigma^2_{n_1}$, $\sigma^2_{n_2}$, $\sigma_h^2$ are
given by the following quadratic combinations of the data:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\hat \sigma^2_{n_1} \equiv \frac{1}{N}\sum_i d_{1i}^2
- \frac{1}{N}\sum_i d_{1i} d_{2i}\,,
\\
&\hat \sigma^2_{n_2} \equiv \frac{1}{N}\sum_i d_{2i}^2
- \frac{1}{N}\sum_i d_{1i} d_{2i}\,,
\\
&\hat \sigma^2_h \equiv \frac{1}{N}\sum_i d_{1i} d_{2i}\,.
\end{aligned}
\label{e:MLestimators_white}
\end{equation}
These expressions show that it is also convenient to define
\begin{equation}
\hat \sigma^2_{1} \equiv \frac{1}{N}\sum_i d_{1i}^2\,,
\qquad
\hat \sigma^2_{2} \equiv \frac{1}{N}\sum_i d_{2i}^2\,,
\label{e:S1S2_white}
\end{equation}
which are estimators of the {\tt total} auto-correlated
variances in the two detectors:
\begin{equation}
\sigma^2_1\equiv \sigma^2_{n_1}+ \sigma^2_h\,,
\qquad
\sigma^2_2\equiv \sigma^2_{n_2}+ \sigma^2_h\,.
\label{e:S1S2_def}
\end{equation}
In the weak-signal limit $\sigma^2_1\approx \sigma^2_{n_1}$ and
$\sigma^2_2\approx \sigma^2_{n_2}$, but we will {\it not} make that
approximation at this stage.
We will discuss this approximation in
Sec.~\ref{s:white_reduced}.
To show that the above estimators are sufficient
statistics for this problem,
it suffices to show that the data enter the likelihood function
\eqref{e:likelihood_white}
{\it solely} in the form of these estimators,
up to an overall normalization that does not depend on the
signal and noise parameters.
Since the only part of the likelihood function that depends
on the data is the argument of the exponential,
we just need to show that $d^T C^{-1} d$ can be written in
terms of
$\hat \sigma_{n_1}^2$, $\hat \sigma_{n_2}^2$, $\hat \sigma_h^2$,
or, equivalently, in terms of
$\hat \sigma_1^2$, $\hat \sigma_2^2$, $\hat \sigma_h^2$.
Since the covariance matrix $C$ is a $2\times 2$-block matrix
with each block proportional to $\mathds{1}_{N\times N}$,
we can explicitly invert $C$, yielding
\begin{equation}
C^{-1}
= \frac{1}{\beta}\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\sigma^2_2\,\mathds{1}_{N\times N} & -\sigma^2_h\,\mathds{1}_{N\times N}
\\
-\sigma^2_h\,\mathds{1}_{N\times N} & \sigma^2_1\,\mathds{1}_{N\times N}
\\
\end{array}
\right]\,,
\label{e:Cinv_white}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\beta
&\equiv \sigma^2_1 \sigma^2_2 - (\sigma^2_h)^2
\\
&= \sigma_{n_1}^2 \sigma_{n_2}^2 + \left(\sigma_{n_1}^2+\sigma_{n_2}^2 \right) \sigma_h^2 > 0\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using this result, it is then straightforward to show that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
d^T C^{-1} d
&= \frac{1}{\beta}
\left[
\sigma^2_2\sum_i d_{1i}^2+\sigma^2_1\sum_i d_{2i}^2
-2\sigma^2_h\sum_i d_{1i} d_{2i}\right]
\\
&= \frac{N}{(1-(\sigma^2_h)^2/\sigma^2_1 \sigma^2_2)}\left[
\frac{\hat \sigma^2_1}{\sigma^2_1} + \frac{\hat \sigma^2_2}{\sigma^2_2}
- 2 \frac{\sigma^2_h \hat \sigma^2_h}{\sigma^2_1 \sigma^2_2}\right]\,.
\label{e:dCinvd_white}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Thus,
\begin{multline}
p(d|\sigma^2_{n_1}, \sigma^2_{n_2}, \sigma_h^2)
=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^N (\sigma^2_1 \sigma^2_2 - (\sigma^2_h)^2)^{N/2}}
\\
\times\exp\left\{-\frac{1}{2}
\frac{N}{(1-(\sigma^2_h)^2/\sigma^2_1 \sigma^2_2)}\left[
\frac{\hat \sigma^2_1}{\sigma^2_1} + \frac{\hat \sigma^2_2}{\sigma^2_2}
- 2 \frac{\sigma^2_h \hat \sigma^2_h}{\sigma^2_1 \sigma^2_2}\right]\right\}\,,
\label{e:likefinal_white}
\end{multline}
which depends on the data only via
$\hat \sigma^2_1$, $\hat \sigma^2_2$, $\hat \sigma^2_h$,
or, equivalently,
$\hat \sigma^2_{n_1}$, $\hat \sigma^2_{n_2}$, $\hat \sigma^2_h$.
\subsection{Weak-signal approximation, estimating detector auto-correlations}
\label{s:white_reduced}
We now consider a {\it reduced} signal+noise model and its corresponding
likelihood function, again for the case of white signal+noise,
stationary data.
The reduction in the model has two components:
First, instead of treating the detector noise variances
$\sigma^2_{n_1}$, $\sigma^2_{n_2}$ or the total auto-correlated variances
$\sigma^2_1$, $\sigma^2_2$ as free parameters for our analysis, we will
use {\it measured estimates} $\bar \sigma^2_1$, $\bar \sigma^2_2$ in
place of $\sigma^2_1$, $\sigma^2_2$.
We use overbars instead of hats to denote these
quantities to indicate that $\bar \sigma^2_1$, $\bar \sigma^2_2$ are
not the same as the maximum-likelihood data combinations
$\hat \sigma^2_1$, $\hat \sigma^2_2$ for the segment that we are analyzing.
For example, for the actual LIGO-Virgo stochastic searches,
the estimates of the auto-correlated power are
constructed from two segments of data (each approximately one minute in duration)
immediately preceding and following the analysis segment.
In fact, we will show in Fig.~\ref{fig:pp_plot_white} that if the
measured estimates of the autocorrelated power equal the
maximum-likelihood data combinations for the analysis segment, then we
obtain biased recoveries of the GWB spectrum, due to covariances between
the autocorrelation and cross-correlation estimators~\cite{Lazzarini:bias}.
(But see also the discussion of bias
at the end of Appendix~\ref{s:alternative_derivation}.)
Second, we will assume that the stochastic signal is {\it weak}
compared to the detector noise and thus keep only the
leading-order terms in expressions involving
$(\sigma^2_h)^2/\bar \sigma^2_1\bar \sigma^2_2\ll 1$.
To zeroth order, the detector noise and total auto-correlated
variances are equal to one another,
$\sigma^2_{n_1}\approx \sigma^2_1$,
$\sigma^2_{n_2}\approx \sigma^2_2$.
This weak-signal approximation is valid for searches for GWBs
using ground-based detectors like LIGO and Virgo.
It is not a good approximation for GWB searches using pulsar
timing arrays, where the auto-correlated power in the GWB may
exceed that due
to pulsar noise and timing measurement noise at very low
frequencies~\cite{Siemens-et-al:2013, arzoumanian2020nanograv}.
The likelihood function for the reduced signal+noise model
can be obtained from \eqref{e:likefinal_white} by making the
simplifications described above.
We first approximate the terms $\hat\sigma_1^2/\sigma_1^2$ and
$\hat\sigma_2^2/\sigma_2^2$ by 1, given that we are
replacing the parameters $\sigma_1^2$ and $\sigma_2^2$ by
measured estimates of these quantities.
We then replace the remaining factors of
$\sigma_1^2$, $\sigma_2^2$, which appear in
lihood
function in the combination $1/\sigma_1^2\sigma_2^2$ by
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\bar\Sigma_{12}^4}\equiv
\frac{1}{\bar\sigma_1^2\bar\sigma_2^2(1+2/N_{\rm avg})}\,,
\label{e:unbiased_1/P2}
\end{equation}
where $N_{\rm avg}$ (which we assume to be equal for both
detectors) is the number of averages used in the construction
of $\bar\sigma_1^2$, $\bar\sigma_2^2$, e.g., Welch power
spectrum estimates~\cite{Welch:1967}.
The justification for including the factor of $(1+2/N_{\rm avg})$
is given in Appendix~\ref{s:psd_uncertainties}; the factor
removes a bias that would otherwise exist in the estimation of
$1/\sigma_1^2\sigma_2^2$, due to the use of
a finite amount of data to construct $\bar\sigma_1^2$, $\bar\sigma_2^2$.
Making all these replacments in \eqref{e:likefinal_white},
we obtain
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
p(d|\bar \sigma^2_1, \bar \sigma^2_2, \sigma_h^2)
=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^N (\bar \Sigma_{12}^4)^{N/2}
(1- (\sigma^2_h)^2/\bar \Sigma_{12}^4)^{N/2}}
\exp\left\{-\frac{N}{(1-(\sigma^2_h)^2/\bar \Sigma_{12}^4)}
\left[1 - \frac{\sigma^2_h \hat \sigma^2_h}{\bar \Sigma_{12}^4}\right]\right\}\,.
\label{e:temp1}
\end{equation}
We then Taylor expand the RHS keeping only the leading-order
terms in
$(\sigma^2_h)^2/\sigma_1^2\sigma_2^2 = (\sigma^2_h)^2/\bar \Sigma_{12}^4$.
The $\sigma^2_h$ factor in front of the exponential can be written as
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{(1-(\sigma^2_h)^2/\bar \Sigma^4_{12})^{N/2}}
\approx 1+\frac{N}{2}\frac{(\sigma^2_h)^2}{\bar \Sigma^4_{12}}
\approx\exp\left[\frac{N}{2}\frac{(\sigma^2_h)^2}{\bar \Sigma^4_{12}}\right]\,,
\end{equation}
while the exponential factor itself becomes
\begin{equation}
\exp\left\{-\frac{N}{(1-(\sigma^2_h)^2/\bar \Sigma^4_{12})}
\left[1 - \frac{\sigma^2_h \hat \sigma^2_h}{\bar \Sigma^4_{12}}\right]\right\}
\approx
\exp\left\{-{N}\left(1+\frac{(\sigma^2_h)^2}{\bar \Sigma^4_{12}}
- \frac{\sigma^2_h \hat \sigma^2_h}{\bar \Sigma^4_{12}}\right)\right\}\,.
\end{equation}
Combining these last two expressions gives
\begin{equation}
\exp\left[-\frac{N}{2}\left(2 +
\frac{(\sigma^2_h)^2-2 \sigma^2_h\hat \sigma^2_h}{\bar \Sigma^4_{12}}\right)\right]
=
e^{-N}
\exp\left[\frac{(\hat \sigma^2_h)^2}{2\,{\rm var}(\hat\sigma^2_h)}\right]
\exp\left[-\frac{(\hat \sigma^2_h-\sigma^2_h)^2}{2\,{\rm var}(\hat\sigma^2_h)}\right]\,,
\end{equation}
where we completed the square in $\sigma^2_h$ and $\hat \sigma^2_h$ and made the substitution
\begin{equation}
{\rm var}({\hat \sigma^2_h})
\equiv {\bar \Sigma^4_{12}}/{N}=
\left(1 + {2}/{N_{\rm avg}}\right){{\bar \sigma^2_1\bar \sigma^2_2}}/{N}\,,
\label{e:reduced_var_white}
\end{equation}
which is the leading-order expression for the variance of the maximum-likelihood
estimator $\hat \sigma^2_h$.
Thus,
\begin{equation}
p(d|\bar \sigma_1^2, \bar \sigma_2^2, \sigma_h^2)
=\frac{e^{-N}}{(2\pi)^N (N{\rm var}(\hat\sigma_h^2))^{N/2}}
\exp\left[\frac{(\hat \sigma^2_h)^2}{2\,{\rm var}(\hat\sigma^2_h)}\right]
\exp\left[-\frac{(\hat \sigma^2_h-\sigma^2_h)^2}{2\,{\rm var}(\hat\sigma^2_h)}\right]\,,
\label{e:likefinal_white_reduced}
\end{equation}
which shows that $\hat \sigma^2_h$ and ${\rm var}(\hat\sigma^2_h)$
are sufficient statistics for this reduced signal+noise model.
Note that the $\sigma^2_h$-dependent term in the likelihood function has the same
general form as that for the simple example described in Sec.~\ref{s:example};
see \eqref{e:p(d|a)_suffstat}.
(In Appendix~\ref{s:alternative_derivation}, we present an alternative
derivation of the likelihood function for a reduced signal+noise model,
but under different assumptions than used here.)
\end{widetext}
Figure~\ref{f:comparison_suffstat_reduced} compares the marginalized
posterior distributions for $\sigma^2_h$ calculated from the two likelihood
functions, \eqref{e:likefinal_white} and \eqref{e:likefinal_white_reduced},
for a short stretch of simulated time-series data consisting of a white signal
injected into white noise in two coincident and coaligned detectors.
The simulated noise had variances $\sigma^2_{n_1}=\sigma^2_{n_2}=1$, while
the injected signal had $\sigma^2_h=0.3$.
For 512~samples, these values correspond to an expected
signal-to-noise ratio
$\rho = \sqrt{N}\,{\sigma^2_h}/\sqrt{\sigma^2_1\sigma^2_2}=5.22$
for the full set of data.
Note, however, that $(\sigma^2_h)^2/\sigma^2_1\sigma^2_2 =0.05\ll 1$,
consistent with the weak-signal approximation.
The blue histogram is the marginalized posterior for $\sigma^2_h$ calculated
from the full likelihood function \eqref{e:likefinal_white}; the orange histogram
is the marginalized posterior for $\sigma^2_h$ calculated from the reduced
likelihood function \eqref{e:likefinal_white_reduced}.
For the reduced likelihood analysis, the detector auto-correlated power were
estimated from an additional simulated data segment.
The dashed vertical grey line and the dashed vertical red line show
the injected value of $\sigma^2_h$ and the maximum-likelihood value $\hat \sigma^2_h$.
\begin{figure}[h!tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{compareWhiteFullReduced}
\caption{Comparison of the marginalized posteriors for the full
likelihood function \eqref{e:likefinal_white} (blue histogram)
and its reduced version \eqref{e:likefinal_white_reduced} (orange histogram),
which substitutes
measured estimates $\bar \sigma^2_1$, $\bar \sigma^2_2$ for the auto-correlated
power $\sigma^2_1$, $\sigma^2_2$ and keeps only leading-order terms in
$(\sigma^2_h)^2/\bar \sigma^2_1\bar \sigma^2_2$.}
\label{f:comparison_suffstat_reduced}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
\label{s:discussion}
In this paper, we have shown in what sense LIGO-Virgo's
hybrid frequentist-Bayesian cross-correlation analysis
for a GWB is equivalent to a fully-Bayesian search.
The main result was our proof that for a reduced
signal+noise model consisting of weak signals and
estimated auto-correlated power spectra, the frequency
integrand of the cross-correlation statistic and its
variance are sufficient statistics for the recovery of the GWB.
This means that the posterior distributions of the recovered
spectrum of the GWB (e.g., its amplitude and spectral index)
will agree for the hybrid frequentist-Bayesian analysis
and the fully-Bayesian analysis in the context of this
reduced signal+noise model.
The results of our analyses on simulated data are
consistent with those
found in \cite{Biscoveanu-et-al:2020}, which describes a
fully-Bayesian implementation of LIGO's stochastic search
that can estimate the presence of a primordial GWB in the
presence of an astrophysical foreground.
We note that a similar hybrid frequentist-Bayesian analysis
is also being used for
pulsar timing array searches for a GWB
produced by inspiraling supermassive blackhole binaries
associated with galaxy mergers.
Here a {\it noise-marginalized} version of the
cross-correlation statistic~\cite{Vigeland-et-al:2018, Anholm-et-al:2009}
is used to avoid strong covariances
that exist between individual estimates of pulsar red noise
parameters and the amplitude of the GWB.
Noise marginalization is performed by drawing values of the
pulsars' red noise parameters from posterior distributions
that were generated by an earlier Bayesian analysis which
jointly estimates the pulsar's red noise parameters and that
of a common red process (e.g., the auto-correlated power due
to the GWB), which may exceed the noise at the
lowest observed frequencies.
This leads to a more accurate recovery of the amplitude of
the GWB at relatively little computational cost to the
cross-correlation statistic analysis.
A similar hierarchical approach, which first estimates the
auto-correlated component of the background before looking
for evidence of cross-correlations, would mostly likely
also be needed for analyzing
data from proposed {\it 3rd generation} (3G) ground-based
detectors, like Cosmic Explorer~\cite{Reitze:2019_Cosmic_Explorer}
and Einstein Telescope~\cite{Maggiore:2020_ET}.
The expected sensitivity of these 3G detectors is such that
the weak-signal approximation in a single segment of data is
no longer valid, at least for the rate of binary black hole
mergers that advanced LIGO and Virgo are currently
observing~\cite{rates_O1_O2}.
As such, simply estimating the auto-correlated power spectra
without assigning some portion of it to the GWB would lead to biased
estimates of the amplitude of the background, similar to
what is seen in pulsar timing analyses~\cite{Vigeland-et-al:2018}.
It may be possible to extend the results of our paper to other
signal+noise models, such as a
non-stationary ``popcorn-like" background produced e.g., by
stellar-mass binary black hole mergers in the LIGO frequency
band~\cite{tbs_methods}.
For such a background, one would need to use a {\it mixture}
signal+noise prior to model the non-stationarity,
which amounts to postulating the presence of a correlated
GWB signal in a certain fraction $\xi$ of the data segments and
just noise for the remaining segments, with
fraction $1-\xi$~\cite{tbs_methods}.
The detection of a GWB in this scenario would
amount to a posterior distribution for $\xi$ strongly peaked
away from zero.
By focusing on a GWB signal model that consists of just
excess correlation in a
certain fraction of data segments (as opposed to
marginalizing over the parameters of
potential BBH mergers~\cite{tbs_methods}),
one should be able to implement a computationally-efficient
and robust (albeit suboptimal) search for a non-stationary GWB.
\section{Simple example}
\label{s:example}
Perhaps the simplest example of a non-trivial sufficient
statistic is the sample mean of the data
for a constant signal in white, Gaussian noise
(see Sec.~3.5 of Ref.~\cite{RomanoCornish} for
a more detailed treatment of this example.)
We suppose we record $N$ time-series data samples
$d\equiv\{d_i\}$ as
\begin{equation}
d_i = a + n_i\,,
\qquad i=1,2,\cdots, N\,,
\end{equation}
where $a>0$ is the amplitude of the signal and $n_i$
denotes the $i$th sample of the noise.
For simplicity, we will assume that the noise is white and has
zero mean---i.e.,
$\langle n_i \rangle =0$, $\langle n_i n_j \rangle = \sigma^2\,\delta_{ij}$,
and that the variance $\sigma^2$ is known a~priori.
The likelihood function is then
\begin{equation}
p(d|a) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{N/2} \sigma^N}
\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}\sum_i (d_i - a)^2\right]\,,
\label{e:p(d|a)}
\end{equation}
which has the interpretation of being the probability of
observing the data $d$ given a signal of amplitude $a$ in
white noise with known variance $\sigma^2$.
It is fairly straight-forward to show that the
maximum-likelihood estimator of the amplitude $a$ is
given by the sample mean of the data
\begin{equation}
\hat a
\equiv a_{\rm ML}(d)
= \frac{1}{N}\sum_i d_i\,.
\label{e:ahat}
\end{equation}
This is an unbiased estimator of $a$
and has variance
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\hat a}^2 =\sigma^2/N\,.
\end{equation}
In terms of $\hat a$,
the data-dependent term in the likelihood becomes
\begin{equation}
\sum_i (d_i - a)^2
=\sum_i d_i^2 - N\hat a^2 + N(\hat a -a)^2\,.
\end{equation}
This equation is a special case of the general identity \eqref{e:xopt_identity}, which
is discussed and proven in Appendix~\ref{s:useful_identity},
and which we will use in future sections.
The likelihood can then be rewritten in the form
\begin{multline}
p(d|a) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{N/2} \sigma^N}
\\
\times\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}\sum_i d_i^2\right]
\exp\left[\frac{\hat{a}^2}{2\sigma_{\hat a}^2}\right]
\exp\left[-\frac{(\hat{a} - a)^2}{2\sigma^2_{\hat a}}\right]
\label{e:p(d|a)_suffstat}
\end{multline}
In this expression, we see that the data appear {\it only}
via the combination $\hat{a}$, up to a proportionality factor
which is {\it independent} of the parameter $a$.
By precomputing the sample mean $\hat{a}$ and $\sum_i d_i^2$,
we can reduce the evaluation of the likelihood from $O(N)$
to $O(1)$ operations.
The posterior distribution for $a$, denoted $p(a|d)$, is
calculated using Bayes' theorem
\begin{equation}
p(a|d) = \frac{p(d|a)p(a)}{p(d)}\,,
\end{equation}
where $p(a)$ is the {\it prior probability distribution}
for $a$, and
\begin{equation}
p(d) \equiv \int {\rm d}a\> p(d|a) p(a)
\end{equation}
is the so-called {\it evidence} (or {\it marginalized likelihood}).
Since $p(d)$ is independent of $a$, the evidence acts as a normalization factor
as far as the posterior distribution of
$a$ is concerned.
Thus, one often writes $p(a|d)\propto p(d|a) p(a)$ for
posterior distribution calculations.
For this example,
\begin{equation}
p(a|d)
\propto
\exp\left[-\frac{(\hat a-a)^2}{2\sigma_{\hat a}^2}\right]\, p(a)\,,
\end{equation}
where the data enter the RHS of the above expression only
via the expression \eqref{e:ahat} for the maximum-likelihood
estimator $\hat a\equiv a_{\rm ML}(d)$.
This shows that $\hat a$ is a sufficient statistic for $a$.
Finally, we note that the prior probability distribution $p(a)$
is chosen based on expectations for `$a$' prior to observing the data.
It is common to use {\it flat} or {\it log-uniform} priors,
\begin{equation}
p(a) = {\rm const}
\quad{\rm or}\quad
p(a) = {\rm const}/a\,,
\end{equation}
defined over some interval
$[a_{\rm min}, a_{\rm max}]$, where the constants in
these expressions are determined
by the normalization condition $\int {\rm d}a\> p(a)=1$.
Note that non-trivial priors imply that the maximum-likelihood
and maximum-posterior values will differ in general.
For the analyses that we will perform in the following sections,
we will consider flat priors for simplicity, but
note here that the results we obtain are valid for arbitrary,
non-flat priors as well.
\section{Introduction}
\label{s:intro}
Current searches for stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds (GWBs)
using ground-based laser interferometers
(e.g., the Advanced LIGO~\cite{aLIGO_2015} and Virgo~\cite{aVirgo_2015}
detectors) use a hybrid of frequentist and Bayesian analysis
techniques~\cite{stoch_O2, stoch_dir_O2, RomanoCornish}.
Certain frequentist statistics
(namely, frequency integrands for the cross-correlation statistic and its
variance) are calculated for relatively short stretches of time-series
data (of order a couple of minutes), and then combined using inverse-noise
weighting to produce two final frequency series, valid for the
whole observation period (of order several months to a year).
These frequency series are then used as the fundamental input data and
variance for a subsequent Bayesian
analysis that calculates posterior probability distributions and
Bayesian upper limits on the strength of potential correlated
gravitational-wave signals~\cite{StochPE}.
These hybrid frequentist-Bayesian analyses have been used
to place upper limits on
GWBs with different amplitudes and spectral shapes \cite{stoch_O1,stoch_O2};
GWBs having non-GR polarizations predicted by alternative
theories of gravity~\cite{TestingGR_stoch, stoch_O2}; and
potential contamination from correlated global magnetic
fields---i.e., Schumann resonances~\cite{Schumann_1, Schumann_2, Schumann_3, Schumann_4, Meyers:2020qrb}.
On the other hand, most searches for GWBs using pulsar timing
data~\cite{Arzoumanian:2018saf, arzoumanian2020nanograv}
and proposed searches using space-based detectors like
LISA~\cite{Adams:2013qma}
are {\it fully} Bayesian, proceeding directly from the time-series
data to posterior distributions and upper limits, without ever
calculating a cross-correlation frequency integrand or statistic.
So the question naturally arises as to whether LIGO and Virgo's
current hybrid frequentist-Bayesian analysis is losing
information relative to a fully-Bayesian search.
As we shall show below, the answer is basically ``no".
We assume that we can work in the weak-signal approximation,
and we use measured
estimates of the auto-correlated power in each detector,
as opposed to trying to infer the noise power spectra as
part of the full analysis.
Under these simplifications, the frequency integrands of the cross-correlation statistic
and its variance are approximately lossless combinations of
the full time-series data in terms of which the full
likelihood function can be rewritten.
Hence, Bayesian posterior distributions produced from these
frequency series
agree quite well with those produced from the full time-series data.
Said another way, the frequency integrands of the cross-correlation
statistic and its variance are approximate {\it sufficient
statistics} for the analysis, so the hybrid frequentist-Bayesian
method is essentially equivalent to a full Bayesian analysis.
The calculations presented in this paper can also be thought of as
a providing an alternative conceptual starting point for
LIGO-Virgo's stochastic cross-correlation analysis.
We use the full Bayesian likelihood function
as a {\it organizing} priniciple, out of which the LIGO-Virgo
stochastic analyses follows.
Various steps in the stochastic analysis,
such as coarse graining of cross-correlated data~\cite{stoch_S1},
estimating auto-correlated power spectra from neighboring data
segments~\cite{Lazzarini:bias},
inverse-noise weighting, optimal filtering~\cite{Allen_Romano_1999},
the inclusion of ``bias" factors for the
theoretical variance~\cite{Lazzarini:bias},
and the use of
the cross-correlation frequency integrand and its variance to do
parameter estimation and model selection~\cite{StochPE}, all follow directly
from the Bayesian likelihood under the assumptions of a weak signal
and estimated auto-correlated detector power spectra.
We also see opportunities to develop new methods to look for
signals which violate our assumptions.
Our main result will be to show that the full Gaussian likelihood
for a stochastic background
(cf.~equations \eqref{e:product-likelihood-colored-segment}
and \eqref{e:likelihood-colored-segment})
is equivalent to the reduced likelihood given in
equation \eqref{e:likefinal_colored_reduced},
under the approximations enumerated above.
To do this, we will build up the tools necessary in a series of increasingly more realistic (and more complex) scenarios.
In Sec.~\ref{s:example}, we give a simple example of a sufficient
statistic in the context of a search for a constant deterministic
signal in the output of a single detector.
This example serves as a basis
for the calculations in the following two sections
for cross-correlation-based searches for stochastic gravitational waves.
We first restrict attention in Sec.~\ref{s:CCsearches_white} to
white signal+noise models, and stationary data.
We then extend our analyses in Sec.~\ref{s:CCsearches_colored} to
colored signal+noise models, allowing for non-stationary noise.
Both of these sections present results of different analyses
performed on simulated data comparing posterior distributions
produced by fully-Bayesian and sufficient-statistic analyses.
We conclude in Sec.~\ref{s:discussion} with a brief summary,
followed by a discussion of other related approaches in the
literature, and possible extensions of these results.
We also include three appendices:
Appendix~\ref{s:useful_identity} contains a simple, yet very useful,
identity \eqref{e:xopt_identity} that we use repeatedly throughout
the paper;
Appendix~\ref{s:psd_uncertainties} summarizes uncertainties in power
spectrum estimation; and
Appendix~\ref{s:alternative_derivation} gives an alternative
derivation of a reduced
likelihood function, but which makes different assumptions
than those given in the main text.
|
\section{Introduction}
As the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME) appears for its twentieth incarnation, we wish to take a moment to draw attention to a variety of interrelated themes that have reached a crisis point within the conference discourse. We see these as exigencies requiring not only critical reflection, but also urgent mediation given that many of the prevailing concerns have been voiced by NIME participants and those from its adjacent communities for many years. Specifically, we will discuss the relationships between prevailing sociopolitical and epistemological struggles within the field through the `planar' framework set out by Born. Born's model interrogates the ways in which multiple temporalities and social planes are at play within historical analyses of musical institutions and their surrounding discourses, and how cultural eras are shaped by these \cite{born2010relational}. While our tone may appear less than optimistic, we believe that in drawing awareness to these structural forces in order to demonstrate how ``powerful discourses or metaphors come to structure musical experiences... conditioning the future musical expressions" \cite[p14]{born2005musical}, there will emerge bountiful opportunities to enrich and transform the field.
\subsection{Declaration of Affiliation}
In this work, we draw analyses not only from what has been documented in the NIME proceedings and the adjacent literature, but also through our lived experiences as participants in the conference. We have been involved with the NIME field in a variety of roles since 2011 and 2010 respectively. We have participated over the years as authors, co-authors, performers, workshop participants, reviewers, and as part of the Program Committee. Between us, we have attended NIME eleven times, and presented our work fourteen times as a combination of papers, posters, and performances. We have both contributed to the first NIME reader \cite{jensenius2017nime}, a collection of works intended to represent a chronological anthology of the field's activities. We have attended and spoken out at NIME town halls, taught NIME-related courses within universities in North and Latin America, and the UK, and we view certain aspects of the NIME discourse as being foundational in our research and practice.
Yet, we must acknowledge from the outset that our research agendas do not happily align with the dominant narratives that have been reified and reproduced over the course of our engagement with the field. We observe the community emerging from the NIME conference to be extensively heterogeneous in spite of sharing a common interest. This diversity, while having been celebrated since the conference began, does create a problem of a shared perspective and understanding amongst different interest groups \cite{marquez2017}. Overlaps of varying degrees exist between affiliated subdiscplines, conference communities, and academic fields. As such, we refer to `the NIME community' and `NIME research' in the broadest possible senses throughout, allowing for the inclusion of those who may have been faced with barriers to attend or participate in the conference itself. We also hesitantly will use the acronym to refer to both the conference proper, along with its associated research and practice but wish to stress that NIME may suffer from the same existential issues as those applied to `music technology' as a field of study in Boehm's paper on ``[t]he discipline that never was" \cite[p7]{boehm2007discipline}. We are also reluctant to encourage the normalisation of NIME as a noun, often observed to be used interchangeably with digital musical instrument (DMI). These formulations both centre and simultaneously exclude particular themes, notably the embodied and the social aspects of musical activity in the latter case.
\section{Tracing the N, I, M, and the E}
\begin{quote}The historical present in electronic music and sound cultures is full of contradiction \cite[p79]{rodgers2015cultivating}.\end{quote}
While the very words of New Interfaces for Musical Expression have been contested and explicated individually\footnote{See a case for `ecologies' over `expression' in \cite{gurevich2007expression}.}---and which we ourselves appropriate for the title of this work---it is the I of `interfaces' that Gurevich suggests is often invoked to cement NIME as a field that is historically rooted in the musical inventions from around the turn of the twentieth century \cite{gurevich2016diversity}. This ``audio-technical" \cite[p3]{rodgers2010synthesizing} framing centres the transduction of environmental changes into electrical, and then acoustic signals; the design of---and subsequently engagement with---technical systems or artefacts forms the basis of enquiry. Gurevich also traces an alternative history that is woven through the practices and theoretical writings of what appears to be predominantly male\footnote{Daphne Oram in also included in this short list.} Euro-American composers and experimentalists. He suggests that this framing is more aligned with what would now comprise the methodologies of creative practice research (CPR). While technical reports from the International Computer Music Conference (ICMC) predate the first NIME workshop, explicit formal scientific writing about such new interfaces is generally seen to have emerged concurrently with the conference.
Arguably, the conference's remit has expanded greatly from a focus on interactive interfaces and novel methods for controlling audio digital signal processing (DSP). The growing number of topics within the conference's Call for Participation evidence this apparent increase, with the eight listed in NIME 2001 growing to twenty-six in 2020\footnote{See \url{https://www.nime.org/past-nimes/}}. While the first few years of the conference saw a fairly continuous growth in participation, the stabilisation in conference attendee numbers that has followed has not been accompanied by epistemological clarity within the research \cite{gurevich2016diversity}. Observations from within the community itself bemoan NIME as an ``artifact-centered field of research" \cite[p1]{elblaus2014nime}, where the discourse has ``tended to focus on implementation issues---with some coverage of performance---but with very scant coverage of wider issues of practice" \cite[p78]{green2016situation}. As Green notes, even where researchers have acknowledged the importance of musical performance practice as a site for evaluation\footnote{This comment refers to an emergent trend within NIME discourse to address the need to evaluate new instruments within a formal framework. This assumes that this kind of evaluation is a primary goal of the research.}, these studies tend to centre on technical objects rather than wider questions of musicality \cite{green2014nime}.
Concurrently, we see an emergence of calls to the community to address the wider sociopolitical concerns associated with the field. In the title of her paper focusing on questions of representation and authorship, Xamb{\'o} asks ``Who Are the Women Authors in NIME?" \cite{xambo2018women}. Yet \textit{fifteen} years earlier, drawing on feminist theory and science and technology studies (STS), Essl's summons to the NIME community provided an emphatic critique of a discourse which was almost exclusively ``gender unaware, or uncritical" \cite[p26]{essl2003gender}.
In 2018, the NIME Steering Committee announced a new conference Diversity Statement\footnote{\url{https://www.nime.org/diversity/} \label{refnote}} and Code of Conduct\footnote{\url{https://www.nime.org/code-of-conduct/}}. The former states that one of the goals of NIME is to foster an inclusive environment which invites ``participation from people of all ethnicities, genders, ages, abilities, religions, and sexual orientations"\textsuperscript{\ref{refnote}}. This follows moves within the Association for Computing Machinery's (ACM) Special Interest Group on Computer–Human Interaction (SIGCHI)\footnote{\url{https://sigchi.org/conferences/organizer-resources/organising-a-sigchi-sponsored-} {\url{or-co-sponsored-conference/}}} which encourage that such statements be posted on conference websites, a practice which started appearing in the SIGCHI academic conferences around 2016. Yet, even as NIME 2020 foregrounds the theme of `accessibility', as Skuse notes in her work grounded in critical disability studies, true participation for disabled\footnote{Skuse invokes the social model of disability: the processes of being actively disabled by societal structures, or lack of infrastructures, over the commonly assumed medical model.} musicians can look very different from approaches to accessible technology design which often attempt to ``fix a problem perceived by the non-disabled community" \cite[p4]{skuse}. This point also flags up issues of participation more broadly, and the perpetuated dichotomy between `researchers'---inventors, engineers, designers, musicians, and so on---on one hand, and `users'---imagined recipients of the technical objects---on the other.
\subsection{Socialities, Temporalities, and NIME}
While space prevents us from addressing the various issues that we raise here in substantial depth, we instead offer an overview and synthesis of a now significantly substantial discourse. Certainly, we are conflating a host of issues that have been brought to the NIME community as distinct topics. Yet all of these may be addressed by examining the broader academic, sociopolitical, and historical currents that bind them together. In what follows we ask why, when the ``discipline should be overcoming its initial growing pains" \cite[p80]{gurevich2016diversity}, it seems to have failed to do so. While Gurevich's question was specifically directed towards epistemological and methodological issues within NIME, we extend it here to the wider sociopolitical realms.
Elblaus and his co-authors have asked, ``what activities are peripheral or external to the domain of NIME development, and is this demarcation made explicit by the researchers or is it implicit?" \cite[p1]{elblaus2014nime}. They suggest that if such boundaries have arisen fortuitously, it is important to interrogate the underlying objectives and motivations of NIME research. In stating our affiliation with NIME, we are positioning ourselves as participants within this discourse. Yet, as demonstrated in Born's framework for understanding the multiple temporalities that are at play within the historical constructs of cultural institutions \cite{born1995rationalizing}, the ``[a]ssess-\\ment of the degree of invention immanent in a particular cultural object... cannot be read off the protagonists' discourse" \cite[p96]{born2010social}. As such, we draw upon not only the official conference proceedings, but also from adjacent publications in related journals, various panels, and associated conferences. Furthermore, we underscore that the institutional situatedness of these platforms should not be the limiting case of NIME's scope and community. Importantly, we attempt to situate this discussion beyond the ``micro-socialities" \cite[p234]{born2010relational} of these domains, attending to a wider cultural and historical analysis.
Born's extensive project maps out musicological research as an interdisciplinary field, encompassing four topic areas: sociality, temporality, technology, and ontology \cite{born2010relational}. Promoting a relational model, Born's work aims to move beyond the subdisciplinary boundaries that have persisted within musical scholarship by challenging the assumed music/social opposition. As Green has noted, this framework can be applied to help develop new ways of addressing the complexities of the subdiscplinary areas within the context of NIME research \cite{green2014nime}. Specifically, this approach can help to trouble the commitment to binary understandings which separate the ways in which both music and social processes are mediated within NIME research and practice. Regarding sociality, for example, there has been extensive NIME research on the micro-socialities of the first plane---that of musical activity, such as performing with an instrument---and on the second, with the various imagined public groups that engage in these activities, `laptop musicians'\footnote{Both authors perform with laptops but do not associate with this term, nor its related imagined community.} being one such example. On the third plane, only a few clusters of activity within NIME have broached larger issues such as gender, as mentioned previously\footnote{Here we refer to not only the ensuing conversations regarding representation, but moreover the complex ways in which audio-technical discourses become gendered through various mechanisms including language (see \cite{rodgers2010synthesizing}).}. Yet discussions of, for example, race are glaringly absent. On the fourth plane, Born appeals to the social theories of Foucault, Bourdieu, and others, in order to analyse ``the political economy, institutional structures and globalized circulation of music" \cite[p232]{born2010relational}. We suggest that it is now critical to examine how the institutional structures that support NIME research help to sustain and reproduce limiting dominant narratives, and where they might instead be transformational.
A similar planar scaling is elucidated with respect to the notion of temporalities\footnote{It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the applications of the two other topics of technology and ontology, but it is no doubt obvious that the former should be highly fruitful for NIME scholars to explore.}. This encompasses moving from the highly studied temporal orderings of musical phenomena such as tempo, rhythm, and so on, on the first plane, through musical events (second), genres (third), and finally to the ways in which music and time are co-mediated within various shifting technological, cultural, and sociopolitical conditions, thereby shaping how larger musical epochs evolve \cite{born2010relational}. Significantly, by repeating, privileging, and ultimately reifying certain aesthetic and methodological modalities over the course of its history, there is a danger that the musics and musical activities associated with NIME might fall into the same ``anti-inventive" trappings that Born has identified within other musical institutions, effecting ``a mobile stasis, a capacity to prolong the governing aesthetic by resisting or repressing significant musical change" \cite[p241]{born2010relational}.
\subsection{Research Diversity in Context}
NIME has always appeared to champion the importance of the sociocultural implications of the numerous innovative and technological developments that it produces. While listed in last place as a relevant topic for the first NIME workshop in 2001, it is evident that the organizers were clearly sympathetic to the idea of addressing the ``artistic, cultural, and social impact of new musical interfaces"\footnote{See \url{https://www.nime.org/2001/} \label{refnote2}.}. Yet how far has NIME research successfully been able to mediate the four social planes set out by Born in order to fully understand the potential reach of its own labours?
It is uncontroversial to state that sociocultural contexts contribute in shaping research directives, theory, and methods. For example, within the broader human-computer interaction (HCI) domain, how and why such changes take place has been observed and studied. Deemed `waves' \cite{harrison2007three}, these paradigm shifts outline the main ontological and epistemological concerns diachronically, beginning with classical cognitivism, and leading to the current phenomenologically-oriented `third wave' HCI paradigm. These orientations reflect the emphasis given to human experiences and the meaning arising from interaction, rather than mere work or the efficient usage of particular systems. The underlying theoretical basis for such research indeed reflects the emergence of the then recent theories of 4E\footnote{Embodied, embedded, enactive, and extended cognition.} cognition, and the importance given to them by practitioners (see \cite{dourish2004action} for a broad discussion, and \cite{hayes2019beyond} for the musical implications of such a framework).
It is clear that the main epistemological shift here is from that of the observational to the experiential, and more importantly, towards to the collapse of the epistemic binary between subjectivity and objectivity. Furthermore, within the third HCI paradigm, various perspectives based on feminist approaches \cite{bardzell2010feminist}, queer theory \cite{light2011hci}, and postcolonial studies \cite{irani2010postcolonial} have emerged which embrace plurality, participation, activism, situatedness, and embodiment \cite{harrison2011making}. Practitioners working in these areas have developed critical and potentially transformational approaches to the study of interaction design by troubling its very ontological and epistemological foundations, through what can be referred to as mode of ``agonistic-antagonistic" \cite[p13]{barry2013interdisciplinarity} interdisciplinarity.
Some of this work addresses the problematic issue of ``users as subjects" \cite[p1306]{bardzell2010feminist} by adopting methods such as participatory design. This attempts to deal with the prevalent issue of ``I-methodologies" \cite[p3]{born2016gender} where designers consider themselves to be `typical' users of the objects and artefacts that they design, hence heavily biasing these processes. As NIME is a heavily male dominated community \cite{born2016gender, xambo2018women} gender would be an obvious bias. Aside from study participants, it is also the material conditions---tied to economic and governmental factors---of the working environments and labs, as well as the geographical locations of the researchers themselves that can act as barriers to participation. In CHI, for example, the majority of participating research centres are situated in the United States and Europe. While there are significant communities of HCI practitioners and scholars emerging within Latin America\footnote{\url{https://www.laihc.org/}}, Africa\footnote{\url{https://dl.acm.org/conference/africhi}}, and South Asia\footnote{\url{https://sigchi.org/get-involved/local-chapters/}}, analyses of the citation practices within HCI research has demonstrated how few citations these communities receive (see \cite{henry200720, bidwell2016decolonizing}).
\section{Axes for Action}
In this section, we highlight and knit together some of the more salient issues that have been put forward. This is far from exhaustive but should provide several points of departure for future NIME research.
\subsection{Methodologies}
Examining NIME's origins as a workshop that emerged from the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) can help to account for the types of methodologies that have been championed since its inception. CHI has been held each year since 1982\footnote{\url{https://dl.acm.org/conference/chi}}, most often within the United States. Members of SIGCHI---who have sponsored the conference since its second year---work in ``fields as diverse as user interface design, human factors, computer science, psychology, engineering, graphics and industrial design, entertainment, and telecommunications"\footnote{\url{https://sigchi.org/about/about-sigchi/}}. Not included in this list of fields are the arts and humanities whose methodologies look very different to those of design, computer science (CS), and engineering. In particular, we note the historic prevalence of the demo format within the CHI conference which has endured through NIME, and its strong links to the ``Demo or Die" \cite{elish2010responsible} maxim adopted by the MIT Media Lab. The NIME community is not unaware of the limitations of the demo format (see \cite{jensenius2016trends}), how it relates to scales of temporalities---moving from promoting `wonder' and `awe' in the `lab' to enduring on the `stage', for example---and how it raises aesthetic and social questions.
Artistic practice as a mode of academic research has strong links to the the historical centering of ways of knowing and producing bodies of knowledge through practical activity rather than qualitative or quantitative methods. This might include performance, or working with materials \cite{smith2009introduction}, but also the opportunity to imagine novel ways of collective musical activity\footnote{See the LLEAPP project \cite{green2016situation, hayes2019beyond} as an example.}. While NIME 2001 lists ``performance experience reports on live performance and composition using novel controllers"\textsuperscript{\ref{refnote2}} as a key workshop topic, this would not satisfy the type of rigorous methodological approaches associated with the co-constituting and reflexive relationships between theory and practice within CPR\footnote{We are using this as an umbrella term. See \cite{dogantan2016artistic} for a discussion of the nuanced variations between research that is practice-based, practice-led, and so on.} today. CPR has been growing as a recognized approach in certain parts of the world for many decades, although it is important to note that its prevalence and acceptance is extremely varied geographically\footnote{For example, in the United States, the 2019 Alliance for the Arts in Research Universities conference theme was ``knowledges: artistic practice as method", reflecting the ongoing validation of CPR in that country.}. We also acknowledge the messy entanglement between the drive towards the professionalisation of arts practice in the UK as co-emerging with the prevalence of new CPR doctoral degrees.
The importance of CPR in NIME has been stressed by many, although its potential to transform the field is still largely under-explored and its methods are still underutilised \cite{green2016situation}, and potentially misunderstood. For example, Dahl and his co-authors suggest that ``[p]ractice-based research in new interfaces for musical expression is rooted in the practices of design and performance" \cite[p77]{dahl2016designing}, but seem to circumscribe its application, once again limiting NIME's scope to that of technical objects. Born's framework can act as a catalyst if conceiving what this could entail beyond such artefacts---albeit the design of and performance with---is difficult. Decades of exemplary writing by Oliveros is full of such imagined possibilities for establishing new relationships between sounds and people, artefacts and bodies \cite{oliveros2010sounding}. It is interesting to observe how far from the `computer' of HCI, CHI---traditionally a milieu explicitly \textit{not} engaged with the creative arts and humanities---has managed to advance. Furthermore, as exemplified by Marquez-Borbon and Stapleton \cite{marquez2017}, this type of incoherence of vision also comes to the fore when attempting to study and develop NIME pedagogy, as well as establish performance practices with interactive music systems in general. This is not to suggest that pluralisms are not healthy, but that these should be recognised and deeply engaged with by the community itself.
\subsection{Interdisciplinarity}
It is no surprise that epistemological and methodological issues have surfaced within NIME given that it has always been an interdiscplinary field. Bringing together HCI, CS, and music, NIME can comfortably be situated within the ever growing popular discourse of art-science research \cite{barry2013interdisciplinarity}. Although arguably now scaffolded by decades of research into both HCI and computer music, this resistance to disciplinary siloing should not be assumed to produce identical configurations across the board. Barry and Born outline three potentially intersecting logics of interdiscplinarity that can be helpful \cite{barry2013interdisciplinarity}. While the new and novel `N' of NIME---supported by the prevalence of demos---could be thought of as aligning with their logic of `innovation'---often assumed to be tied to the agendas of funding bodies and governmental agencies, where research is guided and driven specifically by economic demands---there may be cases where this produces both inventive as well as anti-inventive outcomes.
Similarly, while the `accountability' logic often portrays the arts as in service to the scientific research, particularly in order to make it public facing through communicative means, NIME has often taken a radically reverse approach, bracketing off certain more popular forms of music making from its own discourse. Even more fruitful may be questions of ontology, where, in the third logic, the very question of what constitutes NIME research can be challenged. In this case, we might move away from the problem solving nature of design issues, including the current issue of `evaluation'. Rather, following some of the more radical work appearing within CHI, we might use NIME to problematise existing assumptions that lie within the relationships between sound, people, and technology, specifically \textit{because} NIME research cannot be reduced into the siloed domains of musical, scientific, nor social studies; the unique difference to its precursor conference being, of course, that NIME researchers are also musicians often with deeply developed performance practices. The more inclusive this community allows itself to become, the more these practices can span Born's social planes, uncontestably enriching the field.
\subsection{Quantification}
As a result of methodological struggles within NIME, quantitative methods have prevailed---perhaps due to the dominance of engineering labs and their ability to churn out grant proposals, and hence publish prolifically---despite the variety of other approaches and perspectives at play. This has led to the emergence of various prevalent strands of enquiry including how to evaluate new instruments, whether through user study, or through performance; or how to assess the impact of such instruments through a measure of their longevity. As we have already asserted, these `challenges' may obscure other types of fruitful labour. While NIME hosts its total proceedings online\footnote{\url{https://www.nime.org/archives/}}, it does not archive what may be a much larger number of practice based works---performances, installation, workshops---which have been crucial in the formation of this body of research. There has been some attempt to rectify this with a formal database of musical proceedings from 2019 alone\footnote{ \url{https://github.com/NIME-conference/NIME-bibliography}}. Given that without readily accessible means to reference this work, a huge part of NIME's knowledge base will be excluded from readily being configured within both its history and future formations. Importantly, this exclusion will favour labs and researchers with institutional funding---those who can produce research papers and pay to attend conferences---over independent practitioners.
Through the neoliberal lens of the quantification of the value and impact of research itself, NIME exists within an academic climate where counting matters: for promotion, for tenure, and for gaining future funding. Yet the favouring of particular modes of research, both through methodology as well as citation practices, contributes to shaping both the historical narratives and future directions of the field. As Ahmed has carefully articulated, ``[w]hen citational practices become habits, bricks form walls" \cite[p148]{ahmed2016living}. Related work on citation practices within CHI demonstrates the often throwaway nature of providing references, where no critical engagement with the work is given beyond its inclusion as mere supporting evidence or validation \cite{marshall2017throwaway}. We should also here consider NIME's discourse surrounding the democratisation of DMIs---a theme which comes up repeatedly---against the financial costs of participating in academic conferences, particularly for students and faculty who are not funded by research labs, and moreover artists who are not supported by academic institutions.
\subsection{`Diversity' and `Inclusion'}
Resulting from sociocultural changes born out of civil movements addressing race, gender, and economic inequality, Diversity and Inclusion statements have been put in place as ways to establish fair and `safe' spaces for those working and studying within institutions. Given such developments, academic conferences followed suit. However, in spite of these well-meaning approaches, we must continue to take a critical stance and ask whether or how the NIME Diversity Statement provides a productive framework for genuinely increasing the diversity of its community and research outputs. That is, how is the community actively supporting minority or marginalized groups to not only participate, but also to educate and help shape the field? Openness to diversity does not automatically result in it. What types of approaches will the NIME community undertake in its diversity work to avoid not only leaving out those not within positions of power and whose practice lies outwith dominant NIME research \cite{marquez2017}, but also in working towards changing the ways in which such narratives are formed and structure the field itself? In particular, as Rodgers has elucidated in her work on the history of the synthesizer, the effect of language and the construction of narratives can be crucial here: ``audio-technical language and representation, which typically stands as neutral, in fact privileges the perspective of an archetypal Western, white, and male subject" \cite[v]{rodgers2010synthesizing}.
Within the shaping of such narratives, we may attend to the processes of citation practices---as discussed previously---choices of not only keynotes speakers and performers, but also the processes that determine who sits on the Steering Committee and Program Committees of the conference. Furthermore, while there is a `Fair Play' clause in the ethical guidelines for NIME publications\footnote{\url{https://www.nime.org/publication-ethics/}}, which states that papers should be valued in terms of their intellectual content regardless of the authors' gender, belief system, sexual orientation, or race, we are tempted to wonder how biases are mitigated within the make up of the reviewer pool itself. How can we rigorously assess performance work which might be unfamiliar or diverge from the `expected' aesthetics that have become favoured, or those works which suffer from poor documentation due to a lack of resources?\footnote{We have both reviewed well documented performances which failed to deliver in the conference, and vice versa. See our earlier comments on the misleading nature of demos.} How can we continue to support performance work from practitioners who may be the only ones who play their instruments, but simultaneously request anonymous video submissions for double-blind peer review?
Hosting the NIME 2019 conference in Porto Alegre, Brazil is important given that this was the first event to be realised in the entire region of Latin America. This geographical change invites and facilitates regional parties to introduce their work into the larger NIME community, whose work otherwise may be absent when the conference is hosted elsewhere. While this is certainly encouraging, we observe that the participation of Latin American researchers at the 2019 conference turned out to be rather limited. Out of the 88 publications presented at the conference, 18 publications included Latin American authors or co-authors. Thematic lines of research were mainly concerned with the development of new systems and their implementation in a range of diverse usage scenarios. Only a single paper presented a case outside this mainstream, developing a history of Latin American NIME-related activity \cite{lerner2019latin}. This paper is particularly important within discussions of NIME diversity as it illuminates a rich history of instrument development, parallel to the main historical narratives presented within audio-discourse in general. As Lerner states, ``Latin America has configured a fertile ground for experimenting in the NIME field'' \cite[p232]{lerner2019latin} in its recent history, where such developments are not only influenced by their US or European counterparts, but also reflect the local context in which this work takes place. Local technological developments are not mere imitations, but are original and `hybrid' inventions that stand on their own.
\section{Conclusion}
We have highlighted several ongoing themes and discussions that have come to prominence within the NIME community. While some of the recent NIME discourse appears to be progressive with regards to increasing participation in the field, we stress the importance of a critical approach at all levels. For example, linking together our discussions of quantification with that of gender, we might consider the limitations of the use of metrics which we now see being applied to this domain within NIME discourse (see \cite{xambo2018women}). As Thompson has noted, this process can actually reproduce gender as a rigid category and at the same time prioritise approaches which ultimately turn out to be about ``surface over structure" \cite[p13]{marie}. We wish to challenge the NIME community to respond affirmatively to these ideas, even where the incentive for doing so may be counter-intuitive given the amount of care and labour that will be required, and the increasing commodification of academic research. We echo Green's sentiments in relation to CPR and NIME that ``collective understanding of the research endeavour, rather than a competitive one where researchers themselves are commodities" \cite[p79]{green2016situation} will address both the epistemological and sociocultural fractures that NIME is experiencing.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We thank Owen Green for his suggestions on this text.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
For probability distributions $P$ and $Q$, the test for the null hypothesis $H_0: P=Q$ against an alternative hypothesis $H_1:P \neq Q$ based on data $X_1, \dots, X_n \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} P$ and $Y_1, \dots ,Y_m \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} Q$ is known as a two-sample test.
Such tests have applications in various areas.
There is a huge body of literature on two-sample tests in Euclidean space, so we will not attempt a complete bibliography.
In \cite{Gretton2007}, a two-sample test based on Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) is proposed, where the MMD is defined by (\ref{Eq_MMD}) in Section \ref{MVD}.
The MMD for a reproducing kernel Hilbert space $H(k)$ associated with a positive definite kernel $k$ is defined as (\ref{Eq_MMD_inRKHS}) in Section \ref{MVD}.
In this paper, we propose a novel discrepancy between two distributions defined as
\[
T=\norm{V_{X \sim P}[k(\cdot,X)]-V_{Y \sim Q}[k(\cdot,Y)]}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}},
\]
and we call this the Maximum Variance Discrepancy (MVD), where $V_{X \sim P}[k(\cdot,X)]$ is a covariance operator in $H(k)$.
The MVD is composed by replacing the kernel mean embedding in (\ref{Eq_MMD_inRKHS}) with a covariance operator; hence, it is natural to consider a two-sample test based on the MVD.
A related work can be found in \cite{Boente2018}, where a test for the equality of covariance operators in Hilbert spaces was proposed.
Our aim in this research is to clarify the properties
of the MVD test from two perspectives: an asymptotic investigation as $n,m \to \infty$, and its practical implementation.
We first obtain the asymptotic distribution of a consistent estimator $\widehat{T}_{n,m}^2$ of $T^2$, under $H_0$.
We also derive the asymptotic distribution of $\widehat{T}_{n,m}^2$ under the alternative hypothesis $H_1$.
Furthermore, we consider a sequence of local alternative distributions $Q_{nm}=(1-1/\sqrt{n+m})P+(1/\sqrt{n+m})Q$ for $P \neq Q$ and address the asymptotic distribution of $\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ under this sequence.
For practical purposes, a method to approximate the distribution of the test by $\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ under $H_0$ is developed.
The method is based on the eigenvalues of the centered Gram matrices associated with the dataset.
Those eigenvalues will be shown to be estimators of the weights appearing in the asymptotic null distribution of the test.
Hence, the method based on the eigenvalues is expected to provide a fine approximation of the distribution of the test.
However, this approximation does not actually work well.
Therefore, we further modify the method based on the eigenvalues, and the obtained method provides a better approximation.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows.
Section \ref{MVD} introduces the framework of the two-sample test and defines the test statistics based on the MVD.
In addition, the representation of test statistics based on the centered Gram matrices is described.
Section \ref{asymptotic null distribution} develops the asymptotics for the test by the MVD under $H_0$.
The test by the MVD under $H_1$ is addressed in Section \ref{asymptotic nonnull distribution}.
Furthermore, the behavior of the test by the MVD under the local alternative hypothesis is clarified in Section \ref{asymptotic distribution under contiguous alternatives}.
Section \ref{Gram matrix spectrum} describes the estimation of the weights that appear in the asymptotic null distribution obtained in Section \ref{asymptotic null distribution}.
Section \ref{implementation} examines the implementation of the MVD test with a Gaussian kernel in the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}=\mathbb{R}^d$.
Section \ref{approximation of the null distribution} introduces the modification of the approximate distribution given in Section \ref{Gram matrix spectrum}. Section \ref{simulations} reports the results of simulations for the type I error and the power of the MVD and MMD tests.
Section \ref{Applications to real data sets} presents the results of applications to real data sets, including high-dimension low-sample-size data.
Conclusions are given in Section \ref{Conclusion}.
All proofs of theoretical results are provided in Section \ref{section_Proof}.
\section{Maximum Variance Discrepancy}\label{MVD}
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a separable Hilbert space and $(\mathcal{H},\mathcal{A})$ be a measurable space.
Let $\left<\cdot,\cdot\right>_{\mathcal{H}}$ be the inner product of $\mathcal{H}$ and $\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{H}}=\sqrt{\left<\cdot,\cdot\right>_{\mathcal{H}}}$ be the associated norm.
Let $X_1,\dots,X_n \in \mathcal{H}$ and $Y_1,\dots,Y_m \in \mathcal{H}$ denote a sample of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from unknown distributions $P$ and $Q$, respectively.
Our goal is to test whether the unknown distributions $P$ and $Q$ are equal.
Let us define the null hypothesis $H_0:P=Q$ and the alternative hypothesis $H_1:P \neq Q$.
Following \cite{Gretton2007}, the gap between two distributions $P$ and $Q$ on $\mathcal{H}$ is measured by:
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_MMD}
\text{MMD}(P,Q)= \sup_{f \in \mathcal{F}} |\mathbb{E}_{X \sim P}[f(X)]-\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q}[f(Y)]|,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{F}$ is a class of real-valued functions on $\mathcal{H}$.
Regardless of $\mathcal{F}$, $\text{MMD}(P,Q)$ always defines a pseudo-metric on the space of probability distributions.
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be the unit ball of a reproducing kernel Hilbert space $H(k)$ associated with a characteristic kernel $k: \mathcal{H} \times \mathcal{H} \to \mathbb{R}$ (see \cite{Aronszajn} and \cite{Fukumizu} for details) and assume that $\mathbb{E}_{X \sim P}[\sqrt{k(X,X)}] < \infty$ and $\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q}[\sqrt{k(Y,Y)}] < \infty$.
Then, the MMD in $H(k)$ is defined as the distance between $P$ and $Q$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_MMD_inRKHS}
\text{MMD}(P,Q)=\sup_{\norm{f}_{H(k)}=1}|\left<f,\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q)\right>_{H(k)}|=\norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q)}_{H(k)},
\end{equation}
where $\mu_k(P)=\mathbb{E}_{X \sim P}[k(\cdot,X)]$ and $\mu_k(Q)=\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q}[k(\cdot,Y)]$ are called kernel mean embeddings of $P$ and $Q$, respectively, in $H(k)$ (see \cite{Gretton2007}).
The MMD focuses on the difference between distributions $P$ and $Q$ depending on the difference between the means of $k(\cdot,X)$ and $k(\cdot,Y)$ in $H(k)$.
The motivation for this research is to focus on the difference between the distributions $P$ and $Q$ due to the difference between those variances in $H(k)$, based on a similar idea as the MMD.
Assume $\mathbb{E}_{X \sim P}[k(X,X)] < \infty$ and $\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q}[k(Y,Y)] < \infty$, then the variance $V_{X \sim P}[k(\cdot,X)]:H(k) \to H(k)$ is defined by
\[
V_{X \sim P}[k(\cdot,X)]=\mathbb{E}_{X \sim P}[(k(\cdot,X)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}] \in H(k)^{\otimes 2}.
\]
Here, for any $h,h' \in H(k)$, the tensor product $h \otimes h'$ is defined as the operator $H(k) \to H(k), x \mapsto \left<h',x\right>_{H(k)}h$, $h^{\otimes 2}$ is defined as $h^{\otimes 2}=h \otimes h$, and $H(k)^{\otimes 2} =H(k) \otimes H(k)$ (see Section II.4 in \cite{reed1981functional} for details).
Let $V_{X \sim P}[k(\cdot,X)]=\Sigma_k(P)$ and $V_{Y \sim Q}[k(\cdot,Y)]=\Sigma_k(Q)$. Then, we define the MVD in $H(k)$ as
\[
\text{MVD}(P,Q)=\sup_{\norm{A}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}=1}|\left<A,\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}|=\norm{\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}},
\]
which can be seen as a discrepancy between distributions $P$ and $Q$.
The $T^2=\text{MVD}(P,Q)^2$ can be estimated by
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_widehat_Tnm}
\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}=\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}},
\end{equation}
where
\[
\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2},~~\mu_k(\widehat{P})=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}k(\cdot,X_i)
\]
and
\[
\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q})=\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(\widehat{Q}))^{\otimes 2},~~\mu_k(\widehat{Q})=\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}k(\cdot,Y_j).
\]
Let the Gram matrices be $K_{X}=(k(X_i,X_s))_{1 \leq i,s \leq n}$, $K_{Y}=(k(Y_j,Y_t))_{1 \leq j,t \leq m}$, and $K_{XY}=(k(X_i,Y_j))_{\substack{1 \leq i \leq n\\ 1 \leq j \leq m}}$; the centering matrix be $P_n=I_n-(1/n)\underline{1}_{n}\underline{1}_{n}$; and the centered Gram matrices be $\widetilde{K}_{X}=P_n K_{X} P_n$, $\widetilde{K}_{Y} =P_m K_{Y}P_m$, and $\widetilde{K}_{XY} =P_nK_{XY}P_m$, where $I_n$ is the $n \times n$ identity matrix.
This test statistic can be expanded as:
\[
\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}
=\frac{1}{n^2} \text{tr}(\widetilde{K}_X^2) -\frac{2}{nm} \text{tr}(\widetilde{K}_{XY}\widetilde{K}_{XY}^T) +\frac{1}{m^2} \text{tr}(\widetilde{K}_Y^2).
\]
We investigate the $\text{MMD}(P,Q)^2$ and $\text{MVD}(P,Q)^2$ when $\mathcal{H}=\mathbb{R}^d$, the kernel $k(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the Gaussian kernel:
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_Gaussign_kernel}
k(\underline{t},\underline{s})=\exp(-\sigma \norm{\underline{t}-\underline{s}}^2_{\mathbb{R}^d}),~~\sigma >0,
\end{equation}
$P=N(\underline{0},I_d)$, and $Q=N(\underline{m},\Sigma)$.
Under this setting, straightforward calculations using the properties of Gaussian density yield the following result for MMD:
\begin{Prop}\label{Prop_MMD_N(0,1)_and_N(m,Sigma)}
When $\mathcal{H}=\mathbb{R}^d$ and $k(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the Gaussian kernel in (\ref{Eq_Gaussign_kernel}), we have
\begin{align*}
&{\rm MMD}(N(\underline{0},I_d),N(\underline{m},\Sigma))^2\\
&=(1+4\sigma)^{-d/2}+|I_d+4\sigma\Sigma|^{-1/2}
-2|(1+2\sigma)I_d+2\sigma\Sigma|^{-1/2} \exp\left(
-\sigma \underline{m}^T ((1+2\sigma)I_d +2\sigma\Sigma)^{-1} \underline{m}
\right).
\end{align*}
\end{Prop}
The result for MVD is also obtained as follows using the Gaussian density property as well as the result for MMD:
\begin{Prop}\label{Prop_MVD_N(0,1)_and_N(m,Sigma)}
When $\mathcal{H}=\mathbb{R}^d$ and $k(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the Gaussian kernel in (\ref{Eq_Gaussign_kernel}), we have
\begin{align*}
&{\rm MVD}(N(\underline{0},I_d),N(\underline{m},\Sigma))^2\\
&=(1+8\sigma)^{-d/2}-2(1+8\sigma+12\sigma^2)^{-d/2}+(1+4\sigma)^{-d}\\
&~~~~~+|I_d+8\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2}
-2|I_d+8\sigma \Sigma+12\sigma^2 \Sigma^2|^{-1/2}
+|I_d+4\sigma \Sigma|^{-1}\\
&~~~~~-2|(1+4\sigma)I_d+4\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2} \exp\left(
-2\sigma \underline{m}^T\left(
(1+4\sigma)I_d+4\sigma \Sigma
\right)^{-1} \underline{m}
\right) \\
&~~~~~+2|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2} |(1+4\sigma)I_d+2\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2}
\exp\left(
-2\sigma \underline{m}^T \left(
(1+4\sigma)I_d+2\sigma \Sigma
\right)^{-1} \underline{m}
\right)\\
&~~~~~
+2(1+2\sigma)^{-d/2} |(1+2\sigma)I_d+4\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2}
\exp\left(-2\sigma \underline{m}^T \left((1+2\sigma)I_d+4\sigma \Sigma\right)^{-1} \underline{m}\right)\\
&~~~~~
-2|(1+2\sigma)I_d+2\sigma \Sigma|^{-1} \exp\left(
-2\sigma \underline{m}^T \left(
(1+2\sigma)I_d+2\sigma \Sigma
\right)^{-1} \underline{m}
\right).
\end{align*}
\end{Prop}
In particular, $\text{MMD}(P,Q)$ and $\text{MVD}(P,Q)$ for $P=N(\underline{0},I_d)$ and $Q=N(t\underline{1},sI_d)$ are derived by Propositions \ref{Prop_MMD_N(0,1)_and_N(m,Sigma)} and \ref{Prop_MVD_N(0,1)_and_N(m,Sigma)}.
The result is Corollary \ref{Cor_MMD_MVD}.
\begin{Cor}\label{Cor_MMD_MVD}
When $\mathcal{H}=\mathbb{R}^d$ and $k(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the Gaussian kernel in (\ref{Eq_Gaussign_kernel}), we have
\begin{align*}
&{\rm MMD}(N(\underline{0},I_d),N(t\underline{1},sI_d))^2\\
&=(1+4\sigma)^{-d/2}+(1+4\sigma s )^{-d/2}
-2 (1+2\sigma+2\sigma s)^{-d/2} \exp\left(
-\sigma t^2 d (1+2\sigma +2\sigma s)^{-1}
\right)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&{\rm MVD}(N(\underline{0},I_d),N(t\underline{1},sI_d))^2\\
&=(1+8\sigma)^{-d/2}-2(1+8\sigma+12\sigma^2)^{-d/2}+(1+4\sigma)^{-d}\\
&~~~~~+(1+8\sigma s)^{-d/2}
-2(1+8\sigma s+12\sigma^2 s^2)^{-d/2}
+(1+4\sigma s)^{-d}\\
&~~~~~-2(1+4\sigma+4\sigma s)^{-d/2}
\exp\left(
-2\sigma t^2 d (1+4\sigma +4\sigma s)^{-1}
\right)\\
&~~~~~
+2(1+2\sigma s)^{-d/2}(1+4\sigma +2\sigma s)^{-d/2}
\exp\left(
-2\sigma t^2 d (1+4\sigma+2\sigma s)^{-1}
\right) \\
&~~~~~
+2(1+2\sigma )^{-d/2}(1+2\sigma +4\sigma s)^{-d/2}
\exp\left(
-2\sigma t^2 d (1+2\sigma+4\sigma s)^{-1}
\right) \\
&~~~~~
-2(1+2\sigma+2\sigma s)^{-d}
\exp\left(
-2\sigma t^2 d (1+2\sigma+2\sigma s)^{-1}
\right).
\end{align*}
\end{Cor}
We investigate the behavior of ${\rm MMD}(N(\underline{0},I_d),N(t\underline{1},sI_d))^2$ and ${\rm MVD}(N(\underline{0},I_d),N(t\underline{1},sI_d))^2$ for the difference of $(t,s)$ from (0,1) by using Corollary \ref{Cor_MMD_MVD}.
A sensitive reaction to the difference of $(t,s)$ from (0,1) means that it can sensitively react to differences between distributions from $N(\underline{0},I_d)$.
Using such a discrepancy in the framework of the test is expected to correctly reject $H_0$ under $H_1$.
More generally, kernel $k'(x,y)=\exp(C)k(x,y)$ based on a constant $C$ and a positive definite kernel $k(x,y)$ is also positive definite.
Then, $\text{MMD}_{k'}(P,Q)$ and $\text{MVD}_{k'}(P,Q)$ calculated by the kernel $k'$ hold $\text{MMD}_{k'}(P,Q)^2=\exp(C)\text{MMD}_{k}(P,Q)^2$ and $\text{MVD}_{k'}(P,Q)^2=\exp(2C)\text{MVD}_{k}(P,Q)^2$ for any distributions $P$ and $Q$ using $\text{MMD}_{k}(P,Q)$ and $\text{MVD}_{k}(P,Q)$ calculated by the kernel $k$.
The graph of $\text{MMD}_{k'}(P,Q)^2$ and $\text{MVD}_{k'}(P,Q)^2$ is displayed for each $t$ when $s=1$ in Figure \ref{fig:mmdmvdt} and for each $s$ when $t=0$ in Figure \ref{fig:mmdmvds}.
The kernel $k$ is a Gaussian kernel in (\ref{Eq_Gaussign_kernel}), and the parameters are $C=0, 4, 10$, $d=10$, and $\sigma=0.1$ in both Figures \ref{fig:mmdmvdt} and \ref{fig:mmdmvds}.
Figure \ref{fig:mmdmvdt} shows the $\text{MMD}_{k'}(P,Q)^2$ and $\text{MVD}_{k'}(P,Q)^2$ for the difference of the mean from the standard normal distribution.
In Figure \ref{fig:mmdmvdt} (a), $\text{MMD}_{k'}(P,Q)^2$ is larger than $\text{MVD}_{k'}(P,Q)^2$, but in Figures \ref{fig:mmdmvdt} (b) and (c), where the value of $C$ is increased, $\text{MVD}_{k'}(P,Q)^2$ is larger than $\text{MMD}_{k'}(P,Q)^2$ for each $t$.
In addition, Figure \ref{fig:mmdmvds} shows the reaction of the MMD and MVD to the difference of the covariance matrix from the standard normal distribution, and $\text{MVD}_{k'}(P,Q)^2$ is larger than $\text{MMD}_{k'}(P,Q)^2$ for each $s$ when $C$ is large.
This means that MVD is more sensitive to differences from the standard normal distribution than MMD for $ k'$ with large $C$.
The fact that there is a kernel $k'$ for which MVD is larger than MMD is a motivation for the two-sample test based on MVD in the next section.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{MMD_MVD_comp_Norm_s1_d10_sigma01.eps}
\caption{The $\text{MMD}_{k'}(N(\underline{0},I_d),N(t\underline{1},sI_d))^2$ (solid) and $\text{MVD}_{k'}(N(\underline{0},I_d),N(t\underline{1},sI_d))^2$ (dashed) for each $t$: $s=1$, $d=10$, $\sigma=0.1$, and (a) $C=0$, (b) $C=4$, and (c) $C=10$.}
\label{fig:mmdmvdt}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{MMD_MVD_comp_Norm_t0_d10_sigma01.eps}
\caption{The $\text{MMD}_{k'}(N(\underline{0},I_d),N(t\underline{1},sI_d))^2$ (solid) and $\text{MVD}_{k'}(N(\underline{0},I_d),N(t\underline{1},sI_d))^2$ (dashed) for each $s$: $t=0$, $d=10$, $\sigma=0.1$, and (a) $C=0$, (b) $C=4$, and (c) $C=10$.}
\label{fig:mmdmvds}
\end{figure}
\section{Test statistic for two-sample problem}\label{asymptotics}
We consider a two-sample test based on $T^2_{n,m}$ for $H_0:P=Q$ and $H_1: P \neq Q$, and $\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ is defined as a test statistic.
If $\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ is large, then the null hypothesis $H_0$ is rejected since $T^2_{n,m}$ is the difference between $P$ and $Q$.
The condition to derive the asymptotic distribution of this test statistic is as follows:
\begin{Condition}
$\mathbb{E}_{X \sim P}[k(X,X)^2] < \infty$, $\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q}[k(Y,Y)^2] < \infty$ and $\lim_{n,m \to \infty} n/(n+m) \to \rho, ~0 < \rho <1$.
\end{Condition}
\subsection{Asymptotic null distribution}\label{asymptotic null distribution}
In this section, we derive an asymptotic distribution of $\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ under $H_0$.
In what follows, the symbol $``\xrightarrow{\mathcal{D}}"$ designates convergence in distribution.
\begin{Thm}\label{Asymptotic_Null_Distribution}
Suppose that Condition is satisfied.
Then, under $H_0: P=Q$, as $n,m \to \infty$,
\[
(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m} \xrightarrow{\mathcal{D}} \frac{1}{\rho(1-\rho)} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \lambda_{\ell} Z_{\ell}^2,
\]
where $Z_{\ell} \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim}N(0,1)$ and $\lambda_{\ell}$ is an eigenvalue of $V_{X \sim P}[(k(\cdot,X)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}]$.
\end{Thm}
It is generally not easy to utilize such an asymptotic null distribution because it is an infinite sum and determining the weights included in the asymptotic distribution is itself a difficult problem.
For practical purposes, a method to approximate the distribution of the test by $\widehat{T}_{n,m}^2$ under $H_0$ is developed in Section \ref{implementation}.
The method is based on the eigenvalues of the centered Gram matrices associated with the data set in Section \ref{Gram matrix spectrum}.
\subsection{Asymptotic non-null distribution}\label{asymptotic nonnull distribution}
In this section, an asymptotic distribution of $\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ under $H_1$ is investigated.
\begin{Thm}\label{Asymptotic_Nonnull_Distribution}
Suppose that Condition is satisfied.
Then, under $H_1: P\neq Q$, as $n,m \to \infty$,
\[
\sqrt{n+m}(\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}-T^2) \xrightarrow{\mathcal{D}} N(0,4\rho^{-1}v^2_P+4(1-\rho)^{-1}v^2_Q),
\]
where
\[
v_P^2= V_{X \sim P}\left[\left< \Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q), (k(\cdot,X)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \right]\\
\]
and
\[
v_Q^2=V_{Y \sim Q}\left[\left< \Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q), (k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(Q)
\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\right].
\]
\end{Thm}
\begin{Rem}
We see by Theorem \ref{Asymptotic_Nonnull_Distribution} that
\[
\frac{\sqrt{n+m}(\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}-T^2)}{v} \xrightarrow{\mathcal{D}} N(0,1),
\]
where $v=\sqrt{4\rho^{-1} v^2_{P}+4 (1-\rho)^{-1} v^2_{Q}}$.
Thus, we can evaluate the power of the test by $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ as
\begin{align*}
\Pr((n+m) \widehat{T}^2_{n,m} \geq t_{\alpha}|H_1)
&=\Pr((n+m)(\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}-T^2) \geq t_{\alpha}-(n+m)T^2|H_1)\\
&=\Pr\left(
\frac{\sqrt{n+m}(\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}-T^2)}{v} \geq \frac{t_{\alpha}}{\sqrt{n+m} v}-\frac{\sqrt{n+m} T^2}{v} \Bigg| H_1
\right)\\
&\approx 1-\Phi\left(
\frac{t_{\alpha}}{\sqrt{n+m}v}-\frac{\sqrt{n+m}T^2}{v}
\right) \to 1
\end{align*}
as $n,m \to \infty$, where $t_{\alpha}$ is the $(1-\alpha)$-quantile of the distribution of $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ under $H_0$, and $\Phi$ is the distribution function of the standard normal distribution.
Therefore, this test is consistent.
\end{Rem}
\subsection{Asymptotic distribution under contiguous alternatives}\label{asymptotic distribution under contiguous alternatives}
In this section, we develop an asymptotic distribution of $\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ under a sequence of local alternative distributions $Q_{nm}=(1-1/\sqrt{n+m})P+(1/\sqrt{n+m})Q$ for $P \neq Q$.
\begin{Thm}\label{Asymptotic distribution under contiguous alternatives}
Let $X_1,\dots,X_n \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} P$ and $Y_1,\dots,Y_m \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} Q_{nm}$.
Suppose that Condition is satisfied.
Let $h: \mathcal{H} \times \mathcal{H} \to \mathbb{R}$ be a kernel defined as
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_h(x,y)}
h(x,y)=\left<(k(\cdot,x)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P),(k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}},~~x,y \in \mathcal{H}
\end{equation}
and
\[
h(\cdot,x)= (k(\cdot,x)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P) \in H(k)^{\otimes 2} \nonumber
\]
and let $S_k:L_2(\mathcal{H},P) \to L_2(\mathcal{H},P)$ be a self-adjoint operator defined as
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_S_k}
S_kg(x)= \int_{\mathcal{H}} h(x,y)g(y) dP(y),~~g \in L_2(\mathcal{H},P)
\end{equation}
(see Sections VI.1, VI.3, and VI.6 in \cite{reed1981functional} for details).
Then, as $n,m \to \infty$
\[
(n+m)\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \xrightarrow{\mathcal{D}} \frac{1}{\rho(1-\rho)}\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \theta_{\ell}W_{\ell}^2,
\]
where $W_{\ell} \sim N(\sqrt{\rho (1-\rho)}\cdot \zeta_{\ell}(P,Q)/\theta_{\ell},1),~W_{\ell} \indepe W_{\ell'} ~(\ell \neq \ell')$,
\[
\zeta_{\ell}(P,Q)=\int_{\mathcal{H}}\left<\Sigma_k(Q)-\Sigma_k(P)+(\mu_k(Q)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2},h(\cdot,y)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \Psi_{\ell}(y)dP(y),
\]
and $\theta_{\ell}$ and $\Psi_{\ell}$ are, respectively, the eigenvalue of $S_k$ and the eigenfunction corresponding to $\theta_{\ell}$.
\end{Thm}
The following proposition claims that the eigenvalues $\theta_{\ell}$ appearing in Theorem \ref{Asymptotic distribution under contiguous alternatives} are the same as the eigenvalues $\lambda_{\ell}$ appearing in Theorem \ref{Asymptotic_Null_Distribution}:
\begin{Prop}\label{Prop_eigenvalue_T1_and_T3}
The eigenvalues of $V_{X \sim P}[(k(\cdot,X)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}]$ in Theorem \ref{Asymptotic_Null_Distribution} and $S_k$ in (\ref{Eq_S_k}) of Theorem \ref{Asymptotic distribution under contiguous alternatives} are the same.
\end{Prop}
From Theorems \ref{Asymptotic_Null_Distribution} and \ref{Asymptotic distribution under contiguous alternatives} and Proposition \ref{Prop_eigenvalue_T1_and_T3}, it can be seen that the local power of the test by $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ is dominated by the noncentrality parameters.
It follows that
\[
\zeta_{\ell} (P,Q) =\int_{\mathcal{H}} \left<\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q} [h(\cdot,y)] ,h(\cdot,x) \right> \Psi_{\ell}(y) dP(y)=\lambda_{\ell} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q} [\Psi_{\ell}(Y)]
\]
by which we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{\rho(1-\rho)} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \theta_{\ell} W_{\ell}^2\right]
&=\frac{1}{\rho(1-\rho)}\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \lambda_{\ell} \left(1+\rho(1-\rho) \cdot \frac{\zeta_{\ell}(P,Q)^2}{\lambda_{\ell}^2}\right)\\
&= \frac{1}{\rho(1-\rho)}\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \lambda_{\ell} \Big(1+\rho(1-\rho) \{\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q} [\Psi_{\ell}(Y)]\}^2\Big).
\end{align*}
In addition, from Theorem 1 in \cite{Minh2006}, we have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \lambda_{\ell} \{\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q}[\Psi_{\ell}(Y)]\}^2
&=\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \lambda_{\ell} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q} [\Psi_{\ell}(Y)] \mathbb{E}_{Y' \sim Q} [\Psi_{\ell}(Y')]\\
&=\mathbb{E}_{Y,Y' \sim Q} [h(Y,Y')]\\
&=\norm{\Sigma_k(Q)-\Sigma_k(P)+(\mu_k(Q)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}^2.
\end{align*}
Hence, the local power reveals not only the difference between $\Sigma_k(P)$ and $\Sigma_k(Q)$ but also that between $\mu_k(Q)$ and $\mu_k(P)$.
\subsection{Null distribution estimates using Gram matrix spectrum}\label{Gram matrix spectrum}
The asymptotic null distribution was obtained in Theorem \ref{Asymptotic_Null_Distribution}, but it is difficult to derive its weights.
The following theorem shows that this weight can be estimated using the estimator of $V[(k(\cdot,X)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}]$.
\begin{Thm}\label{Asymptotic_distribution_Gram_matrix_spectrum}
Assume that $\mathbb{E}_{X \sim P}[k(X,X)^2]< \infty$.
Let $\{\lambda_{\ell}\}_{\ell=1}^{\infty}$ and $\{\widehat{\lambda}^{(n)}_{\ell}\}_{\ell=1}^{\infty}$ be the eigenvalues of $\Upsilon$ and $\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}$, respectively, where
\[
\Upsilon=V\left[(k(\cdot,X)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}\right]~~\text{and}~~\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \left\{
(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})\right\}^{\otimes 2}.
\]
Then, as $n \to \infty$
\[
\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \widehat{\lambda}_{\ell}^{(n)} Z_{\ell}^2 \xrightarrow{\mathcal{D}} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \lambda_{\ell} Z_{\ell}^2,
\]
where $Z_{\ell} \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} N(0,1)$.
\end{Thm}
In addition, Proposition \ref{Lem_eigenvaue_same} claims the eigenvalues of $\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}$ and the Gram matrix are the same.
\begin{Prop}\label{Lem_eigenvaue_same}
The $n \times n$ Gram matrix $H=(H_{ij})_{1 \leq i,j \leq n}$ is defined as
\[
H_{ij}=\left<(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(\widehat{P}),(k(\cdot,X_j)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}.
\]
Then, the eigenvalues of $\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}$ and $H/n$ are the same.
\end{Prop}
\begin{Rem}
By Proposition \ref{Lem_eigenvaue_same}, the critical value can be obtained by calculating $1/\{\rho(1-\rho)\}\sum_{\ell=1}^{n-1} \widehat{\lambda}_{\ell}^{(n)} Z_{\ell}^2$ using the eigenvalue $\widehat{\lambda}^{(n)}_{\ell},~\ell \in \{1,\dots,n-1\}$ of $H/n$.
In addition, the matrix $H$ is expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{H_matrix_Gram}
H=P_n(\widetilde{K}_{X}\odot\widetilde{K}_{X})P_n,
\end{equation}
where $\odot$ is the Hadamard product.
The $n \times n$ Gram matrix $K_X$ is a positive definite, but $H$ has eigenvalue 0 since $H \underline{1}=\underline{0}$.
\end{Rem}
\section{Implementation}\label{implementation}
This section proposes corrections to the asymptotic distribution for both the MVD and MMD tests, and describes the results of simulations of the type-I error and power for the modifications.
The MMD test is a two-sample test for $H_0$ and $H_1$ using the test statistic:
\[
\widehat{\Delta}_{n,m}^2=\norm{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}k(\cdot,X_i)-\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}k(\cdot,Y_j)}_{H(k)}^2.
\]
The $\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ of the asymptotic null distribution is the infinite sum of the weighted chi-square distribution, which is the same as $\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ in (\ref{Eq_widehat_Tnm}).
The approximate distribution can be obtained by estimating the eigenvalues by the centered Gram matrix (see \cite{Gretton2009a} for details).
\subsection{Approximation of the null distribution} \label{approximation of the null distribution}
In this section, we discuss methods to approximate the null distributions of the MVD and MMD tests.
The asymptotic null distribution of the MVD test was obtained in Theorem \ref{Asymptotic_Null_Distribution} as an infinite sum of weighted chi-squared random variables with one degree of freedom, and according to Theorem \ref{Asymptotic_distribution_Gram_matrix_spectrum}, those weights $\lambda_{\ell}~(\ell \geq 1)$ can be estimated by the eigenvalues $\widehat{\lambda}_{\ell}^{(n)}$ of the matrix $H/n$.
Similar results was obtained for MMD by \cite{Gretton2009a}.
However, this approximate distribution based on this estimated eigenvalue does not actually work well.
In fact, by comparing the simulated exact null distribution with this approximate distribution based on estimated eigenvalues, it can be seen that variance of the approximate distribution is larger than that of the simulated exact null distribution.
We modify the approximate distribution $1/\{\rho(1-\rho)\}\sum_{\ell=1}^{n-1} \widehat{\lambda}_{\ell}^{(n)} Z_{\ell}^2$ by obtaining the variance of this simulated exact null distribution.
The variance of the exact null distribution $V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]$ is obtained as the following proposition:
\begin{Prop}\label{Variance_MVD_P=Q}
Assume that $\mathbb{E}_{X \sim P}[k(X,X)^2] < \infty$.
Then under $H_0$,
\[
V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]=\frac{2(n+m)^4}{n^2 m^2} \norm{\Upsilon}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}} +O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{m}\right).
\]
\end{Prop}
Proposition \ref{Variance_MVD_P=Q} leads to
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_nm_kl_MVD}
V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}] \approx \frac{(n+m)^4}{n^2m^2} \cdot \frac{k^2 \ell^2}{(k+\ell)^4} V[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}],
\end{equation}
with respect to $V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]$ and $V[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}],~k,\ell \in \mathbb{N}$.
If we can estimate the variance $V[(k+\ell) \widehat{T}_{k,\ell}^2]$ at $k$ and $\ell$ that is less than $n$ and $m$, respectively, we can estimate $V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]$ by using (\ref{Eq_nm_kl_MVD}).
In addition, the method of estimating $V[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}_{k,\ell}^2]$ by choosing $(k,\ell)$ from $(n,m)$ without replacement is known as subsampling.
The following proposition for MMD shows a similar result to MVD:
\begin{Prop}\label{Variance_MMD_P=Q}
Assume that $\mathbb{E}_{X \sim P}[k(X,X)] < \infty$.
Then, under $H_0$
\[
V[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]=\frac{2(n+m)^4}{n^2m^2}\norm{\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}+O\left(
\frac{1}{n}\right)
+O\left(\frac{1}{m}\right).
\]
\end{Prop}
\subsubsection{Subsampling method}\label{Bootstrap_method}
We used the subsampling method to estimate $V[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}]$ and $V[(k+\ell)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{k,\ell}]$ (see Section 2.2 in \cite{politis1999} for details).
In order to obtain two samples under the null hypothesis, we divide $X_1, \dots , X_n$ into $X_1, \dots, X_{n_1}$ and $X_{n_1+1},\dots, X_n$.
Then, we randomly select $X^*_1(i), \dots, X^*_k(i)$ and $Y^*_1(i), \dots, Y^*_\ell(i)$ from $X_1, \dots, X_{n_1}$ and $X_{n_1+1},\dots, X_n$ without replacement, which repaet in each iteration $i \in \{1,\dots, I\}$.
These randomly selected values generate the replications of the test statistic
\[
\widehat{T}_{k,\ell}^2(i)= \widehat{T}_{k,\ell}^2(X^*_1(i),\dots,X^*_k(i); Y^*_1(i),\dots,Y^*_\ell(i))
\]
for iterations $i \in \{1,\dots, I\}$.
The generated test statistics $(k+\ell) \widehat{T}_{k,\ell}^2(i)$ in $I$ iterations estimate $V[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}]$ by calculating the unbiased sample variance:
\[
V[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}]_{\text{sub}}=\frac{1}{I-1}\sum_{j=1}^{I} \left\{
(k+\ell){\widehat{T}^2}_{k,\ell}(j)-(k+\ell)\overline{\widehat{T}^2}_{k,\ell}
\right\}^2,
\]
where $\overline{\widehat{T}^2}_{k,\ell}=(1/I) \sum_{i=1}^{I} {\widehat{T}^2}_{k,\ell}(i)$.
According to (\ref{Eq_nm_kl_MVD}), $V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]$ is estimated by
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_MVD_V_nm}
V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}=\frac{(n+m)^4}{n^2 m^2} \frac{k^2 \ell^2}{(k+\ell)^4}V[(k+\ell)]\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}]_{\text{sub}}.
\end{equation}
We also estimate $V[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]$ by using
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_MMD_V_nm}
V[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}=\frac{(n+m)^4}{n^2 m^2} \frac{k^2 \ell^2}{(k+\ell)^4}V[(k+\ell)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{k,\ell}]_{\text{sub}}
\end{equation}
from Proposition \ref{Variance_MMD_P=Q}, where
\[
\widehat{\Delta}_{k,\ell}^2(i)= \widehat{\Delta}_{k,\ell}^2(X^*_1(i),\dots,X^*_k(i); Y^*_1(i),\dots,Y^*_\ell(i))
\]
for $i \in \{1,\dots,I\}$,
\[
V[(k+\ell)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{k,\ell}]_{\text{sub}}=\frac{1}{I-1}\sum_{j=1}^{I} \left\{
(k+\ell){\widehat{\Delta}^2}_{k,\ell}(j)-(k+\ell)\overline{\widehat{\Delta}^2}_{k,\ell}
\right\}^2
\]
and $\overline{\widehat{\Delta}^2}_{k,\ell}=(1/I) \sum_{i=1}^{I} {\widehat{\Delta}^2}_{k,\ell}(i)$.
The columns of $(n+m) \widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ in Table \ref{MVD_variance} and $(n+m) \widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ in Table \ref{MMD_variance} are variances of $(n+m) \widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ and $(n+m) \widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$, which are estimated by a simulation of 10,000 iterations with $X_1,\dots,X_n \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} N(\underline{0},I_d)$ and $Y_1,\dots,Y_m \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} N(\underline{0},I_d)$ for each $\sigma, d$ and $(n,m)$.
The subsampling variances $V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ in (\ref{Eq_MVD_V_nm}) and $V[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ in (\ref{Eq_MMD_V_nm}) with $X_1,\dots,X_n \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} N(\underline{0},I_d)$ are given in the columns labeled ``Subsampling" for $(k,\ell)$.
Tables \ref{MVD_variance} and \ref{MMD_variance} show that subsampling variances $V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ and $V[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ estimate the exact variances well.
However, these variances tend to underestimate the exact variances.
We investigate how much smaller $V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]$ is than the variance of $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ by performing a linear regression of $V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]$ and the variance of $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ with an intercept equal to 0, with the same for the MMD.
The results are shown in Figure \ref{MVD_slope}; (a) and (b) show results for the MVD and (c) and (d) show results for the MMD, which are respectively $(n,m)=(200,200)$ and $(k,\ell)=(50,50)$ and $(n,m)=(500,500)$ and $(k,\ell)=(125,125)$ cases.
In Figure \ref{MVD_slope}, the $x$ axis is $V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ or $V[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ and the $y$ axis is variance of $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ or $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ for each $\sigma,~d~,(n, m)$ and $(k, \ell)$ in Table \ref{MVD_variance} or Table \ref{MMD_variance}.
The line in Figure \ref{MVD_slope} is a regression line found by the least-squares method in the form $y = ax + \varepsilon$.
It can be seen from Figure \ref{MVD_slope} that when $V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ and $V[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ are multiplied by the term associated regression coefficient, they approach the variances $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ and $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$.
The coefficient of linear regression with intercept 0 is written in the row labeled ``slope of the line" in Tables \ref{MVD_variance} and \ref{MMD_variance}.
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{The variance of $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ under $P=Q=N(\underline{0},I_d)$ and $V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ : $I = 1,000$, $n_1=n/2$, and $X_1,\dots,X_n \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} N(\underline{0},I_d)$.
}
\label{MVD_variance}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc|c|ccc}
$\sigma$&$d$&$(n,m)$&{$(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$} &\multicolumn{3}{c}{Subsampling $(k,\ell)$}\\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{ }&&$(n/4,n/4)$&$(n/6,n/6)$&$(n/8,n/8)$\\
\hline
$d^{-3/4}$&5&(200,200)& 0.06880 &0.04341&0.05168&0.04902\\
$d^{-3/4}$&5&(500,500)& 0.06881&0.03821&0.04897&0.04921\\
$d^{-7/8}$&5&(200,200)& 0.07254&0.04246&0.05138&0.05798\\
$d^{-7/8}$&5&(500,500)& 0.07188&0.04052&0.05500&0.05593\\
$d^{-3/4}$&10&(200,200)&0.00850&0.00602&0.00812&0.00898\\
$d^{-3/4}$&10&(500,500)&0.00845&0.00674&0.00751&0.00753\\
$d^{-7/8}$&10&(200,200)&0.01280 &0.00937&0.01224&0.01377\\
$d^{-7/8}$&10&(500,500)& 0.01270&0.01032&0.01251&0.01255\\
$d^{-3/4}$&20&(200,200)& 0.00049&0.00048&0.00070&0.00094\\
$d^{-3/4}$&20&(500,500)& 0.00043&0.00031&0.00046&0.00060\\
$d^{-7/8}$&20&(200,200)& 0.00166&0.00152&0.00261&0.00330\\
$d^{-7/8}$&20&(500,500)&0.00147&0.00122&0.00165&0.00204\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{ }&(200,200)&1&1.63621&1.35769 &1.29601 \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{slope of the line}&(500,500)&1&
1.76057 &1.33845 &1.3232 \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{}&both&1&1.69348&1.34798 &1.30928
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{The variance of $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ under $P=Q=N(\underline{0},I_d)$ and $V[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ : $I = 1,000$, $n_1=n/2$, and $X_1,\dots,X_n \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} N(\underline{0},I_d)$.}
\label{MMD_variance}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc|c|ccc}
$\sigma$&$d$&$(n,m)$&{$(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$} &\multicolumn{3}{c}{Subsampling $(k,\ell)$}\\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{ }& &$(n/4,n/4)$&$(n/6,n/6)$&$(n/8,n/8)$\\
\hline
$d^{-3/4}$&5&(200,200)& 0.57100 &0.47044&0.50315 &0.57047 \\
$d^{-3/4}$&5&(500,500)& 0.66068 &0.54518& 0.63054&0.58848 \\
$d^{-7/8}$&5&(200,200)&0.65987 & 0.51867 &0.57258 & 0.54567\\
$d^{-7/8}$&5&(500,500)&0.75903&0.63563 &0.68024 &0.65349 \\
$d^{-3/4}$&10&(200,200)& 0.16205 &0.09213 & 0.12017 & 0.12940 \\
$d^{-3/4}$&10&(500,500)&0.16279 &0.16106 &0.16809 &0.18334 \\
$d^{-7/8}$&10&(200,200)& 0.25656 &0.14104 &0.18435 &0.20457\\
$d^{-7/8}$&10&(500,500)&0.25836&0.24670 &0.25567 &0.26402\\
$d^{-3/4}$&20&(200,200)&0.02757&0.02135&0.02632 &0.02814\\
$d^{-3/4}$&20&(500,500)&0.02784&0.02255&0.02407 &0.02615 \\
$d^{-7/8}$&20&(200,200)&0.07642&0.07404& 0.08121& 0.08744\\
$d^{-7/8}$&20&(500,500)&0.07856&0.05714&0.07492&0.07320\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{ }&(200,200)&1&1.27369 &1.16037&1.11083 \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{slope of the line}&(500,500)&1& 1.18426 &1.07578 &1.12080\\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{ }&both&1&1.21990 &1.10951 &1.11643
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{V_200_V_200_50_intercept0.eps}
\vspace{-1cm}
\caption*{(a)}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{V_500_V_500_125_intercept0.eps}
\vspace{-1cm}
\caption*{(b)}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{MMD_V_200_V_200_50_intercept0.eps}
\vspace{-1cm}
\caption*{(c)}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{MMD_V_500_V_500_125_intercept0.eps}
\vspace{-1cm}
\caption*{(d)}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The results of linear regression of the simulated variance of $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ and the subsampling variance $V[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$, and the results for the MMD.
(a) MVD $(n, m) = (200,200),~ (k,\ell)=(50,50)$.
(b) MVD $(n, m) = (500,500),~(k,\ell)=(125,125)$.
(c) MMD $(n, m) = (200,200),~ (k,\ell)=(50,50)$.
(d) MMD $(n, m) = (500,500),~(k,\ell)=(125,125)$.
}
\label{MVD_slope}
\end{figure}
\begin{Rem}
Since the subsampling variance $V[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}]_{\text{sub}}$ is an unbiased sample variance of $I$ times, we get
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}[V[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}]_{\text{sub}}]\\
&=\frac{1}{I-1}\sum_{j=1}^{I} \mathbb{E}[\left\{
(k+\ell){\widehat{T}^2}_{k,\ell}(j)-(k+\ell)\overline{\widehat{T}^2}_{k,\ell}
\right\}^2]\\
&=\frac{1}{I-1}\sum_{j=1}^{I} \mathbb{E}\left[\left\{
(k+\ell){\widehat{T}^2}_{k,\ell}(j)-\mathbb{E}[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}]+\mathbb{E}[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}]-(k+\ell)\overline{\widehat{T}^2}_{k,\ell}
\right\}^2\right]\\
&=\frac{1}{I-1}\sum_{j=1}^{I}\Big[
\mathbb{E}\left[\left\{
(k+\ell){\widehat{T}^2}_{k,\ell}(j)-\mathbb{E}[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}]
\right\}^2\right]
+\mathbb{E}\left[
\left\{
\mathbb{E}[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}]-(k+\ell)\overline{\widehat{T}^2}_{k,\ell}
\right\}^2
\right]\\
&~~~~~+2\mathbb{E}\left[\left\{
(k+\ell){\widehat{T}^2}_{k,\ell}(j)-\mathbb{E}[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}]
\right\}
\left\{
\mathbb{E}[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}]-(k+\ell)\overline{\widehat{T}^2}_{k,\ell}
\right\}
\right]
\Big] \\
&=\frac{1}{I-1} \sum_{j=1}^{I}\Big\{
V[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}]
+\frac{1}{I^2} \sum_{i,s=1}^{I}Cov\left((k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}(i),(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}(s)\right)\\
&~~~~~
-\frac{2}{I} \sum_{i=1}^{I}Cov\left((k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}(j),(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}(i)\right)
\Big\}\\
&=\frac{I}{I-1} V[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}]-\frac{1}{I(I-1)}\sum_{i,j=1}^{I}Cov\left((k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}(i),(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}(j)\right)\\
&=V[(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}]-\frac{2}{I(I-1)} \sum_{i < j}Cov\left((k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}(i),(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}(j)\right).
\end{align*}
However, it is not easy to estimate $Cov\left((k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}(i),(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}(j)\right)$.
This fact caused us to modify subsampling variances $V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ in (\ref{Eq_MVD_V_nm}) and $V[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ in (\ref{Eq_MMD_V_nm}) to $(1+\tau)V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ and $(1+\tau)V[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ using $\tau >0$, which is determined from the regression coefficient in the row ``slope of the line" in Tables \ref{MVD_variance} and \ref{MMD_variance}.
\end{Rem}
\subsubsection{Modification of approximation distribution}\label{Wdash}
Since the subsampling variance $V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ underestimates $V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]$, as seen in Table \ref{MVD_variance} and \ref{MMD_variance}, we use positive $\tau >0$ to estimate $V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]$ by $(1+\tau) V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ in (\ref{Eq_MVD_V_nm}).
This underestimation is the same for the MMD test and $V[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]$ is estimated by $(1 + \tau) V[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ in (\ref{Eq_MMD_V_nm}) with positive $ \tau> 0 $.
Our approximation of the null distribution is based on a modification of the large variance of $1/\{\rho(1-\rho)\} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \widehat{\lambda}_{\ell}^{(n)} Z_{\ell}^2$ to $(1+\tau)V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$.
The method aims to approximate the exact null distribution by using
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_W'}
W_n'= \xi_n/\{\rho(1-\rho)\}\sum_{\ell=1}^{n-1} \widehat{\lambda}_{\ell}^{(n)} Z_{\ell}^2+c_n.
\end{equation}
The parameters $\xi_{n}$ and $c_{n}$ are determined so that the means of $W'_n$ and $1/\{\rho(1-\rho)\}\sum_{\ell=1}^{n-1} \widehat{\lambda}_{\ell}^{(n)}$ are equal and the variance of $W'_n$ is equal to $(1+\tau) V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$, which can be established by
\[
\mathbb{E}[W'_n]=\frac{1}{\rho(1-\rho)} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \widehat{\lambda}_{\ell}
\]
and
\[
V[W'_n]= (1+\tau) V[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}.
\]
This approximation method can be similarly discussed for the MMD test using $(1+\tau) V[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$.
In this paper, the parameter $\tau> 0$ is determined using the value of ``slope of the line" in Tables \ref{MVD_variance} and \ref{MMD_variance}.
Figure \ref{Wdash_comp} shows that this $W'_n$ can approximate the simulated exact distribution better than $1/\{\rho(1-\rho)\} \sum_{\ell'=1}^{n-1} \widehat{\lambda}^{(n)}_{\ell} Z_{\ell}^2$.
Algorithm shows how to obtain the critical value of the MVD test using this modification.
The algorithm for the MMD test can be obtained by changing $H$ and $\widehat{T}^2$ in Algorithm to $\widetilde{K}_{X}$ and $\widehat{\Delta}^2$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{MVD_H_eigen_Wdash_comp_nm500_d10_kl125_sigd075_intercept0.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{MMD_H_eigen_Wdash_comp_nm500_d20_kl125_sigd075_intercept0.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Density estimates of the distributions for simulated exact null distribution (solid), $W'_n$ (dashed), and $1/\{\rho(1-\rho)\} \sum_{\ell'=1}^{n-1} \widehat{\lambda}^{(n)}_{\ell} Z_{\ell}^2$ (dotted), with $(n,m)=(500, 500),~ \sigma =d^{-3/4}$, and $(k,\ell)=(125, 125)$.
Left panel: Comparison of MVD results with $d=10,~\tau_{\text{MVD}}=0.69348$.
Right panel: Comparison of MMD results with $d=20,~\tau_{\text{MMD}}=0.21990$.
}
\label{Wdash_comp}
\end{figure}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Calculation of critical value for the MVD test.}
\begin{algorithmic}
\REQUIRE $X_1,\dots,X_n, Y_1,\dots,Y_m \in \mathcal{H},~k:\mathcal{H} \times \mathcal{H} \to \mathbb{R}$ (kernel), $0 < \alpha < 1$ (significance label) and $(k,\ell) \in \{1,\dots,[n/2]\}, \tau >0$ (parameters).
For example, $\tau$ is selected as shown in the values of ``slope of the line" in Tables \ref{MVD_variance} and \ref{MMD_variance}.
\\
1. Compute the eigenvalues $\widehat{\lambda}_{\ell}^{(n)}$ of $H$ in (\ref{H_matrix_Gram}) and obtain $1/\{\rho(1-\rho)\}\sum_{\ell=1}^{n-1} \widehat{\lambda}_{\ell}^{(n)} Z_{\ell}^2(j)$ by random element $Z_1^{(j)},\dots,Z_{n-1}^{(j)} \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} N(0,1),~j \in \{1,\dots,J\} $.\\
2. (a)
Obtain copies $(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}(i),~i \in
\{1,\dots,I\}$ of $(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}$ under $H_0$ by the subsampling method.\\
~~~~(b) Compute subsampling variance $V[(n+m) \widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$ from $(k+\ell)\widehat{T}^2_{k,\ell}(i)$.\\
3. Compute $W_n'$ in (\ref{Eq_W'}) by $1/\{\rho(1-\rho)\}\sum_{\ell=1}^{n-1} \widehat{\lambda}_{\ell}^{(n)} Z_{\ell}^2(j)$ and $V[(n+m) \widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]_{\text{sub}}$.
\ENSURE We obtain the critical value $t_{\alpha}(W'_n)$ as the $J (1-\alpha)$-th from the top sorted in ascending order.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Simulations}\label{simulations}
In this section, we investigate the performance of $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ under a specific null hypothesis and specific alternative hypotheses when $\mathcal{H} = \mathbb{R}^d$ and $k(\cdot, \cdot)$ is the Gaussian kernel in (\ref{Eq_Gaussign_kernel}).
In particular, a Monte Carlo simulation is performed to observe the type-I error and the power of the MVD and MMD tests.
Two cases are implemented: a uniform distribution $Q_1$ and an exponential distribution $Q_2$, with $P=N(0,1)$, all of which have means and variances 0 and 1, respectively.
The critical values are determined based on $W'_n$ in Section \ref{Wdash} from a normal distribution.
The type-I error of $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ can be obtained by counting the number of times $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ exceeds the critical value in 1,000 iterations under the null hypothesis.
Next, the estimated power of $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ is similarly obtained by counting the number of times $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ exceeds the critical value under each alternative distribution in 1,000 iterations.
We execute the above for $(n,m)=(200,200)$ and $(500,500)$ and $d = 5, 10$, and $20$.
It is known that the selection of the value of $\sigma$ involved in the Gaussian kernel affects the performance.
We utilize $\sigma$ depending on dimension $d$.
The significance level is $\alpha = 0.05$.
The critical values are determined on the basis of $W'_n$ in Section \ref{Wdash} from a normal distribution.
The type-I error and estimated power can be obtained by counting how many times $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ exceeds the critical values in 1,000 iterations under $P=Q$ and $P \neq Q$.
With $n_1=n/2$ and $(k,\ell)=(n/8,n/8)$, $\tau_{\text{MVD}}$ for MVD is $\tau_{\text{MVD}}=0.30928$ and $\tau_{\text{MMD}}$ for MMD is $\tau_{\text{MMD}}=0.11643$ by ``slope of the line" in Tables \ref{MVD_variance} and \ref{MMD_variance}.
The following can be seen from Table \ref{Type I_and_power}:
\begin{itemize}
\item Table \ref{Type I_and_power} shows that the probabilities of type-I error at $d = 5$ and 10 are near the significance level of $\alpha=0.05$ for both the MVD and MMD.
\item The probability of type-I error at $d = 20$ exceeds the significance level of $\alpha=0.05$ for the MVD, but decreases as $(n, m)$ increases.
\item It can be seen that the critical value by $W'_n$ of the MVD tends to be estimated as less than that point of the null distribution.
\item In hypothesis $P=Q_1$, it can be seen that the MVD has a higher power than the MMD.
\item It can be seen that the MVD and MMD have higher powers for hypothesis $P=Q_2$ than hypothesis $P=Q_1$ and it is difficult to distinguish between the normal distribution and the uniform distribution by the MVD and MMD for a Gaussian kernel.
\item Note that the critical value changes depending on the distribution of the null hypothesis.
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Type-I error and power of the test by $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ for each sample size and each parameter $\sigma$.
}
\label{Type I_and_power}
\begin{tabular}{ccc|ccc|ccc}
\hline
$\sigma$&$d$&$(n,m)$&\multicolumn{3}{c|}{MVD}&\multicolumn{3}{c}{MMD}\\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{ }&Type-I error&$Q_1$ &$Q_2$&Type-I error&$Q_1$ &$Q_2$\\
\hline
$d^{-3/4}$&5&(200,200)&0.060&0.797&1&0.047&0.401&1\\
$d^{-3/4}$&5&(500,500)&0.072&1&1&0.063&0.877&1\\
$d^{-7/8}$&5&(200,200)&0.056&0.728&1&0.052&0.305&1\\
$d^{-7/8}$&5&(500,500)&0.067&0.999&1&0.053&0.735&1\\
$d^{-3/4}$&10&(200,200)&0.073&0.612&1&0.086&0.342&1\\
$d^{-3/4}$&10&(500,500)&0.047&0.991&1&0.040&0.630&1\\
$d^{-7/8}$&10&(200,200)&0.054&0.482&1&0.086&0.235&1\\
$d^{-7/8}$&10&(500,500)&0.034&0.955&1&0.044&0.363&1\\
$d^{-3/4}$&20&(200,200)&0.279&0.816&1&0.082&0.239&1\\
$d^{-3/4}$&20&(500,500)&0.099&0.948&1&0.068&0.477&1\\
$d^{-7/8}$&20&(200,200)&0.060&0.332&1&0.047&0.113&0.989\\
$d^{-7/8}$&20&(500,500)&0.034&0.728&1&0.069&0.240&1\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Application to real datasets} \label{Applications to real data sets}
The MVD test was applied to some real data sets.
The significance level was $\alpha=0.05$ and the critical value $t_{0.05}(H)$ was obtained through 10,000 iterations of $1/\{\rho(1-\rho)\}\sum_{\ell=1}^{n-1} \widehat{\lambda}^{(n)}_{\ell} Z_{\ell}^2$ based on the eigenvalues of the matrix $H/n$.
We also calculated the critical value $t_{0.05}(W'_n)$ of the approximate distribution $W'_n$ according to Algorithm in Section \ref{Wdash}.
The $t_{0.05}(\widetilde{K}_{X})$ calculates the critical value for the MMD test from the distribution obtained based on Theorem 1 in \cite{Gretton2009a} through 10,000 iterations.
\subsection{USPS data}
The USPS dataset consists of handwritten digits represented by a $16\times16$ grayscale matrix (\url{https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvmtools/datasets/multiclass.html#usps}).
The sizes of each sample are shown in Table \ref{USPSdata}.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Sample sizes of the USPS data.}
\label{USPSdata}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\hline
index&0&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9\\
\hline
sample size&359&264&198&166&200&160&170&147&166&177\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Each group was divided into two sets of sample size 70 and the MVD test was applied to each set.
Table \ref{MVD_MMD_USPS} shows the results of applying the MVD and MMD tests to this USPS dataset.
Parameters $ \sigma = d^{-3/4}, d^{-7/8} $, $ n_1 = 35 $, $k$ and $\ell = 18$ are adopted and $ \tau = 0.69348$ for the MVD and $\tau=0.21990$ for the MMD were utilized from the slope of the line in Tables \ref{MVD_variance} and \ref{MMD_variance}.
In each cell, the values of $(n + m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ and $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ for each number are written, with the values of $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ in parentheses.
From Table \ref{MVD_MMD_USPS}, there is a tendency that different groups will be rejected and that the same groups are not rejected by the MVD test.
For $P=$ USPS 2 and $Q=$ USPS 2, the value of $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ is 2.953, which is larger than $t_{0.05}(W'_n)=2.946$ but smaller than $t_{0.05}(H)=3.416$.
On the other hand, for the MMD test, the value of $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ is 5.014, which is larger than both $t_{0.05}(W'_n)=4.488$ and $t_{0.05}(H)=4.698$.
By modifying the distribution, there is a tendency to reject the null hypothesis.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Values of $(n + m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ and $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ for $\sigma=d^{-3/4}$, $n_1 = 35 $, $ k, \ell = 18 $, $\tau_{\text{MVD}} = 0.69348$, and $\tau_{\text{MMD}}=0.21990$.
}
\label{MVD_MMD_USPS}
\small
\begin{tabular}{c|cccccccccc}
\hline
& 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 &5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 \\
\hline
\hline
$t_{0.05}(H)$&3.056&0.680&3.416&2.742&2.747&3.319&2.705&2.079&2.884&1.941\\
\hline
$t_{0.05}(W'_n)$&2.755&0.572&2.940&2.317&2.349&2.785&2.336&1.823&2.431&1.719\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{0}& 2.241 & \multirow{2}{*}{6.328} & \multirow{2}{*}{6.803} &\multirow{2}{*}{6.834} & \multirow{2}{*}{7.390 }&\multirow{2}{*}{6.589} &\multirow{2}{*}{7.117} &\multirow{2}{*}{7.513} &\multirow{2}{*}{6.930} &\multirow{2}{*}{4.573} \\
&(2.740)&&&&&&&&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{1}& \multirow{2}{*}{(124.6)}& 0.287 &\multirow{2}{*}{4.269 } &\multirow{2}{*}{4.290} &\multirow{2}{*}{4.356} &\multirow{2}{*}{4.393} &\multirow{2}{*}{5.132} &\multirow{2}{*}{4.265} &\multirow{2}{*}{4.233} &\multirow{2}{*}{4.170} \\
&&(0.585)&&&&&&&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{2}&\multirow{2}{*}{(34.38)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(94.14)}& 2.953 &\multirow{2}{*}{4.730} &\multirow{2}{*}{5.253} &\multirow{2}{*}{5.053} &\multirow{2}{*}{5.880} &\multirow{2}{*}{5.264} &\multirow{2}{*}{4.732} &\multirow{2}{*}{5.165} \\
&&&(5.014)&&&&&&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{3}& \multirow{2}{*}{(42.61)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(105.0)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(26.78)}& 2.383&\multirow{2}{*}{5.248} &\multirow{2}{*}{4.239} &\multirow{2}{*}{6.022}& \multirow{2}{*}{5.242} &\multirow{2}{*}{4.575} &\multirow{2}{*}{5.022} \\
&&& & (3.345)&&&&&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{4}&\multirow{2}{*}{(55.81)}&\multirow{2}{*}{(93.27)} &\multirow{2}{*}{(36.46)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(45.34)} & 2.067 &\multirow{2}{*}{5.259} &\multirow{2}{*}{6.237} &\multirow{2}{*}{4.930} &\multirow{2}{*}{4.849} &\multirow{2}{*}{3.717} \\
&&&&& (2.745) &&&&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{5}& \multirow{2}{*}{(30.65)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(95.83)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(24.64)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(18.91)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(35.32)} & 2.761 &\multirow{2}{*}{5.757} &\multirow{2}{*}{5.434} &\multirow{2}{*}{4.814} &\multirow{2}{*}{5.106} \\
&&&&&& (3.822)&&&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{6}&\multirow{2}{*}{(39.15)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(102.6)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(30.11)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(47.36)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(48.80)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(29.49)} & 2.261 &\multirow{2}{*}{6.527} &\multirow{2}{*}{5.946}&\multirow{2}{*}{6.344}\\
&&&&&&& (5.643) &&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{7}&\multirow{2}{*}{(72.41)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(111.3)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(50.29)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(52.91)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(45.54)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(51.29)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(74.30)} & 1.560 &\multirow{2}{*}{5.142}&\multirow{2}{*}{4.062}\\
&&&&&&&&(1.785)&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{8}& \multirow{2}{*}{(44.46)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(86.90)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(25.20)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(28.77)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(31.13)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(25.01)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(40.92)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(51.27)} & 2.055 &\multirow{2}{*}{4.352} \\
&&&&&&&&& (2.666)&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{9}&\multirow{2}{*}{(71.81)}& \multirow{2}{*}{(95.38)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(51.48)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(49.58)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(25.87)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(46.76)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(70.81)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(31.19)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(33.73)} & 1.677\\
&&&&&&&&&& (2.336)\\
\hline
\hline
$t_{0.05}(\widetilde{K}_{X})$&(4.983)&(2.191)&(4.698)&(4.352)& (4.343)&(4.691)&(4.550)&(3.917)&(4.424)&(3.767)\\
\hline
$t_{0.05}(W'_n)$&(5.228)&(1.749)&(4.502)&(3.928)&(3.961)&(4.085)&(4.510)&(4.104)&(4.245)&(4.455)\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{MNIST data}
The MNIST dataset consists of images of $28 \times 28=784$ pixels in size (\url{http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/mnist}).
The sizes of each sample are shown in Table \ref{MNISTdata}.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Sample sizes of the MNIST data.}
\label{MNISTdata}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\hline
index& 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 &4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 \\
\hline
sample size&5,923 & 6,742 & 5,958 & 6,131 & 5,842 & 5,421 &5,918 & 6,265 & 5,851 &5,949 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The MNIST data are divided into two sets of sample size 2,000 and the MVD and MMD tests are applied.
Table \ref{MVD_MMD_MNIST} shows the results of applying the MVD and MMD tests to the MNIST data.
The approximate distribution $W'_n$ is calculated with $n_1=1,000$, $k, \ell=500$, $\tau_{\text{MVD}}=0.69348$, and $\tau_{\text{MMD}}=0.21990$.
As in Table \ref{MVD_MMD_USPS}, the values of $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ and $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ are written in each cell, with the values of $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ in parentheses.
In Table \ref{MVD_MMD_MNIST}, $(n+m)\widehat{T}_{n,m}^2$ tends to take a larger value than both $t_{0.05}(H)$ and $t_{0.05}(W'_n)$.
This result is the same for the MMD test.
The MVD and MMD tests tend to reject the null hypothesis with the modifications in Section \ref{Wdash}.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Values of $(n + m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ and $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ for $\sigma=d^{-2}$, $n_1 = 1,000 $, $ k, \ell = 500 $, $\tau_{\text{MVD}} = 0.69348$, and $\tau_{\text{MMD}}=0.21990$.
}
\label{MVD_MMD_MNIST}
\small
\begin{tabular}{c|cccccccccc}
\hline
& 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 &5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 \\
\hline
\hline
$t_{0.05}(H)$&4.194&3.883&4.202&4.196&4.189&4.195&4.182&4.163&4.197&4.171\\
\hline
$t_{0.05}(W'_n)$&3.993&3.937&3.993&3.989&3.990&3.993&3.989&3.990&3.989&3.988\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{0}& 3.999 & \multirow{2}{*}{34.86} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.207} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.268} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.394} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.304} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.599} & \multirow{2}{*}{5.240} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.256} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.861} \\
&(4.092)&&&&&&&&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{1}& \multirow{2}{*}{(217.4)} &5.379 & \multirow{2}{*}{34.68} & \multirow{2}{*}{34.75} & \multirow{2}{*}{34.86} & \multirow{2}{*}{34.80} & \multirow{2}{*}{35.08} & \multirow{2}{*}{35.66} & \multirow{2}{*}{34.73} & \multirow{2}{*}{35.33} \\
&&(15.42)&&&&&&&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{2}&\multirow{2}{*}{(10.77)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(210.5)}& 4.001 & \multirow{2}{*}{4.118} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.245} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.156} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.451} & \multirow{2}{*}{5.088} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.106} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.711}\\
&&&(4.131)&&&&&&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{3}& \multirow{2}{*}{(13.55)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(213.4)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(9,806)}& 4.007 & \multirow{2}{*}{4.306} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.211} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.512} & \multirow{2}{*}{5.146} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.164} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.769}\\
&&& & (4.208)&&&&&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{4}& \multirow{2}{*}{(16.56)}&\multirow{2}{*}{(216.1)} &\multirow{2}{*}{(12.83)}& \multirow{2}{*}{(15.59)}&4.020 & \multirow{2}{*}{4.341} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.637} & \multirow{2}{*}{5.262} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.292} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.805}\\
&&&&& (4.482) &&&&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{5}& \multirow{2}{*}{(13.35)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(213.9)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(10.10)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(11.57)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(15.12)} &
4.018 & \multirow{2}{*}{4.546} & \multirow{2}{*}{5.188} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.201} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.806}\\
&&&&&& (4.357)&&&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{6}& \multirow{2}{*}{(19.39)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(219.5)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(16.06)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(18.90)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(21.28)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(18.29)} & 4.031 & \multirow{2}{*}{5.485} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.499} & \multirow{2}{*}{5.105} \\
&&&&&&& (4.573) &&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{7}&\multirow{2}{*}{(28.85)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(225.2)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(24.85)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(27.49)} &\multirow{2}{*}{(28.28)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(27.56)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(34.24)} & 4.067 & \multirow{2}{*}{5.138} & \multirow{2}{*}{5.625}\\
&&&&&&&&(4.625)&&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{8}& \multirow{2}{*}{(13.12)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(211.3)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(9.261)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(11.37)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(14.72)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(11.51)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(18.19)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(26.97)}& 4.005 &\multirow{2}{*}{4.755} \\
&&&&&&&&& (4.190)&\\
\multirow{2}{*}{9}& \multirow{2}{*}{(24.80)}& \multirow{2}{*}{(223.2)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(21.11)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(23.23)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(19.05)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(22.80)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(29.84)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(29.91)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(22.07)} & 4.046\\
&&&&&&&&&& (4.686)\\
\hline
\hline
$t_{0.05}(\widetilde{K}_{X})$&(4.210)&(4.718)&(4.208)&(4.206)&(4.210)&(4.209)&(4.218)&(4.238)&(4.207)&(4.224)\\
\hline
$t_{0.05}(W'_n)$& (4.058)&(5.137)&(4.024)&(4.038)&(4.077)&(4.107)&(4.092)&(4.137)&(4.039)&(4.159)\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Colon data}
The Colon dataset contains gene expression data from DNA microarray experiments of colon tissue samples with $d$ = 2,000 and $n = 62$ (see \cite{Alon} for details).
Among the 62 samples, 40 are tumor tissues and 22 are normal tissues.
Tables \ref{MVD_tumor_normal} and \ref{MMD_tumor_normal} show the results of the MVD and MMD tests for $P=$ tumor and $Q=$ normal.
The ``tumor vs. normal" column shows the values of $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ and $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ for $P =$ tumor and $Q =$ normal.
The ``normal" and ``tumor" columns show, $t_ {0.05} (W')$ and $t_ {0.05} (H)$ calculated from respectively the normal tissues and tumor tissues datasets.
For the MVD, $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ does not exceed $t_{0.05}(H)$, but $(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ exceeds $t_{0.05}(W'_n)$ by modifying the approximate distribution.
By contrast, for the MMD, $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ exceeds both $t_{0.05}(H)$ and $t_{0.05}(W_n')$ without modifying the approximate distribution.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Values of $(n + m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ and critical values for normal ($n_1= 11,~k, \ell = 6$) and tumor ($n_1 = 20,~k, \ell = 10$), with $\tau_{\text{MVD}} = 0.69348$.}
\label{MVD_tumor_normal}
\begin{tabular}{cc|cc|cc}
\hline
&&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{normal}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{tumor}\\
$\sigma$&tumor vs. normal & $t_{0.05}(W'_n)$&$t_{0.05}(H)$ &$t_{0.05}(W'_n)$&$t_{0.05}(H)$\\
\hline
$d^{-3/4}$& 3.867&3.536&5.280&3.728&5.050\\
$d^{-7/8}$& 2.291&2.097&2.907&2.258&2.846\\
$d^{-1}$& 0.684&0.660&0.879&0.757&0.906\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Values of $(n + m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ and critical values for normal ($n_1=11,~k, \ell=6$) and tumor ($n_1=20,~k, \ell=10$), with $\tau_{\text{MMD}}=0.21990$.}
\label{MMD_tumor_normal}
\begin{tabular}{cc|cc|cc}
\hline
&&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{normal}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{tumor}\\
$\sigma$&tumor vs. normal & $t_{0.05}(W'_n)$&$t_{0.05}(H)$ &$t_{0.05}(W'_n)$&$t_{0.05}(H)$\\
\hline
$d^{-3/4}$& 6.695&4.456&6.201&4.618& 5.713\\
$d^{-7/8}$& 8.787&3.974&4.827&3.945&4.491\\
$d^{-1}$& 6.282&2.439&2.754&2.412&2.634\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Next, tumor $ (\text{sample size} = 40) $ was divided into $P=$ tumor 1 $ (n = 20) $ and $Q=$ tumor 2 $ (m = 20) $, and two-sample tests by the MVD and MMD were applied.
The results are shown in Tables \ref{MVD_tumor_tumor} and \ref{MMD_tumor_tumor}, with the values for $(n+m)\widehat{T}_{n,m}^2$ and $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}_{n,m}^2$ in the column ``tumor 1 vs. tumor 2".
In Table \ref{MVD_tumor_tumor}, when $\sigma=d^{-3/4}$, $(n+m)\widehat{T}_{n,m}^2$ exceeds $t_{0.05}(W'_n)$, but in other cases $(n+m)\widehat{T}_{n,m}^2$ does not exceed $t_{0.05}(W'_n)$ and $(n+m)\widehat{T}_{n,m}^2$ does not exceed $t_{0.05}(H)$ and $t_{0.05}(W_n')$.
Table \ref{MMD_tumor_tumor} shows that, for all $\sigma$, $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ exceeds $t_{0.05}(W'_n)$ for the MMD test, but $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ does not exceed $t_{0.05}(H)$.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Values of $(n + m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ and critical values for tumor 1 ($n_1=10,~k, \ell=5$) and tumor 2 ($n_1=10,~k, \ell=5$), with $\tau=0.69348$.}
\label{MVD_tumor_tumor}
\begin{tabular}{cc|cc|cc}
\hline
&&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{tumor 1}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{tumor 2}\\
$\sigma$&tumor 1 vs. tumor 2 & $t_{0.05}(W'_n)$&$t_{0.05}(H)$ &$t_{0.05}(W'_n)$&$t_{0.05}(H)$\\
\hline
$d^{-3/4}$& 3.379&3.180&4.596&3.245&4.942\\
$d^{-7/8}$& 1.858&1.915&2.502&2.085&2.875\\
$d^{-1}$&0.558&0.629&0.800&0.727&0.921\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Values of $(n + m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}$ and critical values for tumor 1 ($n_1=10,~k, \ell=5$) and tumor 2 ($n_1=10,~k, \ell=5$), with $\tau=0.21990$.
}
\label{MMD_tumor_tumor}
\begin{tabular}{cc|cc|cc}
\hline
&&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{tumor 1}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{tumor 2}\\
$\sigma$&tumor 1 vs. tumor 2 & $t_{0.05}(W'_n)$&$t_{0.05}(H)$ &$t_{0.05}(W'_n)$&$t_{0.05}(H)$\\
\hline
$d^{-3/4}$& 4.627&4.064&5.621&3.961&5.782\\
$d^{-7/8}$& 4.123&3.305&4.206&3.426&4.551\\
$d^{-1}$&2.453&1.942&2.377&2.102&2.656\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}\label{Conclusion}
We defined a Maximum Variance Discrepancy (MVD) with a similar idea to the Maximum Mean Discrepnacy (MMD) in Section \ref{MVD}.
We derived the asymptotic null distribution for the MVD test in Section \ref{asymptotic null distribution}.
This was the infinite sum of the weighted chi-square distributions.
In Section \ref{asymptotic nonnull distribution}, we derived an asymptotic nonnull distribution for the MVD test, which was a normal distribution.
The asymptotic normality of the test under the alternative hypothesis showed that the two-sample test by the MVD has consistency.
Furthermore, we developed an asymptotic distribution for the test under a sequence of local alternatives in Section \ref{asymptotic distribution under contiguous alternatives}.
This was the infinite sum of weighted noncentral chi-squared distributions.
We constructed an estimator of asymptotic null distributed weights based on the Gram matrix in Section \ref{Gram matrix spectrum}.
The approximate distribution of the null distribution by these estimated weights does not work well, so we modified it in Section \ref{approximation of the null distribution}.
In the simulation of the power reported, we found that the power of the two-sample test by the MVD was larger than that of the MMD.
We confirmed in Section \ref{Applications to real data sets} that the two-sample test by the MVD works for real data-sets.
\section{Proofs}\label{section_Proof}
\begin{lemm}\label{asymptotic equivalent}
Suppose that Condition is satisfied.
Then, as $n,m \to \infty$,
\[
\sqrt{n+m}\left(
\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}^2-\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}^2
\right) \xrightarrow{P}0,
\]
where
\[
\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}~~\text{and}~~\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q)=\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2}.
\]
\end{lemm}
\begin{lemm}\label{Lemma_three_evaluate}
Let $Y_1,\dots,Y_m \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} Q_{nm}$.
Suppose that Condition is satisfied.
Then, as $n,m \to \infty$, following evaluates are obtained
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] \[
\norm{\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\mu_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)} =O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right),
\]
\item[(ii)]
\[
\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}=O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right),
\]
\item[(iii)]
\[
\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}=O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right).
\]
\end{itemize}
\end{lemm}
\begin{lemm}\label{asymptotic_equivalent_contiguous}
Let $X_1,\dots,X_n \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} P$ and $Y_1,\dots,Y_m \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} Q_{nm}$.
Suppose that Condition is satisfied.
Then, as $n,m \to \infty$,
\[
(n+m)\left(
\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}-\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right) \xrightarrow{P}0.
\]
\end{lemm}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{Prop_MMD_N(0,1)_and_N(m,Sigma)}}
The kernel mean embedding $\mu_k(N(\underline{m},\Sigma))$ with the Gaussian kernel in (\ref{Eq_Gaussign_kernel}) is obtained
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_expression_KME}
\mu_k(N(\underline{m},\Sigma))=|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2}\exp\left(
-\sigma(\cdot-\underline{m})^T(I_d+2\sigma \Sigma)^{-1}(\cdot-\underline{m})
\right)
\end{equation}
and the norm of that is derived
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_norm_of_kernel_mean_embedding}
\norm{\mu_k(N(\underline{m},\Sigma))}^2_{H(k)}=|I_d+4\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2}
\end{equation}
by Proposition 4.2 in \cite{Kellner_and_Celisse}.
We use the property of Gaussian density
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_property_of_Gaussian_density}
\phi_{\Sigma_1}(\underline{x}-\underline{m}_1)\phi_{\Sigma_2}(\underline{x}-\underline{m}_2)=\phi_{\Sigma_1+\Sigma_2}(\underline{m}_1-\underline{m}_2) \phi_{(\Sigma_1^{-1}+\Sigma_2^{-1})^{-1}}(\underline{x}-\underline{m}^*),
\end{equation}
where
\[
\underline{m}^*=(\Sigma^{-1}_1+\Sigma^{-1}_2)^{-1}(\Sigma^{-1}_1\underline{m}_2+\Sigma^{-1}_2\underline{m}_1)
\]
and $\phi_{\Sigma}(\cdot-\underline{m})$ designates the density of $N(\underline{m},\Sigma)$, see e.g. Appendix C in \cite{Wand_and_Jones}.
The property of Gaussian density (\ref{Eq_property_of_Gaussian_density}) is used repeatedly to calculate $\mathbb{E}_{\substack{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)\\ \underline{X}' \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}}[k(\underline{X},\underline{X}')]$, and we get
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}_{\substack{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)\\ \underline{X}' \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}}[k(\underline{X},\underline{X}')] \nonumber\\
&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \exp(-\sigma \norm{\underline{x}-\underline{y}}^2_{\mathbb{R^d}}) dN(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)(\underline{x}) dN(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)(\underline{y})\nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\right)^{d/2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \phi_{\frac{1}{2\sigma}I_d}(\underline{x}-\underline{y}) dN(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)(\underline{x}) dN(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)(\underline{y})\nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\right)^{d/2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \phi_{\frac{1}{2\sigma}I_d}(\underline{x}-\underline{y}) \phi_{\Sigma} (\underline{x}-\underline{\mu}) d\underline{x} dN(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)(\underline{y})\nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\right)^{d/2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \phi_{\frac{1}{2\sigma}I_d+\Sigma}(\underline{y}-\underline{\mu}) \phi_{(2\sigma I_d+\Sigma^{-1})^{-1}} (\underline{x}-\underline{m}_1^*) d\underline{x} dN(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)(\underline{y})\nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\right)^{d/2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \phi_{\frac{1}{2\sigma}I_d+\Sigma}(\underline{y}-\underline{\mu})dN(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0) (\underline{y}) \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\phi_{(2\sigma I_d+\Sigma^{-1})^{-1}} (\underline{x}-\underline{m}_1^*) d\underline{x}\nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\right)^{d/2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \phi_{\frac{1}{2\sigma}I_d+\Sigma}(\underline{y}-\underline{\mu}) \phi_{\Sigma_0}(\underline{y}-\underline{m}_0)d\underline{y}\nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\right)^{d/2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \phi_{\frac{1}{2\sigma}I_d+\Sigma+\Sigma_0}(\underline{\mu}-\underline{m}_0) \phi_{((\frac{1}{2\sigma}I_d+\Sigma)^{-1}+\Sigma_0^{-1})^{-1}}(\underline{y}-\underline{m}_2^*) d\underline{y}\nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\right)^{d/2}\phi_{\frac{1}{2\sigma}I_d+\Sigma+\Sigma_0}(\underline{\mu}-\underline{m}_0) \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \phi_{((\frac{1}{2\sigma}I_d+\Sigma)^{-1}+\Sigma_0^{-1})^{-1}}(\underline{y}-\underline{m}_2^*) d\underline{y}\nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\right)^{d/2}\phi_{\frac{1}{2\sigma}I_d+\Sigma+\Sigma_0}(\underline{\mu}-\underline{m}_0), \label{Eq_KME_inner_product}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
&m_1^*=(2\sigma I_d+\Sigma^{-1})^{-1}(2\sigma \underline{y}+\Sigma^{-1}\underline{\mu}),\\
&m_2^*=\left\{\left(\frac{1}{2\sigma}I_d+\Sigma \right)^{-1} +\Sigma_0^{-1}\right\}^{-1} \left\{\left(\frac{1}{2\sigma}I_d+\Sigma \right)^{-1}\underline{\mu}+\Sigma_0^{-1} \underline{m}_0\right\}.
\end{align*}
Using this results (\ref{Eq_norm_of_kernel_mean_embedding}) and (\ref{Eq_KME_inner_product}), $\text{MMD}(N(\underline{0},I_d),N(\underline{m},\Sigma))^2$ is obtained as
\begin{align*}
&\text{MMD}(N(\underline{0},I_d),N(\underline{m},\Sigma))^2\\
&=\norm{\mu_k(N(\underline{0},I_d))-\mu_k(N(\underline{m},\Sigma))}^2_{H(k)}\\
&=\norm{\mu_k(N(\underline{0},I_d))}^2_{H(k)} +\norm{\mu_k(N(\underline{m},\Sigma))}^2_{H(k)} -2\left<\mu_k(N(\underline{0},I_d)),\mu_k(N(\underline{m},\Sigma))\right>_{H(k)}\\
&=\norm{\mu_k(N(\underline{0},I_d))}^2_{H(k)} +\norm{\mu_k(N(\underline{m},\Sigma))}^2_{H(k)} -2\mathbb{E}_{\substack{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{0},I_d)\\ \underline{X}' \sim N(\underline{m},\Sigma)}}[k(\underline{X},\underline{X}')]\\
&=|I_d+4\sigma I_d|^{-1/2}+|I_d+4\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2}
-2\left(\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\right)^{d/2} \phi_{\frac{1}{2\sigma} I_d+I_d+\Sigma}(\underline{m})\\
&=(1+4\sigma)^{-d/2} +|I_d+4\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2} \\
&~~~~~
-2\left(\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\right)^{d/2} \left|\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\left((1+2\sigma)I_d+2\sigma \Sigma\right)\right|^{-1/2} \exp\left(
-\sigma \underline{m}^T \left((1+2\sigma) I_d+2\sigma \Sigma\right)^{-1} \underline{m}
\right)\\
&=|I_d+4\sigma I_d|^{-1/2}+|I_d+4\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2}
-2\left(\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\right)^{d/2} \phi_{\frac{1}{2\sigma} I_d+I_d+\Sigma}(\underline{m})\\
&=(1+4\sigma)^{-d/2} +|I_d+4\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2} \\
&~~~~~
-2 \left|(1+2\sigma)I_d+2\sigma \Sigma\right|^{-1/2} \exp\left(
-\sigma \underline{m}^T \left((1+2\sigma) I_d+2\sigma \Sigma\right)^{-1} \underline{m}
\right).
\end{align*}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{Prop_MVD_N(0,1)_and_N(m,Sigma)}}
In the following proof, the $\text{MVD}(N(\underline{0},I_d),N(\underline{m},\Sigma))^2$ when using the Gaussian kernel in (\ref{Eq_Gaussign_kernel}) is calculated by repeatedly using (\ref{Eq_property_of_Gaussian_density}).
From the expansion of the norm
\begin{align}
&\text{MVD}(N(\underline{0},I_d),N(\underline{m},\Sigma))^2 \nonumber\\
&=\norm{\Sigma_k(N(\underline{0},I_d))-\Sigma_k(N(\underline{m},\Sigma))}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\nonumber\\
&=\norm{\Sigma_k(N(\underline{0},I_d))}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
+\norm{\Sigma_k(N(\underline{m},\Sigma))}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
-2\left<\Sigma_k(N(\underline{0},I_d)),\Sigma_k(N(\underline{m},\Sigma))\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}, \label{Eq_MVD_NandN}
\end{align}
it is sufficient for us to calculate $\left<\Sigma_k(N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)),\Sigma_k(N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0))\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}$.
The definition of $\Sigma_k(P)$ and the tensor product $h^{\otimes 2}$ lead to
\begin{align}
&\left<\Sigma_k(N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)),\Sigma_k(N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0))\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&=\left<\mathbb{E}_{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)}\left[
\left(k(\cdot,\underline{X})-\mathbb{E}_{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)}[k(\cdot,\underline{X})]\right)^{\otimes 2}
\right],\right. \nonumber\\
&~~~~~\left. \mathbb{E}_{\underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}\left[
\left(k(\cdot,\underline{Y})-\mathbb{E}_{\underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}[k(\cdot,\underline{Y})]\right)^{\otimes 2}
\right]\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{E}_{\substack{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma) \nonumber\\ \underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}}\left[
\left<
\left(k(\cdot,\underline{X})-\mathbb{E}_{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)}[k(\cdot,\underline{X})]\right)^{\otimes 2}, \left(k(\cdot,\underline{Y})-\mathbb{E}_{\underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}[k(\cdot,\underline{Y})]\right)^{\otimes 2}
\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right] \nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{E}_{\substack{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)\\ \underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}}\left[
\left<
k(\cdot,\underline{X})^{\otimes 2}-\left\{\mathbb{E}_{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)}[k(\cdot,\underline{X})] \right\}^{\otimes 2}, k(\cdot,\underline{Y})^{\otimes 2}-\left\{\mathbb{E}_{\underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}[k(\cdot,\underline{Y})]\right\} ^{\otimes 2}
\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right] \nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{E}_{\substack{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)\\ \underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}}\left[
\left<
k(\cdot,\underline{X})^{\otimes 2}, k(\cdot,\underline{Y})^{\otimes 2}
\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
-\left<
k(\cdot,\underline{X})^{\otimes 2}, \left\{\mathbb{E}_{\underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}[k(\cdot,\underline{Y})]\right\} ^{\otimes 2}
\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \right. \nonumber\\
&~~~~~
-\left<
\left\{\mathbb{E}_{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)}[k(\cdot,\underline{X})] \right\}^{\otimes 2}, k(\cdot,\underline{Y})^{\otimes 2}
\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&~~~~~\left.
+\left<
\left\{\mathbb{E}_{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)}[k(\cdot,\underline{X})] \right\}^{\otimes 2}, \left\{\mathbb{E}_{\underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}[k(\cdot,\underline{Y})]\right\} ^{\otimes 2}
\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right] \nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{E}_{\substack{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)\\ \underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}}\left[
\left<
k(\cdot,\underline{X}), k(\cdot,\underline{Y})
\right>_{H(k)}^2
-\left<
k(\cdot,\underline{X}), \mathbb{E}_{\underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}[k(\cdot,\underline{Y})]
\right>_{H(k)}^2 \right. \nonumber\\
&~~~~~\left.
-\left<
\mathbb{E}_{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)}[k(\cdot,\underline{X})] , k(\cdot,\underline{Y})
\right>_{H(k)}^2
+\left<
\mathbb{E}_{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)}[k(\cdot,\underline{X})] , \mathbb{E}_{\underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}[k(\cdot,\underline{Y})]
\right>_{H(k)}^2
\right] \nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{E}_{\substack{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)\\ \underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}}\left[
k(\underline{X},\underline{Y})^2
-\left\{\mathbb{E}_{\underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}[k(\underline{X},\underline{Y})]\right\}^2
-\left\{
\mathbb{E}_{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)}[k(\underline{X},\underline{Y})]
\right\}^2 \right. \nonumber\\
&~~~~~\left.
+\left\{
\mathbb{E}_{\substack{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma) \\ \underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}}[k(\underline{X},\underline{Y})]
\right\}^2
\right] \nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{E}_{\substack{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)\\ \underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}}[k(\underline{X},\underline{Y})^2]
-\mathbb{E}_{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)}\left[ \left\{
\mathbb{E}_{\underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}[k(\underline{X},\underline{Y})] \right\}^2
\right] \nonumber
\\
&~~~~~
-\mathbb{E}_{\underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}\left[ \left\{
\mathbb{E}_{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)}[k(\underline{X},\underline{Y})] \right\}^2
\right]
+\left\{\mathbb{E}_{\substack{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)\\ \underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}}[k(\underline{X},\underline{Y})] \right\}^2 \nonumber\\
&=:I_1-I_2-I_3+I_4. \label{Eq_prop2_I}
\end{align}
We calculate each of these terms.
The first term $I_1$ is derived as
\begin{align}
I_1
&=\mathbb{E}_{\substack{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma) \\ \underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}}[k(\underline{X},\underline{Y})^2] \nonumber\\
&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \exp\left(-2\sigma \norm{\underline{x}-\underline{y}}^2_{\mathbb{R}^d}\right)d N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)(\underline{x}) dN(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)(\underline{y}) \nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}I_d}(\underline{x}-\underline{y})d N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)(\underline{x})dN(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)(\underline{y}) \nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d }\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}I_d}(\underline{x}-\underline{y}) \phi_{\Sigma_0}(\underline{x}-\underline{m}_0)d\underline{x} dN(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)(\underline{y}) \nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}I_d+\Sigma_0}(\underline{y}-\underline{m}_0) dN(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)(\underline{y}) \nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2} \int_{\mathcal{\mathbb{R}}} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}I_d}(\underline{x}-\underline{y}) \phi_{\Sigma_0}(\underline{y}-\underline{m}_0)d\underline{y} \nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}I_d+\Sigma_0}(\underline{x}-\underline{m}_0). \label{Eq_prop2_I_1}
\end{align}
by repeatedly using (\ref{Eq_property_of_Gaussian_density}).
By using the expression of kernel mean embedding in (\ref{Eq_expression_KME}) and the property of (\ref{Eq_property_of_Gaussian_density}), we obtain the second term
\begin{align}
I_2
&=\mathbb{E}_{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)}\left[ \left\{
\mathbb{E}_{\underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}[k(\underline{X},\underline{Y})] \right\}^2
\right] \nonumber\\
&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \left\{
|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma_0|^{-1/2} \exp\left(
-\sigma(\underline{x}-\underline{m}_0)^T (I_d+2\sigma \Sigma_0)^{-1}(\underline{x}-\underline{m}_0)
\right)
\right\}^2 dN(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)(\underline{x})\nonumber\\
&=|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma_0|^{-1} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \exp\left(
-2\sigma(\underline{x}-\underline{m}_0)^T (I_d+2\sigma \Sigma_0)^{-1}(\underline{x}-\underline{m}_0)
\right) dN(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)(\underline{x}) \nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2}|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma_0|^{-1/2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(I_d+2\sigma \Sigma_0)} (\underline{x}-\underline{m}_0) dN(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)(\underline{x}) \nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2}|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma_0|^{-1/2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(I_d+2\sigma \Sigma_0)} (\underline{x}-\underline{m}_0) \phi_{\Sigma}(\underline{x}-\underline{\mu}) d\underline{x} \nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2}|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma_0|^{-1/2} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(I_d+2\sigma \Sigma_0+4\sigma \Sigma)}(\underline{m}_0-\underline{\mu}). \label{Eq_prop2_I_2}
\end{align}
The third term $I_3$ is derived
\begin{align}
I_3
&=\mathbb{E}_{\underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}\left[ \left\{
\mathbb{E}_{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)}[k(\underline{X},\underline{Y})] \right\}^2
\right] \nonumber \\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2}|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(I_d+2\sigma \Sigma+4\sigma \Sigma_0)}(\underline{m}_0-\underline{\mu}) \label{Eq_prop2_I_3}
\end{align}
by the same calculation as $I_2$.
Finally, the fourth term $I_4$ is calculated as follows
\begin{align}
I_4
&=\left\{\mathbb{E}_{\substack{\underline{X} \sim N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)\\ \underline{Y} \sim N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0)}}[k(\underline{X},\underline{Y})] \right\}^2 \nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\right)^d\left\{
\phi_{\frac{1}{2\sigma}I_d+\Sigma+\Sigma_0}(\underline{m}_0-\underline{\mu})
\right\}^2 \nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\right)^d\left\{ \left|2\pi \left(\frac{1}{2\sigma}I_d+\Sigma+\Sigma_0\right) \right|^{-1/2} \exp\left(-\sigma(\underline{m}_0-\underline{\mu})^T(I_d+2\sigma \Sigma+2\sigma \Sigma_0)^{-1} (\underline{m}_0-\underline{\mu})\right)\right\}^2 \nonumber\\
&=|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma+2\sigma \Sigma_0|^{-1} \exp\left(-2\sigma(\underline{m}_0-\underline{\mu})^T(I_d+2\sigma \Sigma+2\sigma \Sigma_0)^{-1} (\underline{m}_0-\underline{\mu})\right) \nonumber\\
&=|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma+2\sigma \Sigma_0|^{-1} \left|\frac{\pi}{2 \sigma}(I_d+2\sigma \Sigma+2\sigma \Sigma_0)\right|^{1/2} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(I_d+2\sigma \Sigma+2\sigma \Sigma_0)}(\underline{m}_0-\underline{\mu}) \nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2} |I_d+2\sigma \Sigma+2\sigma \Sigma_0|^{-1/2} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(I_d+2\sigma \Sigma+2\sigma \Sigma_0)}(\underline{m}_0-\underline{\mu}) \label{Eq_prop2_I_4}
\end{align}
by using (\ref{Eq_KME_inner_product}).
Hence, combining (\ref{Eq_prop2_I}) and (\ref{Eq_prop2_I_1})-(\ref{Eq_prop2_I_4}) yields
\begin{align}
&\left<\Sigma_k(N(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)),\Sigma_k(N(\underline{m}_0,\Sigma_0))\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}I_d+\Sigma_0+\Sigma}(\underline{m}_0-\underline{\mu})
-\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2}|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma_0|^{-1/2} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(I_d+2\sigma \Sigma_0+4\sigma \Sigma)}(\underline{m}_0-\underline{\mu}) \nonumber\\
&~~~~~
-\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2}|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(I_d+2\sigma \Sigma+4\sigma \Sigma_0)}(\underline{m}_0-\underline{\mu})\nonumber\\
&~~~~~
+\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2} |I_d+2\sigma \Sigma+2\sigma \Sigma_0|^{-1/2} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(I_d+2\sigma \Sigma+2\sigma \Sigma_0)}(\underline{m}_0-\underline{\mu}). \label{Eq_KVE_inner_product}
\end{align}
The following results are obtained by using (\ref{Eq_KVE_inner_product}):
\begin{align}
&\norm{\Sigma_k(N(\underline{0},I_d))}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2}\phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(1+8\sigma)I_d}(\underline{0})
-\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2}|(1+2\sigma) I_d|^{-1/2} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(1+6\sigma)I_d}(\underline{0}) \nonumber\\
&~~~~~-\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2} |(1+2\sigma)I_d|^{-1/2} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(1+6\sigma)I_d}(\underline{0})
+\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2} |(1+4\sigma)I_d|^{-1/2} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(1+4\sigma)I_d}(\underline{0})\nonumber\\
&=(1+8\sigma)^{-d/2}-2(1+8\sigma+12\sigma^2)^{-d/2}+(1+4\sigma)^{-d}, \label{Eq_prop2_term1}\\
&\norm{\Sigma_k(N(\underline{m},\Sigma))}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2}\phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(I_d+8\sigma \Sigma)}(\underline{0})
-\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2}|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2}\phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(I_d+6\sigma \Sigma)}(\underline{0}) \nonumber\\
&~~~~~-\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2}|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2}\phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(I_d+6\sigma \Sigma)}(\underline{0})
+\left(\frac{\pi}{2\sigma}\right)^{d/2}|I_d+4\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2} \phi_{\frac{1}{4\sigma}(I_d+4\sigma \Sigma)}(\underline{0}) \nonumber\\
&=|I_d+8\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2}
-2|I_d+8\sigma \Sigma+12\sigma^2 \Sigma^2|^{-1/2}
+|I_d+4\sigma \Sigma|^{-1}, \label{Eq_prop2_term2}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
&\left<\Sigma_k(N(\underline{0},I_d)),\Sigma_k(N(\underline{m},\Sigma))\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&=|(1+4\sigma)I_d+4\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2} \exp\left(
-2\sigma \underline{m}^T\left(
(1+4\sigma)I_d+4\sigma \Sigma
\right)^{-1} \underline{m}
\right) \nonumber\\
&~~~~~-|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2} |(1+4\sigma)I_d+2\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2}
\exp\left(
-2\sigma \underline{m}^T \left(
(1+4\sigma)I_d+2\sigma \Sigma
\right)^{-1} \underline{m}
\right)\nonumber\\
&~~~~~
-(1+2\sigma)^{-d/2} |(1+2\sigma)I_d+4\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2}
\exp\left(-2\sigma \underline{m}^T \left((1+2\sigma)I_d+4\sigma \Sigma\right)^{-1} \underline{m}\right) \nonumber\\
&~~~~~
+|(1+2\sigma)I_d+2\sigma \Sigma|^{-1} \exp\left(
-2\sigma \underline{m}^T \left(
(1+2\sigma)I_d+2\sigma \Sigma
\right)^{-1} \underline{m}
\right). \label{Eq_prop2_term3}
\end{align}
Therefore, we give
\begin{align*}
&\text{MVD}(N(\underline{0},I_d),N(\underline{m},\Sigma))^2\\
&=(1+8\sigma)^{-d/2}-2(1+8\sigma+12\sigma^2)^{-d/2}+(1+4\sigma)^{-d}\\
&~~~~~+|I_d+8\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2}
-2|I_d+8\sigma \Sigma+12\sigma^2 \Sigma^2|^{-1/2}
+|I_d+4\sigma \Sigma|^{-1}\\
&~~~~~-2|(1+4\sigma)I_d+4\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2} \exp\left(
-2\sigma \underline{m}^T\left(
(1+4\sigma)I_d+4\sigma \Sigma
\right)^{-1} \underline{m}
\right) \\
&~~~~~+2|I_d+2\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2} |(1+4\sigma)I_d+2\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2}
\exp\left(
-2\sigma \underline{m}^T \left(
(1+4\sigma)I_d+2\sigma \Sigma
\right)^{-1} \underline{m}
\right)\\
&~~~~~
+2(1+2\sigma)^{-d/2} |(1+2\sigma)I_d+4\sigma \Sigma|^{-1/2}
\exp\left(-2\sigma \underline{m}^T \left((1+2\sigma)I_d+4\sigma \Sigma\right)^{-1} \underline{m}\right)\\
&~~~~~
-2|(1+2\sigma)I_d+2\sigma \Sigma|^{-1} \exp\left(
-2\sigma \underline{m}^T \left(
(1+2\sigma)I_d+2\sigma \Sigma
\right)^{-1} \underline{m}
\right)
\end{align*}
from substituting the formulas (\ref{Eq_prop2_term1})-(\ref{Eq_prop2_term3}) to (\ref{Eq_MVD_NandN}).
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{Asymptotic_Null_Distribution}}
Theorem \ref{Asymptotic_Null_Distribution} is shown by regarding $k(\cdot,X_1),\dots,k(\cdot,X_n)$ and $k(\cdot,Y_1),\dots,k(\cdot,Y_m)$ as the data in Corollary 1 of \cite{Boente2018}.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{Asymptotic_Nonnull_Distribution}}
By Lemma \ref{asymptotic equivalent}, it suffices to derive the asymptotic distribution of
\[
\sqrt{n+m} \left\{
\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} -\norm{\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right\}.
\]
Let us expand the following quantity
\begin{align*}
&\sqrt{n+m} \left\{
\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} -\norm{\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right\}\\
&=\sqrt{n+m} \left< \widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P) -\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q) +\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q) , \widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P) - \widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q) -\Sigma_k(P)+\Sigma_k(Q)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=\sqrt{n+m} \left<\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\Sigma_k(P)-\{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q) -\Sigma_k(Q)\}, \right.\\
&~~~~~\left.2\{\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q)\}+\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\Sigma_k(P)-\{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q)-\Sigma_k(Q)\}\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=2\sqrt{n+m} \left<\Sigma_k(P) -\Sigma_k(Q), \widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\Sigma_k(P)-\{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q) -\Sigma_k(Q)\} \right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&~~~~~+\sqrt{n+m} \norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\Sigma_k(P)-\{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q) -\Sigma_k(Q)\}}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=\sqrt{\frac{n+m}{n}}\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left< \Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q), (k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \\
&~~~~~
-\sqrt{\frac{n+m}{m}}\frac{2}{\sqrt{m}} \sum_{j=1}^{m}\left< \Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q), (k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(Q)
\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}+O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right),
\end{align*}
which converges in distribution to$N(0,4\rho^{-1} v_P^2+4(1-\rho)^{-1} v^2_{Q})$ by the central limit theorem.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{asymptotic equivalent}}
A direct calculation gives
\begin{align*}
&\sqrt{n+m}\left(\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
-\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \right)\\
&=\left(
\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
+\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right)\\
&~~~~~\times \sqrt{n+m}\left(
\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
-\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right)\\
&\leq \left(
\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
+\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right)\\
&~~~~~\times \sqrt{n+m}\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\left(
\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q})-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q)
\right)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}.
\end{align*}
From direct expansion $\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})=\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P) -(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2}$, we have
\begin{align*}
&\sqrt{n+m}\left(\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
-\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \right)\\
&\leq \left(
\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
+\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right)\\
&~~~~~\times \sqrt{n+m}\norm{
(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2}-(\mu_k(Q)-\mu_k(\widehat{Q}))^{\otimes 2}
}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&\leq \left(
\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
+\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right)\\
&~~~~~\times \sqrt{n+m}\left(\norm{
\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}^2_{H(k)}+\norm{\mu_k(Q)-\mu_k(\widehat{Q})
}^2_{H(k)} \right)\\
&=\left(
\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
+\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right)\\
&~~~~~\times \left( \frac{\sqrt{n+m}}{n}\cdot n\norm{
\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}^2_{H(k)}+\frac{\sqrt{n+m}}{m}\cdot m\norm{\mu_k(Q)-\mu_k(\widehat{Q})
}^2_{H(k)} \right)\\
&\xrightarrow{P}0,
\end{align*}
as $n,m \to \infty$.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{Asymptotic distribution under contiguous alternatives}}
From Lemma \ref{asymptotic_equivalent_contiguous} it is sufficient for us to derive the asymptotic distribution of $(n+m)\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}$.
It follows from direct calculations that
\begin{align}
&(n+m)\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&=(n+m)\norm{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}
-\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2}}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&=(n+m)\left\|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P) \right. \nonumber\\
&~~~~~\left.-\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P)+\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2}+\Sigma_k(P) \right\|^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&=(n+m)\Bigg\|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)-\left\{
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right\} \nonumber\\
&~~~~~
-\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))\otimes (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))
-\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m} (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))\otimes (k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P)) \nonumber\\
&~~~~~-(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2} \Bigg\|^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&=(n+m)\Bigg\|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)-\left\{
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right\}+\frac{A}{\sqrt{n+m}} \Bigg\|^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&=(n+m)\Bigg\|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)-\left\{
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right\}\Bigg\|^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&~~~~~+2\sqrt{n+m}\left<\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P) -\left\{
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right\},A \right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&~~~~~+\norm{A}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}, \label{Eq_Theorem3_h}
\end{align}
where
\[
A=(\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\mu_k(P))\otimes(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))+(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))\otimes (\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\mu_k(P))-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2}.
\]
In addition, we see that
\begin{align}
\norm{\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)}
&=\norm{\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\mu_k(Q_{nm})+\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)} \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\mu_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)}
+\norm{\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)} \nonumber\\
&=O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) \label{Eq_mu_Qnm_P_order}
\end{align}
by (i) in Lemma \ref{Lemma_three_evaluate}.
Thus, (\ref{Eq_mu_Qnm_P_order}) leads that
\begin{align}
\norm{A}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
&\leq 2\norm{\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)} \norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q)}_{H(k) }
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q)}^2_{H(k)} \nonumber\\
&=O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right). \label{Eq_A_order}
\end{align}
Further, following result is obtained by (i) and (ii) in Lemma \ref{Lemma_three_evaluate}
\begin{align}
&\norm{\frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&=\norm{\frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})+\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})-\Sigma_k(P)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{\frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} +\norm{\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})-\Sigma_k(P)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\nonumber\\
&=\norm{\frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} +O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) \nonumber\\
&=\norm{\frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(Q_{nm})+\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} +O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) \nonumber\\
&=\Bigg\|\frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})
+(\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\mu_k(Q_{nm})) \otimes (\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(P)) \nonumber\\
&~~~~~
+(\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(P)) \otimes (\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))
+(\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} \Bigg\|_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} +O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)}
+\frac{2}{\sqrt{n+m}}\norm{\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\mu_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)} \norm{\mu_k(Q)-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&~~~~~
+\frac{1}{n+m}\norm{\mu_k(Q)-\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}+O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) \nonumber\\
&=O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right). \label{Eq_Theorem3_order}
\end{align}
These results (\ref{Eq_A_order}) and (\ref{Eq_Theorem3_order}) yield that
\begin{align}
&\sqrt{n+m}\left<\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P) -\left\{
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right\},A \right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\nonumber \\
&\leq \sqrt{n+m} \norm{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P) -\left\{
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right\}}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&~~~~~\times \norm{A}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&= \sqrt{n+m} \Bigg\{
\norm{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&~~~~~
+\norm{\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\Bigg\} \norm{A}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&=\sqrt{n+m} \left\{
O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) +O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right)
\right\} \cdot O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) \nonumber\\
&=O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right). \label{Eq_Theorem3_innner_product_order}
\end{align}
By using (\ref{Eq_A_order}) and (\ref{Eq_Theorem3_innner_product_order}) to (\ref{Eq_Theorem3_h}), we obtain
\begin{align*}
&(n+m)\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&=(n+m)\Bigg\|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)-\left\{
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right\}\Bigg\|^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&~~~~~+O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right)\\
&=(n+m) \left<\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)-\left\{
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right\},\right.\\
&~~~~~\left.\frac{1}{n}\sum_{s=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_s)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)-\left\{
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{t=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_t)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right\}\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&~~~~~+O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right)\\
&=\frac{n+m}{n^2m^2} \sum_{i,s=1}^{n} \sum_{j,t=1}^{m}\left<(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)-\left\{
(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right\},\right.\\
&~~~~~\left.(k(\cdot,X_s)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)-\left\{
(k(\cdot,Y_t)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right\}\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&~~~~~+O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right)\\
&=\frac{n+m}{n^2} \sum_{i,s=1}^{n}\left<(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P),(k(\cdot,X_s)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&~~~~~+\frac{n+m}{m^2}\sum_{j,t=1}^{m} \left<(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P),(k(\cdot,Y_t)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&~~~~~-\frac{2(n+m)}{nm} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m} \left<(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P),(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&~~~~~+O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right)\\
&=\frac{n+m}{n^2} \sum_{i,s=1}^{n} h(X_i,X_s)
+\frac{n+m}{m^2} \sum_{j,t=1}^{m} h(Y_j,Y_t)
-\frac{2(n+m)}{nm} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m} h(X_i,Y_j)+O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right),
\end{align*}
where $h(x,y)$ is in (\ref{Eq_h(x,y)}).
Since $\mathbb{E}_{X \sim P} [k(X,X)^2] < \infty$, $S_k$ in (\ref{Eq_S_k}) is a Hilbert--Schmidt operator by Theorem VI.22 in \cite{reed1981functional}.
Therefore, from Theorem 1 in \cite{Minh2006}, we have
\[
h(x,y)=\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \theta_{\ell}\Psi_{\ell}(x) \Psi_{\ell}(y),
\]
where $\theta_{\ell}$ is eigenvalue of $S_k$ and $\Psi_{\ell}$ is eigenfunction corresponding to $\theta_{\ell}$, each satisfies
\[
\int_{\mathcal{H}}h(x,y) \Psi_{\ell}(y) dP(y) =\theta_{\ell} \Psi_{\ell} (x) ~~\text{and}~~\int_{\mathcal{H}} \Psi_i(y) \Psi_{j}(y)dP(y)=\delta_{ij}
\]
with $\delta_{ij}$ Kronecker's delta.
From $\int_{\mathcal{H}}h(x,y) \Psi_{\ell}(y) dP(y) =\theta_{\ell} \Psi_{\ell} (x)$, we have
\[
\mathbb{E}_{X \sim P}[\Phi_{\ell}(X)]
=\frac{1}{\theta_{\ell}} \int_{\mathcal{H}} \mathbb{E}_{X \sim P}[h(X,y)] \Psi_{\ell}(y) dP(y)=0
\]
and
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}}[\Psi_{\ell}(Y)]
&=\frac{1}{\theta_{\ell}} \int_{\mathcal{H}} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}}[h(Y,y)] \Psi_{\ell}(y) dP(y).
\end{align*}
Since direct calculation, we get
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}}[(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)]\\
&=\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}}[(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}]-\Sigma_k(P)\\
&=\int_{\mathcal{H}} (k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}dQ_{nm}(y) -\Sigma_k(P)\\
&=\int_{\mathcal{H}} (k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}d\left\{
\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right)P+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}Q
\right\}(y) -\Sigma_k(P)\\
&=\left(
1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}
\right)\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim P} [(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}]
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q}[(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}]
-\Sigma_k(P)\\
&=\left(
1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}
\right) \Sigma_k(P)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \left(\Sigma_k(Q) +(\mu_k(Q)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} \right)-\Sigma_k(P)\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}(\Sigma_k(Q)-\Sigma_k(P) +(\mu_k(Q)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2})\\
&=:\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\zeta(P,Q)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&\theta_{\ell} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}}[\Psi_{\ell}(Y)]\\
&=\int_{\mathcal{H}} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}}[h(Y,y)] \Psi_{\ell}(y) dP(y)\\
&=\int_{\mathcal{H}} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}}[\left<(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P),(k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}] \Psi_{\ell}(y) dP(y)\\
&=\int_{\mathcal{H}} \left<\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}}[(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)],(k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \Psi_{\ell}(y) dP(y)\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \int_{\mathcal{H}} \left<\zeta(P,Q), h(\cdot,y)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \Psi_{\ell}(y) dP(y)\\
&=:\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\zeta_{\ell}(P,Q).
\end{align*}
Hence
\[
\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}}[\Psi_{\ell}(Y)] =\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \frac{\zeta_{\ell}(P,Q)}{\theta_{\ell}}
\]
and
\begin{align*}
&V_{Y \sim Q_{nm}}[\Psi_{\ell}(Y)]\\
&=\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}}[\Psi_{\ell}(Y)^2] -\left\{
\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}}[\Psi_{\ell}(Y)]
\right\}^2\\
&=\int_{\mathcal{H}} \Psi_{\ell}(y)^2 dQ_{nm}(y)-\frac{1}{n+m}\frac{\zeta_{\ell}(P,Q)^2}{\theta_{\ell}^2}\\
&=\int_{\mathcal{H}} \Psi_{\ell}(y)^2 dP(y) +\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \int_{\mathcal{H}} \Psi_{\ell}(y)^2 d(Q-P)(y)-\frac{1}{n+m} \frac{\zeta_{\ell}(P,Q)^2}{\theta_{\ell}^2}\\
&=1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\tau_{\ell \ell} -\frac{1}{n+m}\frac{\zeta_{\ell}(P,Q)^2}{\theta_{\ell}^2},
\end{align*}
where
\[
\tau_{\ell s} =\int_{\mathcal{H}} \Psi_{\ell} (y) \Psi_{s} (y) d(Q-P)(y).
\]
Therefore, by using the central limit theorem for $\Psi_{\ell}$s, we get
\begin{align*}
&(n+m)\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=\frac{n+m}{n^2} \sum_{i,s=1}^{n} h(X_i,X_s)
+\frac{n+m}{m^2} \sum_{j,t=1}^{m} h(Y_j,Y_t)
-\frac{2(n+m)}{nm} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m} h(X_i,Y_j) +O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right)\\
&=\frac{n+m}{n^2} \sum_{i,s=1}^{n} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \theta_{\ell} \Psi_{\ell}(X_i) \Psi_{\ell}(X_s)
+\frac{n+m}{m^2} \sum_{j,t=1}^{m} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \theta_{\ell} \Psi_{\ell}(Y_j) \Psi_{\ell} (Y_t)\\
&~~~~~-\frac{2(n+m)}{nm} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \theta_{\ell} \Psi_{\ell}(X_i) \Psi_{\ell}(Y_j)\\
&=\frac{n+m}{n} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \theta_{\ell} \left(
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\Psi_{\ell}(X_i)
\right)^2
+\frac{n+m}{m}\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \theta_{\ell} \left(
\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}} \sum_{j=1}^{m} \Psi_{\ell}(Y_j)
\right)^2\\
&~~~~~
-\frac{2(n+m)}{\sqrt{nm}} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \theta_{\ell} \left(
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \Psi_{\ell}(X_i)
\right)\left(
\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}} \sum_{j=1}^{m} \Psi_{\ell}(Y_j)
\right)\\
&\xrightarrow{\mathcal{D}}
\frac{1}{\rho(1-\rho)} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \theta_{\ell} Z_{\ell}^2,~~Z_{\ell} \sim N\left(\sqrt{\rho (1-\rho)}\cdot \frac{\zeta_{\ell}(P,Q)}{\theta_{\ell}},1\right) ,
\end{align*}
as $n,m \to \infty$.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{Lemma_three_evaluate}}
(i) First, we prove $\norm{\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm}) -\mu_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)}=O_P(1/\sqrt{n+m})$.
For all $\delta>0$, there exists $N_1 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\[
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} |\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim P} [\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}]+\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q}[\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}]| <\frac{\delta}{2}
\]
for all $n,m > N_1$.
In addition, there exists $N_2 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\[
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} |\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim P} [\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}]+\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q}[\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}]| <\frac{\delta}{2}
\]
for all $n,m > N_2$.
We put
\[
M_\delta=\sqrt{\frac{1}{\delta}\left(\frac{1}{1-\rho}+\frac{\delta}{2}\right)\left(\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim P}[\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}]+\frac{\delta}{2}\right)},
\]
and $N_{\delta}=\max\{N_1,N_2\}$.
Since
\[
\mu_k(Q_{nm}) =\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) \mu_k(P) +\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\mu_k(Q)=\mu_k(P)-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q)),
\]
for all $n,m>N_{\delta}$, we get
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{P}\left(\sqrt{n+m}\norm{\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\mu_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)}>M_{\delta} \right)\\
& \leq \frac{\mathbb{E}_{Q_{nm}}\left[(n+m)\norm{\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\mu_k(Q_{nm})}^2_{H(k)} \right]}{M_{\delta^2}}\\
&= \frac{(n+m)\mathbb{E}_{Q_{nm}}\left[\norm{\frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m} (k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))}^2_{H(k)}\right]}{M_{\delta}^2}\\
&=\frac{t\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} [\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(Q_{nm})}^2_{H(k)}]}{mM_{\delta}^2}\\
&=\frac{n+m}{m M_{\delta}^2} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} \left[\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))}^2_{H(k)} \right]\\
&=\frac{n+m}{mM{\delta}^2} \Big(
\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} [\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}] +\frac{2}{\sqrt{n+m}} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} [\left<k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P),\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q)\right>_{H(k)}]\\
&~~~~~
+\frac{1}{n+m} \norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q)}^2_{H(k)}
\Big)\\
&=\frac{n+m}{mM_{\delta}^2} \left(
\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} [\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}] -\frac{1}{n+m} \norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q)}^2_{H(k)}
\right)\\
&\leq \frac{n+m}{m M_{\delta}^2} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} [\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}]\\
&= \frac{t}{m M_{\delta}^2} \left(
\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) \mathbb{E}_{X \sim P} [\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}]
+\frac{1}{n+m} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q} [\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}]
\right)\\
&=\frac{n+m}{mM_{\delta}^2} \Big(
\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim P}[\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}] \\
&~~~~~
-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \left(
\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim P}[\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)}]-\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q}[\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}]
\right)
\Big)\\
&< \frac{1}{M_{\delta}^2} \left(\frac{1}{1-\rho}+\frac{\delta}{2}\right) \left(
\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim P} [\norm{k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}] +\frac{\delta}{2}
\right)\\
&=\delta.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we obtain $\norm{\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\mu_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)}=O_p(1/\sqrt{n+m})$.
(ii) Next, we prove $\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}$.
For all $\delta > 0$, we put
\[
M_{\delta}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{\delta}\left(\frac{1}{1-\rho}+\frac{\delta}{2}\right)(\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim P}[\norm{(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}] +\delta)}
\]
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}A(n,m,Y):=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \Big\{(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)) \otimes (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q)) \\
&~~~~~
+(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))\otimes (k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2}
\Big\}.
\end{align*}
Then, there exists $N_1 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\begin{align*}
&\Big|
\frac{1}{n+m} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} [\norm{A(n,m,Y)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}]\\
&~~~~~-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} \left[
\left<(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P),A(t,Y)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right]
\Big| < \frac{\delta}{2}
\end{align*}
for all $n,m > N_1$.
In addition, there exists $N_2 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\begin{align*}
&\Big|
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\Big(
\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim P} [\norm{(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}] \\
&~~~~~-\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q} [\norm{(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}]
\Big)
\Big| < \frac{\delta}{2}
\end{align*}
for all $n,m > N_2$.
and there exists $N_3 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\[
\left|\frac{t}{m} -\frac{1}{1-\rho} \right| < \frac{\delta}{2}
\]
for all $n,m > N_3$.
Let $N_{\delta}=\max\{N_1,N_2,N_3\}$.
For all $n,m > N_{\delta}$, we obtain that
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{P}(\sqrt{n+m} \norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})-\Sigma_{k}(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} > M_{\delta}) \\
& \leq \frac{\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}}\left[t \norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})-\Sigma_{k}(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}^2 \right]}{M_{\delta}^2}\\
&= \frac{t \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}}[\norm{(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}]}{mM_{\delta}^2}\\
&=\frac{n+m}{mM_{\delta}^2} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} \Big[
\Big\|
(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P) +\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} (\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q))\\
&~~~~~ -\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2}
\Big\|^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\Big]\\
&=\frac{n+m}{mM_{\delta}^2} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} \left[
\norm{(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right]\\
&~~~~~-\frac{1}{n+m} \norm{\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q)+\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right)(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2}}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \\
&\leq \frac{n+m}{mM_{\delta}^2} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} \left[
\norm{(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right]\\
&=\frac{n+m}{mM_{\delta}^2} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} \left[
\norm{\left\{
k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))
\right\}^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P) }^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right]\\
&=\frac{n+m}{mM_{\delta}^2} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} \left[
\norm{(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P) +\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}A(t,Y) }^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right]\\
&=\frac{n+m}{m M_{\delta}^2} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} \Big[
\norm{(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} +\frac{1}{n+m} \norm{A(t,Y)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \\
&~~~~~-\frac{2}{\sqrt{n+m}} \left<(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P),A(t,Y)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\Big]\\
&=\frac{n+m}{m M_{\delta}^2} \Big\{\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} \Big[
\norm{(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \Big]
+ \frac{1}{n+m} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} \Big[ \norm{A(t,Y)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \Big]\\
&~~~~~-\frac{2}{\sqrt{n+m}} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} \Big[ \left<(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P),A(t,Y)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\Big] \Big\}\\
&< \frac{n+m}{m M_{\delta}^2} \Big\{
\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim P} \left[
\norm{(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right]\\
&~~~~~~
-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \Big(
\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim P} \left[
\norm{(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right]\\
&~~~~~
-\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q} \left[
\norm{(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right]
\Big)+\frac{\delta}{2}
\Big\}\\
&< \frac{1}{M_{\delta}^2} \left(\frac{1}{1-\rho} +\frac{\delta}{2} \right) \left\{
\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim P} [\norm{(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} +\delta]
\right\}\\
&=\delta.
\end{align*}
Therefore, $\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}=O_p(1/\sqrt{n+m})$ is proved.
(iii) Finally, we prove $\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}=O_p(1/\sqrt{n+m})$.
We get
\begin{align*}
&\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})\\
&=\frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^{m}(k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm}))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(Q_{nm}) \\
&=\frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^{m} (k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(Q_{nm})+\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm}))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})\\
&=\frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^{m} (k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})\\
&~~~~~+\frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^{m} (k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(Q_{nm})) \otimes (\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm}))\\
&~~~~~+\frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^{m} (\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})) \otimes (k(\cdot,Y_j)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))
+(\mu_k(Q_{nm}) -\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm}))^{\otimes 2}\\
&=\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm}) -\Sigma_k(Q_{nm}) -(\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm}))^{\otimes 2}
\end{align*}
by a expansion of $\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})$.
Using (i) and (ii) leads to the following:
\begin{align*}
&\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&\leq \norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes
2}} +\norm{\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) +O_p\left(\frac{1}{n+m}\right)\\
&=O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right).
\end{align*}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{asymptotic_equivalent_contiguous}}
First we have
\begin{align}
&\Sigma_k(Q_{nm}) \nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q_{nm}} \left[
(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2}
\right] \nonumber\\
&=\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right)\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim P} \left[
(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2}
\right]
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q} \left[
(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2}
\right] \nonumber\\
&=\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right)\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim P} \left[
(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P)+\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2}
\right] \nonumber\\
&~~~~~+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q} \left[
(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(Q)+\mu_k(Q)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2}
\right] \nonumber\\
&=\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) \left\{\mathbb{E}_{Y \sim P} \left[
(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}
\right] +(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2} \right\} \nonumber\\
&~~~~~+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \left\{ \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim Q} \left[
(k(\cdot,Y)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2}
\right] +(\mu_k(Q)-\mu_k(Q_{nm}))^{\otimes 2} \right\} \nonumber\\
&=\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) \Sigma_k(P) +\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \Sigma_k(Q)
+\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) \frac{1}{n+m} (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2} \nonumber\\
&~~~~~
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right)^2 (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2} \nonumber\\
&=\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) \Sigma_k(P) +\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \Sigma_k(Q) +\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2}. \label{Eq_Lemm_SigQnm}
\end{align}
The result (\ref{Eq_Lemm_SigQnm}) leads to
\begin{align*}
&\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})\\
&=\Sigma_k(P)-\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) \Sigma_k(P)-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \Sigma_k(Q)\\
&~~~~~-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2}\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\Sigma_k(P)-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\Sigma_k(Q) -\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2}\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}(\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q))- \frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2}.
\end{align*}
Hence
\begin{align*}
&(n+m)\left(
\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}-\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right)\\
&\leq (n+m)\left\{
\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}+\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right\} \\
&~~~~~\times \norm{(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2}-(\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm}))^{\otimes 2}}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&\leq \sqrt{n+m}\left\{
\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}+\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right\} \\
&~~~~~\times\left(
\frac{\sqrt{n+m}}{n}n\norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}^2_{H(k)} +\frac{\sqrt{n+m}}{m}m\norm{\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})}^2_{H(k)}
\right)\\
&=\sqrt{n+m}\left\{
\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(P)-(\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm}))+\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \right.\\
&\left.~~~~~+\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\Sigma_k(P)-(\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm}))+\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right\} \\
&~~~~~\times\left(
\frac{\sqrt{n+m}}{n}n\norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}^2_{H(k)} +\frac{\sqrt{n+m}}{m}m\norm{\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})}^2_{H(k)}
\right)\\
&=\sqrt{n+m}\left\{
\Bigg\|\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(P)-(\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})) \right.\\
&~~~~~
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}(\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q)) -\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2}\Bigg\|_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \\
&~~~~~+\Bigg\|\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\Sigma_k(P)-(\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm}))\\
&\left.~~~~~+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}(\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q))-+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}} \left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q))^{\otimes 2} \Bigg\|_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right\} \\
&~~~~~\times\left(
\frac{\sqrt{n+m}}{n}n\norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}^2_{H(k)} +\sqrt{n+m}\norm{\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})}^2_{H(k)}
\right)\\
&\leq \Bigg\{
\sqrt{\frac{n+m}{n}} \sqrt{n}\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(P)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}+\sqrt{n+m} \norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \\
&~~~~~+\sqrt{\frac{n+m}{n}}\sqrt{n}\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\Sigma_k(P)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}+\sqrt{n+m}\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})-\Sigma_k(Q_{nm})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&~~~~~+2\norm{\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(Q)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
+2\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+m}}\right) \norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(Q)}^2_{H(k)}
\Bigg\} \\
&~~~~~\times\left(
\frac{\sqrt{n+m}}{n}n\norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}^2_{H(k)} +\sqrt{n+m}\norm{\mu_k(Q_{nm})-\mu_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})}^2_{H(k)}
\right).
\end{align*}
Therefore, we obtain
\[
(n+m)\left(
\norm{\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})-\Sigma_k(\widehat{Q}_{nm})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}-\norm{\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(P)-\widetilde{\Sigma}_k(Q_{nm})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\right) \xrightarrow{P}0,
\]
as $n,m \to \infty$ by Lemma \ref{Lemma_three_evaluate}, which completes the proof of Lemma \ref{asymptotic_equivalent_contiguous}.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{Prop_eigenvalue_T1_and_T3}}
Let $\Upsilon= V[(k(\cdot,x)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}]$ be the operator with spectral representation $\Upsilon=\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \theta_{\ell} \phi^{\otimes 2}_{\ell}$, and $T: H(k)^{\otimes 2} \to
L_2(\mathcal{H},P)$ be the operator
\[
(T(A))(x) =\left<\Upsilon^{-1/2} \{(k(\cdot,x)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\},A\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\]
for all $A \in H(k)^{\otimes 2}$ and $x \in \mathcal{H}$.
We consider the adjoint operator of this $T$,
\begin{align*}
\left<T^* g,A\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
&=\left<g, TA\right>_{L_2(\mathcal{H},P)}\\
&=\int_{\mathcal{H}} (T(A))(y) g(y) dP(y)\\
&=\int_{\mathcal{H}} \left<\Upsilon^{-1/2} \{(k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\},A\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} g(y) dP(y)\\
&=\left<\int_{\mathcal{H}} (\Upsilon^{-1/2} \{(k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\}) g(y) dP(y),A\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\end{align*}
for all $g \in L_2(\mathcal{H},P)$ and $A \in H(k)^{\otimes 2}$, hence we get that adjoint operator $T^*$ of $T$ is
\[
T^* g=\int_{\mathcal{H}} (\Upsilon^{-1/2} \{(k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\}) g(y) dP(y)
\]
for all $g \in L_2(\mathcal{H},P)$.
Furthermore, since
\begin{align*}
T^* (T(A))
&=\int_{\mathcal{H}} (\Upsilon^{-1/2} \{(k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\}) (T(A))(y) dP(y)\\
&=\int_{\mathcal{H}} (\Upsilon^{-1/2} \{(k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\}) \left<\Upsilon^{-1/2} \{(k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\},A\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} dP(y)\\
&=\int_{\mathcal{H}} (\Upsilon^{-1/2} \{(k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\})^{\otimes 2} A dP(y)\\
&=\Upsilon^{-1/2} \int_{\mathcal{H}} ( \{(k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\})^{\otimes 2}dP(y) \Upsilon^{-1/2} A \\
&=\Upsilon^{-1/2} \Upsilon \Upsilon^{-1/2} A\\
&=A
\end{align*}
for all $A \in H(k)^{\otimes 2}$, $T^*T$ is the identity operator from $H(k)^{\otimes 2}$ to $H(k)^{\otimes 2}$.
It follows from direct calculations for $T \Upsilon T^* : L_2(\mathcal{H},P) \to L_2(\mathcal{H},P)$ that
\begin{align*}
&(T\Upsilon T^*g) (x)\\
&=\left<\Upsilon^{-1/2} \{(k(\cdot,x)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\}, \Upsilon T^* g\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=\left<\Upsilon^{1/2}\{(k(\cdot,x)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\}, T^* g\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=\left<T\Upsilon^{1/2}\{(k(\cdot,x)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\}, g\right>_{L_2(\mathcal{H},P)}\\
&=\int_{\mathcal{H}} [T\Upsilon^{1/2}\{(k(\cdot,x)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\}](y) g(y) dP(y)\\
&=\int_{\mathcal{H}} \left<\Upsilon^{-1/2} \{(k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\},\Upsilon^{1/2}\{(k(\cdot,x)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\}\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} g(y) dP(y)\\
&=\int_{\mathcal{H}} \left<(k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P),(k(\cdot,x)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} g(y) dP(y)\\
&=(S_kg)(x)
\end{align*}
for all $g \in L_2(\mathcal{H},P)$ an $x \in \mathcal{H}$, thus we see that $T\Upsilon T^*=S_k$.
Therefore, $\theta_{\ell}$ and $T\phi_{\ell}$ are the eigenvalue and eigenfunction of $S_k$, by the following that
\begin{align*}
S_kg
&= T\Upsilon T^* g\\
&=T \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \theta_{\ell} \phi_{\ell}^{\otimes 2} T^* g\\
&=\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \theta_{\ell} \left<\phi_{\ell},T^* g\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}T\phi_{\ell}\\
&=\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \theta_{\ell} \left<T\phi_{\ell}, g\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}T\phi_{\ell}\\
&=\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \theta_{\ell} (T\phi_{\ell})^{\otimes 2} g
\end{align*}
and $\{T\phi_{\ell}\}_{\ell=1}^{\infty}$ is an orthonormal system in $L_2(\mathcal{H},P)$ which holds
\[
\left<T \phi_{\ell},T\phi_{s}\right>_{L_2(\mathcal{H},P)}=\left<T^*T\phi_{\ell}, \phi_{s}\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}=\left<\phi_{\ell}, \phi_{s}\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}=\delta_{\ell s}
\]
for all $\ell, s \in \mathbb{N}$.
In fact,
\[
S_k (T \phi_{\ell})
=T \Upsilon T^* T \phi_{\ell}
=T \Upsilon \phi_{\ell}
=T \theta_{\ell} \phi_{\ell}
=\theta_{\ell} (T \phi_{\ell})
\]
shows that $\theta_{\ell}$ and $T\theta_{\ell}$ are eigenvalue and eigenfunction of $S_k$.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{Asymptotic_distribution_Gram_matrix_spectrum}}
Let $W'_n=\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}({\widehat{\lambda}}^{(n)}_{\ell}-\lambda_{\ell})Z_{\ell}^2$.
Then
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}[W'_n]=\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}({\widehat{\lambda}}^{(n)}_{\ell}-\lambda_{\ell})\right], \nonumber\\
&V[W'_n]=2 \mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}({\widehat{\lambda}}^{(n)}_{\ell}-\lambda_{\ell})^2\right]+Cov\left(\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}({\widehat{\lambda}}^{(n)}_{\ell}-\lambda_{\ell}),\sum_{\ell'=1}^{\infty}(\widehat{\lambda}_{\ell'}-\lambda_{\ell'})\right). \label{Eq_VW_Theorem4}
\end{align}
By the definition of trace of the Hilbert--Schmidt operator, we get the following inequality
\begin{equation}\label{Ineq_lambda_Upsilon}
\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}({\widehat{\lambda}}^{(n)}_{\ell}-\lambda_{\ell})
=\text{tr}[\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}]-\text{tr}[\Upsilon]
=\left<\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}-\Upsilon,I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}
\leq \norm{\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}-\Upsilon}_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}.
\end{equation}
By using a notation
\[
B(X_1)=(k(\cdot,X_1)-\mu_k(P)) \otimes (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))
+(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))\otimes (k(\cdot,X_1)-\mu_k(P))
+(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2},
\]
we have
\begin{align}
\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)} \nonumber
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{
(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})
\right\}^{\otimes 2}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P) +B(X_i)+\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})\right\}^{\otimes 2}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right\}^{\otimes 2}\nonumber\\
&~~~~~+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right\} \otimes \left\{
B(X_i)+\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})
\right\}\nonumber\\
&~~~~~+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{
B(X_i)+\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})
\right\} \otimes \left\{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right\}\nonumber\\
&~~~~~+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{
B(X_i)+\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})
\right\}^{\otimes 2} \nonumber\\
&=:I_1+I_2+I_3+I_4. \label{Upsilonhat_equality_1}
\end{align}
Since direct calculation, we get the following three expressions,
\begin{align}
I_2
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right\} \otimes \left\{
B(X_i)+\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})
\right\}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right\} \otimes B(X_i)\nonumber\\
&~~~~~
+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right\} \otimes \left(\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})
\right)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right\} \otimes B(X_i)
-\left(\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})
\right)^{\otimes 2}, \label{Upsilonhat_equality_2}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
I_3&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{
B(X_i)+\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})
\right\} \otimes \left\{
(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right\}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}B(X_i) \otimes \left\{
(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right\}
-\left(
\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})
\right)^{\otimes 2} \label{Upsilonhat_equality_3}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
I_4=&\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{
B(X_i)+\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})
\right\}^{\otimes 2}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}B(X_i)^{\otimes 2}
+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}B(X_i) \otimes \left(\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})\right)\nonumber\\
&~~~~~
+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})) \otimes B(X_i)
+(\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}B(X_i)^{\otimes 2}
-(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} \otimes (\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P}))\nonumber\\
&~~~~~
-(\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})) \otimes (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2}
+(\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2}. \label{Upsilonhat_equality_4}
\end{align}
By (\ref{Upsilonhat_equality_2}), (\ref{Upsilonhat_equality_3}) and (\ref{Upsilonhat_equality_4}) are combined into (\ref{Upsilonhat_equality_1}), we have an expression
\begin{align*}
\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\right\}^{\otimes 2}
-(\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2}
\\
&~~~~~
-(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} \otimes (\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P}))
-(\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})) \otimes (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2}
\\
&~~~~~
+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}B(X_i)^{\otimes 2}
+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}B(X_i) \otimes \left\{
(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right\}\\
&~~~~~
+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \left\{
(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)
\right\}\otimes B(X_i).
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align}
&\norm{\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}-\Upsilon}_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}} \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\}^{\otimes 2} -\Upsilon}_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}
+\norm{(\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2}}_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}\nonumber\\
&~~~~+\norm{(\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2}\otimes (\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P}))}_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}
+\norm{(\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P}))\otimes (\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2}}_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}\nonumber\\
&~~~~~+\norm{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}B(X_i)^{\otimes 2}}_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}
+\norm{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}B(X_i)\otimes \{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\}}_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}\nonumber\\
&~~~~~
+\norm{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\} \otimes B(X_i) }_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}\nonumber\\
&=:I_1+I_2+I_3+I_4+I_5+I_6+I_7. \label{Upsilonhat-Upsilon}
\end{align}
By the law of large number in Hilbert spaces (see \cite{hoffmann-jorgensen1976}), we have
\begin{equation} \label{I1_Theorem4}
I_1=\norm{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(P)\}^{\otimes 2} -\Upsilon}_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}=O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right),
\end{equation}
and we get
\begin{equation}\label{I2_Theorem4}
I_2=\norm{\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}=O_p\left(\frac{1}{n}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{I3_Theorem4}
I_3=\norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}^2_{H(k)} \norm{\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}=O_p\left(\frac{1}{n\sqrt{n}}\right),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{I4_Theorem4}
I_4=\norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}^2_{H(k)} \norm{\Sigma_k(P)-\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}=O_p\left(\frac{1}{n\sqrt{n}}\right).
\end{equation}
Next our focus goes to $I_5$.
We have by direct computations that
\begin{align*}
I_5
&\leq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \norm{B(X_i)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \left\{
\norm{k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)} \norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}_{H(k)}
+\norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}_{H(k)}
\norm{k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)} \right.\\
&~~~~~~~~~~\left.
+\norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}^2_{H(k)}
\right\}^2\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \left\{ \norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}^2_{H(k)}
+2\norm{k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)} \norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}_{H(k)} \right\}^2\\
&=\norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}^4_{H(k)} +\left\{\frac{4}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \norm{k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)} \right\} \norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}^3_{H(k)}\\
&~~~~~+\left\{\frac{4}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \norm{k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)}^2 \right\} \norm{\mu_k(P)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})}_{H(k)}^2.
\end{align*}
Since Condition is assumed, the followings hold
\[
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \norm{k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)}^2 \xrightarrow{P} \mathbb{E}[\norm{k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)}^2]
\]
and
\[
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \norm{k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)} \xrightarrow{P} \mathbb{E}[\norm{k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)}]
\]
as $n \to \infty$ by the law of large numbers.
Hence, we get
\begin{align}
I_5
&=O_p\left(\frac{1}{n^2}\right) +\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\norm{k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)} O_p\left(\frac{1}{n\sqrt{n}}\right) +\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\norm{k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)}^2 O_p\left(\frac{1}{n}\right) \nonumber\\
&=O_p\left(\frac{1}{n}\right) \label{I5_Theorem4}.
\end{align}
Also, we see that
\begin{align*}
I_6
&=\norm{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}B(X_i)\otimes \{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\}}_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}\\
&\leq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \norm{B(X_i)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\norm{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&\leq \left(
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \norm{B(X_i)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}^2
\right)^{1/2}
\left(
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \norm{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}^2
\right)^{1/2}
\end{align*}
by Cauchy--Schwartz inequality, and we get
\[
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \norm{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}^2 \xrightarrow{P} \mathbb{E}[\norm{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}^2]
\]
as $n \to \infty$.
Hence, we get
\begin{equation}\label{I6_Theorem4}
I_6=\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \norm{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}^2\right)^{1/2} O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)=O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)
\end{equation}
since $I_5 = O_p(1/n)$.
By the same argument as for $I_6=O_p(1/\sqrt{n})$ in (\ref{I6_Theorem4}), we have
\begin{align}
I_7
&=\norm{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\} \otimes B(X_i) }_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}} \nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{1}{n} \norm{B(X_i)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\norm{(k(\cdot,X_i)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)}_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\nonumber\\
&=O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right). \label{I7_Theorem4}
\end{align}
The equations (\ref{I1_Theorem4}), (\ref{I2_Theorem4}), (\ref{I3_Theorem4}), (\ref{I4_Theorem4}), (\ref{I5_Theorem4}), (\ref{I6_Theorem4}) and (\ref{I7_Theorem4}) are combined into (\ref{Upsilonhat-Upsilon}), which leads to
\begin{equation}\label{Upsilon_hat}
\norm{\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}-\Upsilon}_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}=O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right).
\end{equation}
Therefore, we get
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_order_lambda}
\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}(\widehat{\lambda}_{\ell}^{(n)}-\lambda_{\ell})=O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)
\end{equation}
by (\ref{Ineq_lambda_Upsilon}) and (\ref{Upsilon_hat}), that is $\mathbb{E}[W'] \to 0$, as $n \to \infty$.
Next, we consider $V[W']$.
By $\widehat{\Upsilon}$ and $\Upsilon$ are compact Hermitian operators and (28) of \cite{Bhatia1994},
\[
\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} (\widehat{\lambda}_{\ell}^{(n)}-\lambda_{\ell})^2
\leq \norm{\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}-\Upsilon}_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}^2.
\]
Futhermore, we have got
$\norm{\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}-\Upsilon}_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}^2=O_p(1/n)$, hence
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[
\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}(\widehat{\lambda}_{\ell}^{(n)}-\lambda_{\ell})^2
\right]
\to 0,
\end{equation}
as $n \to \infty$.
Also,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_Cov}
Cov\left(\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}({\widehat{\lambda}}^{(n)}_{\ell}-\lambda_{\ell}),\sum_{\ell'=1}^{\infty}(\widehat{\lambda}_{\ell'}-\lambda_{\ell'})\right)
=\mathbb{E}\left[
\left(
\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}({\widehat{\lambda}}^{(n)}_{\ell}-\lambda_{\ell})
\right)^2
\right]
+\left\{
\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}({\widehat{\lambda}}^{(n)}_{\ell}-\lambda_{\ell})\right]
\right\}^2
\end{equation}
and since $\left(
\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}({\widehat{\lambda}}^{(n)}_{\ell}-\lambda_{\ell})
\right)^2 =O_p(1/n)$ by (\ref{Eq_order_lambda}), we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_lambda2}
\mathbb{E}\left[
\left(
\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}({\widehat{\lambda}}^{(n)}_{\ell}-\lambda_{\ell})
\right)^2
\right] \to 0,
\end{equation}
as $n \to \infty$.
In addition, $\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}({\widehat{\lambda}}^{(n)}_{\ell}-\lambda_{\ell})\right] \to 0,$ as $n \to \infty$ by (\ref{Eq_order_lambda}), we get
\[
Cov\left(\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}({\widehat{\lambda}}^{(n)}_{\ell}-\lambda_{\ell}),\sum_{\ell'=1}^{\infty}(\widehat{\lambda}_{\ell'}-\lambda_{\ell'})\right) \to 0,
\]
as $n \to \infty$ by (\ref{Eq_Cov}) and (\ref{Eq_lambda2}).
Therefore, $V[W'] \to 0,~~n \to \infty$.
Finally, we shall show $W' \xrightarrow{P}0$, as $n \to \infty$.
From Chebyshev's inequality, for any $\varepsilon>0$,
\begin{align*}
P(|W'| \geq \varepsilon)
&=P(|W'| -|\mathbb{E}[W']|\geq \varepsilon-|\mathbb{E}[W']|)\\
&\leq P(|W' -\mathbb{E}[W']|\geq \varepsilon-|\mathbb{E}[W']|)\\
&\leq \frac{V[W']}{(\varepsilon -|\mathbb{E}[W']|)^2}\\
& \to 0,
\end{align*}
as $n \to \infty$.
Therefore, $W' \xrightarrow{P} 0$ as $n \to \infty$.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{Lem_eigenvaue_same}}
Let $\widetilde{h}:\mathcal{H} \times \mathcal{H} \to \mathbb{R}$ be a kernel defined as,
\[
\widetilde{h}(x,y)=\left<(k(\cdot,x)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(\widehat{P}),(k(\cdot,y)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(\widehat{P}) \right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}},~~x,y \in \mathcal{H}
\]
and the associated function $\widetilde{h}(\cdot,x)$ represent $\widetilde{h}(\cdot,x)=(k(\cdot,x)-\mu_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} -\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})$ for all $x \in \mathcal{H}$.
Then, $T: H(k)^{\otimes 2} \to \mathbb{R}^n$ is defined by
\[
T(A)=
\begin{bmatrix}
\left<A,\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_1)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
\vdots\\
\left<A,\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_n)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\end{bmatrix}
\]
for any $A \in H(k)^{\otimes 2}$.
The conjugate operator $T^*$ of $T$ (see Section VI.2 in \cite{reed1981functional} for details) is obtained as $T^* \underline{a}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i \widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_i)$ for all $\underline{a}=\begin{bmatrix}
a_1& \cdots &a_n
\end{bmatrix}^T \in \mathbb{R}^n$, because for all $A \in H(k)^{\otimes 2}$,
\begin{align*}
&\left<T^* \underline{a} , A\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=\underline{a}^T(TA)\\
&=\underline{a}^T
\begin{bmatrix}
\left<\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_1),A\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
\vdots\\
\left<\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_1),A\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\end{bmatrix} \\
&=a_1 \left<\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_1),A\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}+\cdots+a_n \left<\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_1),A\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=\left<\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i \widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_i),A\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}.
\end{align*}
Let $\lambda$ and $A$ be the eigenvalue and eigenvector of $\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}$, respectevely.
Then, it is holds that
\[
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left<h(\cdot,X_j),A\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} h(\cdot,X_j)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\{\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_j)\}^{\otimes 2} A= \lambda A
\]
from the definition of eigenvalue and eigenvector.
By mapping both sides with $T$,
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{n}
\begin{bmatrix}
\widetilde{h}(X_1,X_1)&\cdots &\widetilde{h}(X_1,X_n) \\
\vdots& \ddots & \vdots \\
\widetilde{h}(X_n,X_1)&\cdots &\widetilde{h}(X_n,X_n)
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\left<A,\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_1)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
\vdots\\
\left<A,\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_1)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\end{bmatrix}\\
&=
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left<\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_j),A\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\begin{bmatrix}
\widetilde{h}(X_1,X_j)\\
\vdots\\
\widetilde{h}(X_n,X_j)
\end{bmatrix} \\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left<\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_j),A\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} T(\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_j)) \\
&=\lambda T(A)\\
&=\lambda\begin{bmatrix}
\left<A,\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_1)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
\vdots\\
\left<A,\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_n)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align*}
Hence, the eigenvalues of $\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}$ are that of $H/n$.
Conversely, let $\tau$ and
$\underline{u}=
\begin{bmatrix}
u_1&\cdots&u_n
\end{bmatrix}^T$ be the eigenvalue and correspondent eigenvector of $H/n$, then
\[
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}u_j
\begin{bmatrix}
\widetilde{h}(X_1,X_j)\\
\vdots\\
\widetilde{h}(X_n,X_j)
\end{bmatrix} =\frac{1}{n}H\underline{u}=\lambda \underline{u},
\]
and
\begin{align*}
&\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}\left\{ \sum_{j=1}^{n} u_j \widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_j)\right\}\\
&=\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \left\{\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_i)\right\}^{\otimes 2} \left\{ \sum_{j=1}^{n} u_j \widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_j)\right\}\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \left<\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_i), \sum_{j=1}^{n} u_j\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_j)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_i)\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n} u_j \left<\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_i),\widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_j)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_i)\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n} u_j \sum_{i=1}^{n} \widetilde{h}(X_i,X_j) \widetilde{h}(\cdot,X_i)\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}u_j
T^* \left(\begin{bmatrix}
\widetilde{h}(X_1,X_j)\\
\vdots\\
\widetilde{h}(X_n,X_j)
\end{bmatrix}\right)\\
&=\lambda T^*(\underline{u})\\
&= \lambda \sum_{i=1}^{n}u_i \widehat{h}(\cdot,X_i)
\end{align*}
form mapping both sides with $T^*$, hence the eigenvalue of $H/n$ are that of $\widehat{\Upsilon}^{(n)}$.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{Variance_MVD_P=Q}}
We see that
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]\\
&=\frac{n+m}{n^2}\sum_{i,s=1}^{n}\mathbb{E}[ h(X_i,X_s)]
+\frac{n+m}{m^2} \sum_{j,t=1}^{m}\mathbb{E}[h(Y_j,Y_t)]
-\frac{2(n+m)}{nm} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m} \mathbb{E}[h(X_i,Y_j)],
\end{align*}
where $h(x,y)$ is in (\ref{Eq_h(x,y)}).
Since we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[h(X_1,X_2)]
&=\mathbb{E}\left[\left<(k(\cdot,X_1)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P),(k(\cdot,X_2)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \right]\\
&=\left<\mathbb{E}[(k(\cdot,X_1)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)],\mathbb{E}[(k(\cdot,X_2)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)]\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=0
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[h(X_1,X_1)]
&=\mathbb{E}\left[\left<(k(\cdot,X_1)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P),(k(\cdot,X_1)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\right]\\
&=\mathbb{E}\left[\left<\left\{(k(\cdot,X_1)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right\}^{\otimes 2}, I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}\right]\\
&=\left<\mathbb{E}\left[\left\{(k(\cdot,X_1)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\right\}^{\otimes 2}\right], I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}\\
&=\left<\Upsilon,I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}},
\end{align*}
under $P=Q$, it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_That_Expactation}
\mathbb{E}[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]
=\frac{n+m}{n^2} n \left<\Upsilon,I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}
+\frac{n+m}{m^2} m \left<\Upsilon,I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}\\
=\frac{(n+m)^2}{nm}\left<\Upsilon,I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}.
\end{equation}
Next, we consider $\mathbb{E}\left[\left\{(n+m)\widehat{T}_{n,m}^2\right\}^2 \right]$.
It follows from direct calculations that
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}\left[\left\{(n+m)\widehat{T}_{n,m}^2\right\}^2\right]\\
&=\mathbb{E}\left[
\left\{
\frac{n+m}{n^2}\sum_{i,s=1}^{n}h(X_i,X_s)+\frac{n+m}{m^2} \sum_{j,t=1}^{m} h(Y_j,Y_t) -\frac{2(n+m)}{nm} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m} h(X_i,Y_j)
\right\}^2
\right]\\
&=\frac{(n+m)^2}{n^4}\mathbb{E}\left[
\left\{\sum_{i,s=1}^{n} h(X_i,X_s)\right\}^2
\right]
+\frac{(n+m)^2}{m^4} \mathbb{E}\left[
\left\{
\sum_{j,t=1}^{m}h(Y_j,Y_t)
\right\}^2
\right]\\
&~~~~~
+\frac{4(n+m)^2}{n^2m^2} \mathbb{E}\left[
\left\{
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m} h(X_i,Y_j)
\right\}^2
\right]
+\frac{2(n+m)^2}{n^2m^2}\mathbb{E}\left[
\left\{
\sum_{i,s=1}^{n} h(X_i,X_s)
\right\}
\left\{
\sum_{j,t=1}^{m} h(Y_j,Y_t)
\right\}
\right]\\
&~~~~~
-\frac{4(n+m)^2}{n^3m}\mathbb{E}\left[
\sum_{i,s,\ell=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m}h(X_i,X_s) h(X_\ell,Y_j)
\right]
-\frac{4(n+m)^2}{nm^3} \mathbb{E}\left[
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j,t,k=1}^{m} h(Y_j,Y_t)h(X_i,Y_k)
\right].
\end{align*}
A straightforward but lengthy computation yields that
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_That_Expectation_2}
\mathbb{E}\left[
\left\{\sum_{i,s=1}^{n} h(X_i,X_s)\right\}^2
\right]
=n\left<A,I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 8}}
+2n(n-1)\norm{\Upsilon}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}
+n(n-1)\left<\Upsilon,I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}^2,
\end{equation}
where $A=\mathbb{E}[\{(k(\cdot,X_1)-\mu_k(P))^{\otimes 2}-\Sigma_k(P)\}^{\otimes 4}]$.
In addition, we obtain from direct calcuration that
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}\left[
\left\{
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m} h(X_i,Y_j)
\right\}^2
\right]
=nm\norm{\Upsilon}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}},\\
&\mathbb{E}\left[
\left\{
\sum_{i,s=1}^{n} h(X_i,X_s)
\right\}
\left\{
\sum_{j,t=1}^{m} h(Y_j,Y_t)
\right\}
\right]
=nm \left<\Upsilon,I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}^2.
\end{align*}
Therefore, using (\ref{Eq_That_Expactation}) and (\ref{Eq_That_Expectation_2})
\begin{align*}
&V[(n+m)\widehat{T}_{n,m}]\\
&=\mathbb{E}\left[\left\{(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}\right\}^2\right] -\{\mathbb{E}[(n+m)\widehat{T}^2_{n,m}]\}^2\\
&=\frac{(n+m)^2}{n^4}\left(n\left<A,I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 8}}+2n(n-1)\norm{\Upsilon}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}+n(n-1)\left<\Upsilon,I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}^2 \right)\\
&~~~~~+\frac{(n+m)^2}{m^4}\left(m\left<A,I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 8}}+2m(m-1)\norm{\Upsilon}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}+m(m-1)\left<\Upsilon,I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}^2 \right)\\
&~~~~~+\frac{4(n+m)^2}{n^2m^2} nm \norm{\Upsilon}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}
+\frac{2(n+m)^2}{n^2m^2} nm \left<\Upsilon,I\right>^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
-\frac{(n+m)^4}{n^2m^2} \left<\Upsilon,I\right>^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}\\
&=\frac{2(n+m)^4}{n^2m^2}\norm{\Upsilon}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 4}}+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{m}\right).
\end{align*}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{Variance_MMD_P=Q}}
Since
\[
(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}
=\frac{n+m}{n^2} \sum_{i,s=1}^{n}k(X_i,X_s)
+\frac{n+m}{m^2}\sum_{j,t=1}^{m} k(Y_j,Y_t)
-\frac{2(n+m)}{nm} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m} k(X_i,Y_j),
\]
first, we need to calculate
\[
\mathbb{E}[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]
=\frac{n+m}{n^2} \sum_{i,s=1}^{n} \mathbb{E}[k(X_i,X_s)]
+\frac{n+m}{m^2} \sum_{j,t=1}^{m} \mathbb{E}[k(Y_j,Y_t)]
-\frac{2(n+m)}{nm} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m} \mathbb{E}[k(X_i,Y_j)].
\]
From the expected values of each term are obtained as
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}[k(X_1,X_2)]=\norm{\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)},\\
&\mathbb{E}[k(X_1,X_1)]
=\left<\Sigma_k(P),I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} +\norm{\mu_k(P)}_{H(k)}^2
\end{align*}
we get
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]
=\frac{(n+m)^2}{nm} \left<\Sigma_k(P),I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \label{MMD_firstE}
\end{align}
under $P = Q$.
Next, the second moment of $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ is
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}[\{(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}\}^2] \nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{E}\left[
\left\{
\frac{n+m}{n^2} \sum_{i,s=1}^{n} k(X_i,X_s)
+\frac{n+m}{m^2} \sum_{j,t=1}^{m} k(Y_j,Y_t)
-\frac{2(n+m)}{nm} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m} k(X_i,Y_j)
\right\}^2
\right]\nonumber\\
&=\frac{(n+m)^2}{n^4}\mathbb{E} \left[
\left\{
\sum_{i,s=1}^{n}k(X_i,X_s)
\right\}^2
\right]
+\frac{(n+m)^2}{m^4}\mathbb{E}\left[
\left\{
\sum_{j,t=1}^{m} k(Y_j,Y_t)
\right\}^2
\right]\nonumber\\
&~~~~~
+\frac{4(n+m)^2}{n^2m^2} \mathbb{E} \left[
\left\{
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m} k(X_i,Y_j)
\right\}^2
\right]
+\frac{2(n+m)^2}{n^2m^2} \mathbb{E}\left[
\left\{
\sum_{i,s=1}^{n} k(X_i,X_s)
\right\}
\left\{
\sum_{j,t=1}^{m} k(Y_j,Y_t)
\right\}
\right]\nonumber\\
&~~~~~
-\frac{4(n+m)^2}{n^3m} \mathbb{E} \left[
\sum_{i,s,\ell=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m} k(X_i,X_s) k(X_{\ell},Y_j)
\right]
-\frac{4(n+m)^2}{nm^3} \mathbb{E} \left[
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j,t,k=1}^{m} k(Y_j,Y_t) k(X_i,Y_k)
\right]. \label{MMD_secondE}
\end{align}
These expectations are obtained as
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}\left[\left\{
\sum_{i,s=1}^{n}k(X_i,X_s)
\right\}^2
\right] \nonumber\\
&=n \mathbb{E}[k(X_1,X_1)^2]
+4n(n-1) \left<\mathbb{E}[k(\cdot,X_1)^{\otimes 2} k(\cdot,X_1)],\mu_k(P)\right>_{H(k)}
+2n(n-1) \norm{\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \nonumber\\
&~~~~~
+n(n-1) \left<\Sigma_k(P),I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}^2
+2n(n-1)^2\left<\Sigma_k(P),I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \norm{\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)} \nonumber\\
&~~~~~
+4n(n-1)^2 \left<\Sigma_k(P),\mu_k(P)^{\otimes 2}\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
+n(n-1)(n^2+n-3) \norm{\mu_k(P)}^4_{H(k)}, \label{MMD_E1}\\
&\mathbb{E} \left[
\left\{
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m}k(X_i,Y_j)
\right\}^2
\right] \nonumber\\
&=nm\norm{\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
+nm(n+m) \left<\Sigma_k(P),\mu_k(P)^{\otimes 2}\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
+n^2m^2 \norm{\mu_k(P)}^4_{H(k)}, \label{MMD_E2}\\
&\mathbb{E}\left[
\left\{
\sum_{i,s=1}^{n} k(X_i,X_s)
\right\}
\left\{
\sum_{j,t=1}^{m} k(Y_j,Y_t)
\right\}
\right]\nonumber\\
&=nm \left<\Sigma_k(P),I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}^2
+nm(n+m) \left<\Sigma_k(P),I\right>_{H(k)} \norm{\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}
+n^2m^2 \norm{\mu_k(P)}^4, \label{MMD_E3}\\
&\mathbb{E} \left[
\sum_{i,s,\ell=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{m} k(X_i,X_s) k(X_{\ell},Y_j)
\right]\nonumber\\
&=nm \left<\mathbb{E}[k(\cdot,X_1)^{\otimes 2} k(\cdot,X_1)],\mu_k(P)\right>_{H(k)}
+n(n-1)m \left<\Sigma_k(P),I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \norm{\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}\nonumber\\
&~~~~~
+2n(n-1)m \left<\Sigma_k(P),\mu_k(P)^{\otimes 2}\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
+n(n-1)(n+1)m \norm{\mu_k(P)}^4_{H(k)},\label{MMD_E4}\\
&\mathbb{E} \left[
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j,t,k=1}^{m} k(Y_j,Y_t) k(X_i,Y_k)
\right] \nonumber\\
&=nm \left<\mathbb{E}[k(\cdot,X_1)^{\otimes 2} k(\cdot,X_1)],\mu_k(P)\right>_{H(k)}
+m(m-1)n \left<\Sigma_k(P),I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}} \norm{\mu_k(P)}^2_{H(k)}\nonumber\\
&~~~~~
+2m(m-1)n \left<\Sigma_k(P),\mu_k(P)^{\otimes 2}\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
+m(m-1)(m+1)n \norm{\mu_k(P)}^4_{H(k)} \label{MMD_E5}.
\end{align}
The combining (\ref{MMD_secondE}) and (\ref{MMD_E1})-(\ref{MMD_E5}) provides that
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}[\{(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}\}^2] \nonumber\\
&=\frac{2(n+m)^4}{n^2m^2} \norm{\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
+\frac{(n+m)^4}{n^2m^2} \left<\Sigma_k(P),I\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}^2
+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right) +O\left(\frac{1}{m}\right). \label{MMD_secondEE}
\end{align}
Therefore, from (\ref{MMD_firstE}) and (\ref{MMD_secondEE}), the variance of $(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}$ is
\begin{align*}
V[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]
&=\mathbb{E}\left[\left\{(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}\right\}^2\right]-\left\{\mathbb{E}[(n+m)\widehat{\Delta}^2_{n,m}]\right\}^2\\
&=\frac{2(n+m)^4}{n^2m^2} \norm{\Sigma_k(P)}^2_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right) +O\left(\frac{1}{m}\right).
\end{align*}
\subsection{Proof of (\ref{H_matrix_Gram})}
The $(i,j)$-th element of the matrix $H$ is
\begin{align*}
H_{ij}
&=\left<(k(\cdot,X_i)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} -{\Sigma}_k(\widehat{P}),(k(\cdot,X_j)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} -{\Sigma}_k(\widehat{P})\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=\left<(k(\cdot,X_i)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} ,(k(\cdot,X_j)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} \right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
-\left<{\Sigma}_k(\widehat{P}),(k(\cdot,X_j)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} \right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&~~~~~
-\left<(k(\cdot,X_i)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} ,{\Sigma}_k(\widehat{P})\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}
+\left<{\Sigma}_k(\widehat{P}),{\Sigma}_k(\widehat{P})\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}.
\end{align*}
Each term of this $H_{ij}$ can be expressed as
\begin{align*}
&\left<(k(\cdot,X_i)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} ,(k(\cdot,X_j)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} \right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=\left<k(\cdot,X_i)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}) ,k(\cdot,X_j)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}) \right>_{H(k)}^2\\
&=\left\{
k(X_i,X_j)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})(X_i)-\mu_k(\widehat{P})(X_j)+\left<\mu_k(\widehat{P}),\mu_k(\widehat{P})\right>_{H(k)}
\right\}^2\\
&=\left\{
k(X_i,X_j) -\frac{1}{n}\sum_{s=1}^{n}k(X_j,X_s)-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{\ell=1}^{n}k(X_i,X_{\ell})+\frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{s,\ell=1}^{n}k(X_s,X_{\ell})
\right\}^2\\
&=\left(\widetilde{K}_{ij}\right)^2\\
&=\left(\widetilde{K} \odot \widetilde{K} \right)_{ij}, \\
&\left<\Sigma_k(\widehat{P}),(k(\cdot,X_i)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} \right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=\left<\frac{1}{n}\sum_{s=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_s)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2},(k(\cdot,X_i)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} \right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{s=1}^{n}\left<(k(\cdot,X_s)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2},(k(\cdot,X_i)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} \right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{s=1}^{n}\left<k(\cdot,X_s)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}),k(\cdot,X_i)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P})\right>_{H(k)}^2\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{s=1}^{n}\left(\widetilde{K}_{sj}\right)^2\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{s=1}^{n} \left(\widetilde{K} \odot \widetilde{K}\right)_{sj}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&\left<\Sigma_k(\widehat{P}),\Sigma_k(\widehat{P})\right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=\left<\frac{1}{n}\sum_{s=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_s)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2},\frac{1}{n}\sum_{\ell=1}^{n}(k(\cdot,X_{\ell})-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} \right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=\frac{1}{n^2} \sum_{s,\ell=1}^{n} \left<(k(\cdot,X_s)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2},(k(\cdot,X_{\ell})-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}))^{\otimes 2} \right>_{H(k)^{\otimes 2}}\\
&=\frac{1}{n^2} \sum_{s,\ell=1}^{n} \left<k(\cdot,X_s)-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P}),k(\cdot,X_{\ell})-{\mu}_k(\widehat{P})\right>_{H(k)}^2\\
&=\frac{1}{n^2} \sum_{s,\ell=1}^{n} \left(\widetilde{K}_{s\ell}\right)^2\\
&=\frac{1}{n^2} \sum_{s,\ell=1}^{n} \left(\widetilde{K} \odot \widetilde{K}\right)_{s\ell}.
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\[
H_{ij}=\left(\widetilde{K} \odot \widetilde{K}\right)_{ij}
-\frac{1}{n} \sum_{s=1}^{n} \left(\widetilde{K} \odot \widetilde{K}\right)_{sj}
-\frac{1}{n} \sum_{s=1}^{n} \left(\widetilde{K} \odot \widetilde{K}\right)_{si}
+\frac{1}{n^2} \sum_{s,\ell=1}^{n} \left(\widetilde{K} \odot \widetilde{K}\right)_{s \ell},
\]
which gives the expression (\ref{H_matrix_Gram}).
|
\section{Introduction}
The concept of entropy, introduced into the realm of dynamical systems more than fifty years ago, has become an important ingredient in the characterization of the complexity of dynamical systems. In the late nineties, M. Gromov \cite{gro} proposed a new dynamical
concept of dimension that was meant to extend the usual topological
dimension to broader contexts. This notion, called mean dimension, is defined for continuous maps on compact
metric spaces in terms of the growth rate of refinements of
coverings of the phase space and was shown to be hardly computable
in general. This invariant of topological dynamical systems was used
by E. Lindenstrauss and B. Weiss introduced in \cite{LW} (it is a
very interesting work to study which other properties of the entropy
are maintained by the mean dimension and the metric mean dimension)
to answer a long-standing question in topological dynamics: does
every minimal topological dynamical system embed into $([0,
1]^\mathbb{Z}, \sigma)$? The answer is negative, since any system
embeddable in $([0, 1]^\mathbb{Z}, \sigma)$ has topological mean
dimension at most one and \cite{LW} constructed a minimal system
with a mean dimension strictly greater than one. This concept,
inspired by the topological entropy, turns out to be a metric
version of Gromov's notion. Moreover, it is an upper bound for the
mean dimension and, in general, easier to estimate. However, it
depends on the metric used, while the topological entropy is metric
independent. The upper and
lower metric mean dimensions, unlike Gromov's concept, depend on
the metric adopted on the space and are nonzero only if the
topological entropy of the dynamics is infinite. Since continuous systems on manifold with infinite topological entropy are generic \cite{Yan}, the metric mean dimension exhibits several intrinsic
features which makes it a rather compelling notion to be studied. There are many elegant approaches to mean dimensions \cite{LT,LT1,V} and mean dimensions with potential \cite{MT}.
This work was intended as an attempt to give a unified way to analyze systems with infinite entropy by introducing a notion of pressure-like complexity functions, which is called \emph{scale pressure}, with respect to a scale function $s$ and a potential function $f$. A variational principle of scale pressure is presented. We also describe these quantities by pseudo-orbits.
\section{Scale Pressures}
More precisely, suppose that $X$ is a compact metric space with metric $d$, $\mathcal{B}$ is the Borel $\sigma$-algebra, $G$ is a countable discrete amenable group and $C(X,\mathbb{R})$ is the Banach algebra of real-valued continuous functions on $X$ equipped with the supreme norm: $\|\varphi\|:=\max\limits_{x\in X}|\varphi(x)|$, $\varphi\in C(X,\mathbb{R})$. Let $(X,G)$ be a $G$-action topological dynamical system, $\mathcal{M}_G(X)$ be collection of the $G$-invariant Borel probability measures of $X$ and $\mathcal{E}_G(X)$ be collection of the $G$-ergodic Borel probability measures of $X$. Recall that a group $G$ is said to be \emph{amenable} if there exists a sequence of finite subsets $\{F_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ of $G$ which are asymptotically invariant, i.e.,$$\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{|F_n\vartriangle gF_n|}{|F_n|}=0, \text{ for all } g\in G.$$
Such sequences $\{F_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ are called F{\o}lner sequences. We denote the collection of nonempty finite subsets of $G$ by $F(G)$. For each $F\in F(G)$, set metrics $d_F(x,y)=\max\limits_{g\in F}d(gx,gy)$.
Recall that a F{\o}lner sequence $\{F_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ in $G$ is \emph{tempered} if there exists a constant $C$ which is independent of $n$ such that $$|\bigcup_{k<n}F_k^{-1}F_n|\leq C|F_n|,\text{ for all } n\in\mathbb{N}.$$
\begin{dfn}
Let $\e>0$, $E,J,K\subseteq X$ and $F\in F(G)$. If for any $x\in K$ there exists $y\in J$ such that $d_F(x,y)< \e$,\ then we call $J$ is an\emph{ $(F,\e)$-spanning set of $K$}.\ If for any $x,y\in E$ we have $d_F(x,y)>\varepsilon$,\ then we call $E$ is an\emph{ $(F,\e)$-separated set}.
\end{dfn}
Let $sep_{\e,F}(X,G)$ denote the maximal cardinality of an $(F,\e)$-separated subset of $X$ and $spa_{\e,F}(X,G)$ denote the smallest cardinality of an $(F,\e)$-spanning subset of $X$.
\begin{dfn}
A function $s:(0,1)\to(0,\infty)$ is called a \emph{scale function}, if for any $\lambda\in (0,\infty)$, $\lim\limits_{x\rightarrow0}\frac{s(\lambda x)}{s(x)}=1.$ We denote by $\mathcal{S}$ (resp. $\mathcal{S}^*$) the set of all (resp. non-increasing) scale functions.
\end{dfn}
Let $\mathcal{S}^{**}=\{s\in\mathcal{S}^*: \limsup\limits_{\e\rightarrow0}\frac{\e\log\e}{s(\e)}=0\}.$
For any F{\o}lner sequence $\{F_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$, let $S_{F_n,\varphi}(x)=\sum\limits_{g\in F_n}\varphi(gx).$
For any\ $\varepsilon>0$,\ $s\in\mathcal{S}$, we put
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&Q_{\e,F_n}(\varphi,s):=\\
&&\inf\{\sum_{x\in J}\exp (s(\e)S_{F_n,\varphi}(x)):\ J\ is\ an \ (F_n,\varepsilon)\ spanning\ set\ of\ X\};
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&P_{\e,F_n}(\varphi,s):=\\
&&\sup\{\sum_{x\in E}\exp (s(\e)S_{F_n,\varphi}(x)):\ E\ is\ an \ (F_n,\varepsilon)\ separated\ set\ of\ X\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Similarly, let
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&q_{ \e,F_n}(\varphi,s):=\\ &&\inf\{\sum_{A\in \alpha}\inf_{x\in A}\exp (s(\e)S_{F_n,\varphi}(x)):\ \alpha\ \mbox{is\ a\ finite\ cover\ with\ mesh}(\alpha,d_{F_n})<\e\};
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&p_{\e,F_n}(\varphi,s):=\\
&&\inf\{\sum_{A\in \alpha}\sup_{x\in A}\exp (s(\e)S_{F_n,\varphi}(x)):\ \alpha\ \mbox{is\ a\ finite\ cover\ with\ mesh}(\alpha,d_{F_n})<\e\},
\end{eqnarray*}
where mesh$(\alpha,d_{F_n}):=\max\limits_{A\in\alpha}\mbox{diam}_{d_{F_n}}(A)$.
\begin{rem}\label{re1}
\begin{item}
\item (1) $0\leq Q_{ \e,F_n}(\varphi,s)\leq\|\exp(s(\e)S_{F_n,\varphi})\|spa_{\e,F_n}(X,G)$, \\\ \ \,\,\,$0\leq P_{\e,F_n}(\varphi,s)\leq\|\exp(s(\e)S_{F_n,\varphi})\|sep_{\e,F_n}(X,G)$.\\
\item (2) $P_{\e,F_n}(0,s)=sep_{\e,F_n}(X,G)$, $Q_{\e,F_n}(0,s)=spa_{\e,F_n}(X,G)$.\\
\item (3) $Q_{\e,F_n}(\varphi,s)\leq P_{\e,F_n}(\varphi,s)\leq p_{\e,F_n}(\varphi,s)$.\\
\item (4) If $d(x,y)<\e$ implies $|\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)|\leq\delta$, then $$p_{\e,F_n}(\varphi,s)\leq
e^{|F_n|\delta s(\e)}q_{\e,F_n}(\varphi,s).$$\\
\end{item}
\end{rem}
For $\varphi\in C(X,\mathbb{R})$, $s\in\mathcal{S}$ and $\e>0$, put
$$Q_{\e}(\varphi,s):=
\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_n|}\log Q_{\e,F_n}(\varphi,s);$$
$$P_{\e}(\varphi,s):=
\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_n|}\log P_{\e,F_n}(\varphi,s);$$
$$p_{\e}(\varphi,s):=\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_n|}\log p_{\e,F_n}(\varphi,s);$$
$$q_{\e}(\varphi,s):=\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_n|}\log q_{\e,F_n}(\varphi,s).$$
Let
$$Q(\varphi,s):=\limsup_{\e\rightarrow0}\frac{Q_{\e}(\varphi,s)}
{s(\e)}; $$
$$P(\varphi,s):=
\limsup_{\e\rightarrow0}
\frac{P_{\e}(\varphi,s)}{s(\e)};$$
$$ p(\varphi,s):=
\limsup_{\e\rightarrow0}
\frac{p_{\e}(\varphi,s)}{s(\e)};$$
$$ q(\varphi,s):=
\limsup_{\e\rightarrow0}
\frac{q_{\e}(\varphi,s)}{s(\e)}.$$
The following Proposition is a direct consequence of Remark \ref{re1} (3) and (4).
\begin{prop}\label{p12}For $s\in\mathcal{S}$, and $\varphi\in C(X,\mathbb{R})$,
$$ Q(\varphi,s)\leq P(\varphi,s)\leq p(\varphi,s)\leq q(\varphi,s).$$
\end{prop}
Denote by $C(X,\mathbb{R}^+)$ the set of nonnegative continuous functions.
\begin{prop}\label{p1} For $\varphi\in C(X,\mathbb{R}^+)$, $s\in\mathcal{S}^*$,
$$Q(\varphi,s)=P(\varphi,s)=p(\varphi,s)=q(\varphi,s).$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{p12} and Remark 1.1 (4), we are left to show that $Q(\varphi,s)\geq q(\varphi,s)$.
For any $\e>0$ and $(F_n,\frac{\e}{2})$ spanning set $J$, then the $d_{F_n}$ balls centered at $J$ of radius $\frac{\e}{2}$ cover $X$ and these balls form an open cover $\alpha_J$ with mesh$(\alpha,d_{F_n})<\e$.
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\limsup_{\e\to0}\frac{\limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{|F_n|}\log\sum\limits_{y\in J}\exp (s(\frac{\e}{2})S_{F_n,\varphi}(y))}{s(\frac{\e}{2})}\\
&\geq& \limsup_{\e\to0}\frac{\limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{|F_n|}\log\sum\limits_{A\in \alpha}\inf\limits_{x\in A}\exp (s(\e)S_{F_n,\varphi}(x))}{s(\frac{\e}{2})}.
\end{eqnarray*}
In the above inequality, we use the fact that $\varphi\in C(X,\mathbb{R}^+)$ and $s\in\mathcal{S}^*$.
Therefore, $Q(\varphi,s)\geq q(\varphi,s)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{dfn}
The map $$SP(\cdot,\cdot): C(X,\mathbb{R})\times \mathcal{S}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\cup\{\infty\}, \varphi\mapsto SP(\varphi,s)=Q(\varphi,s)$$ is called \emph{scale pressure of} $G$ with respect to $s$ and $\varphi$.
\end{dfn}
For any invariant measure $\mu\in \mathcal{M}_G(X)$, $\varepsilon>0$, $0<\delta<1$, $s\in\mathcal{S}$\ we put
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&P_{\mu,\delta,\e,F_n}(\varphi,s):=\\
&&\inf\{\sum_{x\in E}\exp (s(\e)S_{F_n,\varphi}(x)):\ E \mbox{ is\ an}\ (F_n,\varepsilon)\mbox{\ spanning\ set\ of}\ D\subset X\ \mbox{with}\ \mu(D)\geq 1-\delta\};
\end{eqnarray*}
Let
$$ P_{\mu,\delta,\e}(\varphi,s):=
\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_n|}\log P_{\mu,\delta,\e,F_n}(\varphi,s),$$
and $$P_{\mu,\delta}(\varphi,s):=\limsup_{\e\to 0}\frac{P_{\mu,\delta,\e}(\varphi,s)}{s(\e)}.$$
For any finite measurable partition $\xi$ of $(X,\mathscr{B})$ and any $\mu\in \mathcal{M}_G(X)$, write
$h_{\mu}(G,\xi):=\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}-\frac{1}{|F_n|}\sum\limits_{A\in\xi_{F_n}}\mu(A)\log\mu(A)$,
where $\xi_{F_n}=\bigvee\limits_{g\in F_n}g^{-1}\xi$.
\begin{dfn}\label{entropy}Let $(X,G)$ be a $G$-action topological dynamical system, $\mu\in \mathcal{M}_G(X)$, we call
$$h_{\mu}(G):= \sup\{h_{\mu}(G,\xi):\ \xi\ \mbox{is\ a\ finite\ measurable\ partition\ of\ }(X,\mathscr{B})\}$$ the \emph {measure-theoretic entropy} of $G$ with respect to $\mu$.
\end{dfn}
For $\mu\in \mathcal{M}_G(X)$ define $N_{\mu}(F_n,\e,\delta)$ as the minimal number of dynamical balls $B_{F_n}(x,\e)$ needed to cover a set of measure strictly bigger than $1-\delta$. Then define $h_{\mu,\delta,\e}(X,G)=\limsup\limits_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{|F_n|}\log N_{\mu}(F_n,\e,\delta)$. It was proven by Y. Zhao in \cite{Y} that $h_\mu(G)=\lim\limits_{\e\to 0} h_{\mu,\delta,\e}(X,G)$ for any $\mu\in \mathcal{E}_T(G)$, $\delta\in (0,1)$ and tempered F{\o}lner sequence $\{F_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ in $G$ with $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{|F_n|}{\log n}=\infty$.
\begin{prop}\label{pp2}
Let $\{F_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ be a tempered F{\o}lner sequence in $G$ with $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{|F_n|}{\log n}=\infty$, $s\in\mathcal{S}$ and $\e\in(0,1)$. For $\varphi\in C(X,\mathbb{R})$, $\mu\in \mathcal{E}_G(X)$,
$$\lim_{\delta \rightarrow 0}P_{\mu,\delta}(\varphi,s)=\lim_{\delta \rightarrow 0}\limsup_{\e\to 0}\frac{h_{\mu,\delta,\e}(X,G)}{s(\e)}+\int \varphi d\mu.$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof is further divided into two steps.
\emph{Step 1} First, we show that\begin{equation}\label{equ1}
\lim_{\delta \rightarrow 0}P_{\mu,\delta}(\varphi,s)\leq\lim_{\delta \rightarrow 0}\limsup_{\e\to 0}\frac{h_{\mu,\delta,\e}(X,G)}{s(\e)}+\int \varphi d\mu.
\end{equation}
For any $\tau>0$, there is $0<\e<\tau$ such that if $x,y\in X$, $d(x,y)<\e$, then $|\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)|<\tau.$
Since $\mu$ is ergodic, by Birkhoff ergodic theorem and Egorov theorem, there is a measurable set $B\in\mathscr{B}$ with $\mu(B)>1-\frac{\delta}{2}$ satisfies the following:
For every $i\in\mathbb{N}$ there exists $N_i\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $N_{i+1}>N_i$ and for any $n\geq N_i$, $x\in B$, $|\frac{1}{|F_n|}s(\e)S_{F_n,\varphi}(x)-\int s(\e)\varphi d\mu|<\frac{1}{i}.$
We choose a sequence of positive integers $\{n_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ satisfying:
\begin{item}
\item (1) $n_i\geq N_i$, for any $i\in\mathbb{N}$;
\item (2) $P_{\mu,\delta,\e}(\varphi,s)=\lim\limits_{i\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_{n_i}|}\log P_{\mu,\delta,\e,F_{n_i}}(\varphi,s)$.
\end{item}
Let $C_{n_i}$ be a set with $\mu(C_{n_i})>1-\frac{\delta}{2}$ and
$D_{n_i}$ be an $(F_{n_i},\e)$ spanning set of $C_{n_i}$ with card$(D_{n_i})=N_\mu(F_{n_i},\e,\frac{\delta}{2})$.
Put $E_{n_i}=B\cap C_{n_i}$, then $\mu(E_{n_i})>1-\delta.$ Let $J_{n_i}\subset D_{n_i}$ be an $(F_{n_i},\e)$ spanning set of $E_{n_i}$ with smallest cardinality.
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sum_{x\in J_{n_i}}\exp (s(\e)S_{F_{n_i},\varphi}(x))\\
&\leq&\sum_{x\in J_{n_i}}\exp [s(\e)|F_{n_i}|(\int \varphi d\mu+\frac{1}{i})]\\
&\leq&card (D_{n_i})\exp [s(\e)|F_{n_i}|(\int \varphi d\mu+\frac{1}{i})].
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore $$ P_{\mu,\delta,\e,F_{n_i}}(\varphi,s)\leq card (D_{n_i})\exp[|F_{n_i}|(s(\e)\int \varphi d\mu+s(\e)\frac{1}{i})].$$
Hence, $$P_{\mu,\delta,\e}(\varphi,s)\leq h_{\mu,\frac{\delta}{2},\e}(X,G)+s(\e)\int \varphi d\mu.$$
Dividing by $s(\e)$ and letting $\e\rightarrow 0$, we have (\ref{equ1}).
\emph{Step 2} Next, we show that \begin{equation}\label{equ2}
\lim_{\delta \rightarrow 0}P_{\mu,\delta}(\varphi,s)\geq\lim_{\delta \rightarrow 0}\limsup_{\e\to 0}\frac{h_{\mu,\delta,\e}(X,G)}{s(\e)}+\int \varphi d\mu.
\end{equation}
By Birkhoff ergodic theorem and Egorov theorem, similarly to \emph{Step 1} we can find a measurable set $B\in\mathscr{B}$ with $\mu(B)>1-\delta$ and a sequence of positive integers $\{n_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ satisfying the following:
For every $i\in\mathbb{N}$ there exists $N_i\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for any $i\in \mathbb{N}$, $x\in B$, $|\frac{1}{|F_{n_i}|}s(\e)S_{F_{n_i},\varphi}(x)-\int s(\e)\varphi d\mu|<\frac{1}{i},$ and
$$h_{\mu,2\delta,\e}(X,G)=\lim\limits_{i\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_{n_i}|}\log N_{\mu,2\delta,\e,F_{n_i}}(X,G).$$
Let $C_{n_i}$ be a set with $\mu(C_{n_i})>1-\delta$ and
$D_{n_i}$ be an $(F_{n_i},\e)$ spanning set of $C_{n_i}$. Put $E_{n_i}=B\cap C_{n_i}$, then $\mu(E_{n_i})>1-2\delta.$ Let $J_{n_i}\subset D_{n_i}$ be an $(F_{n_i},\e)$ spanning set of $E_{n_i}$ with smallest cardinality.
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sum_{x\in D_{n_i}}\exp (s(\e)S_{F_{n_i},\varphi}(x))\\
&\geq&\sum_{x\in J_{n_i}}\exp (s(\e)S_{F_{n_i},\varphi}(x))\\
&\geq&\sum_{x\in J_{n_i}}\exp [s(\e)|F_{n_i}|(\int \varphi d\mu-\frac{1}{i})]\\
&=&card (J_{n_i})\exp [s(\e)|F_{n_i}|(\int \varphi d\mu-\frac{1}{i})]\\
&\geq&N_\mu(F_{n_i},\e,2\delta)\exp [s(\e)|F_{n_i}|(\int \varphi d\mu-\frac{1}{i})].
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&P_{\mu,\delta,\e}(\varphi,s)\\
&\geq&h_{\mu,2\delta,\e}(X,G)+s(\e)\int \varphi d\mu.
\end{eqnarray*}
Dividing by $s(\e)$ and letting $\e\rightarrow 0$, we have (\ref{equ2}).
\end{proof}
\begin{dfn}
For any $0<\delta<1$, $\mu\in \mathcal{M}_G(X)$, $s\in\mathcal{S}$, the map $$SP_{\mu}(\cdot,\cdot): C(X,\mathbb{R})\times\mathcal{S}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\cup\{\infty\}, \varphi\mapsto SP_{\mu,\delta}(\varphi,s):=P_{\mu,\delta}(\varphi,s)$$ is called \emph{measure-theoretic scale pressure of} $G$ with respect to $s$ and $\varphi$.
\end{dfn}
One of our main results is the following variational principle, we need a condition.
For any finite measurable partition $\xi$ and $r>0$, let $U_{r}(A):=\{x\in A:\exists y\in A^c,\ \mbox{with}\ d(x,y)<r\}$ and $U_{r}(\xi):=\bigcup\limits_{A\in\xi}U_{r}(A)$. Since $\bigcap\limits_{r>0}U_{r}(\xi)=\partial\xi$, $\lim\limits_{r\rightarrow 0}\mu(U_{r}(\xi))=\mu(\partial\xi)$, for any $\mu\in\mathcal{M}_G(X)$, where $\partial\xi:=\bigcup\limits_{A\in\xi}\partial A$ and $\partial A$ is the boundary of $A$.
If a finite measurable partition $\xi$ satisfies $\mu(\partial\xi)=0$ for some $\mu\in\mathcal{E}_G(X)$, then for any $\gamma>0$, we can find $0<r<\gamma$ such that $\mu(U_{r}(\xi))<\gamma.$ Let $r_{\mu,\gamma}:=\sup\{r\in \mathbb{R}^+: \exists\,\mbox{finite\,measurable\,partition}\,\xi
\,\mbox{with}\,\mu(\partial\xi)=0,diam(\xi)<\gamma\,\mbox{and}\,\mu(U_{r}(\xi))<\gamma\}$
and $r_{\gamma}:=\inf\limits_{\mu\in\mathcal{E}_G(X)}r_{\mu,\gamma}$.
\begin{con2}For any $\gamma>0$, $r_{\gamma}>0$ and
$\limsup\limits_{\gamma\rightarrow0}\frac{s(r_{\gamma})}{s(\gamma)}=1.$
\end{con2}
\begin{rem}
If we choose $s\equiv 1$, then Condition A holds for the system such that for any $\gamma>0$, $r_{\gamma}>0$. If we take $s(x)=-\log x$, for example, a trivial example satisfying Condition A is one dimensional uniquely ergodic systems whose ergodic measure is Lebesgue measure.
\end{rem}
For any $\e\in(0,1)$, $s\in\mathcal{S}^{**}$, $\varphi\in C(X,\mathbb{R})$ and $0<\delta<1$, let $$sp(\varphi,s,\delta):=\limsup\limits_{\e\to 0}\frac{\sup\limits_{\mu\in \mathcal{M}_G(X)}P_{\mu,\delta,\e}(\varphi,s)}{s(\e)}.$$
\begin{the1}\label{A} Let $(X,G)$ be a $G$-action topological dynamical system satisfying Condition A. $\{F_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a tempered F{\o}lner sequence in $G$ with $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{|F_n|}{\log n}=\infty$. For any $S\in\mathcal{S}^{**}$, $\varphi\in C(X,\mathbb{R})$ and $0<\delta<1$,
$$SP(\varphi,s)=sp(\varphi,s,\delta).$$
\end{the1}
\begin{rem}
The condition $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{|F_n|}{\log n}=\infty$ on the tempered F{\o}lner sequence $\{F_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is only to guarantee the application of Shannon-McMillan-Breiman theorem (see for example \cite{L2}). Therefore, neither the quantity $P_{\mu,\delta,\e}(\varphi)$ nor the result depends on the choice of F{\o}lner sequence.
\end{rem}
To prove theorem A, we need the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{bianfen}
For any $\gamma>0,$ there exists $\mu_{\gamma}\in \mathcal{M}_G(X)$ such that for all finite measurable partition $\xi$ with diam$(\xi)<\gamma$ and $\mu_{\gamma}(\partial\xi)=0$, we have $P_{\gamma}(\varphi,s)\leq h_{\mu_{\gamma}}(G,\xi)+S(\gamma)\int \varphi d\mu_{\gamma}$. Moreover, $\mu_{\gamma}$ can be chosen to be ergodic.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows the same line of \cite[Theorem 1.2]{D}, with slight modification. For any $\gamma>0$, any tempered F{\o}lner sequence $\{F_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ with $\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}\dfrac{|F_n|}{\log n}=\infty$, let $E_{n}=\{x_1,...,x_{sep_{\gamma,F_n}(X,G)}\}$ be a maximal collection of $(F_n,\gamma)$-separated points in $X$ with $$\log\sum\limits_{x\in E_{n}}\exp (s(\gamma)S_{F_n,\varphi}(x))\geq \log P_{\gamma,F_n}(\varphi,s)-1.$$ Define $$\sigma_n=\dfrac{\sum\limits_{y\in E_{n}}\exp (s(\gamma)S_{F_n,\varphi}(y))\delta_y}{\sum\limits_{x\in E_{n}}\exp (s(\gamma)S_{F_n,\varphi}(x))},$$
where $\delta_x$ is the probability measure supported at $x$. Then define
$$\mu_n=\dfrac{1}{|F_n|}\sum_{g\in {F_n}} \sigma_n\circ g^{-1}.$$
Consider a subsequence $\{n_k\}_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ such that $$P_{\gamma}(\varphi,s)=\lim_{k\to \infty}\dfrac{1}{|F_{n_k}|}\log P_{\gamma,n_k}(\varphi,s)$$ and $\{\mu_{n_k}\}_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to some $\mu_{\gamma}\in \mathcal{M}_G(X)$.
Let $\xi$ be a finite measurable partition with diam$(\xi)<\gamma$ and $\mu(\partial\xi)=0$. Recall that $\xi_{F_n}=\bigvee\limits_{g\in {F_n}}g^{-1}\xi$.
Since each element of $\xi_{F_n}$ contains at most one element of $E_n$, by the definition of $\sigma_n$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&H_{\sigma_n}(\xi_{F_n})+s(\gamma)\int S_{F_n,\varphi}(x) d\sigma_n\\
&=&\sum_{y\in E_{n}}\sigma_n(\{y\})[s(\gamma)S_{F_n,\varphi}(y)-\log\sigma_n(\{y\})]\\
&=&\log\sum_{y\in E_{n}}\exp (s(\gamma)S_{F_n,\varphi}(y)),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $H_{\sigma_n}(\xi_{F_n}):=\sum\limits_{A\in\xi_{F_n}}-\sigma_n(A)\log\sigma_n(A)$.
By a similar argument of \cite[Lemma 3.1(3)]{W}, for any finite subset $F$ of $G$, we have
$$H_{\sigma_n}(\xi_{F_n})\leq \frac{1}{|F|}\sum_{g\in F_n} H_{\sigma_n\circ g^{-1}}(\xi_F)+\frac{1}{|F_n|}|F^{-1}F_n\backslash F_n|\log \mbox{card}(\xi),$$
where $\mbox{card}(\xi)$ denotes the number of cells of partition $\xi$. Hence,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\frac{1}{|F_n|}H_{\sigma_n}(\xi_{F_n})\\
&\leq&\frac{1}{|F|}\frac{1}{|F_n|}\sum_{g\in F_n}H_{\sigma_n\circ g^{-1}}(\xi_F)+\frac{|F^{-1}F_n\backslash F_n|}{|F_n|}\log\mbox{card}(\xi)\\
&\leq&\frac{1}{|F|}H_{\mu_n}(\xi_F)+\frac{|F^{-1}F_n\backslash F_n|}{|F_n|}\log\mbox{card}(\xi).
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\mu(\partial\xi_F)=0$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_n|}\log\sum_{y\in E_{n}}\exp (s(\gamma)S_{F_n,\varphi}(y))\\
&=&\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_{n_j}|}\log\sum_{y\in E_{n_j}}\exp (s(\gamma)S_{F_{n_j},\varphi}(y))\\
&=&\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_{n_j}|}(H_{\sigma_{n_j}}(\xi_{F_{n_j}})+s(\gamma)\int S_{F_{n_j},\varphi}(x) d\sigma_{n_j})\\
&\leq&\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}(\frac{1}{|F|}H_{\mu_{n_j}}(\xi_F)+\frac{|F^{-1}F_{n_j}\backslash F_{n_j}|}{|F_{n_j}|}\log\mbox{card}(\xi)+\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}s(\gamma)\int\varphi d\mu_{n_j}\\
&=&\frac{1}{|F|}H_{\mu_\gamma}(\xi_F)+s(\gamma)\int\varphi d\mu_{\gamma}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking infimum over all finite subsets of $G$, by \cite[Theorem 4.2]{Td}, $$\limsup\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_n|}\log\sum\limits_{y\in E_{n}}\exp (s(\gamma)S_{F_n,\varphi}(y))\leq h_{\mu_\gamma}(G,\xi)+s(\gamma)\int\varphi d\mu_\gamma.$$
We can get that $P_{\gamma}(\varphi,s)\leq h_{\mu_{\gamma}}(G,\xi)+s(\gamma)\int \varphi d \mu_{\gamma}.$
By ergodic decomposition theorem \cite{W}, we can choose $\mu_{\gamma}\in \mathcal{E}_G(X)$ satisfying the desired properties.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[proof of theorem A]
The inequality $SP(\varphi,s)\geq sp(\varphi,s,\delta)$ follows directly from definitions.
For any $\tau>0$, there is $0<\e<\min\{\tau,\frac{1-\delta}{2}\}$ such that if $x,y\in X$, $d(x,y)<\e$, then $|\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)|<\tau.$
For any finite measurable partition $\xi$ with $\mu(\partial\xi)=0$ for some $\mu\in\mathcal{E}_G(X)$, we can find $0<r_{\mu}<\e$ such that $\mu(U_{r}(\xi))<\e.$ Suppose that $N_\mu(F_n,r,\delta)$ is the minimal number of $B_{F_n}(x,r)$ balls that cover a set of measure more than $1-\delta$. According to the proof of \cite[Theorem 3.1]{D}, by a combinational arguments on the numbers of the cells $\xi_{F_n}$ and the bowen balls $B_{F_n}(x,r)$, there is $N_1\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for any $n>N_1$, $$N_\mu(F_n,r,\delta)\geq\frac{\exp[|F_n|(h_{\mu}(G,\xi)-\e)]}{D(\frac{\e}{2},N_0,F_n)}
\frac{1-\delta}{4},$$ where $D(\frac{\e}{2},N_0,F_n):=\sum\limits_{m=0}^{[|F_n|\frac{\e}{2}]}(N_0-1)^mC_{|F_n|}^m,$ and $N_0=card (\xi)$. By Stirling formula, $$\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_n|}\log D(\frac{\e}{2},N_0,F_n)=\frac{\e}{2}\log(N_0-1)-\frac{\e}{2}\log\frac{\e}{2}-(1-\frac{\e}{2})\log(1-\frac{\e}{2}).$$
Again by Birkhoff ergodic theorem and Egorov theorem, similarly to the proof in \emph{Step 1} of Proposition 1.2, we can find a measurable set $B\in\mathscr{B}$ with $\mu(B)>1-\frac{\delta}{2}$ and a sequence of positive integers $\{n_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ satisfies the following:
For every $i\in\mathbb{N}$ there exists $N_i\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for any $i\in \mathbb{N}$, $x\in B$, $|\frac{1}{|F_{n_i}|}s(r)S_{F_{n_i},\varphi}(x)-\int s(r)\varphi d\mu|<\frac{1}{i},$ and
$$P_{\mu,\delta,r}(\varphi,s)=\lim\limits_{i\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_{n_i}|}\log P_{\mu,\delta,r,F_{n_i}}(\varphi,s).$$
Let $C_{n_i}$ be a set with $\mu(C_{n_i})>1-\frac{\delta}{2}$ and
$D_{n_i}$ be an $(F_{n_i},r)$ spanning set of $C_{n_i}$. Put $E_{n_i}=B\cap C_{n_i}$, then $\mu(E_{n_i})>1-\delta.$ Let $J_{n_i}\subset D_{n_i}$ be an $(F_{n_i},r)$ spanning set of $E_{n_i}$ with smallest cardinality. Thus for any $x\in J_{n_i}$, there is $\pi(x)\in E_{n_i}$ such that $d_{F_{n_i}}(x,\pi(x))<r$.
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sum_{x\in D_{n_i}}\exp (s(\gamma)S_{F_{n_i},\varphi}(x))\\
&\geq&\sum_{x\in J_{n_i}}\exp (s(\gamma)S_{F_{n_i},\varphi}(x))\\
&\geq&\sum_{x\in J_{n_i}}\exp [s(\gamma)|F_{n_i}|(\int \varphi d\mu-\frac{1}{i})]\\
&=&card (J_{n_i})\exp [s(\gamma)|F_{n_i}|(\int \varphi d\mu-\frac{1}{i})]\\
&\geq&N_\mu(F_{n_i},\gamma,\delta)\exp [s(\gamma)|F_{n_i}|(\int \varphi d\mu-\frac{1}{i})]\\
&\geq&
\frac{1-\delta}{4D(\frac{\e}{2},N_0,F_{n_i})}\exp[|F_{n_i}|(h_{\mu}(G,\xi)-\e)]\exp [s(\gamma)|F_{n_i}|(\int \varphi d\mu-\frac{1}{i})]\\
&=&\frac{1-\delta}{4D(\frac{\e}{2},N_0,F_{n_i})}\exp[|F_{n_i}|(h_{\mu}(G,\xi)-\e
+s(\gamma)\int \varphi d\mu-s(\gamma)\frac{1}{i})].
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, for any $\delta>0$, $\mu\in\mathcal{E}_{G}(X)$ and any finite partition $\xi$ with $\mu(\partial\xi)=0$, we can find $0<r<\e$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&P_{\mu,\delta,r}(\varphi,s)\\
&\geq&h_{\mu}(G,\xi)+s(r)\int \varphi d\mu+s(r)\tau-\e-[\frac{\e}{2}\log(N_0-1)-\frac{\e}{2}\log\frac{\e}{2}-(1-\frac{\e}{2})\log(1-\frac{\e}{2})].
\end{eqnarray*}
For any $0<\gamma<\e$, by Lemma \ref{bianfen}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&P_{\gamma}(\varphi,s)\\
&\leq& h_{\mu_{\gamma}}(G,\xi)+s(\gamma)\int \varphi d\mu_{\gamma}\\
&\leq&P_{\mu_{\gamma},\delta,r_{\mu_{\gamma}}(\varphi,s)}+s(r_{\mu_{\gamma}})\tau+\e+[\frac{\e}{2}\log(N_0-1)+\frac{\e}{2}\log\frac{\e}{2}+(1-\frac{\e}{2})\log(1-\frac{\e}{2})]\\
&\leq&\sup_{\mu \in \mathcal{M}_G(X)} P_{\mu,\delta,r_{\mu_{\gamma}}(\varphi,s)}+s(r_{\mu_{\gamma}})\tau+\e+[\frac{\e}{2}\log(N_0-1)+\frac{\e}{2}\log\frac{\e}{2}+(1-\frac{\e}{2})\log(1-\frac{\e}{2})]
\end{eqnarray*}
Dividing by $s(\gamma)$ and letting $\tau\rightarrow 0$. Since $\tau>\e>\gamma>0$, by Condition A, we have $$SP(\varphi,s)\leq sp(\varphi,s).$$
\end{proof}
At last, we pose an open problem, namely, whether we can exchange the order of the limit and supremum in Theorem A.
\begin{open}
Let $(X,G)$ be a $G$-action topological dynamical system, $\varphi\in C(X,\mathbb{R})$, and $0<\delta<1$. Whether
$$SP(\varphi,s)=\sup_{\mu\in\mathcal{M}_G(X)}SP_{\mu,\delta}(\varphi,s).$$
\end{open}
\section{Pseudo Orbits}
Pseudo orbits have proved to be a powerful conceptual tool in dynamical systems. For example, if group action is expansive and has the pseudo orbit tracing property then it is topologically stable \cite{ch}; every expansive action of an amenable group with positive entropy that has the pseudo orbit tracing property must admit off-diagonal asymptotic pairs \cite{tom}. In this section, we investigate scale pressure with respect to pseudo orbits.
In this section, we assume that $G$ is a finitely generated countable discrete amenable group with a \emph{finite} generating set $\mathfrak{G}=\{\mathbf{g}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{g}_m\}$, $m\in\mathbb{N}$.
\begin{dfn}
For $\epsilon>0$ we say that a sequence $\{y_g\}_{g\in G}$ is an \emph{$\epsilon$-pseudo orbit} of an action $G$ (with respect to the generating set $\mathfrak{G}$) if
$d(y_{tg}, t(y_g))<\epsilon, \ \forall t\in\mathfrak{G}, g\in G$.
\end{dfn}
Let $PO_{\epsilon}(\mathfrak{G})$ denote all $\epsilon$ pseudo orbits for $G$, let $X^{G}=\prod\limits_{g\in G}X_g$ with $X_g=X$, and denote the point $\overline{x}$ in $X^{G}$ by $(x_g)_{g\in G}.$
\begin{dfn}
Let $\e>0$, $E,J,K\subseteq X^{G}$ and $F\in F(G)$. If for any $\overline{x}\in K$ there exists $\overline{y}\in J$ such that $d(x_g,y_g)\leq \e$, for all $g\in F$, then we call $J$ is an\emph{ $(F,\e)$ spanning set of $K$}.\ If for any $\overline{x},\overline{y}\in E$ there is a $g\in F$ such that $d(x_g,y_g)>\varepsilon$,\ then we call $E$ is an\emph{ $(F,\e)$ separated set}.
\end{dfn}
Denote by $sep_{\e,F}(X^{G}, K)$ the maximal cardinality of an $(F,\e)$-separated subset of $K\subseteq X^{G}$, by $spa_{\e,F}(X^{G},K)$ the smallest cardinality of an $(F,\e)$-spanning subset of $K\subseteq X^{G}$.
Suppose that $Y\subset PO_\epsilon(\mathfrak{G})$ is a nonempty subset, $\varphi\in C(X,\mathbb{R})$.
For $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$, $s\in\mathcal{S}$ and the F{\o}lner sequence $\{F_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$, we put
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&POQ_{\e,F_n}(Y,G,\varphi,s):=\\
&&\inf\{\sum_{(x_g)_{g\in G}\in J}\exp (s(\e)\sum_{g\in F_n}\varphi(x_g)):\ J\ is\ an \ (F_n,\varepsilon)\ spanning\ set\ of\ Y\};
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&POP_{\e,F_n}(Y,G,\varphi,s):=\\
&&\sup\{\sum_{(x_g)_{g\in G}\in E}\exp (s(\e)\sum_{g\in F_n}\varphi(x_g)):\ E\ is\ an \ (F_n,\varepsilon)\ separated\ set\ of\ Y\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
For $\varphi\in C(X,\mathbb{R})$ $\e\in(0,1)$, $s\in \mathcal{S}$ and the F{\o}lner sequence $\{F_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ in $G$, let
$$POP(\varphi,s):=\limsup_{\e\rightarrow0}\frac{\limsup\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_n|}\log(\lim\limits_{\epsilon\rightarrow0}POP_{\e,F_n}(PO_\epsilon(\mathfrak{G}),G,\varphi,s))}
{s(\e)}; $$
$$POQ(\varphi,s):=\limsup_{\e\rightarrow0}\frac{\limsup\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_n|}\log(\lim\limits_{\epsilon\rightarrow0}POQ_{\e,F_n}(PO_\epsilon(\mathfrak{G}),G,\varphi,s))}
{s(\e)}. $$
\begin{prop}\label{ppp3}For $\varphi\in C(X,\mathbb{R})$ with $\varphi\geq0$, and for $\e\in(0,1)$, $s\in\mathcal{S}^*$,
$POP(\varphi,s)=POQ(\varphi,s)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By a similar argument of Proposition \ref{p1}, for any $\delta>0$, $$POQ(\varphi,s)\leq POP(\varphi,s)\leq POQ(\varphi,s)+\delta.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{dfn}
The map $$PSP(\cdot,\cdot): C(X,\mathbb{R})\times \mathcal{S}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\cup\{\infty\}, \varphi\mapsto PSP(\varphi,s):=POQ(\varphi,s)$$ is called \emph{scale pressure of} $G$ \emph{with respect to pseudo-orbits}.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}
We call $(X,G)$ a \emph{Lipschitz $G$-system} if any $t\in\mathfrak{G}$ is a bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism.
\end{dfn}
For $0\leq\epsilon\leq1$, let $X_\epsilon$ be the closure of $PO_\epsilon$.
Since $G$ is countable, we can arrange $G$ as $G:=\{g_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ with $g_0=e$, then $(X_1,\overline{d})$ is a compact metric space where $\overline{d}(\overline{x},\overline{y}):=\sum\limits_{i\in \mathbb{N}}\frac{d(x_{g_i},y_{g_i})}{2^{i}}$, $\overline{x},\overline{y}\in X_{1}$. For any $0\leq\epsilon\leq1$, $X_{\epsilon}$ is a compact subset of $X_1$. Then $G$ act on $X_{\epsilon}$ naturally by $t(x_g)_{g\in G}=(x_{tg})_{g\in G}$. Set $\pi_{\epsilon}:X_{\epsilon}\rightarrow X$, $(x_g)_{g\in G}\mapsto x_e$. It is clear that $\pi_{\epsilon}$ is continuous and $\pi_{\epsilon}=\pi_{1}|_{X_{\epsilon}}$.
\begin{lem}\label{jia}
For any $\eta>0$, there exists $\epsilon_0>0$ such that for any $0\leq\epsilon\leq\epsilon_0$ and $\overline{x}\in X_{\epsilon}$, there exists $\overline{y}\in X_{0}$ with $\overline{d}(\overline{x},\overline{y})<\eta,$ where $X_{0}=\{\overline{x}=(x_g)_{g\in G}\in X^{G}:\ x_{tg}=t(x_g), \ \forall t\in\mathfrak{G}, g\in G\}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For any $\eta>0$, there exists $N\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\sum\limits_{i=N}^{\infty}\frac{D}{2^{i}}<\frac{\eta}{3}$, where $D:=\max\{d(x,y):x,y\in X\}$. Choose $\epsilon_0>0$ so that $d(x,y)<\epsilon_0$ implies $d_N(x,y)<\frac{\eta}{3}$, where $d_N(x,y):=\max\limits_{0\leq i\leq N}d(g_i(x),g_i(y))$. For any $\overline{y}\in X_{\rho}$ where $0\leq\rho\leq\epsilon_0$, $\overline{x}:=(x_g)_{g\in G}$ with $d(x_e,y_e)<\epsilon$ and $x_g=g(x_e)$, $\overline{x}$ will satisfy $\overline{d}(\overline{x},\overline{y})<\eta.$
\end{proof}
In the following Lemmas, we will add $X$ and $G$ to the notations $p$ and $Q$ in order to distinguish different spaces.
\begin{lem}\label{bbb}There exists $\eta_0>0$ such that for any $0<\eta<\eta_0$, $s\in\mathcal{S}$, $F\in F(G)$ and $\varphi\in C(X,\mathbb{R})$,
$$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}p_{\eta,F}(X_{\epsilon},G,\varphi\circ\pi_{\epsilon},s)
=p_{\eta,F}(X_{0},G,\varphi\circ\pi_{0},s).$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For $\eta>0$ and $\epsilon>0$. Let $\alpha_{1,\eta}$ be a finite open cover of $X_1$ with mesh $(\alpha_{1,\eta},\overline{d}_F)<\eta$, and $\alpha_{1,\eta}(\epsilon):=\{A:\ A\in \alpha_{1,\eta},\ A\cap X_{\epsilon}\neq\emptyset\}$.
It is clear that $\alpha_{1,\varepsilon}^0(\epsilon)$ is an open cover of $X_\epsilon$.
For any $\delta>0$, there exists $\eta_0>0$ such that for any $\overline{x},\overline{y}\in X_1$ with $\overline{d}(\overline{x},\overline{y})<\eta_0$, $i\in\mathbb{N}$, $|\varphi\circ\pi_1(g_i(\overline{x}))-\varphi\circ\pi_1(g_i(\overline{y}))|<\frac{\delta}{|F|}$.
By Lemma \ref{jia}, we can choose $\epsilon_0>0$ satisfying that
for any $0\leq\epsilon\leq\epsilon_0$ and $\overline{x}\in X_{\epsilon}$, there exists $\overline{y}\in X_{0}$ with $\overline{d}(\overline{x},\overline{y})<\eta_0.$
So for any $0<\eta<\eta_0$ and $0\leq\epsilon\leq\epsilon_0$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sum_{A\in \alpha_{1,\eta}(\epsilon)}\sup_{x\in A}\exp (s(\eta)S_{F,\varphi\circ\pi_{\epsilon}}(x))\\
&\leq&\sum_{A\in \alpha_{1,\eta}(\epsilon)}\sup_{x\in A}e^{s(\eta)\delta}\exp (s(\eta)S_{F,\varphi\circ\pi_0}(x)).
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, $p_{\eta,F}(X_{\epsilon},G,\varphi\circ\pi_{\epsilon},s)
\leq p_{\eta,F}(X_{0},G,\varphi\circ\pi_{0},s)e^{s(\eta)\delta}.$
On the other hand, it is obvious that $p_{\eta,F}(X_{\epsilon},G,\varphi\circ\pi_{\epsilon},s)
\geq p_{\eta,F}(X_{0},G,\varphi\circ\pi_{0},s).$
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{ccc}If $(G,X)$ is a Lipschitz $G$-system, $\varphi\in C(X,\mathbb{R})$ with $\varphi\geq0$, and for $\e\in(0,1)$, $s\in\mathcal{S}^*$, then
$Q(X,G,\varphi,s)=Q(X_{0},G,\varphi,s).$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $\pi_0$ is a surjective Lipschitz continuous map with Lipschitz constant $L(\pi_0)\leq 1$ and for any $\e>0$, if $\overline{d}(\overline{x},\overline{y})<\e$, then $d(\pi_0(\overline{x}),\pi_0(\overline{y}))<\e$. Thus if $A$ is an $(F,\e)$ spanning set of $X_0$ then $\pi_0(A)$ is an $(n,\e)$ spanning set of $X$.
Therefore, $$Q(X,G,\varphi,s)\leq Q(X_0,G,\varphi,s).$$
On the other hand, for any $\e>0$, there is $N\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\sum\limits_{i=N}^{\infty}\frac{D}{2^{i}}<\frac{\e}{3}$, where $D:=\max\{d(x,y):x,y\in X\}$. Choose $\delta=\frac{\e}{4Lip_N}$ so that $d(x,y)<\delta$ implies $d_N(x,y)<\frac{\e}{3}$, where $Lip_N:=\max\limits_{0\leq i\leq N}Lip(g_i)$.
For any $(F,\delta)$ spanning set $A$ of $X$ then $Orb(A):=\{(x_g)_{g\in G}\in X_0: x_e\in A\}$ is an $(F,\e)$ spanning set of $X_0$.
Therefore, $$Q(X,G,\varphi,s)\geq Q(X_0,G,\varphi,s).$$
\end{proof}
\begin{the2}\label{B} Let $(X,G)$ be a Lipschitz $G$-system, if $G$ is a finitely generated countable discrete amenable group, and for $s\in\mathcal{S}^*$, then
$SP(\varphi,s)=PSP(\varphi,s).$
\end{the2}
\begin{proof}
The inequality $SP(\varphi,s)\leq PSP(\varphi,s)$ follows directly from definitions. By Lemma \ref{ccc}, it is sufficient to show that $$SP(\varphi,s)\geq PSP(\varphi,s).$$
For any $0<\eta<\eta_0$ and $0\leq\epsilon\leq\epsilon_0$ as in Lemma \ref{bbb}, if $E$ is an $(F,2\eta)$-separated set, $\alpha$ is an open cover with mesh$(\alpha,\overline{d}_{F_n})<\eta$, then
$$\sum_{(x_g)_{g\in G}\in E}\exp (s(2\eta)\sum_{g\in {F_n}}\varphi(x_g))\leq\sum_{A\in\alpha}\sup_{x\in A}e^{s(\eta)\delta}\exp(s(\eta)S_{F_n,\varphi\circ\pi_\epsilon}(x)).$$
Therefore, $\limsup\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_n|}\log(POP_{2\eta,F_n}(PO_\epsilon(\mathfrak{G}),G,\varphi,s))\leq p_\eta(X_\epsilon,G,\varphi\circ\pi_\epsilon,s).$
By Lemma \ref{bbb}, $\lim\limits_{\epsilon\rightarrow0}p_\eta(X_\epsilon,G,\varphi\circ\pi_\epsilon,s)
\leq p_\eta(X_0,G,\varphi\circ\pi_0,s).$
Thus $\limsup\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{|F_n|}\log(POP_{2\eta,F_n}(PO_\epsilon(\mathfrak{G}),G,\varphi,s))\leq p_\eta(X_0,G,\varphi\circ\pi_0,s).$
Dividing by $s(\e)$, by Lemma \ref{ccc}, letting $\eta\rightarrow 0$, $$PSP(\varphi,s)\leq SP(\varphi,s).$$
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Reflection equation assures the integrability in one-dimensional quantum systems or
two-dimensional statistical models with boundaries. In the context of quantum
integrability, it is an equation involving two kinds of linear operators, called quantum
$R$ and $K$ matrices, on the twofold tensor product of vector spaces.
The mathematical framework to construct its solution lies in considering a pair of
a quantum group and its coideal subalgebra. They are called a quantum symmetric
pair \cite{L} or an $\iota$quantum group \cite{BW1} and known to be classified by
Satake diagrams \cite{L,Ko}. In such a situation, $R$ and $K$ matrices
contain the quantum parameter $q$. Moreover, if the representations
have crystal bases in the sense of Kashiwara \cite{K}, one can take the limit where
$q$ goes to 0, and we obtain bijections between sets that still satisfy a combinatorial
version of the reflection equation.
In \cite{KOYa}, from the motivation of constructing a so-called box-ball system
with boundary, we found three solutions of the combinatorial $K$ matrix where
the combinatorial $R$ matrix in the reflection equation comes from the crystal basis
of the symmetric tensor representation of the quantum affine algebra of type $A$.
See (2.10)-(2.12) of \cite{KOYa}. They were called ``Rotateleft'', ``Switch$_{12}$''
and ``Switch$_{1n}$''.
However, their quantum versions, namely, solutions of quantum $K$ matrices, were
not found for a long time. Only recently, in \cite{KOYo} the solution corresponding
to ``Rotateleft'' were found.
The purpose of this note is to find the origin of the other two solutions
``Switch$_{12}$'' and ``Switch$_{1n}$'' from the list of $\iota$quantum groups.
The correct one was found to be the affine version
of type AII. See e.g.~\cite{L,Ko,W}. Rather surprisingly, if we choose parameters in
our $\iota$quantum group suitably, the $K$ matrices does not depend on $q$,
although the $R$ matrices do.
There are many $\iota$quantum groups other than affine type AII which we
dealt with in this note, and there also exists a notion of the universal $K$matrix
\cite{Ko,BW1,BW2} as with the universal $R$ matrix of a quantum group.
We hope to report more solutions of the reflection equation that become combinatorial
upon taking the limit $q\to0$ in near future.
\section{$U_q(A^{(1)}_{2n-1})$ and relevant $R$ matrices} \label{sec:Uq}
\subsection{\mathversion{bold}$U_q(A^{(1)}_{2n-1})$ and relevant representations}
Let $\mathbf{U} = U_q(A^{(1)}_{2n-1})$ be the Drinfeld-Jimbo quantum affine algebra
(without the derivation operator). In this note, we assume $n\ge2$. $\mathbf{U}$ is
generated by $e_i, f_i, k^{\pm 1}_i\, (i \in {\mathbb Z}_{2n})$ obeying the relations
\begin{equation}\label{hn}
\begin{split}
&k_i k^{-1}_i = k^{-1}_i k_i = 1,\;\; [k_i, k_j]=0,\;\;
k_ie_jk^{-1}_i = q^{a_{ij}}e_j,\;\;
k_if_jk^{-1}_i = q^{-a_{ij}}f_j,\;\;
[e_i, f_j]=\delta_{ij}\frac{k_i-k^{-1}_i}{q-q^{-1}},\\
&\sum_{\nu=0}^{1-a_{ij}}(-1)^\nu
e^{(1-a_{ij}-\nu)}_i e_j e_i^{(\nu)}=0,
\quad
\sum_{\nu=0}^{1-a_{ij}}(-1)^\nu
f^{(1-a_{ij}-\nu)}_i f_j f_i^{(\nu)}=0\;\;(i\neq j),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $e^{(\nu)}_i = e^\nu_i/[\nu]!, \,
f^{(\nu)}_i = f^\nu_i/[\nu]!$
and
$[m]! = \prod_{j=1}^m [j]$.
The Cartan matrix $(a_{ij})_{i,j \in {\mathbb Z}_{2n}}$ is given by
$a_{ij}= 2\delta_{i,j}-\delta_{i,j+1}-\delta_{i,j-1}$.
It is well known that $\mathbf{U}$ is a Hopf algebra.
We employ the coproduct $\Delta$ of the form
\begin{equation}
\Delta (k^{\pm 1}_i) = k^{\pm 1}_i\otimes k^{\pm 1}_i,\quad
\Delta (e_i) = e_i\otimes 1 + k_i \otimes e_i,\quad
\Delta (f_i) = f_i\otimes k^{-1}_i + 1 \otimes f_i.
\end{equation}
We will be concerned with the two irreducible representations
of $\mathbf{U}$ labeled with a positive integer $l$:
\begin{align}
\pi_{l,x}: & \;U_q \rightarrow \mathrm{End}(V_{l,x}),
\quad V_{l,x}= \bigoplus_{\alpha \in B_l} {\mathbb Q}(q)v_\alpha,
\label{obt1}\\
\pi^*_{l,x}: & \; U_q \rightarrow \mathrm{End}(V^*_{l,x}),
\quad V^*_{l,x} = \bigoplus_{\alpha \in B_l} {\mathbb Q}(q)v^*_\alpha,
\label{obt2}
\end{align}
where $x$ is a spectral parameter in ${\mathbb Q}(q)$ and
\begin{align}
B_l = \{\alpha=(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_{2n}) \in {\mathbb Z}_{\ge0}^{2n} \mid |\alpha|= l\}.
\end{align}
Here $|\alpha|=\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\alpha_i$.
The actions of the generators of $\mathbf{U}$ on these representations are given by
\begin{alignat}{2}
e_iv_\alpha &= x^{\delta_{i,0}} [\alpha_{i+1}]
v_{\alpha+\boldsymbol{e}_i-\boldsymbol{e}_{i+1}},
& \qquad\quad
e_iv^*_\alpha &= x^{\delta_{i,0}}
[\alpha_i]v^*_{\alpha-\boldsymbol{e}_i+\boldsymbol{e}_{i+1}},
\label{otm1}\\
f_iv_\alpha &= x^{-\delta_{i,0}} [\alpha_{i}]
v_{\alpha-\boldsymbol{e}_i+\boldsymbol{e}_{i+1}},
&
f_iv^*_\alpha &= x^{-\delta_{i,0}} [\alpha_{i+1}]
v^*_{\alpha+\boldsymbol{e}_i-\boldsymbol{e}_{i+1}},
\label{otm2}\\
k_iv_\alpha &= q^{\alpha_i-\alpha_{i+1}}v_\alpha,
&
k_iv^*_\alpha &= q^{-\alpha_i+\alpha_{i+1}}v^*_\alpha.
\label{otm3}
\end{alignat}
Here $\boldsymbol{e}_i$ is the $i$-th standard basis vector and
the index $j$ of the Chevalley generators or $\alpha$ should be understood as elements
of ${\mathbb Z}_{2n}$. $V_{l,x}$ is the $l$-th symmetric tensor representation of $\mathbf{U}$.
$V^*_{l,x}$ is constructed on the dual space of $V_{l,x}$ by using the
anti-automorphism $*$ of $\mathbf{U}$ defined on the generators as
\[
e_i^*=e_i,\quad f_i^*=f_i,\quad k_i^*=k_i^{-1},
\]
and by defining actions on $V^*_{l,x}$ as $\pair{uv^*,v}=\pair{v^*,u^*v}$ for
$u\in\mathbf{U},v\in V_{l,x},v^*\in V^*_{l,x}$. Our basis $\{v^*_\alpha\}$ of $V^*_{l,x}$ is
changed from the dual basis of $\{v_\alpha\}$ by multiplying $\prod_j[\alpha_j]!^{-1}$
on each dual basis vector, so it turns out that
when $x=1$ both $\{v_\alpha\}$ and $\{v^*_\alpha\}$ are upper crystal bases \cite{K}.
At $q=0$, the former gives the crystal $B_l$ and
the latter its dual $B^\vee_l$ in \cite{KOYa}.
\subsection{$R$ matrices}
We consider the following three $R$ matrices $R,R^*,R^{**}$ that are defined as
intertwiners between the tensor product representations below.
\begin{alignat}{2}
R(x/y):& \; V_{l,x} \otimes V_{m,y}
\rightarrow V_{m,y} \otimes V_{l,x},
&\quad
(\pi_{m,y} \otimes \pi_{l,x})\Delta(u)R(x/y)
&= R(x/y)(\pi_{l,x} \otimes \pi_{m,y})\Delta(u),
\label{LL1}\\
R^*(x/y):& \; V^*_{l,x} \otimes V_{m,y}
\rightarrow V_{m,y} \otimes V^*_{l,x},
&\quad
(\pi_{m,y} \otimes \pi^*_{l,x})\Delta(u)R^*(x/y)
&= R^*(x/y)(\pi^*_{l,x} \otimes \pi_{m,y})\Delta(u),
\label{LL2}\\
R^{* *}(x/y):
& \; V^*_{l,x} \otimes V^*_{m,y}
\rightarrow V^*_{m,y} \otimes V^*_{l,x},
&\quad
(\pi^*_{m,y} \otimes \pi^*_{l,x})\Delta(u)R^{**}(x/y)
&= R^{**}(x/y)(\pi^*_{l,x} \otimes \pi^*_{m,y})\Delta(u),
\label{LL3}
\end{alignat}
where $u\in\mathbf{U}$. They satisfy the Yang-Baxter equations:
\begin{align}
(1\otimes R(x))(R(xy) \otimes 1)(1\otimes R(y))
&=
(R(y)\otimes 1)(1\otimes R(xy))(R(x) \otimes 1),
\label{rb4}\\
(1\otimes R^*(x))(R^*(xy) \otimes 1)(1\otimes R(y))
&=
(R(y)\otimes 1)(1\otimes R^*(xy))(R^*(x) \otimes 1),
\\
(1\otimes R^{* *}(x))(R^*(xy) \otimes 1)(1\otimes R^*(y))
&=
(R^*(y)\otimes 1)(1\otimes R^*(xy))(R^{**}(x) \otimes 1),
\\
(1\otimes R^{* *}(x))(R^{* *}(xy) \otimes 1)(1\otimes R^{* *}(y))
&=
(R^{* *}(y)\otimes 1)(1\otimes R^{* *}(xy))(R^{**}(x) \otimes 1).
\label{rb5}
\end{align}
\section{Reflection equation and its solution}
\subsection{Coideal subalgebra}
We consider two coideal subalgebras $\mathbf{U}^\iota_\varepsilon$ ($\varepsilon=0,1$) of $\mathbf{U}$.
Set $I=\{0,1,\ldots,2n-1\}$. An element of $I$ is considered to correspond to
a vertex of the Dynkin diagram of $A^{(1)}_{2n-1}$. In view of this, we identify $I$
with ${\mathbb Z}_{2n}$. For each $\varepsilon=0,1$, set
\[
I_\circ=\{\varepsilon,2+\varepsilon,\ldots,2n-2+\varepsilon\},\quad I_\bullet=I\setminus I_\circ.
\]
We define two subalgebras ${\bf U}^\iota_\varepsilon$ of $\mathbf{U}$ for $\varepsilon=0,1$.
Each one is generated by
$e_i,f_i,k_i\,(i\in I_\bullet),b_i\,(i\in I_\circ)$ where
\begin{align*}
b_i&=f_i+\gamma_i T_{w_\bullet}(e_i)k_i^{-1},\\
T_{w_\bullet}(e_i)&=e_{i+1}e_{i-1}e_i-q^{-1}(e_{i+1}e_ie_{i-1}+e_{i-1}e_ie_{i+1})+q^{-2}e_ie_{i-1}e_{i+1}.
\end{align*}
Here $\gamma_i$ is a constant. Then, we have
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:eb=be}
For $i\in I_\circ$, $e_{i\pm1}b_i=b_ie_{i\pm1}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{table}[h]
\setlength{\unitlength}{0.15in}
\hspace{-4cm}
\begin{minipage}{7cm}
\begin{picture}(24,4)
\put(7.95,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\bullet$}}
\put(10,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\circ$}}
\put(12.1,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\bullet$}}
\put(16.75,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\cdots$}}
\put(17.5,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\cdots$}}
\put(18.25,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\cdots$}}
\qbezier(8.1,1.25)(10.4,3.4)(14.2,3.5)
\qbezier(14.8,3.5)(18.45,3.4)(20.45,1.25)
\put(8.2,1){\line(1,0){1.5}}
\put(10.3,1){\line(1,0){1.5}}
\put(12.45,1){\line(1,0){1.5}}
\put(14.6,1){\line(1,0){1.4}}
\put(18.9,1){\line(1,0){1.4}}
\put(14.3,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\circ$}}
\put(14.5,3.5){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\circ$}}
\put(20.6,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\bullet$}}
\put(14.5,2.8){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $0$}}
\put(14.3,0.3){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $4$}}
\put(8,0.3){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $1$}}
\put(10,0.3){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $2$}}
\put(12.1,0.3){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $3$}}
\put(20.6,0.3){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $2n-1$}}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{minipage}{7cm}
\begin{picture}(24,4)
\put(7.95,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\circ$}}
\put(10,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\bullet$}}
\put(12.1,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\circ$}}
\put(16.75,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\cdots$}}
\put(17.5,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\cdots$}}
\put(18.25,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\cdots$}}
\qbezier(8.1,1.25)(10.4,3.4)(14.2,3.5)
\qbezier(14.8,3.5)(18.45,3.4)(20.45,1.25)
\put(8.2,1){\line(1,0){1.5}}
\put(10.3,1){\line(1,0){1.5}}
\put(12.45,1){\line(1,0){1.5}}
\put(14.6,1){\line(1,0){1.4}}
\put(18.9,1){\line(1,0){1.4}}
\put(14.3,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\bullet$}}
\put(14.5,3.5){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\bullet$}}
\put(20.6,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\circ$}}
\put(14.5,2.8){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $0$}}
\put(14.3,0.3){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $4$}}
\put(8,0.3){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $1$}}
\put(10,0.3){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $2$}}
\put(12.1,0.3){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $3$}}
\put(20.6,0.3){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $2n-1$}}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Satake diagrams of $\mathbf{U}^\iota_0$ and $\mathbf{U}^\iota_1$}
\end{table}
The following fact is well known. See \cite{L,Ko,W} for instance.
\begin{proposition}
${\bf U}^\iota_\varepsilon$ is a right coideal subalgebra of $\mathbf{U}$. Namely, we have $\Delta(\mathbf{U}^\iota_\varepsilon)\subset \mathbf{U}^\iota_\varepsilon\otimes\mathbf{U}$.
\end{proposition}
We also use the following result later.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:bi}
For $i\in I_\circ$, the action of $b_i$ on $V_{l,x}$ or $V^*_{l,x}$ is given by
\begin{align*}
b_iv_{\alpha}&=x^{-\delta_{i,0}}[\alpha_i]v_{\alpha-\boldsymbol{e}_i+\boldsymbol{e}_{i+1}}
-x^{\delta_{i,0}+\delta_{i,1}+\delta_{i,-1}}q^{-1}\gamma_i[\alpha_{i+2}]
v_{\alpha+\boldsymbol{e}_{i-1}-\boldsymbol{e}_{i+2}},\\
b_iv^*_{\alpha}&=x^{\delta_{i,0}}[\alpha_{i+1}]v^*_{\alpha+\boldsymbol{e}_i-\boldsymbol{e}_{i+1}}
-x^{-\delta_{i,0}-\delta_{i,1}-\delta_{i,-1}}q^{-1}\gamma_i[\alpha_{i-1}]
v^*_{\alpha-\boldsymbol{e}_{i-1}+\boldsymbol{e}_{i+2}}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{$K$ matrix and the reflection equation}
For each $\varepsilon=0,1$,
consider a linear map $K(x):V_{l,x} \rightarrow V^*_{l,x^{-1}}$
satisfying
\begin{align} \label{intertwine}
K(x)\pi_{l,x}(a) = \pi^*_{l, x^{-1}}(a) K(x) \quad
\text{for any }a \in {\bf U}^\iota_\varepsilon.
\end{align}
To describe the solution, we introduce a particular permutation $\sigma^{(\varepsilon)}$
of entries of $\alpha$ for $\varepsilon=0,1$. $\sigma^{(\varepsilon)}$ switches $\alpha_{i-1}$ and
$\alpha_{i}$ whenever $i\equiv\varepsilon$ (mod 2).
For instance, when $n=3$ we have
\[
\sigma^{(0)}(\alpha)=(\alpha_2,\alpha_1,\alpha_4,\alpha_3,\alpha_6,\alpha_5),\quad
\sigma^{(1)}(\alpha)=(\alpha_6,\alpha_3,\alpha_2,\alpha_5,\alpha_4,\alpha_1).
\]
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:K}
For each $\varepsilon=0,1$, the intertwining relation \eqref{intertwine} has a solution
if and only if
\[
\prod_{j\in I_\circ}\gamma_j=(-q)^n,
\]
in which case the solution is unique up to scalar multiple and given by
\[
K(x)v_\alpha = x^{\varepsilon(\alpha_1-\alpha_{2n})}
\prod_{j=\varepsilon,2+\varepsilon,\ldots,2n-2+\varepsilon}
(-q^{-1}\gamma_j)^{-\sum_{i=1+\varepsilon}^j\alpha_i}
v^*_{\sigma^{(\varepsilon)}(\alpha)}.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
In the proof we assume $i\in I_\bullet,j\in I_\circ$. Define $K_\alpha^\beta$ by
$K(x)v_\alpha=\sum_\beta K_\alpha^\beta v^*_\beta$. Note that $K_\alpha^\beta$ also
depends on $x$. Comparing the coefficients of $v^*_\beta$ in
$K(x)\pi_{l,x}(a)v_\alpha=\pi^*_{l,x^{-1}}(a)K(x)v_\alpha$ with $k_i,e_i,f_i,b_j$ we obtain
\begin{align}
&K_\alpha^\beta\ne0\quad\Rightarrow\quad \alpha_i-\alpha_{i+1}=-\beta_i+\beta_{i+1},
\label{(1)}\\
&[\beta_i+1]K_\alpha^{\beta+\boldsymbol{e}_i-\boldsymbol{e}_{i+1}}
=x^{2\delta_{i,0}}[\alpha_{i+1}]K_{\alpha+\boldsymbol{e}_i-\boldsymbol{e}_{i+1}}^{\beta}, \label{(2)}\\
&[\alpha_i+1]K_\alpha^{\beta+\boldsymbol{e}_i-\boldsymbol{e}_{i+1}}
=x^{2\delta_{i,0}}[\beta_{i+1}]K_{\alpha+\boldsymbol{e}_i-\boldsymbol{e}_{i+1}}^{\beta}, \label{(3)}\\
&x^{\delta_{j,0}}[\beta_{j+1}+1]K_\alpha^{\beta-\boldsymbol{e}_j+\boldsymbol{e}_{j+1}}
-x^{-\delta_{j,0}-\delta_{j,1}-\delta_{j,-1}}q^{-1}\gamma_j
[\beta_{j-1}+1]K_\alpha^{\beta+\boldsymbol{e}_{j-1}-\boldsymbol{e}_{j+2}} \nonumber\\
&\qquad=x^{-\delta_{j,0}}[\alpha_j]K_{\alpha-\boldsymbol{e}_j+\boldsymbol{e}_{j+1}}^{\beta}
-x^{\delta_{j,0}+\delta_{j,1}+\delta_{j,-1}}q^{-1}\gamma_j[\alpha_{j+2}]
K_{\alpha+\boldsymbol{e}_{j-1}-\boldsymbol{e}_{j+2}}^{\beta}.
\label{(4)}
\end{align}
Since we look for a nontrivial solution, we assume the right hand side of \eqref{(1)}.
This condition together with \eqref{(2)},\eqref{(3)} implies
\begin{equation} \label{(5)}
\alpha_i=\beta_{i+1},\quad \beta_i=\alpha_{i+1}
\end{equation}
or equivalently $\beta=\sigma^{(\varepsilon)}(\alpha)$. Then \eqref{(2)} or \eqref{(3)} reduces to
\begin{equation} \label{(a)}
K_\alpha^{\sigma^{(\varepsilon)}(\alpha)}
=x^{2\delta_{i,0}}K_{\alpha+\boldsymbol{e}_i-\boldsymbol{e}_{i+1}}^{\sigma^{(\varepsilon)}(\alpha+\boldsymbol{e}_i-\boldsymbol{e}_{i+1})}.
\end{equation}
Similarly, assuming \eqref{(5)}, \eqref{(4)} reduces to
\begin{align*}
&x^{\delta_{j,0}}[\alpha_{j+2}](K_\alpha^{\beta-\boldsymbol{e}_j+\boldsymbol{e}_{j+1}}
+x^{\delta_{j,1}+\delta_{j,-1}}q^{-1}\gamma_jK_{\alpha+\boldsymbol{e}_{j-1}-\boldsymbol{e}_{j+2}}^{\beta})\\
&\qquad=x^{-\delta_{j,0}}[\alpha_j](K_{\alpha-\boldsymbol{e}_j+\boldsymbol{e}_{j+1}}^{\beta}
+x^{-\delta_{j,1}-\delta_{j,-1}}q^{-1}\gamma_jK_\alpha^{\beta+\boldsymbol{e}_{j-1}-\boldsymbol{e}_{j+2}}).
\end{align*}
If $\beta=\sigma^{(\varepsilon)}(\alpha)+\boldsymbol{e}_j-\boldsymbol{e}_{j+1}$, the right hand side vanishes,
whereas if $\beta=\sigma^{(\varepsilon)}(\alpha+\boldsymbol{e}_j-\boldsymbol{e}_{j+1})$, the left one does.
Under \eqref{(a)}, both conditions reduce to
\[
K_{\alpha+\boldsymbol{e}_{j-1}-\boldsymbol{e}_{j+1}}^{\sigma^{(\varepsilon)}(\alpha+\boldsymbol{e}_{j-1}-\boldsymbol{e}_{j+1})}/
K_\alpha^{\sigma^{(\varepsilon)}(\alpha)}=-x^{\delta_{j,1}-\delta_{j,-1}}q^{-1}\gamma_j.
\]
Multiplying the above equation for $j=\varepsilon,2+\varepsilon,\ldots,2n-2+\varepsilon$, we obtain
the condition for $K$ to exist, and we obtain the unique solution up to scalar multiple.
\end{proof}
In view of this proposition, we set $\gamma_j=-q$ for any $j\in I_\circ$ later in this note.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:ref eq}
The reflection equation
\begin{align}\label{sin}
K_1(x)R^*((xy)^{-1})K_1(y)R(xy^{-1})
=
R^{* *}(xy^{-1})K_1(y)R^*((xy)^{-1})K_1(x)
\end{align}
holds as a linear map $V_{l,x} \otimes V_{m,y} \rightarrow V^*_{l,x^{-1}} \otimes V^*_{m,y^{-1}}$.
Here $K_1(x)=K(x)\ot1$.
\end{theorem}
The proof is completely the same as that of Theorem 1 in \cite{KOYo} under the
assumption that $V_{l,x}\otimes V_{m,y}$ is irreducible as a $\mathbf{U}^\iota_\varepsilon$-module,
which is shown in next section.
\section{Proof of the irreducibility of $V_{l,x}\otimes V_{m,y}$}
To show that the reflection equation holds (Theorem \ref{th:ref eq}), we need to prove
\begin{theorem} \label{th:irred}
As a ${\bf U}^\iota_\varepsilon$-module, $V_{l,x}\otimes V_{m,y}$ is irreducible.
\end{theorem}
Actually, even when the spectral parameters $x,y$ are specialized to 1, it is irreducible
as we will see below. Hence, in this section we set $x=y=1$, since it is enough to
show the theorem. $V_{l,1}$ will be denoted by $V_l$.
We can also restrict our proof to the $\varepsilon=0$ case, since
the consideration for the $\varepsilon=1$ case is just the repetition by shifting the index $i$
of the generators or the entries of $\alpha$. Finally, in view of Proposition
\ref{prop:K}, we specialize $\gamma_i$ for $i\in I_\circ$ to be $-q$.
\subsection{Representation theory of $U_q(sl_2)$}
$U_q(sl_2)$ is the subalgebra of $\mathbf{U}$ generated only by $e_1,f_1,k_1$. Its irreducible
representations are parametrized by their dimensions which run positive integers.
Let $U_l$ be the $(l+1)$-dimensional module of $U_q(sl_2)$. As a basis of $U_l$,
one can take $\{v_\alpha|\,|\alpha|=l\}$ in \eqref{obt1} with $n=1$.
The actions of the generators $e_1,f_1,k_1$ are given by \eqref{otm1}-\eqref{otm3}.
It is well known that $U_l\otimes U_m$ decomposes into $\min(l,m)+1$
components as
\[
U_l\otimes U_m\simeq \bigoplus_{j=0}^{\min(l,m)}U_{l+m-2j}
\]
where a highest weight vector of $U_{l+m-2j}$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{w}
w^{(l,m)}_j=\sum_{p=0}^j(-1)^pq^{p(l-p+1)}{j\brack p}v_{(l-p,p)}\otimes v_{(m-j+p,j-p)}.
\end{equation}
Here ${j\brack p}$ is the $q$-binomial coefficient defined by $\frac{[j]!}{[p]![j-p]!}$.
Now consider the subalgebra $\mathbf{U}(I_{\bullet})$ of $\mathbf{U}^\iota$ generated by
$e_i,f_i,k_i\,(i\in I_\bullet)$. Recall $I_\bullet=\{1,3,\ldots,2n-1\}$.
$\mathbf{U}(I_{\bullet})$ is isomorphic to $U_q(sl_2)^{\otimes n}$.
We want to construct a basis of $V_l\otimes V_m$ using its $\mathbf{U}(I_\bullet)$-module
structure. To parametrize the highest weight vectors of
$V_l\otimes V_m$, we introduce $n$-tuples of nonnegative integers
$\boldsymbol{l}=(l_1,\ldots,l_n),\boldsymbol{m}=(m_1,\ldots,m_n)$ such that $|\boldsymbol{l}|=l,|\boldsymbol{m}|=m$.
Here we use the notation $|\boldsymbol{l}|$ to signify the sum of entries of the vector $\boldsymbol{l}$
irrespective of the number of entries. Let
\[
\iota:\bigoplus_{\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}}
(U_{l_1}\otimes U_{m_1})\otimes\cdots\otimes(U_{l_n}\otimes U_{m_n})\longrightarrow V_l\otimes V_m
\]
be the linear map sending $(v_{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)}\otimes v_{(\beta_1,\beta_2)})\otimes\cdots\otimes
(v_{(\alpha_{2n-1},\alpha_{2n})}\otimes v_{(\beta_{2n-1},\beta_{2n})})$ to $v_\alpha\otimes v_\beta$.
Note that $U_{l_i}\otimes U_{m_i}$ is the tensor product of the irreducible highest weight
modules $U_{l_i},U_{m_i}$ of the $i$-th $U_q(sl_2)$ of $U_q(sl_2)^{\otimes n}$ generated by
$e_{2i-1},f_{2i-1},k_{2i-1}$. Since $U_q(sl_2)$ in different positions commute with
each other, one obtains the following proposition.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:U(I_bullet)}
For any $\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}$ and $\boldsymbol{j}=(j_1,\ldots,j_n)$ such that
$0\le j_i\le\min(l_i,m_i)$ for $1\le i\le n$,
\[
\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}
=\iota(w^{(l_1,m_1)}_{j_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes w^{(l_n,m_n)}_{j_n})
\]
is a $\mathbf{U}(I_\bullet)$-highest weight vector, and we have
$\bigoplus_{\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m},\boldsymbol{j}}\mathbf{U}(I_\bullet)\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}=V_l\otimes V_m$.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Necessary formulas}
In what follows, we assume $i\in I_\circ=\{0,2,\ldots,2n-2\}$ and set $i=2s$.
By abuse of notation, we denote by $\boldsymbol{e}_s$ ($s=1,\ldots,n$) the $s$-th standard basis vector of the $n$-dimensional space, although we have used it in section \ref{sec:Uq}
for the $2n$-dimensional space. $\boldsymbol{e}_0$ should be understood as $\boldsymbol{e}_n$.
For the action of $\mathbf{U}$ on the tensor product, we abbreviate $\Delta$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:bw}
On $V_{l}\otimes V_{m}$, we have
\[
b_i\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}
=D'_1\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s}
+D'_2\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s}
+D'_3\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}
+D'_4\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}},
\]
where
\begin{align*}
D'_1&=-q^{-j_s-j_{s+1}+l_s+m_{s+1}+1}[j_s],\quad
D'_2=[j_s],\\
D'_3&=-q^{-j_s-j_{s+1}+l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}+1}[j_{s+1}],\quad
D'_4=q^{-2j_s-2j_{s+1}+l_s+l_{s+1}+2m_{s+1}+2}[j_{s+1}].
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Using Proposition \ref{prop:eb=be}, one finds that
$b_i\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}$ is a $\mathbf{U}(I_\bullet)$-highest weight vector.
By the weight consideration, it should be a linear combination of the following vectors.
\[
\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s},\,
\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s},\,
\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}},\,
\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}.
\]
The four coefficients can be calculated directly.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:bfw}
On $V_{l}\otimes V_{m}$, we have
\begin{align*}
b_if_{i-1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}=\quad&\frac{[l_s+m_s-j_s+1]}{[l_s+m_s-2j_s+1]}(B'_1\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}+B'_2\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}})\\
+&\frac{[j_{s+1}]}{[l_s+m_s-2j_s+1]}(B'_3\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}+B'_4\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}})\\
+&\frac{[l_s+m_s-2j_s]}{[l_s+m_s-2j_s+1]}(D'_1f_{i-1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s}+D'_2f_{i-1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s}\\
+&D'_3f_{i-1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}+D'_4f_{i-1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}),\\
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
b_if_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}=\quad&\frac{[j_s]}{[l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}+1]}(C'_1\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}+C'_2\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}})\\
+&\frac{[l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-j_{s+1}+1]}{[l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}+1]}(C'_3\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}+C'_4\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}})\\
+&\frac{[l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}]}{[l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}+1]}(D'_1f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s}+D'_2f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s}\\
+&D'_3f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}+D'_4f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
B'_1&=q^{j_s-j_{s+1}-m_s+m_{s+1}}[l_s-j_s],\quad
B'_2=[m_s-j_s],\\
B'_3&=-q^{j_s-j_{s+1}-l_s-m_s+l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}}[m_s-j_s],\quad
B'_4=-q^{2j_s-2j_{s+1}-l_s-2m_s+l_{s+1}+2m_{s+1}}[l_s-j_s],\\
C'_1&=-q^{-j_s+j_{s+1}+l_s-l_{s+1}}[m_{s+1}-j_{s+1}],\quad
C'_2=-[l_{s+1}-j_{s+1}],\\
C'_3&=q^{-j_s+j_{s+1}}[l_{s+1}-j_{s+1}],\quad
C'_4=q^{-2j_s+2j_{s+1}+l_s-l_{s+1}}[m_{s+1}-j_{s+1}],\\
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Using Proposition \ref{prop:eb=be}, we have
\begin{align*}
&e_{i-1}b_if_{i-1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}=b_ie_{i-1}f_{i-1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}=b_i\{k_{i-1}\}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}=[l_s+m_s-2j_s]b_i\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}},\\
&e_{i+1}b_if_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}=b_ie_{i+1}f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}=b_i\{k_{i+1}\}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}=[l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}]b_i\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}},
\end{align*}
where $\{k_i\}=\frac{k_i-k^{-1}_i}{q-q^{-1}}$ .
Thus same in Lemma \ref{prop:bw}, $e_{i+1}b_if_{i+1}$ and $e_{i-1}b_if_{i-1}$ are a linear combination of the following vectors.
\[
\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s},\,
\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s},\,
\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}},\,
\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}.
\]
By considering weight, one find that $b_if_{i-1}$ and $b_if_{i+1}$ are a linear combination like a assertion, and coefficients can be calculated directly.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:bfw}
On $V_{l}\otimes V_{m}$, we have
\begin{align*}
b_if_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{o}}&=
[l_{s+1}]\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{o}}
+q^{l_s-l_{s+1}}[m_{s+1}]\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{o}},\\
b_if_{i-1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{o}}
&=q^{m_{s+1}-m_s}[l_s]\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{o}}
+[m_s]\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{o}}.
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:bffw}
On $V_l\otimes V_m$, we have
\begin{align}
&b_if_{i-1}f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}} \nonumber\\
&=A_1\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}
+B_1f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}
+C_1f_{i-1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}
+D_1f_{i-1}f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s} \nonumber\\
&+A_2\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}
+B_2f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}
+C_2f_{i-1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}
+D_2f_{i-1}f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_s} \nonumber\\
&+A_3\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}+\boldsymbol{e}_s}
+B_3f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}
+C_3f_{i-1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}
+D_3f_{i-1}f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}} \nonumber\\
&+A_4\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}+\boldsymbol{e}_s}
+B_4f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}
+C_4f_{i-1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}
+D_4f_{i-1}f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}, \label{16terms}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
A_1&=q^{j_s+j_{s+1}-l_{s+1}-m_s-1}\frac{[l_s-j_s][m_{s+1}-j_{s+1}][l_s+m_s-j_s+1]}
{[l_s+m_s-2j_s+1][l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}+1]}\\
A_2&=-\frac{[l_{s+1}-j_{s+1}][m_s-j_s][l_s+m_s-j_s+1]}
{[l_s+m_s-2j_s+1][l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}+1]}\\
A_3&=q^{j_s+j_{s+1}-l_s-m_s-1}
\frac{[l_{s+1}-j_{s+1}][m_s-j_s][l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-j_{s+1}+1]}
{[l_s+m_s-2j_s+1][l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}+1]}\\
A_4&=-q^{2j_s+2j_{s+1}-l_s-l_{s+1}-2m_s-2}
\frac{[l_s-j_s][m_{s+1}-j_{s+1}][l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-j_{s+1}+1]}
{[l_s+m_s-2j_s+1][l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}+1]},
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
B_j&=B'_j\frac{[l_s+m_s-j_s+1][l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}]}{[l_s+m_s-2j_s+1][l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}+1]}\quad(j=1,2),\\
&=B'_j\frac{[j_{s+1}][l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}]}{[l_s+m_s-2j_s+1][l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}+1]}\quad(j=3,4),\\
C_j&=C'_j\frac{[j_s][l_s+m_s-2j_s]}{[l_s+m_s-2j_s+1][l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}+1]}\quad(j=1,2),\\
&=C'_j\frac{[l_s+m_s-2j_s][l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-j_{s+1}+1]}{[l_s+m_s-2j_s+1][l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}+1]}\quad(j=3,4),\\
D_j&=D'_j\frac{[l_s+m_s-2j_s][l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}]}{[l_s+m_s-2j_s+1][l_{s+1}+m_{s+1}-2j_{s+1}+1]}\quad(j=1,2,3,4).
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Similar to Proposition\ref{prop:bw} and \ref{prop:bfw}, $b_if_{i-1}f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}$ can be expressed with suitable scalars $A_j,B_j,C_j,D_j$ ($1\le j\le 4$) as \eqref{16terms}.
By applying $e_{i-1}e_{i+1}$ on both sides, the first to third terms in each
line of the right hand side vanish. So by Proposition \ref{prop:bw}, $D_j$ ($1\le j\le 4$) is determined.
Then, by applying $e_{i+1}$ on both sides of \eqref{16terms}, $B_j$ ($1\le j\le 4$) is determined, and
by applying $e_{i-1}$, $C_j$ ($1\le j\le 4$) is done by Proposition \ref{prop:bfw}.
Finally, $A_j$ ($1\le j\le 4$) is determined by a direct calculation.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:bffw}
On $V_{l}\otimes V_{m}$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
b_if_{i-1}f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}
=&a_1\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}
+a_2\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1}}
+a_3\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}+\boldsymbol{e}_s}
+a_4\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}+\boldsymbol{e}_s-\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}+\boldsymbol{e}_s}\\
&+(\text{other terms}),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $a_j$ $(j=1,2,3,4)$ is given in Proposition \ref{prop:bffw} and $($other terms$)$ stands for the linear combination of vectors of the form
$\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}',\boldsymbol{m}')}_{\boldsymbol{j}'}$ possibly applied by $f_{i-1},f_{i+1}$
with $(\boldsymbol{l}',\boldsymbol{m}')$ appearing in the right hand side and
$j'_k\le j_k$ for $1\le k\le n$.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{th:irred}}
We prove Theorem \ref{th:irred} when $\varepsilon=0$. Suppose $W$ is a nonzero
$\mathbf{U}^\iota$-invariant subspace of $V_l\otimes V_m$. Note that $\mathbf{U}^\iota$ contains
$\mathbf{U}(I_\bullet)$. In view of Proposition \ref{prop:U(I_bullet)},
one can assume that $W$ contains a vector of the form
\begin{equation} \label{lin comb}
\sum_{\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m},\boldsymbol{j}}c(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m},\boldsymbol{j})\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}
\end{equation}
where $c(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m},\boldsymbol{j})\in{\mathbb Q}(q)$ and $\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m},\boldsymbol{j}$ run over all possible integer vectors
such that $l_s+m_s-2j_s$ is constant for any $s=1,\ldots,n$. By applying $b_i$
($i\in I_\circ$) in a suitable order, from Proposition \ref{prop:bw} one can assume
$\boldsymbol{j}=\boldsymbol{o}$ in \eqref{lin comb}. Then by Corollary \ref{cor:bfw}, one can eventually
assume $\boldsymbol{l}=l\boldsymbol{e}_1,\boldsymbol{m}=m\boldsymbol{e}_1$ where $l=|\boldsymbol{l}|,m=|\boldsymbol{m}|$. Hence, we have
$\boldsymbol{w}^{(l\boldsymbol{e}_1,m\boldsymbol{e}_1)}_{\boldsymbol{o}}\in W$.
Next show $\boldsymbol{w}^{(l_1\boldsymbol{e}_1+l_2\boldsymbol{e}_2,m_1\boldsymbol{e}_1+m_2\boldsymbol{e}_2)}_{\boldsymbol{o}}\in W$ for any
$l_1,l_2,m_1,m_2$ such that $l_1+l_2=l,m_1+m_2=m$.
We do it by induction on $k=l_2+m_2$. The $k=0$ case is done. Assume
$\boldsymbol{w}^{(l_1\boldsymbol{e}_1+l_2\boldsymbol{e}_2,m_1\boldsymbol{e}_1+m_2\boldsymbol{e}_2)}_{\boldsymbol{o}}\in W$ for $l_2+m_2=k$.
By Corollary \ref{cor:bfw}, we have
\begin{align*}
b_2f_1\boldsymbol{w}^{(l_1\boldsymbol{e}_1+l_2\boldsymbol{e}_2,m_1\boldsymbol{e}_1+m_2\boldsymbol{e}_2)}_{\boldsymbol{o}}
&=q^{m_2-m_1}[l_1]\boldsymbol{w}^{((l_1-1)\boldsymbol{e}_1+(l_2+1)\boldsymbol{e}_2,m_1\boldsymbol{e}_1+m_2\boldsymbol{e}_2)}_{\boldsymbol{o}}
+[m_1]\boldsymbol{w}^{(l_1\boldsymbol{e}_1+l_2\boldsymbol{e}_2,(m_1-1)\boldsymbol{e}_1+(m_2+1)\boldsymbol{e}_2)}_{\boldsymbol{o}},\\
(b_4f_5)\cdots(b_{2n-2}f_{2n-1})(b_0f_1&)\boldsymbol{w}^{(l_1\boldsymbol{e}_1+l_2\boldsymbol{e}_2,m_1\boldsymbol{e}_1+m_2\boldsymbol{e}_2)}_{\boldsymbol{o}}\\
&=[l_1]\boldsymbol{w}^{((l_1-1)\boldsymbol{e}_1+(l_2+1)\boldsymbol{e}_2,m_1\boldsymbol{e}_1+m_2\boldsymbol{e}_2)}_{\boldsymbol{o}}+q^{l_2-l_1}[m_1]\boldsymbol{w}^{(l_1\boldsymbol{e}_1+l_2\boldsymbol{e}_2,(m_1-1)\boldsymbol{e}_1+(m_2+1)\boldsymbol{e}_2)}_{\boldsymbol{o}}.
\end{align*}
If $l_1+m_1\neq l_2+m_2$, these two vectors are linearly independent.
Hence the induction proceeds up to $k\le l_1+m_1$. When $l_2+m_2\ge l_1+m_1$,
we first recognize that $\boldsymbol{w}^{(l\boldsymbol{e}_2,m\boldsymbol{e}_2)}_{\boldsymbol{o}}\in W$ by applying $(b_2f_1)^{l+m}$
to $\boldsymbol{w}^{(l\boldsymbol{e}_1,m\boldsymbol{e}_1)}_{\boldsymbol{o}}$. We then do the same exercise as before.
Let us now show $W$ contains $\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{o}}$ for any possible $\boldsymbol{l}$ and $\boldsymbol{m}$.
From the previous paragraph, we know
$\boldsymbol{w}^{(l_1\boldsymbol{e}_1+l_2\boldsymbol{e}_2,m\boldsymbol{e}_1)}_{\boldsymbol{o}}\in W$. Applying $b_if_{i-1}$ ($i=4,\ldots,2n-2$)
suitable times, we know $\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},m\boldsymbol{e}_1)}_{\boldsymbol{o}}\in W$ for any $\boldsymbol{l}$. Then by doing
similarly including $i=2$, we know $\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{o}}\in W$ for any $\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m}$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:U(I_bullet)}, it is enough to show $W$ contains
$\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}$ for any possible $\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m},\boldsymbol{j}$. From the considerations so far,
it is true when $|\boldsymbol{j}|=0$. The following proposition makes the induction on $|\boldsymbol{j}|$ work
and finishes the proof of Theorem \ref{th:irred}.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:fr}
Consider the following matrix $C$ depending on $l,m,j$.
Its row index runs over all $(i,\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m},
\boldsymbol{j})$ with $i=0,2,\ldots,2n-2$ and $|\boldsymbol{l}|=l,|\boldsymbol{m}|=m,|\boldsymbol{j}|=j$, and
its column index runs over all $(\boldsymbol{l}',\boldsymbol{m}',\boldsymbol{j}')$ with
$|\boldsymbol{l}'|=l,|\boldsymbol{m}'|=m,|\boldsymbol{j}'|=j+1$. The entry for the pair
$((i,\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m},\boldsymbol{j}),(\boldsymbol{l}',\boldsymbol{m}',\boldsymbol{j}'))$ is given by
the coefficient of $\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}',\boldsymbol{m}')}_{\boldsymbol{j}'}$ in
$b_if_{i-1}f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l},\boldsymbol{m})}_{\boldsymbol{j}}$ in the previous
proposition. Then $C$ is of full rank. Note that the rank does not depend on the orders
of the index sets.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $A$ be the subring of ${\mathbb Q}(q)$ defined by
$A=\{f(q)\in{\mathbb Q}(q)\,|\,\text{$f(q)$ is regular at $q=0$}\}$.
Let $\alpha_t$ ($t=1,2,3,4$) be the largest integer such that $a_t$ in Corollary \ref{cor:bffw}
belongs to $q^{\alpha_t}A$. We have
\begin{align*}
\alpha_1-\alpha_2&=\alpha_4-\alpha_3=j_s+j_{s+1}-l_s-m_{s+1}-1<0,\\
\alpha_4-\alpha_1&=2j_{s+1}-l_{s+1}-m_{s+1}-1<0,
\end{align*}
since $j_t\le\min(l_t,m_t)$ ($t=s,s+1$).
Therefore, $\alpha_4$ is minimal and the others are strictly larger.
For $\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}',\boldsymbol{m}')}_{\boldsymbol{j}'}$ such that $|\boldsymbol{l}'|=l,|\boldsymbol{m}'|=m,|\boldsymbol{j}'|=j+1$, choose the minimal
$s$ such $j'_s>0$ and consider
$b_if_{i-1}f_{i+1}\boldsymbol{w}^{(\boldsymbol{l}',\boldsymbol{m}'-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1})}_{\boldsymbol{j}'-\boldsymbol{e}_s}$ with $i=2s$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:bffw} the fourth term of the above is nonzero.
Consider the row of $C$ corresponding to the index
$(i,\boldsymbol{l}',\boldsymbol{m}'-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{j}'-\boldsymbol{e}_s)$. By multiplying a suitable scalar to this row,
one can make the $((i,\boldsymbol{l}',\boldsymbol{m}'-\boldsymbol{e}_s+\boldsymbol{e}_{s+1},\boldsymbol{j}'-\boldsymbol{e}_s),(\boldsymbol{l}',\boldsymbol{m}',\boldsymbol{j}'))$-entry
of $C$ be 1, and the other three nonzero entries in the same row belong to
$qA$. Consider the square matrix $C'$ obtained by varying
all possible $(\boldsymbol{l}',\boldsymbol{m}',\boldsymbol{j}')$ and picking the corresponding renormalized rows.
Then from the construction, $\det C'$ belongs to $\{\pm1\}+qA$.
Hence the assertion is confirmed.
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank Atsuo Kuniba, Hideya Watanabe, Yasuhiko Yamada and Akihito
Yoneyama for comments and giving us references.
M.O. is supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research No.~19K03426
and No.~16H03922 from JSPS.
This work was partly supported by Osaka City University Advanced Mathematical Institute (MEXT Joint Usage/Research Center on Mathematics and Theoretical Physics JPMXP0619217849).
|
\section{Introduction}
A tensor is often known as an extension of a 1D vector or 2D matrix, which can offer a high-dimensional storage structure for various data nowadays, such as color image, hyperspectral image, video, etc. Thus, it's widely leveraged in the field of computer vision, data mining \cite{chen2018heterogeneous}, machine learning \cite{chen2019tensor}, and large-scale data analysis.
However, it's common that the obtained tensor data is nevertheless undersampled when processing it, which derives many Low-Rank Tensor Completion (LRTC) \cite{liu2012tensor}\cite{gandy2011tensor}\cite{xu2013parallel} algorithms to address the missing value problem. The general LRTC algorithm is formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\min_{\mathcal{X}} \quad \mathrm{rank}\left(\mathcal{X}\right)\quad \mathrm{s.t.}\quad \mathcal{X}_{\Omega}=\mathcal{T}_{\Omega},
\label{eqn:lrtc0}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{X}$ is the underlying tensor, $\mathcal{T}$ is the original data, $\Omega$ is the index set which implies the location corresponding to the observed entries. However, it's intractable to solve problem (\ref{eqn:lrtc0}) which is NP-hard \cite{kolda2009tensor}, due to the combinational nature of the function rank($\cdot$).
The definition of tensor rank is different from the known matrix's, because it is not unique. It depends on the tensor decomposition method used, e.g., CANDECOMP/PARAFAC (CP) \cite{carroll1970analysis}, Tucker \cite{tucker1966some}, Tensor-Train (TT) \cite{oseledets2011tensor}, Tensor Ring \cite{zhao2016tensor} etc. The definition of tensor rank, CP rank specifically, was first proposed by Kruskal \textit{et al.} \cite{kruskal1977three}. Immediately following, Tucker rank was adopted to approach the LRTC and gained unexpected achievements \cite{liu2012tensor}\cite{xu2013parallel}. However, the drawback of Tucker rank is that its components will be the ranks of highly unbalanced flattened matrices if the original tensor is high dimensional (N$\textgreater$3). To address above problem, A. Bengua \cite{bengua2017efficient} proposed a novel LRTC solver based on TT rank. Besides, they employ the Ket Augmentation (KA) to extend low dimensional tensors to higher ones and proves that TT rank is more capable of global information capturing when the dimension of a tensor is larger than three. Another novel definition of tensor rank named tubal rank \cite{zhang2014novel}\cite{lu2019tensor} is based on the recently proposed t-SVD decomposition \cite{kilmer2013third}, which is able to characterize the inherent low-rank structure of a tensor. Actually, no matter what rank is exploited to recover corrupted tensors, the core of these LRTC models is to find the relationship between missing entries and retained ones.
Despite the tensor rank estimation issue is intractable, nuclear norm \cite{recht2010guaranteed} has been proved to be the most effective convex surrogate for the function rank($\cdot$) of the matrix. Liu \textit{et al.} \cite{liu2012tensor} proposed the sum of the nuclear norm (SNN) as a relaxation of the tensor rank.
In addition, the tensor nuclear norm (TNN) \cite{lu2018exact} is proposed from t-product to keep consistent with the matrix cases on concepts (see details in Section II). No matter which nuclear norm is, the strong prior of the underlying tensor data is its low-rank property, and then the low-rank component can be recovered based on that.
Inevitably, the details of observation are overlooked by LRTC models. Thus, lots of regularizations are proposed to be employed as another prior to improve the details of recovered data, e.g., Total Variation (TV) \cite{rudin1992nonlinear}\cite{ji2016tensor}, framelets \cite{jiang2018matrix}, wavelets \cite{chen2006oblique} etc. Among these priors, TV is the most popular one in LRTC problems.
Li \textit{et al.} \cite{li2017low} combined TV and low-rankness to recover visual tensors and proposed a novel LRTC-TV model, where TV accounts for local piecewise priors. The starting point of LRTC-TV lies on the fact that the objects or edges in the spatial dimension will hold a smooth and piecewise structure. As a complementary prior to low rankness, TV can explore the local features properly. While Jiang \textit{et al.} \cite{jiang2018anisotropic} combined TNN and an anisotropic TV to propose a TNN-3DTV model to exploit the correlations among the spatial and channel domains. The only fly in the ointment is that TV assumes the underlying tensor is piecewise smooth, resulting in undesired patch effects on the recovered tensors \cite{liu2015image}. What's more, the regularizations above are all only based on the information within that image, which is fatal when the remaining entries are few. Zhang \textit{et al.} \cite{zhang2017learning} utilized Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) to train a set of effective denoisers to solving the image denoising problem, which shows the importance of feature collections. Thus, it's necessary to introduce other prior information outer the image for a better result.
Another prominent paradigm in signal processing is sparse coding. By
seeking a sparse representation under an overcomplete dictionary, the underlying data could be restored exceptionally. The fundamental of sparse coding is the dictionary learning, a process to obtain a dictionary $D$ that can best represent a set of train data. As early as 2006, Elad \textit{et al.} \cite{elad2006image} leveraged dictionary learning-based method to tackle the image denoising problem. Later in 2010, Yang \textit{et al.} \cite{yang2010image} decided to sparsely code for each patch of the low-resolution input and then used the coefficients of learned representation to generate the high-resolution output. In this way, the image super-resolution could be represented by sparse entries.
For a fixed dictionary $D\in \mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$, given a signal $X\in \mathbb{R}^{N}$, the task of seeking its sparsest representation $\Gamma \in \mathbb{R}^{M}$ is called sparse coding. Mathematically, the sparse coding problem can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\min_{\Gamma}\quad \left\Vert \Gamma \right\Vert_0 \quad \mathrm{s.t.}\quad D\Gamma=X,
\label{pb:sr}
\end{equation}
where $\left\Vert \Gamma \right\Vert_0$ denotes the number of non-zeros in $\Gamma$. There exists a convex relaxation of problem (\ref{pb:sr}) in the form of Basis-Pursuit (BP) problem \cite{chen2001atomic}, formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\min_{\Gamma}\quad \left\Vert \Gamma \right\Vert_1 \quad \mathrm{s.t.}\quad D\Gamma=X.
\label{pb:bp}
\end{equation}
Correspondingly, there are several practical algorithms to solve problem (\ref{pb:bp}), e.g., Orthogonal Matching Pursuit (OMP) \cite{chen1989orthogonal} and the BP \cite{daubechies2004iterative}\cite{chen2001atomic}. However, most traditional dictionary learning methods are patch-based, which might ignore the consistency among the entries lied in different patches but have some common features in the image. Besides, the learned data will contain shifted versions of the same features, resulting in an over-redundant dictionary.
To tackle above problems, an alternative model, Convolutional Sparse Coding (CSC), has gained great attention in machine learning for image and video processing \cite{papyan2017convolutional,heide2015fast} recently due to its shift-invariance property. In 2010, Zeiler \textit{et al.} \cite{zeiler2010deconvolutional} first proposed the concept of CSC. To improve the computional effectiveness, Bristow \textit{et al.} \cite{bristow2013fast} and Heide \textit{et al.} \cite{heide2015fast} proposed novel and fast solutions under the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) framework in succession.
Furthermore, Wohlberg \cite{wohlberg2018convolutional} demonstrated that suitable penalties on the gradients of the coefficient maps will improve the impulse noise denoising performance. Papyan \textit{et al.} \cite{papyan2017convolutional2} introduced the relationship between CSC and CNN and claimed that CNN can be analyzed theoretically via multi-layer CSC.
In terms of applications, Papyan \textit{et al.} \cite{papyan2017convolutional} also proposed a slice-based dictionary learning algorithm, which was utilized in the CSC model to inpaint image as well as separate texture and cartoon. Recently, Zhang \textit{et al.} \cite{zhang2017convolutional} integrated the concept of low-rankness into CSC and addressed the rain streak removal. The work of Bao \textit{et al.} \cite{bao2019convolutional} demonstrated that the CSC is able to process the high-frequency component of an image. In order to improve the capacity of the dictionary for learning multi-dimensional data, Bibi \textit{et al.} \cite{bibi2017high} leveraged high order algebra to allow traditional CSC models encoding tensors. In addition, Xu \textit{et al.} \cite{xu2020factorized} decomposed the tensor dictionary and reconstructed it under the orthogonality-constrained convolutional factorization scheme to reduce computation costs.
All in all, it can be argued that the success of CSC may attribute to the idea, ``think globally and work locally''.
Actually, the regularizations like TV, framelets, and wavelets only play the main role in a single image, which can be treated as forcing a hard constraint of physics on underlying data. The CNN-based regularization is often trained with thousands of data, which can be explained by feature collections in statistics. However, in real world, it's not always available to acquire such a large amount of samples in a limited time. Thus, we take CSC into consideration for its conveniency, which can be trained only with few-shot samples. The CSC is to extract the optimal representation dictionary in a limited training set. And this is different from the Deep learning (CNN etc.) based approaches, where the statistical feature should be learned from lots of samples.
Inspired by the capacity of CSC on extracting features locally with an overcomplete dictionary, two novel LRTC-CSC models are proposed to address the LRTC problem. By regarding CSC as a plug-and-play submodel in the optimization framework of the whole model, we effectively augment the high-frequency component of the underlying tensor.
In this way, the global structure is handled by LRTC prior, and then CSC is leveraged to make up for another detail prior. Eventually, both global and local features can be well recovered. The main contributions of this paper are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item To tackle the missing value problem, we proposed two CSC regularized LRTC models, SNN-based and TNN-based, respectively. In both models, firstly, an overcomplete dictionary is pre-trained only with very small amount of data. And then the dictionary is used in CSC to restore the details of underlying tensor. As a result, both low-rank component and details are well recovered.
\item We came up with effective algorithms to solve the LRTC-CSC-I and LRTC-CSC-II model, which are based on the inexact ADMM method \cite{sutor2015alternating} and plug-and-play framework \cite{venkatakrishnan2013plug}. With the variable splitting techniques, the entire problem can be split into three subproblems and solved separately.
\item We tested our model on different kinds of datasets, including color images, MRI data and videos.
Extensive experiments have verified the effectiveness of our model and claimed that the CSC regularization is suitable for different LRTC models. Furthermore, the performance of LRTC-CSC-II is superior to state-of-the-art models in the experiments.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Notations and Preliminaries}
\subsection{Notations}
Throughout this paper, the $({i_1i_2\cdots i_n})$-th element of a tensor $\mathcal{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{I_1\times I_2\times \cdots \times I_n}$ is denoted by $x_{i_1i_2\cdots i_n}$.Vectors are denoted by boldface lowercase letters, e.g. $\bm{\alpha}$ and scalars by lowercase letters, e.g. $\alpha$. We denote an $n$-mode tensor by calligraphic letters, e.g., $\mathcal{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{I_1\times I_2\times \cdots \times I_n}$, where $I_k,k=1,2,\cdots,n$ is the dimension of $k$-th mode and $\mathbb{R}$ is the field of real number. Let the upper case latters, e.g., $X$, denote the matrices. Especially, a mode-$k$ matricization (also known as mode-k unfolding or flattening) of a tensor $\mathcal{X}$ is reshaping the tensor into a matrix $X_{(k)} \in \mathbb{R}^{I_k \times(I_1\cdots I_{k-1}I_{k+1}\cdots I_N)}$, which is defined as Tucker rank. For a 3-way tensor $\mathcal{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1\times n_2\times n_3}$, we denote its $(i,j)$-th mode-1, mode-2, and mode-3 fibers as $\mathcal{X}(:,i,j)$, $\mathcal{X}(i,:,j)$, and $\mathcal{X}(i,j,:)$. We use the Matlab notation $\mathcal{X}(i,:,:)$, $\mathcal{X}(:,i,:)$, and $\mathcal{X}(:,:,i)$ to denote the $i$-th horizontal, lateral and frontal slices, respectively. More often, $X^{(i)}$ and tube are used to represent $\mathcal{X}(:,:,i)$ and mode-3 fiber, respectively.
In addition, there are some mathematical operations of matrices and tensors used in this paper. The inner product of $X\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$ and $Y \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$ is defined as $\langle X,Y\rangle = tr(X^HY)$, where $X^H$ is the conjugate transpose of the matrix $X$ and $tr(\cdot)$ is matrix trace. The $\mathit{l}_1$-norm is defined as $\lVert\mathcal{X}\rVert_1 = \sum_{i_1i_2\cdots i_n} |x_{i_1i_2\cdots i_n}|$, the Frobenius norm as $\lVert\mathcal{X}\rVert_F = \sqrt{\sum_{i_1i_2\cdots i_n} (x_{i_1i_2\cdots i_n})^2}$ and the nuclear norm of matrix as $\lVert X\rVert_\ast = \sum_{i}\sigma_i$, where $\sigma_i$ is the $i$-th largest singular value of matrix $X$. For a vector $\bm{\alpha}$, the $\mathit{l}_2$-norm is $\lVert \bm{\alpha}\rVert_2 =\sqrt{\sum_{i} {\alpha}_i^2}$. For a tensor $\mathcal{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1\times n_2\times n_3}$, we use $\hat{\mathcal{X}}$ to denote the result of discrete Fourier transformation of $\mathcal{X}$ along the 3-rd dimension, i.e., $\hat{\mathcal{X}}=\mathrm{fft}(\mathcal{X},[],3)$. Contrarily, we can compute $\mathcal{X}$ from $\hat{\mathcal{X}}$ using the inverse FFT, i.e., $\mathcal{X}=\mathrm{ifft}(\hat{\mathcal{X}},[],3)$.
The work\cite{kilmer2011factorization} give the first definition of the \textbf{block circulation} operation for a tensor $\mathcal{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1\times n_2\times n_3}:$
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{bcirc}(\mathcal{X}):=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
X^{(1)}&\hspace{-2ex}X^{(n_3)}&\hspace{-2ex}\cdots&\hspace{-2ex}X^{(2)}\\
X^{(2)}&\hspace{-2ex}X^{(1)}&\hspace{-2ex}\cdots&\hspace{-2ex}X^{(3)}\\
\vdots&\hspace{-2ex}\vdots&\hspace{-2ex}\ddots&\hspace{-2ex}\vdots\\
X^{(n_3)}&\hspace{-2ex}X^{(n_3-1)}&\hspace{-2ex}\cdots&\hspace{-2ex}X^{(1)}\\
\end{array}
\right]
\in \mathbb{R}^{n_1 n_3\times n_2 n_3}.
\end{equation*}
The \textbf{block diagonalization} matrix of $\mathcal{X}$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{bdiag}(\mathcal{X}):=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
X^{(1)}&\hspace{-2ex} &\hspace{-2ex} &\hspace{-2ex} \\
&\hspace{-2ex} X^{(2)}&\hspace{-2ex} &\hspace{-2ex} \\
&\hspace{-2ex} &\hspace{-2ex} \ddots&\hspace{-2ex} \\
&\hspace{-2ex} &\hspace{-2ex} &\hspace{-2ex} X^{(n_3)}\\
\end{array}
\right]
\in \mathbb{R}^{n_1 n_3\times n_2 n_3}.
\end{equation*}
The block circulant matrix can be block diagonalized, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{bdiag}(\hat{\mathcal{X}})=(F_{n_{3}}\otimes I_{n_{1}})\cdot\mathrm{bcirc}(\mathcal{X})\cdot(F_{n_{3}}^{H}\otimes I_{n_{2}}),
\end{equation*}
where $F_{n_3}\in\mathbb{C}^{n_3 \times n_3} $ is the discrete Fourier transformation matrix, $I_{n}\in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ is an identity matrix, $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product. We also define the following operator
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{bvec}(\mathcal{X})=\left[
\begin{array}{c}
X^{(1)}\\
X^{(2)}\\
\vdots\\
X^{(n_3)}\\
\end{array}
\right],\mathrm{bvfold}(\mathrm{bvec}(\mathcal{X}))=\mathcal{X}.
\end{equation*}
\subsection{Tensor Preliminaries}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\begin{definition}[Tucker Decomposition and Tucker Rank]\cite{kolda2009tensor}
The Tucker decomposition is a form of higher-order PCA. It decomposes the tensor into a core tensor multiplied by a matrix along each mode. Given a tensor $\mathcal{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{I\times J\times K}$, it can be decomposed as:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{X} \approx \mathcal{G} \times_1 A \times_2 B \times_3 C = \sum_{p = 1}^{P}\sum_{q = 1}^{Q}\sum_{r = 1}^{R}g_{pqr}a_p\circ b_q \circ c_r,
\end{equation*}
where ''$\times_n$'' denotes mode-n product, ''$\circ$'' denotes the outer product, $A \in \mathbb{R}^{I\times P}$, $B \in \mathbb{R}^{J\times Q}$, $C \in \mathbb{R}^{K\times R}$ are factor matrices and $\mathcal{G}\in \mathbb{R}^{P\times Q \times R}$ is the core tensor.
A Tucker rank (also known as n-rank) of an N-order tensor is defined the rank of unfolding matrix along each mode, $\bm{r} = (r_1,r_2,\dots,r_N)$, where $r_n$, $n=1,2,\dots,N$, denotes the rank of $X_{(n)}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Sum of Nuclear Norm (SNN)]\cite{liu2012tensor}
The definition of tensor SNN is the weighted average of the nuclear norm of all matrices unfolded along each mode. Mathematically, it can be formulated as:
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert \mathcal{X} \right\Vert_\ast := \sum_{i=1}^{N}\alpha_i\left\Vert X_{(i)} \right\Vert_\ast,
\end{equation*}
where $\alpha_i$ denotes the weight of matrix unfolded along $i$-th mode.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[t-product]\cite{kilmer2011factorization}
The t-product between two 3-order tensors $\mathcal{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1\times n_2\times n_3}$ and $\mathcal{Y} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_2\times n_4\times n_3}$ is defined as:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{Z}=\mathcal{X}\ast\mathcal{Y}:=\mathrm{bvfold}(\mathrm{bcirc(\mathcal{X})\mathrm{bvec}(\mathcal{X}))}.
\end{equation*}
Using the above property, the t-product can be written as:
\begin{equation*}
\hat{\mathcal{Z}}=\mathrm{bvfold}(\mathrm{bdiag}(\hat{\mathcal{X}})\mathrm{bvec}(\hat{\mathcal{Y}})),
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Other Special Tensor]\cite{kilmer2011factorization}
The \textbf{identity tensor} $\mathcal{I}\in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n\times n_3}$ is the tensor whose first frontal slice is the $n \times n$ identity matrix, and other frontal slices are all zeros.
The \textbf{orthogonal tensor} $\mathcal{Q}\in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n\times n_3}$ is satisfies $\mathcal{Q}\ast\mathcal{Q}^{T}=\mathcal{Q}^{T}\ast\mathcal{Q}=\mathcal{I}$.
A tensor $\mathcal{X}$ is called \textbf{f-diagonal} if each frontal slice $\mathcal{X}^{(i)}$ is a diagonal matrix.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}[t-SVD]\cite{kilmer2011factorization}
Let $\mathcal{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{n_1 \times n_2\times n_3}$. Then it can be factored as
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{X}=\mathcal{U}\ast\mathcal{S}\ast\mathcal{V}^{H},
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{U}\in \mathbb{R}^{n_1 \times n_1\times n_3}$, $\mathcal{V}\in \mathbb{R}^{n_2 \times n_2\times n_3}$ are orthogonal, and $\mathcal{S}\in \mathbb{R}^{n_1 \times n_2\times n_3}$ is an f-diagonal tensor. The t-SVD based on t-product, which can be efficiently obtained by computing a series of matrix SVDs in the Fourier domain.
\end{theorem}
\begin{definition}[Tensor Tubal Rank]\cite{zhang2014novel}
The tensor tubal rank denoted as $rank_t(\mathcal{X})$, is defined as the number of non-zero tubes of $\mathcal{S}$, where $\mathcal{S}$ is from the t-SVD of $\mathcal{X}=\mathcal{U}\ast\mathcal{S}\ast\mathcal{V}^{H}$, that is
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{rank}_{t}(A)= \#\left\{ i:\mathcal{S}(i,:,:)\ne0 \right\}.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Tensor Nuclear Norm (TNN)]\cite{zhang2014novel}
Let $\mathcal{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{n_1 \times n_2\times n_3}$, the definition of tensor TNN is the sum of singular values of all the frontal slices of $\hat{\mathcal{X}}$, it can be formulated as:
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert \mathcal{X} \right\Vert_\ast := \sum_{i=1}^{n_{3}}\Vert{\hat{X}^{(i)}}\Vert_\ast.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
\subsection{Convolutional Sparse Coding}
Unlike the traditional sparse coding model, CSC replaces the general linear representation with a sum of convolutions between a set of filters $d_i$ (the set also known as a dictionary) and its corresponding feature maps $\Gamma_i$. Besides, the patch-based dictionary restores the same information in the image several times, while CSC integrates these information only once.
One assumes that an image $X \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times M}$ admits a decomposition as $X = \sum_{i=1}^{K}d_i*\Gamma_i$, where $d_i\in \mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$ denotes the filters, $\Gamma_i \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times M}$ is the feature map corresponding to $d_i$ and $*$ is the convolution operator. The most univesal form of CSC is Convolutional Basis Pursuit DeNoising (CBPDN), formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\arg\min_{\Gamma_i} \quad\frac{1}{2}\left\Vert \sum_{i=1}^{K}d_i*\Gamma_i-X\right\Vert_F^2+\lambda\sum_{i=1}^{K}\left\Vert\Gamma_i\right\Vert_1.
\end{equation}
In contrast to linear representation, convolutional dictionary can acquire shift-invariant features, which improves the efficiency of the model.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{framework.pdf}
\caption{Flowchart of LRTC-CSC models for low-rank tensor completion. The first step is to generate an initial tensor according to observations. Then a low-pass filter is utilized to divide the initial tensor into two components, a high-frequency and a low-frequency one. Next, the high-frequency component is processed by CSC model, in which the dictionary D (shown in the format of convolutional matrix) is pre-trained by a small-sample dataset. The stripe dictionary $\Omega$, which is of size $n\times (2n-1)m$, is obtained by extracting the $i$-th patch from the global convolutional dictionary D. The stripe vector $\Gamma_i$, which is the corresponding sparse respresent, contains all coefficients of atoms contributing to $vec(X^{(k)})_i$. At last, by merging the improved high-frequency component and the original low-frequency one, the final result is reconstructed.}
\end{figure*}
\section{The Proposed Model and algorithm}
It's imperfect for LRTC models that they can only recover the low-rank component of underlying tensors. In the meanwhile, lots of details are ignored, which derives many composite algorithms with extra priors emerged to improve the missing details. These details often represent the local features or high-frequency component of an image. Previous studies about TV regularization have shown its over-patch (over-smooth) effects. To obtain better details when recovering underlying tensors,
CSC is introduced to improve the high-frequency component of the underlying data. It's known that the high-frequency component often contains specific detailed information against the low-frequency one. Thus, it's a feasible choice to improve the high-frequency component solely.
By using a pre-trained convolutional dictionary, the corresponding feature maps can be iteratively calculated to approximate the incomplete high-frequency component of tensor data, which is produced by LRTC models. Due to the overcompleteness of the dictionary, the convolution results of obtained feature maps and dictionary would be an improved version of the previous high-frequency component. In this section, we propose to incorporate CSC for different LRTC methods to verify the effectiveness of CSC regularization. Since the low-rank prior of LRTC can be approximated by SNN and TNN, two LRTC-CSC compound methods are developed.
\subsection*{\textbf{Method \hspace{1ex} LRTC-CSC-I}}
As the tratidional typical low-rank approximation method, SNN has gained unexpected achievements in LRTC problems. Even though, its promise is limited by the tensor mode-$n$ flattening operator, which breaks the global structure of the whole tensor. To improve the performance of SNN-based model, we consider to impose a CSC regularization onto the detail component of underlying tensor, mathematically formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\arg\min_{\mathcal{X}} \quad \sum_{k=1}^N\alpha_k\left\Vert {X}_{(k)}\right\Vert_\ast+\lambda\Phi(\mathcal{X})
\quad \mathrm{s.t.}\quad \mathcal{X}_{\Omega}=\mathcal{T}_{\Omega},
\end{aligned}\label{eqn:lrtc_csc}
\end{equation}
where $\Phi(\mathcal{X})$ denotes the regularization item, i.e. CSC, and $\lambda$ is a trade-off parameter.
The constraint condition $\mathcal{X}_{\Omega}=\mathcal{T}_{\Omega}$ can be rewritten as a function like:
\begin{equation}
\min\quad P(\mathcal{X})=\begin{cases}
0,\quad &\mathrm{if} \quad \mathcal{X}_{\Omega}=\mathcal{T}_{\Omega},\\
\infty,\quad & \mathrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\label{eqn:barrier}
\end{equation}
By introducing auxiliary variables $\{F_{k}\}_{k=1}^{N-1}$ to disentangle the relationship between $\{X_{(k)}\}_{k=1}^{N-1}$ and $\mathcal{Z} = \mathcal{X}$, the augmented Lagrangian function of (\ref{eqn:lrtc_csc}) can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} = &\sum_{k=1}^N\alpha_k\left\Vert F_k\right\Vert_\ast+\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\frac{\beta_{1_{k}}}{2}\left\Vert F_k - X_{(k)}\right\Vert_F^2\\&+\left\langle\omega_{1_{k}},F_k - X_{(k)}\right\rangle+\frac{\beta_{2}}{2}\left\Vert \mathcal{Z-X}\right\Vert_F^2\\&+\left\langle\omega_{2},\mathcal{Z-X}\right\rangle+P(\mathcal{X})+\lambda\Phi(\mathcal{Z}),
\end{aligned}
\label{eqn:lag}
\end{equation}
where $\omega$ is the Lagrangian multiplier and $\beta$ is the penalty parameter.
Under the iterative optimization framework of ADMM \cite{chen2014alternating}, the solution process of (\ref{eqn:lag}) can be concluded by solving three subproblems, i.e. [$F,\mathcal{Z}$] ,$\mathcal{X}$ and $\omega$.
\subsection{Solving [$F$,$\mathcal{Z}$]-subproblem}
In this part, we are going to solve the [$F$,$\mathcal{Z}$]-subproblem separately, since they are decoupled.
1) By fixing $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Z}$, rewrite the function of $F$-subproblem:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\arg\min_{F_k} \quad\sum_{k=1}^N\alpha_k\left\Vert F_k\right\Vert_\ast+\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\frac{\beta_{1_k}}{2}\left\Vert F_k - X_{(k)}+\frac{\omega_{1_k}}{\beta_{1_k}}\right\Vert_F^2.
\end{aligned}
\label{eqn:Fpro}
\end{equation}
The iterative closed-form solution of (\ref{eqn:Fpro}) is:
\begin{equation}
F_k^{i+1}=\mathbf{D}_{\tau_k}(X_{(k)}^{i}-\frac{\omega_{1_k}^i}{\beta_{1_k}})=U\mathrm{diag}(\max(\lambda_l-\tau_k,0))V^T,
\label{eqn:Fsolution}
\end{equation}
where $\tau_k = \frac{\alpha_k}{\beta_{1_k}}$, $\mathbf{D}_{\tau_k}(X_{(k)})$ denotes the thresholding singular value decomposition (SVD) of $X_{(k)}$ and $\mathrm{diag}(\cdot)$ denotes a diagnal matrix.
2) By fixing $\mathcal{X}$ and $F$, the $\mathcal{Z}$-subproblem is:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\arg\min_{\mathcal{Z}} \quad \frac{\beta_{2}}{2}\left\Vert \mathcal{Z}-(\mathcal{X}-\frac{\omega_{2}}{\beta_{2}})\right\Vert_F^2+\lambda\Phi(\mathcal{Z}).
\end{aligned}
\label{eqn:Zpro}
\end{equation}
Actually as the plug-and-play framework suggested in \cite{zhao2020deep}, the problem
(\ref{eqn:Zpro}) can be regarded as a new denoising problem. $\Phi(\mathcal{Z})$ measures the degree of noise in $\mathcal{Z}$, the smaller, the better.
By treating `` $\mathcal{X}-\frac{\omega_{2}}{\beta_{2}}$ '' as a noisy image and ``$\mathcal{Z}$'' as a clean image, CSC model becomes the denoiser to solve $\mathcal{Z}$-subproblem and outputs a clean image for comparison.
Thus, we use the noise image `` $\mathcal{X}-\frac{\omega_{2}}{\beta_{2}}$ '' to be the input of CSC model, which can be explicitly formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\arg\min_{M_i}\quad \frac{1}{2}\left\Vert\sum_{i=1}^{K}d_i*M_i-Input\right\Vert_F^2+\Lambda\sum_{i=1}^{K}\left\Vert M_i\right\Vert_1,
\label{eqn:Zpro2}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where \textit{Input}$=\mathcal{X}-\frac{\omega_{2}}{\beta_{2}}$ and $\Lambda$ is the hyper-parameter.
In consideration of a fact that only the high-frequency component of \textit{Input }is processed by CSC \cite{bao2019convolutional}, thus, we use a high-pass filter to acquire the high-frequency component of
\textit{Input} and in the rest of this section, \textit{Input} represents its high-frequency component.
Note that \textit{Input} is a $3$-rd tensor while $M$ is a matrix. To keep consistency, \textit{Input} is cut into three frontal slices for three different color channels in color images, repectively. And the following operations are completed at the level of matrices.
At last, the underlying result can be obtained by summing the low-frequency component and recovered high-frequency component.
Because the inaccurate filters will lead to producing new artifacts or structure loss problems, an extra gradient constraint is adopted to suppress the outliers based on the original CSC model. What's more, as suggested in \cite{wohlberg2018convolutional}, the gradient constraint on the feature maps is superior to applying that on the image domain. Thus, we further utilize problem (\ref{eqn:Zpro2}) with gradient constraint on the feature maps, and it can be explicitly formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\arg\min_{M_i}\quad &\frac{1}{2}\left\Vert\sum_{i=1}^{K}d_i*M_i-Input\right\Vert_F^2+\Lambda\sum_{i=1}^{K}\left\Vert M_i\right\Vert_1\\&+\frac{\tau}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{K}\left\Vert \sqrt{\left(g_0*M_i\right)^2+\left(g_1*M_i\right)^2}\right\Vert_F^2\\&
\label{eqn:Zpro3}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $g_0$ and $g_1$ are the filters that compute the gradients along image rows and columns respectively, and $\tau$ is the hyperparameter. By introducing linear operators $G_jM_i=g_j*M_i$, the gradient constraint term of (\ref{eqn:Zpro3}) can be rewritten as:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\tau}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{K}\left(\left\Vert G_0M_i\right\Vert_F^2+\left\Vert G_1M_i\right\Vert_F^2\right).
\label{eqn:gradient}
\end{equation}
Further more, considering the conception of block matrix, (\ref{eqn:gradient}) can be simplified as:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\tau}{2}\left\Vert \Psi_0\mathcal{M}\right\Vert_F^2+\frac{\tau}{2}\left\Vert \Psi_1\mathcal{M}\right\Vert_F^2,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\Psi_j= \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
G_j & 0 & \cdots \\
0 & G_j & \cdots\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots
\end{array}\right),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and $\mathcal{M} = (M_1 M_2 \cdots M_K)^T$.
Let $D_i M_i=d_i*M_i$, $\mathcal{D} = (D_1 D_2 \cdots D_K)$, the augmented Lagrangian function of (\ref{eqn:Zpro3}) is:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
L_2 = &\frac{1}{2}\left\Vert \mathcal{DM}-Input\right\Vert_F^2+\Lambda\left\Vert \mathcal{B}\right\Vert_1+\left\langle\Theta,\mathcal{M-B}\right\rangle\\&+\frac{\rho}{2}\left\Vert \mathcal{M-B}\right\Vert_F^2 +\frac{\tau}{2}\left\Vert \Psi_0\mathcal{M}\right\Vert_F^2+\frac{\tau}{2}\left\Vert \Psi_1\mathcal{M}\right\Vert_F^2,
\end{aligned}\label{eqn:lag2}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{B}$ is introduced as an auxiliary variables satisfying $\mathcal{B}=\mathcal{M}$, $\Theta$ is the Lagrangian multiplier and $\rho$ is the penalty parameter.
According to the inexact ADMM framework \cite{hager2019inexact}, the problem (\ref{eqn:lag2}) can be solved by solving a sequence of subproblems.
1) Rewrite the $\mathcal{M}$-subproblem:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\arg\min_{\mathcal{M}} \quad &\frac{1}{2}\left\Vert \mathcal{DM}-Input\right\Vert_F^2+\frac{\rho}{2}\left\Vert \mathcal{M-B}+C\right\Vert_F^2\\&+\frac{\tau}{2}\left\Vert \Psi_0\mathcal{M}\right\Vert_F^2+\frac{\tau}{2}\left\Vert \Psi_1\mathcal{M}\right\Vert_F^2,
\end{aligned}\label{eqn:mpro}
\end{equation}
where $C$ denotes the parameter item $C=\frac{\Theta}{\rho}$.
By transforming (\ref{eqn:mpro}) to the Fourier domain, it can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\arg\min_{\hat{\mathcal{M}}} \quad &\frac{1}{2}\left\Vert \hat{\mathcal{D}}\hat{\mathcal{M}}-\hat{Input}\right\Vert_F^2+\frac{\rho}{2}\left\Vert \hat{\mathcal{M}}-\hat{\mathcal{B}}+\hat{C}\right\Vert_F^2\\&+\frac{\tau}{2}\left\Vert \hat{\Psi}_0\hat{\mathcal{M}}\right\Vert_F^2+\frac{\tau}{2}\left\Vert \hat{\Psi}_1\hat{\mathcal{M}}\right\Vert_F^2,
\end{aligned}\label{eqn:mprof}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\mathcal{D}}$, $\hat{\mathcal{M}}$, $\hat{Input}$, $\hat{\mathcal{B}}$, $\hat{C}$, $\hat{\Psi}_0$ and $\hat{\Psi}_1$ denotes the corresponding expressions in the Fourier domain. A closed-form solution of (\ref{eqn:mprof}) is:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\left(\hat{\mathcal{D}}^H\hat{\mathcal{D}}+\rho I+\tau\hat{\Psi}_0^H\hat{\Psi}_0+\tau\hat{\Psi}_1^H\hat{\Psi}_1\right)\hat{\mathcal{M}}\\&=\hat{\mathcal{D}}^H\hat{Input}+\rho\left(\hat{\mathcal{B}}-\hat{C}\right),
\end{aligned}
\label{eqn:msolution}
\end{equation}
which can be solved by iterated application of the Sherman-Morrison formula \cite{wohlberg2015efficient}. After obtaining $\hat{\mathcal{M}}$, the corresponding $\mathcal{M}$ in spatial domain can be calcaulated by:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M} = \mathrm{ifft}(\hat{\mathcal{M}}),
\label{eqn:spatialm}
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{ifft}(\cdot)$ denotes the inverse Fourier transform.
\begin{algorithm}[htbp]
\caption{LRTC-CSC-I algorithm}
\label{alg:LRTC-CSC}
\textbf{Input}: index set $\Omega$, original data $\mathcal{T}$, filters set $\mathcal{D}$
\textbf{Parameters}: $\Lambda, \lambda, \rho, \tau, \alpha_k, \omega_1, \omega_2, \beta_1,\beta_2$
\textbf{Initialization}: $\mathcal{X}_{\Omega}^0=\mathcal{T}_{\Omega}$, $\mathcal{X}_{\bar{\Omega}}^0=\mathrm{mean}\left(\mathcal{T}\right)$,
\begin{algorithmic}
\REPEAT
\STATE \textbf{F-subproblem}
\STATE Update $F_k^{i+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:Fsolution})
\STATE \textbf{$\mathcal{Z}$-subproblem}
\FOR {$j = 1$ to MaxIter}
\STATE Update $\hat{\mathcal{M}}^{j+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:msolution})
\STATE Update $\mathcal{M}^{j+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:spatialm})
\STATE Update $\mathcal{B}^{j+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:Bsolution})
\STATE Update $C^{j+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:Csolution})
\ENDFOR
\STATE Update $\mathcal{Z}^{i+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:Zsolution})
\STATE \textbf{$\mathcal{X}$-subproblem}
\STATE Update $\mathcal{X}^{i+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:xsolution})
\STATE \textbf{$\omega$-subproblem}
\STATE Update $\omega_1^{i+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:omega1solution})
\STATE Update $\omega_2^{i+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:omega2solution})
\UNTIL satisfying the stop condition
\end{algorithmic}
\textbf{Output}:The recovered tensor $\mathcal{X}$
\end{algorithm}
2) Rewrite the $\mathcal{B}$-subproblem:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\arg\min_{\mathcal{B}} \quad &\Lambda\left\Vert \mathcal{B}\right\Vert_1+\frac{\rho}{2}\left\Vert \mathcal{M-B}+C\right\Vert_F^2.
\end{aligned}\label{eqn:bpro}
\end{equation}
By using soft thresholding algorithm, the closed-form solution of (\ref{eqn:bpro}) can be obtained as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{B}^{j+1} = \mathrm{softthresholding}(\mathcal{M}^{j+1}+C^j,\frac{\Lambda}{\rho}).
\label{eqn:Bsolution}
\end{equation}
3) Update $C$ by fixing $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{B}$:
\begin{equation}
C^{j+1} = C^{j} + \Lambda\left(\mathcal{M}^{j+1}-\mathcal{B}^{j+1}\right).
\label{eqn:Csolution}
\end{equation}
At last, the outputing high-frequency component of $\mathcal{Z}$ can be calculated by:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Z}^{i+1} = \mathcal{D}\mathcal{M}^*,
\label{eqn:Zsolution}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{M}^*$ is the optimal solution of $\mathcal{M}$. And after adding the low-frequency component of \textit{Input}, an entire solution $\mathcal{Z}$ is obtained.
\subsection{Solving $\mathcal{X}$-subproblem}
By fixing $F$ and $\mathcal{Z}$, the $\mathcal{X}$-subproblem can be simplified and rewritten as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\arg\min_{\mathcal{X}} \quad &\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\frac{\beta_{1_k}}{2}\left\Vert F_k - X_{(k)}+\frac{\omega_{1_k}}{\beta_{1_k}}\right\Vert_F^2 +P(\mathcal{X})\\&\frac{\beta_{2}}{2}\left\Vert \mathcal{Z-X}+\frac{\omega_2}{\beta_2}\right\Vert_F^2.
\end{aligned}
\label{eqn:xpro}
\end{equation}
The closed-form solution of (\ref{eqn:xpro}) can be obtained by:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{X}^{i+1} =&( \frac{\bar{\beta_1}}{\bar{\beta_1}+\beta_2}\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\beta_{1_k}\mathrm{fold}\left(F_k^i+\frac{\omega_{1_k}}{\beta_{1_k}}\right)}{\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\beta_{1_k}}\\&+
\frac{\beta_2}{\bar{\beta_1}+\beta_2}(\mathcal{Z}+\frac{\omega_{2}}{\beta_2}))_{\bar{\Omega}}+\mathcal{T},
\end{aligned}
\label{eqn:xsolution}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{\Omega}$ is the complement set of $\Omega$.
\subsection{Solving $\omega$-subproblem}
By fixing $\mathcal{X}$ and $F$, $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Z}$, we can update the Lagrangian multiplier $\omega_{1}$ and $\omega_2$, respectively:
\begin{equation}
\omega_{1_k}^{i+1} = \omega_{1_k}^i+\beta_{1_k}\left(F_k^{i+1}-X_{(k)}^{i+1}\right),
\label{eqn:omega1solution}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\omega_{2}^{i+1} = \omega_{2}^i+\beta_{2}\left(\mathcal{Z}^{i+1}-\mathcal{X}^{i+1}\right).
\label{eqn:omega2solution}
\end{equation}
The overall pseudocode of LRTC-CSC-I algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \ref{alg:LRTC-CSC}.
Actually, our model can degenerate to HaLRTC model \cite{liu2012tensor} by setting the hyperparameter $\lambda=0$.
\subsection*{\textbf{Method \hspace{1ex} LRTC-CSC-II}}
Similar to method I, we use the TNN to approximate the low-rank prior of tensor, instead. The LRTC-CSC-II model is mathematically formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\arg\min_{\mathcal{X}} \quad \sum_{k=1}^{n_{3}}\Vert{\hat{X}^{(k)}}\Vert_\ast+\lambda\Phi(\mathcal{X})
\quad \mathrm{s.t.}\quad \mathcal{X}_{\Omega}=\mathcal{T}_{\Omega}.
\end{aligned}\label{eqn:lrtc_csc_2}
\end{equation}
The constraint condition can be rewritten as (\ref{eqn:barrier}). By introducing auxiliary variables $\mathcal{F} = \mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Z} = \mathcal{X}$, the augmented Lagrangian function of (\ref{eqn:lrtc_csc_2}) can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} =&\sum_{k=1}^{n_{3}}\left\Vert {\hat{F}^{(k)}}\right\Vert_\ast+\sum_{k=1}^{n_{3}}\frac{\beta_{1}}{2}\left\Vert {F}^{(k)} - {X}^{(k)}\right\Vert_F^2\\&+\left\langle\omega_1^{(k)},{F}^{(k)} - {X}^{(k)}\right\rangle+\frac{\beta_{2}}{2}\left\Vert \mathcal{Z-X}\right\Vert_F^2\\&+\left\langle\omega_{2},\mathcal{Z-X}\right\rangle+P(\mathcal{X})+\lambda\Phi(\mathcal{Z}).
\end{aligned}
\label{eqn:lagI}
\end{equation}
In order to distinguish the $k$-th frontal slice and the $k$-th iteration times of a tensor, we use $\mathcal{X}(:,:,k)$ to denote the $k$-th frontal slice and $\mathcal{X}^k$ for the $k$-th iteration. We divide the problem (\ref{eqn:lagI}) into three subproblems, i.e. [$\mathcal{F},\mathcal{Z}$], $\mathcal{X}$ and $\omega$, and solve the problem with the same optimization framework of ADMM.
\subsection*{A.\hspace{1ex}Solving [$\mathcal{F}$,$\mathcal{Z}$]-subproblem}
Similarly, we are going to solve the [$\mathcal{F}$,$\mathcal{Z}$]-subproblem separately, since the variables are decoupled.
1) By fixing $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Z}$, rewrite the function of $\mathcal{F}$-subproblem:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\arg\min_{\mathcal{F}} \quad &\sum_{k=1}^{n_{3}}\left\Vert {\hat{\mathcal{F}}(:,:,k)}\right\Vert_\ast+\\&\sum_{k=1}^{n_{3}}\frac{\beta_1}{2}\left\Vert {\hat{\mathcal{F}}(:,:,k)} -\hat{\mathcal{X}}(:,:,k) + \frac{\omega_{1}(:,:,k)}{\beta_1}\right\Vert_F^2.
\end{aligned}
\label{eqn:Fproi}
\end{equation}
The iterative closed-form solution of (\ref{eqn:Fproi}) is:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{{\mathcal{F}}}^{i+1}(:,:,k)&=\mathbf{D}_{\tau_k}(\hat{{\mathcal{F}}}^{i}(:,:,k)-\frac{\omega_1^i (:,:,k)}{\beta_1})\\&=U\mathrm{diag}(\max(\lambda_l-\tau_k,0))V^T,
\end{aligned}
\label{eqn:Fsolutioni}
\end{equation}
where $\tau_k=\frac{1}{\beta_1}$.
After getting $\hat{{\mathcal{F}}}^{i+1}$, we can get ${\mathcal{F}}^{i+1}$ by inverse Fourier transform
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{{F}}^{i+1}=\mathrm{ifft}(\mathcal{\hat{F}}^{i+1}).
\label{eqn:Fsolutionii}
\end{equation}
2) By fixing $\mathcal{X}$ and $F$, the $\mathcal{Z}$-subproblem is:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\arg\min_{\mathcal{Z}} \quad \frac{\beta_{2}}{2}\left\Vert \mathcal{Z}-(\mathcal{X}-\frac{\omega_{2}}{\beta_{2}})\right\Vert_F^2+\lambda\Phi(\mathcal{Z}),
\end{aligned}
\label{eqn:Zproi}
\end{equation*}
which is the same with Model I.
The process of solving $\mathcal{Z}$-subproblem has been introduced in detail in Model I, thus we omit them here for readability.
\subsection*{B.\hspace{1ex}Solving $\mathcal{X}$-subproblem}
By fixing $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{Z}$, the $\mathcal{X}$-subproblem can be simplified and rewritten as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\arg\min_{\mathcal{X}}\quad &\sum_{k=1}^{n_{3}}\frac{\beta_1}{2}\left\Vert \hat{\mathcal{F}}(:,:,k) - \hat{\mathcal{X}}(:,:,k)+\frac{\omega_{1} (:,:,k)}{\beta_1}\right\Vert_F^2\\&+\frac{\beta_2}{2}\left\Vert \mathcal{Z}-\mathcal{X}+\frac{\omega_{2}}{\beta_2}\right\Vert_F^2+P(\mathcal{X}).
\end{aligned}
\label{eqn:xproi}
\end{equation}
The closed-form solution of (\ref{eqn:xproi}) can be obtained by:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{X}^{i+1} =\left( \frac{\beta_1\mathcal{F}^{i+1}+\beta_2\mathcal{Z}^{i+1}+\omega_{1}^{i}+\omega_{2}^{i}}{\beta_1+\beta_2} \right)_{\bar{\Omega}}+\mathcal{T},
\end{aligned}
\label{eqn:xsolutioni}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{\Omega}$ is the complement set of $\Omega$.
\subsection*{C.\hspace{1ex}Solving $\omega$-subproblem}
By fixing $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Z}$, we can update the Lagrangian multiplier $\omega_{1}$ and $\omega_2$, respectively:
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\omega_{1}^{i+1} = \omega_{1}^i+\beta_{1}\left(\mathcal{F}^{i+1}-\mathcal{X}^{i+1}\right),\\
\omega_{2}^{i+1} = \omega_{2}^i+\beta_{2}\left(\mathcal{Z}^{i+1}-\mathcal{X}^{i+1}\right).\\
\end{cases}
\label{eqn:omega1solutioni}
\end{equation}
The overall pseudocode of LRTC-CSC-II algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \ref{alg:LRTC-CSC-II}.
Actually, our model can degenerate to LRTC-TNN model \cite{zhang2014novel} by setting the hyperparameter $\lambda=0$.
\begin{algorithm}[htbp]
\caption{LRTC-CSC-II algorithm}
\label{alg:LRTC-CSC-II}
\textbf{Input}: index set $\Omega$, original data $\mathcal{T}$, filters set $\mathcal{D}$
\textbf{Parameters}: $\Lambda, \lambda, \rho, \tau, \alpha_k, \omega_1, \omega_2, \beta_1,\beta_2$
\textbf{Initialization}: $\mathcal{X}_{\Omega}^0=\mathcal{T}_{\Omega}$, $\mathcal{X}_{\bar{\Omega}}^0=\mathrm{mean}\left(\mathcal{T}\right)$,
\begin{algorithmic}
\REPEAT
\STATE \textbf{$\mathcal{F}$-subproblem}
\STATE Update $\mathcal{{F}}^{i+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:Fsolutionii})
\STATE \textbf{$\mathcal{Z}$-subproblem}
\FOR {$j = 1$ to MaxIter}
\STATE Update $\hat{\mathcal{M}}^{j+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:msolution})
\STATE Update $\mathcal{M}^{j+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:spatialm})
\STATE Update $\mathcal{B}^{j+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:Bsolution})
\STATE Update $C^{j+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:Csolution})
\ENDFOR
\STATE Update $\mathcal{Z}^{i+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:Zsolution})
\STATE \textbf{$\mathcal{X}$-subproblem}
\STATE Update $\mathcal{X}^{i+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:xsolutioni})
\STATE \textbf{$\omega$-subproblem}
\STATE Update $\omega^{i+1}$ by (\ref{eqn:omega1solutioni})
\UNTIL satisfying the stop condition
\end{algorithmic}
\textbf{Output}:The recovered tensor $\mathcal{X}$
\end{algorithm}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth]{fruit_100_100/1.jpg}\vspace{1pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth]{fruit_100_100/2.jpg}\vspace{1pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth]{fruit_100_100/3.jpg}\vspace{1pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth]{fruit_100_100/4.jpg}\vspace{1pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth]{fruit_100_100/5.jpg}\vspace{1pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth]{fruit_100_100/6.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth]{fruit_100_100/7.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth]{fruit_100_100/8.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth]{fruit_100_100/9.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth]{fruit_100_100/10.jpg}
\caption{The 10 fruit images for training.}
\label{fig:dataset}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/1.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/2.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/3.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/4.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/5.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/6.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/7.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/8.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/9.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/10.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/11.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/12.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/13.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/14.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/15.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/16.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/17.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/18.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/19.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/20.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/21.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/22.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/23.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/24.jpg}\vspace{0.5pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/25.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/26.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/27.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/28.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/29.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/30.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/31.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.05\textwidth]{dictionary/32.jpg}
\caption{The dictionary of 32 filters trained with fruit dataset.}
\label{fig:dictionary}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{filter_num.png}\hspace{-10pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{filter_num_ssim.png}
\caption{The PSNR and SSIM values of color images recovered by LRTC-CSC when different number of filters are used in a dictionary for the sampling rate 20\%.}
\label{fig:filter_num}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
{\footnotesize Original image}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/airplane/Groundtruth.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/peppers/Groundtruth.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/lena/Groundtruth.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/starfish/Groundtruth.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/house/Groundtruth.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/fruits/Groundtruth.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/church/Groundtruth.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/bighouse/Groundtruth.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize Observed\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/airplane/Observed.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/peppers/Observed.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/lena/Observed.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/starfish/Observed.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/house/Observed.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/fruits/Observed.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/church/Observed.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/bighouse/Observed.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize SNN\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/airplane/HaLRTC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/peppers/HaLRTC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/lena/HaLRTC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/starfish/HaLRTC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/house/HaLRTC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/fruits/HaLRTC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/church/HaLRTC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/bighouse/HaLRTC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize TNN\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/airplane/LRTC-TNN.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/peppers/LRTC-TNN.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/lena/LRTC-TNN.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/starfish/LRTC-TNN.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/house/LRTC-TNN.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/fruits/LRTC-TNN.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/church/LRTC-TNN.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/bighouse/LRTC-TNN.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize TV\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/airplane/LRTC-TV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/peppers/LRTC-TV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/lena/LRTC-TV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/starfish/LRTC-TV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/house/LRTC-TV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/fruits/LRTC-TV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/church/LRTC-TV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/bighouse/LRTC-TV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize Framelet\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/airplane/LRTC_F.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/peppers/LRTC_F.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/lena/LRTC_F.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/starfish/LRTC_F.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/house/LRTC_F.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/fruits/LRTC_F.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/church/LRTC_F.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/bighouse/LRTC_F.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize 3DTV\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/airplane/LRTC-3DTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/peppers/LRTC-3DTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/lena/LRTC-3DTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/starfish/LRTC-3DTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/house/LRTC-3DTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/fruits/LRTC-3DTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/church/LRTC-3DTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/bighouse/LRTC-3DTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize Framelet-TV\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/airplane/LRTC_FTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/peppers/LRTC_FTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/lena/LRTC_FTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/starfish/LRTC_FTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/house/LRTC_FTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/fruits/LRTC_FTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/church/LRTC_FTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/bighouse/LRTC_FTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize CSC-I\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/airplane/LRTC_CSC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/peppers/LRTC_CSC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/lena/LRTC_CSC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/starfish/LRTC_CSC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/house/LRTC_CSC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/fruits/LRTC_CSC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/church/LRTC_CSC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/bighouse/LRTC_CSC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize CSC-II\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/airplane/LRTC_CSC_air.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/peppers/LRTC_CSC_pep.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/lena/LRTC_CSC_lena.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/starfish/LRTC_CSC_star.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/house/LRTC_CSC_sf.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/fruits/LRTC_CSC_fru.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/church/LRTC_CSC_ch.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Image_03/bighouse/LRTC_CSC_car.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\caption{The recovered color images by different algorithms for the sampling rate $30\%$, respectively. From (a) to (j): Original image, Observed image, recovered images by SNN, TNN, TV, Framelet, 3DTV, Framelet-TV, CSC-I and CSC-II, respectively.}
\label{fig:colorimage}
\end{figure*}
\section{ Numerical Experiments}
In this section, we verified our LRTC-CSC models with popular color image datasets, such as \textit{Peppers}, \textit{Lena}, \textit{Starfish} and so on. Besides, MRI data and video are also leveraged to our benchmark, which shows the generalization of LRTC-CSC model. Meanwhile, several state-of-the-art LRTC methods are compared in different situations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item HaLRTC \cite{liu2012tensor}: It adopted SNN to approximate the low-rank prior of underlying tensors without any regularizations in the objective function.
\item LRTC-TNN \cite{zhang2014novel}: It used TNN to describe the low-rank prior of underlying tensors without any regularizations in the objective function.
\item LRTC-TV \cite{li2017low}: It combined the Tucker rank-based SNN fidelity item and TV regularization to approximate the global low-rank structure and local smoothness, respectively.
\item TNN-3DTV \cite{jiang2018anisotropic}: It combined TNN and anisotopic TV regularization, inorder to extract the intrinsic structures of visual data and exploit the local smooth and piecewise priors, simultaneously.
\item MF-Framelet \cite{jiang2018matrix}: It leveraged matrix factorization-based SNN to capture the global structure of underlying tensor with the Framelet regularization.
\item Framelet-TV \cite{yang2020tensor}: It combined the TT rank-based SNN and the hybrid regularization of Framelet and TV, aiming at characterizing the global TT low-rankness, capturing the abundant details and enhancing the temporal smoothness of the tensor, respectively.
\end{enumerate}
To measure the recovering performance of various models, both the Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) and Structural SIMilarity Index (SSIM) are used. In consideration of the multiband structure of tensor data, we adopt the mean value of all bands as the evaluation metric.
All experiments are performed in MATLAB R2020a in Linux with an Inter(R) Core(TM) i7-9800X CPU at 3.80 GHz and 64GB RAM. To accelerate the running speed, we performed the CSC phase with a graphics processing GeForce RTX 2080 Ti.
\begin{table*}[tp]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{PSNR results of recovered color images by different algorithms. The \textbf{best} and \uline{second} best values are highlighted in bold and underline, respectively. (MR is short for Missing Ratio)}
\label{tab:psnr}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{3}{*}{Image}& \multirow{3}{*}{MR}&
\multicolumn{8}{c}{PSNR}\cr
\cmidrule(lr){3-10}
&&SNN&TNN&TV&Framelet&3DTV&Framelet-TV&CSC-I&CSC-II\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{Peppers}\\$256\times256\times3$}}
&70\% &24.03&23.54&26.87&22.66&27.45&30.43&\uline{30.84}&\textbf{31.72}\cr
&80\% &20.99&20.50&24.52&21.63&24.82&28.02&\uline{28.20}&\textbf{28.33}\cr
&90\% &16.92&16.75&20.24&18.52&20.61&\uline{23.96}&23.52&\textbf{24.08}\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{Starfish}\\$256\times256\times3$}}
&70\% &23.68&24.41&26.18&22.36&27.27&27.88&\uline{28.50}&\textbf{29.78}\cr
&80\% &20.90&21.17&23.55&21.41&24.47&25.18&\uline{25.86}&\textbf{26.75}\cr
&90\% &17.29&17.54&20.19&17.90&20.71&21.15&\uline{22.20}&\textbf{22.63}\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{Lena}\\$256\times256\times3$}}
&70\% &25.59&25.86&27.69&22.75&28.72&29.33&\uline{30.73}&\textbf{32.03}\cr
&80\% &22.82&23.03&25.84&21.87&26.26&26.99&\uline{28.13}&\textbf{29.00}\cr
&90\% &19.26&19.47&22.29&20.59&22.80&23.94&\uline{24.58}&\textbf{25.34}\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{Fruits}\\$256\times256\times3$}}
&70\% &24.08&24.30&26.81&21.15&27.21&28.52&\uline{29.44}&\textbf{30.36}\cr
&80\% &21.65&21.79&24.89&20.41&25.07&26.43&\uline{26.70}&\textbf{27.59}\cr
&90\% &18.22&18.40&21.69&19.18&21.69&23.54&\uline{23.95}&\textbf{24.26}\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{House}\\$256\times256\times3$}}
&70\% &27.30&27.83&28.45&23.09&30.62&31.82&\uline{32.26}&\textbf{33.00}\cr
&80\% &24.22&24.57&26.53&21.81&27.76&29.07&\uline{29.81}&\textbf{30.72}\cr
&90\% &20.60&20.62&22.50&20.53&23.78&25.29&\uline{25.62}&\textbf{26.49}\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{Airplane}\\$256\times256\times3$}}
&70\% &25.21&25.49&26.55&21.03&27.68&26.63&\uline{28.42}&\textbf{30.05}\cr
&80\% &22.70&22.91&24.13&20.05&25.27&24.42&\uline{26.12}&\textbf{27.37}\cr
&90\% &19.54&19.76&20.96&18.94&22.02&21.84&\uline{22.98}&\textbf{23.92}\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{Church}\\$256\times192\times3$}}
&70\% &24.70&25.45&25.83&22.92&27.04&\uline{28.32}&27.46&\textbf{28.68}\cr
&80\% &22.30&22.84&23.90&21.90&24.81&\uline{26.02}&25.54&\textbf{26.49}\cr
&90\% &18.79&19.33&20.82&20.35&21.69&\uline{22.55}&22.41&\textbf{23.21}\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{Cars}\\$256\times192\times3$}}
&70\% &22.76&23.66&24.18&22.60&25.30&\uline{27.18}&26.31&\textbf{27.41}\cr
&80\% &20.15&20.86&21.98&21.23&22.78&\uline{24.62}&24.07&\textbf{24.80}\cr
&90\% &16.84&17.60&18.34&16.24&19.52&\uline{21.02}&20.76&\textbf{21.26}\cr
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[tp]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{SSIM results of recovered color images by different algorithms. The \textbf{best} and \uline{second} best values are highlighted in bold and underline, respectively. (MR is short for Missing Ratio)}
\label{tab:ssim}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{3}{*}{Image}& \multirow{3}{*}{MR}&
\multicolumn{8}{c}{SSIM}\cr
\cmidrule(lr){3-10}
&&SNN&TNN&TV&Framelet&3DTV&Framelet-TV&CSC-I&CSC-II\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{Peppers}\\$256\times256\times3$}}
&70\% &0.9339&0.9233&0.9703&0.9147&0.9687&0.9759&\uline{0.9855}&\textbf{0.9865}\cr
&80\% &0.8827&0.8580&0.9501&0.8963&0.9450&\uline{0.9746}&0.9734&\textbf{0.9751}\cr
&90\% &0.7588&0.7099&0.8906&0.8168&0.8713&\uline{0.9362}&0.9307&\textbf{0.9406}\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{Starfish}\\$256\times256\times3$}}
&70\% &0.9074&0.8986&0.9589&0.8873&0.9574&0.9696&\uline{0.9705}&\textbf{0.9768}\cr
&80\% &0.8477&0.8255&0.9272&0.8605&0.9250&0.9504&\uline{0.9512}&\textbf{0.9587}\cr
&90\% &0.7320&0.6801&0.8801&0.7323&0.8482&0.9007&\uline{0.9013}&\textbf{0.9074}\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{Lena}\\$256\times256\times3$}}
&70\% &0.9477&0.9460&0.9668&0.9156&0.9722&0.9778&\uline{0.9814}&\textbf{0.9853}\cr
&80\% &0.9128&0.9041&0.9511&0.8992&0.9536&0.9642&\uline{0.9687}&\textbf{0.9728}\cr
&90\% &0.8450&0.8128&0.9102&0.8684&0.9104&0.9376&\uline{0.9398}&\textbf{0.9436}\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{Fruits}\\$256\times256\times3$}}
&70\% &0.8747&0.8643&0.9475&0.8328&0.9374&0.9619&\uline{0.9645}&\textbf{0.9729}\cr
&80\% &0.8174&0.7962&0.9213&0.8053&0.9055&0.9409&\uline{0.9433}&\textbf{0.9495}\cr
&90\% &0.7164&0.6575&0.8607&0.7499&0.8294&\uline{0.8962}&0.8920&\textbf{0.9014}\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{House}\\$256\times256\times3$}}
&70\% &0.9233&0.9149&0.9562&0.8593&0.9571&0.9713&\uline{0.9717}&\textbf{0.9745}\cr
&80\% &0.8610&0.8406&0.9317&0.8242&0.9244&0.9534&\uline{0.9550}&\textbf{0.9601}\cr
&90\% &0.7276&0.6642&0.8611&0.7658&0.8326&0.9009&\uline{0.9062}&\textbf{0.9156}\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{Airplane}\\$256\times256\times3$}}
&70\% &0.6588&0.6215&\uline{0.9132}&0.6761&0.8104&0.9078&0.9115&\textbf{0.9458}\cr
&80\% &0.5407&0.4907&0.8580&0.5971&0.7131&0.8613&\uline{0.8630}&\textbf{0.9103}\cr
&90\% &0.3668&0.2914&0.7458&0.5090&0.5192&0.7610&\uline{0.7678}&\textbf{0.8184}\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{Church}\\$256\times192\times3$}}
&70\% &0.8327&0.8485&0.8798&0.7922&0.8933&\uline{0.9242}&0.9130&\textbf{0.9313}\cr
&80\% &0.7367&0.7497&0.8202&0.7491&0.8271&\uline{0.8828}&0.8693&\textbf{0.8923}\cr
&90\% &0.5420&0.5555&0.6959&0.6629&0.6888&\uline{0.7835}&0.7728&\textbf{0.7918}\cr
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack{\textit{Cars}\\$256\times192\times3$}}
&70\% &0.7817&0.8021&0.8664&0.7889&0.8618&\uline{0.9154}&0.9058&\textbf{0.9218}\cr
&80\% &0.6628&0.6780&0.7902&0.7320&0.7717&\uline{0.8216}&0.8541&\textbf{0.8672}\cr
&90\% &0.4378&0.4513&0.6106&0.5411&0.5795&\uline{0.7354}&0.7309&\textbf{0.7659}\cr
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Parameters}
The convolutional filters are pre-trained with the popular fruit dataset \cite{zeiler2010deconvolutional} first in color image experiments as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:dataset}. To make sure the best number of filters, we trained several dictionaries of different number of filters with a fruit dataset. And then these dictionaries were used to our benchmark for the sampling rate 20\%. The experimental results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:filter_num}. The best performance corresponds to the best number of filters. All the results in the left figure of Fig. \ref{fig:filter_num} indicated that the proposed model would gain the best performance when a dictionary consists of 32 filters. Except for the \textit{Lena} image, the other results in the right figure of Fig. \ref{fig:filter_num} also show the superiority when the filter number is 32. Thus, we trained a dictionary of 32 filters with the fruit dataset beforehand. These filters are of size $16\times 16$, $\Lambda=10$, and $\tau = 0.06$. It's worth noting that the computation of convolution is finished in the Fourier domain, which can be regarded as dot product, thus the size of filters can be even. Fig .\ref{fig:dictionary} shows the trained dictionary in visual.
\subsection{Color Images}
Before the experiments begin, we execute the missing process to original images. Specifically, to obtain observed data, all the pixels in color images will be erased randomly according to a setting ratio (same in the following MRI and video experiments).
Fig. \ref{fig:colorimage} shows the recovered results of color images by all comparing models. The first six images are $256\times 256\times 3$ in size, while the last two images are $256\times 192\times 3$ in size. The details are marked out and enlarged in the mark boxes. Comparing to the degradation models of the proposed ones, HaLRTC and LRTC-TV, it's intuitionistic to show the effect of CSC prior. The Framelet-TV method is very competitive to our model LRTC-CSC-I, however, the proposed model holds more clean and smooth details even in an inferior comparison on last two color images. In most situations, LRTC-CSC-I can obtain a higher performance. And the results of LRTC-CSC-II are the most similar to the original images, especially.
The PSNR and SSIM values of recovered results for the 8 color images by different algorithms are shown in Tab.\ref{tab:psnr} and \ref{tab:ssim}. One can see that the LRTC-TNN method is superior to SNN-based HaLRTC on the whole. LRTC-TV is very closed to TNN-3DTV on SSIM values but inferior on PSNR values. And Framelet-TV method holds onto the position of the third place by a comfortable margin in most situations. Its performance ends up second only to the proposed two models. Especially, the LRTC-CSC models have a larger lead at color images similar to peppers and fruits due to the dictionary trained by a fruit dataset, which also shows the importance of the relationship between underlying data and dataset. Thus why the results of LRTC-CSC-I on last two images are inferior to Framelet-TV can be explained by the few relationships between underlying tensors and dataset. In this way, the CSC plays a small role. Besides, when the missing ratio is 90\%, other algorithms can hardly hold a stable SSIM value (especially the last three images), LRTC-CSC models are still standing at a relatively high level.
\subsection{MRI dataset}
In this subsection, an MRI dataset of size $180\times216\times30$ is chosen to test our model. Except for the 30 bands used for the test, we select another 10 bands from the raw data as the dictionary training set. And different from the color image experiments, the dictionary used in this part is of size $16\times16\times30$ for working well in most situations.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize Original\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_01/X_GT.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_02/X_GT.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_03/X_GT.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize Observed\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_01/X_Observed.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_02/X_Observed.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_03/X_Observed.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize SNN\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_01/X_HaLRTC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_02/X_HaLRTC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_03/X_HaLRTC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize TNN\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_01/X_LRTC-TNN.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_02/X_LRTC-TNN.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_03/X_LRTC-TNN.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize TV\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_01/LRTC-TV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_02/LRTC-TV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_03/LRTC-TV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize Framelet\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_01/X_F.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_02/X_F.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_03/X_F.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize 3DTV\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_01/X_TNN-3DTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_02/X_TNN-3DTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_03/X_TNN-3DTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize Framelet-TV\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_01/X_FTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_02/X_FTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_03/X_FTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize CSC-I\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_01/X_LRTC-CSC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_02/X_LRTC-CSC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_03/X_LRTC-CSC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize CSC-II\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_01/mri_09.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_02/mri_08.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mri_03/mri_07.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\caption{The 30-th band of recovered MRI data by all algorithms for different sampling rates. From (a) to (j): Original data, Observed data, recovered data by SNN, TNN, TV, Framelet, 3DTV, Framelet-TV, CSC-I and CSC-II, respectively. From the top down: 10\%, 20\% and 30\% sampling rate.}
\label{fig:mri}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize Original\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame5/X_GT.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame15/X_GT.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame25/X_GT.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize Observed\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame5/X_Observed.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame15/X_Observed.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame25/X_Observed.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize SNN\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame5/X_HaLRTC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame15/X_HaLRTC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame25/X_HaLRTC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize TNN\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame5/X_LRTC-TNN.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame15/X_LRTC-TNN.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame25/X_LRTC-TNN.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize TV\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame5/LRTC-TV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame15/LRTC-TV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame25/LRTC-TV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize Framelet\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame5/X_F.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame15/X_F.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame25/X_F.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize 3DTV\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame5/X_TNN-3DTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame15/X_TNN-3DTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame25/X_TNN-3DTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize Framelet-TV\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame5/X_FTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame15/X_FTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame25/X_FTV.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize CSC-I\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame5/X_LRTC-CSC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame15/X_LRTC-CSC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame25/X_LRTC-CSC.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.095\textwidth}
\centering
\footnotesize CSC-II\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame5/suzie_5.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame15/suzie_15.png}\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{video_01/frame25/suzie_25.png}\vspace{2pt}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{-2.5ex}
\caption{The 5-th, 15-th and 25-th frame of recovered \textit{suzie} video by all algorithms for 10\% sampling rates. From (a) to (j): Original data, Observed data, recovered data by SNN, TNN, TV, Framelet, 3DTV, Framelet-TV, CSC-I and CSC-II, respectively. From the top down: 5-th, 15-th and 25-th frame.}
\label{fig:video}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{psnr_mri.png}\hspace{-1pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.235\textwidth]{ssim_mri.png}
\caption{The PSNR and SSIM values of different bands of MRI data recovered by all algorithms for the sampling rate 30\%.}
\label{fig:mri_band}
\end{figure}
Color images own three channels only, while MRI data often include dozen or hundred bands. In this way, the relationship among different bands will be closer, which is very advantageous to the TNN-based method. However, our SNN-based model still shows its superiority after introducing the CSC prior. The same as color images, we randomly pick 10\%, 20\%, and 30\% samples as the observations, and the results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:mri}.
It's intuitive that LRTC-CSC models achieve the best performance among these models, while HaLRTC achieves the worst performance, which verified the effectiveness of CSC regularization. In particular, LRTC-CSC models work well on detailed recovery comparing to TNN-3DTV and Framelet-TV. When the missing rate reaches 90\%, our model can still hold a relatively clear result.
\begin{figure}[tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{psnr_suzie.png}\hspace{-1pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.235\textwidth]{ssim_suzie.png}
\caption{The PSNR and SSIM values of different frames of video data recovered by all algorithms for the sampling rate 10\%.}
\label{fig:suzie_frame}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[tp]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{Iteration/Iteration_psnr_csc1.png}\hspace{-1pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{Iteration/Iteration_re_csc1.png}\hspace{-1pt}
}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{Iteration/Iteration_psnr_csc2.png}\hspace{-1pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{Iteration/Iteration_re_csc2.png}\hspace{-1pt}
}
\caption{The convergence behavior with respect to iterations on the color images at $MR=70\%$. The figures show the convergence of CSC-I (a) and CSC-II (b) algorithms for RE and PSNR, respectively. }
\label{fig:Iteration}
\end{figure*}
Fig. \ref{fig:mri_band} further shows the recovery performance in every band. Both the PSNR and SSIM values of each band show the superiority of LRTC-CSC models. Note that TNN-3DTV can achieve a high SSIM value approaching LRTC-CSC. However, there is a gap between them on the edge band of the whole MRI data. The proposed model LRTC-CSC-I achieves a performance promotion of $4$ and $0.05$ with respect to PSNR and SSIM over the results of TNN-3DTV.
Moreover, the performances of LRTC-TNN and LRTC-CSC-II on edge band are similar to TNN-3DTV, which implies the shortcoming of TNN-based methods. In other words, TNN can not handle the edge information due to lacking enough neighbors, which is determined by its predominant characteristic of global information capturing. The peformance of TT rank-based method is not satisfactory in MRI data recovering experiments because of imposing KA on the unbalanced tensor \cite{yang2020tensor}\cite{chen2021auto}.
\subsection{Videos}
In this subsection, we benchmarked our model on \textit{Suzie} of size $144\times176\times150$. The same as MRI experiments, we utilize 30 filters in a dictionary trained by only 10 frames of the raw video data. And except for the trained ones, another 30 frames of video are used for recovering task. By randomly selecting 10\% samples, the recovered results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:video}. It is not hard to see that the results recovered by our LRTC-CSC models are the cleanest. Similar to MRI data experiment, TNN-3DTV is close to LRTC-CSC-I but it can not handle the edge frame well, e.g., the 30-th frame. It can also be observed that the SNN-based Framelet-TV is inferior to TNN-3DTV, which shows the low-rank approximating ability of TNN.
Fig. \ref{fig:suzie_frame} shows the recovery results of each frame in detail. Note that LRTC-CSC-II achieves the highest score in both PSNR and SSIM. However, at the beginning or end of the video, only the proposed LRTC-CSC-I is stable while the index curve of the TNN-based methods, including LRTC-CSC-II, drops rapidly, which shows the stability of SNN-based methods on edges, again. Compared with HaLRTC and LRTC-TNN, the proposed models have claimed the superiority of CSC regularization.
\subsection{Convergency analysis}
The numerical experiments have shown the remarkable performance of CSC-I and CSC-II.
In order to demonstrate the convergence of algorithms in numerical, Fig. \ref{fig:Iteration} shows the variation curves of the Relative Error (RE) values, i.e., $RE=\frac{\Vert \mathcal{X-T}\Vert_F}{\Vert \mathcal{T}\Vert_F}$, and PSNR values of CSC-I and CSC-II algorithms with the number of iterations on three color images of \textit{Lena}, \textit{Peppers} and \textit{Fruits} at $MR=70\%$.
Factly, it can be observed that both the proposed algorithms converge to an optimal point.
\section{Conclusion}
Inspired by the capacity of CSC on high-frequency component processing, we introduced CSC into the traditional LRTC model. In this way, the details of the underlying tensor would be improved in addition to the low-rank component recovery. Comparing to other plug-and-play CNN prior to using thousands of samples, our method can achieve good performance with only a few samples. For the proposed models, we obtain effective algorithms based on the inexact ADMM method. And the effectiveness of LRTC-CSC-I and LRTC-CSC-II have been verified in color images, MRI data, and video data recovery experiments.
In future work, it would be of great interest to leverage the prior information
of CSC to improve the performance of other models. For the marginal effects of the TNN-based method, CSC might be a promising method to strengthen the connection between the edge and subject.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The work described in this paper was supported by the Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province (2018B010109001), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11801595), the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (2019A1515011043), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong (2018A030310076) and Tencent Wechat Rhino-bird project No.2021321.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Hamilton decomposability of line graphs has been studied extensively. The {\em line graph} of a graph $G$, denoted by $L(G)$, is the graph with a vertex corresponding to each edge of $G$, and in which two vertices are adjacent if and only if their corresponding edges are adjacent in $G$. A {\em Hamilton decomposition} of a graph $G$ is a set of Hamilton cycles in $G$ whose edge sets partition the edge set of $G$. A graph that has a Hamilton decomposition is said to be {\em Hamilton decomposable}. A landmark result on the topic of Hamilton decomposability of line graphs, due to Kotzig \cite{Kot},
is that a 3-regular graph is Hamiltonian if and only if its line graph is Hamilton decomposable.
The goal of this paper is to prove the following theorem which addresses the extension of
Kotzig's result to graphs of larger degree.
\begin{theorem}\label{mainthm}
If a graph is regular of even degree and contains a Hamilton cycle, or regular of odd degree and contains a Hamiltonian $3$-factor,
then its line graph is Hamilton decomposable.
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{mainthm}, the proof of which follows immediately from Lemmas \ref{combineHamFrags}, \ref{alln} and \ref{alln_odd}, shows that the ``only if'' part of Kotzig's result holds for regular graphs of even degree, and comes close
to showing that it holds for regular graphs of odd degree. It is possible that just the existence of a Hamiltonian
cycle, rather than a Hamiltonian $3$-factor, in a regular graph $G$ of odd degree is also sufficient for Hamilton decomposability
of the line graph of $G$, but we are unable to prove this using our methods.
On the other hand, it has recently been shown \cite{BryMaeSmi} that for all $k\geq 4$,
the existence of a Hamilton cycle in a $k$-regular graph $G$ is not necessary for Hamilton decomposability
of the line graph of $G$.
Theorem \ref{mainthm} proves, and considerably strengthens, a long-standing conjecture of Bermond \cite{Ber} which states that
the line graph of a Hamilton decomposable graph is Hamilton decomposable. Bermond's conjecture was proved by
Jaeger \cite{Jae} in the case of regular graphs of degree $4$, and then
by Muthusamy and Paulraja \cite{MutPau} in the case of regular graphs of degree divisible by $4$.
Also in \cite{MutPau}, it was shown that the line graph of a Hamiltonian regular graph of even degree can be decomposed into
Hamilton cycles and a $2$-factor. This result was independently proved by Zahn \cite{Zah}.
Other results relating to Hamilton decompositions of line graphs can be found in \cite{FleHilJac,HeiVer,Jac,JacWor,Pik1,Pik2,Pik3,Ver}
and in the survey on Hamilton decompositions \cite{AlsBerSot}.
A brief overview of the central elements of the construction used to prove
Theorem \ref{mainthm} is as follows.
This description is for the case of regular graphs of even degree. Some additional complications are involved in
the case of regular graphs of odd degree.
In the line graph $L(G)$ of a $2n$-regular graph $G$,
the $2n$ vertices of $L(G)$ that correspond to the $2n$ edges of $G$ that are incident with a vertex $v$ of $G$ induce
a complete subgraph of order $2n$ in $L(G)$, and we denote this complete subgraph by $L(G)_v$.
By a well-known theorem of Petersen \cite{Pet}, if $G$ is Hamiltonian, then $G$ has a
$2$-factorisation $\cal F$ in which one of the $2$-factors is a Hamilton cycle.
In Section \ref{Section3}, we define a Hamilton fragment to be a subgraph $H$ of a complete graph of order $2n$
such that for any given Hamiltonian $2n$-regular graph $G$,
and any given $2$-factorisation $\cal F$ of
$G$ containing a Hamilton cycle,
if a copy of $H$ is placed on the vertices of $L(G)_v$ for each vertex $v$ of
$G$,
in a manner prescribed by $\cal F$, then the resulting subgraph of $L(G)$
has a Hamilton decomposition. We prove various conditions under which $H$ is a Hamilton fragment, and then
show that the complete graph of order $2n$ can be decomposed into Hamilton fragments.
The union of the resulting Hamilton decompositions is thus a Hamilton decomposition of $L(G)$.
The paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{Section2} we prove several technical lemmas which are used later in the paper. Section \ref{Section3} is divided into two subsections for the two cases of regular graphs of even and odd degree. The main goal of
Section \ref{Section3} is to prove conditions under which a subgraph $H$ is a Hamilton fragment. In Sections \ref{Section4} and \ref{Section5}, the required
decompositions of complete graphs into Hamilton fragments are given.
If we are after a Hamilton decomposition of $L(G)$, then the order of the complete
graph to be decomposed into Hamilton fragments is equal to the degree of $G$.
Section \ref{Section4} gives the required
decompositions of complete graphs into Hamilton fragments for orders 12, 16, 18, and for all orders greater than 19.
Decompositions for the other small orders
require different methods than those used in the general case
and are given in Section \ref{Section5}.
\section{From $2$-factorisations to Hamilton decompositions}\label{Section2}
Let $V$ be a set of vertices and let
$E_1,E_2,\ldots,E_r$ be pairwise disjoint sets of edges.
The set $\{E_1,E_2,\ldots,E_r\}$ is said to be a {\em $V$-connector}
if for any $2$-factorisation $\{F_1,F_2,\ldots,F_r\}$ of any $2r$-regular graph $G$
with $E_i\subseteq E(F_i)$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,r$,
there exists a $2$-factorisation $\{F'_1,F'_2,\ldots,F'_r\}$ of $G$ such that
for $i=1,2,\ldots,r$
\begin{itemize}
\item $E(F_i)\setminus E_i\subseteq E(F'_i)$;
\item if $u$ and $v$ are vertices in the same component of $F_i$,
then $u$ and $v$ are in the same component of $F'_i$; and
\item each of the vertices in $V$ belongs to the same component in $F'_i$.
\end{itemize}
We say that $\{F'_1,F'_2,\ldots,F'_r\}$ is a {\em $2$-factorisation of $G$ obtained from $\{F_1,F_2,\ldots,F_r\}$ by applying the $V$-connector $\{E_1,E_2,\ldots,E_r\}$}.
Given a $2$-factorisation $\mathcal{F}=\{F_1,F_2,\ldots,F_r\}$ of a graph $G$, we say a subgraph $H$ of $G$ {\em induces a $V$-connector in $\mathcal{F}$} if
$$\{E(F_1)\cap E(H),E(F_2)\cap E(H),\ldots,E(F_r)\cap E(H)\}$$ is a $V$-connector, and in this case we call $\{E(F_1)\cap E(H),E(F_2)\cap E(H),\ldots,E(F_r)\cap E(H)\}$ the {\em $V$-connector induced by $H$ in $\mathcal{F}$}.
\begin{lemma}\label{edgedisjointconnectors}
Suppose $\mathcal{F}$ is a $2$-factorisation of a graph $G$, and $H$ and $H'$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $G$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item [$(1)$] $H$ induces a $V$-connector in $\mathcal{F}$; and
\item [$(2)$] $H'$ induces a $V'$-connector in $\mathcal{F}$.
\end{itemize}
If $\mathcal{F}'$ is any $2$-factorisation of $G$ obtained from $\mathcal{F}$ by applying the $V$-connector induced by $H$, then $H'$ induces a $V'$-connector in $\mathcal{F}'$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
Let $\mathcal{F}=\{F_1,F_2,\ldots,F_r\}$ and let
$\mathcal{F'}=\{F'_1,F'_2,\ldots,F'_r\}$ be any $2$-factorisation of $G$ obtained from $\mathcal{F}$ by applying the $V$-connector $\{E_1,E_2,\ldots,E_r\}$ induced by $H$.
Since $H$ and $H'$ are edge-disjoint, it follows from
$E(F_i)\setminus E_i\subseteq E(F'_i)$ that $E(F_i)\cap E(H')=E(F'_i)\cap E(H')$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,r$. Thus, since $H'$ induces a $V'$-connector in $\mathcal{F}$, $H'$ also induces a
$V'$-connector in $\mathcal{F'}$.
\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
Note that Lemma \ref{edgedisjointconnectors} does not require $V$ and $V'$ to be disjoint.
\begin{lemma}\label{connectors}
Suppose $\alpha$, $\beta$, $u$, $v$, $w$, $x$, $u'$, $v'$ and $w'$ are distinct vertices. Then the following sets are $\{\alpha,\beta\}$-connectors:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(0)$] $\{\{\alpha u, uw, \beta w\}, \{\alpha w, \beta u, uv\}\}$;
\item[$(1)$] $\{\{\alpha u,uv,\beta w\},\{\alpha w,wv,\beta u\}\}$;
\item[$(2)$] $\{\{\alpha u,uv,\beta w\},\{\alpha w,wv,\beta u\},\{\alpha\beta\}\}$;
\item[$(3)$] $\{\{\alpha u,uv,\beta w, wx\},\{\alpha w,\beta u\},\{\alpha\beta,vw,wu,ux\}\}$;
\item[$(4)$] $\{\{\alpha u,uv,vw,w\beta\},\{\alpha v,\beta u, uw\},\{\alpha w, \beta v\}, \{\alpha x,x\beta\}\}$;
\item[$(5)$] $\{\{\alpha x,vw,u\beta\},\{\alpha \beta, uv, wx\},\{\alpha u, ux, x\beta\}, \{\alpha v,uw, w\beta\}, \{\alpha w,xv, v\beta\}\}$; and
\item[$(6)$] $\{\{\alpha u,ux,xv,vw,\beta u',u'v',v'w'\},\{\alpha u',u'v,vw',\beta u,uv',v'w\}\}.$
\end{itemize}
Furthermore, the set
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(7)$] $\{\{\alpha u,ux,xv,vw,\beta u',u'v',v'w'\},\{\alpha u',u'v,vw',\beta u,uv',v'w\},\{\alpha x, x\beta, uv\}\}$
\end{itemize}
is an $\{\alpha,\beta,u\}$-connector.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
For (0), let $E_1=\{\alpha u, uw, \beta w\}$, let $E_2=\{\alpha w, \beta u, uv\}$ and suppose $\{F_1,F_2\}$ is a $2$-factorisation of
some $4$-regular graph $G$ such that $E_1\subseteq E(F_1)$ and $E_2\subseteq E(F_2)$.
We need to allocate the edges of $E_1\cup E_2$ to $E'_1$ and $E'_2$ such that if $F'_1=F_1-E_1+E'_1$ and $F'_2=F_2-E_2+E'_2$,
then $\{F'_1,F'_2\}$ is a $2$-factorisation of $G$ with the required properties.
Note that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are currently in the same component of $F_1$. If $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are also in the same component of $F_2$ then we let $E'_1 = E_1$ and $E'_2 = E_2$. Otherwise, we let $E'_1= \{\alpha w, uw, \beta u\}$ and $E'_2=\{\alpha u, uv, \beta w\}$. This completes the proof for (0).
For (1), let $E_1=\{\alpha u,uv,\beta w\}$, let $E_2=\{\alpha w,wv,\beta u\}$ and suppose $\{F_1,F_2\}$ is a $2$-factorisation of
some $4$-regular graph $G$ such that $E_1\subseteq E(F_1)$ and $E_2\subseteq E(F_2)$.
We need to allocate the edges of $E_1\cup E_2$ to $E'_1$ and $E'_2$ such that if $F'_1=F_1-E_1+E'_1$ and $F'_2=F_2-E_2+E'_2$,
then $\{F'_1,F'_2\}$ is a $2$-factorisation of $G$ with the required properties.
Each of $E_1$ and $E_2$ induces a union of disjoint paths, and the allocation of edges to $E'_1$ and $E'_2$ depends only on
how these paths are connected up (into cycles) by the paths in $F_1-E_1$ and $F_2-E_2$. There are three distinct ways that the two paths induced by $E_1$ can be connected up (namely, $\alpha$ to $v$ and $\beta$ to $w$,
$\alpha$ to $\beta$ and $v$ to $w$, or $\alpha$ to $w$ and $v$ to $\beta$). Similarly, there are three distinct ways that the two paths
induced by $E_2$ can be connected up. Thus, there are nine possibilities for which we need to find a suitable
allocation of edges to $E'_1$ and $E'_2$. As listed below, one of the following three
allocations works for each of the nine possibilities.
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] $E'_1=E_1$ and $E'_2=E_2$;
\item [(b)] $E'_1=\{\alpha w, \beta u, uv\}$ and $E'_2=\{\alpha u, \beta w, wv\}$;
\item [(c)] $E'_1=\{\alpha u, u \beta, vw\}$ and $E'_2=\{\alpha w, w \beta, uv\}$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent (a) is used when
\begin{itemize}
\item in $F_1-E_1$ there are paths from $\alpha$ to $\beta$ and from $v$ to $w$, and in $F_2-E_2$ there are paths from
$\alpha$ to $u$ and $\beta$ to $v$;
\item in $F_1-E_1$ there are paths from $\alpha$ to $\beta$ and from $v$ to $w$, and in $F_2-E_2$ there are paths from
$\alpha$ to $\beta$ and $u$ to $v$;
\item in $F_1-E_1$ there are paths from $\alpha$ to $w$ and from $\beta$ to $v$, and in $F_2-E_2$ there are paths from
$\alpha$ to $\beta$ and $u$ to $v$; and when
\item in $F_1-E_1$ there are paths from $\alpha$ to $w$ and from $\beta$ to $v$, and in $F_2-E_2$ there are paths from
$\alpha$ to $u$ and $\beta$ to $v$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent (b) is used when
\begin{itemize}
\item in $F_1-E_1$ there are paths from $\alpha$ to $v$ and from $\beta$ to $w$, and in $F_2-E_2$ there are paths from
$\alpha$ to $v$ and $\beta$ to $u$;
\item in $F_1-E_1$ there are paths from $\alpha$ to $v$ and from $\beta$ to $w$, and in $F_2-E_2$ there are paths from
$\alpha$ to $\beta$ and $u$ to $v$; and when
\item in $F_1-E_1$ there are paths from $\alpha$ to $\beta$ and from $v$ to $w$, and in $F_2-E_2$ there are paths from
$\alpha$ to $v$ and $\beta$ to $u$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent (c) is used when
\begin{itemize}
\item in $F_1-E_1$ there are paths from $\alpha$ to $v$ and from $\beta$ to $w$, and in $F_2-E_2$ there are paths from
$\alpha$ to $u$ and $\beta$ to $v$; and when
\item in $F_1-E_1$ there are paths from $\alpha$ to $w$ and from $\beta$ to $v$, and in $F_2-E_2$ there are paths from
$\alpha$ to $v$ and $\beta$ to $u$.
\end{itemize}
This completes the proof for (1).
Case (2) is an immediate consequence of (1). Using the same method as for (1),
it is a routine (and somewhat tedious) exercise to check that each of sets listed in
(3)-(6) is an $\{\alpha,\beta\}$-connector, and that the set listed in (7) is an $\{\alpha,\beta,u\}$-connector.
\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
Suppose $H$ is a graph. We say a subset $U$ of $V(H)$ {\em links} $H$ if it contains at least one vertex from each connected component of $H$. Similarly, we say $U$ {\em links} a set $\mathcal{H}$ of graphs if it links each graph $H\in \mathcal{H}$.
Observe that a $2$-factorisation $\mathcal{F}$ of a graph $G$ is a Hamilton decomposition of $G$ if and only if $\{v\}$ links $\mathcal{F}$ for every $v\in V(G)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{intersects}
Suppose $\mathcal{F}$ is a factorisation of a graph $G$ in which each factor has no isolated vertices. If at most two of the factors in $\mathcal{F}$ are not connected, then there is a partition $\{U,U'\}$ of $V(G)$ such that each of $U$ and $U'$ links $\mathcal{F}$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
If fewer than two of the factors in $\mathcal{F}$ are not connected then the result is obvious. Suppose then that $\mathcal{F}$ contains precisely two non-connected factors, say $F$ and $F'$, and that $F$ has connected components $C_1,C_2,\ldots,C_r$ and $F'$ has connected components $C'_1,C'_2,\ldots,C'_t$.
Define a bipartite (multi)graph $B$ with parts $X=\{C_1,C_2,\ldots,C_r\}$ and $Y=\{ C'_1,C'_2,\ldots,C'_t\}$ and edge set defined
as follows. For each vertex $v\in V(G)$ join $C_i$ to $C_j'$ where $C_i$ is the connected component of $F$ that contains $v$ and $C'_j$ is the connected component of $F'$ that contains $v$. Since each connected component of $F$ or $F'$ has at least two vertices, $B$ has minimum degree at least $2$.
It is well-known that the edges of any multigraph can be oriented so that the indegree of each vertex differs from its outdegree by at most 1.
Give the edges of $B$ such an orientation. Thus, since $B$ has minimum degree at least $2$, each vertex of $B$ has indegree at least 1, and outdegree at least 1. For each $v\in G$, if the edge of $B$ corresponding to $v$ is oriented from $X$ to $Y$, then we place $v$ in $U$. Otherwise, the edge of $B$ corresponding to $v$ is oriented from $Y$ to $X$ and we place $v$ in $U'$. It follows that each of $U$ and $U'$ links $\mathcal{F}$.
\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
The following result allows us to obtain a Hamilton decomposition of a graph from a $2$-factorisation with some additional properties.
\begin{lemma}\label{manyrepairs}
Suppose there are pairwise edge-disjoint subgraphs $H_1,H_2,\ldots,H_m$ of $G$, subsets $V_1,V_2,\ldots,V_m$ of $V(G)$, and a $2$-factorisation $\mathcal{F}$ of $G$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item [$(1)$] $\bigcup_{i=1}^m V_i$ links $\mathcal{F}$;
\item [$(2)$] $V_i\cap V_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$; and
\item [$(3)$] $H_i$ induces a $V_i$-connector in $\mathcal{F}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
\end{itemize}
Then $G$ is Hamilton decomposable.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad Let $\mathcal{F}_0=\mathcal{F}$. By repeated application of Lemma \ref{edgedisjointconnectors},
we can inductively obtain a sequence $\mathcal{F}_0,\mathcal{F}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{F}_m$ of $2$-factorisations of $G$ by letting
$\mathcal{F}_i$ be a $2$-factorisation obtained from $\mathcal{F}_{i-1}$ by applying the $V_i$-connector induced by $H_i$ in $\mathcal{F}_{i-1}$.
Observe that $\bigcup_{i=j+1}^m V_i$ links $\mathcal{F}_i$ for each $j=0,1,\ldots,m-1$,
and in particular that $V_m$ links $\mathcal{F}_{m-1}$. It follows that $\mathcal{F}_m$ is a Hamilton decomposition of $G$.\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
\section{Hamilton decomposable subgraphs of line graphs}\label{Section3}
We begin this section by introducing some notation that we will be using.
Let $G$ be a given regular graph such that $G$ contains a Hamilton cycle if $G$ has even degree,
and $G$ contains a Hamiltonian $3$-factor if $G$ has odd degree.
Let $n=\lfloor\frac{{\rm deg}(G)}{2}\rfloor$ so that $G$ has degree $2n$ or $2n+1$, and when $G$ has degree $2n+1$ let $F$ be a $1$-factor in $G$ such that $G-F$ is Hamiltonian.
Let $\{F_0,F_1,\ldots,F_{n-2},F_\infty\}$
be a $2$-factorisation of $G$ (if $G$ has degree $2n$) or $G-F$ (if $G$ has degree $2n+1$) such that $F_\infty$ is a Hamilton cycle
(such a $2$-factorisation exists by a well-known theorem first proved by Petersen \cite{Pet}, see \cite{Wes}).
Let $N_n$ denote the set $\{0,1,\ldots,n-2,\infty\}$
and for each $i\in N_n$, define ${\cal{S}}_i$ to be the set of vertices of $L(G)$ that correspond to edges in
$F_i$. Further, when $G$ has degree $2n+1$ define ${\cal{S}}$ to be the set of vertices of $L(G)$ that correspond to edges in $F$.
Thus, when $G$ has degree $2n$, $\{{\cal{S}}_i:i\in N_n\}$ partitions the vertex set of $L(G)$,
and when $G$ has degree $2n+1$, $\{{\cal{S}}_i:i\in N_n\}\cup\{{\cal{S}}\}$ partitions the vertex set of $L(G)$.
For each
$i\in N_n$ let $\overrightarrow F_i$ be a directed graph obtained from $F_i$ by (arbitrarily) orienting its edges to form directed cycles.
We call $\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_1,\ldots,\overrightarrow F_{n-2},\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$ a {\em directed $2$-factorisation}.
The following definitions are made in the
context of an existing directed $2$-factorisation $\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_1,\ldots,\overrightarrow F_{n-2},\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$
of $G$ or $G-F$ for some given graph $G$.
For each $v\in V(G)$ and each $i\in N_n$,
assign the label $a^v_i$ to the vertex of $L(G)$
whose corresponding edge in $G$ is the edge directed into
$v$ in $\overrightarrow F_i$, and
assign the label $b^v_i$ to the vertex of $L(G)$
whose corresponding edge in $G$ is the edge directed out of
$v$ in $\overrightarrow F_i$.
Further, if $G$ has degree $2n+1$, then
assign the label $c^v$ to the vertex of $L(G)$ whose corresponding edge in $G$ is the edge of $F$ incident with $v$.
Thus, each vertex of $L(G)$ is assigned two labels. Each vertex of $L(G)$ corresponding to an edge $uv\in F_i$ is assigned
labels $a^v_i$ and $b^u_i$ where $uv$ is oriented from $u$ to $v$ in $\overrightarrow F_i$,
and, in the case $G$ has degree $2n+1$, each vertex of $L(G)$ corresponding to an edge $uv$ of $F$ is assigned labels $c^u$ and $c^v$.
If $G$ has degree $2n$, then for each $v\in V(G)$,
the $2n$ vertices with labels in the set
$$\{a^v_0,a^v_1,\ldots,a^v_{n-2},a^v_\infty,b^v_0,b^v_1,\ldots,b^v_{n-2},b^v_\infty\}$$
induce a complete subgraph in $L(G)$.
Similarly, if $G$ has degree $2n+1$, then for each $v\in V(G)$,
the $2n+1$ vertices with labels in the set
$$\{a^v_0,a^v_1,\ldots,a^v_{n-2},a^v_\infty,b^v_0,b^v_1,\ldots,b^v_{n-2},b^v_\infty,c^v\}$$
induce a complete subgraph in $L(G)$.
In either case, we denote this complete subgraph by $L(G)_v$, and note that
$\{L(G)_v:v\in V(G)\}$ is a decomposition of
$L(G)$ into complete subgraphs.
Let $A_n=\{a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_{n-2},a_\infty\}$ and let
$B_n=\{b_0,b_1,\ldots,b_{n-2},b_\infty\}$.
For each $v\in V(G)$, there is an obvious bijection
$$
\begin{array}{ll}
\sigma_v:A_n\cup B_n\rightarrow V(L(G)_v)&\mbox{ if $G$ has degree $2n$};\\
\sigma_v:A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}\rightarrow V(L(G)_v)&\mbox{ if $G$ has degree $2n+1$;}
\end{array}
$$
given by $\sigma_v(a_i)=a^v_i$ and $\sigma_v(b_i)=b^v_i$ for each $i\in N_n$, and $\sigma_v(c)=c^v$.
For any subgraph $H$ of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}$ (if $G$ has degree $2n$) or $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ (if $G$ has degree $2n+1$), and
for each $v\in V(G)$, we define $\sigma_v(H)$ to be the graph with $V(\sigma_v(H))=V(L(G)_v)$ and
$\sigma_v(x)\sigma_v(y)\in E(\sigma_v(H))$ if and only if $xy\in E(H)$.
We call a subgraph $H$ of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}$
a {\em Hamilton fragment} if for any given Hamiltonian
$2n$-regular graph $G$ and any directed $2$-factorisation
$\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_1,\ldots,\overrightarrow F_{n-2},\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$
of $G$ where $\overrightarrow F_\infty$ is a Hamilton cycle, the subgraph
$$\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H)$$
of $L(G)$ has a Hamilton decomposition.
Similarly, we
call a subgraph $H$ of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$
a {\em Hamilton fragment} if for any given
$2n+1$-regular graph $G$ and any directed $2$-factorisation
$\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_1,\ldots,\overrightarrow F_{n-2},\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$
of $G-F$ where $F$ is a $1$-factor and $\overrightarrow F_\infty$ is a Hamilton cycle, the subgraph
$$\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H)$$
of $L(G)$ has a Hamilton decomposition.
Lemma \ref{combineHamFrags} below follows immediately from the definition of Hamilton fragment, because if $\{H_1, H_2, \dots, H_t\}$ is a decomposition of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}$ into Hamilton fragments, then $\{\cup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H_1), \cup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H_2), \dots, \cup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H_t)\}$ is a decomposition of $L(G)$ into Hamilton decomposable factors whenever $G$ is a Hamiltonian $2n$-regular graph; and similarly if $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup \{c\}}$ has a decomposition into Hamilton fragments and $G$ is any $(2n+1)$-regular graph with a Hamiltonian 3-factor.
\begin{lemma}\label{combineHamFrags}
If $K_{A_n\cup B_n}$ can be decomposed into Hamilton fragments,
then the line graph of any Hamiltonian $2n$-regular graph has a Hamilton decomposition, and if
$K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup \{c\}}$
can be decomposed into Hamilton fragments,
then the line graph of any
$(2n+1)$-regular graph with a Hamiltonian 3-factor
has a Hamilton decomposition.
\end{lemma}
For any subgraph $H$ of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}$ (if $G$ has degree $2n$) or $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ (if $G$ has degree $2n+1$),
we define $^{A}H$ to be the (multi)graph obtained from $H$ by amalgamating vertices $a_i$ and $b_i$ into a single vertex labelled $i$ for each $i\in N_n$. Thus, $^AH$ has vertex set $N_n$ (if $G$ has degree $2n$) or $N_n\cup\{c\}$ (if $G$ has degree $2n+1$),
and has
an edge with endpoints $i$ and $j$ for each edge of $H$ whose endpoints have subscripts $i$ and $j$. Further, when $G$ has degree $2n+1$,
$^AH$ has
an edge with endpoints $c$ and $i$ for each edge of $H$ whose endpoints are $c$ and a vertex with subscript $i$.
Note that an edge joining $a_i$ to $b_i$ in $H$ results in a loop on vertex $i$ in $^AH$.
\subsection{Regular graphs of even degree}\label{SectionRegulargraphsofevendegree}
\begin{lemma}\label{linking2factors}
Suppose $G$ is a $2n$-regular graph, $\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_1,\ldots,\overrightarrow F_{n-2},\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$ is a directed $2$-factorisation of $G$ and $X$ is a subgraph of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}$ such that
$^{A}X$ is an $n$-cycle.
Then the graph $$J=\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(X)$$
is a $2$-factor of $L(G)$ and ${\cal{S}}_i$ links $J$ for each $i\in N_n$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
Let $uv\in E(G)$, let $F_i$ be the $2$-factor containing $uv$, and let $uv$ be oriented from $u$ to $v$ in $\overrightarrow F_i$.
Then ${\rm deg}_J(uv)={\rm deg}_{\sigma_v(X)}(a_i)+{\rm deg}_{\sigma_u(X)}(b_i)={\rm deg}_X(a_i)+{\rm deg}_X(b_i)={\rm deg}_{^AX}(i)=2$. Thus, $J$ is a $2$-factor of $L(G)$.
We now show that ${\cal{S}}_i$ links $J$ for each $i\in N_n$.
Each edge of $J$ if of the form $\sigma_v(x)\sigma_v(y)$ where $xy$ is an edge of $X$, and so if an edge of $J$ has its endpoints
in ${\cal{S}}_i$ and ${\cal{S}}_j$, then $ij$ is an edge of $^AX$. It thus follows from the fact that $^AX$ is an $n$-cycle that each component of
$J$ contains at least one vertex from ${\cal{S}}_i$ for each $i\in N_n$. That is, ${\cal{S}}_i$ links $J$ for each $i\in N_n$.
\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{lemma}\label{linking2factors1}
Suppose $G$ is a $2n$-regular graph, $\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_1,\ldots,\overrightarrow F_{n-2},\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$ is a directed $2$-factorisation of $G$, $T$ is a non-empty subset of $N_n$, $U$ is a subset of $V(G)$ that links $\{\overrightarrow F_j : j\in T\}$, and $X$ and $X'$ are subgraphs of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item [$(1)$] ${\rm deg}_{X}(a_i)={\rm deg}_{X'}(a_i)$ and ${\rm deg}_{X}(b_i)={\rm deg}_{X'}(b_i)$ for each $i\in N_n$;
\item [$(2)$] ${\rm deg}_X(a_i)=1$ if and only if $i\in T$ and ${\rm deg}_X(b_i)=1$ if and only if $i\in T$;
\item [$(3)$] $^{A}X$ is an $n$-cycle; and
\item [$(4)$] both $X'$ and $^{A}X'$ have $|T|$ connected components.
\end{itemize}
Then the graph $$J=\left(\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(X)\right)\cup \left(\bigcup_{v\in V(G)\setminus U}\sigma_v(X')\right)$$
is a $2$-factor of $L(G)$ and ${\cal{S}}_i$ links $J$ for each $i\in N_n$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
Let $uv\in E(G)$, let $F_i$ be the $2$-factor containing $uv$, and let $uv$ be oriented from $u$ to $v$ in $\overrightarrow F_i$.
Then ${\rm deg}_J(uv)={\rm deg}_{Y_u}(b_i)+{\rm deg}_{Y_v}(a_i)$ where $Y_u=X$ if $u\in U$, $Y_u=X'$ if $u\notin U$, $Y_v=X$ if $v\in U$ and $Y_v=X'$ if $v\notin U$.
But ${\rm deg}_X(b_i)={\rm deg}_{X'}(b_i)$ and ${\rm deg}_X(a_i)={\rm deg}_{X'}(a_i)$. So ${\rm deg}_J(uv)={\rm deg}_X(b_i)+{\rm deg}_{X}(a_i)={\rm deg}_{^AX}(i)=2$.
Thus, $J$ is a $2$-factor of $L(G)$.
We now show that ${\cal{S}}_i$ links $J$ for each $i\in N_n$.
Since $^AX$ is an $n$-cycle, it follows from $(1)$ that $^AX'$ is a $2$-regular graph with vertex set $N_n$.
Thus, each connected component of $X$ is a path and each connected component of $X'$ is a path or a cycle.
But by $(4)$, $X'$ and $^{A}X'$ have the same number of components and it follows from this that any maximal path in
$X'$ has endpoints $a_k$ and $b_k$ for some $k$. Thus, by $(2)$ (and $(1)$) $X'$ contains $|T|$ vertex disjoint paths; one from
$a_k$ to $b_k$ for each $k\in T$. Also, by $(4)$, there are no other connected components in $X'$. In particular, there are no cycles
in $X'$.
Let $Z$ be a connected component of $J$.
Then $Z$ is a cycle and consists of a sequence $P_1,P_2,\ldots,P_r$ of paths
where for $j=1,2,\ldots,r$ we have
$P_j$ is a maximal path in $\sigma_{v_j}(Y_j)$,
$v_j\in V(G)$,
$Y_j=X$ if $v_j\in U$ and $Y_j=X'$ if $v_j\in V(G)\setminus U$.
Since any path in $X'$ has endpoints $a_k$ and $b_k$ for some $k\in T$,
if $v_j\in V(G)\setminus U$ for $j=1,2,\ldots,r$, then $Y_j=X'$ for $j=1,2,\ldots,r$ and
$(v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_r)$ is a connected component of $\overrightarrow F_k$ for some $k\in T$.
This contradicts the fact that $U$ links $\{\overrightarrow F_j : j\in T\}$. Thus, there exists $j^*\in\{1,2,\ldots,r\}$ such that
$v_{j^*}\in U$ and $Y_{j^*}=X$.
Since any path in $X'$ has endpoints $a_k$ and $b_k$ for some $k\in T$, and since $^AX$ is an $n$-cycle, it thus
follows that $Z$ contains at least one vertex of ${\cal{S}}_i$ for each $i\in N_n$. That is, ${\cal{S}}_i$ links $J$ for each $i\in N_n$.
\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{lemma}\label{linking2factors2}
Suppose $G$ is a $2n$-regular graph, $\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_1,\ldots,\overrightarrow F_{n-2},\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$ is a directed $2$-factorisation of $G$, $T$ is a non-empty proper subset of $N_n$,
$U$ is a subset of $V(G)$ such that $U$ links $\{\overrightarrow F_j : j\in T\}$, and $X$, $C$ and $C'$ are subgraphs of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item [$(1)$] ${\rm deg}_{C}(a_i)={\rm deg}_{C'}(a_i)$ and ${\rm deg}_{C}(b_i)={\rm deg}_{C'}(b_i)$ for each $i\in N_n$;
\item [$(2)$] $C\cup C'$ is a $2(|T|+1)$-cycle with $a_jb_j\in E(C')$ for each $j\in T$; and
\item [$(3)$] $^{A}(X\cup C)$ is an $n$-cycle.
\end{itemize}
Then the graph $$J=\left(\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(X\cup C)\right)\cup \left(\bigcup_{v\in V(G)\setminus U}\sigma_v(X\cup C')\right)$$
is a $2$-factor of $L(G)$ and ${\cal{S}}_i$ links $J$ for each $i\in N_n\setminus T$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
Let $uv\in E(G)$, let $F_i$ be the $2$-factor containing $uv$, and let $uv$ be oriented from $u$ to $v$ in $\overrightarrow F_i$.
Then ${\rm deg}_J(uv)={\rm deg}_{Y_u}(b_i)+{\rm deg}_{Y_v}(a_i)$ where $Y_u=X\cup C$ if $u\in U$, $Y_u=X\cup C'$ if $u\notin U$, $Y_v=X\cup C$ if $v\in U$ and $Y_v=X\cup C'$ if $v\notin U$.
But by $(1)$ we have ${\rm deg}_{X\cup C}(b_i)={\rm deg}_{X\cup C'}(b_i)$ and ${\rm deg}_{X\cup C}(a_i)={\rm deg}_{X\cup C'}(a_i)$.
So ${\rm deg}_J(uv)={\rm deg}_{X\cup C}(b_i)+{\rm deg}_{X\cup C}(a_i)={\rm deg}_{^A(X\cup C)}(i)=2$.
Thus, $J$ is a $2$-factor of $L(G)$.
We now show that ${\cal{S}}_i$ links $J$ for each $i\in N_n\setminus T$.
It is a consequence of $(1)$ and the fact that $C\cup C'$ is a $2(|T|+1)$-cycle that each of $C$ and $C'$ is a matching with $|T|+1$ edges. Also, since $a_jb_j\in E(C')$ for each $j\in T$, the edge set of $C'$ consists of these $|T|$ edges and one other edge $e$.
Let the subscripts of the endpoints of $e$ be $j'$ and $j''$ (so without loss of generality
$e=a_{j'}a_{j''}$, $a_{j'}b_{j''}$ or $b_{j'}b_{j''}$).
The special case where $|T|=n-1$ will be dealt with later. So for now assume that $|T|\leq n-2$.
If $j'=j''$, then $^AC$ is a $2$-regular graph with vertex set $T\cup\{j'\}$. But this contradicts the fact that
$^A(X\cup C)$ is an $n$-cycle, and so we have $j'\neq j''$. This means that $^AC$ is a path with vertex set
$T\cup\{j',j''\}$ and endpoints $j'$ and $j''$,
and hence that $^AX$ is a path with vertex set $N_n\setminus T$ and
endpoints $j'$ and $j''$.
Let $^AX$ be the path $[j',j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_s,j'']$ where $s=|n-(|T|+2)|$ (if $|T|=n-2$, then $^AX$ is the path $[j',j''$]). So $\{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_s\}=N_n\setminus (T\cup\{j',j''\})$.
Let $Z$ be a connected component of $J$.
It follows from the observations made in the preceding paragraph that if $Z$ has a vertex in ${\cal{S}}_i$ where $i\in N_n\setminus T$,
then
$Z$ contains a path $x_{j'},x_1,\ldots,x_s,x_{j''}$
where $x_{j'}\in {\cal{S}}_{j'}$, $x_{j''}\in {\cal{S}}_{j''}$ and $x_i\in {\cal{S}}_{j_i}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,s$.
Thus, $Z$ has at least one vertex in ${\cal{S}}_i$ for each $i\in N_n\setminus T$.
On the other hand, if every vertex of $Z$ is in $\cup_{i\in T}{\cal{S}}_i$, then it follows (again from the observations made in the preceding paragraph) that $V(Z)\subseteq {\cal{S}}_i$ for some $i\in T$. Moreover, every edge of $Z$ is of the form $a_i^vb_i^v$ where $v\in V(G)\setminus U$.
But this implies that there is a cycle in $\overrightarrow F_i$ that contains no vertex of $U$, contradicting the fact that $U$ links $\{\overrightarrow F_j:j\in T\}$.
Thus, we are left with the special case where $|T|=n-1$ which was mentioned earlier. In this case we have $E(C')=\{a_ib_i:i\in N_n\}$
and by the same argument as in the previous paragraph we reach a contradiction if we assume every vertex of a component of $J$
is in $\cup_{i\in T}{\cal{S}}_i$. Thus, any component of $J$ has a vertex in ${\cal{S}}_i$ where $i$ is the unique element of $N_n\setminus T$.
This completes the proof that ${\cal{S}}_i$ links $J$ for each $i\in N_n\setminus T$.
\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
The next few lemmas establish some sufficient conditions for $H$ to be a Hamilton fragment.
\begin{lemma}\label{4regular_withHam}
Suppose $r\geq 2$ is a positive integer, $s$ and $t$ are distinct elements of $\{0,1,\ldots,n-2\}$,
$H$ is a subgraph of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}$, and $H$ admits a decomposition $\{X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_r\}$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item [$(1)$] ${\rm deg}_{X_1}(a_i)={\rm deg}_{X_2}(a_i)$ and ${\rm deg}_{X_1}(b_i)={\rm deg}_{X_2}(b_i)$ for each $i\in N_n$;
\item [$(2)$] ${\rm deg}_{X_1}(u)=1$ if and only if $u\in\{a_s,b_s,a_t,b_t,a_\infty,b_\infty\}$;
\item [$(3)$] $^{A}X_1$ is an $n$-cycle;
\item [$(4)$] both $X_2$ and $^{A}X_2$ have three connected components;
\item [$(5)$] if $r\geq 3$ then $^{A}X_k$ is an $n$-cycle for $k=3,4,\ldots,r$; and
\item [$(6)$] $\{E(X_1),E(X_2),\ldots,E(X_r)\}$ is an $\{a_{\infty},b_{\infty}\}$-connector.
\end{itemize}
Then $H$ is a Hamilton fragment.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
Let $r$, $s$, $t$, $H$ and $X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_r$ satisfy the conditions of the lemma, let $G$ be a $2n$-regular graph, and let $\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_1,\ldots,\overrightarrow F_{n-2},\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$ be a directed $2$-factorisation of $G$ where $\overrightarrow F_\infty$ is a Hamilton cycle, say $\overrightarrow F_\infty
=(v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_m)$. Our aim is to show that the subgraph $$L=\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H)$$ of $L(G)$ decomposes into Hamilton cycles,
and we do this by applying Lemma \ref{manyrepairs} to $L$ with $H_i=\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ and $V_i=\{a_\infty^{v_i},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$ for each $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
To this end, observe that $\sigma_{v_1}(H),\sigma_{v_2}(H),\ldots,\sigma_{v_m}(H)$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $L$,
and since $b_\infty^{v_i}=a_\infty^{v_{i+1}}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ it follows that $V_i\cap V_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ as required. It remains to show there is a $2$-factorisation $\{J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_r\}$ of $L$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_r\}$; and
\item $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_r\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\{U,U'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $U$ and $U'$ link $\{\overrightarrow F_s,\overrightarrow F_t,\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$ (such a partition exists by Lemma \ref{intersects}), and let $\{J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_r\}$ be the decomposition of $L$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item $J_1=(\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(X_1))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v(X_2))$;
\item $J_2= (\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(X_2))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v(X_1))$; and
\item if $r\geq 3$, then $J_k=(\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(X_k))$ for $k=3,4,\ldots,r$.
\end{itemize}
It follows easily from Lemma \ref{linking2factors1} that both $J_1$ and $J_2$ are $2$-factors of $L$, and that $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2\}$ as required. Similarly, if $r\geq 3$, it follows easily from Lemma \ref{linking2factors} that each of $J_3,J_4,\ldots,J_r$ is in fact a $2$-factor of $L$, and that $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_3,J_4,\ldots,J_r\}$ as required.
Finally, observe that
$$\{E(J_k)\cap E(\sigma_{v_i}(H)): k=1,2,\ldots,r\}= \{E(\sigma_{v_i}(X_1)),E(\sigma_{v_i}(X_2)),\ldots,E(\sigma_{v_i}(X_r))\}$$
for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$. Then, since $\{E(X_1),E(X_2),\ldots,E(X_r)\}$ is an $\{a_{\infty},b_{\infty}\}$-connector,
it follows that $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_r\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$ as required.
\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{lemma}\label{6regular_2}
Suppose $s$ and $t$ are distinct elements of $\{0,1,\ldots,n-2\}$, $H$ is a subgraph of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}$, and $H$ admits decompositions $\{X_1,X_2,X_3\}$ and $\{X_1',X_2',X_3\}$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item [$(1)$] ${\rm deg}_{X_1}(u)={\rm deg}_{X'_2}(u)$ for each $u\in A_n\cup B_n$;
\item [$(2)$] ${\rm deg}_{X_1}(u)=1$ if and only if $u\in\{a_s,b_s,a_\infty,b_\infty\}$;
\item [$(3)$] ${\rm deg}_{X_1'}(u)={\rm deg}_{X_2}(u)$ for each $u\in A_n\cup B_n$;
\item [$(4)$] ${\rm deg}_{X_1'}(u)=1$ if and only if $u\in\{a_t,b_t,a_\infty,b_\infty\}$;
\item [$(5)$] both $^{A}X_1$ and $^{A}X_1'$ are $n$-cycles;
\item [$(6)$] each of $X_2$, $X_2'$, $^{A}X_2$ and $^{A}X_2'$ has two connected components;
\item [$(7)$] $^{A}X_3$ is an $n$-cycle; and
\item [$(8)$] both $\{E(X_1),E(X_2),E(X_3)\}$ and $\{E(X_1'),E(X_2'),E(X_3)\}$ are $\{a_{\infty},b_{\infty}\}$-connectors.
\end{itemize}
Then $H$ is a Hamilton fragment.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
Let $s$, $t$, $H$, $X_1$, $X_2$, $X_3$, $X_1'$ and $X_2'$ satisfy the conditions of the lemma, let $G$ be a $2n$-regular graph, and let $\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_1,\ldots,\overrightarrow F_{n-2},\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$ be a directed $2$-factorisation of $G$ where $\overrightarrow F_\infty$ is a Hamilton cycle, say $\overrightarrow F_\infty=(v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_m)$. Our aim is to show that the subgraph $$L=\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H)$$ of $L(G)$ decomposes into Hamilton cycles, and we do this by applying Lemma \ref{manyrepairs} with $H_i=\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ and $V_i=\{a_\infty^{v_i},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$ for each $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
To this end, observe that
\linebreak $\sigma_{v_1}(H),\sigma_{v_2}(H),\ldots,\sigma_{v_m}(H)$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $L$,
and since $b_\infty^{v_i}=a_\infty^{v_{i+1}}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ it follows that $V_i\cap V_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ as required. It remains to show there is a $2$-factorisation $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$ of $L$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{a_\infty^{v_0},a_\infty^{v_1},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$; and
\item $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i-1}},a_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\{U,U'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $U$ and $U'$ link $\{\overrightarrow F_s,\overrightarrow F_t,\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$ (such a partition exists by Lemma \ref{intersects}), and let $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$ be the decomposition of $L$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item $J_1=(\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(X_1))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v(X_2'))$;
\item $J_2= (\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(X_2))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v(X_1'))$; and
\item $J_3= (\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(X_3))$.
\end{itemize}
It follows easily from Lemma \ref{linking2factors1} that both $J_1$ and $J_2$ are $2$-factors of $L$, and that $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2\}$ as required. Similarly, it follows easily from Lemma \ref{linking2factors} that $J_3$ is a $2$-factor of $L$, and that $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_3\}$ as required.
Finally, observe that for each $i=1,2,\ldots,m$ we have that $$\{E(J_k)\cap E(\sigma_{v_i}(H)) : k=1,2,3\}=\{E(\sigma_{v_i}(X_1)),E(\sigma_{v_i}(X_2)),E(\sigma_{v_i}(X_3))\}$$ when $v_i\in U$, and
$$\{E(J_k)\cap E(\sigma_{v_i}(H)) : k=1,2,3\}=\{E(\sigma_{v_i}(X_1')),E(\sigma_{v_i}(X_2')),E(\sigma_{v_i}(X_3))\}$$ when $v_i\in U'$.
Then, since both $\{E(X_1),E(X_2),E(X_3)\}$ and $\{E(X_1'),E(X_2'),E(X_3)\}$ are $\{a_{\infty},b_{\infty}\}$-connectors,
it follows that $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$ as required.
\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
A subgraph $H$ of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}$ is said to be an {\em $R$-adjustable Hamilton fragment} if $R$ is a subgraph of $H$ such that $H-R+Q$ is a Hamilton fragment for any subgraph $Q$ of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}-(H-R)$ satisfying $^{A}Q=\prescript{A}{}{R}$.
The following lemmas makes use of this concept while establishing some sufficient conditions for $H$ to be a Hamilton fragment in cases where $\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H)$ is $4$-regular.
\begin{lemma}\label{4regular_easy}
Suppose $H$ is a subgraph of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}$ and $H$ admits a decomposition $\{S,S',R,R'\}$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item [$(1)$] $^{A}(S\cup R)$ is an $n$-cycle;
\item [$(2)$] $^{A}(S' \cup R')$ is an $n$-cycle; and
\item [$(3)$] $\{E(S),E(S')\}$ is an $\{a_{\infty},b_{\infty}\}$-connector.
\end{itemize}
Then $H$ is an $(R\cup R')$-adjustable Hamilton fragment.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
Suppose $\{S,S',R,R'\}$ is a decomposition of $H$ that satisfies the conditions of the lemma. It is easy to see that if $Q$ and $Q'$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}-(S\cup S')$ satisfying $^{A}Q=\prescript{A}{}R$ and $^{A}Q'=\prescript{A}{}R'$, then $H-(R\cup R')+(Q\cup Q')$ has a decomposition, namely $\{S,S',Q,Q'\}$, which also satisfies the conditions of the lemma. Thus we need only show $H$ is a Hamilton fragment and it follows immediately that it is $(R\cup R')$-adjustable.
Let $G$ be a $2n$-regular graph and let $\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_1,\ldots,\overrightarrow F_{n-2},\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$ be a directed $2$-factorisation of $G$ where $\overrightarrow F_\infty$ is a Hamilton cycle, say $\overrightarrow F_\infty=(v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_m)$. Our aim is to show that the subgraph $$L=\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H)$$
of $L(G)$ decomposes into Hamilton cycles, and we do this by applying Lemma \ref{manyrepairs} with
with $H_i=\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ and $V_i=\{a_\infty^{v_i},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$ for each $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
To this end, observe that $\sigma_{v_1}(H),\sigma_{v_2}(H),\ldots,\sigma_{v_m}(H)$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $L$,
and since $b_\infty^{v_i}=a_\infty^{v_{i+1}}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ it follows that $V_i\cap V_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ as required. It remains to show there is a $2$-factorisation $\{J_1,J_2\}$ of $L$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2\}$; and
\item $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\{J_1,J_2\}$ be the decomposition of $L$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item $J_1=\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(S\cup R)$; and
\item $J_2= \bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(S'\cup R')$.
\end{itemize}
Since both $^{A}(S\cup R)$ and $^{A}(S'\cup R')$ are $n$-cycles, it follows from Lemma \ref{linking2factors} that both $J_1$ and $J_2$ are $2$-factors of $L$ and that
$\{a_\infty^{v_0},a_\infty^{v_1},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2\}$ as required.
Finally, observe that
$E(\sigma_{v_i}(S))\subseteq E(J_1)\cap E(\sigma_{v_i}(H))$ and $E(\sigma_{v_i}(S'))\subseteq E(J_2)\cap E(\sigma_{v_i}(H))$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$. Then, since $\{E(S),E(S')\}$ is an $\{a_{\infty},b_{\infty}\}$-connector,
it follows that $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$ as required.
\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{lemma}\label{4regular}
Suppose $T$ is a subset of $\{0,1,\ldots,n-2\}$ with $|T|\in\{1,2\}$, $H$ is a subgraph of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}$, and $H$ admits a decomposition $\{S,S',R,R',C,C'\}$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item [$(1)$] ${\rm deg}_C(u)={\rm deg}_{C'}(u)$ for each $u\in A_n\cup B_n$;
\item [$(2)$] $C\cup C'$ is a $2(|T|+1)$-cycle with $a_j b_j\in E(C')$ for each $j\in T$;
\item [$(3)$] $^{A}(S\cup R\cup C)$ is an $n$-cycle;
\item [$(4)$] $^{A}(S' \cup R'\cup C')$ is the vertex disjoint union of an $(n-|T|)$-cycle and a loop on each vertex $j\in T$; and
\item [$(5)$] $\{E(S),E(S')\}$ is an $\{a_{\infty},b_{\infty}\}$-connector.
\end{itemize}
Then $H$ is an $(R\cup R')$-adjustable Hamilton fragment.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
Suppose $T$ is a subset of $\{0,1,\ldots,n-2\}$ with $|T|\in\{1,2\}$, and \linebreak $\{S,S',R,R',C,C'\}$ is a decomposition of $H$ that satisfies the conditions of the lemma. It is easy to see that if $Q$ and $Q'$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}-(S\cup S'\cup C\cup C')$ satisfying $^{A}Q=\prescript{A}{}R$ and $^{A}Q'=\prescript{A}{}R'$, then $H-(R\cup R')+(Q\cup Q')$ has a decomposition, namely $\{S,S',Q,Q',C,C'\}$, which also satisfies the conditions of the lemma. Thus we need only show $H$ is a Hamilton fragment and it follows immediately that it is $(R\cup R')$-adjustable.
Let $G$ be a $2n$-regular graph and let $\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_1,\ldots,\overrightarrow F_{n-2},\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$ be a directed $2$-factorisation of $G$ where $\overrightarrow F_\infty$ is a Hamilton cycle, say $\overrightarrow F_\infty=(v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_m)$. Our aim is to show that the subgraph $$L=\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H)$$
of $L(G)$ decomposes into Hamilton cycles, and we do this by applying Lemma \ref{manyrepairs}
with $H_i=\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ and $V_i=\{a_\infty^{v_i},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
To this end, observe that \linebreak $\sigma_{v_1}(H),\sigma_{v_2}(H),\ldots,\sigma_{v_m}(H)$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $L$,
and since $b_\infty^{v_i}=a_\infty^{v_{i+1}}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ it follows that $V_i\cap V_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ as required. It remains to show there is a $2$-factorisation
$\{J_1,J_2\}$ of $L$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2\}$; and
\item $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\{U,U'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $U$ and $U'$ link $\{\overrightarrow F_j : j\in T\}$ (such a partition exists by Lemma \ref{intersects}),
and let $\{J_1,J_2\}$ be the decomposition of $L$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item $J_1=(\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(S\cup R\cup C))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v(S\cup R\cup C'))$;
\item $J_2= (\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(S'\cup R'\cup C'))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v(S'\cup R'\cup C))$.
\end{itemize}
It follows easily from Lemma \ref{linking2factors2} that both $J_1$ and $J_2$ are $2$-factors of $L$, and that $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2\}$ as required.
Finally, observe that
$E(\sigma_{v_i}(S))\subseteq E(J_1)\cap E(\sigma_{v_i}(H))$ and $E(\sigma_{v_i}(S'))\subseteq E(J_2)\cap E(\sigma_{v_i}(H))$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$. Then, since $\{E(S),E(S')\}$ is an $\{a_{\infty},b_{\infty}\}$-connector,
it follows that $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2\}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$, as required.
\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
\subsection{Regular graphs of odd degree}
\begin{lemma}\label{linking2factors2_odd}
Suppose $G$ is a $(2n+1)$-regular graph, $F$ is a $1$-factor of $G$, \linebreak $\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_1,\ldots,\overrightarrow F_{n-2},\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$ is a directed $2$-factorisation of $G-F$, $t\in N_n$, $\{U,U'\}$ is a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $U$ and $U'$ link $\{F,\overrightarrow F_t\}$, and $X$, $X'$, $C$ and $C'$ are subgraphs of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup \{c\}}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item [$(1)$] ${\rm deg}_{X}(u)={\rm deg}_{X'}(u)$ for each $u\in A_n\cup B_n$;
\item [$(2)$] $\{{\rm deg}_{X}(c),{\rm deg}_{X'}(c)\}=\{0,2\}$ and $\{|E(X\cup C)|, |E(X'\cup C')|\}=\{n,n+1\}$;
\item [$(3)$] if $u$ and $v$ are vertices such that ${\rm deg}_X(u)={\rm deg}_X(v)=1$, then $u$ and $v$ belong to the same component of $X'$ if and only if they belong to the same component of $X$;
\item [$(4)$] ${\rm deg}_{C}(u)={\rm deg}_{C'}(u)$ for each $u\in A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}$;
\item [$(5)$] $C\cup C'$ is a $4$-cycle or a $6$-cycle with $a_t b_t\in E(C')$;
\item [$(6)$] $^{A}C$ is a path;
\item [$(7)$] $^{A}C'$ consists of a path and a loop on vertex $t$;
\item [$(8)$] $^{A}(X\cup C)$ is a cycle; and
\item [$(9)$] $^{A}(X'\cup C')$ is the vertex disjoint union of a cycle and a loop on vertex $t$.
\end{itemize}
Then the graph $$J=\left(\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(X\cup C)\right)\cup \left(\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v(X'\cup C')\right)$$
is a $2$-factor of $L(G)$ and ${\cal{S}}_i$ links $J$ for each $i\in N_n\setminus \{t\}$ such that ${\rm deg}_X(a_i)$ or ${\rm deg}_X(b_i)=1$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
Let $uv\in E(G)$. First suppose $uv\notin F$, let $F_i$ be the $2$-factor containing $uv$, and let $uv$ be oriented from $u$ to $v$ in $\overrightarrow F_i$.
Then ${\rm deg}_J(uv)={\rm deg}_{Y_u}(b_i)+{\rm deg}_{Y_v}(a_i)$ where $Y_u=X\cup C$ if $u\in U$, $Y_u=X'\cup C'$ if $u\in U'$, $Y_v=X\cup C$ if $v\in U$ and $Y_v=X'\cup C'$ if $v\notin U$.
By $(1)$ and $(4)$ we have ${\rm deg}_{X\cup C}(b_i)={\rm deg}_{X'\cup C'}(b_i)$ and ${\rm deg}_{X\cup C}(a_i)={\rm deg}_{X'\cup C'}(a_i)$.
So ${\rm deg}_J(uv)={\rm deg}_{X\cup C}(b_i)+{\rm deg}_{X\cup C}(a_i)={\rm deg}_{^A(X\cup C)}(i)$.
However, it follows from $(1)$, $(2)$, $(4)$ and $(8)$ that either $^A(X\cup C)$ is an $n$-cycle and ${\rm deg}_X(c)=0$ or
$^A(X\cup C)$ is an $(n+1)$-cycle and ${\rm deg}_X(c)=2$. In either case, we have ${\rm deg}_{^A(X\cup C)}(i)=2$, and hence ${\rm deg}_J(uv)=2$.
Now suppose $uv\in F$. Then ${\rm deg}_J(uv)={\rm deg}_{Y_u}(c)+{\rm deg}_{Y_v}(c)$ where $Y_u=X\cup C$ if $u\in U$, $Y_u=X'\cup C'$ if $u\in U'$, $Y_v=X\cup C$ if $v\in U$ and $Y_v=X'\cup C'$ if $v\notin U$. But since $U$ and $U'$ each link $F$, exactly one of $u$ and $v$ is in $U$ and the other is in $U'$. So we have ${\rm deg}_J(uv)={\rm deg}_{Y_u}(c)+{\rm deg}_{Y_v}(c)={\rm deg}_{X\cup C}(c)+{\rm deg}_{X'\cup C'}(c)=0+2=2$ (because it follows from $(2)$, $(8)$ and $(9)$ that ${\rm deg}_C(c)={\rm deg}_{C'}(c)=0$).
This completes the proof that $J$ is a $2$-factor of $L(G)$.
We now show that ${\cal{S}}_i$ links $J$ for each $i\in N_n\setminus\{t\}$ such that ${\rm deg}_X(a_i)$ or ${\rm deg}_X(b_i)=1$.
Since $^A(X\cup C)$ is a cycle (by $(8)$), $X$ is a union of vertex-disjoint paths, and since $^A(X'\cup C')$
is the vertex-disjoint union of a cycle and a loop on vertex $t$ (by $(9)$), $X'$ is a union of vertex-disjoint paths
(the loop in $^A(X'\cup C')$ arises from the edge $a_tb_t$ of $C'$). Also, $^AX$ is a path and $^AX'$ is a path.
Moreover, by $(1)$ and $(3)$,
for each maximal path $P$ of $X$ there is corresponding maximal path $P'$ in $X'$ such that $P$ and $P'$ have the same endpoints. Let $P_1,P_2,\ldots,P_k$ the vertex disjoint paths that comprise $X$ and let $P'_1,P'_2,\ldots,P'_k$ the vertex disjoint paths that comprise $X'$
where $P_i$ has the same endpoints as $P'_i$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,k$.
These endpoints are precisely the vertices where ${\rm deg}_X(a_i)=1$ or ${\rm deg}_X(b_i)=1$ (and the values of $i\in N_n\setminus \{t\}$ where ${\rm deg}_X(a_i)=1$ or ${\rm deg}_X(b_i)=1$ are the values of $i$ for which we need to show ${\cal{S}}_i$ links $J$).
Let $Z$ be a connected component of $J$.
It follows from the observations made in the
preceding paragraph that if $Z$ contains any vertex of $\sigma_v(X)$ for any $v\in U$ or $\sigma_v(X')$ for any $v\in U'$,
then for $i=1,2,\ldots,k$,
$Z$ contains either $\sigma_v(P_i)$ for some $v\in U$ or $\sigma_v(P'_i)$ for some $v\in U'$. Thus, $Z$ contains a vertex of ${\cal{S}}_i$ for each
$i\in N_n\setminus \{t\}$ such that ${\rm deg}_X(a_i)$ or ${\rm deg}_X(b_i)=1$.
Thus, we can assume that $Z$ contains no vertex of $\sigma_v(X)$ for any $v\in U$ and no vertex of $\sigma_v(X')$ for any $v\in U'$.
It is a consequence of $(4)$ and the fact that $C\cup C'$ is a $4$-cycle or a $6$-cycle that each of $C$ and $C'$ is a matching with $2$ or $3$ edges. However, since $^AC$ is a path (by $(6)$) and $^AC'$ consists of a path and a loop on vertex $t$ (by $(7)$), it can be seen
that every edge of $Z$ is of the form $a^v_tb^v_t$ where $v\in U'$ (otherwise we must have a vertex of $\sigma_v(X)$ for some $v\in U$
or a vertex of $\sigma_v(X')$ for some $v\in U'$, and we have assumed that this is not the case).
This means that that there is a cycle in $\overrightarrow F_t$ that contains no vertex of $U$, contradicting the fact that $U$ links $\overrightarrow F_t$.
We conclude that $Z$ contains a vertex of ${\cal{S}}_i$ for each
$i\in N_n\setminus \{t\}$ such that ${\rm deg}_X(a_i)$ or ${\rm deg}_X(b_i)=1$, and this completes the proof.
\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{lemma}\label{4regular_odd}
Suppose $t\in\{0,1,\ldots,n-2\}$, and $H$ is a subgraph of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ that admits decompositions $\{S,S',R,R',C,C'\}$ and $\{T,T',R,R',C,C'\}$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item [$(1)$] ${\rm deg}_{S}(u)={\rm deg}_{T}(u)$ and ${\rm deg}_{S'}(u)={\rm deg}_{T'}(u)$ for each $u\in A_n\cup B_n$;
\item [$(2)$] ${\rm deg}_S(a_\infty)={\rm deg}_S(b_\infty)=1$ and ${\rm deg}_{S'}(a_\infty)=deg_{S'}(b_\infty)=1$;
\item [$(3)$] $\{{\rm deg}_{S}(c),{\rm deg}_{T}(c)\}=\{{\rm deg}_{S'}(c),{\rm deg}_{T'}(c)\}=\{0,2\}$ and $\{|E(S\cup R\cup C)|,|E(T\cup R\cup C')|\}=\{|E(S'\cup R'\cup C')|,|E(T'\cup R'\cup C)|\}=\{n,n+1\}$;
\item [$(4)$] if $u$ and $v$ are distinct vertices such that ${\rm deg}_S(u)={\rm deg}_S(v)=1$, then $u$ and $v$ belong to the same component of $T$ if and only if they belong to the same component of $S$;
\item [$(5)$] if $u$ and $v$ are distinct vertices such that ${\rm deg}_{S'}(u)={\rm deg}_{S'}(v)=1$, then $u$ and $v$ belong to the same component of $T'$ if and only if they belong to the same component of $S'$;
\item [$(6)$] ${\rm deg}_{C}(u)={\rm deg}_{C'}(u)$ for each $u\in A_n\cup B_n\cup \{c\}$;
\item [$(7)$] $C\cup C'$ is a $4$-cycle or a $6$-cycle with $a_t b_t\in E(C')$;
\item [$(8)$] $^{A}C$ is a path;
\item [$(9)$] $^{A}C'$ is the vertex disjoint union of a path and a loop on vertex $t$;
\item [$(10)$] each of $^{A}(S\cup R\cup C)$ and $^{A}(T'\cup R'\cup C)$ is a cycle;
\item [$(11)$] each of $^{A}(T \cup R\cup C')$ and $^{A}(S' \cup R'\cup C')$ is the vertex disjoint union of a cycle and a loop on vertex $t$;
and
\item [$(12)$] both $\{E(S),E(S')\}$ and $\{E(T),E(T')\}$ are $\{a_{\infty},b_{\infty}\}$-connectors.
\end{itemize}
Then $H$ is an $(R\cup R')$-adjustable Hamilton fragment.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
Suppose $t\in\{0,1,\ldots,n-2\}$ and $\{S,S',R,R',C,C'\}$ and $\{T,T',R,R',C,C'\}$ are decompositions of $H$ that satisfy the conditions of the lemma. It is easy to see that if $Q$ and $Q'$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}-(S\cup S'\cup C\cup C')$ satisfying $^{A}Q=\prescript{A}{}R$ and $^{A}Q'=\prescript{A}{}R'$, then $H-(R\cup R')+(Q\cup Q')$ has decompositions, namely $\{S,S',Q,Q',C,C'\}$ and $\{T,T',Q,Q',C,C'\}$ which also satisfy the conditions of the lemma. Thus we need only show $H$ is a Hamilton fragment and it follows immediately that it is $(R\cup R')$-adjustable.
Let $G$ be a $2n+1$-regular graph, let $F$ be a $1-$factor of $G$ and let \linebreak $\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_1,\ldots,\overrightarrow F_{n-2},\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$ be a directed $2$-factorisation of $G-F$ where $\overrightarrow F_\infty$ is a Hamilton cycle, say $\overrightarrow F_\infty=(v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_m)$. Our aim is to show that the subgraph $$L=\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H)$$
of $L(G)$ decomposes into Hamilton cycles, and we do this by applying Lemma \ref{manyrepairs}
with $H_i=\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ and $V_i=\{a_\infty^{v_i},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$ for each $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
To this end, observe that \linebreak $\sigma_{v_1}(H),\sigma_{v_2}(H),\ldots,\sigma_{v_m}(H)$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $L$,
and since $b_\infty^{v_i}=a_\infty^{v_{i+1}}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ it follows that $V_i\cap V_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ as required. It remains to show there is a $2$-factorisation
$\{J_1,J_2\}$ of $L$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2\}$; and
\item $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\{U,U'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $U$ and $U'$ link $\{F,\overrightarrow F_t\}$ (such a partition exists by Lemma \ref{intersects}),
and let $\{J_1,J_2\}$ be the decomposition of $L$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item $J_1=(\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(S\cup R\cup C))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v(T\cup R\cup C'))$;
\item $J_2= (\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(S'\cup R'\cup C'))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v(T'\cup R'\cup C))$.
\end{itemize}
It follows easily from Lemma \ref{linking2factors2_odd} that both $J_1$ and $J_2$ are in fact $2$-factors of $L$ and that
$\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2\}$ as required.
Finally, observe that
$E(\sigma_{v_i}(S))\subseteq E(J_1)\cap E(\sigma_{v_i}(H))$ and $E(\sigma_{v_i}(S'))\subseteq E(J_2)\cap E(\sigma_{v_i}(H))$ whenever $v_i\in U$, and
$E(\sigma_{v_i}(T))\subseteq E(J_1)\cap E(\sigma_{v_i}(H))$ and $E(\sigma_{v_i}(T'))\subseteq E(J_2)\cap E(\sigma_{v_i}(H))$ whenever $v_i\in U'$. Then, since both $\{E(S),E(S')\}$ and $\{E(T),E(T')\}$ are $\{a_{\infty},b_{\infty}\}$-connectors,
it follows that $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$ as required.
\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{lemma}\label{12regular_odd}
Suppose $t\in\{0,1,\ldots,n-2\}$ and $H$ is a subgraph of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ that admits a decomposition $\{X,X',P_1, P_2,H_1,H_2\}$ such that $X=[a_\infty,c,b_\infty]$, $X'=[a_\infty,b_\infty]$, and
for each $i\in\{1,2\}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item [$(1)$] $P_i$ is a path with end vertices $a_t$ and $b_t$;
\item [$(2)$] $^{A}P_i$ is an $(n-1)$-cycle on $\{0,1,\ldots,n-2\}$;
\item [$(3)$] there is a $t_i\in\{0,1,\ldots,n-2\}$ and decompositions $\{S_i,S_i',R_i,R_i',C_i,C_i'\}$ and $\{T_i,T_i',R_i,R_i',C_i,C_i'\}$ of $H_i$ that satisfy the conditions of Lemma \ref{4regular_odd};
\item [$(4)$] both $\{E(S_i),E(S_i'),E(X\cup P_i)\}$ and $\{E(T_i),E(T_i'),E(X\cup P_i)\}$ are $\{a_{\infty},b_{\infty},u_i\}$-connectors, for some $u_i\in V(P_i)$.
\end{itemize}
Then $H$ is a Hamilton fragment.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
Let $G$ be a $(2n+1)$-regular graph, let $F$ be a $1-$factor of $G$, let \linebreak $\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_1,\ldots,\overrightarrow F_{n-2},\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$ be a directed $2$-factorisation of $G-F$ where $\overrightarrow F_\infty$ is a Hamilton cycle, say $\overrightarrow F_\infty=(v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_m)$, and let $\{U,U'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $U$ and $U'$ link $\{F,\overrightarrow F_{t}\}$ (such a partition exists by Lemma \ref{intersects}). Our aim is to show that the subgraph $$L=(\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(H_1\cup X\cup P_1))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v(H_1\cup X'\cup P_1))$$ of $L(G)$
decomposes into Hamilton cycles, and we do this by applying Lemma \ref{manyrepairs} with
\begin{itemize}
\item $H_i=\sigma_{v_i}(H_1\cup X\cup P_1)$ and $V_i=\{a_\infty^{v_i},b_\infty^{v_i},u_1^{v_i}\}$ for each $v_i\in U$; and
\item $H_i=\sigma_{v_i}(H_1\cup X'\cup P_1)$ and $V_i=\{a_\infty^{v_i},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$ for each $v_i\in U'$.
\end{itemize}
It then follows, by symmetry, that the subgraph
$$L'=(\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H))\setminus L =(\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(H_2\cup X'\cup P_2))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v(H_2\cup X\cup P_2))$$ of $L(G)$ decomposes into Hamilton cycles, and the result then follows.
To this end, observe that $H_1,H_2,\ldots,H_m$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $L$,
and since $b_\infty^{v_i}=a_\infty^{v_{i+1}}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ it follows that $V_i\cap V_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ as required. It remains to show there is a $2$-factorisation
$\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$ of $L$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}\cup \{u_1^{v}\mid v\in U\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$; and
\item $H_i$ induces a $V_i$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$ for each $i=1,2,\ldots,m$; that is
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] $\sigma_{v}(H_1\cup X\cup P_1)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v},b_\infty^{v},u_1^{v}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$ whenever $v\in U$; and
\item[$\bullet$] $\sigma_{v}(H_1\cup X'\cup P_1)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v},b_\infty^{v}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$ whenever $v\in U'$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
Let $\{W,W'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $W$ and $W'$ link $\{F,\overrightarrow F_{t_1}\}$ (such partitions exist by Lemma \ref{intersects}), and let $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$ be the decomposition of $L$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item $J_{1}=(\bigcup_{v\in W}\sigma_v(S_1\cup R_1\cup C_1))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in W'}\sigma_v(T_1\cup R_1\cup C'_1))$;
\item $J_{2}= (\bigcup_{v\in W}\sigma_v(S'_1\cup R'_1\cup C'_1))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in W'}\sigma_v(T'_1\cup R'_1\cup C_1))$; and
\item $J_3=(\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(X\cup P_1))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v(X'\cup P_1))$.
\end{itemize}
As in the proof of Lemma \ref{4regular_odd}, it follows easily from Lemma \ref{linking2factors2_odd} that both of $J_1$ and $J_2$ are $2$-factors of $L$, and that
$\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2\}$ as required.
Furthermore, it is easy to see that $J_3$ is a $2$-factor of $L$ and, since $U$ links $\overrightarrow F_{t}$ and
$u_1\in V(P_1)$, it follows easily from the conditions of the lemma that $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}\cup \{u_1^{v}\mid v\in U\}$ links $J_3$ as required.
Finally, observe that
\begin{itemize}
\item $E(\sigma_{v_i}(S_1))\subseteq (E(J_1)\cap H_i)$ and $E(\sigma_{v_i}(S'_1))\subseteq (E(J_2)\cap H_i)$ whenever $v_i\in W$;
\item $E(\sigma_{v_i}(T_1))\subseteq (E(J_1)\cap H_i)$ and $E(\sigma_{v_i}(T'_1))\subseteq (E(J_2)\cap H_i)$ whenever $v_i\in W'$;
\item $E(\sigma_{v_i}(X\cup P_1))\subseteq (E(J_3)\cap H_i)$ whenever $v_i\in U$; and
\item $E(\sigma_{v_i}(X'))\subseteq (E(J_3)\cap H_i)$ whenever $v_i\in U'$.
\end{itemize}
Then, since both $\{E(S_1),E(S_1'),E(X\cup P_1)\}$ and $\{E(T_1),E(T_1'),E(X\cup P_1)\}$ are \linebreak $\{a_{\infty},b_{\infty},u_1\}$-connectors (by assumption), and both $\{E(S_1),E(S_1'),E(X')\}$ and \linebreak $\{E(T_1),E(T_1'),E(X')\}$ are $\{a_{\infty},b_{\infty}\}$-connectors (by the properties of Lemma \ref{4regular_odd} and the fact that $E(X')=\{a_\infty b_\infty\}$),
it follows that $H_i$ induces a $V_i$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$, for each $i=1,2,\ldots,m$ as required.\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
\section{Decompositions into Hamilton fragments}\label{Section4}
\begin{lemma}\label{SuffCond2}
Let $n$ be a positive integer, let $K\in \{K_{A_{n}\cup B_{n}},K_{A_{n}\cup B_{n}\cup\{c\}}\}$, let
$\rho$ be a permutation, of order $q$ say, on $\mathbb{Z}_{n-1}$, and let $\rho$ act on $V(K)$ by mapping $a_i$ to $a_{\rho(i)}$ and $b_i$ to $b_{\rho(i)}$ for each $i\in\mathbb{Z}_{n-1}$ (keeping all other vertices fixed).
If there are pairwise edge-disjoint subgraphs $I$, $Z$ and $Q$ of $K$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(1)$] $Z\cup Q$ is a $Q$-adjustable Hamilton fragment;
\item[$(2)$] the orbit of $^{A}(Z\cup Q)$ under $\rho$ decomposes $^{A}(K-I)$; and
\item[$(3)$] the graphs $I,\rho^0(Z),\rho^1(Z),\ldots,\rho^{q-1}(Z)$ are pairwise edge-disjoint;
\end{itemize}
then there is a decomposition ${\mathcal{D}}=\{\rho^i(Z)\cup Q_i: i\in \mathbb{Z}_q\}$ of $K-I$ into Hamilton fragments in which $^{A}Q_i=\prescript{A}{}(\rho^i(Q))=\rho^i(^{A}Q)$, for $i=0,1,\ldots,q-1$.
Furthermore, if
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(P1)$] $Q$ is edge-disjoint from each of $I, \rho^0(Z), \rho^1(Z),\ldots, \rho^{q-1}(Z)$;
\end{itemize}
then there is such a decomposition ${\mathcal{D}}$ in which $Q_0=Q$; and if
\begin{itemize}
\item [$(P2)$] $I\cup \left( \bigcup_{H\in {\mathcal{D}}'} H\right)$ is a Hamilton fragment for some subset ${\mathcal{D}}'$ of ${\mathcal{D}}$,
\end{itemize}
then $K$ admits a decomposition into Hamilton fragments.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
It follows directly from properties $(2)$ and $(3)$ that there is a decomposition ${\mathcal{D}}=\{\rho^i(Z)\cup Q_i: i\in\mathbb{Z}_q\}$
of $K-I$, where $Q_0,Q_1,\ldots,Q_{q-1}$ are graphs satisfying $^{A}Q_i=\prescript{A}{}(\rho^i(Q))=\rho^i(^{A}Q)$, for $i=0,1,\ldots,q-1$.
Then, since $\rho$ fixes $\infty$, property $(1)$ ensures that $\rho^i(Z)\cup \rho^i(Q)$ is a $\rho^i(Q)$-adjustable Hamilton fragment for each $i\in\mathbb{Z}_q$.
Thus $\rho^i(Z)\cup Q_i$ is a Hamilton fragment for each $i\in\mathbb{Z}_q$ and each element of ${\mathcal{D}}$ is a Hamilton fragment as required.
Furthermore, if $(P1)$ holds then $Q$ is a subgraph of $Q_0\cup Q_1\cup \cdots \cup Q_{q-1}$ and, since $^A Q=\prescript{A}{}Q_0$, we are free to set $Q_0=Q$ in our above definition of ${\mathcal{D}}$.
Finally, if $(P2)$ holds, say $H'=I\cup \left( \bigcup_{H\in {\mathcal{D}}'} H\right)$ is a Hamilton fragment for some subset ${\mathcal{D}}'$ of ${\mathcal{D}}$, then $\{H'\}\cup\{H:H\in {\mathcal{D}}\setminus{\mathcal{D}}'\}$ is the required decomposition of $K$ into Hamilton fragments.\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{lemma}\label{alln}
There is a decomposition of $K_{A_{n}\cup B_{n}}$ into Hamilton fragments for each positive integer $n$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad When $n=1$ the result is obvious. Furthermore, for each $n\in\{2,3,4,5,7\}$ a suitable decomposition is given in Section \ref{Section5}. Suppose then that $n\notin\{1,2,3,4,5,7\}$.
Let $K=K_{A_{n}\cup B_{n}}$ and let $\rho$ be the permutation on $\mathbb{Z}_{n-1}$ which maps $v$ to $v+2$ for each $v\in\mathbb{Z}_{n-1}$. Observe that $\rho$ has order $n-1$ when $n$ is even, and order $(n-1)/2$ when $n$ is odd.
Our aim is to show, for each value $n$, that there are edge-disjoint subgraphs $I$, $Z$ and $Q$ of $K$ which, together with $\rho$, satisfy properties $(2)-(3)$ and $(P1), (P2)$ (with ${\mathcal{D}}'=\{Z\cup Q\}$) of Lemma \ref{SuffCond2}. The problem now splits according to the parity of $n$.\\
\noindent{\bf Case 1: $n\geq 6$ is even}
Let $n=2m$ and let $I$ be the $1$-factor of $K$ with $$E(I)=\{a_\infty b_\infty,a_0b_1,a_1b_2,\ldots,a_{2m-3}b_{2m-2},a_{2m-2}b_0\}.$$
Observe that both $I$ and $^{A}I$ are fixed under the permutation $\rho$.
Define
\begin{itemize}
\item $O_0=\{a_ib_i\mid i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m-1}\}$;
\item $O_1=\{a_ia_{i+1},b_ib_{i+1},a_{i+1}b_{i}\mid i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m-1}\}$;
\item $O_j=\{a_ia_{i+j},b_ib_{i+j},a_{i+j}b_{i},a_ib_{i+j}\mid i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m-1}\}$ for each $j=2,3,\ldots,m-1$; and
\item $O_\infty = \{a_ia_{\infty},b_ib_{\infty},a_{\infty}b_{i},a_ib_{\infty}\mid i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m-1}\}$.
\end{itemize}
Observe that $\{O_0,O_1,\ldots,O_{m-1},O_\infty\}$ partitions $E(K-I)$, and that each $O_i$ is the union of one or more edge orbits of $K-I$ under $\rho$. Furthermore, for any subgraph $H$ of $K-I$ we define
$$\mathcal{O}(H)=(|E(H)\cap O_0|,|E(H)\cap O_1|,\ldots,|E(H)\cap O_{m-1}|,|E(H)\cap O_\infty|).$$
Observe that
$$\mathcal{O}(K-I)=(2m-1,3(2m-1),4(2m-1),4(2m-1),\ldots,4(2m-1)),$$
and that the orbit of $^{A}H$ under $\rho$ decomposes $^{A}(K-I)$, whenever $H$ is a subgraph of $K-I$ such that $\mathcal{O}(H)=(1,3,4,4,\ldots,4).$\\
Suppose firstly that $n=6$.
Let $Z=C\cup C' \cup S\cup S'$ and $Q=R\cup R'$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item $C=[b_{4},b_{2}]\cup [a_{3},a_{4}]$;
\item $C'=[a_{4},b_{4}]\cup [b_{2},a_{3}]$;
\item $S=[a_\infty,b_{1}]\cup [b_\infty,a_{0},b_2]$;
\item $S'=[a_\infty,a_{0}]\cup [b_\infty,b_{1},b_{2}]$;
\item $R=[a_{1},a_{3}]$; and
\item $R'=[a_{0},a_{3}]$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent Property $(1)$ follows from Lemma \ref{4regular}, setting $T=\{4\}$ and $H=Z\cup Q$, and noting in particular that $\{E(S),E(S')\}$ is an $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(1)$, with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w)=(b_\infty,a_\infty,a_0,b_2,b_1)$.\\
\noindent
Property $(2)$ follows by noting that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{O}(C)=(0,1,1,0)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(C')=(1,1,0,0)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(S)=(0,0,1,2)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(S')=(0,1,0,2)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(R)=(0,0,1,0)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(R')=(0,0,1,0)$;
\end{itemize}
and hence $\mathcal{O}(Z\cup Q)=(1,3,4,4)$ as required.\\
\noindent Property $(3)$ follows by noting that each of the ten edges in $E(Z)$ belong to distinct edge orbits of $K-I$ under $\rho$.
\noindent Property $(P1)$ follows by noting that $\mathcal{O}(Z)=(1,3,2,4)$, $\mathcal{O}(Q)=(0,0,2,0)$ and the edge orbits of the two edges in $E(Z)\cap O_2$ are distinct from the edge orbits of the two edges in $E(Q)\cap O_2$.\\
\noindent Property $(P2)$ follows by seting $D'=\{Z\cup Q\}$ and applying Lemma \ref{4regular_withHam} with
\begin{itemize}
\item $(r,s,t)=(3,1,4)$;
\item $H=I \cup Z \cup Q$;
\item $X_1 = C\cup S\cup R$;
\item $X_2= C'\cup R' + \{a_\infty b_\infty,a_{0}b_{1},a_1b_2\}$;
\item $X_3 = I \cup S' -\{a_\infty b_\infty,a_{0}b_{1},a_1b_2\}$;
\end{itemize}
and noting in particular that $\{E(X_1),E(X_3),E(X_2)\}$ is an $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(2)$, with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w)=(b_\infty,a_\infty,a_0,b_2,b_1)$.\\
Suppose then $n\geq 8$.
Let $Z=C\cup C' \cup S\cup S'$ and $Q=R\cup R'$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item $C=[a_m,a_{m+2}]\cup [a_{m+1},b_m]$;
\item $C'=[a_m,b_m]\cup [a_{m+1},a_{m+2}]$;
\item $S=[a_\infty,b_{1},b_{2}] \cup [b_\infty,a_{0},b_{3}]$;
\item $S'=[a_\infty,a_{0},b_{2}]\cup [b_\infty,b_{1},b_{3}]$;
\item $R=[b_{2},b_{2m-2},b_{4},b_{2m-4},\ldots,b_{m-2},b_{m+2}]$\\
$\cup$ $[b_{3},b_{2m-3},b_{5},b_{2m-5},\ldots,b_{m-1},a_{m+1}]$; and
\item $R'=[b_{2},b_{2m-3},b_{4},b_{2m-5},\ldots,b_{m-2},a_{m+1}]$ \\
$\cup$ $[b_{3},b_{2m-2},b_{5},b_{2m-4},\ldots,b_{m-1},b_{m+2}]$;
\end{itemize}
when $m$ is even, and
\begin{itemize}
\item $C=[b_{m+1},b_{m-1}]\cup [a_{m},a_{m+1}]$;
\item $C'=[a_{m+1},b_{m+1}]\cup [b_{m-1},a_{m}]$;
\item $S=[a_\infty,b_{1},b_{2}]\cup [b_\infty,a_{0},a_{3}]$;
\item $S'=[a_\infty,a_{0},b_{2}]\cup [b_\infty,b_{1},a_{3}]$;
\item $R=[b_{2},b_{2m-2},b_{4},b_{2m-4},\ldots,b_{m-3},b_{m+3},b_{m-1}]$ \\
$\cup$ $[a_{3},b_{2m-3},b_{5},b_{2m-5},\ldots,b_{m-2},b_{m+2}]\cup [a_{m+2},a_m]$; and
\item $R'=[b_{2},b_{2m-3},b_{4},b_{2m-5},\ldots,b_{m-3},b_{m+2}]\cup [a_{m+2},b_{m-1}]$ \\
$\cup$ $[a_{3},b_{2m-2},b_{5},b_{2m-4},\ldots,b_{m-2},b_{m+3},a_m]$;
\end{itemize}
when $m$ is odd.
\noindent Property $(1)$ follows from Lemma \ref{4regular}, setting $T=\{m\}$ and $H=Z\cup Q$ when $m$ is even and $T=\{m+1\}$ and $H=Z\cup Q$ when $m$ is odd, and noting in particular that $\{E(S),E(S')\}$ is an $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(1)$, with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,b_1,b_2,a_0)$.\\
\noindent
Property $(2)$ follows by noting that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{O}(C)=(0,1,1,0,0,\ldots,0)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(C')=(1,1,0,0,\ldots,0)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(S)=(0,1,0,1,0,0,\ldots,0,2)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(S')=(0,0,2,0,0\ldots,0,2)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(R)=(0,0,1,1,2,2,\ldots,2,0)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(R')=(0,0,0,2,2,\ldots,2,0)$;
\end{itemize}
and hence $\mathcal{O}(Z\cup Q)=(1,3,4,4,\ldots,4)$ as required.\\
\noindent Property $(3)$ follows by noting that each of the twelve edges in $E(Z)$ belong to distinct edge orbits of $K-I$ under $\rho$.\\
\noindent Property $(P1)$ follows by noting that $\mathcal{O}(Z)=(1,3,3,1,0,0,\ldots,0,4)$, \linebreak $\mathcal{O}(Q)=(0,0,1,3,4,4,\ldots,4,0)$ and the edge orbits of the four edges in $E(Z)\cap (O_2 \cup O_3)$ are distinct from the edge orbits of the four edges in $E(Q)\cap (O_2 \cup O_3)$.\\
\noindent Property $(P2)$ follows by setting ${\mathcal{D}}'=\{Z\cup Q\}$ and applying Lemma \ref{4regular_withHam} with
\begin{itemize}
\item $(r,s,t)=(3,m,m+2)$ when $m$ is even, and $(r,s,t)=(3,m+1,m+2)$ when $m$ is odd;
\item $H=I \cup Z\cup Q$;
\item $X_1 = C\cup S\cup R$;
\item $X_2= C'\cup S'\cup R'-\{a_\infty a_{0},b_\infty b_{1}\} + \{a_\infty b_\infty,a_{0}b_{1}\}$;
\item $X_3 = I-\{a_\infty b_\infty,a_{0}b_{1}\}+\{a_\infty a_{0},b_\infty b_{1}\}$;
\end{itemize}
and noting in particular that $\{E(X_1),E(X_3),E(X_2)\}$ is an $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(3)$, with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w,x)=(b_\infty,a_\infty,a_0,b_3,b_1,b_2)$ when $m$ is even and $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w,x)=(b_\infty,a_\infty,a_0,a_3,b_1,b_2)$ when $m$ is odd.\\
\noindent{\bf Case 2: $n\geq 9$ is odd}
Let $n=2m+1$ and let $I$ be the $1$-factor of $K$ with
$$E(I)=\{a_\infty b_\infty,a_0b_1,a_2b_3,\ldots,a_{2m-2}b_{2m-1},a_1b_4,a_3b_6,\ldots,a_{2m-1}b_2\}.$$
Observe that both $I$ and $^{A}I$ are fixed under the permutation $\rho$.
Define
\begin{itemize}
\item $O_0=\{a_ib_i\mid i\text{ even, } i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$;
\item $O_1=\{a_ia_{i+1},b_ib_{i+1},a_{i+1}b_{i}\mid i\text{ even, } i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$;
\item $O_j=\{a_ia_{i+j},b_ib_{i+j},a_{i+j}b_{i},a_ib_{i+j}\mid i\text{ even, } i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$ for each $j=2,3,\ldots,m$;
\item $O_\infty = \{a_ia_{\infty},b_ib_{\infty},a_{\infty}b_{i},a_ib_{\infty}\mid i\text{ even, } i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$;
\item $O'_0=\{a_ib_i\mid i\text{ odd, } i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$;
\item $O'_3=\{a_ia_{i+3},b_ib_{i+3},a_{i+3}b_{i}\mid i\text{ odd, } i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$;
\item $O'_j=\{a_ia_{i+j},b_ib_{i+j},a_{i+j}b_{i},a_ib_{i+j}\mid i\text{ odd, } i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$ for each $j=1,2,4,5,\ldots,m$; and
\item $O'_\infty = \{a_ia_{\infty},b_ib_{\infty},a_{\infty}b_{i},a_ib_{\infty}i\text{ odd, } i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$.
\end{itemize}
Observe that $\{O_0,O_1,\ldots,O_{m},O_\infty,O'_0,O'_1,\ldots,O'_{m},O'_\infty\}$ partitions $E(K-I)$ (with $O_m=O'_m$ when $m$ is odd), and that each $O_i$ and $O'_i$ is the union of one or more edge orbits of $K-I$ under $\rho$. Furthermore, for any subgraph $H$ of $K-I$ we define
$$\mathcal{O}(H)=(|E(H)\cap O_0|,|E(H)\cap O_1|,\ldots,|E(H)\cap O_{m}|,|E(H)\cap O_\infty|)$$
and
$$\mathcal{O}'(H)=(|E(H)\cap O'_0|,|E(H)\cap O'_1|,\ldots,|E(H)\cap O'_{m}|,|E(H)\cap O'_\infty|).$$
Observe that
$$\mathcal{O}(K-I)=(m,3m,4m,4m,\ldots,4m,2m,4m)$$
and
$$\mathcal{O}'(K-I)=(m,4m,4m,3m,4m,4m,\ldots,4m,2m,4m)$$
when $m$ is even, and that
$$\mathcal{O}(K-I)=(m,3m,4m,4m,\ldots,4m,4m,4m)$$
and
$$\mathcal{O}'(K-I)=(m,4m,4m,3m,4m,4m,\ldots,4m,4m,4m)$$
when $m$ is odd.
It follows that the orbit of $^{A}H$ under $\rho$ decomposes $^{A}(K-I)$, whenever $H$ is a subgraph of $K-I$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{O}(H)=(1,3,4,4,\ldots,4,2,4)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(H)=(1,4,4,3,4,4,\ldots,4,2,4)$ when $m$ is even; and
\item $\mathcal{O}(H)=(1,3,4,4,\ldots,4,4,4)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(H)=(1,4,4,3,4,4,\ldots,4,4,4)$ when $m$ is odd.
\end{itemize}
Let $Z=C\cup C' \cup S\cup S'\cup S_1\cup S_1'$ and $Q=R\cup R'\cup R_1\cup R_1'$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item $C=[a_m,a_{m+1}]\cup [b_{m+1},b_{m+2}]\cup [a_{m+3},b_{m}]$;
\item $C'=[b_m,a_m]\cup [a_{m+1},b_{m+1}]\cup [b_{m+2},a_{m+3}]$;
\item $S=[a_\infty,b_{0},b_{3}]\cup [b_\infty,a_{1},b_{2}]$;
\item $S'=[a_\infty,a_{1},b_{3}]\cup [b_\infty,b_{0},b_{2}]$;
\item $S_1=[a_\infty,a_{0},a_{3}]\cup [b_\infty,b_{1},a_{2}]$;
\item $S_1'=[a_\infty,b_{1},a_{3}]\cup [b_\infty,a_{0},a_{2}]$;
\item $R=[b_{2},b_{2m-1},b_{4},b_{2m-3},\ldots,b_{m+5},b_{m-2},b_{m+3}]\\
\cup [b_{3},b_{2m-2},b_{5},b_{2m-4},\ldots,b_{m+4},b_{m-1},b_{m+2}]$;
\item $R'=[b_{2},b_{2m-2},b_{4},b_{2m-4},\ldots,b_{m+4},b_{m-2},b_{m+2}]\\
\cup [b_{3},b_{2m-1},b_{5},b_{2m-3},\ldots,b_{m+5},b_{m-1},b_{m+3}]$;
\item $R_1=[a_{2},a_{2m-1},a_{4},a_{2m-3},\ldots,a_{m+5},a_{m-2},b_{m+3},a_m,b_{m+2}]\\
\cup [a_{3},a_{2m-2},a_{5},a_{2m-4},\ldots,a_{m+4},a_{m-1},a_{m+1},a_{m+2}]$; and
\item $R_1'=[a_{2},a_{2m-2},a_{4},a_{2m-4},\ldots,a_{m+4},a_{m-2},a_{m+2},b_m,b_{m+1}]\\
\cup [a_{3},a_{2m-1},a_{5},a_{2m-3},\ldots,a_{m+5},a_{m-1},b_{m+3},b_{m+1}]$.
\end{itemize}
We begin by proving the following useful properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(I)] $I\cup S_1\cup S_1'\cup R_1\cup R_1'$ is a Hamilton fragment;
\item[(II)] $C\cup C' \cup S\cup S'\cup R\cup R'$ is an $(R\cup R')$-adjustable Hamilton fragment; and
\item[(III)] $S_1\cup S_1'\cup R_1\cup R_1'$ is an $(R_1\cup R_1')$-adjustable Hamilton fragment.
\end{itemize}
Property (I) follows from Lemma \ref{6regular_2}, setting
\begin{itemize}
\item $(s,t)=(m+2,m+1)$;
\item $H=I\cup S_1\cup S_1'\cup R_1\cup R_1'$;
\item $X_1 = S_1\cup R_1$;
\item $X_2= S_1'\cup R_1'-\{a_\infty b_{1},b_\infty a_{0}\} + \{a_\infty b_\infty,a_{0}b_{1}\}$;
\item $X_1'= X_2-\{a_\infty b_\infty, a_{0}b_{1}\} + \{a_\infty a_{0},b_\infty b_{1}\}$;
\item $X_2' = X_1-\{a_\infty a_{0},b_\infty b_{1}\} + \{a_\infty b_\infty,a_{0}b_{1}\}$;
\item $X_3 = I-\{a_\infty b_\infty,a_{0}b_{1}\}+\{a_\infty b_{1},b_\infty a_{0}\}$;
\end{itemize}
and noting in particular that $\{E(X_1),E(X_3),E(X_2)\}$ is an $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(3)$ with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w,x)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,a_0,a_3,b_1,a_2)$,
and that \linebreak $\{E(X_1'),E(X_3),E(X_2')\}$ is an $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(3)$ with \linebreak $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w,x)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,a_0,a_2,b_1,a_3)$.\\
Property (II) follows from Lemma \ref{4regular}, setting
\begin{itemize}
\item $T=\{1,2\}$;
\item $H=C\cup C' \cup S\cup S'\cup R\cup R'$;
\end{itemize}
and noting in particular that $\{E(S),E(S')\}$ is an $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(1)$ with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,b_0,b_3,a_1)$.\\
Property (III) follows from Lemma \ref{4regular_easy}, setting
\begin{itemize}
\item $H=S_1\cup S_1'\cup R_1\cup R_1'$;
\item $\{S,S',R,R'\}=\{S_1,S_1',R_1,R_1'\}$;
\end{itemize}
and noting in particular that $\{E(S_1),E(S'_1)\}$ is an $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(1)$ with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,a_0,a_3,b_1)$.\\
\noindent Property $(1)$ then follows from (II), (III) and the fact that $\{C\cup C' \cup S\cup S'\cup R\cup R',S_1\cup S_1'\cup R_1\cup R_1',\}$ is a decomposition of $Z\cup Q$ and $\{R,R',R_1,R_2\}$ is a decomposition of $Q$. \\
\noindent Property $(2)$ then follows by noting that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{O}(C)=(0,1,0,1,0,0,\ldots,0)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(C)=(0,1,0,0,\ldots,0)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(C')=(1,1,0,0,\ldots,0)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(C')=(1,0,0,\ldots,0)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(S)=(0,0,0,1,0,0,\ldots,0,1)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(S)=(0,1,0,0\ldots,0,1)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(S')=(0,0,1,0,0,\ldots,0,1)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(S')=(0,0,1,0,0\ldots,0,1)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(S_1)=(0,0,0,1,0,0,\ldots,0,1)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(S_1)=(0,1,0,0\ldots,0,1)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(S'_1)=(0,0,1,0,0,\ldots,0,1)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(S'_1)=(0,0,1,0,0\ldots,0,1)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(R)=(0,0,0,0,0,2,0,2,0,\ldots,2,0,0)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(R)=(0,0,0,2,0,2,0,\ldots,2,0,0)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(R')=(0,0,0,0,2,0,2,0,\ldots,2,0,1,0)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(R')=(0,0,0,0,2,0,2,0,\ldots,2,0,1,0)$ when $m$ is even;
\item $\mathcal{O}(R')=(0,0,0,0,2,0,2,0,\ldots,2,0,2,0)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(R')=(0,0,0,0,2,0,2,0,\ldots,2,0,2,0)$ when $m$ is odd;
\item $\mathcal{O}(R_1)=(0,0,1,1,0,2,0,2,0,\ldots,2,0,0)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(R_1)=(0,1,1,1,0,2,0,2,0,\ldots,2,0,0)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(R'_1)=(0,1,1,0,2,0,2,0,\ldots,2,0,1,0)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(R'_1)=(0,0,1,0,2,0,2,0,\ldots,2,0,1,0)$ when $m$ is even;
\item $\mathcal{O}(R'_1)=(0,1,1,0,2,0,2,0,\ldots,2,0,2,0)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(R'_1)=(0,0,1,0,2,0,2,0,\ldots,2,0,2,0)$ when $m$ is odd;
\end{itemize}
and hence
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{O}(Z\cup Q)=(1,3,4,4,\ldots,4,2,4)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(Z\cup Q)=(1,4,4,3,4,4,\ldots,4,2,4)$ when $m$ is even; and \item $\mathcal{O}(Z\cup Q)=(1,3,4,4,\ldots,4,4,4)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(Z\cup Q)=(1,4,4,3,4,4,\ldots,4,4,4)$ when $m$ is odd;
\end{itemize}
as required.\\
\noindent Property $(3)$ follows by noting that each of the twenty-two edges in $E(Z)$ belong to distinct edge orbits of $K-I$ under $\rho$.\\
\noindent Property $(P1)$ follows by noting that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{O}(Z)=(1,2,2,3,0,0,\ldots,0,4)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}'(Z)=(1,3,2,0,0,\ldots,0,4)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(Q)=(0,1,2,1,4,4,\ldots,4,2,0)$ when $m$ is even and $\mathcal{O}(Q)=(0,1,2,1,4,4,\ldots,4,4,0)$ when $m$ is odd;
\item $\mathcal{O}'(Q)=(0,1,2,3,4,4,\ldots,4,2,0)$ when $m$ is even and $\mathcal{O}'(Q)=(0,1,2,3,4,4,\ldots,4,4,0)$ when $m$ is odd; and
\end{itemize}
the edge orbits of the twelve edges in $E(Z)\cap(O_1\cup O_2\cup O_3\cup O'_1\cup O'_2)$ are distinct from the edge orbits of the seven edges in $E(Q)\cap(O_1\cup O_2\cup O_3\cup O'_1\cup O'_2)$.\\
\noindent Property $(P2)$ (with ${\mathcal{D}}'=\{Z\cup Q\}$) then follows from (I), (II) and the fact that $\{I\cup S_1\cup S_1'\cup R_1\cup R_1', C\cup C'\cup S\cup S'\cup R\cup R'\}$ is a decomposition of $I\cup Z\cup Q$.\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{lemma}\label{alln_odd}
There is a decomposition of $K_{A_{n}\cup B_{n}\cup\{c\}}$ into Hamilton fragments for each positive integer $n$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
For each $n\in\{1,2,\ldots,9\}$ a suitable decomposition is given in Section \ref{Section5}. Suppose then that $n\geq 10$.
Let $K=K_{A_{n}\cup B_{n}\cup\{c\}}$ and let $\rho$ be the permutation on $\mathbb{Z}_{n-1}$ which maps $v$ to $v+2$ for each $v\in\mathbb{Z}_{n-1}$. Observe that $\rho$ has order $n-1$ when $n$ is even, and order $(n-1)/2$ when $n$ is odd. Our aim is to show, for each value $n$, that there are edge-disjoint subgraphs $I$, $Z$ and $Q$ of $K$ which satisfy properties $(1)-(3)$ and $(P2)$ of Lemma \ref{SuffCond2}.
The problem now splits according to the parity of $n$.\\
\noindent{\bf Case 1: $n\geq 10$ is even}
Let $n=2m$ and let $I$ be the $2$-factor of $K$ with
$$I=(a_\infty, b_\infty,c)\cup (a_0,b_1,a_2,b_3,\ldots,a_{2m-2},b_0,a_1,b_2,a_3,\ldots,b_{2m-2}).$$
Define
\begin{itemize}
\item $O_c=\{a_ic,b_ic\mid i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m-1}\}$;
\item $O_0=\{a_ib_i\mid i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m-1}\}$;
\item $O_1=\{a_ia_{i+1},b_ib_{i+1}\mid i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m-1}\}$;
\item $O_j=\{a_ia_{i+j},b_ib_{i+j},a_{i+j}b_{i},a_ib_{i+j}\mid i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m-1}\}$ for each $j=2,3,\ldots,m-1$; and
\item $O_\infty = \{a_ia_{\infty},b_ib_{\infty},a_{\infty}b_{i},a_ib_{\infty}\mid i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m-1}\}$.
\end{itemize}
Observe that $\{O_c,O_0,O_1,\ldots,O_{m-1},O_\infty\}$ partitions $E(K-I)$, and that each $O_i$ is the union of one or more edge orbits of $K-I$ under $\rho$. Furthermore, for any subgraph $H$ of $K-I$ we define
$$\mathcal{O}(H)=(|E(H)\cap O_c|,|E(H)\cap O_0|,|E(H)\cap O_1|,\ldots,|E(H)\cap O_{m-1}|,|E(H)\cap O_\infty|).$$
Observe that
$$\mathcal{O}(K-I)=(2(2m-1),2m-1,2(2m-1),4(2m-1),4(2m-1),\ldots,4(2m-1)),$$
and that the orbit of $^{A}H$ under $\rho$ decomposes $^{A}(K-I)$, whenever $H$ is a subgraph of $K-I$ such that $\mathcal{O}(H)=(2,1,2,4,4,\ldots,4).$
Let $Z=C\cup C' \cup S\cup S'=C\cup C'\cup T\cup T'$ and $Q=R\cup R'$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item $C=[a_{m-1},a_{m}]\cup [b_{m},a_{m+2}]$;
\item $C'=[a_m,b_m]\cup [a_{m+2},a_{m-1}]$;
\item $S=[a_\infty,a_0,c,b_1,a_{2m-5}]\cup [b_\infty,b_{2m-3},a_2,b_{2m-2}]$;
\item $S'=[a_\infty,b_{2m-3},b_1,b_{2m-2}]\cup [b_\infty,a_0,a_2,a_{2m-5}]$;
\item $T=[a_\infty,b_{2m-3},b_1,a_{2m-5}]\cup [b_\infty,a_0,a_2,b_{2m-2}]$;
\item $T'=[a_\infty,a_0,c,b_1,b_{2m-2}]\cup [b_\infty,b_{2m-3},a_2,a_{2m-5}]$;
\item $R=[a_{2m-2},a_4,a_{2m-4},a_6,\ldots, a_{m+4},a_{m-2},a_{m+2}]$\\
$\cup$ $[a_{2m-5},a_3,a_{2m-7},a_5,\ldots, a_{m+1},a_{m-3},a_{m-1}]$; and
\item $R'=[a_{2m-2},a_3,a_{2m-4},a_5,\ldots, a_{m+4},a_{m-3},a_{m+2}]$ \\
$\cup$ $[a_{2m-5},a_4,a_{2m-7},a_6,\ldots, a_{m+1},a_{m-2},a_{m-1}]$;
\end{itemize}
when $m$ is even, and
\begin{itemize}
\item $C=[b_{m-1},b_{m+1}]\cup [a_{m+1},b_{m-2}]$;
\item $C'=[b_{m+1},a_{m+1}]\cup [b_{m-2},b_{m-1}]$;
\item $S=[a_\infty,a_0,c,b_1,b_{2m-5}]\cup [b_\infty,b_{2m-3},a_2,a_{2m-2}]$;
\item $S'=[a_\infty,b_{2m-3},b_1,a_{2m-2}]\cup [b_\infty,a_0,a_2,b_{2m-5}]$;
\item $T=[a_\infty,b_{2m-3},b_1,b_{2m-5}]\cup [b_\infty,a_0,a_2,a_{2m-2}]$;
\item $T'=[a_\infty,a_0,c,b_1,a_{2m-2}]\cup [b_\infty,b_{2m-3},a_2,b_{2m-5}]$;
\item $R=[a_{2m-2},a_4,a_{2m-4},a_6,\ldots,a_{m+3},a_{m-1}]$\\
$\cup$ $[a_{2m-5},a_3,a_{2m-7},a_5,\ldots,a_{m},a_{m-2}]$; and
\item $R'=[a_{2m-2},a_3,a_{2m-4},a_5,\ldots,a_{m+3},a_{m-2}]$ \\
$\cup$ $[a_{2m-5},a_4,a_{2m-7},a_6,\ldots, a_{m},a_{m-1}]$;
\end{itemize}
when $m$ is odd.
\noindent Property $(1)$ follows from Lemma \ref{4regular_odd}, setting $t=m$ and $H=Z\cup Q$ when $m$ is even and $t=m+1$ and $H=Z\cup Q$ when $m$ is odd, and noting in particular that $\{E(S),E(S')\}$ and $\{E(T),E(T')\}$ are $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connectors by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(6)$.\\
\noindent
Property $(2)$ follows by noting that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{O}(C)= (0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,\ldots,0,0)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(C')=(0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,\ldots,0,0)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(S)= (2,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,\ldots,0,2)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(S')=(0,0,0,2,1,0,0,1,0,\ldots,0,2)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(R)= (0,0,0,1,0,2,1,2,2,\ldots,2,0)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(R')=(0,0,1,0,1,1,2,1,2,\ldots,2,0)$;
\end{itemize}
and hence $\mathcal{O}(Z\cup Q)=
(2,1,2,4,4,\ldots,4)$ as required.\\
\noindent Property $(3)$ follows by noting that each of the twelve edges in $E(Z)$ belong to distinct edge orbits of $K-I$ under $\rho$.\\
\noindent Property $(P2)$
follows from Lemma \ref{12regular_odd}, setting
$H=I\cup (Z\cup Q_0)\cup (\rho^m(Z)\cup Q_m)$,
$t=0$,
$P_1=[a_0,b_1,a_2,b_3,\ldots,a_{2m-2},b_0]$,
$P_2=[b_0,a_1,b_2,a_3,\ldots,b_{2m-2},a_0]$,
$H_1=Z\cup Q_0$, and
$H_2=\rho^m(Z)\cup Q_m$, noting that
\begin{itemize}
\item from the proof of property $(1)$ above, for each $i\in\{1,2\}$ there is a \linebreak $t_i\in\{0,1,\ldots,n-2\}$ and decompositions $\{S_i,S_i',R_i,R_i',C_i,C_i'\}$ and \linebreak $\{T_i,T_i',R_i,R_i',C_i,C_i'\}$ of $H_i$, with $(S_1,S_1',T_1,T_1')=(S,S',T,T')$ and \linebreak $(S_2,S_2',T_2,T_2')=(\rho^m(S),\rho^m(S'),\rho^m(T),\rho^m(T'))$, that satisfy the conditions of Lemma \ref{4regular_odd};
\item both $\{E(S),E(S'),E(X\cup P_1)\}$ and $\{E(T),E(T'),E(X\cup P_1)\}$ are $\{a_\infty,b_\infty,a_0\}$-connectors by Lemma \ref{connectors}$(7)$ with $(\alpha,\beta,u)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,a_0)$; and
\item both $\{E(\rho^m(S)),E(\rho^m(S')),E(X\cup P_2)\}$ and $\{E(\rho^m(T)),E(\rho^m(T')),E(X\cup P_2)\}$ are $\{a_\infty,b_\infty,a_1\}$-connectors by Lemma \ref{connectors}$(7)$ with $(\alpha,\beta,u)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,a_1)$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent{\bf Case 2: $n\geq 11$ is odd}
Let $n=2m+1$ and let $I$ be the $2$-factor of $K$ with
$$I=(a_\infty, b_\infty,c)\cup (a_0,b_1,a_2,b_3,\ldots,a_{2m-3}b_{2m-2})\cup (b_0,a_1,b_2,a_3,\ldots,a_{2m-3},b_{2m-2}).$$
Define
\begin{itemize}
\item $O_c=\{a_ic,b_ic\mid \text{ $i$ even}, i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$;
\item $O_0=\{a_ib_i\mid \text{ $i$ even}, i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$;
\item $O_1=\{a_ia_{i+1},b_ib_{i+1}\mid \text{ $i$ even}, i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$;
\item $O_j=\{a_ia_{i+j},b_ib_{i+j},a_{i+j}b_{i},a_ib_{i+j}\mid \text{ $i$ even}, i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$ for each $j=2,3,\ldots,m$;
\item $O_\infty = \{a_ia_{\infty},b_ib_{\infty},a_{\infty}b_{i},a_ib_{\infty}\mid \text{ $i$ even}, i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$;
\item $O'_c=\{a_ic,b_ic\mid \text{ $i$ odd}, i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$;
\item $O'_0=\{a_ib_i\mid \text{ $i$ odd}, i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$;
\item $O'_1=\{a_ia_{i+1},b_ib_{i+1}\mid \text{ $i$ odd}, i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$;
\item $O'_j=\{a_ia_{i+j},b_ib_{i+j},a_{i+j}b_{i},a_ib_{i+j}\mid \text{ $i$ odd}, i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$ for each $j=2,3,\ldots,m$; and
\item $O'_\infty = \{a_ia_{\infty},b_ib_{\infty},a_{\infty}b_{i},a_ib_{\infty}\mid \text{ $i$ odd}, i\in \mathbb{Z}_{2m}\}$;
\end{itemize}
Observe that $\{O_c,O_0,O_1,\ldots,O_{m},O_\infty,O'_c,O'_0,O'_1,\ldots,O'_{m},O'_\infty\}$ partitions $E(K-I)$ (with $O_m=O'_m$ when $m$ is odd), and that each $O_i$ and $O'_i$ is the union of one or more edge orbits of $K-I$ under $\rho$. Furthermore, for any subgraph $H$ of $K-I$ we define
$$\mathcal{O}(H)=(|E(H)\cap O_c|,|E(H)\cap O_0|,|E(H)\cap O_1|,\ldots,|E(H)\cap O_{m}|,|E(H)\cap O_\infty|)$$
and
$$\mathcal{O}'(H)=(|E(H)\cap O'_c|,|E(H)\cap O'_0|,|E(H)\cap O'_1|,\ldots,|E(H)\cap O'_{m}|,|E(H)\cap O'_\infty|).$$
Observe that
$$\mathcal{O}(K-I)=(2m,m,2m,4m,4m,\ldots,4m,2m,4m)$$
and
$$\mathcal{O}'(K-I)=(2m,m,2m,4m,4m,\ldots,4m,2m,4m)$$
when $m$ is even, and that
$$\mathcal{O}(K-I)=(2m,m,2m,4m,4m,\ldots,4m,4m,4m)$$
and
$$\mathcal{O}'(K-I)=(2m,m,2m,4m,4m,\ldots,4m,4m,4m)$$
when $m$ is odd.
It follows that the orbit of $^{A}H$ under $\rho$ decomposes $^{A}(K-I)$, whenever $H$ is a subgraph of $K-I$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{O}(H)=(2,1,2,4,4,\ldots,4,2,4)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(H)=(2,1,2,4,4,\ldots,4,2,4)$ when $m$ is even; and
\item $\mathcal{O}(H)=(2,1,2,4,4,\ldots,4,4,4)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(H)=(2,1,2,4,4,\ldots,4,4,4)$ when $m$ is odd.
\end{itemize}
For each $i\in\{1,2\}$ let $Z_i=C_i\cup C_i' \cup S_i\cup S_i'=C_i\cup C_i' \cup T_i\cup T_i'$ and $Q_i=R_i\cup R_i' $ where
\begin{itemize}
\item $C_1=[b_{m},b_{m+1}]\cup [b_{m+3},a_{m+1}]\cup [a_{m+2},a_m]$;
\item $C'_1=[b_{m+1},b_{m+3}]\cup [a_{m+1},a_{m+2}]\cup [a_m,b_m]$;
\item $S_1=[a_\infty,b_1,c,a_2,a_{2m-2}]\cup [b_\infty,b_{0},a_3,a_{2m-1}]$;
\item $S'_1=[a_\infty,b_{0},a_2,a_{2m-1}]\cup [b_\infty,b_1,a_3,a_{2m-2}]$;
\item $T_1=[a_\infty,b_{0},a_2,a_{2m-2}]\cup [b_\infty,b_1,a_3,a_{2m-1}]$;
\item $T'_1=[a_\infty,b_1,c,a_2,a_{2m-1}]\cup [b_\infty,b_{0},a_3,a_{2m-2}]$;
\item $R_1=[a_{2m-1},a_4,a_{2m-3},a_6,\ldots, a_{m+5},a_{m-2},a_{m+3}]$\\
$\cup$ $[a_{2m-2},a_5,a_{2m-4},a_7,\ldots,a_{m+4},a_{m-1},a_{m+2}]$;
\item $R'_1=[a_{2m-1},a_5,a_{2m-3},a_7,\ldots, a_{m+5},a_{m-1},a_{m+3}]$ \\
$\cup$ $[a_{2m-2},a_4,a_{2m-4},a_6,\ldots, a_{m+4},a_{m-2},a_{m+2}]$;
\end{itemize}
and
\begin{itemize}
\item $C_2=[a_{m},a_{m+1}]\cup [b_{m+1},b_{m+2}]\cup [b_{m},b_{m+3}]$;
\item $C'_2=[a_{m+1},b_{m+1}]\cup [b_{m+2},b_{m}]\cup [b_{m+3},a_m]$;
\item $S_2=[a_\infty,a_1,c,b_2,b_{2m-2}]\cup [b_\infty,a_{0},a_3,b_{2m-1}]$;
\item $S'_2=[a_\infty,a_{0},b_2,b_{2m-1}]\cup [b_\infty,a_1,a_3,b_{2m-2}]$;
\item $T_2=[a_\infty,a_{0},b_2,b_{2m-2}]\cup [b_\infty,a_1,a_3,b_{2m-1}]$;
\item $T'_2=[a_\infty,a_1,c,b_2,b_{2m-1}]\cup [b_\infty,a_{0},a_3,b_{2m-2}]$;
\item $R_2=[b_{2m-1},b_4,b_{2m-3},b_6,\ldots, b_{m+5},b_{m-2},b_{m+3}]$\\
$\cup$ $[b_{2m-2},b_5,b_{2m-4},b_7,\ldots,b_{m+4},b_{m-1},b_{m+2}]$;
\item $R'_2=[b_{2m-1},b_5,b_{2m-3},b_7,\ldots, b_{m+5},b_{m-1},b_{m+3}]$ \\
$\cup$ $[b_{2m-2},b_4,b_{2m-4},b_6,\ldots, b_{m+4},b_{m-2},b_{m+2}]$;
\end{itemize}
when $m$ is even, and
\begin{itemize}
\item $C_1=[a_4,a_{2m-2}]\cup [b_{2m-2},b_{2m-1}]\cup [a_{2m-1},b_5]$;
\item $C'_1=[a_{4},a_{2m-1}]\cup [b_{2m-1},b_{5}]\cup [a_{2m-2},b_{2m-2}]$;
\item $S_1=[a_\infty,a_1,c,b_2,a_{2m-3}]\cup [b_\infty,b_{0},a_3,a_{2m-4}]$;
\item $S'_1=[a_\infty,b_{0},b_2,a_{2m-4}]\cup [b_\infty,a_1,a_3,a_{2m-3}]$;
\item $T_1=[a_\infty,b_{0},b_2,a_{2m-3}]\cup [b_\infty,a_1,a_3,a_{2m-4}]$;
\item $T'_1=[a_\infty,a_1,c,b_2,a_{2m-4}]\cup [b_\infty,b_{0},a_3,a_{2m-3}]$;
\item $C_2=[b_4,b_{2m-1}]\cup [a_{2m-1},a_{2m-2}]\cup [b_{2m-2},b_5]$;
\item $C'_2=[b_{4},b_{2m-2}]\cup [a_{2m-2},b_{5}]\cup [a_{2m-1},b_{2m-1}]$;
\item $S_2=[a_\infty,b_1,c,a_2,b_{2m-3}]\cup [b_\infty,a_{0},a_3,b_{2m-4}]$;
\item $S'_2=[a_\infty,a_{0},a_2,b_{2m-4}]\cup [b_\infty,b_1,a_3,b_{2m-3}]$;
\item $T_2=[a_\infty,a_{0},a_2,b_{2m-3}]\cup [b_\infty,b_1,a_3,b_{2m-4}]$;
\item $T'_2=[a_\infty,b_1,c,a_2,b_{2m-4}]\cup [b_\infty,a_{0},a_3,b_{2m-3}]$;
\end{itemize}
when $m$ is odd, with
$R_1=[a_7,a_5]\cup [a_6,a_4]$,
$R'_1=[a_7,a_4]\cup [a_6,a_5]$,
$R_2=[b_7,b_5]\cup [b_6,b_4]$ and
$R'_2=[b_7,b_4]\cup [b_6,b_5]$ when $m=5$; and
\begin{itemize}
\item $R_1=[a_{2m-3},a_7,a_{2m-7},a_{11},\ldots, a_{m+2},a_{m},a_{m+4},a_{m-4},a_{m+8},a_{m-8},\ldots,a_{2m-5},a_5]$\\
$\cup$ $[a_{2m-4},a_6,a_{2m-8},a_{10},\ldots, a_{m+1},a_{m-1},a_{m+3},a_{m-5},a_{m+7},a_{m-9},\ldots,a_{2m-6},a_4]$;
\item $R'_1=[a_{2m-3},a_6,a_{2m-7},a_{10},\ldots, a_{m+2},a_{m-1},a_{m+4},a_{m-5},a_{m+8},a_{m-9},\ldots,a_{2m-5},a_4]$\\
$\cup$ $[a_{2m-4},a_7,a_{2m-8},a_{11},\ldots, a_{m+1},a_{m},a_{m+3},a_{m-4},a_{m+7},a_{m-8},\ldots,a_{2m-6},a_5]$;
\item $R_2=[b_{2m-3},b_7,b_{2m-7},b_{11},\ldots, b_{m+2},b_{m},b_{m+4},b_{m-4},b_{m+8},b_{m-8},\ldots,b_{2m-5},b_5]$\\
$\cup$ $[b_{2m-4},b_6,b_{2m-8},b_{10},\ldots, b_{m+1},b_{m-1},b_{m+3},b_{m-5},b_{m+7},b_{m-9},\ldots,b_{2m-6},b_4]$;
\item $R'_2=[b_{2m-3},b_6,b_{2m-7},b_{10},\ldots, b_{m+2},b_{m-1},b_{m+4},b_{m-5},b_{m+8},b_{m-9},\ldots,b_{2m-5},b_4]$\\
$\cup$ $[b_{2m-4},b_7,b_{2m-8},b_{11},\ldots, b_{m+1},b_{m},b_{m+3},b_{m-4},b_{m+7},b_{m-8},\ldots,b_{2m-6},b_5]$;
\end{itemize}
when $m\equiv 1\pmod{4}$ and $m\geq 9$; and
\begin{itemize}
\item $R_1=[a_{2m-3},a_7,a_{2m-7},a_{11},\ldots, a_{m+4},a_{m},a_{m+2},a_{m-2},a_{m+6},a_{m-6},\ldots,a_{2m-5},a_5]$\\
$\cup$ $[a_{2m-4},a_6,a_{2m-8},a_{10},\ldots, a_{m+3},a_{m-1},a_{m+1},a_{m-3},a_{m+5},a_{m-7},\ldots,a_{2m-6},a_4]$;
\item $R'_1=[a_{2m-3},a_6,a_{2m-7},a_{10},\ldots, a_{m+4},a_{m-1},a_{m+2},a_{m-3},a_{m+6},a_{m-7},\ldots,a_{2m-5},a_4]$\\
$\cup$ $[a_{2m-4},a_7,a_{2m-8},a_{11},\ldots, a_{m+3},a_{m},a_{m+1},a_{m-2},a_{m+5},a_{m-6},\ldots,a_{2m-6},a_5]$;
\item $R_2=[b_{2m-3},b_7,b_{2m-7},b_{11},\ldots, b_{m+4},b_{m},b_{m+2},b_{m-2},b_{m+6},b_{m-6},\ldots,b_{2m-5},b_5]$\\
$\cup$ $[b_{2m-4},b_6,b_{2m-8},b_{10},\ldots, b_{m+3},b_{m-1},b_{m+1},b_{m-3},b_{m+5},b_{m-7},\ldots,b_{2m-6},b_4]$;
\item $R'_2=[b_{2m-3},b_6,b_{2m-7},b_{10},\ldots, b_{m+4},b_{m-1},b_{m+2},b_{m-3},b_{m+6},b_{m-7},\ldots,b_{2m-5},b_4]$\\
$\cup$ $[b_{2m-4},b_7,b_{2m-8},b_{11},\ldots, b_{m+3},b_{m},b_{m+1},b_{m-2},b_{m+5},b_{m-6},\ldots,b_{2m-6},b_5]$;
\end{itemize}
when $m\equiv 3\pmod{4}$.\\
\noindent Property $(1)$ follows by setting $Z=Z_1\cup Z_2$ and $Q=Q_1\cup Q_2$, and observing that $Z_i\cup Q_i$ is a $Q_i$-adjustable Hamilton fragment for each $i\in\{1,2\}$, by Lemma \ref{4regular_odd}, setting $H=Z_i\cup Q_i$ and
\begin{itemize}
\item $t=m$ when $i=1$ and $m$ is even;
\item $t=m+1$ when $i=2$ and $m$ is even;
\item $t=2m-2$ when $i=1$ and $m$ is odd;
\item $t=2m-1$ when $i=2$ and $m$ is odd;
\end{itemize}
and noting in particular that $\{E(S_i),E(S_i')\}$ and $\{E(T_i),E(T_i')\}$ are $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connectors by Lemma \ref{connectors}$(6)$.\\
\noindent
Property $(2)$ follows by noting that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{O}(Z_1\cup Z_2)=(2,1,2,4,4,2,2,0,0,\ldots,0,4)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}'(Z_1\cup Z_2)=(2,1,2,4,2,2,0,0,\ldots,0,4)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(Q_1\cup Q_2)= (0,0,0,0,0,2,2,4,4,\ldots,4,2,0)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}'(Q_1\cup Q_2)= (0,0,0,0,2,2,4,4,\ldots,4,2,0)$;
\end{itemize}
and hence $\mathcal{O}(Z\cup Q)=\mathcal{O}'(Z\cup Q)=(2,1,2,4,4,\ldots,4,2,4)$ when $m$ is even;
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{O}(Z_1\cup Z_2)=(2,1,2,2,2,4,4,4)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(Z_1\cup Z_2)=(2,1,0,2,4,4,4,4)$ and
\item $\mathcal{O}(Q_1\cup Q_2)=(0,0,0,2,2,0,0,0)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(Q_1\cup Q_2)=(0,0,2,2,0,0,0,0)$;
\end{itemize}
and hence $\mathcal{O}(Z\cup Q)=\mathcal{O}'(Z\cup Q)=(2,1,2,4,4,4,4,4)$ when $m=5$;
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{O}(Z_1\cup Z_2)=(2,1,2,2,2,0,0,4,4,4)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(Z_1\cup Z_2)=(2,1,0,2,0,0,4,4,4,4)$; and
\item $\mathcal{O}(Q_1\cup Q_2)=(0,0,0,2,2,4,4,0,0,0)$ and $\mathcal{O}'(Q_1\cup Q_2)=(0,0,2,2,4,4,0,0,0,0)$;
\end{itemize}
and hence $\mathcal{O}(Z\cup Q)=\mathcal{O}'(Z\cup Q)=(2,1,2,4,4,4,4,4,4,4)$
when $m=7$; and
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{O}(Z_1\cup Z_2)=(2,1,2,2,2,0,0,4,4,0,0,\ldots,0,4)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}'(Z_1\cup Z_2)=(2,1,0,2,0,0,4,4,0,0,\ldots,0,4)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}(Q_1\cup Q_2)=(0,0,0,2,2,4,4,0,0,4,4,\ldots,4,0)$;
\item $\mathcal{O}'(Q_1\cup Q_2)=(0,0,2,2,4,4,0,0,4,4,\ldots,4,0)$;
\end{itemize}
and hence $\mathcal{O}(Z\cup Q)=\mathcal{O}'(Z\cup Q)=(2,1,2,4,4,\ldots,4)$ when $m\geq 9$ is odd.\\
\noindent Property $(3)$ follows by noting that each of the twelve edges in $E(Z)$ belong to distinct edge orbits of $K-I$ under $\rho$.\\
\noindent Finally, we prove that property $(P2)$ is satisfied with ${\mathcal{D}}'=\{Z\cup Q_0\}$ (recall that $Q_0$ satifies $^A Q_0=\prescript{A}{}Q$ and that $Q=Q_1\cup Q_2$ with $Q_i= R_i\cup R_i'$ for $i=1,2$).
Let $\{\hat{Q}_1,\hat{Q}_2\}$ be a decomposition of $Q_0$ satisfying $^A \hat{Q}_1=\prescript{A}{}Q_1$ and $^A \hat{Q}_2=\prescript{A}{}Q_2$, and for each $i\in\{1,2\}$ let $\{\hat{R}_i,\hat{R}'_i\}$ be a decomposition of $\hat{Q}_i$ satisfying $^A \hat{R}_i=\prescript{A}{}R_i$ and $^A \hat{R}'_i=\prescript{A}{}R'_i$. Then, when $m$ is even, property $(P2)$
follows from Lemma \ref{12regular_odd}, setting
\begin{itemize}
\item $H=I\cup (Z\cup Q_0)$;
\item $t=m+1$;
\item $P_1=[a_{m+1},a_{m},b_{m-1},a_{m-2},\ldots,a_{m+2},b_{m+1}]$;
\item $P_2=[a_{m+1},b_{m},a_{m-1},b_{m-2},\ldots,b_{m+2},b_{m+1}]$;
\item $H_1=Z_1\cup \hat{Q}_1$;
and
\item $H_2=(Z_2-\{a_{m}a_{m+1},b_{m+1}b_{m+2}\}+\{a_{m}b_{m+1},a_{m+1}b_{m+2}\})\cup \hat{Q}_2$;
\end{itemize} noting that
\begin{itemize}
\item from the proof of property $(1)$ above, it is easy to see that for $t_1=m$ and $t_2=m+1$ there are decompositions
$\{S_1,S_1',\hat{R}_1,\hat{R}_1',C_1,C_1'\}$ and $\{T_1,T_1',\hat{R}_1,\hat{R}_1',C_1,C_1'\}$ of $H_1$, and
$\{S_2,S_2',\hat{R}_2,\hat{R}_2',C_2-\{a_{m}a_{m+1},b_{m+1}b_{m+2}\}+\{a_{m}b_{m+1},a_{m+1}b_{m+2}\},C_2'\}$ and $\{T_2,T_2',\hat{R}_2,\hat{R}_2',C_2-\{a_{m}a_{m+1},b_{m+1}b_{m+2}\}+\{a_{m}b_{m+1},a_{m+1}b_{m+2}\},C_2'\}$ of $H_2$ that satisfy the conditions of Lemma \ref{4regular_odd};
\item both $\{E(S_1),E(S_1'),E(X\cup P_1)\}$ and $\{E(T_1),E(T_1'),E(X\cup P_1)\}$ are $\{a_\infty,b_\infty,b_1\}$-connectors by Lemma \ref{connectors}$(7)$ with $(\alpha,\beta,u)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,b_1)$; and
\item both $\{E(S_2),E(S'_2),E(X\cup P_2)\}$ and $\{E(T_2),E(T'_2),E(X\cup P_2)\}$ are $\{a_\infty,b_\infty,a_1\}$-connectors by Lemma \ref{connectors}$(7)$ with $(\alpha,\beta,u)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,a_1)$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent When $m$ is odd, property $(P2)$
follows from Lemma \ref{12regular_odd}, setting
\begin{itemize}
\item $H=I\cup (Z\cup Q_0)$;
\item $t=m+1$;
\item $P_1=[a_{m+1},a_{m},b_{m-1},a_{m-2},\ldots,a_{m+2},b_{m+1}]$;
\item $P_2=[b_{m+1},b_{m},a_{m-1},b_{m-2},\ldots,b_{m+2},a_{m+1}]$;
\item $H_1=Z_1\cup \hat{Q}_1'-\{e_1\}+\{e_1'\}$;
and
\item $H_2=Z_2\cup \hat{Q}_2'-\{e_2\}+\{e_2'\}$;
\end{itemize} where $e_1\in E(\hat{R}_1')$ and $e_2\in E(\hat{R}_2')$ with $\{e_1,e_2\}=\{a_ma_{m+1},b_mb_{m+1}\}$ and $\{e_1',e_2'\}=\{a_mb_{m+1},b_{m}a_{m+1}\}$, noting that
\begin{itemize}
\item it follows easily from the proof of property $(1)$ above, that for each $i\in\{1,2\}$ the decompositions $\{S_i,S_i',\hat{R}_i,\hat{R}_i'-\{e_i\}+\{e_i'\},C_1,C_1'\}$ and $\{T_i,T_i',\hat{R}_i,\hat{R}_i'-\{e_i\}+\{e_i'\},C_i,C_i'\}$ of $H_i$ satisfy the conditions of Lemma \ref{4regular_odd};
\item both $\{E(S_1),E(S_1'),E(X\cup P_1)\}$ and $\{E(T_1),E(T_1'),E(X\cup P_1)\}$ are $\{a_\infty,b_\infty,a_1\}$-connectors by Lemma \ref{connectors}$(7)$ with $(\alpha,\beta,u)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,a_1)$; and
\item both $\{E(S_2),E(S'_2),E(X\cup P_2)\}$ and $\{E(T_2),E(T'_2),E(X\cup P_2)\}$ are $\{a_\infty,b_\infty,b_1\}$-connectors by Lemma \ref{connectors}$(7)$ with $(\alpha,\beta,u)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,b_1)$.
\end{itemize}
\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
\section{Decompositions into Hamilton Fragments for Small Degree Cases}\label{Section5}
\subsection{Decompositions of $K_{A_n\cup B_n}$ for $n\in\{2,3,4,5,7\}$}
The proof splits into cases according to the value of $n$.\\
\noindent{\bf The case n=2:}
Let $H=K_{A_{2}\cup B_{2}}$, let $G$ be a $4$-regular graph and let $\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$ be a directed $2$-factorisation of $G$ where $\overrightarrow F_\infty$ is a Hamilton cycle, say $\overrightarrow F_\infty=(v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_m)$. Our aim is to show that $L(G)$ decomposes into Hamilton cycles (and hence $H$ is a Hamilton fragment), and we do this by applying Lemma \ref{manyrepairs}
with $H_i=\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ and $V_i=\{a_\infty^{v_i},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$ for each $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
To this end, observe that $\sigma_{v_1}(H),\sigma_{v_2}(H),\ldots,\sigma_{v_m}(H)$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $L(G)$,
and since $b_\infty^{v_i}=a_\infty^{v_{i+1}}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ it follows that $V_i\cap V_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ as required. It remains to show there is a $2$-factorisation $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$ of $L(G)$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\cal{S}}_\infty$ links $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$; and
\item $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\{X,Y,Y'\}$ and $\{X',Z,Z'\}$ be decompositions of $H$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item $E(X)=\{a_\infty b_\infty,a_0b_0\}$, $E(Y)=\{a_\infty a_0,a_0b_\infty\}$, $E(Y')=\{a_\infty b_0, b_0b_\infty\}$; and
\item $E(X')=\{a_\infty a_0, b_\infty b_0\}$, $E(Z)=\{a_\infty b_0,b_0a_0,a_0b_\infty\}$, $E(Z')=\{a_\infty b_\infty\}$;
\end{itemize}
let $U$ and $U'$ be disjoint subsets of $V(G)$ such that each of $U$ and $U'$ contains precisely one vertex from each connected component of $F_0$ and each connected component of $\overrightarrow F_0$ contains an edge oriented from $u$ to $v$ for some $u\in U$ and $v\in U'$, and let $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$ be the decomposition of $L(G)$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item $J_1=(\bigcup_{v\in V(G)\setminus( U\cup U')}\sigma_v(X))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in (U\cup U')}\sigma_v(X'))$;
\item $J_2=(\bigcup_{v\in V(G)\setminus( U\cup U')}\sigma_v(Y))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in (U)}\sigma_v(Z))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in (U')}\sigma_v(Z'))$;
\item $J_3=(\bigcup_{v\in V(G)\setminus( U\cup U')}\sigma_v(Y'))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in (U)}\sigma_v(Z'))\cup (\bigcup_{v\in (U')}\sigma_v(Z))$.
\end{itemize}
It is a simple exercise to check that $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$ is a $2$-factorisation of $L(G)$ and that ${\cal{S}}_\infty$ links $\{J_1,J_2,J_3\}$. Finally, it is easy to see that both $\{X,Y,Y'\}$ and $\{X',Z,Z'\}$ are $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connectors as required. The result follows.\\
\noindent{\bf The case n=3:}
Observe that $H=K_{A_{3}\cup B_{3}}$ is a Hamilton fragment by Lemma \ref{4regular_withHam}, setting $(r,s,t)=(5,0,1)$, $E(X_1)=\{b_\infty a_0,b_0a_1,b_1a_\infty\}$,
$E(X_2)= \{a_\infty b_\infty,a_0b_0,a_1b_1\}$,
$E(X_3)=\{a_\infty a_0, a_0b_1,b_1b_\infty\}$,
$E(X_4)=\{a_\infty b_0, a_0a_1,a_1b_\infty\}$, and
$E(X_5)=\{a_\infty a_1, b_1b_0,b_0b_\infty\}$,
noting in particular that $\{E(X_1),E(X_2),E(X_3),E(X_4),E(X_5)\}$ is an $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(5)$, with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w,x)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,a_0,b_0,a_1,b_1)$.\\
\noindent{\bf The case n=4:}
Let $\{H_0,H_1\}$ be the decomposition of $K_{A_4\cup B_4}$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item $E(H_0)=\{a_\infty b_2,b_2b_0,a_0b_1,a_1 b_\infty\}\cup \{a_\infty b_\infty,a_0b_0,a_1b_2,b_2b_1\}$\\
$\cup \{a_\infty a_1, a_1b_0,a_0a_2,b_2b_\infty\}$;
\item $E(H_1)=\{a_\infty b_1, a_1a_0,a_0b_2,a_2b_\infty\}\cup \{a_\infty a_0,a_0 b_\infty, a_1b_1,a_2b_2\}$\\
$\cup \{a_\infty b_0, b_0a_2,a_2a_1,b_1b_\infty\}\cup \{a_\infty a_2,a_2b_1,b_1b_0,b_0b_\infty\}$.
\end{itemize}
Then
\begin{itemize}
\item $H_0$ is a Hamilton fragment by Lemma \ref{4regular_withHam}, setting $(r,s,t)=(3,0,1)$, \linebreak $E(X_1)=\{a_\infty b_2,b_2b_0,a_0b_1,a_1 b_\infty\}$, $E(X_2)= \{a_\infty b_\infty,a_0b_0,a_1b_2,b_2b_1\}$ and $E(X_3)=\{a_\infty a_1, a_1b_0,a_0a_2,b_2b_\infty\}$, noting in particular that $\{E(X_1),E(X_3),E(X_2)\}$ is an $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(2)$, with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,b_2,b_0,a_1)$; and
\item $H_1$ is a Hamilton fragment by Lemma \ref{4regular_withHam}, setting $(r,s,t)=(4,1,2)$, \linebreak $E(X_1)=\{a_\infty b_1, a_1a_0,a_0b_2,a_2b_\infty\}$, $E(X_2)=\{a_\infty a_0,a_0 b_\infty, a_1b_1,a_2b_2\}$, $E(X_3)=\{a_\infty b_0, b_0a_2,a_2a_1,b_1b_\infty\}$ and $E(X_4)=\{a_\infty a_2,a_2b_1,b_1b_0,b_0b_\infty\}$, noting in particular that $\{E(X_4),E(X_3),E(X_1),E(X_2)\}$ is an $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(4)$, with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w,x)=(b_\infty,a_\infty,b_0,b_1,a_2,a_0).$
\end{itemize}
\noindent{\bf The case n=5:}
Let $\{H_0,H_1,H_2,H_3\}$ be the decomposition of $K_{A_5\cup B_5}$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item $E(H_0)=\{a_\infty b_3,b_3b_1,a_1a_2,b_2a_0,a_0b_\infty\} \cup \{a_\infty a_0,a_0b_3,b_3b_\infty,a_1b_1,a_2b_2\}$;
\item $E(H_1)=\{a_\infty a_2,a_2b_3,a_3b_0,a_0b_1,b_1b_\infty\} \cup \{a_\infty b_1,b_1a_2,a_2b_\infty,a_0b_0,a_3b_3\}$;
\item $E(H_2)=\{a_\infty a_1,a_1b_2,a_2a_0,a_0a_3,a_3b_\infty\}\cup\{a_\infty a_3,a_3a_2,a_2b_0,a_0a_1,a_1b_\infty\}$;
\item $E(H_3)=\{a_\infty b_0,b_0b_1,a_1b_3,b_3b_2,b_2b_\infty\}\cup \{a_\infty b_\infty,a_3b_1,b_1b_2,b_2b_0,b_0b_3\}$\\
$\cup \{a_\infty b_2,b_2a_3,a_3a_1,a_1b_0,b_0b_\infty\}$.
\end{itemize}
Then
\begin{itemize}
\item $H_0$ is a Hamilton fragment by Lemma \ref{4regular_withHam}, setting $(r,s,t)=(2,1,2)$,
$E(X_1)= \{a_\infty b_3,b_3b_1,a_1a_2,b_2a_0,a_0b_\infty\} $, and $E(X_2)= \{a_\infty a_0,a_0b_3,b_3b_\infty,a_1b_1,a_2b_2\}$, noting that $\{E(X_1), E(X_2)\}$ is an $\{a_\infty, b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(0)$ with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,a_0,b_2,b_3)$;
\item $H_1$ is a Hamilton fragment by Lemma \ref{4regular_withHam}, setting $(r,s,t)=(2,0,3)$,
$E(X_1)= \{a_\infty a_2,a_2b_3,a_3b_0,a_0b_1,b_1b_\infty\} $, and $E(X_2)= \{a_\infty b_1,b_1a_2,a_2b_\infty,a_0b_0,a_3b_3\}$, noting that $\{E(X_1), E(X_2)\}$ is an $\{a_\infty, b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(0)$ with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,b_1,a_0,a_2)$;
\item $H_2$ is a Hamilton fragment by Lemma \ref{4regular_easy}, setting $E(S)=\{a_\infty a_1,a_1b_2,a_2a_0,a_0a_3,a_3b_\infty\}$, $E(S')=\{a_\infty a_3,a_3a_2,a_2b_0,a_0a_1,a_1b_\infty\}$ and $E(R)=E(R')=\emptyset$, noting that $\{E(S), E(S')\}$ is an $\{a_\infty, b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(1)$, with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w)=(b_\infty,a_\infty,a_3,a_0,a_1)$; and
\item $H_3$ is a Hamilton fragment by Lemma \ref{6regular_2}, setting $(s,t)=(1,3)$,
$E(X_1)= \{a_\infty b_0,b_0b_1,a_1b_3,b_3b_2,b_2b_\infty\}$,
$E(X_2)=\{a_\infty b_\infty,a_3b_1,b_1b_2,b_2b_0,b_0b_3\}$, \newline
$E(X_1')=\{a_\infty b_0,,b_0b_3,a_3b_1,b_1b_2,b_2b_\infty\}$,
$E(X_2')=\{a_\infty b_\infty,a_1b_3,b_3b_2,b_2b_0,b_0b_1\}$ and
$E(X_3)= \{a_\infty b_2,b_2a_3,a_3a_1,a_1b_0,b_0b_\infty\}$, noting that $\{E(X_1), E(X_2), E(X_3)\}$ and $\{E(X_1'), E(X_2'), E(X_3)\}$ are $\{a_\infty, b_\infty\}$-connectors by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(3)$, with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w,x)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,b_0,b_1,b_2,b_3)$ and $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w,x)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,b_0,b_3,b_2,b_1)$, respectively.
\end{itemize}
\noindent{\bf The case n=7:}
Let $\rho$ be the permutation on $K_{A_7\cup B_7}$ defined by
$$\rho = (a_\infty) (b_\infty) (a_0\,\, a_2\,\,a_4) (a_1\,\, a_3\,\,a_5) (b_0\,\, b_2\,\,b_4) (b_1\,\, b_3\,\,b_5).$$
Let $\{H_0,H_1,H_2,H'_0,H'_1,H'_2,I\}$ be the decomposition of $K_{A_7\cup B_7}$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item $E(H_0)=\{a_\infty a_0,a_0a_2,a_2b_5,a_5a_4,b_4b_3,a_3b_1,b_1b_\infty\}\cup
\{a_\infty b_1,b_1a_2,a_2b_3,a_3a_0,a_0b_\infty,a_4b_4, a_5b_5\}$;
\item $H_1=\rho(H_0)$;
\item $H_2=\rho(H_1)$;
\item $E(H_0')=\{a_\infty b_0,b_0b_2,b_2a_4,b_4b_5,b_5b_3,b_3a_1,a_1b_\infty\}\cup
\{a_\infty a_1,a_1b_2,b_2b_5,a_5a_3,a_3a_4,a_4b_0,b_0b_\infty\}$; and
\item $H_1'=\rho(H_0')$;
\item $H_2'=\rho(H_1')$;
\item $E(I)=\{a_\infty b_\infty,b_0a_1,a_1b_4,b_4a_5,a_5b_2,b_2a_3,a_3b_0\}$.
\end{itemize}
Observe that
\begin{itemize}
\item $H_0$ is a Hamilton fragment by Lemma \ref{4regular}, setting $T=\{4,5\}$,
$E(S)=\{a_\infty a_0,a_0a_2, b_1b_\infty \}$,
$E(S')=\{a_\infty b_1,b_1a_2, a_0b_\infty\}$,
$E(R)=\{a_3b_1\}$,
$E(R')=\{a_3a_0\}$,
$E(C)=\{b_3b_4,a_4a_5,b_5a_2\}$, and
$E(C')=\{a_2b_3, b_4a_4,a_5b_5\}$,
noting in particular that $\{E(S),E(S')\}$ is an $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(1)$, with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,a_0,a_2,b_1)$;
\item $H_0'$ is a Hamilton fragment by Lemma \ref{4regular_easy}, setting
$E(S)=\{a_\infty b_0,b_0b_2,a_1b_\infty\}$,
$E(S')=\{a_\infty a_1,a_1b_2,b_0b_\infty\}$,
$E(R)=\{b_2a_4,b_4b_5,b_5b_3,b_3a_1\}$, and \newline
$E(R')=\{b_2b_5,a_5a_3,a_3a_4,a_4b_0\}$, noting in particular that $\{E(S),E(S')\}$ is an $\{a_\infty,b_\infty\}$-connector by Lemma \ref{connectors} $(1)$, with $(\alpha,\beta,u,v,w)=(a_\infty,b_\infty,b_0,b_2,a_1)$;
\item $H_0'\cup I$ is a Hamilton fragment by Lemma \ref{6regular_2}, setting $(s,t)=(4,5)$,\newline
$E(X_1)=\{a_\infty b_0, b_0b_2, b_2a_4, b_4b_5, b_5b_3, b_3a_1, a_1b_\infty\}$,\newline
$E(X_2)=\{a_\infty b_\infty, b_0a_1, a_1b_2, b_2b_5, a_5a_3, a_3a_4, a_4b_0\}$,\newline
$E(X_1')=\{b_\infty a_1, a_1b_2, b_2b_5, a_5a_3, a_3a_4, a_4b_0, b_0 a_\infty\}$,\newline
$E(X_2')=\{a_\infty b_\infty, b_0a_1 , b_0b_2, b_2a_4, b_4b_5, b_5b_3, b_3a_1 \}$, and\newline
$E(X_3)=\{a_\infty a_1,a_1b_4,b_4a_5,a_5b_2,b_2a_3,a_3b_0,b_0b_\infty\}$. \newline
To see that $\{E(X_1),E(X_2), E(X_3)\}$ and $\{E(X'_1),E(X'_2), E(X_3)\}$ are $\{a_\infty, b_\infty\}$-connectors, suppose $\{F_1,F_2, F_3\}$ is a $2$-factorisation of
some $6$-regular graph $G$ such that $E(X_1)\subseteq E(F_1)$, $E(X_2)\subseteq E(F_2)$ and $E(X_3)\subseteq E(F_3)$, or $E(X'_1)\subseteq E(F'_1)$, $E(X'_2)\subseteq E(F'_2)$ and $E(X_3)\subseteq E(F_3)$, respectively.
Note that $a_\infty$ and $b_\infty$ are currently in the same component of $F_2$ and in the same component of $F_3$. If $a_\infty$ and $b_\infty$ are also in the same component of $F_1$ then we are done. Otherwise, replace $F_1$ with $F_1 - \{a_\infty b_0, a_1 b_\infty\} + \{a_\infty a_1, b_0 b_\infty\}$ and replace $F_3$ with
$F_3 - \{a_\infty a_1, b_0 b_\infty\} + \{a_\infty b_0, a_1 b_\infty\}$.
\end{itemize}
It follows that $H_1,H_2,H_1',H_2'$ are Hamilton fragments and thus $\{H_0,H_1,H_2,H'_0\cup I,H'_1,H'_2\}$ is the required decomposition of $K_{A_7\cup B_7}$.
\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
\subsection{Decompositions of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ for $n\in\{1,2,\ldots,9\}$}
In this section we give a decomposition of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ into Hamilton fragments for each $n\in\{1,2,\ldots,9\}$.
\noindent{\bf The case n=1:}
Kotzig \cite{Kot} showed that a $3$-regular graph is Hamiltonian if and only if its line graph is Hamilton decomposable,
and it follows from this that $K_{A_1\cup B_1\cup\{c\}}$ itself is a Hamilton fragment.
For each of the cases $n=2,3,\ldots,9$,
let $G$ be a $2n+1$-regular graph with vertex set $\{v_1,\ldots,v_m\}$,
let $F$ be a $1-$factor of $G$ and let $\{\overrightarrow F_0,\overrightarrow F_1,\ldots,\overrightarrow F_{n-2},\overrightarrow F_\infty\}$ be a directed $2$-factorisation of $G-F$ where $\overrightarrow F_\infty$ is a Hamilton cycle, say $\overrightarrow F_\infty=(v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_m)$.
\noindent{\bf The case n=2:}
Let $H=K_{A_2\cup B_2\cup\{c\}}\cong K_5$. We show that $H$ is a Hamilton fragment.
Our aim is to show that the subgraph $$L=\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H)$$
of $L(G)$ decomposes into Hamilton cycles, and we do this by applying Lemma \ref{manyrepairs}
with $H_i=\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ and $V_i=\{a_\infty^{v_i},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$ for each $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
To this end, observe that \linebreak $\sigma_{v_1}(H),\sigma_{v_2}(H),\ldots,\sigma_{v_m}(H)$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $L$,
and since $b_\infty^{v_i}=a_\infty^{v_{i+1}}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ it follows that $V_i\cap V_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ as required. It remains to show there is a $2$-factorisation
$\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4\}$ of $L$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4\}$; and
\item $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\{U,U'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $U$ and $U'$ link $\{F,\overrightarrow F_0\}$ (such a partition exists by Lemma \ref{intersects}),
and let $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4\}$ be the decomposition of $L$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item $J_1=\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v([a_\infty,a_0,c,b_\infty])\cup \bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty])$;
\item $J_2= \bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v([a_\infty,c,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,a_0])\cup \bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_0,b_0])$;
\item $J_3=\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty])\cup \bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,c,b_0,b_\infty])$;
\item $J_4= \bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_0,b_0])\cup \bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,c,a_0])$.
\end{itemize}
It is easily checked that $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4\}$ is a $2$-factorisation of $L$ and that $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4\}$.
It remains to show that for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$, $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4\}$. First note that $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1$ and $J_3$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
Also note that $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4$ for each $v_i\in U$, and that
$a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2$ for each $v_i\in U'$.
If $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the distinct components of $J_4$ for some $v_i\in U'$, then we move the two edges
$a_\infty^{v_i}b_0^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}c^{v_i}$ from $J_4$ to $J_3$ and move the two edges
$a_\infty^{v_i}c^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}b_0^{v_i}$ from $J_3$ to $J_4$.
If $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the distinct components of $J_2$ for some $v_i\in U$, then we move the two edges
$a_\infty^{v_i}c^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}a_0^{v_i}$ from $J_2$ to $J_1$ and move the two edges
$a_\infty^{v_i}a_0^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}c^{v_i}$ from $J_1$ to $J_2$.
It is easily checked that this has the desired effect, and thus
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4\}$.
\noindent{\bf The case n=3:}
Let $H=K_{A_3\cup B_3\cup\{c\}}\cong K_7$. We show that $H$ is a Hamilton fragment.
Our aim is to show that the subgraph $$L=\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H)$$
of $L(G)$ decomposes into Hamilton cycles, and we do this by applying Lemma \ref{manyrepairs}
with $H_i=\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ and $V_i=\{a_\infty^{v_i},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$ for each $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
To this end, observe that \linebreak $\sigma_{v_1}(H),\sigma_{v_2}(H),\ldots,\sigma_{v_m}(H)$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $L$,
and since $b_\infty^{v_i}=a_\infty^{v_{i+1}}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ it follows that $V_i\cap V_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ as required. It remains to show there is a $2$-factorisation
$\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$ of $L$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$; and
\item $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\{U,U'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $U$ and $U'$ link $\{F,\overrightarrow F_0\}$,
let $\{V,V'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $V$ and $V'$ link $\{F,\overrightarrow F_1\}$
(such partitions exist by Lemma \ref{intersects}),
and let $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$ be the decomposition of $L$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_1&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,c,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_0,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_0,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,a_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_0,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_1]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_2&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,a_0,c,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,a_0,c,a_1]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_3&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_1,b_\infty]\cup[a_0,b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_\infty,c,b_1,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_1,b_\infty]\cup[a_0,b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,c,b_1,b_0]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_4&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_\infty,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,c,a_0,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,c,a_0,a_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_5&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_\infty,c,a_1,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_\infty,a_1,b_\infty]\cup[a_0,b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,c,a_1,b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,a_1,b_\infty]\cup[a_0,b_0]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_6&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_0,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,a_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_\infty,b_0,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,c,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_\infty,c,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1]);
\end{array}
$
\end{itemize}
It is easily checked that $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$ is a $2$-factorisation of $L$ and that $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$.
It remains to show that for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$, $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$.
There are four cases to consider: $v_i\in U\cap V$, $v_i\in U'\cap V$, $v_i\in U\cap V'$ and $v_i\in U'\cap V'$.
First suppose $v_i\in U\cap V$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1$, $J_2$ and $J_3$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_4$, $J_5$ and $J_6$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_4$&$J_5$&$J_6$\\
\hline
1.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
1.2& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
1.3& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
1.4& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
1.5& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
1.6& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
1.7& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
1.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 1.1--1.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
1.1& \\
\hline
1.2& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1,c,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,b_0])$\\
\hline
1.3a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,c,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,a_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1,c,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,a_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_6\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
1.3b& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,a_0,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,a_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,c,a_1,a_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_0,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_6\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
1.3c& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1,b_\infty]\cup[a_0,c,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_6\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
1.3d& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,a_1,c,a_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_0,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_6\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
1.4& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,a_0,c,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,a_1,c,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
\hline
1.5& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,a_1,a_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
\hline
1.6& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,a_0,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,a_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,c,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
\hline
1.7a& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,a_1,c,a_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_0,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_6\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
1.7b& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1,b_\infty]\cup[a_0,c,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_6\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
\hline
1.8& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,a_1,c,a_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_0,b_1])$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Now suppose $v_i\in U'\cap V$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1$, $J_2$ and $J_5$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_3$, $J_4$ and $J_6$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_3$&$J_4$&$J_6$\\
\hline
2.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
2.2& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
2.3& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
2.4& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
2.5& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
2.6& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
2.7& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
2.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 2.1--2.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
2.1& \\
\hline
2.2a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_1,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,a_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,c,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_0,a_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_6\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
2.2b& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,c,a_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_6\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
2.2c& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1,c,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,a_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,c,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_6\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
2.2d& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1,b_\infty]\cup[a_0,c,b_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_6\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
2.3& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1,c,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,b_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
\hline
2.4& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,b_1,c,b_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,a_0,c,a_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
\hline
2.5& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,c,a_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
\hline
2.6& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,b_1,a_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
\hline
2.7& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,b_1,b_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_0,a_1])$\\
\hline
2.8& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_1,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,a_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,c,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_0,a_1])$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Now suppose $v_i\in U\cap V'$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_3$, $J_4$ and $J_6$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_1$, $J_2$ and $J_5$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_1$&$J_2$&$J_5$\\
\hline
3.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
3.2& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
3.3& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
3.4& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
3.5& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
3.6& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
3.7& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
3.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 3.1--3.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
3.1& \\
\hline
3.2& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1,c,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,c,b_1])$\\
\hline
3.3& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,a_1,c,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
\hline
3.4a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,c,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,a_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,a_1,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,a_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
3.4b& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,c,a_0])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
3.4c& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,c,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,a_1,a_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
3.4d& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1,b_\infty]\cup[a_0,c,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
3.5& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,a_0,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,a_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,c,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
\hline
3.6& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,c,a_0])$\\
\hline
3.7& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,c,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,a_1,a_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
\hline
3.8& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_1,b_\infty]\cup[a_0,c,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Finally suppose $v_i\in U'\cap V'$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4$, $J_5$ and $J_6$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_1$, $J_2$ and $J_3$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_1$&$J_2$&$J_3$\\
\hline
4.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
4.2& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
4.3& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
4.4& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
4.5& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
4.6& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
4.7& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
4.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 4.1--4.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
4.1& \\
\hline
4.2& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,b_1c,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
\hline
4.3a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_0,a_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,a_0,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,c,b_1,a_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_0,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
4.3b& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,c,a_0,a_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,b_1,a_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
4.3c& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_0,a_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,b_1,c,a_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_0,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
4.3d& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1,b_\infty]\cup[a_0,c,b_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$\\
&and $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
4.4& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1,c,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,b_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_0,b_1])$\\
\hline
4.5& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,c,a_0,a_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,b_1,a_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
\hline
4.6& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,a_0,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1,a_0]\cup[b_\infty,c,b_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
\hline
4.7& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,c,a_0])$\\
\hline
4.8& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_0,a_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,c,a_0,a_1]\cup[b_\infty,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_0]\cup[b_\infty,c,b_1,a_0])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,a_0,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_\infty,b_\infty]\cup[a_1,c,b_0,b_1])$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{5cm}
\noindent{\bf The case n=4:}
Let $H$ be the union of the paths
$$[a_{\infty},a_1,b_0,b_{\infty}], [a_2,b_2], [b_{\infty},a_1,c,b_2], [a_2,b_0,a_{\infty}],$$
and let $H'=K_{A_4\cup B_4\cup\{c\}}-H$ so that $\{H,H'\}$ is a decomposition of $K_{A_4\cup B_4\cup\{c\}}\cong K_9$.
We show that each of $H$ and $H'$ is a Hamilton fragment.
For $H$, our aim is to show that the subgraph $$L=\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H)$$
of $L(G)$ decomposes into Hamilton cycles, and we do this by applying Lemma \ref{manyrepairs}
with $H_i=\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ and $V_i=\{a_\infty^{v_i},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$ for each $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
To this end, observe that \linebreak $\sigma_{v_1}(H),\sigma_{v_2}(H),\ldots,\sigma_{v_m}(H)$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $L$,
and since $b_\infty^{v_i}=a_\infty^{v_{i+1}}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ it follows that $V_i\cap V_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ as required. It remains to show there is a $2$-factorisation
$\{J_1,J_2\}$ of $L$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2\}$; and
\item $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\{U,U'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $U$ and $U'$ link $\{F,\overrightarrow F_0\}$
(such a partition exists by Lemma \ref{intersects}),
and let $\{J_1,J_2\}$ be the decomposition of $L$ defined by
$$J_1=\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_1,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_2,b_2])\ \cup \
\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v([b_{\infty},a_1,c,b_2] \cup [a_2,b_0,a_{\infty}])$$
and
$$J_2=\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v([b_{\infty},a_1,c,b_2] \cup [a_2,b_0,a_{\infty}])\ \cup \
\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v(a_{\infty},a_1,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_2,b_2]).$$
It is easily checked that $\{J_1,J_2\}$ is a $2$-factorisation of $L$ and that
$\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2\}$. By Lemma \ref{connectors} (0), $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_i}, b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1, J_2\}$ with $(\alpha, \beta, u,v,w) = (a_\infty, b_\infty, a_1, c, b_0)$ for $v_i\in U$ and $(\alpha, \beta, u,v,w) = (b_\infty, a_\infty, a_1, c, b_0)$ for $v_i\in U'$.
For $H'$, our aim is to show that the subgraph $$L=\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H')$$
of $L(G)$ decomposes into Hamilton cycles, and we do this by applying Lemma \ref{manyrepairs}
with $H_i=\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ and $V_i=\{a_\infty^{v_i},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$ for each $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
To this end, observe that \linebreak $\sigma_{v_1}(H'),\sigma_{v_2}(H'),\ldots,\sigma_{v_m}(H')$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $L$,
and since $b_\infty^{v_i}=a_\infty^{v_{i+1}}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ it follows that $V_i\cap V_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ as required. It remains to show there is a $2$-factorisation
$\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$ of $L$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$; and
\item $\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\{U,U'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $U$ and $U'$ link $\{F,\overrightarrow F_1\}$,
let $\{V,V'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $V$ and $V'$ link $\{F,\overrightarrow F_2\}$
(such partitions exist by Lemma \ref{intersects}),
and let $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$ be the decomposition of $L$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_1&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_1,a_0,a_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},c,a_2,b_1] \cup [a_1,a_0,b_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,a_0,a_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},c,a_2,b_1] \cup [a_1,a_0,b_{\infty}]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_2&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_1,b_2,b_0,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,b_2,b_0,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_3&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_2,c,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_1,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_0,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_2,c,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_0,b_1]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_4&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_1,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_0,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_0,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_5&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},b_1,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},b_1,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([b_{\infty},c,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,a_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([b_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,a_{\infty}]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_6&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([b_{\infty},c,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,a_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([b_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,a_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},b_1,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},b_1,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0]);
\end{array}
$
\end{itemize}
It is easily checked that $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$ is a $2$-factorisation of $L$ and that $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$.
It remains to show that for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$, $\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$.
There are four cases to consider: $v_i\in U\cap V$, $v_i\in U'\cap V$, $v_i\in U\cap V'$ and $v_i\in U'\cap V'$.
First suppose $v_i\in U\cap V$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1$, $J_3$ and $J_5$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_2$, $J_4$ and $J_6$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_2$&$J_4$&$J_6$\\
\hline
1.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
1.2& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
1.3& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
1.4& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
1.5& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
1.6& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
1.7& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
1.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 1.1--1.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
1.1& \\
\hline
1.2& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,a_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
1.3& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_2,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_0,b_1])$\\
\hline
1.4& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},c,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_1,b_2,a_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_2,b_0] \cup [a_{\infty},b_1,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_1,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
\hline
1.5& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},c,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_1,b_2,a_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_2,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_2,b_0] \cup [a_{\infty},b_1,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_1,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
\hline
1.6& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
1.7& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_2,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,a_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
1.8& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_2,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Now suppose $v_i\in U'\cap V$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2$, $J_4$ and $J_5$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_1$, $J_3$ and $J_6$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_1$&$J_3$&$J_6$\\
\hline
2.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
2.2& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
2.3& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
2.4& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
2.5& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
2.6& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
2.7& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
2.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 2.1--2.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
2.1& \\
\hline
2.2& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,a_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,c,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
\hline
2.3a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_2,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,a_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
2.3b& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_2,b_1])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
\hline
2.4 & $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
2.5 & $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_2,b_1])$\\
\hline
2.6 & $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,a_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,c,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
2.7a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_2,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,a_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
2.7b& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_2,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
&if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
\hline
2.8& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_2,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,a_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Now suppose $v_i\in U\cap V'$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1$, $J_3$ and $J_6$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_2$, $J_4$ and $J_5$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_2$&$J_4$&$J_5$\\
\hline
3.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
3.2& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
3.3& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
3.4& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
3.5& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
3.6& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
3.7& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
3.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 3.1--3.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
3.1& \\
\hline
3.2& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,a_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
3.3& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_2,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_0,b_1])$\\
\hline
3.4& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},c,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_1,b_2,a_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_0])$\\
\hline
3.5& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_2,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,a_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
3.6& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
\hline
3.7& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},c,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_1,b_2,a_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_2,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_0])$\\
\hline
3.8& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}(a_1,b_2,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_2,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Now suppose $v_i\in U'\cap V'$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2$, $J_4$ and $J_6$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_1$, $J_3$ and $J_5$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_1$&$J_3$&$J_5$\\
\hline
4.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
4.2& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
4.3& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
4.4& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
4.5& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
4.6& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
4.7& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
4.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 4.1--4.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
4.1& \\
\hline
4.2& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}(a_1,a_0,a_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,c,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
\hline
4.3a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_2,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,a_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$. \\
4.3b& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_2,b_1])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
\hline
4.4& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
\hline
4.5& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_2,b_1])$\\
\hline
4.6& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,a_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,c,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
\hline
4.7a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_2,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,a_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$. \\
4.7b& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_2,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H)$.\\
\hline
4.8& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_2,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,a_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{5cm}
The cases $n=5,6,7,8,9$ are similar and use the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{4RegularHamiltonFragments}
If $H$ is a subgraph of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$, $t\in \{0,1,\ldots,n-2\}$,
and there exist four decompositions
${\mathcal{D}}_1=\{X_1,Y_1\}$, ${\mathcal{D}}'_1=\{X'_1,Y'_1\}$, ${\mathcal{D}}_2=\{X_2,Y_2\}$ and ${\mathcal{D}}'_2=\{X'_2,Y'_2\}$ of $H$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $^{A}X_1$ is a $2$-regular graph, $^{A}Y_1$ is a $2$-regular graph,
and
$\{V(^{A}X_1),V(^{A}Y_1)\}=\{N_n,N_n\cup\{c\}\}$;
\item[(b)] for each vertex $v$ in $K_{A_n\cup B_n}$,
${\rm deg}_{X_1}(v)={\rm deg}_{X'_1}(v)={\rm deg}_{X_2}(v)={\rm deg}_{X'_2}(v)$ and ${\rm deg}_{Y_1}(v)={\rm deg}_{Y'_1}(v)={\rm deg}_{Y_2}(v)={\rm deg}_{Y'_2}(v)$;
\item[(c)] ${\rm deg}_{X_1}(c)= {\rm deg}_{X_2}(c) = {\rm deg}_{Y'_1}(c)= {\rm deg}_{Y'_2}(c)$ and
${\rm deg}_{Y_1}(c)= {\rm deg}_{Y_2}(c) = {\rm deg}_{X'_1}(c)= {\rm deg}_{X'_2}(c)$;
\item[(d)] each of $X_1$ and $X_2$ is the vertex disjoint union of an $a_t,b_t$-path and an $a_\infty,b_\infty$-path; and
\begin{itemize}
\item[(d$_1$)] $Y_1$ is
the vertex disjoint union of an $a_t,a_\infty$-path and a $b_t,b_\infty$-path,
and $Y_2$ is
the vertex disjoint union of either an $a_t,b_\infty$-path and a $b_t,a_\infty$-path,
or an $a_t,b_t$-path and an $a_\infty,b_\infty$-path; or
\item[(d$_2$)] $Y_1$ is
the vertex disjoint union of an $a_t,b_\infty$-path and a $b_t,a_\infty$-path,
and $Y_2$ is
the vertex disjoint union of either an $a_t,a_\infty$-path and a $b_t,b_\infty$-path,
or an $a_t,b_t$-path and an $a_\infty,b_\infty$-path,
\end{itemize}
\item[(e)] each of $Y'_1$ and $Y'_2$ is the vertex disjoint union of an $a_t,b_t$-path and an $a_\infty,b_\infty$-path; and
\begin{itemize}
\item[(e$_1$)] $X'_1$ is
the vertex disjoint union of an $a_t,a_\infty$-path and a $b_t,b_\infty$-path,
and $X'_2$ is
the vertex disjoint union of either an $a_t,b_\infty$-path and a $b_t,a_\infty$-path,
or an $a_t,b_t$-path and an $a_\infty,b_\infty$-path; or
\item[(e$_2$)] $X'_1$ is
the vertex disjoint union of an $a_t,b_\infty$-path and a $b_t,a_\infty$-path,
and $X'_2$ is
the vertex disjoint union of either an $a_t,a_\infty$-path and a $b_t,b_\infty$-path,
or an $a_t,b_t$-path and an $a_\infty,b_\infty$-path,
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
then $H$ is a Hamilton fragment.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof}\quad
Our aim is to show that the subgraph $$L=\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H)$$
of $L(G)$ decomposes into Hamilton cycles, and we do this by applying Lemma \ref{manyrepairs}
with $H_i=\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ and $V_i=\{a_\infty^{v_i},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$ for each $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
To this end, observe that \linebreak $\sigma_{v_1}(H),\sigma_{v_2}(H),\ldots,\sigma_{v_m}(H)$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $L$,
and since $b_\infty^{v_i}=a_\infty^{v_{i+1}}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ it follows that $V_i\cap V_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ as required. It remains to show there is a $2$-factorisation
$\{J_1,J_2\}$ of $L$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2\}$; and
\item $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\{U,U'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $U$ and $U'$ link $\{F,\overrightarrow F_0\}$
(such a partition exists by Lemma \ref{intersects}),
and let $\{J_1,J_2\}$ be the decomposition of $L$ defined by
$$J_1=\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(X_1)\ \cup \
\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v(X'_1)$$
and
$$J_2=\bigcup_{v\in U}\sigma_v(Y_1)\ \cup \
\bigcup_{v\in U'}\sigma_v(Y'_1).$$
It is easily checked that $\{J_1,J_2\}$ is a $2$-factorisation of $L$ and that
$\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2\}$.
It remains to show that for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$, $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in
$\{J_1,J_2\}$.
There are two cases to consider: $v_i\in U$ and $v_i\in U'$.
First suppose $v_i\in U$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1$.
If $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are also in the same component of $J_2$, then we are done.
If $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are not in the same component of $J_2$, then reallocate the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1$ and $J_2$ as follows to obtain a $2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties.
$$J_1:\sigma_{v_i}(X_2)\qquad J_2:\sigma_{v_i}(Y_2)$$
Now suppose $v_i\in U'$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2$.
If $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are also in the same component of $J_1$, then we are done.
If $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are not in the same component of $J_1$, then reallocate the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1$ and $J_2$ as follows to obtain a $2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties.
$$J_1:\sigma_{v_i}(X'_2)\qquad J_2:\sigma_{v_i}(Y'_2)$$
\hfill$\Box$\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent{\bf The case n=5:}
For $i=1,2$, let $X_1(i)$, $Y_1(i)$, $X'_1(i)$, $Y'_1(i)$, $X_2(i)$, $Y_2(i)$, $X'_2(i)$, $Y'_2(i)$ be the subgraphs of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ given by the union of
the paths listed in the following tables, and let $H^i$ be the subgraph of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ with edge set
$E(X_1(i))\cup E(Y_1(i))$. Applying Lemma \ref{4RegularHamiltonFragments} with $H=H^i$, $X_1=X_1(i)$, $Y_1=Y_1(i)$, $X'_1=X'_1(i)$, $Y'_1=Y_1(i)$,$X_2=X_2(i)$, $Y_2=Y_2(i)$, $X'_2=X_2(i)$, $Y'_2=Y_2(i)$ shows that each
$H^i$ is a Hamilton fragment. The value of $t$ can be deduced from the ends of the given paths.
\vspace{0.3cm}
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(1)& [a_{\infty},b_1,c,a_2,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_3,b_3]\\
\hline
Y_1(1)&[b_{\infty},b_1,a_2,b_3] \cup [a_3,a_0,a_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_1(1)& Y_1(1) \\
\hline
Y'_1(1) & X_1(1)\\
\hline
X_2(1)& [a_{\infty},a_0,a_2,c,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_3,b_3]\\
\hline
Y_2(1)& [a_{\infty},b_1,a_2,b_3] \cup [a_3,a_0,b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_2(1) & X_2(1) \\
\hline
Y'_2(1) & Y_2(1) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(2)& [a_{\infty},a_1,b_0,c,b_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_2,b_2]\\
\hline
Y_1(2)&[a_{\infty},b_3,b_0,b_2] \cup [a_2,a_1,b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_1(2)& Y_1(2) \\
\hline
Y'_1(2) & X_1(2)\\
\hline
X_2(2)& [a_{\infty},b_3,c,b_0,a_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_2,b_2]\\
\hline
Y_2(2)& [b_{\infty},b_3,b_0,b_2] \cup [a_2,a_1,a_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_2(2) & X_2(2) \\
\hline
Y'_2(2) & Y_2(2) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
Note that $H^1$ is edge disjoint from $H^2$ and let $H'=K_{A_5\cup B_5\cup \{c\}}-{H^1\cup H^2}$ so that $\{H', H^1, H^2\}$ is a decomposition of $K_{A_5\cup B_5\cup \{c\}}\cong K_{11}$. We now show that $H'$ is a Hamilton fragment.
Our aim is to show that the subgraph $$L=\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H')$$
of $L(G)$ decomposes into Hamilton cycles, and we do this by applying Lemma \ref{manyrepairs}
with $H_i=\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ and $V_i=\{a_\infty^{v_i},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$ for each $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
To this end, observe that \linebreak $\sigma_{v_1}(H'),\sigma_{v_2}(H'),\ldots,\sigma_{v_m}(H')$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $L$,
and since $b_\infty^{v_i}=a_\infty^{v_{i+1}}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ it follows that $V_i\cap V_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ as required. It remains to show there is a $2$-factorisation
$\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$ of $L$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$; and
\item $\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\{U,U'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $U$ and $U'$ link $\{F,\overrightarrow F_1\}$,
let $\{V,V'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $V$ and $V'$ link $\{F,\overrightarrow F_2\}$
(such partitions exist by Lemma \ref{intersects}),
and let $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$ be the decomposition of $L$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_1&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([[a_1,b_2,a_0,b_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([b_{\infty},c,a_0,b_1]\cup[a_1,b_3,b_2,a_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,b_3,a_0,b_2,b_1]\cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,b_3,a_0,c,a_{\infty}]\cup[b_{\infty},b_2,b_1]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_2&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([b_{\infty},c,a_0,b_1] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_2,a_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_1,b_2,a_0,b_3,b_1]\cup[a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,a_0,c,b_{\infty}]\cup[a_{\infty},b_2,b_3,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,a_0,b_2,b_3,b_1]\cup[a_{\infty},b_{\infty}]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_3&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_2,b_0,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_1,a_3,c,a_{\infty}]\cup[b_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_2,b_0,a_3,b_{\infty}]\cup[a_1,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,c,a_3,a_{\infty}]\cup[b_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_1]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_4&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_1,c,a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_2,a_3,b_0,b_{\infty}]\cup[a_1,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,c,a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}]\cup[a_{\infty},b_0,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_2,a_3,b_0,b_{\infty}]\cup[a_1,b_1]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_5&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_3,b_1,b_2,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_0,b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_3,b_1,b_2,b_{\infty}]\cup[a_0,b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_0,b_1,a_3,b_2,c,a_{\infty}]\cup[b_{\infty},b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_0,b_1,a_3,b_2,c,b_{\infty}]\cup[a_{\infty},b_0]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_6&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_0,a_1,a_3,b_2,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_0,a_1,c,b_2,a_3,b_{\infty}]\cup[a_{\infty},b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_3,a_1,b_2,b_{\infty}]\cup[a_0,b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},b_2,a_1,a_3,b_{\infty}]\cup[a_0,b_0]);
\end{array}
$
\end{itemize}
It is easily checked that $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$ is a $2$-factorisation of $L$ and that $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$.
It remains to show that for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$, $\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$.
There are four cases to consider: $v_i\in U\cap V$, $v_i\in U'\cap V$, $v_i\in U\cap V'$ and $v_i\in U'\cap V'$.
First suppose $v_i\in U\cap V$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1$, $J_3$ and $J_5$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_2$, $J_4$ and $J_6$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_2$&$J_4$&$J_6$\\
\hline
1.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
1.2& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
1.3& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
1.4& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
1.5& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
1.6& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
1.7& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
1.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 1.1--1.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
1.1& \\
\hline
1.2& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_3,a_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
\hline
1.3& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
1.4a& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_3,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_3,a_2,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_1,c,b_2,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
1.4b& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_3,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_3,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_1,c,b_2,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
\hline
1.5& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_3,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_3,a_2,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_1,c,b_2,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0])$\\
\hline
1.6a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_3,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_1,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_2,a_1,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
1.6b& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_3,a_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_3,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_3,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_1,c,b_2,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
\hline
1.7& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_3,a_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_1,a_3,b_2,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_0])$\\
\hline
1.8& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_3,a_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_3,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_3,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_1,c,b_2,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0])$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Next suppose $v_i\in U'\cap V$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2$, $J_4$ and $J_5$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_1$, $J_3$ and $J_6$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_1$&$J_3$&$J_6$\\
\hline
2.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
2.2& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
2.3& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
2.4& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
2.5& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
2.6& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
2.7& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
2.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 2.1--2.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
2.1& \\
\hline
2.2& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_0,b_1] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_1,a_3,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0])$\\
\hline
2.3& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_3,a_2,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_3,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
2.4a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_3,a_0,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_2,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_2,b_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_1,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_1,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_3\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
2.4b & $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_0,a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_1,a_3,b_2,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_3\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
\hline
2.5 & $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_0,a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_1,a_3,b_2,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_0])$\\
\hline
2.6a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_1,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_2,a_1,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_3\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
2.6b & $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_0,b_1] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_3,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_0,a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,b_1,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_1,c,b_2,a_3,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_3\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
2.7& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_3,a_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_3,a_2,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_3,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
2.8& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_1,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_2,a_1,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Next suppose $v_i\in U\cap V'$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1$, $J_3$ and $J_6$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_2$, $J_4$ and $J_5$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_2$&$J_4$&$J_5$\\
\hline
3.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
3.2& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
3.3& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
3.4& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
3.5& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
3.6& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
3.7& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
3.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 3.1--3.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
3.1& \\
\hline
3.2& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
\hline
3.3& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
3.4a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_3,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_2,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_1,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ and \\
& $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
3.4b& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_3,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_1,a_3,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_1,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ and \\
& $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
3.4c& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_2,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_2,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_1,a_3,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_1,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ and \\
& $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
3.4d& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_2,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_3,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_1,a_3,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_1,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ and \\
& $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
3.5a & $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_3,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_2,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_1,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
3.5b& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_2,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_2,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_1,a_3,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_1,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
\hline
3.6a & $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_3,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_2,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_1,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
3.6b& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_2,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_3,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_1,a_3,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_1,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_4\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
\hline
3.7& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_3,b_2,a_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_0,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_3,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},a_3,b_2,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,c,a_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
3.8& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_2,a_3,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_2,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_1,b_0])$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Finally suppose $v_i\in U'\cap V'$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2$, $J_4$ and $J_6$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_1$, $J_3$ and $J_5$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_1$&$J_3$&$J_5$\\
\hline
4.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
4.2& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
4.3& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
4.4& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
4.5& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
4.6& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
4.7& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
4.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 4.1--4.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
4.1& \\
\hline
4.2& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
4.3& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_2,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
\hline
4.4a& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_1,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_3\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
4.4b& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_0,a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_1,a_3,b_2,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_1,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ and \\
& $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_3\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
4.4c & $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_3,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_2,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_0,a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_1,a_3,b_2,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_1,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ and \\
& $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_3\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
\hline
4.5& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_1,b_0])$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
4.6a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_2,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_1,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_1,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_1^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_3\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ \\
4.6b & $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_3,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_2,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_0,a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_1,a_3,b_2,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_1,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_3\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
\hline
4.7& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_0,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_2,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
\hline
4.8& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_2,a_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,c,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_2,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_1,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_1,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\noindent{\bf The case n=6:}
For $i=1,2,3$, let $X_1(i)$, $Y_1(i)$, $X'_1(i)$, $Y'_1(i)$, $X_2(i)$, $Y_2(i)$, $X'_2(i)$, $Y'_2(i)$ be the subgraphs of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ given by the union of
the paths listed in the following tables, and let $H^i$ be the subgraph of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ with edge set
$E(X_1(i))\cup E(Y_1(i))$. Applying Lemma \ref{4RegularHamiltonFragments} with $H=H^i$, $X_1=X_1(i)$, $Y_1=Y_1(i)$, $X'_1=X'_1(i)$, $Y'_1=Y_1(i)$,$X_2=X_2(i)$, $Y_2=Y_2(i)$, $X'_2=X_2(i)$, $Y'_2=Y_2(i)$ shows that each
$H^i$ is a Hamilton fragment. The value of $t$ can be deduced from the ends of the given paths.
\vspace{0.3cm}
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(1)& [a_{\infty},a_1,a_2,b_0,c,b_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_4,b_4]\\
\hline
Y_1(1)&[a_{\infty},a_2,b_3,a_1,b_4] \cup [a_4,b_0,b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_1(1)& Y_1(1) \\
\hline
Y'_1(1) & X_1(1)\\
\hline
X_2(1)& [a_{\infty},a_1,a_2,b_3,c,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_4,b_4]\\
\hline
Y_2(1)& [b_{\infty},b_3,a_1,b_4] \cup [a_4,b_0,a_2,a_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_2(1) & Y_2(1) \\
\hline
Y'_2(1) & X_2(1) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(2)& [a_{\infty},a_4,b_2,b_1,c,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_3,b_3]\\
\hline
Y_1(2)&[a_3,a_4,a_0,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_2,b_3]\\
\hline
X'_1(2)& Y_1(2) \\
\hline
Y'_1(2) & X_1(2)\\
\hline
X_2(2)& [a_{\infty},b_2,a_4,a_0,c,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_3,b_3]\\
\hline
Y_2(2)& [b_{\infty},a_0,b_1,b_2,b_3] \cup [a_3,a_4,a_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_2(2) & Y_2(2) \\
\hline
Y'_2(2) & X_2(2) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(3)& [a_{\infty},b_4,b_0,a_1,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_2,b_2]\\
\hline
Y_1(3)&[a_2,b_4,c,a_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_0,a_3,b_2]\\
\hline
X'_1(3)& Y_1(3) \\
\hline
Y'_1(3) & X_1(3)\\
\hline
X_2(3)& [a_{\infty},b_4,b_0,a_3,a_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_2,b_2]\\
\hline
Y_2(3)& [a_2,b_4,c,a_1,b_0,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_3,b_2]\\
\hline
X'_2(3) & Y_2(3) \\
\hline
Y'_2(3) & X_2(3) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
Note that $H^1$, $H^2$ and $H^3$ are pairwise edge disjoint and let $H'=K_{A_5\cup B_5\cup \{c\}}-{H^1\cup H^2\cup H^3}$ so that $\{H', H^1, H^2, H^3\}$ is a decomposition of $K_{A_6\cup B_6\cup \{c\}}\cong K_{13}$. We now show that $H'$ is a Hamilton fragment.
Our aim is to show that the subgraph $$L=\bigcup_{v\in V(G)}\sigma_v(H')$$
of $L(G)$ decomposes into Hamilton cycles, and we do this by applying Lemma \ref{manyrepairs}
with $H_i=\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ and $V_i=\{a_\infty^{v_i},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$ for each $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
To this end, observe that \linebreak $\sigma_{v_1}(H'),\sigma_{v_2}(H'),\ldots,\sigma_{v_m}(H')$ are edge-disjoint subgraphs of $L$,
and since $b_\infty^{v_i}=a_\infty^{v_{i+1}}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ it follows that $V_i\cap V_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$ as required. It remains to show there is a $2$-factorisation
$\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$ of $L$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$; and
\item $\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\{U,U'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $U$ and $U'$ link $\{F,\overrightarrow F_1\}$,
let $\{V,V'\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that both $V$ and $V'$ link $\{F,\overrightarrow F_2\}$
(such partitions exist by Lemma \ref{intersects}),
and let $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$ be the decomposition of $L$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_1&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_1,a_4,c,b_2,b_0,b_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_1,a_4,b_3,b_0,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,a_4,c,b_2,b_0,b_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([b_{\infty},b_2,b_0,b_1] \cup [a_1,a_4,b_3,a_{\infty}]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_2&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_1,a_0,b_4,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},c,a_3,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_1,b_2,a_0,a_3,b_4,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,a_0,b_4,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},c,a_3,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,b_2,a_0,b_4,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_3&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_3,a_0,a_2,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_1,a_0,a_2,c,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_3,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_0,a_3,a_2,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,a_0,a_3,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,a_4,b_1]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_4&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_1,b_2,a_0,b_3,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_0,b_3,b_4,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_1,b_2,a_0,b_3,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_1])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_0,b_3,b_4,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_5&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},b_3,a_4,b_1,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},b_3,b_1,a_4,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},b_3,a_4,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,a_2,c,b_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_0,a_2,c,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_1,b_3,b_0]);
\end{array}
$
\item
$
\begin{array}[t]{lll}
J_6&=&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V}\sigma_v([b_{\infty},c,a_2,a_3,b_4,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,a_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},c,a_3,a_2,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_4,b_{\infty}])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_3,b_4,b_1,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])\ \cup \\
&&\bigcup_{v\in U'\cap V'}\sigma_v([a_{\infty},a_3,a_2,b_1,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0]);
\end{array}
$
\end{itemize}
It is easily checked that $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$ is a $2$-factorisation of $L$ and that $\{a_\infty^{v_1},a_\infty^{v_2},\ldots,a_\infty^{v_m}\}$ links $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$.
It remains to show that for $i=1,2,\ldots,m$, $\sigma_{v_i}(H')$ induces an $\{a_\infty^{v_{i}},b_\infty^{v_i}\}$-connector in $\{J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4,J_5,J_6\}$.
There are four cases to consider: $v_i\in U\cap V$, $v_i\in U'\cap V$, $v_i\in U\cap V'$ and $v_i\in U'\cap V'$.
First suppose $v_i\in U\cap V$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1$, $J_3$ and $J_5$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_2$, $J_4$ and $J_6$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_2$&$J_4$&$J_6$\\
\hline
1.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
1.2& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
1.3& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
1.4& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
1.5& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
1.6& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
1.7& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
1.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 1.1--1.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
1.1& \\
\hline
1.2& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,a_0,b_4,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},a_3,c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,a_3,a_2,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_4,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},b_4,a_3,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,a_2,c,a_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
1.3a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_4,b_3,b_0,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_4,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_4,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,a_0,b_3,b_4,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,b_1,a_2,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_2,c,a_3,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_1,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_6\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
1.3b& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,b_0,b_2,c,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_0,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_4,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,a_0,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_4,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_3,a_4,a_2,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,b_4,a_3,a_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_0^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_6\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
\hline
1.4& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,a_3,a_2,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,b_4,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,a_2,c,b_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
1.5& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,b_0,b_2,c,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_0,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_4,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,a_0,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_4,b_3,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_3,a_4,a_2,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,b_4,a_3,a_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
\hline
1.6& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},c,a_3,b_4,b_1] \cup [a_1,b_2,a_0,a_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_4,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_2,a_3,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_4,b_{\infty}])$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
1.7a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,a_4,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_2,c,a_3,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_4,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_4,a_2,a_0,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,b_3,b_4,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_4,a_3,a_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_1,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_6\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
1.7b& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,a_4,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,b_4,a_3,c,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_0,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_4,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_2,b_4,b_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,a_2,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_3,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_2,a_3,b_1,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_0^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_6\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
\hline
1.8& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,a_4,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,b_4,a_3,c,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_0,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_4,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_2,b_4,b_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,a_2,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_3,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_2,a_3,b_1,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Next suppose $v_i\in U'\cap V$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2$, $J_4$ and $J_5$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_1$, $J_3$ and $J_6$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_1$&$J_3$&$J_6$\\
\hline
2.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
2.2& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
2.3& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
2.4& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
2.5& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
2.6& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
2.7& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
2.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 2.1--2.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
2.1& \\
\hline
2.2& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,b_0,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_4,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,b_3,a_4,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$
\\
\hline
2.3 & $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,c,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_0,a_2,b_1])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_2,a_3,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_4,b_{\infty}])$
\\
\hline
2.4 & $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,a_0,b_4,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,c,a_4,b_1] \cup [a_1,a_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,b_1,a_2,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_3,a_2,c,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_4,b_1,b_0])$
\\
\hline
2.5 & $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,a_0,b_4,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,a_3,a_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,a_4,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_2,c,a_3,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_4,b_1,b_0])$
\\
\hline
2.6 & $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_3,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_4,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_0,b_2,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,a_2,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_1,a_4,c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_4,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_2,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,b_3,a_4,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_4,a_3,c,a_2,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$
\\
\hline
2.7 & $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,b_0,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_4,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,c,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_0,a_2,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,b_3,a_4,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_2,a_3,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_4,b_{\infty}])$
\\
\hline
2.8 & $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,b_0,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_4,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,a_0,b_4,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,a_3,a_2,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,a_4,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,b_3,a_4,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$\\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_2,c,a_3,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_4,b_1,b_0])$
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Next suppose $v_i\in U\cap V'$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_1$, $J_3$ and $J_6$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_2$, $J_4$ and $J_5$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_2$&$J_4$&$J_5$\\
\hline
3.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
3.2& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
3.3& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
3.4& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
3.5& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
3.6& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
3.7& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
3.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 3.1--3.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
3.1& \\
\hline
3.2a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_3,a_4,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,b_2,c,a_3,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$ \\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_4,a_2,a_0,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_4,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_1])$ \\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,b_1,a_2,c,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$ \\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_4,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_{\infty},a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}])$ \\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_0^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_5\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
3.2b & $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_2,b_0,b_3,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_2,b_4,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},a_3,c,b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_4,a_2,a_0,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,b_4,b_3,b_1] \cup [a_1,b_2,b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},a_2,c,a_4,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_3,a_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,a_2,a_3,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$ \\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_5\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
\hline
3.3a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,b_0,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_4,b_1])$\\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_0,a_2,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$ \\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,a_0,b_3,b_4,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},a_2,c,a_4,b_3,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,a_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,a_2,a_3,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$ \\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_5\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
3.3b& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,b_0,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_4,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,a_0,b_3,b_4,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,b_3,a_4,c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$ \\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,a_2,b_1,b_0])$ \\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_0^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_5\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
\hline
3.4& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,b_0,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_4,b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_2,c,a_4,b_3,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$ \\
\hline
3.5& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,b_0,b_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_4,b_1])$\\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,a_0,b_3,b_4,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,b_3,a_4,c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$ \\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,a_2,b_1,b_0])$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
3.6& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_3,a_4,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_0,b_2,c,a_3,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$ \\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_4,a_2,a_0,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_4,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_1])$ \\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,b_1,a_2,c,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$ \\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_4,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_{\infty},a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}])$ \\
\hline
3.7a& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,a_4,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,c,b_2,a_0,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$ \\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_4,a_2,a_0,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},b_2,b_4,b_3,b_1] \cup [a_1,a_0,a_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_2,b_1,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_3,b_0])$ \\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,b_4,a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$ \\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $a_0^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_5\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
3.7b& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_3,a_4,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_{\infty}])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,c,b_2,a_0,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$ \\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_4,a_2,a_0,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},b_2,b_4,b_3,b_1] \cup [a_1,a_0,a_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},a_4,c,a_2,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_3,a_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,b_4,a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$ \\
& if $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_5\setminus\sigma_{v_i}(H')$.\\
\hline
3.8& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,a_4,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_2,b_0,b_1])$\\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,c,b_2,a_0,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$ \\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_4,a_2,a_0,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},b_2,b_4,b_3,b_1] \cup [a_1,a_0,a_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_2,b_1,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_3,b_0])$ \\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,b_4,a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Finally suppose $v_i\in U'\cap V'$. In this case $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$ are in the same component of $J_2$, $J_4$ and $J_6$,
and we have eight cases for the remaining $2$-factors. Namely, for each of $J_1$, $J_3$ and $J_5$, $a_\infty^{v_i}$ and $b_\infty^{v_i}$
are either in the same component or they are not. We number these eight cases as in the following table.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|}
&$J_1$&$J_3$&$J_5$\\
\hline
4.1& same&same&same\\
\hline
4.2& distinct&same&same\\
\hline
4.3& same&distinct&same\\
\hline
4.4& same&same&distinct\\
\hline
4.5& same&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
4.6& distinct&same&distinct\\
\hline
4.7& distinct&distinct&same\\
\hline
4.8& distinct&distinct&distinct\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Depending on which of cases 4.1--4.8 that we are in,
we can reallocate the edges of $\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ to the factors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_6$
as indicated in the following table to obtain a new
$2$-factorisation of $L$ with the desired properties. If $J_x$ ($x\in\{1,2,\ldots,6\}$) is not listed for a particular case, then the edges of
$\sigma_{v_i}(H)$ that are in $J_x$ are unchanged.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
4.1& \\
\hline
4.2& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_4,b_3,b_0,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_1])$\\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,a_2,c,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_3,b_1,b_0])$ \\
\hline
4.3& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,a_3,c,a_2,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_1])$ \\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_4,b_1,b_3,b_0] \cup [a_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$ \\
\hline
4.4& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_4,a_0,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,a_2,c,a_3,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_4,b_1])$ \\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_2,a_0,b_3,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$ \\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},c,a_4,a_2,b_1,b_3,b_0] \cup [a_0,a_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,b_4,a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$ \\
\hline
4.5& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_3,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_4,b_1])$ \\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_0,b_2,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$ \\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_4,c,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},a_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_3,b_4,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_2,b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,b_3,a_4,a_2,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$ \\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_0,b_4,a_3,a_2,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$ \\
\hline
4.6& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_0,b_3,a_4,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,a_0,b_2,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$ \\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_4,a_2,a_0,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},c,a_3,b_1])$ \\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,b_4,b_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},c,b_2,b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},a_4,c,a_2,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,b_3,a_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,b_4,a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$ \\
\hline
4.7& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,b_0,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_4,b_1])$ \\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,a_0,a_3,c,a_2,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_1])$ \\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,a_4,b_3,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,a_2,b_{\infty}])$ \\
\hline
4.8& $J_1:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_3,b_0,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_4,b_1])$ \\
& $J_2:\sigma_{v_i}([a_1,b_2,b_4,a_0,a_3,b_1] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_3:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},a_3,c,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_0,a_2,b_1])$ \\
& $J_4:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},c,b_2,a_0,b_3,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1])$ \\
& $J_5:\sigma_{v_i}([b_{\infty},c,a_2,a_4,b_3,b_1,b_0] \cup [a_0,a_{\infty}])$ \\
& $J_6:\sigma_{v_i}([a_{\infty},b_1,b_4,a_3,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0])$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\noindent{\bf The case n=7:}
For $i=1,2,\ldots,7$, let $X_1(i)$, $Y_1(i)$, $X'_1(i)$, $Y'_1(i)$ $X_2(i)$, $Y_2(i)$, $X'_2(i)$ and $Y'_2(i)$ be the subgraphs of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ given by the union of
the paths listed in the following tables, and let $H^i$ be the subgraph of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ with edge set
$E(X_1(i))\cup E(Y_1(i))$. It can be checked that $\{H^1,H^2,\ldots,H^7\}$ is a decomposition of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$,
and applying Lemma \ref{4RegularHamiltonFragments} with $H=H^i$, $X_1=X_1(i)$, $Y_1=Y_1(i)$, $X'_1 = X'_1(i)$, $Y'_1=Y'_1(i)$, $X_2=X_2(i)$, $Y_2=Y_2(i)$, $X'_2= X'_2(i)$, and $Y'_2 = Y'_2(i)$ shows that each
$H^i$ is a Hamilton fragment. The value of $t$ can be deduced from the ends of the given paths.
\vspace{0.3cm}
$
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(1)&[a_{\infty},a_0,b_2,b_3,b_4,c,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_5,b_5]\\
\hline
Y_1(1)&[a_{\infty},b_1,b_2,a_3,b_4,b_5] \cup [a_5,a_0,b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_1(1)& [a_{\infty},b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4,b_5] \cup [a_5,a_0,b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
Y'_1(1) & [a_{\infty},a_0,b_2,a_3,b_4,c,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_5,b_5]\\
\hline
X_2(1)&[a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_4,b_3,b_2,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_5,b_5]\\
\hline
Y_2(1)&[b_{\infty},b_1,b_2,a_3,b_4,b_5] \cup [a_5,a_0,a_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_2(1) & [b_{\infty},b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4,b_5] \cup [a_5,a_0,a_{\infty}]\\
\hline
Y'_2(1) & [a_{\infty},b_1,c,b_4,a_3,b_2,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_5,b_5] \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(2)& [a_{\infty},c,a_2,a_3,a_1,b_5,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_4,b_4]\\
\hline
Y_1(2)&[b_{\infty},a_3,b_0,a_1,b_4] \cup [a_4,b_5,a_2,a_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_1(2)& Y_1(2) \\
\hline
Y'_1(2) & X_1(2)\\
\hline
X_2(2)& [a_{\infty},c,a_2,b_5,a_1,a_3,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_4,b_4]\\
\hline
Y_2(2)& [a_4,b_5,b_0,a_1,b_4] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,a_3,b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_2(2) & X_2(2) \\
\hline
Y'_2(2) & Y_2(2) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(3)& [a_{\infty},b_2,c,a_4,b_1,b_0,a_5,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_3,b_3]\\
\hline
Y_1(3)& [a_3,b_1,a_5,b_2,b_0,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_4,b_3]\\
\hline
X'_1(3)& Y_1(3) \\
\hline
Y'_1(3) & X_1(3)\\
\hline
X_2(3)& [a_{\infty},b_0,b_1,a_5,b_2,c,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_3,b_3] \\
\hline
Y_2(3)& [a_{\infty},b_2,b_0,a_5,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_3,b_1,a_4,b_3] \\
\hline
X'_2(3) & X_2(3) \\
\hline
Y'_2(3) & Y_2(3) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(4)& [a_{\infty},b_5,b_1,b_4,a_0,c,b_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_2,b_2] \\
\hline
Y_1(4)& [a_2,b_1,a_0,b_5,b_3,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_4,b_2]\\
\hline
X'_1(4)& Y_1(4) \\
\hline
Y'_1(4) & X_1(4)\\
\hline
X_2(4)& [a_{\infty},b_3,c,a_0,b_5,b_1,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_2,b_2] \\
\hline
Y_2(4)& [a_2,b_1,a_0,b_4,b_2] \cup [a_{\infty},b_5,b_3,b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_2(4) & X_2(4) \\
\hline
Y'_2(4) & Y_2(4) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(5)& [a_{\infty},a_5,b_3,a_2,b_4,b_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1]\\
\hline
Y_1(5)& [b_{\infty},a_2,b_0,b_3,b_1] \cup [a_1,a_5,b_4,a_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_1(5)& Y_1(5) \\
\hline
Y'_1(5) & X_1(5)\\
\hline
X_2(5)& [a_{\infty},a_5,b_4,a_2,b_3,b_0,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1]\\
\hline
Y_2(5)& [a_{\infty},b_4,b_0,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,a_5,b_3,b_1] \\
\hline
X'_2(5) & X_2(5) \\
\hline
Y'_2(5) & Y_2(5) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(6)& [a_{\infty},a_1,c,b_5,a_3,a_4,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0]\\
\hline
Y_1(6)& [b_{\infty},b_5,b_2,a_1,a_4,b_0] \cup [a_0,a_3,a_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_1(6)& Y_1(6) \\
\hline
Y'_1(6) & X_1(6)\\
\hline
X_2(6)& [a_{\infty},a_3,b_5,c,a_1,a_4,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0] \\
\hline
Y_2(6)& [a_{\infty},a_1,b_2,b_5,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,a_3,a_4,b_0]\\
\hline
X'_2(6) & X_2(6) \\
\hline
Y'_2(6) & Y_2(6) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(7)& [a_3,c,a_5,a_4,a_2,a_1,a_0,b_3] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
Y_1(7)&[a_3,a_5,a_2,a_0,a_4,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_1,b_3] \\
\hline
X'_1(7)& Y_1(7) \\
\hline
Y'_1(7) & X_1(7)\\
\hline
X_2(7)& [a_3,c,a_5,a_4,a_2,a_0,a_1,b_3] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
Y_2(7)& [a_3,a_5,a_2,a_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_4,a_0,b_3]\\
\hline
X'_2(7) & X_2(7) \\
\hline
Y'_2(7) & Y_2(7) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
\noindent{\bf The case n=8:}
For $i=1,2,\ldots,8$, let $X_1(i)$, $Y_1(i)$, $X'_1(i)$, $Y'_1(i)$ $X_2(i)$, $Y_2(i)$, $X'_2(i)$ and $Y'_2(i)$ be the subgraphs of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ given by the union of
the paths listed in the following tables, and let $H^i$ be the subgraph of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ with edge set
$E(X_1(i))\cup E(Y_1(i))$. It can be checked that $\{H^1,H^2,\ldots,H^8\}$ is a decomposition of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$,
and applying Lemma \ref{4RegularHamiltonFragments} with $H=H^i$, $X_1=X_1(i)$, $Y_1=Y_1(i)$, $X'_1 = X'_1(i)$, $Y'_1=Y'_1(i)$, $X_2=X_2(i)$, $Y_2=Y_2(i)$, $X'_2= X'_2(i)$, and $Y'_2 = Y'_2(i)$ shows that each
$H^i$ is a Hamilton fragment. The value of $t$ can be deduced from the ends of the given paths.
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(1)&[a_{\infty},a_0,c,b_4,b_5,b_3,b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_6,b_6] \\
\hline
Y_1(1)& [a_{\infty},b_1,a_2,a_3,a_5,b_4,b_6] \cup [a_6,a_0,b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_1(1)& [a_{\infty},b_1,b_2,b_3,b_5,b_4,b_6] \cup [a_6,a_0,b_{\infty}] \\
\hline
Y'_1(1) & [a_{\infty},a_0,c,b_4,a_5,a_3,a_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_6,b_6]\\
\hline
X_2(1)& [a_{\infty},b_1,b_2,b_3,b_5,b_4,c,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_6,b_6]\\
\hline
Y_2(1)& [b_{\infty},b_1,a_2,a_3,a_5,b_4,b_6] \cup [a_6,a_0,a_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_2(1) & [b_{\infty},b_1,b_2,b_3,b_5,b_4,b_6] \cup [a_6,a_0,a_{\infty}]\\
\hline
Y'_2(1) &[a_{\infty},b_1,a_2,a_3,a_5,b_4,c,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_6,b_6]\\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(2)& [a_{\infty},a_2,c,b_3,b_6,b_1,b_4,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_5,b_5]\\
\hline
Y_1(2)& [a_5,b_3,a_6,a_4,a_1,b_0,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,b_5]\\
\hline
X'_1(2)& [a_5,b_3,b_6,b_1,b_4,b_0,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_2,b_5] \\
\hline
Y'_1(2) & [a_{\infty},a_2,c,b_3,a_6,a_4,a_1,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_5,b_5]\\
\hline
X_2(2)& [a_{\infty},b_0,b_4,b_1,b_6,b_3,c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_5,b_5]\\
\hline
Y_2(2)& [a_5,b_3,a_6,a_4,a_1,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_5]\\
\hline
X'_2(2) & [a_5,b_3,b_6,b_1,b_4,b_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_2,b_5] \\
\hline
Y'_2(2) &[a_{\infty},b_0,a_1,a_4,a_6,b_3,c,a_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_5,b_5]\\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(3)& [a_{\infty},c,b_0,b_6,b_2,a_3,b_1,a_5,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_4,b_4]\\
\hline
Y_1(3)& [a_4,b_1,b_0,a_5,b_6,a_3,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_2,b_4]\\
\hline
X'_1(3)& Y_1(3) \\
\hline
Y'_1(3) & X_1(3)\\
\hline
X_2(3)& [a_{\infty},c,b_0,a_5,b_1,a_3,b_6,b_2,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_4,b_4]\\
\hline
Y_2(3)& [a_4,b_1,b_0,b_6,a_5,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_3,b_2,b_4]\\
\hline
X'_2(3) & X_2(3) \\
\hline
Y'_2(3) & Y_2(3) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(4)& [a_{\infty},b_6,a_1,a_5,b_2,a_0,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_3,b_3]\\
\hline
Y_1(4)& [a_3,c,b_2,a_4,a_5,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_6,a_0,a_1,b_3]\\
\hline
X'_1(4)& Y_1(4) \\
\hline
Y'_1(4) & X_1(4)\\
\hline
X_2(4)& [a_{\infty},b_6,a_1,a_0,b_2,a_5,a_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_3,b_3]\\
\hline
Y_2(4)& [a_3,c,b_2,a_4,a_0,b_6,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},a_5,a_1,b_3]\\
\hline
X'_2(4) & X_2(4) \\
\hline
Y'_2(4) & Y_2(4) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(5)&[a_{\infty},b_5,c,b_1,a_6,b_0,a_4,b_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_2,b_2] \\
\hline
Y_1(5)& [b_{\infty},a_6,b_5,b_1,b_3,b_0,b_2] \cup [a_2,a_4,a_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_1(5)& Y_1(5) \\
\hline
Y'_1(5) & X_1(5)\\
\hline
X_2(5)& [a_{\infty},a_4,b_0,a_6,b_5,c,b_1,b_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_2,b_2]\\
\hline
Y_2(5)& [a_2,a_4,b_3,b_0,b_2] \cup [a_{\infty},b_5,b_1,a_6,b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_2(5) & X_2(5) \\
\hline
Y'_2(5) & Y_2(5) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(6)& [a_{\infty},a_6,a_5,a_2,b_3,a_0,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1]\\
\hline
Y_1(6)& [a_1,a_6,a_2,b_4,b_3,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},c,a_5,a_0,b_1]\\
\hline
X'_1(6)& Y_1(6) \\
\hline
Y'_1(6) & X_1(6)\\
\hline
X_2(6)& [a_{\infty},a_6,a_5,a_0,b_3,a_2,b_4,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_1,b_1]\\
\hline
Y_2(6)& [a_1,a_6,a_2,a_5,c,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_{\infty},b_3,b_4,a_0,b_1]\\
\hline
X'_2(6) & X_2(6) \\
\hline
Y'_2(6) & Y_2(6) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(7)& [a_{\infty},b_2,b_5,a_3,b_4,a_6,c,a_1,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0]\\
\hline
Y_1(7)& [a_0,a_3,a_6,b_2,a_1,b_4,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},b_5,b_0]\\
\hline
X'_1(7)& Y_1(7) \\
\hline
Y'_1(7) & X_1(7)\\
\hline
X_2(7)& [a_{\infty},b_2,a_1,c,a_6,b_4,a_3,b_5,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,b_0]\\
\hline
Y_2(7)& [a_0,a_3,a_6,b_2,b_5,b_0] \cup [a_{\infty},b_4,a_1,b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_2(7) & X_2(7) \\
\hline
Y'_2(7) & Y_2(7) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(8)& [a_0,b_5,b_6,a_4,a_3,a_1,a_2,b_0] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
Y_1(8)& [a_0,a_2,b_6,c,a_4,b_5,a_1,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_3,b_0]\\
\hline
X'_1(8)& Y_1(8) \\
\hline
Y'_1(8) & X_1(8)\\
\hline
X_2(8)& [a_0,b_5,a_4,b_6,a_2,a_1,a_3,b_0] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
Y_2(8)& [a_{\infty},a_1,b_5,b_6,c,a_4,a_3,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_0,a_2,b_0]\\
\hline
X'_2(8) & X_2(8) \\
\hline
Y'_2(8) & Y_2(8) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
\noindent{\bf The case n=9:}
For $i=1,2,\ldots,9$, let $X_1(i)$, $Y_1(i)$, $X'_1(i)$, $Y'_1(i)$ $X_2(i)$, $Y_2(i)$, $X'_2(i)$ and $Y'_2(i)$ be the subgraphs of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ given by the union of
the paths listed in the following tables, and let $H^i$ be the subgraph of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$ with edge set
$E(X_1(i))\cup E(Y_1(i))$. It can be checked that $\{H^1,H^2,\ldots,H^9\}$ is a decomposition of $K_{A_n\cup B_n\cup\{c\}}$,
and applying Lemma \ref{4RegularHamiltonFragments} with $H=H^i$, $X_1=X_1(i)$, $Y_1=Y_1(i)$, $X'_1 = X'_1(i)$, $Y'_1=Y'_1(i)$, $X_2=X_2(i)$, $Y_2=Y_2(i)$, $X'_2= X'_2(i)$, and $Y'_2 = Y'_2(i)$ shows that each
$H^i$ is a Hamilton fragment. The value of $t$ can be deduced from the ends of the given paths.
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(1)& [a_{\infty},a_0,b_2,b_4,b_5,b_6,c,a_3,b_1,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_7,b_7]\\
\hline
Y_1(1)& [b_{\infty},a_0,b_4,a_5,b_6,b_7] \cup [a_7,a_3,b_2,b_1,a_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_1(1)& [b_{\infty},a_0,b_4,b_5,b_6,b_7] \cup [a_7,a_3,b_2,b_1,a_{\infty}] \\
\hline
Y'_1(1) & [a_{\infty},a_0,b_2,b_4,a_5,b_6,c,a_3,b_1,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_7,b_7]\\
\hline
X_2(1)& [a_{\infty},b_1,a_3,c,b_6,b_5,b_4,b_2,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_7,b_7]\\
\hline
Y_2(1)& [a_{\infty},a_0,b_4,a_5,b_6,b_7] \cup [a_7,a_3,b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_2(1) & [a_{\infty},a_0,b_4,b_5,b_6,b_7] \cup [a_7,a_3,b_2,b_1,b_{\infty}] \\
\hline
Y'_2(1) & [a_{\infty},b_1,a_3,c,b_6,a_5,b_4,b_2,a_0,b_{\infty}] \cup [a_7,b_7] \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|ll||ll|}
\hline
X_1(2): & [a_{\infty},b_2,b_5,a_7,c,b_3,a_4,a_1,b_0,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_6,b_6]& X'_1(2):& Y_1(2) \\
\hline
Y_1(2): & [b_{\infty},b_2,a_1,b_3,b_0,b_6]\cup [a_6,a_7,a_4,b_5,a_{\infty}] &
Y'_1(2): & X_1(2)\\
\hline
X_2(2): & [a_{\infty},b_5,b_2,a_1,a_4,a_7,c,b_3,b_0,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_6,b_6] &
X'_2(2):& X_2(2)\\
\hline
Y_2(2): & [a_6,a_7,b_5,a_4,b_3,a_1,b_0,b_6]\cup [a_{\infty},b_2,b_{\infty}] &
Y'_2(2) :& Y_2(2)\\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(3)&[a_{\infty},c,b_4,b_7,a_6,a_2,a_0,b_1,b_3,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_5,b_5]\\
\hline
Y_1(3)& [b_{\infty},b_4,b_1,a_2,b_3,b_5]\cup [a_5,b_7,a_0,a_6,a_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_1(3)& Y_1(3) \\
\hline
Y'_1(3) & X_1(3)\\
\hline
X_2(3)& [a_{\infty},c,b_4,b_7,a_6,a_0,a_2,b_1,b_3,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_5,b_5]\\
\hline
Y_2(3)& [a_5,b_7,a_0,b_1,b_4,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_{\infty},a_6,a_2,b_3,b_5]\\
\hline
X'_2(3) & X_2(3) \\
\hline
Y'_2(3) & Y_2(3) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(4)& [a_{\infty},b_6,b_1,b_5,b_0,a_7,a_2,a_3,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_4,b_4]\\
\hline
Y_1(4)& [b_{\infty},b_5,a_2,b_6,a_3,b_0,b_4]\cup [a_4,c,b_1,a_7,a_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_1(4)& Y_1(4) \\
\hline
Y'_1(4) & X_1(4)\\
\hline
X_2(4)& [a_{\infty},a_7,b_1,b_6,a_2,b_5,b_0,a_3,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_4,b_4]\\
\hline
Y_2(4)& [a_{\infty},b_6,a_3,a_2,a_7,b_0,b_4]\cup [a_4,c,b_1,b_5,b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_2(4) & X_2(4) \\
\hline
Y'_2(4) & Y_2(4) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(5)& [a_{\infty},a_1,c,a_0,a_4,b_7,a_2,a_5,a_6,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_3,b_3]\\
\hline
Y_1(5)& [a_3,a_0,a_5,a_1,b_7,a_{\infty}]\cup [b_{\infty},a_2,a_4,a_6,b_3]\\
\hline
X'_1(5)& Y_1(5) \\
\hline
Y'_1(5) & X_1(5)\\
\hline
X_2(5)&[a_{\infty},a_1,c,a_0,a_5,a_2,b_7,a_4,a_6,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_3,b_3] \\
\hline
Y_2(5)& [a_{\infty},b_7,a_1,a_5,a_6,b_3]\cup [a_3,a_0,a_4,a_2,b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_2(5) & X_2(5) \\
\hline
Y'_2(5) & Y_2(5) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(6)& [a_{\infty},a_5,b_3,b_6,a_4,b_1,b_0,c,b_7,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_2,b_2]\\
\hline
Y_1(6)& [a_2,b_0,a_4,a_5,b_1,b_7,b_3,a_{\infty}]\cup [b_{\infty},b_6,b_2]\\
\hline
X'_1(6)& Y_1(6) \\
\hline
Y'_1(6) & X_1(6)\\
\hline
X_2(6)& [a_{\infty},a_5,a_4,b_1,b_0,c,b_7,b_3,b_6,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_2,b_2]\\
\hline
Y_2(6)& [a_{\infty},b_3,a_5,b_1,b_7,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_2,b_0,a_4,b_6,b_2]\\
\hline
X'_2(6) & X_2(6) \\
\hline
Y'_2(6) & Y_2(6) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(7)& [a_{\infty},a_4,a_3,b_7,b_2,b_0,a_6,b_5,c,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_1,b_1]\\
\hline
Y_1(7)& [a_1,a_3,b_5,b_7,b_0,a_{\infty}]\cup [b_{\infty},a_4,b_2,a_6,b_1]\\
\hline
X'_1(7)& Y_1(7) \\
\hline
Y'_1(7) & X_1(7)\\
\hline
X_2(7)& [a_{\infty},b_0,b_7,a_3,a_4,b_2,a_6,b_5,c,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_1,b_1]\\
\hline
Y_2(7)& [a_1,a_3,b_5,b_7,b_2,b_0,a_6,b_1]\cup [a_{\infty},a_4,b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_2(7) & X_2(7) \\
\hline
Y'_2(7) & Y_2(7) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(8)& [a_{\infty},a_2,b_4,a_1,a_6,a_3,a_5,a_7,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_0,b_0]\\
\hline
Y_1(8)& [a_0,a_7,a_1,a_2,c,a_6,b_4,a_3,a_{\infty}]\cup [b_{\infty},a_5,b_0]\\
\hline
X'_1(8)& Y_1(8) \\
\hline
Y'_1(8) & X_1(8)\\
\hline
X_2(8)& [a_{\infty},a_3,a_6,b_4,a_2,a_1,a_7,a_5,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_0,b_0]\\
\hline
Y_2(8)& [a_{\infty},a_2,c,a_6,a_1,b_4,a_3,a_5,b_0]\cup [a_0,a_7,b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
X'_2(8) & X_2(8) \\
\hline
Y'_2(8) & Y_2(8) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
X_1(9)& [a_5,c,b_2,b_3,a_7,b_4,b_6,a_1,a_0,b_5] \cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
Y_1(9)& [a_5,b_2,a_7,b_6,a_0,b_3,b_4,a_{\infty}] \cup [b_{\infty},a_1,b_5]\\
\hline
X'_1(9)& Y_1(9) \\
\hline
Y'_1(9) & X_1(9)\\
\hline
X_2(9)& [a_5,c,b_2,a_7,b_3,b_4,b_6,a_0,a_1,b_5]\cup [a_{\infty},b_{\infty}]\\
\hline
Y_2(9)&[a_{\infty},b_4,a_7,b_6,a_1,b_{\infty}]\cup [a_5,b_2,b_3,a_0,b_5] \\
\hline
X'_2(9) & X_2(9) \\
\hline
Y'_2(9) & Y_2(9) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
\vspace{0.3cm}
\noindent{\large\bf Acknowledgements}
The authors acknowledge the support of the Australian Research Council via grants
DP150100530, DP150100506, DP120100790, DP120103067 and DP130102987.
|
\section*{Introduction}
The class of groups that admit faithful self-similar actions on regular
rooted trees contains many important and interesting examples,
such as the Grigorchuk
2-group \cite{Gri80}, the Gupta-Sidki $p$-groups \cite{GuSi83},
and
groups obtained as iterated monodromy groups of self-coverings
of the Riemann sphere by post-critically finite rational maps \cite{NekSSgrp}.
Over the last 15 years there has been an intensive study on the self-similar actions of other
important families of groups including
finitely generated nilpotent groups \cite{BeSi07}, arithmetic groups \cite{Ka12}, and
groups of type $\mr{FP}_n$ \cite{KoSi20}.
Self-similar actions of some classes of finite $p$-groups were studied
in \cite{Su11} and \cite{BaFaFeVa20}.
For the definition of self-similar action, as well as for other examples,
the reader may consult, for instance, \cite{NekSSgrp}.
We say that a group $G$ is \textbf{self-similar of index} $\bm{d}$
if $G$ admits a faithful self-similar action on
a $d$-ary regular rooted tree
such that the action is transitive on the first level; moreover,
we say that $G$ is \textbf{self-similar} if it is self-similar of
some index $d$. The \textbf{self-similarity index} $\sigma(G)$ of a self-similar group $G$
is defined to be the least positive integer $d$ such that $G$ is self-similar of index $d$.
In case $G$ is not self-similar we put $\sigma(G)=\infty$.
Throughout the paper, let $p$ be a prime. Observe that if a pro-$p$ group is self-similar of
index $d$ then $d$ is a power of $p$.
In \cite{NS2019}
we initiated the study of self-similar actions of $p$-adic analytic pro-$p$ groups.
For the rest of this paragraph, assume that $p\geqslant 5$.
In \cite{NS2019} we classified the
3-dimensional \textit{unsolvable} torsion-free $p$-adic analytic pro-$p$ groups,
and we determined which of them are self-similar of index $p$.
On the other hand, in \cite{NShered} we determined which 3-dimensional \textit{solvable}
torsion-free $p$-adic analytic pro-$p$ groups are self-similar of index $p$. Moreover,
we established that every 3-dimensional \textit{solvable}
torsion-free $p$-adic analytic pro-$p$ group
is self-similar of index $p^2$; as a consequence, the self-similarity index of any such group
is less or equal to $p^2$.
It is worth mentioning that the results of \cite{NS2019}
do not exclude the possibility that the self-similarity index of \textit{self-similar}
3-dimensional unsolvable torsion-free $p$-adic analytic pro-$p$ groups
is bounded; indeed, they do not even exclude the possibility that this bound is $p^2$.
\medskip
In this short note we consider the following question.
\medskip
\noindent \textbf{Question (*).}
Is the self-similarity index of a \textit{self-similar} $p$-adic analytic pro-$p$ group
bounded by a function that only depends on the dimension?
\\
\vspace{0mm}
\noindent
Let $G$ be a torsion-free unsolvable $p$-adic analytic pro-$p$ group of dimension 3.
Then $G$ has finite abelianization, so there exist unique
numbers
$s_0,s_1,s_2\in \bb{N}$ such that $s_0 \leqslant s_1 \leqslant s_2$ and
$G/[G,G]\simeq \bigoplus_{i=0}^2 (\bb{Z}/p^{s_i}\bb{Z})$; these numbers are called the $\bm{s}$\textbf{-invariants}
of $G$.
For such $G$ we define $k(G)\in\bb{N}$ by
$$ k(G):= \left\lceil \mr{min}\left( \frac{s_1-s_0}{2},\frac{s_2-s_1}{2} \right)\right\rceil. $$
The following theorem, which is the main result of this paper, improves significantly
the lower bound for the self-similarity indices
of 3-dimensional unsolvable
torsion-free
$p$-adic analytic pro-$p$ groups given in \cite{NS2019}.
The main ingredient in the proof of this theorem is an analogous result for $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattices
(Theorem \ref{nsshigh}) which is interesting on its own.
\begin{theorem}\label{main-group}
Let $p\geqslant 3$ be a prime, and let $G$ be a saturable unsolvable $p$-adic analytic pro-$p$ group of dimension 3.
Then $\sigma(G) \geqslant p^{k(G)}$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent
A finitely generated pro-$p$ group is saturable if it admits
a certain type of valuation map;
for precise details we refer to \cite[Section 3]{GSpsat}.
Saturable groups, which were introduced by Lazard \cite{Laz65},
play a central role in the theory of $p$-adic analytic groups:
a topological group
is $p$-adic analytic if and only if it contains an open finitely generated
pro-$p$ subgroup which is saturable \cite[Sections III(3.1) and III(3.2)]{Laz65}.
\medskip
The following corollary is a direct consequence of Theorem \ref{main-group}
and the fact that any torsion-free $p$-adic analytic pro-$p$ group $G$ of dimension
$\mr{dim}(G)<p$ is saturable (see \cite[Theorem A]{GSKpsdimJGT}).
\begin{corollary}
Let $p\geqslant 5$ be a prime, and let $G$ be a torsion-free unsolvable $p$-adic analytic pro-$p$ group of dimension 3.
Then $\sigma(G) \geqslant p^{k(G)}$.
\end{corollary}
We denote by $SL_2^{\scalebox{0.5}{\mbox{\ensuremath{\displaystyle \triangle}}}}(\bb{Z}_p)$ and $SL_2^{1}(\bb{Z}_p)$, respectively,
a Sylow pro-$p$ subgroup and the first congruence subgroup of $SL_2^{}(\bb{Z}_p)$.
The next corollary is a consequence of \cite[Theorem C]{NS2019} and Theorem \ref{main-group}.
\begin{corollary}
Let $p$ be a prime, and
let either $p\geqslant 5$ and $G$ be an open subgroup of $SL_2^{\scalebox{0.5}{\mbox{\ensuremath{\displaystyle \triangle}}}}(\bb{Z}_p)$,
or $p\geqslant 3$ and $G$ be an open subgroup of $SL_2^{1}(\bb{Z}_p)$.
Then $G$ is self-similar of self-similarity index $\sigma(G) \geqslant p^{k(G)}$.
\end{corollary}
A pro-$p$ group is said to be powerful if $[G,G]\leqslant G^{p^\varepsilon}$,
where $\varepsilon=1$ when $p\geqslant 3$,
$\varepsilon = 2$ when $p=2$, and $G^{p^\varepsilon}$ is the closure of the subgroup of $G$ generated
by the ${p^\varepsilon}$-th powers of the elements of $G$. A powerful pro-$p$ group is called uniform
if it is finitely generated and torsion-free.
We point out that uniform pro-$p$ groups are saturable.
A pro-$p$ group $G$ is said to be just infinite if it is infinite and any nontrivial normal closed subgroup
of $G$ has finite index in $G$; moreover, if every open subgroup of $G$ is just infinite
then $G$ is called hereditarily just infinite.
\medskip
The following corollary provides a negative answer to Question (*).
\begin{corollary}\label{cor4}
For all primes $p\geqslant 3$ and all integers $d$, there exist infinitely many
pairwise non-isomorphic self-similar 3-dimensional hereditarily just-infinite
uniform pro-$p$ groups of
self-similarity index greater than $d$.
\end{corollary}
We close the Introduction by observing that Theorem \ref{main-group} provides
further evidence for \cite[Conjecture E]{NS2019}.
\vspace{5mm}
\noindent
\textbf{Notation.} The set $\bb{N}=\{0,1,2,...\}$ of natural numbers is assumed to contain $0$.
We denote by $v_p$ the $p$-adic valuation on the field $\bb{Q}_p$ of $p$-adic numbers.
A $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice is a Lie algebra over the ring $\bb{Z}_p$ of $p$-adic integers
the underlying $\bb{Z}_p$-module of which is finitely generated and free.
The submodule generated by the elements $x_1,...,x_n$ of some $\bb{Z}_p$-module
will be denoted by $\gen{x_1,...,x_n}$.
\section{Results on Lie lattices}
This section contains the main technical result of the paper, Theorem \ref{nsshigh},
which is a result on non-self-similarity of $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattices. For the ease
of the reader, we recall some definitions and notations (see \cite{NS2019}
for more details).
Let $L$ be a $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice, and let $k\in\bb{N}$.
A virtual endomorphism of $L$ of index $p^k$ is an algebra morphism $\varphi:M\rightarrow L$
where $M$ is a subalgebra of $L$ of index $p^k$.
An ideal $I$ of $L$ is said to be $\varphi$-invariant if
$I\subseteq M$ and $\varphi(I)\subseteq I$.
We say that a virtual endomorphism $\varphi$ is simple if there are no nonzero ideals $I$
of $L$ that are $\varphi$-invariant.
We say that $L$ is \textbf{self-similar of index} $\bm{p^k}$ if there exists
a simple virtual endomorphism of $L$ of index $p^k$.
A \textbf{self-similar} $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice is a $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice which is
self-similar of index $p^l$ for some $l\in\bb{N}$.
In case $L$ is self-similar we denote the minimum index of self-similarity
by $\sigma(L)$, and we call it the \textbf{self-similarity index} of $L$.
In case $L$ is not self-similar we put $\sigma(L)=\infty$.
Assume that $L$ is \textit{3-dimensional} and \textit{unsolvable}.
Then $L$ has finite abelianization, so there exist unique numbers
$s_0,s_1,s_2\in \bb{N}$ such that $s_0 \leqslant s_1 \leqslant s_2$ and
$L/[L,L]\simeq \bigoplus_{i=0}^2 (\bb{Z}/p^{s_i}\bb{Z})$;
these numbers are called the $\bm{s}$\textbf{-invariants}
of $L$.
Recall from \cite[Definition 2.4]{NS2019}
that a basis $(x_0,x_1,x_2)$ of $L$ is called a \textbf{diagonalizing basis}
if $[x_{i},x_{i+1}]=a_{i+2}x_{i+2}$ for some $a_0,a_1,a_2\in\bb{Z}_p$, where
the index $i\in\{0,1,2\}$ is interpreted modulo 3; moreover, such a basis is called
well diagonalizing
if $v_p(a_0)\leqslant v_p(a_1)\leqslant v_p(a_2)$, in which case $s_i:=v_p(a_i)$, $i\in\{0,1,2\}$,
are the $s$-invariants of $L$.
We also recall that if $L$ admits a diagonalizing basis then it admits a
well diagonalizing one (see \cite[Remark 2.5]{NS2019}).
\begin{theorem}\label{nsshigh}
Let $p$ be a prime, let $L$ be a 3-dimensional unsolvable $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice,
and let $s_0\leqslant s_1\leqslant s_2$ be the $s$-invariants of $L$.
Assume that $L$ admits a diagonalizing basis,
and define
$$ K = \left\lceil \mr{min}\left( \frac{s_1-s_0}{2},\frac{s_2-s_1}{2} \right)\right\rceil. $$
Then $\sigma(L) \geqslant p^K$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark} \label{rdiag}
Recall from \cite[Proposition 2.7]{NS2019}
that if $p\geqslant 3$ then any 3-dimensional unsolvable $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice
admits a diagonalizing basis.
\end{remark}
Before proving Theorem \ref{nsshigh}, we apply it to construct a
family of self-similar 3-dimensional $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattices with
unbounded self-similarity index. A $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice $L$ is called
powerful if $[L,L]\subseteq p^{\varepsilon}L$,
where $\varepsilon=1$ when $p\geqslant 3$,
and $\varepsilon = 2$ when $p=2$.
\begin{example}\label{efamily}
We construct a sequence $L_l$, $l\in\bb{N}$, of self-similar
powerful 3-dimensional unsolvable $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattices
such that $\sigma_l\rightarrow \infty$ for $l\rightarrow \infty$,
where $\sigma_l$ is the self-similarity index of $L_l$.
As $\bb{Z}_p$-module, define $L_l=\bb{Z}_p^3$, and
let $(x_0,x_1,x_2)$ be the canonical basis of $\bb{Z}_p^3$.
Let the bracket of $L_l$ be induced by the commutation
relations
$[x_1,x_2] = p^2 x_0$,
$[x_2,x_0] = p^{2l+2}x_1$ and
$[x_0,x_1] = -p^{4l+2}x_2$.
Then $L_l$ is a powerful unsolvable 3-dimensional $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice
with $s$-invariants $s_0=2$, $s_1=2l+2$ and $s_2=4l+2$.
From Theorem \ref{nsshigh} it follows that
$\sigma_l \geqslant p^l$, hence, $\sigma_l\rightarrow\infty$ for $l\rightarrow \infty$.
It remains to prove that $L_l$ is self-similar, for which it is enough to
prove that there exists a self-similar finite-index subalgebra $M$ of $L$
(see \cite[Lemma 2.1]{NS2019}). Define
$y_0=2x_0$,
$y_1= p^lx_1-p^{2l}x_2$ and
$y_2=p^lx_1+p^{2l}x_2$.
A straightforward computation gives
$[y_1,y_2] = p^{3l+2} y_0$,
$[y_2,y_0] = 2p^{3l+2}y_2$ and
$[y_0,y_1] = 2p^{3l+2}y_1$.
Then $M:=\gen{y_0,y_1,y_2}$ is a finite-index subalgebra of $L$.
From \cite[Lemma 2.11]{NS2019} it follows that $M$ is self-similar, as desired.
\end{example}
\begin{corollary}\label{corlie}
For all primes $p$ and all integers $d$ there exist infinitely many
pairwise non-isomorphic self-similar powerful 3-dimensional unsolvable
$\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattices with self-similarity index greater than $d$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from Example \ref{efamily}.
\end{proof}
\vspace{5mm}
The following lemmas will be applied in the proof of Theorem \ref{nsshigh},
which is given at the end of the section. Recall that a
$\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice $L$
is said to be just infinite if it is infinite and all
nonzero ideals of $L$ have finite index in $L$.
A $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice is said to be
hereditarily just infinite if all of its finite-index subalgebras
are just infinite.
\begin{lemma}\label{l1}
Let $L$ be a 3-dimensional unsolvable $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice
that admits a diagonalizing basis.
Then $L$ is hereditarily just infinite.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $M$ be a finite-index subalgebra of $L$. Clearly, $M$ is infinite.
Let $I$ be a nonzero ideal of $M$. We have to show that $\mr{dim}\,I=3$.
There exists $k\in\bb{N}$ such that $p^kL\subseteq M$.
Let $(x_0,x_1,x_2)$ be a diagonalizing basis of $L$,
and let $[x_i,x_{i+1}]=a_{i+2}x_{i+2}$,
where the index $i\in\{0,1,2\}$ is interpreted modulo 3,
and $a_0,a_1,a_2$ are nonzero elements of $\bb{Z}_p$.
We will show that $I$ contains nonzero multiples
of $x_i$ for any $i\in \{0,1,2\}$. From this, it follows that $I$ is 3-dimensional,
as desired.
Let $y = b_0x_0+b_1x_1+b_2x_2$ be a nonzero element of
$I$, where $b_0$, $b_1$ and $b_2$ are elements of $\bb{Z}_p$.
Without loss of generality we can assume that $b_0\neq 0$.
Since $I$ is an ideal of $M$, and $p^kx_i\in M$ for $i\in\{0,1,2\}$,
the commutators $z_1 := [[y,p^kx_1],p^kx_0]$ and $z_2 := [[y,p^kx_2],p^kx_0]$ belong to $I$.
One easily checks that $z_j$ is a nonzero multiple of $x_j$ for $j\in\{1,2\}$.
Hence, $z_0:=[z_1,z_2]$ is a nonzero multiple of $x_0$ and belongs
to $I$ as well.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l2}
Let $L$ be a hereditarily just-infinite $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice,
and let $\varphi:M\rightarrow L$ be a virtual endomorphism of $L$.
If $\varphi$ is simple then $\varphi$ is injective.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By contrapositive, assume that $\varphi$ is not injective.
Since, by assumption, $M$ has finite index in $L$, $M$ is just infinite.
Since $\mr{ker}(\varphi)$ is a nonzero ideal of $M$, $\mr{ker}(\varphi)$
has finite index in $M$, hence, in $L$. Then there exists $k\in\bb{N}$
such that $p^kL\subseteq \mr{ker}(\varphi)$. Hence,
$p^kL$ is a nonzero (since $L$ is infinite) $\varphi$-invariant
ideal of $L$. It follows that $\varphi$ is not simple.
\end{proof}
\\
The proof of the following lemma is straightforward, and it is left to the reader.
\begin{lemma}\label{lidcond}
Let $L$ be a 3-dimensional unsolvable $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice.
Let $(x_0,x_1,x_2)$
be a basis of $L$ such that
$[x_i,x_{i+1}]=a_{i+2}x_{i+2}$, where $a_i\in\bb{Z}_p\backslash\{0\}$ and
the index $i\in\{0,1,2\}$ is interpreted modulo 3; define $s_i := v_p(a_i)$.
Let $m_i\in\bb{N}$ and define $I := \gen{p^{m_0}x_0, p^{m_1}x_1, p^{m_2}x_2}$.
Then $I$ is an ideal of $L$ if and only if $m_i+s_j\geqslant m_j$ for
all $i$ and $j$ in $\{0,1,2\}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{ldiag}
Let the index $i$ take values in $\{0,1,2\}$.
Let $a_i\in\bb{Q}_p\backslash\{0\}$ and define $s_i=v_p(a_i)$.
Consider the following parameters:
$$
k_1,k_2\in\bb{N},
\qquad
e,f,g\in \bb{Z}_p,
\qquad
r_0,r_1\in\bb{Z},$$
make the following definitions:
\begin{eqnarray*}
h &:=& eg-fp^{k_1}\\
a_3 &:=& a_0p^{2k_1+2k_2}+a_1e^2p^{2k_2}+a_2h^2\\
a_4 &:=& a_0a_1p^{2k_2}+a_0a_2g^2+ a_1a_2f^2\\
m_0 &:=& r_1+s_0+k_1+k_2\\
m_1 &:=& s_0+s_1+k_1+2k_2\\
m_2 &:=& r_0+k_2,
\end{eqnarray*}
and define
the $3\times 3$ matrix $W$ with
coefficients in $\bb{Q}_p$ by
$$
W :=
\left[
\begin{array}{l|l|l}
a_0p^{r_1+k_1+k_2} &
a_0(a_1ep^{2k_2}+a_2gh) &
fp^{r_0} \\
-a_1e p^{r_1+k_2} &
a_1(a_0p^{k_1+2k_2}-a_2fh) &
gp^{r_0} \\
a_2hp^{r_1}&
-a_2(a_0gp^{k_1}+a_1ef)p^{k_2}&
p^{r_0+k_2} \\
\end{array}
\right].
$$
Assume that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $s_0+s_1+k_1+2k_2\leqslant r_0\leqslant s_0+s_2+k_1$.
\item $s_0+k_1+k_2\leqslant r_1\leqslant s_1-k_1+k_2$.
\item $v_p(a_3) = s_0 +2k_1+2k_2$.
\item $v_p(a_4) = s_0 +s_1+2k_2$.
\end{enumerate}
Then there exists $V\in GL_3(\bb{Z}_p)$ such that
$WV = \mr{diag}(p^{m_0}, p^{m_1}, p^{m_2})$.
If, moreover, $s_0\geqslant 0$ then $m_i+s_j\geqslant m_j$ for
all $i$ and $j$ in $\{0,1,2\}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Observe that $s_0+2k_1\leqslant s_1$ and $s_1+2k_2\leqslant s_2$.
Also, $s_0+2k_1+k_2\leqslant r_0-r_1\leqslant s_2-k_2$.
We have $v_p(W_{00})= m_0$, $v_p(W_{01})\geqslant s_0+s_1+2k_2$
and $v_p(W_{02})\geqslant r_0$. Hence,
$v_p(W_{01})\geqslant m_0$ and $v_p(W_{02})\geqslant m_0$.
It follows that there exists $V_1\in GL_3(\bb{Z}_p)$ such
that $W_1:=WV_1$ is equal to
$$
W_1 =
\left[
\begin{array}{l|l|l}
a_0p^{r_1+k_1+k_2} &
0 &
0 \\
-a_1e p^{r_1+k_2} &
a_1a_3p^{-k_1}&
a_0^{-1}(a_0gp^{k_1}+a_1ef)p^{r_0-k_1}\\
a_2hp^{r_1}&
-a_2a_3gp^{-k_1-k_2}&
a_0^{-1}(a_0p^{k_1+2k_2}-a_2fh)p^{r_0-k_1-k_2}
\end{array}
\right].
$$
We have $v_p((W_1)_{11})=m_1$,
$v_p((W_1)_{10})\geqslant r_1+ s_1+k_2$ and $v_p((W_1)_{12})\geqslant r_0$.
Hence, $v_p((W_1)_{10})\geqslant m_1$ and $v_p((W_1)_{12})\geqslant m_1$.
It follows that there exists $V_2\in GL_3(\bb{Z}_p)$ such
that $W_2:=W_1V_2$ is equal to
$$
W_2 =
\left[
\begin{array}{l|l|l}
a_0p^{r_1+k_1+k_2} &
0 &
0 \\
-a_1e p^{r_1+k_2} &
a_1a_3p^{-k_1}&
0\\
a_2hp^{r_1}&
-a_2a_3gp^{-k_1-k_2}&
a_0^{-1}a_1^{-1}a_4p^{r_0-k_2}
\end{array}
\right].
$$
We have $v_p((W_2)_{22})=m_2$,
$v_p((W_2)_{20})\geqslant r_1+s_2$ and $v_p((W_2)_{21})\geqslant s_0+s_2+k_1+k_2$.
Hence, $v_p((W_2)_{20})\geqslant m_2$ and $v_p((W_2)_{21})\geqslant m_2$.
The claim about $V$ follows.
The proof of the claim $m_i + s_j \geqslant m_j$ is straightforward and it is left to the reader.
\end{proof}
\vspace{5mm}
\noindent
\textbf{Proof of Theorem \ref{nsshigh}.}
Let $k\in \bb{N}$ be such that $k< K$. We prove that $L$ is not self-similar of index $p^k$,
from which the theorem will follow.
Observe that $s_0+2k< s_1$ and $s_1+2k< s_2$;
in particular, $s_0< s_1< s_2$. Let $x=(x_0,x_1,x_2)$
be a well diagonalizing basis of $L$, and
let $[x_i,x_{i+1}]=a_{i+2}x_{i+2}$, where $a_i\in\bb{Z}_p\backslash\{0\}$ and
the index $i\in\{0,1,2\}$ is interpreted modulo 3. Then $s_i = v_p(a_i)$.
Let $M$ be a subalgebra of $L$ of index $p^k$, and
let $\varphi: M\rightarrow L$ be an algebra morphism. We have to show that
$\varphi$ is not simple.
By Lemma \ref{l1} and Lemma \ref{l2} we can assume that $\varphi$ is injective.
We will exhibit a nonzero $\varphi$-invariant ideal $I$ of $L$,
from which it follows that $\varphi$ is not simple.
Let $M'=\varphi(M)$.
Then $M'$ is a subalgebra of $L$ of index $p^k$
(see \cite[Proposition 2.8]{NS2019}), and $\varphi$ induces an
isomorphism $M\rightarrow M'$.
There exist $k_0,k_1,k_2,k_0',k_1',k_2'\in\bb{N}$
and $e,f,g,e',f',g'\in\bb{Z}_p$ such that
$M= \gen{y_0,y_1,y_2}$ and $M'=\gen{y_0',y_1',y_2'}$,
where $y_j = \sum_i U_{ij}x_i$,
$y_j' = \sum_i U_{ij}'x_i$ and
$$
U =
\left[
\begin{array}{lll}
p^{k_0} & e & f \\
0 & p^{k_1} & g \\
0 & 0 & p^{k_2}\end{array}
\right]
\qquad\qquad
U' =
\left[
\begin{array}{lll}
p^{k_0'} & e' & f' \\
0 & p^{k_1'} & g' \\
0 & 0 & p^{k_2'}\end{array}
\right].
$$
Note that $k_0+k_1+k_2 = k_0'+k_1'+k_2' =k$.
In this paragraph we consider the subalgebra $M$.
Define $a_3 = a_0p^{2k_1+2k_2}+a_1e^2p^{2k_2}+a_2h^2$
and $a_4 = a_0a_1p^{2k_2}+a_0a_2g^2+ a_1a_2f^2$,
where $h=eg-fp^{k_1}$.
From the assumptions we deduce
$v_p(a_3) = s_0 +2k_1+2k_2$ and $v_p(a_4) = s_0 +s_1+2k_2$;
in particular $a_3$ and $a_4$ are nonzero.
It is not difficult to check that the entries of the matrix
$$
V =
\left[
\begin{array}{l|l|l}
1 &
0 &
0 \\
-a_3^{-1}(a_1ep^{2k_2}+a_2gh)p^{k_0}&
1&
0\\
a_3^{-1}a_2hp^{k_0+k_1}&
-a_{4}^{-1}a_2(a_0gp^{k_1}+a_1ef) &
1
\end{array}
\right]
$$
are in $\bb{Z}_p$; hence, $V\in GL_3(\bb{Z}_p)$.
Define $z=(z_0,z_1,z_2)$ by $z_j = \sum_i V_{ij}y_i$;
hence, $z$ is a basis of $M$.
We have $z_j = \sum_i (UV)_{ij}x_i$,
and one can compute $UV$ and obtain
$$
UV =
\left[
\begin{array}{l|l|l}
a_3^{-1}a_0p^{k_0+2k_1+2k_2} &
a_{4}^{-1}a_0(a_1ep^{2k_2}+a_2gh) &
f \\
-a_3^{-1}a_1ep^{k_0+k_1+2k_2} &
a_{4}^{-1}a_1(a_0p^{k_1+2k_2}-a_2fh) &
g\\
a_3^{-1}a_2hp^{k_0+k_1+k_2} &
-a_{4}^{-1}a_2(a_0gp^{k_1}+a_1ef)p^{k_2} &
p^{k_2}
\end{array}
\right].
$$
A straightforward but lengthy calculation yields that
$[z_i,z_{i+1}]=c_{i+2}z_{i+2}$,
where
$$
c_0 = a_3p^{-k},
\qquad
c_1 = a_3^{-1}a_4p^k,
\qquad
c_2 = a_0a_1a_2a_4^{-1}p^k.
$$
Observe that $c_i\in\bb{Z}_p$ since, by assumption, $M$ is a subalgebra of $L$.
Hence, $z$ is a diagonalizing basis of $M$, and
the $p$-adic valuations $t_i:=v_p(c_i)$ are the $s$-invariants of $M$.
One can compute that $t_i = s_i+k-2k_i$. Observe that $0\leqslant t_0<t_1< t_2$;
in particular, $z$ is a well diagonalizing basis of $M$.
Let $a_3 = u_3p^{s_0+2k_1+2k_2}$ and $a_4=u_4p^{s_0+s_1+2k_2}$
with $u_3,u_4\in\bb{Z}_p^*$.
In order to get a matrix in a slightly simplified form,
we multiply the columns 0 and 1 of $UV$
by $u_3$ and $u_4$, respectively, getting the matrix
$$
W =
\left[
\begin{array}{l|l|l}
a_0p^{-s_0+k_0} &
a_0(a_1ep^{2k_2}+a_2gh)p^{-s_0-s_1-2k_2} &
f \\
-a_1ep^{-s_0+k_0-k_1} &
a_1(a_0p^{k_1+2k_2}-a_2fh)p^{-s_0-s_1-2k_2} &
g\\
a_2hp^{-s_0+k_0-k_1-k_2} &
-a_2(a_0gp^{k_1}+a_1ef)p^{-s_0-s_1-k_2} &
p^{k_2}
\end{array}
\right].
$$
Define $w = (w_0,w_1,w_2)$ by $w_j =\sum_i W_{ij}x_i$, and
note that $w$ is a well diagonalizing basis of $M$.
We have
$$
[M,M] = \gen{p^{t_0}w_0, p^{t_1}w_1,p^{t_2}w_2}
$$
and (see \cite[Lemma 2.13]{NS2019})
$$
\gamma_2(M) = \gen{p^{t_0+t_1}w_0, p^{t_0+t_1}w_1,p^{t_0+ t_2}w_2}.
$$
Let $r_0: = s_0+s_1+k_1+2k_2$ and $r_1 := s_0+k_1+k_2$, and define
$$I := p^{r_0}M+p^{r_1}[M,M]+\gamma_2(M).$$
We have
$I =\gen{p^{r_1+t_0}w_0, p^{t_0+t_1}w_1, p^{r_0}w_2}$
and $I\subseteq M$.
One way to prove the last equality is to observe that
$r_0=t_0+t_1+k_1\geqslant t_0+t_1$ and $r_1 = t_0+k_0\geqslant t_0$,
and to check that the following inequalities hold:
$r_1+t_0\leqslant r_0$, $r_1+t_0\leqslant t_0+t_1$,
$t_0+t_1\leqslant r_0$, $t_0+t_1\leqslant r_1+t_1$,
$r_0\leqslant r_1+t_2$ and $r_0\leqslant t_0+t_2$.
Let $\widetilde{W}$ be the matrix the columns of which
are the coordinates with respect to $x$ of
$p^{r_1+t_0}w_0$, $p^{t_0+t_1}w_1$ and $p^{r_0}w_2$,
respectively. We have
$$
\widetilde{W} =
\left[
\begin{array}{l|l|l}
a_0p^{r_1+k_1+k_2} &
a_0(a_1ep^{2k_2}+a_2gh) &
fp^{r_0} \\
-a_1e p^{r_1+k_2} &
a_1(a_0p^{k_1+2k_2}-a_2fh) &
gp^{r_0} \\
a_2hp^{r_1}&
-a_2(a_0gp^{k_1}+a_1ef)p^{k_2}&
p^{r_0+k_2} \\
\end{array}
\right].
$$
From Lemma \ref{ldiag} and Lemma \ref{lidcond}
it follows that
$$I = \gen{p^{m_0}x_0, p^{m_1}x_1, p^{m_2}x_2}$$
and that $I$ is an ideal of $L$,
where $m_0 = r_1+s_0+k_1+k_2$, $m_1 = s_0+s_1+k_1+2k_2$
and $m_2 = r_0+k_2$.
Since $I$ is nonzero,
it suffices to show
that $I$ is $\varphi$-invariant. We know that $I\subseteq M$,
and we will show that $\varphi(I) = I$, which will
complete the proof
of the theorem.
The same arguments as in the preceeding paragraph may be applied to
$M'$. In particular, the $s$-invariants of $M'$
are $t_i' = s_i+k-2k_i'$ and $0\leqslant t_0'<t_1'<t_2'$.
Since $M'\simeq M$, the two subalgebras have the same $s$-invariants,
and because the $t_i$'s and the $t_i'$'s are ordered,
we deduce that $t_i'=t_i$ for $i\in\{0, 1, 2\}$. Thus, $k_i'=k_i$ for $i\in\{0, 1, 2\}$.
Let
$$I' := p^{r_0}M'+p^{r_1}[M',M']+\gamma_2(M').$$
Clearly, $\varphi(I) = I'$. Also, again from the arguments
of the preceeding paragraph applied to $M'$ (and from
$k_i'=k_i$), we have $I'= \gen{p^{m_0}x_0, p^{m_1}x_1, p^{m_2}x_2} =I$.
Hence, $\varphi(I)=I$, as desired.
\ep
\section{Proof of the main theorem}
In \cite{Laz65} Lazard constructed a pair of mutually inverse functors
between the category of saturable $p$-adic analytic pro-$p$ groups and the
category of saturable $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattices (see \cite[IV(3.2.6)]{Laz65};
see also \cite{DixAnaProP} and \cite{GSKpsdimJGT}).
These functors commute with the forgetful
functors to the category of sets, and we refer to the isomorphism
of categories that they define as Lazard's correspondence.
Whenever $G$ is a saturable $p$-adic analytic pro-$p$ group,
we denote by $L_G$ the associated saturable $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice.
Under Lazard's correspondence, uniform pro-$p$ groups correspond to powerful $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattices.
\begin{lemma}\label{lsinv}
Let $G$ be a saturable $p$-adic analytic pro-$p$ group, and
let $L_G$ be the associated $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice.
Then $G/[G,G]=L_G/{[L_G,L_G]}$ as abelian groups.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Theorem A and Proposition 2.1(3)]{GSpsat}
we have that $[G,G]$ is PF-embedded
in $G$, and by \cite[Theorem B(4)]{GSpsat} we have $[G,G]=[L_G,L_G]$. Moreover, by \cite[Theorem 4.5]{GSpsat}
we have $[G,G]=L_{[G,G]}$ as sets, and $G/[G,G]=L_G/L_{[G,G]}$ as abelian groups.
Then $G/[G,G]=L_G/{[L_G,L_G]}$ as abelian groups.
\end{proof}
\\
\noindent
\textbf{Proof of Theorem \ref{main-group}.}
Let $L_G$ be the $\bb{Z}_p$-Lie lattice associated with $G$,
and observe that $L_G$ has dimension 3.
By \cite[Proposition A]{NS2019} we have $\sigma(G)=\sigma(L_G)$,
and by \cite[Theorem B(4)]{GSpsat} we have that $L_G$ is unsolvable. From Remark \ref{rdiag}
we see that $L_G$ admits a diagonalizing basis,
and from Lemma \ref{lsinv} we see that the $s$-invariants of $G$ coincide with the ones
of $L_G$, hence, the number $K$ defined from $L_G$ in the statement of
Theorem \ref{nsshigh} is equal to $k(G)$.
By applying Theorem \ref{nsshigh} we deduce that $\sigma(L_G)\geqslant p^{K}$,
and the desired conclusion $\sigma(G)\geqslant p^{k(G)}$ follows.
\\
\noindent
\textbf{Proof of Corollary \ref{cor4}.}
For $l\in\bb{N}$, let $L_l$ and $\sigma_l$ be defined as in Example \ref{efamily},
and recall that $\sigma_l\rightarrow \infty$ for $l\rightarrow \infty$.
Let $G_l$ be the uniform pro-$p$ group associated with $L_l$.
Then, by \cite[Proposition A and Theorem 3.1]{NS2019}, $G_l$ is a self-similar 3-dimensional
hereditarily just-infinite
uniform pro-$p$ group of self-similarity index $\sigma_l$.
The corollary follows.
\begin{footnotesize}
\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
\providecommand{\MR}{\relax\ifhmode\unskip\space\fi MR }
\providecommand{\MRhref}[2]{%
\href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#2}
}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}
|
\section{Inroduction}
In this paper, we consider infinite horizon optimal control problems with time averaging and time discounting criteria and give estimates for the Ces\`aro and Abel limits of their optimal values in the case when they depend on the initial conditions. We establish that these limits are bounded from above by the optimal value of a certain infinite dimensional (ID) linear programming (LP) problem and that they are bounded from below by the optimal value of the corresponding dual problem. (These estimates imply, in particular, that the Ces\`aro and Abel limits exist and are equal to each other if there is no duality gap). In addition, we obtain IDLP-based optimality conditions for the long run average optimal control problem.
An LP approach to optimal control problems allows to use the convex duality theory and LP-based numerical techniques for analysis and construction of optimal
solutions, and this approach
has been extensively studied in both deterministic and stochastic settings.
For example, LP formulations of problems of optimal control of deterministic systems considered on finite time and infinite time intervals were studied in \cite{Goreac-Serea,Her-Her-Lasserre,Lass-Trelat,Rubio,Vinter} and \cite{GQ,GQ-1,GPS-2017,GPS-2018,QS}, respectively.
Despite a great deal of attention that the development of the LP approach to control problems has
attracted, the issue about the validity of the LP representation for the Ces\`aro and Abel limits of the optimal values in case these limits are dependent
on initial conditions has not been addressed until recently. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, first results in this direction for deterministic controlled ODEs were obtained in \cite{BG}. This paper was followed up by \cite{BGS}, where stronger results were obtained under weaker assumptions for deterministic controlled systems evolving in discrete time. (Note that related results were obtained in \cite{HK-1}, \cite{HK-2} for Markov decision processes (MDP) with finite state/action spaces and in \cite{Gonzalez-Hernandes} for MDP with infinite uncountable state/action spaces).
In this paper, we use ideas from \cite{BGS} to strengthen and further develop some of the results of \cite{BG}.
Consider the control system
\begin{equation}\label{e-CSO}
y'(t)=f(y(t),u(t)), \ \ \ \ \ u(t)\in U, \ \ \ \ \ t\in [0,\infty) \ ,
\end{equation}
where $U$ is a compact metric space,
$\ f(\cdot,\cdot): \mathbb{R}^m\times U \to \reals^m$ is continuous
and satisfies Lipschitz condition in $y$ uniformly in $u \in U$. The controls
$u(\cdot) $ are measurable functions $u(\cdot): [0,\infty)\to U $, and the set of all such controls is denoted by $\U$. For a given $u(\cdot) \in \U $ and initial condition $y(0)=y_0 $, the corresponding solution of (\ref{e-CSO}) is denoted by $y(t,y_0,u)$.
Let $Y\subset \reals^m$ be a non-empty compact set, equal to the closure of its interior.
We denote by $\U_T(y_0)$ and $\ \U(y_0)$ the sets of controls such that
\begin{equation}\label{e-CSO-1}
y(t,y_0,u)\in Y \ \
\end{equation}
for any $\ t\in [0,T]$, (respectively, for any $\ t\in [0,\infty)$).
Inclusion (\ref{e-CSO-1})
can be interpreted as a state constraint. Everywhere in what follows, it will be assumed the set $\U(y_0)$ is not empty for any $y_0\in Y$, that is, there exists at least one admissible control for any initial condition. (Systems that satisfy this property are called {\em viable} on $Y$.)
On the trajectories of system (\ref{e-CSO}), consider the optimal control problem
\begin{equation}\label{Cesaro}
\frac{1}{T} \inf_{u(\cdot)\in \U_T(y_0)}\int_0^T k(y(t,y_0,u),u(t))dt=:V_T(y_0)
\end{equation}
and the optimal control problem
\begin{equation}\label{Abel}
\lambda \inf_{u(\cdot)\in \U(y_0)}\int_0^{\infty}e^{-\lambda t} k(y(t,y_0,u),u(t))dt=:h_{\lambda}(y_0),
\end{equation}
where $T>0 $, $\lambda>0 $ are positive parameters and
$k(y,u): \reals^m\times U \to \reals $ is a continuous function. Our focus will be on establishing estimates for the
limits $\disp \lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}V_T(y_0)$ and $\disp \lim_{\l\dn 0}h_{\l}(y_0)$ (called
Ces\`aro and Abel limits, respectively). Matters related to the existence and the equality of Ces\`aro and Abel limits of the optimal values have been addressed by many authors (see, e.g.,
\cite{Arisawa-3,Bardi,BQR-2015,GQ,GruneSIAM98,GruneJDE98,Khlopin,Sorin92,OV-2012,QR-2012}). A special feature and the novelty of our consideration is that we are making use of
occupational measure reformulations of problems (\ref{Cesaro}) and (\ref{Abel}) and utilize the LP duality theory.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is devoted to preliminaries. In particular, in this section, we reformulate optimal control problems (\ref{Cesaro}) and (\ref{Abel})
in terms of occupational measures, and we introduce the IDLP problem and its dual that are instrumental for our consideration.
In Section 3 we establish that $\disp \limsup_{T\rightarrow\infty}V_T(y_0)$ and $\disp \limsup_{\l\dn 0}h_{\l}(y_0)$ are less or equal than the optimal value of this IDLP problem and that
$\disp \liminf_{T\rightarrow\infty}V_T(y_0)$ and $\disp \liminf_{\l\dn 0}h_{\l}(y_0)$ are greater or equal than the optimal value of its dual. (A straightforward corollary of these statements is the fact that the Ces\`aro and Abel limits exist and are equal if there is no duality gap).
In Section 4 we discuss IDLP-based optimality conditions for the long run average optimal control problem. In Section 5, we consider an example illustrating results obtained in Sections 3 and 4.
Some of the results of this paper were announced in \cite{CDC2019}, but, in contrast to \cite{CDC2019} (and to \cite{BG}), we do not assume in this paper that the set $Y$ if forward invariant; we assume only that the system is viable on $Y$.
\section{Occupational Measures and IDLP Problems}
Denote by
$\ \mathcal{P}(Y\times U)$, $\ \mathcal{M}_+(Y\times U)$ and $\ \mathcal{M}(Y\times U)$ the spaces of probability measures, non-negative measures and all finite measures, respectively, defined on the Borel subsets of $Y\times U$. The convergence in these spaces is understood in the weak$^*$ sense, that is, $\gamma^k \in \mathcal{M}(Y\times U), k =1,2,... ,$ converges to $\gamma
\in \mathcal{M}(Y\times U)$ if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{weak}
\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}\int_{Y\times U} \phi(y,u) \gamma^k (dy,du) \ = \
\int_{Y\times U} \phi(y,u) \gamma (dy,du)
\end{equation}
for any continuous $\phi(y,u): Y\times U \rightarrow \reals$.
Let $u(\cdot) \in \U_T(y_0)$ and $y(t) =
y(t,y_0,u(\cdot)), \ t\in [0,T] $. A probability measure
$\gamma_{u(\cdot),T} \in {\cal P} (Y \times U)$ is called the
{\it occupational measure} generated by the pair $(y(\cdot),u(\cdot) )$ on the interval $[0,T]$ if, for
any Borel set $Q \subset Y \times
U$,
$$
\gamma _{u(\cdot),T} (Q) = \frac{1}{T}\int _0 ^T
1_Q (y(t),u(t)) dt ,
$$
where $1_Q (\cdot)$ is
the indicator function of $Q$. It can be shown that this definition is equivalent to
the equality
\begin{equation}\label{e:occup-meas-def-eq-S}
\int_{Y\times U} q(y,u)\gamma_{u(\cdot),T} (dy,du) = \frac{1}{T} \int _0 ^
T q (y(t),u(t)) dt
\end{equation}
for any
$q(\cdot)\in C(Y\times U)$ (see, e.g., Section 1 in \cite{GPS-2018}).
Let $u(\cdot) \in {\cal U}(y_0)$ and $y(t)=y(t,y_0,u(\cdot)),
\ t\in [0,\infty) $. A probability measure
$\gamma^{\lambda}_{u(\cdot)} \in {\cal P} (Y \times U)$ is called the {\it discounted occupational measure} generated
by the pair $(y(\cdot),u(\cdot) )$ if for any Borel set $Q \subset Y \times
U$,
$$
\gamma ^{\lambda}_{u(\cdot)} (Q) = \lambda \int _0 ^ \infty
e^{-\lambda t} 1_Q (y(t),u(t)) dt.
$$
The latter definition
is equivalent to the equality
\begin{equation}\label{e:occup-meas-def-eq}
\int_{Y\times U} q(y,u)\gamma ^{\lambda}_{u(\cdot)} (dy,du) = \lambda \int _0 ^ \infty
e^{-\lambda t} q (y(t),u(t)) dt
\end{equation}
for any
$q(\cdot)\in C(Y\times U)$.
Let $\Gamma_T(y_0)$ and $\Theta^{\lambda}(y_0) $ denote the sets of all occupational and discounted occupational measures, respectively, generated by
admissible processes:
$$
\Gamma_T(y_0):= \bigcup_{u(\cdot)\in\U_T(y_0)}\{\gamma _{u(\cdot),T}\}, \;
\Theta^{\lambda}(y_0):= \bigcup_{u(\cdot)\in\U(y_0)}\{\gamma^{\lambda}_{u(\cdot)}\}
$$
and
\begin{equation}\label{PZ1}
\Gamma_T:=\bigcup_{y_0\in Y}\Gamma_T(y_0),\quad \Theta^{\lambda}:=\bigcup_{y_0\in Y}\Theta^{\lambda}(y_0).
\end{equation}
Due to (\ref{e:occup-meas-def-eq-S}) and (\ref{e:occup-meas-def-eq}), problems (\ref{Cesaro}) and (\ref{Abel}) can be equivalenlty reformulated as
\begin{equation}\label{e:occup-meas-def-eq-2}
\inf_{\gamma\in \Gamma_T(y_0) }\int_{Y\times U}k(y,u)\gamma(dy,du) =V_T(y_0),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{e:occup-meas-def-eq-3}
\inf_{\gamma\in \Theta^{\lambda}(y_0) }\int_{Y\times U}k(y,u)\gamma(dy,du) =h_{\l}(y_0).
\end{equation}
To describe convergence properties of occupational measures, we introduce the following metric on $\P({Y\times U})$:
$$
\rho(\g',\g''):=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} {1\o 2^j}\left|\int_{Y\times U} q_j(y,u)\g'(dy,du)-\int_{Y\times U} q_j(y,u)\g''(dy,du)\right|
$$
for $\g',\g''\in \P({Y\times U})$, where $q_j(\cdot),\,j=1,2,\dots,$ is a sequence of Lipschitz continuous functions dense in the unit ball of the space of continuous functions $C({Y\times U})$ from ${Y\times U}$ to $\reals$.
This metric is consistent with the weak$^*$ convergence topology on $\P({Y\times U})$, that is,
a sequence $\g^k\in \P({Y\times U})$ converges to $\g\in \P({Y\times U})$ in this metric if and only if \eqref{weak} holds.
Using the metric $\rho$, we can define the ``distance" $\rho(\g,\Gamma)$ between $\g\in \P({Y\times U})$ and $\Gamma\subset \P({Y\times U})$
and the Hausdorff metric $\rho_H(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2)$ between $\Gamma_1\subset \P({Y\times U})$ and $\Gamma_2\subset \P({Y\times U})$ as follows:
$$
\rho(\g,\Gamma):=\inf_{\g'\in \Gamma}\rho(\g,\g'),\quad
\rho_H(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2):=\max\{\sup_{\g\in \Gamma_1}\rho(\g,\Gamma),\sup_{\g\in \Gamma_2}\rho(\g,\Gamma_2)\}.
$$
Define the set $W$ by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
W:=\{\g\in \P(Y\times U)|\, \int_{Y\times U}& \nabla \phi(y)f(y,u)\,d\gamma(dy,du)=0
\hbox{ for all }\phi\in C^1\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Here and below gradients are understood as {\em row} vectors, and $C^1$ is the space of continuously differentiable functions on $\reals^n$.
Consider the IDLP problem
\begin{equation}\label{limits-non-ergodic}
\inf_{(\gamma, \xi)\in \Omega(y_0)}\int_{Y\times U}k(y,u)\gamma(dy,du)=: k^*(y_0),
\end{equation}
where
$$
\Omega(y_0):= \{(\gamma, \xi)\in \mathcal{P}(Y\times U)\times \mathcal{M}_{+}(Y\times U) |\,\gamma\in W,
$$
\begin{equation}\label{non-ergodic-Omega}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_{Y\times U}(\phi(y_0)-\phi(y))\gamma(dy,du) +
\int_{Y\times U}\nabla \phi(y)f(u,y)\xi(dy,du) =0 \ \ \forall \phi(\cdot)\in C^1 \}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
(This is an LP problem since both the objective function and the constraints are linear in the ``decision variables" $\g$ and $\xi$.)
Consider also the IDLP problem
\begin{equation}\label{limits-non-ergodic-dual}
\sup_{(\mu , \psi(\cdot), \eta(\cdot) )\in \mathcal{D}}\mu :=d^*(y_0),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{D}$ is the set of triplets $(\mu , \psi(\cdot), \eta(\cdot) )\in \reals^1\times C^1\times C^1$
that for all $(y,u)\in Y\times U$ satisfy the inequalities
\begin{equation}\label{limits-non-ergodic-dual-1}
k(y,u)+ (\psi (y_0)- \psi (y)) + \nabla \eta (y) f(y,u)-\mu \geq 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{limits-non-ergodic-dual-2}
\nabla \psi (y) f(y,u)\geq 0.
\end{equation}
The optimal value of problem (\ref{limits-non-ergodic-dual}) can be equivalently represented as
\begin{equation}\label{CC9}
d^*(y_0)=\sup_{(\psi,\eta)}\min_{(y,u)}\{k(y,u)+(\psi(y_0)-\psi(y))+\nabla\eta(y)f(y,u)\}.
\end{equation}
Problem (\ref{limits-non-ergodic-dual})-(\ref{limits-non-ergodic-dual-2}) can be shown to be dual to (\ref{limits-non-ergodic}) (see Section 5 of \cite{BG}) and it is proved in \cite{BG}, Theorem 3.1, that
\begin{equation}\label{limits-non-ergodic-dual-4}
k^*(y_0) \geq d^*(y_0).
\end{equation}
\bigskip
In this paper we will be using Clarke's generalized gradient of a Lipschitz function $\phi:\,\reals^n\to \reals$, which can be represented as a convex hull of the limits of the gradients, that is, (see, e.g.,\cite{Bardi}, p.63)
\begin{equation}\label{KH1}
\partial \phi(y)={\rm co}\,\{p|\,p=\lim_{k\to \infty}\nabla \phi(y_k)\hbox{ for some }y_k\to y\}.
\end{equation}
The following approximation property will also be used.
\begin{proposition}\label{subd} (\cite{CZAR}, Theorem 2.2)
Let $E$ be an open subset of $\reals^n$ and let $\phi:\,E\to \reals$ be a locally Lipschitz function. Then for any $\ve>0$ there exists a function $\phi_{\ve}:\,E\to \reals$ of class $C^{\infty}$ such that for any $y\in E$
$$
|\phi_{\ve}(y)-\phi(y)|\le \ve
$$
and
$$
\nabla \phi_{\ve}(y)\in \bigcup_{y'\in (y+\ve B)\cap E}\pl \phi(y')+\ve B,
$$
where $B$ is an open unit ball.
\end{proposition}
\section{Estimates for the Ces\`aro and Abel Limits of the Optimal Values}
The estimates from below are established by the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop-former-2-3}
The following inequalities hold:
\begin{equation}\label{e-main-1}
\liminf_{T\rightarrow\infty}V_T(y_0)\geq d^*(y_0),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{e-main-2}
\liminf_{\lambda\downarrow 0}h_{\lambda}(y_0)\geq d^*(y_0).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
These inequalities were proved in Proposition 3.1 in \cite{BG} under the assumption of invariance of $Y$, which is not used in the proof and can be replaced with viability. The proof below is much simpler than in \cite{BG}.
{\bf Proof of Proposition \ref{Prop-former-2-3}.}
Assume that \eqref{e-main-1} is not true, that is, $\disp \liminf_{T\to \infty} V_T(y_0)< d^*(y_0)$. Then there exist $\ \beta >0$ and a pair of $C^1$ functions $\ (\psi(\cdot),\eta(\cdot))$ with $\ \psi(\cdot) $ satisfying \eqref{limits-non-ergodic-dual-2}, such that
$$
k(y,u) + (\psi(y_0)-\psi(y)) +\nabla\eta(y)f(y,u)\geq \liminf_{T'\to \infty} V_{T'}(y_0) +\beta.
$$
Taking into account that $\psi(y(t))$ is non-decreasing along an arbitrary admissible process $(y(\cdot),u(\cdot)) $ due to \eqref{limits-non-ergodic-dual-2}, we have from the last inequality that
$$
k(y(t),u(t)) + \nabla\eta(y(t))f(y(t),u(t))\geq \liminf_{T'\to \infty} V_{T'}(y_0) +\beta, \ \ \ t\ge 0.
$$
Therefore,
$$
\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}k(y(t),u(t))\,dt + \frac{1}{T}(\eta(y(T))- \eta(y_0))\geq \liminf_{T\to \infty} V_{T'}(y_0) +\beta,
$$
which implies that
$$
V_T(y_0) + \frac{1}{T}(\max_{y\in Y}\eta(y)- \eta(y_0))\geq \liminf_{T'\to \infty} V_{T'}(y_0) +\beta.
$$
By taking $\liminf_{T\rightarrow\infty}$ on the left side, we obtain a contradiction. Thus, \eqref{e-main-1} is proved.
Similarly, to prove \eqref{e-main-2} assume that it is not true and that there exist $\ \beta >0$ and a pair of $C^1$ functions $\ (\psi(\cdot),\eta(\cdot))$ with $\ \psi(\cdot) $ satisfying \eqref{limits-non-ergodic-dual-2}, such that
$$
k(y,u) + (\psi(y_0)-\psi(y)) +\nabla\eta(y)f(y,u)\geq \liminf_{\l'\dn 0} h_{\l'}(y_0) +\beta.
$$
This implies that for an arbitrary admissible process $(y(\cdot),u(\cdot))$ and $\l>0$
\begin{equation}\label{VM1}
\l \int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\l t}k(y(t),u(t))\,dt + \l\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\l t}\nabla\eta(y(t))f(y(t),u(t))\,dt\geq \liminf_{\l'\dn 0} h_{\l'}(y_0) +\beta.
\end{equation}
Taking into account that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& \l\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\l t}\nabla\eta(y(t))f(y(t),u(t))\,dt= \l\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\l t}{d\o dt}\eta(y(t))\,dt\\
&=-\l\eta(y_0)+\l^2\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\l t}\eta(y(t))\,dt\to 0
\hbox{ as }\l\dn 0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
we conclude from \eqref{VM1} that
$$
\liminf_{\lambda\downarrow 0}h_{\lambda}(y_0)\ge \liminf_{\lambda'\downarrow 0}h_{\lambda}(y_0)+\beta,
$$
which is a contradiction. The proposition is proved. \hf
\bigskip
Let us now establish the estimate from above. To this end, take $\d>0$ and denote:
$$
Y^{\d}:=Y+\d \bar B,
$$
where $\bar B$ is the closed unit ball.
For $y_0\in Y^{\d}$, along with problems \eqref{Cesaro} and \eqref{Abel}, consider the problems
\begin{equation}\label{Cesaro-1}
\frac{1}{T} \inf_{u(\cdot)\in \U^{\d}_T(y_0)}\int_0^T k(y(t,y_0,u),u(t))dt=:V^{\d}_T(y_0),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{Abel-1}
\lambda \inf_{u(\cdot)\in \U^{\d}(y_0)}\int_0^{\infty}e^{-\lambda t} k(y(t,y_0,u),u(t))dt=:h^{\d}_{\lambda}(y_0),
\end{equation}
where $\U^{\d}_T(y_0)\subset \U$ and $\U^{\d}(y_0)\subset \U$ are the sets of controls such that, for any $u(\cdot)\in \U^{\d}_T(y_0)$ (respectively, $u(\cdot)\in \U^{\d}(y_0)$), the corresponding trajectories satisfies the inclusions $y(t,y_0,u(\cdot))\in Y^{\d} \hbox{ for all }t\in[0,T]$ (respectively, $y(t,y_0,u(\cdot))\in Y^{\d} \hbox{ for all }t\ge 0$).
We will be referring to the following assumptions for all $\d\in(0,\d_0)$ for some $\d_0>0$:
(A1) The set $Y^{\d}$ is viable, that is, $\U^{\d}(y_0)\neq \emptyset$ for all $y_0\in Y^{\d}$.
(A2) The function $y_0\mapsto V^{\d}_T(y_0)$ is Lipschitz on $Y^{\d}$ for all $T>0$.
(A3) The function $y_0\mapsto h^{\d}_{\l}(y_0)$ is Lipschitz on $Y^{\d}$ for all $\l>0$.
(A4) For any $y_0\in Y$
\begin{equation}\label{MC2}
\lim_{T\to \infty,\d\to 0}|V_T(y_0)-V_T^{\d}(y_0)|=0.
\end{equation}
(A5) There holds the relation
\begin{equation}\label{GH2}
\lim_{T\to \infty}\rho_H({\rm co}\, \Gamma_T,W)=0.
\end{equation}
(A6) For any $y_0\in Y$
\begin{equation}\label{MC3}
\lim_{\l\dn 0,\d\to 0}|h_{\l}(y_0)-h_{\l}^{\d}(y_0)|=0.
\end{equation}
(A7) There holds the relation
\begin{equation}\label{MC4}
\lim_{T\to \infty}\rho_H({\rm co}\, \Theta^{\l},W)=0.
\end{equation}
(Recall that $\Gamma_T$ and $\Theta^{\l}$ in (A5) and (A7) are defined in \eqref{PZ1}.)
\medskip
\begin{remark}
{\rm A sufficient condition for (A5) to be valid is that, for any Lipschitz continuous function $q(y,u):\, \reals^n\times \reals^m\to \reals$,
\begin{equation}\label{MC1}
{1\o T}\left|\inf_{u(\cdot)\in \U_T(y_0), y_0\in Y }\int_0^T q(y(t,y_0,u),u(t))\,dt-\inf_{u(\cdot)\in \U^{\d}_T(y_0), y_0\in Y }\int_0^T q(y(t,y_0,u),u(t))\,dt\right|\to 0
\end{equation}
as $\d\to 0$ and $T\to \infty$; see Theorem 2.1 in \cite{G04}. A sufficient condition for (A7) to be valid is that, for any Lipschitz continuous function $q(y,u):\, \reals^n\times \reals^m\to \reals$ and any $y_0\in Y $,
\begin{equation}\label{MC1-1}
\lambda\left|\inf_{u(\cdot)\in \U(y_0) }\int_0^{\infty} e^{-\lambda t} q(y(t,y_0,u),u(t))dt-\inf_{u(\cdot)\in \U^{\d}(y_0) }\int_0^{\infty} e^{-\lambda t} q(y(t,y_0,u),u(t))dt\right|\to 0
\end{equation}
as $\d\to 0$ and $\lambda\to 0$, with the convergence being uniform with respect to $y_0\in Y$. The fact that this condition implies (A7) can be established similarly
to Proposition 6.1 in \cite{GQ}. Note that (\ref{MC1}) and (\ref{MC1-1}) are stronger versions of the assumptions (A4) and (A6) (respectively). Note also that
both (\ref{MC1}) and (\ref{MC1-1})
are satisfied if $Y $ is invariant with respect to the solutions of system (\ref{e-CSO}), that is, if all trajectories of (\ref{e-CSO}) with initial condition in $Y$ do not leave $Y$ (since $\U^{\d}(y_0)=\U(y_0)=\U$ for any $y_0\in Y$ in this case).
It is worth noting that (A5) and (A7) are satisfied automatically in the relaxed control setting, which is a consequence of Theorems 2.2, 2.5 and Lemma 2.4 in \cite{GQ-1}.
}
\end{remark}
\begin{Theorem}\label{Th-upper-bound}
{\rm (a)} Under assumptions {\rm (A1), (A2), (A4),} and {\rm(A5)},
\begin{equation}\label{ub-1}
\limsup_{T\rightarrow\infty} V_{T}(y_0)\leq k^*(y_0) \ \ \forall \ y_0\in Y.
\end{equation}
{\rm (b)} Under assumptions {\rm (A1), (A3), (A6),} and {\rm(A7)},
\begin{equation}\label{ub-2}
\limsup_{\l\dn 0} h_{\l}(y_0)\leq k^*(y_0) \ \ \forall \ y_0\in Y.
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}
\bigskip
To prove this theorem we need a few auxiliary results. First of these is the following lemma. (This lemma constitutes a part of the proof of Theorem 3.8 in \cite{BQR-2015}; its proof is omitted in \cite{BQR-2015}, and we prove it here since it is important for our consideration.)
\begin{lemma} Under assumption (A5),
\begin{equation}\label{e-before-lim-1}
\int_{Y\times U} V_T(y)\,\g(dy,du)\le \int_{Y\times U} k(y,u)\,\g(dy,du)\ \ \ \forall \ \gamma\in W
\end{equation}
for any $T>0$.
\end{lemma}
{\bf Proof.}
Let us show first that, for any $T,T'>0$
\begin{equation}\label{CC20}
\int_{Y\times U} V_T(y)\,\g'(dy,du)\le \int_{Y\times U} k(y,u)\,\g'(dy,du)+{MT\o T'}\quad \ \forall \ \g'\in \G_{T'}(y_0), \ \forall \ y_0\in Y,
\end{equation}
where $M$ is such that $|f(y,u)|\le M$ for all $(y,u)\in Y\times U$.
Take $y_0\in Y$, $\g'\in \G_{T'}(y_0)$, and let $u(\cdot)\in \U_{T'}(y_0)$ be a control that generates $\g'$ on $[0,T']$. Extend $u$ from the interval $[0,T]$ to the interval $[0,T'+T]$ so that $u\in \U_{T'+T}(y_0)$. (Such extension is possible due to viability of $Y$.) Let $y(\cdot)$ be the corresponding trajectory. Taking into account that $\disp V_T(y(s))\le {1\o T}\int_{0}^{T} k(y(r+s),u(r+s)))\,dr$ for all $s\in [0,T']$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_{Y\times U} V_T(y)\,\g'(dy,du)={1\o T'} \int_{0}^{T'} V_T(y(s))\,ds
\le {1\o T'} \int_{0}^{T'}{1\o T} \int_{0}^{T} k(y(r+s),u(r+s)))\,dr\,ds\\
&={1\o T} \int_{0}^{T}{1\o T'} \int_{0}^{T'} k(y(r+s),u(r+s))\,ds\,dr\\
&={1\o T} \int_{0}^{T}{1\o T'} \int_{r}^{T'+r} k(y(\s),u(\s))\,d\s\,dr
\le {1\o T} \int_{0}^{T}{1\o T'} \left(\int_{0}^{T'} k(y(\s),u(\s))+2Mr\right)\,d\s\,dr\\
&= {1\o T} \int_{0}^{T}{1\o T'} \int_{0}^{T'} k(y(\s),u(\s))\,d\s\,dr+ {1\o TT'} \int_{0}^{T}2Mr\,dr\\
&={1\o T} \int_{0}^{T}\int_{Y\times U} k(y,u)\,\g'(dy,du)\,dr+{MT\o T'}=\int_{Y\times U} k(y,u)\,\g'(dy,du)+{MT\o T'}\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Thus, inequality (\ref{CC20}) is established. From this inequality
it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{CC20-2}
\int_{Y\times U} V_T(y)\,\g'(dy,du)\le \int_{Y\times U} k(y,u)\,\g'(dy,du)+{MT\o T'}\quad \ \ \ \forall\g'\in {\rm co}\ \G_{T'}\ .
\end{equation}
Due to (A5), for any $\gamma\in W $ there exist sequences $T'_l > 0, \ \g'_l\in {\rm co}\,\G_{T'_l} $, $\ l=1,2,...,$ such that $T'_l\rightarrow\infty $ and $\g'_l\rightarrow \g $. Passing to the limit along these sequences in (\ref{CC20-2})
and taking into account that
$$
\int_{Y\times U} V_T(y)\,\g(dy,du)=\lim_{\g'_l\rightarrow \g }\int_{Y\times U} V_T(y)\,\g'_l(dy,du)
$$
due to continuity of $V_T (\cdot)$, we arrive at inequality (\ref{e-before-lim-1}). The lemma is proved. \hf
\bigskip
The following corollary follows from the fact that $V_T^{\d}(y)\le V_T(y)$ for all $y\in Y$.
\begin{corollary}
For any $T>0$ and any $\d\in (0,\d_0)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{e-before-lim-10}
\int_{Y\times U} V_T^{\d}(y)\,\g(dy,du)\le \int_{Y\times U} k(y,u)\,\g(dy,du)\ \ \ \forall \ \gamma\in W.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
Recall that, due to Radamacher's theorem, a Lipschitz function is almost everywhere differentiable.
\begin{Lemma}\label{L-DPP}
Let $V^{\d}_T(\cdot)$ be differentiable at $y_0\in {\rm int}\,Y^{\d}$ for some $T>0$ and $\d>0$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{ZZ1}
\nabla V^{\d}_T(y_0)f(y_0,u)\ge -{2M\o T} \quad\hbox{for all } u\in U,
\end{equation}
where $M$ is such that $|k(y,u)|\le M$ for all $(y,u)\in Y^{\d_0}\times U$.
\end{Lemma}
{\bf Proof.}
Let $u(\cdot)\in \U$ be a constant function, and $y(\cdot)=y(\cdot,y_0,u)$ be the corresponding trajectory.
From the dynamic programming principle it follows that for any sufficiently small $\D t\in (0,T)$ such that $y(t)\in Y^{\d}$
for $t\in [0,\D t]$,
\begin{equation}\label{ZZ2}
\begin{aligned}
&TV^{\d}_T(y_0)\le
& \int_0^{\D t} k(y(t),u)\,dt+(T-\D t)V^{\d}_{T-\D t}(y(\D t)).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Taking into account that
$$
\int_0^{\D t} k(y(t),u)\,dt=k(y_0,u)\D t+o(\D t)
$$
and
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
(T-\D t)V^{\d}_{T-\D t}(y(\D t))\le TV^{\d}_{T}(y(\D t))+M\D t,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{XX3}
TV^{\d}_T(y_0)\le k(y_0,u)\D t+TV^{\d}_T(y(\D t))+M\D t+o(\D t).
\end{equation}
Under the differentiability assumption,
$$
V^{\d}_T(y(\D t))=V^{\d}_{T}(y_0)+\nabla V^{\d}_{T}(y_0)f(y_0,u)\D t +o_T(\D t).
$$
Substituting this into \eqref{XX3} and passing to the limit as $\D t\to 0$ we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nabla V^{\d}_T(y_0)f(y_0,u)\ge -{2M\o T}.
\end{equation*}
The lemma is proved.
\hf
\bigskip
{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{Th-upper-bound}.} We will prove only the statement (a) of the theorem. The proof of the statement (b) is similar (see the Remark after the end of the proof). Due to \eqref{KH1} and Lemma \ref{L-DPP}, we have that
for any $\d\in (0,\d_0)$, $(y,u)\in ({\rm int}\,Y^{\d})\times U$, and $T>0$
\begin{equation}\label{ZZ7}
pf(y,u)\ge -{2M\o T}\quad\hbox{for any }p\in \pl V^{\d}_T(y).
\end{equation}
(Here and below generalized gradients are {\em row} vectors.)
Due to Proposition \ref{subd} with $E={\rm int}\,Y^{\d}$, for any $\ve\in(0,\d)$ there exists $\psi_{\ve,\d,T}\in C^1({\rm int}\,Y^{\d})$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{ZZ6}
\max_{y\in Y} |\psi_{\ve,\d,T}(y)-V_T^{\d}(y)|\le \ve,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{ZZ8}
\nabla \psi_{\ve,\d,T}(y)\in \bigcup_{y'\in y+\ve B}\pl V_T^{\d}(y')+\ve B\quad\hbox{ for all }y\in Y,
\end{equation}
where $B$ is the open unit ball. From \eqref{ZZ7} and \eqref{ZZ8} we deduce that
there exists a constant $M$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{ZZ9}
\nabla \psi_{\ve,\d,T}(y)f(y,u)\ge -{2M\o T}-\ve M \quad\hbox{ for all }(y,u)\in Y\times U.
\end{equation}
Due to \eqref{ZZ6} we can rewrite \eqref{e-before-lim-10} as
\begin{equation*}
\int_{Y\times U}(k(y,u)+\ve-\psi_{\ve,\d,T}(y))\,\gm\ge 0\quad \hbox{for all }\g\in W,
\end{equation*}
which, in turn, is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{CC15-1}
\min_{\g\in W}\int_{Y\times U}(k(y,u)+\ve-\psi_{\ve,\d,T}(y))\,\gm\ge 0.
\end{equation}
The problem on the left hand side of (\ref{CC15-1}), i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{CC8-1}
\min_{\g\in W}\int_{Y\times U}(k(y,u)+\ve-\psi_{\ve,\d,T}(y))\,\gm,
\end{equation}
is an IDLP problem. It is proved in \cite{GQ}, Section 3, that its dual is
\begin{equation}\label{BB12-1}
\sup_{\eta\in C^1}\min_{(y,u)\in Y\times U}\{k(y,u)+\ve-\psi_{\ve,\d,T}(y)+\nabla \eta(y)f(y,u)\}.
\end{equation}
The optimal values of \eqref{CC8-1} and \eqref{BB12-1} are equal (\cite{GQ}, Theorem 3.1). Therefore, \eqref{CC15-1} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{BB15-1}
\sup_{\eta\in C^1}\min_{(y,u)\in Y\times U}\{k(y,u)+\ve-\psi_{\ve,\d,T}(y)+\nabla \eta(y)f(y,u)\}\ge 0.
\end{equation}
From \eqref{BB15-1} it follows that there exists a function $\eta_{\ve,\d,T}(\cdot)\in C^1$ such that for all $(y,u)\in Y\times U$
\begin{equation}\label{e-eps-feasib-1}
k(y,u)+\ve-\psi_{\ve,\d,T}(y)+\nabla\eta_{\ve,\d,T}f(y,u)\ge -\ve.
\end{equation}
For arbitrary $T>0$ and $\ve>0$ consider the following IDLP problem:
\begin{equation}\label{BB21-1}
\sup_{(\psi,\eta)\in Q(\ve,T)} \psi(y_0)=: d^*(\ve,T,y_0),
\end{equation}
where
$Q(\ve,T)$ is the set of pairs $(\psi(\cdot),\eta(\cdot))\in C^1\times C^1$ that satisfy the inequalities
\begin{equation}\label{BB25-1}
\begin{aligned}
&k(y,u)-\psi(y)+\nabla \eta(y)f(y,u)\ge -2\ve,\\
&\nabla \psi(y)f(y,u)\ge -\frac{2M}{T}-M\ve\ \ \ \ \forall \ (y,u)\in Y\times U.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
From \eqref{ZZ9} and \eqref{e-eps-feasib-1} it follows that $\psi_{\ve,\d,T}$ and $\eta_{\ve,\d,T}$ satisfy \eqref{BB25-1}. ($\psi_{\ve,\d,T}$ in \eqref{ZZ7}-\eqref{ZZ6} is defined on int$\,Y^{\d}$, but it can be extended to $\reals^n$ without changing values on $Y$; therefore, without loss of generality, we can assume that $\psi_{\ve,\d,T}\in C^1.$) Therefore, taking into account \eqref{ZZ6},
\begin{equation}\label{ZZ10}
V_T^{\d}(y_0)-\ve\le \psi_{\ve,\d,T}(y_0)\le d^*(\ve,T,y_0).
\end{equation}
Similarly to \cite{BGS}, Lemma 6.1, it can be shown that
\begin{equation}\label{e-inequality-lemma-1}
d^*(\ve,T, y_0)\leq k^*(\ve,T, y_0),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
k^*(\ve,T, y_0)=\inf_{(\g,\xi)\in \O(y_0)}\Big\{ \int_{Y\times U} k(y,u)\gm
+\left( \frac{2M}{T}+M\ve\right)\int_{Y\times U}\xi(dy,du)\Big\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
It follows from \eqref{ZZ10} and \eqref{e-inequality-lemma-1} that
\begin{equation}\label{GH3}
V_T^{\d}(y_0)-\ve\le k^*(\ve,T,y_0).
\end{equation}
Next we establish that
\begin{equation}\label{BB1-T-2}
\lim_{\ve\downarrow 0,\,T\rightarrow\infty}k^*(\ve,T, y_0)= k^*(y_0).
\end{equation}
It is clear that $k^*(\ve,T, y_0) $ decreases as $T\to \infty$ and $\ve\dn 0$, and that $\ k^*(\ve,T, y_0) \geq k^*( y_0) $ for any $T>0$ and $\ve>0$.
Hence,
$$
\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}k^*(\ve,T, y_0)\geq k^*(y_0).
$$
Let us prove the opposite inequality. Take $\beta >0 $
and let $(\gamma', \xi')\in \Omega(y_0) $
be $\beta$-optimal in \eqref{limits-non-ergodic}, that is,
$$
\int_{Y\times U}k(y,u)\gamma'(dy,du)\leq k^*(y_0) + \beta.
$$
Then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
k^*(\ve,T, y_0)&\leq \int_{Y\times U} k(y,u)\gamma'(dy,du)+
\left(\frac{2M}{T}+M\ve\right)\int_{Y\times U} \xi'(dy,du)\\
&\leq k^*(y_0) + \beta + \left(\frac{2M}{T}+M\ve\right)\int_{Y\times U}\xi'(dy,du).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Hence,
$$
\lim_{\ve\downarrow 0,\,T\rightarrow \infty}k^*(\ve, T,y_0)\leq k^*(y_0) .
$$
It follows now from \eqref{GH3} and \eqref{BB1-T-2} that
$$
\limsup_{T\rightarrow\infty}V_T^{\d}(y_0)\le k^*(y_0),
$$
which implies via \eqref{MC2} that
$$
\limsup_{T\rightarrow\infty} V_T(y_0)\leq k^*(y_0) \ \ \forall \ y_0\in Y.
$$
The part (a) of the theorem is established. \hf
\begin{remark}
{\rm As mentioned above, the proof of part {\rm (b)} is similar to that of part (a). The difference is that, instead of \eqref{e-before-lim-1}, one needs to use the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{e-before-lim-2}
\int_{Y\times U} h_{\l}(y)\,\g(dy,du)\le \int_{Y\times U} k(y,u)\,\g(dy,du)\ \ \ \forall \ \gamma\in W.
\end{equation}
Under the assumption (A7), the validity of (\ref{e-before-lim-2}) for any $\l>0$ was established within the proof of Theorem 3.4 in \cite{BQR-2015}.}
\end{remark}
\bigskip
From \eqref{limits-non-ergodic-dual-4}, Theorem \ref{Th-upper-bound}, and Proposition \ref{Prop-former-2-3} it follows that under the corresponding assumptions, for any $y_0\in Y$
\begin{equation}\label{BX1}
d^*(y_0)\le \liminf_{T\to \infty} V_T(y_0)\le \limsup_{T\to \infty} V_T(y_0)\le k^*(y_0)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{BX9}
d^*(y_0)\le \liminf_{\l\dn 0} h_{\l}(y_0)\le \limsup_{\l\dn 0} h_{\l}(y_0)\le k^*(y_0).
\end{equation}
These formulas imply that under the strong duality assumption $d^*(y_0)=k^*(y_0)$ the limits
\begin{equation}\label{lim-exists-1}
V(y_0):=\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty} V_{T}(y_0)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{lim-exists-2}
h(y_0):=\lim_{\l\downarrow 0} h_{\l}(y_0)
\end{equation}
exist and all the inequalities in \eqref{BX1}-\eqref{BX9} hold as equalities. However, strong duality may not hold, and next we investigate situations when individual inequalities in \eqref{BX1}-\eqref{BX9} hold as equalities without the strong duality assumption. First, consider the case when there exists an optimal process that is periodic for $t\ge \bar t$ with some $\bar t\ge 0$.
For $\mathcal{T}>0 $ let $(y_{\mathcal{T}}(\cdot), u_{\mathcal{T}}(\cdot)) $ be a $\mathcal{T} $-periodic admissible process. This process will be referred to as {\it finite time (FT) reachable from $y_0$} if there exist $\bar t \geq 0 $ and a control $u(\cdot)\in \U_{\bar t}(y_0)$ such that the solution $y(t)= y(t,y_0,u) $ of \eqref{e-CSO}
obtained with this control satisfies the equality $y(\bar t) = y_{\mathcal{T}}(0) $.
Consider the optimal control problem
\begin{equation*}\label{e-main-8-1}
\inf_{\mathcal{T},\left(y_{\mathcal{T}}(\cdot),u_{\mathcal{T}}(\cdot)\right) }\left\{\frac{1}{\mathcal{T}}\int_{0}^{\mathcal{T}} k(y_{\mathcal{T}}(t),u_{\mathcal{T}}(t))\,dt \right\} :=V_{per}(y_0),
\end{equation*}
where ${\rm inf}$ is over all $\mathcal{T}>0$ and over all $\mathcal{T}$-periodic pairs $(y_{\mathcal{T}}(\cdot), u_{\mathcal{T}}(\cdot)) $ that are FT reachable from $y_0$. Clearly,
\begin{equation}\label{e:occup-meas-def-eq-per-1}
V_{per}(y_0)\geq \liminf_{T\rightarrow\infty}V_T(y_0).
\end{equation}
\bigskip
The following theorem is proved in \cite{BG}, Corollary 3.1.
\begin{Theorem}\label{Prop-former-2-4}
If \eqref{e:occup-meas-def-eq-per-1} holds as equality, that is, $\liminf$ in \eqref{e:occup-meas-def-eq-per-1} is reached on a sequence of periodic processes FT-reachable from $y_0$, then
$$
\liminf_{T\rightarrow\infty}V_T(y_0)\geq k^*(y_0).
$$
\end{Theorem}
This theorem, along with Theorem \ref{Th-upper-bound} (a), implies the following corollary.
\begin{Corollary}\label{Prop-former-2-4-Cor}
Let the assumptions of Theorem \ref{Th-upper-bound} (a) hold, and $\liminf$ in \eqref{e:occup-meas-def-eq-per-1} is reached on a sequence of periodic processes FT-reachable from $y_0$. Then the limit $\disp V(y_0)=\lim_{T\to \infty}V_T(y_0)$ exists and
$$
V(y_0)=k^*(y_0).
$$
\end{Corollary}
\bigskip
So far we have not assumed that
the limit optimal value functions $V(\cdot)$ and $h(\cdot)$ are differentiable (this is a strong assumption, but it may hold in nontrivial examples, as demonstrated in Section \ref{Examples}). However, if we do assume it, then, as shown in the following theorem, $V(\cdot)$ and $h(\cdot)$
are equal to the optimal value $d^*(y_0)$ of the dual problem \eqref{limits-non-ergodic-dual} without the strong duality assumption $d^*(y_0)=k^*(y_0)$.
\begin{Theorem}\label{ThN1}
{\rm (a)} Let the pointwise limit \eqref{lim-exists-1} exist and $V\in C^1(\bar Y)$, that is, $V(\cdot)$ is continuously differentiable on the interior of $Y$, and $\nabla V$ can be extended by continuity to the boundary of $Y$. Then
\begin{equation*}\label{CC10}
V(y_0)= d^*(y_0) \ \ \forall \ y_0\in Y.
\end{equation*}
{\rm (b)} Let the pointwise limit \eqref{lim-exists-2}
exist and $h\in C^1(\bar Y)$. Then
\begin{equation*}\label{abel-lim-4-1}
h(y_0)= d^*(y_0) \ \ \ \forall \ y_0\in Y.
\end{equation*}
{\rm (c)} Consequently, if the assumptions of both parts {\rm (a)} and {\rm (b)} hold, then Abel and Ces\`aro limits are equal, that is,
$$
V(y_0)=h(y_0) \ \ \forall \ y_0\in Y.
$$
\end{Theorem}
The assumption of continuous differentiability of $V$ is essential for the validity of this theorem. This is in contrast to discrete-time systems where the counterpart of Theorem \ref{ThN1} holds
for merely continuous $V(\cdot)$ and $h(\cdot)$ (\cite{BGS}, Theorem 4.2). At the same time, a known sufficient condition ensuring the validity of the equality $V(y_0)=h(y_0)$ for all $y_0\in Y$ is the {\em uniform} convergence of $V_T(\cdot)$ and $h_{\l}(\cdot)$ in \eqref{lim-exists-1} and \eqref{lim-exists-2} (see Theorems 3.4 and 3.8 in \cite{BQR-2015}). Let us emphasize that in
Theorem \ref{ThN1}, the convergence to the limits is not assumed to be uniform.
{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{ThN1}.}
From \eqref{e-main-1} it follows that $V(y_0)\ge d^*(y_0)$ for all $y_0\in Y$; therefore, to prove part (a), it remains to show the opposite inequality.
From \eqref{e-before-lim-1} it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{e-after-lim}
\min_{\g\in W}\int_{Y\times U} (k(y,u)-V(y))\,\g(dy,du)\ge 0.
\end{equation}
The problem on the left hand side of (\ref{e-after-lim}), i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{CC8-2}
\min_{\g\in W}\int_{Y\times U}(k(y,u)-V(y))\,\gm,
\end{equation}
is an IDLP problem, whose dual is
\begin{equation}\label{BB12-2}
\sup_{\eta\in C^1}\min_{(y,u)\in Y\times U}\{k(y,u)-V(y)+\nabla \eta(y)f(y,u)\}
\end{equation}
(cf. \eqref{CC8-1}-\eqref{BB12-1}).
Since the optimal values of \eqref{CC8-2} and \eqref{BB12-2} are equal, \eqref{e-after-lim} is equivalent to
\begin{equation*}\label{BB15-2}
\sup_{\eta\in C^1}\min_{(y,u)\in Y\times U}\{k(y,u)-V(y)+\nabla \eta(y)f(y,u)\}\ge 0.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, for any $\ve>0$ there exists a function $\eta_{\ve}(\cdot)\in C^1$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{e-eps-feasib}
k(y,u)-V(y)+\nabla\eta_{\ve}(y)f(y,u)\ge -\ve\quad \hbox{for all }(y,u)\in Y\times U.
\end{equation}
For $y_0\in\,$ int $Y$, similarly to \eqref{XX3} we obtain
\begin{equation*}
TV_T(y_0)\le k(y_0,u)\D t+TV_T(y(\D t))+M\D t+o(\D t)
\end{equation*}
for sufficiently small $\D t$, where $M$ is such that $|k(y,u)|\le M$ for all $(y,u)\in Y$.
Dividing both sides of this inequality by $T$ and then passing to the limit as $T\to \infty$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{XV1}
V(y_0)\le V(y(\D t))
\end{equation}
Under the differentiability assumpton, the latter implies that
\begin{equation}\label{PZ2}
\nabla V(y_0)f(y_0,u)\ge 0 \hbox{ for all }(y_0,u)\in ({\rm int}\, Y)\times U.
\end{equation}
Due to the assumption on continuity of $\nabla V$ on $Y$, inequality above holds for all $y_0\in Y$.
Consider the problem
\begin{equation}\label{BB21-2}
\sup_{(\psi,\eta)\in Q} \psi(y_0),
\end{equation}
where $Q$ is the set of pairs $(\psi(\cdot),\eta(\cdot))\in C^1\times C^1$ that satisfy the inequalities
\begin{equation}\label{BB25-2}
\begin{aligned}
&k(y,u)-\psi(y)+\nabla \eta(y)f(y,u)\ge 0,\\
&\nabla \psi(y)f(y,u)\ge 0\ \ \ \ \forall \ (y,u)\in Y\times U.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We will show below that the optimal value in \eqref{BB21-2}-\eqref{BB25-2} is equal to $d^*(y_0)$. Assuming that this is true, due to Whitney Extension Theorem (\cite{Whitney}), function $V$ can be extended from $Y$ to $\reals^n$ as a $C^1$ function. Since the pair $\psi=V-\ve$ and $\eta=\eta_{\ve}$ satisfies \eqref{BB25-2} due to \eqref{e-eps-feasib} and \eqref{PZ2}, we conclude that
\begin{equation*}\label{ZZ10a}
V(y_0)-\ve\le d^*(y_0),
\end{equation*}
which implies the validity of part (a) of Theorem \ref{ThN1}.
Let us now prove the above claim that the optimal value in \eqref{BB21-2}-\eqref{BB25-2} is equal to $d^*(y_0)$.
Let us denote the value of supremum in \eqref{BB21-2} by $\hd^*(y_0)$. The inequality $\hd^*(y_0) \leq d^*(y_0) $ is true, since for any pair $\ (\psi(\cdot),\eta(\cdot))\in Q$, the triplet $\ (\mu , \psi(\cdot),\eta(\cdot))\in \Dd $ with $\mu = \psi(y_0) $ and where $\Dd$ is given after formula \eqref{limits-non-ergodic-dual}. Let us prove the opposite inequality. Let a triplet $\ (\mu' , \psi'(\cdot),\eta'(\cdot))\in \Dd$ be such that $\mu'\geq d^*(y_0)-\delta $, with $\delta > 0 $ being arbitrarily small. Then the pair $\ (\tilde \psi'(\cdot), \eta'(\cdot))\in Q$, with $\tilde\psi'(y)= \psi'(y)- \psi'(y_0) + \mu'$. Since $ \tilde\psi'(y_0) = \mu'$, it leads to the inequality $\hat d^*(y_0) \geq d^*(y_0) - \delta $ and, consequently, to the inequality $\hat d^*(y_0) \geq d^*(y_0) $ since $\delta > 0 $ is arbitrarily small. Thus, the claim and part (a) of the theorem are proved. The proof of part (b) is similar and is omitted.\hf
\section{Sufficient Optimality Conditions}\label{opt_cond}
In this section we consider the optimal control problem
\begin{equation}\label{CC21}
\inf_{u(\cdot)\in \U(y_0)} \liminf_{T\to \infty} {1\o T}\int_0^T k(y(t),u(t))\,dt
\end{equation}
and its sufficient optimality conditions in terms of the maximizing functions in the dual problem. First we relate the value function of (\ref{CC21}) with that of \eqref{Cesaro}.
\begin{Proposition}\label{PN3} The optimal value in problem (\ref{CC21}) is equal to $\disp\liminf_{T\to \infty} V_T(y_0) $. That is,
for all $y_0\in Y$
$$
\inf_{u(\cdot)\in \U(y_0)} \liminf_{T\to \infty} {1\o T}\int_0^T k(u(t),y(t))\,dt=\liminf_{T\to \infty} V_T(y_0).
$$
\end{Proposition}
\bigskip
{\bf Proof.}
Let $u(\cdot)\in \U(y_0)$ and let $y(\cdot)=y(\cdot,y_0,u(\cdot))$ be the corresponding trajectory. Then
$$
{1\o T}\int_0^T k(y(t),u(t))\,dt\ge V_T(y_0).
$$
Therefore,
$$
\liminf_{T\to \infty}{1\o T}\int_0^T k(y(t),u(t))\,dt\ge \liminf_{T\to \infty} V_T(y_0)
$$
and, hence,
$$
\inf_{u(\cdot)\in \U(y_0)} \liminf_{T\to \infty} {1\o T}\int_0^T k(y(t),u(t))\,dt\ge\liminf_{T\to \infty} V_T(y_0).
$$
Let us prove the opposite inequality.
For any $\varepsilon>0$, $u(\cdot)\in \U(y_0)$, and for sufficiently large $T$,
$$
{1\o T}\int_0^T k(u(t),y(t))\,dt \ge \liminf_{T\to \infty} {1\o T}\int_0^T k(u(t),y(t))\,dt -\varepsilon ,
$$
where $y(\cdot)=y(t,y_0,u) $.
Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
{1\o T}\int_0^T & k(u(t),y(t))\,dt \ge
\inf_{u'\in \U(y_0)}\liminf_{T\to \infty} {1\o T}\int_0^T k(u'(t),y'(t))\,dt -\varepsilon
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
and, consequently,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
V_T(y_0) \ge \inf_{u\in \U(y_0)}\liminf_{T\to \infty} {1\o T}\int_0^T k(u(t),y(t))\,dt -\varepsilon.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Hence,
$$
\liminf_{T\to \infty}V_T(y_0)\ge \inf_{u\in \U(y_0)}\liminf_{T\to \infty} {1\o T}\int_0^T k(u(t),y(t))\,dt.
$$
The proposition is proved. \hf
\bigskip
\begin{Theorem}\label{Th-suff}
Assume that a pair $(\bp,\be)\in C^1\times C^1$ delivering maximum in problem \eqref{limits-non-ergodic-dual}-\eqref{limits-non-ergodic-dual-2} (or \eqref{CC9}) exists and, for some admissible process $(y(\cdot),u(\cdot))$ and all $t\ge 0$,
\begin{equation}\label{XX6}
\begin{aligned}
k(y(t),u(t))+(\bp(y_0)-\bp(y(t)))+
\nabla\bar\eta(y(t))f(y(t),u(t))=d^*(y_0).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Then\\
{\rm (a)} there exists the limit $\disp V(y_0)=\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}V_T(y_0)$;\\
{\rm (b)} there holds the equality
\begin{equation}\label{XX7}
\disp V(y_0)= d^*(y_0);
\end{equation}\\
{\rm (c)} the process $(y(\cdot),u(\cdot))$ is optimal in (\ref{CC21}).
\end{Theorem}
{\bf Proof.} Integrating \eqref{XX6} and taking into account that $\bp(y_0)-\bp(y(t))\le 0$ due to
\eqref{limits-non-ergodic-dual-2}, we obtain
$$
{1\o T}\int_0^T k(y(t),u(t))\,dt+{1\o T}(\be(y(T))-\be(y_0))\le d^*(y_0).
$$
Since $\disp V_T(y_0)\le {1\o T}\int_0^T k(y(t),u(t))\,dt$ and the second term vanishes as $T\to \infty$, the latter implies that
$$
\limsup_{T\to \infty} V_T(y_0)\le d^*(y_0).
$$
Taking into account \eqref{e-main-1}, we conclude that the limit $\disp V(y_0)=\lim_{T\to \infty} V_T(y_0)$ exists
and is equal to $d^*(y_0)$, that is, parts (a) and (b) of the theorem are true. We also obtain that\\
$\disp \lim_{T\to \infty}{1\o T}\int_0^T k(y(t),u(t))\,dt=d^*(y_0)$, and due to \eqref{XX7}, we conclude that
$$
\lim_{T\to \infty}{1\o T}\int_0^T k(y(t),u(t))\,dt=V(y_0).
$$
Therefore, the process $(y(\cdot),u(\cdot))$ is optimal, and part (c) is true. The theorem is proved. \hf
\bigskip
An important corollary of Theorem \ref{Th-suff} is the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{Rem-feedback}
Under the assumptions of Theorem \ref{Th-suff}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
(y(t),u(t))=
{\rm argmin}_{(y,u)\in Y\times U}\{k(y,u)-\bar\psi(y)+\nabla\bar\eta(y)f(y,u)\} \quad\forall\,t\ge 0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{feedback}
u(t)={\rm argmin}_{u\in U}\{k(y(t),u)+\nabla\bar\eta(y(t))f(y(t),u)\}\,.
\end{equation}
The latter implies the optimal feedback control law
\begin{equation}\label{e-feedback}
\begin{aligned}
u^f[y]={\rm argmin}_{u\in U}\{k(y ,u)+\nabla\bar\eta(y)f(y,u)\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
{\bf Proof.} This proposition follows immediately from \eqref{XX6} and \eqref{CC9}.
\bigskip
The law \eqref{e-feedback} can be used to construct optimal control numerically, which can be a subject of further research.
An example illustrating Proposition \ref{Rem-feedback} is presented in Section \ref{Examples}.
In the situation when the function $V(\cdot)$ is continuously differentiable, in addition to Theorem \ref{Th-suff}, the following is true.
\begin{Theorem}\label{PN2}
Assume
that the pointwise limit $\disp V(\cdot)=\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}V_T(\cdot)$ exists, is continuously differentiable on the interior of $Y$, and $\nabla V$ can be extended by continuity to the boundary of $Y$. Then
{\rm (a)} functions $(\bar\psi,\bar\eta)\in C^1\times{C^1}$ are maximizers in \eqref{CC9} if and only if $\bar\psi$ satisfies \eqref{limits-non-ergodic-dual-2} and
\begin{equation}\label{min}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{(y,u)}\{k(y,u)-\bp(y)+\nabla\bar\eta(y)f(y,u)\}=V(y_0)-\bp(y_0);
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
{\rm (b)} if $\bar\eta\in {C^1}$ is such that
\begin{equation}\label{CC7}
\min_{(y,u)}\{k(y,u)-V(y)+\nabla\bar\eta(y)f(y,u)\}= 0,
\end{equation}
then the functions $\psi=V$ and $\eta=\bar\eta$ are maximizers in \eqref{CC9}.
\end{Theorem}
{\bf Proof.} For $(\bar\psi,\bar\eta)\in C^1\times{C^1}$ being maximizers in \eqref{CC9} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{min2}
\min_{(y,u)}\{k(y,u)+(\bp(y_0)-\bp(y))+\nabla\bar\eta(y)f(y,u)\}=d^*(y_0).
\end{equation}
Due to Theorem \ref{ThN1} (a) we have $d^*(y_0)=V(y_0)$, which implies part (a). To show the validity of (b) notice that if $\bar\eta$ is such that \eqref{CC7} holds, then the functions $\psi=V$ and $\eta=\bar\eta$ satisfy \eqref{min}. Due to part (a) of the theorem, these functions are maximizers in \eqref{CC9}.
Theorem is proved. \hf
\begin{Remark}\label{R-non-unique}
{\rm Due to Theorem \ref{PN2}{ (b)}, $\psi=V$, along with appropriate $\eta$, is a maximizer in \eqref{CC9}. However, the set of maximizing $\psi$ may be much larger then $V$ alone, as is demonstrated by the example in the following section.}
\end{Remark}
\section{An Example}\label{Examples}
In this section we illustrate an application of Proposition \ref{Rem-feedback} and Theorem \ref{PN2} with an an example.
Consider the system (Example 5.1 in \cite{BG})
\begin{equation}\label{VC1}
\begin{aligned}
&y_1'=y_2u,\\
&y_2'=-y_1u,\\
&(y_1(0),y_2(0))=(y_{10},y_{20}),\\
&u\in [-1,1]\,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with the state constraint
\begin{equation}\label{VM4}
y_{1}^2+y_{2}^2\le 1\,.
\end{equation}
Since $\disp {d\o dt}(y_1^2+y_2^2)=0$ and $(y_1')^2+(y_2')^2=(y_{01}^2+y_{02}^2)u^2$, this system describes rotation about the origin with the angular speed $u$.
The goal is to find $u$ that minimizes the long-run average distance from the point $(1,0)$:
\begin{equation}\label{VX3}
V(y_{01},y_{02}):=\min_{u(\cdot)}\liminf_{T\to \infty} {1\o T}\int_0^T ((1-y_1)^2+y_2^2)\,dt,
\end{equation}
that is, $k(y_1,y_2,u)=(1-y_1)^2+y_2^2$.
For convenience of analysis, write \eqref{VC1} in polar coordinates:
\begin{equation}\label{e-extra}
\begin{aligned}
&r'=0,\\
&\t'=u,\\
& (r(0),\t(0))=(r_0,\t_0),\\
&u\in [-1,1]\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The constraint \eqref{VM4} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{VM5}
0\le r\le 1,\;-\pi\le \t\le \pi.
\end{equation}
Note that the constraint (\ref{VM4}) is equivalent to just $0\le r\le 1 $. The introduction of the additional inequality $-\pi\le \t\le \pi$ in (\ref{VM5}) makes the state constraint set compact in polar coordinates without changing
the optimal value of the problem. Note also
that system \eqref{VC1} is invariant on the set \eqref{VM4}, and system (\ref{e-extra}) is viable (but not invariant) on the set \eqref{VM5}.
We have $(1-y_1)^2+y_2^2=1-2r\cos\t+r^2$,
and we denote
\begin{equation}\label{BB2}
V_T(r_0,\t_0):={\min_{u(\cdot)}}\,{1\o T}\int_0^T (1-2r\cos\t+r^2)\,dt.
\end{equation}
Due to Proposition \ref{PN3}, the value function in \eqref{VX3} is equal to $\lim_{T\to \infty} V_T.$
It is clear that if $\t_0\in(0,\pi]$, the optimal control is $u=-1$ until $\t=0$, then $u=0$; if $\t_0\in[-\pi,0)$, the optimal control is $u=1$ until $\t=0$, then $u=0$.
The time when $\t$ reaches 0 is equal to $|\t_0|$. Therefore, if $\t_0\in(0,\pi]$, then, along the optimal process,
$$
\t(t)=\begin{cases}
\t_0-t,\,& t\in[0,\t_0]\\
0,&t>\t_0
\end{cases}
$$
and, for $T>\t_0$,
\begin{equation}\label{BX3}
V_T(r_0,\t_0)={1\o T}\left(\int_0^{\t_0}(1-2r\cos\t+r^2)\,dt+(T-\t_0)(1-r_0)^2\right).
\end{equation}
If $\t_0\in[-\pi,0)$, then
$$
\t(t)=\begin{cases}
\t_0+t,\,& t\in [0,-\t_0]\\
0,&t>-\t_0\,
\end{cases}
$$
and, for $T>-\t_0$,
\begin{equation}\label{BB5}
V_T(r_0,\t_0)={1\o T}\left(\int_0^{-\t_0}(1-2r\cos\t+r^2)\,dt+(T+\t_0)(1-r_0)^2\right).
\end{equation}
For $\t_0\in (0,\pi]$ we have
$$
\int_0^{\t_0}\cos\t(t)\,dt=\int_0^{\t_0}\cos(\t_0-t)\,dt=\sin \t_0.
$$
Taking into account that $r\equiv r_0$, from \eqref{BX3} we get
\begin{equation}\label{BB4}
V_T(r_0,\t_0)={1\o T}(\t_0(1+r_0^2)-2r_0\sin \t_0+(T-\t_0)(1-r_0)^2)=(1-r_0)^2+{2r_0\o T}(\t_0-\sin\t_0)\,.
\end{equation}
For $\t_0\in [-\pi,0)$ we have
$$
\int_0^{-\t_0}\cos\t\,dt=\int_0^{-\t_0}\cos(\t_0+t)\,dt=-\sin \t_0,
$$
and, from \eqref{BB5},
\begin{equation}\label{BB6}
V_T(r_0,\t_0)=(1-r_0)^2+{2r_0\o T}(-\t_0+\sin\t_0).
\end{equation}
Formulas \eqref{BB4} and \eqref{BB6} can be combined as
$$
V_T(r,\t)=(1-r)^2+{2r\o T}|\t-\sin\t|,\;\t\in[-\pi,\pi].
$$
From this formula we obtain
\begin{equation*}
V(r,\t)=\lim_{T\to \infty}V_T(r,\t)=(1-r)^2.
\end{equation*}
This function is of class $C^1$.
Due to Theorem \ref{PN2} (b), if $\eta\in C^1$ is such that
\begin{equation}\label{VC2}
\min_{r,\t,u} \{k(r,\t)-V(r,\t)+\nabla\eta(r,\t)f(r,\t,u)\}=0,
\end{equation}
then $\psi=V$ and $\eta$ are maximizing functions in the dual problem. Let us verify that
\begin{equation}\label{e-eta}
\eta(r,\t)=2r|\t-\sin\t|
\end{equation}
satisfies \eqref{VC2}. First, notice that $\eta$ is continuously differentiable, since both one-sided derivatives at $\t=0$ are equal to zero. (In fact, $\eta\in C^2$, but the third derivative is discontinuous at $\t=0$.) We have
\begin{equation}\label{BB7}
\begin{aligned}
&\nabla \eta(r,\t)f(r,\t,u)=2r\,{\rm sgn}\,\t \,(1-\cos\t)u,\\
& \min_{u\in [-1,1]} \{\nabla\eta(r,\t)f(r,\t,u)\}=-2r(1-\cos\t)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and
$$
k(r,\t)-V(r,\t)+\min_{u\in [-1,1]} \nabla\eta(r,\t)f(r,\t,u)= (1-2r\cos\t+r^2)-(1-r)^2-2r(1-\cos\t)\equiv 0.
$$
Therefore, \eqref{VC2} holds. Consequently, $\psi(r)=V(r)=(1-r)^2$ and $\eta(r,\t)$ defined by (\ref{e-eta}) are maximizing functions in the dual problem \eqref{CC9}.
Note that the application of \eqref{e-feedback} in \eqref{BB7} leads to
the feedback law
$$
u^f[\t]=\begin{cases} 1,&\t<0\\ -1,&\t>0\end{cases}
$$
consistent with the observation made after formula \eqref{BB2}.
As mentioned in Remark \ref{R-non-unique}, $\psi=V$ (along with $\eta$ given by \eqref{e-eta}) is not the only maximizer in \eqref{CC9}. Indeed,
due to Theorem \ref{PN2}(a), functions $(\psi, \eta)$ are maximizers in \eqref{CC9} if and only if $\psi$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{VM2}
\nabla\psi(r,\t)f(r,\t,u)\ge 0 \quad \hbox{for all }r,\t,u
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{VM3}
\min_{(r,\t,u)}\{k(r,\t)-\psi(r,\t)+\nabla\eta(r,\t)f(r,\t,u)\}=V(r_0,\t_0)-\psi(r_0,\t_0).
\end{equation}
Since $f(r,\t,u)=(0,u)$, relation \eqref{VM2} becomes $\disp {\pl \psi\o \pl \t}u\ge 0$ for all $u\in [-1,1]$. Hence, $\disp {\pl \psi\o \pl \t}=0$, that is, $\psi$ may not depend on $\t$. Since
$$
k(r,\t)-\psi(r)+\min_{u\in [-1,1]} \nabla\eta(r,\t)f(r,\t,u)= (1-2r\cos\t+r^2)-\psi(r)-2r(1-\cos\t) =(1-r)^2-\psi(r),
$$
relation \eqref{VM3} becomes
$$
\min_{r\in [0,1]}\{(1-r)^2-\psi(r)\}=(1-r_0)^2-\psi(r_0).
$$
Thus, any $\psi(r)$ such $\disp\min_{r\in [0,1]} \{(1-r)^2-\psi(r)\}$ is reached at $r_0$, along with $\eta$ given by \eqref{e-eta}, is a maximizer in \eqref{CC9}.
A specific example is $r_0=1$ and $\psi(r)=(1-r)^3$.
\bigskip
|
\section{Nomenclature}
{\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.0}
\noindent\begin{longtable*}{@{}l @{\quad=\quad} l@{}}
$C_s$ & Dynamic Smagorinsky coefficient \\
$h$ & Backward facing step-height \\
$\nu_t$ & Turbulent eddy-viscosity \\
$Re_\tau$ & Friction Reynolds number \\
$R_{ij}$ & Reynolds stress tensor
\end{longtable*}}
\section{Introduction}
In recent times, physics-informed machine learning algorithms have generated a lot of interest for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) applications. These algorithms have been applied for wide variety of tasks such as closure modeling \cite{beck2019deep,maulik2019sub,singh2017machine,gamahara2017searching,ling2016reynolds,ling2015evaluation,matai2019zonal,taghizadeh2020turbulence,sotgiu2019towards,wu2018physics,wu2019physics,xiao2016quantifying,zhang2019recent}, control \cite{muller1999application,lee1997application,gautier2015closed,duriez2017machine,raibaudo2020machine}, surrogate modeling \cite{zhu2019machine,trehan2017error,san2018extreme,san2018machine,renganathan2020machine,qian2020lift,lee2020model,hasegawa2020machine,mohan2018deep,mohan2019compressed,maulik2020non,maulik2020time,fukami2020convolutional,maulikrecurrent2020}, inverse problems \cite{raissi2020hidden,raissi2019physics,gao2020bi,sun2020physics,sun2020surrogate}, uncertainty quantification \cite{kawai2014kriging,geneva2019quantifying,maulik2020probabilistic}, data assimilation \cite{gao2020bi,tang2020deep,casas2020reduced,pawar2020data} and super-resolution \cite{fukami2019super,liu2020deep}. These studies have demonstrated that the ability of modern machine learning algorithms to learn complicated nonlinear relationships may be leveraged for improving accuracy of quantities of interest as well as significant reductions in computational costs. Indeed, these studies have generated exciting results in a wide range of research thrusts within computational physics such as for novel turbulence models, shock capturing methods, shape optimization, adaptive mesh refinement strategies, interface tracking algorithms. Exhaustive reviews of machine learning methods for fluid dynamics can be found in Brunton et al. \cite{brunton2020machine} and Fukami et al. \cite{fukami2020assessment}, and a review of machine learning opportunities for turbulence may be found in Duraisamy et al. \cite{duraisamy2019turbulence}
Our present study is motivated by this explosion of data-driven algorithm development. Specifically, we seek to address the lack of a coherent framework for reproducible data-driven algorithm development and testing. Our goal, for this study, is to propose an in-situ coupling mechanism between data science and simulation that may be utilized for a large variety of simulation tasks as well as machine learning strategies. Crucially, we also wish to build on an well-established CFD package that has been tested for a wide variety of problems deployed both serially and in parallel. This would allow for the easy integration of machine learning into a previously established meshing, simulation and visualization assembly line.
We choose OpenFOAM \cite{weller1998tensorial}, an open-source general-purpose CFD software under active development, as our simulation framework. For our data-science capability, we choose TensorFlow 1.15 \cite{tensorflow2015-whitepaper}, a well-known machine learning library that allows for the development of data-driven techniques as simple as linear, logistic and polynomial regression or as complicated as fully connected and convolutional neural networks, regular and variational autoencoders and generative adversarial networks. This article serves as an introduction as well as a tutorial to the proposed coupling mechanism. The coupling is introduced by way of a surrogate prediction task for the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) turbulence eddy viscosity for a canonical backward facing step problem (with greater detail available in \cite{maulik2019accelerating}). We also demonstrate its viability for competitive compute times by deploying a deep learning surrogate to the dynamic Smagorinsky model \cite{germano1991dynamic} for a turbulent channel flow at $Re_\tau=180$. We shall introduce our coupling mechanism through a step by step demonstration that can be implemented by an OpenFOAM user independently. In addition, all of our source code and data are available publicly \footnote{https://github.com/argonne-lcf/TensorFlowFoam}.
\section{Literature review}
Despite the massive popularity of machine learning algorithm development for various tasks, there have been few open-source frameworks that have successfully allowed for direct embedding of general-purpose machine learning algorithms within simulation codes in an easy-to-reproduce manner. One such example is that of Geneva and Zabaras \cite{geneva2019quantifying} who embed a neural network model from PyTorch into OpenFOAM 4.1. However, this procedure requires the installation of additional software packages such as ONNX and Caffe2 that may cause issues with dependencies. In addition, Caffe2 is deprecated (to be subsumed into PyTorch) and future incorporation of PyTorch models into OpenFOAM through this route is unclear. Another framework under active development is the Fortran-Keras Bridge \cite{ott2020fortran} that successfully couples densely connected neural networks to Fortran simulation codes. However, this framework is yet to support more complicated architectures such as convolutional neural networks and development revolves around the programming of neural network subroutines in Fortran before a Keras model can be imported. In contrast, we utilize TensorFlow to represent a generic deep learning architecture as a graph on disk which is imported into OpenFOAM during runtime.
\section{The coupling mechanism}
In the following section, we outline the procedure for using the TensorFlow C API in OpenFOAM. In addition we detail how to export a trained deep learning model from TensorFlow in Python to disk as a protobuffer (where all of the trainable parameters and operations of the deep learning framework are fixed). Finally, we outline how to load this protobuffer during the solution process and interface it with OpenFOAM data structures.
\subsection{Exporting model from Python}
A generic TensorFlow model may be defined in Python by using the Keras API. A simple fully-connected network is defined as follows:
\begin{lstlisting}[language=Python,style=mystyle,caption=Fully connected network definition using the Keras API of TensorFlow 1.15 in Python 3.6.8.]
from tensorflow import keras
def get_model(num_inputs,num_outputs,num_layers,num_neurons):
'''
num_inputs : Number of model inputs
num_outputs : Number of model outputs
num_layers : Number of hidden layers
num_neurons : Number of neurons in hidden layers
Returns: TensorFlow model
'''
# Input layer
ph_input = keras.Input(shape=(num_inputs,),name='input_placeholder')
# Hidden layers
hidden_layer = keras.layers.Dense(num_neurons,activation='tanh')(ph_input)
for layer in range(num_layers):
hidden_layer = keras.layers.Dense(num_neurons,activation='tanh')(hidden_layer)
# Output layer
output = keras.layers.Dense(num_outputs,activation='linear',name='output_value')(hidden_layer)
model = keras.Model(inputs=[ph_input],outputs=[output])
# Optimizer
my_adam = keras.optimizers.Adam(lr=0.001, decay=0.0)
# Compilation
model.compile(optimizer=my_adam,loss={'output_value': 'mean_squared_error'})
return model
\end{lstlisting}
The abstractions of this API allow for significant complexity in model development. After this model has been defined and trained, the first step for exporting the model to a non-pythonic environment requires a function to freeze the model weights. This is achieved through the following method:
\begin{lstlisting}[language=Python,style=mystyle,caption=Freezing trained neural network model to protobuffer format.]
def freeze_session(session, keep_var_names=None, output_names=None, clear_devices=True):
"""
Freezes the state of a session into a pruned computation graph. Creates a new computation graph where variable nodes are replaced by constants taking their current value in the session.
session: The TensorFlow session to be frozen.
keep_var_names: A list of variable names that should not be frozen, or None to freeze all the variables in the graph.
output_names: Names of the relevant graph outputs.
clear_devices: Remove the device directives from the graph for better portability.
Returns: The frozen graph definition.
"""
graph = session.graph
with graph.as_default():
freeze_var_names = list(set(v.op.name for v in tf.global_variables()).difference(keep_var_names or []))
output_names = output_names or []
output_names += [v.op.name for v in tf.global_variables()]
input_graph_def = graph.as_graph_def()
if clear_devices:
for node in input_graph_def.node:
node.device = ""
frozen_graph = tf.graph_util.convert_variables_to_constants(
session, input_graph_def, output_names, freeze_var_names)
return frozen_graph
# Save the graph to disk
frozen_graph = freeze_session(keras.backend.get_session(),output_names=[out.op.name for out in model.outputs])
tf.train.write_graph(frozen_graph, './', 'ML_Model.pb', as_text=False)
\end{lstlisting}
The model (in the protobuffer format) can now be imported using the C API.
\subsection{The TensorFlow C API}
Next, we present the procedure to call the TensorFlow C API for loading a graph and performing an inference within a general C++ code. This is accomplished as follows:
\begin{lstlisting}[language=C++,style=mystyle,caption=Loading model saved in protobuffer]
// TensorFlow C API header
#include <tensorflow/c/c_api.h>
// Function to load a graph from protobuffer
TF_Graph* LoadGraph(const char* graphPath) {
if (graphPath == nullptr) {
return nullptr;
}
TF_Buffer* buffer = ReadBufferFromFile(graphPath);
if (buffer == nullptr) {
return nullptr;
}
TF_Graph* graph = TF_NewGraph();
TF_Status* status = TF_NewStatus();
TF_ImportGraphDefOptions* opts = TF_NewImportGraphDefOptions();
TF_GraphImportGraphDef(graph, buffer, opts, status);
TF_DeleteImportGraphDefOptions(opts);
TF_DeleteBuffer(buffer);
if (TF_GetCode(status) != TF_OK) {
TF_DeleteGraph(graph);
graph = nullptr;
}
TF_DeleteStatus(status);
return graph;
}
// Load graph from disk
graph_ = LoadGraph("./ML_Model.pb");
// Input operation
input_ph_ = {TF_GraphOperationByName(graph_, "input_placeholder"), 0};
// Output operation
output_ = {TF_GraphOperationByName(graph_, "output_value/BiasAdd"), 0};
\end{lstlisting}
Note how the names of the operations defined in the Python model are required to identify operations in C++. An inference using this loaded graph may be performed using
\begin{lstlisting}[language=C++,style=mystyle,caption=Inference using TF C API in C++]
TF_Tensor* CreateTensor(TF_DataType data_type,
const std::int64_t* dims, std::size_t num_dims,
const void* data, std::size_t len) {
if (dims == nullptr) {
return nullptr;
}
TF_Tensor* tensor = TF_AllocateTensor(data_type, dims, static_cast<int>(num_dims), len);
if (tensor == nullptr) {
return nullptr;
}
void* tensor_data = TF_TensorData(tensor);
if (tensor_data == nullptr) {
TF_DeleteTensor(tensor);
return nullptr;
}
if (data != nullptr) {
std::memcpy(tensor_data, data, std::min(len, TF_TensorByteSize(tensor)));
}
return tensor;
}
void DeleteTensor(TF_Tensor* tensor) {
if (tensor != nullptr) {
TF_DeleteTensor(tensor);
}
}
void DeleteSession(TF_Session* session) {
TF_Status* status = TF_NewStatus();
TF_CloseSession(session, status);
if (TF_GetCode(status) != TF_OK) {
TF_CloseSession(session, status);
}
TF_DeleteSession(session, status);
if (TF_GetCode(status) != TF_OK) {
TF_DeleteSession(session, status);
}
TF_DeleteStatus(status);
}
TF_Status* status_ = TF_NewStatus();
TF_SessionOptions* options_ = TF_NewSessionOptions();
TF_Session* sess_ = TF_NewSession(graph_, options_, status_);
TF_Tensor* output_tensor_ = nullptr;
TF_Tensor* input_tensor_ = CreateTensor(TF_FLOAT,
input_dims.data(), input_dims.size(),
&input_vals, num_cells*num_inputs*sizeof(float));
// Arrays of tensors
TF_Tensor* input_tensors_[1] = {input_tensor_};
TF_Tensor* output_tensors_[1] = {output_tensor_};
// Arrays of operations
TF_Output inputs[1] = {input_ph_};
TF_Output outputs[1] = {output_};
TF_SessionRun(sess_,
nullptr, // Run options.
inputs, input_tensors_, 1, // Input tensor ops, input tensor values, number of inputs.
outputs, output_tensors_, 1, // Output tensor ops, output tensor values, number of outputs.
nullptr, 0, // Target operations, number of targets.
nullptr, // Run metadata.
status_ // Output status.
);
// Cast output from TF C API to float*
const auto data = static_cast<float*>(TF_TensorData(output_tensors_[0]));
DeleteTensor(input_tensor_);
DeleteTensor(output_tensor_);
TF_DeleteSessionOptions(options_);
TF_DeleteStatus(status_);
DeleteSession(sess_);
\end{lstlisting}
where \texttt{input\_vals} and \texttt{input\_dims} are the data and the dimensions, respectively, for the input data.
\subsection{Compiling an OpenFOAM turbulence model that calls TensorFlow}
Once we have established how to deploy a trained machine learning model in C++, we may call for an inference within OpenFOAM. For the purpose of demonstration, we show how a new turbulence model library may be compiled while linking to the TensorFlow C Libraries. To start, we must give OpenFOAM the path to the TensorFlow C API in the \lstinline[columns=fixed,style=mystyle]{Make/Options} file as follows
\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash,style=mystyle,caption=Make/Options for OpenFOAM and TensorFlow linkage]
EXE_INC = \
-I$(LIB_SRC)/TurbulenceModels/turbulenceModels/lnInclude \
-I$(LIB_SRC)/TurbulenceModels/incompressible/lnInclude \
-I$(LIB_SRC)/transportModels \
-I$(LIB_SRC)/finiteVolume/lnInclude \
-I$(LIB_SRC)/meshTools/lnInclude \
-I/path/to/tensorflow/include \
LIB_LIBS = \
-L/path/to/tensorflow/lib \
-lincompressibleTransportModels \
-lturbulenceModels \
-lfiniteVolume \
-lmeshTools \
-ltensorflow \
-lstdc++
\end{lstlisting}
One may now compile a new turbulence model using \texttt{wmake}.
\section{Demonstration}
In the following section, we shall outline some results from deploying deep learning inference within OpenFOAM 5.0 simulations for canonical turbulence problems. We shall also demonstrate the potential benefits of using ML within scientific computing with results that exhibit reduced time to solution. We note that all experiments within this section were carried out on an 8th-generation Intel CoreI7 processor with a clockspeed of approximately 1.90GHz and on an Ubuntu 18.04 operating system.
\subsection{Science driver 1: Surrogate modeling for steady-state turbulent eddy-viscosity}
In this section, we demonstrate how the direct prediction of the steady-state turbulent eddy-viscosity (as a function of initial conditions) can accelerate RANS simulations. Our framework is outlined in greater detail in \cite{maulik2019accelerating}. Briefly, the initial conditions for a RANS simulation (coming from a low-fidelity potential solution) on an arbitrary mesh can be used to predict an approximation to the steady-state Spalart-Allmaras turbulent eddy-viscosity \cite{spalart1992one} via a neural network. Our training data is obtained by performing multiple RANS simulations using the Spalart-Allmaras model on different geometries. In this experiment, the different geometries are all backward facing steps with varying step heights ($h$).
Once trained, the steady-state eddy-viscosity emulator may be used at the start of the simulation (by observing the initial conditions) following which solely the pressure and velocity equations need to be solved to convergence. We outline results from one such experiment, where the geometry is `unseen', in Figure \ref{RANS_1}. The time-to-solution of the proposed framework is significantly reduced, albeit at the cost of some increase in error, as shown in Figure \ref{RANS_2}. Potential extensions to such a framework include trying to bypass high fidelity turbulence models (two-equation) or generating models from temporally averaged DNS data.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\mbox{
\subfigure[$\nu_t$ predicted]{\includegraphics[trim={0 6cm 0 0},clip,width=0.48\textwidth]{nut_ML_DG.png}}
\subfigure[$|U|$ predicted]{\includegraphics[trim={0 6cm 0 0},clip,width=0.48\textwidth]{Vel_ML_DG.png}}
} \\
\mbox{
\subfigure[$\nu_t$ true]{\includegraphics[trim={0 6cm 0 0},clip,width=0.48\textwidth]{nut_SA_DG.png}}
\subfigure[$|U|$ true]{\includegraphics[trim={0 6cm 0 0},clip,width=0.48\textwidth]{Vel_SA_DG.png}}
}
\caption{Contour plots for a backward facing step. Note that the training of the ML surrogate did not include data for the shown step height.}
\label{RANS_1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\mbox{
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Skin_Friction.png}
}
\caption{Skin-friction coefficient predictions downstream of the step when deploying the ML framework on two test step heights. The ML framework is seen to introduce some errors. Downstream skin friction inaccuracies suggest adaptive sampling may be necessary for improved generalization across geometries. However, the reattachment point is recovered well.}
\label{RANS_2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Science driver 2: Surrogate modeling of dynamic Smagorinsky coefficient}
In this section, we show how a deep learning framework to predict the Smagorinsky coefficient (dynamically) may be used within OpenFOAM. Our test case is given by a turbulent channel flow at Re$_\tau=395$. For a proof of concept, we use our data-driven model to predict the dynamic Smagorinsky coefficient $C_s$, given instantaneous measurements of the strain-rate tensor as well as the three velocity components at each cell center of the mesh. For preliminary results, our training data is generated from Dynamic Smagorinsky itself (i.e., with a standard scale-similarity based least-squares calculation following test-filtering). The goal, for this exercise, is to see if a deep neural network, despite a far greater number of floating point operations, can efficiently bypass the dynamic Smagorinsky framework. Success in this regard could lead to the development of closures from data obtained on higher fidelity meshes as well as from DNS while retaining efficient inference speeds on the coarser meshes.
We show a preliminary analysis in Figure \ref{fig:les} for the ensemble-averaged Reynolds stresses given by
\begin{align}
R_{ij} = \langle u_i' u_j' \rangle - \langle u_i'\rangle \langle u_j'\rangle
\end{align}
where the angled-brackets imply time-averaging and $u_i^{'} = u_i - \langle u_i \rangle$ is the temporal fluctuation. It is observed that the ML surrogate recovers performance similar to Dynamic Smagorinsky without the use of test-filtering. The compute times to solution for both cases on one node (identical to the node used for the RANS experiments previously) were 1348 seconds for Dynamic Smagorinsky and 1297 seconds for the ML surrogate assuming a physical solution time of 1000 seconds. This is promising since the neural network requires far more floating point operations than the standard dynamic Smagorinsky coefficient calculation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\mbox{
\subfigure[$R_{11}$]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{R11.png}}
\subfigure[$R_{22}$]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{R22.png}}
} \\
\mbox{
\subfigure[$R_{33}$]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{R33.png}}
\subfigure[$R_{12}$]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{R23.png}}
} \\
\caption{Ensemble averaged Reynolds stresses for channel flow at $Re_\tau=395$, where $R_{ij} = \langle u_i' u_j' \rangle - \langle u_i'\rangle \langle u_j'\rangle$. It is seen that the the surrogate model using a neural network for Smagorinsky coefficient calculation is able to recreate the Dynamic Smagorinsky solution with comparable times to solution. The ``No LES Model" curve indicates a computation without the use of any turbulence modeling and therefore causes deviation from the that obtained by Dynamic Smagorinsky.}
\label{fig:les}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
Ongoing work related to the content introduced in this article is focused on the assessment of ML inference at scale. It is important to assess how in-situ ML inference frameworks may affect CFD workflows optimized for distributed parallelism. In addition, we have also focused our efforts on developing a viable `training-online' strategy (also within OpenFOAM) where a neural architecture may be trained while a simulation is actually running. As stated previously, the presence of these capabilities in a common framework will allow for greater transparency and reproducibility of data-driven algorithms for scientific computing.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. This research was funded in part and used resources of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. This paper describes objective technical results and analysis. HS acknowledges support from the ALCF Director's Discretionary (DD) program for CFDML project. Any subjective views or opinions that might be expressed in the paper do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. DOE or the United States Government.
|
\section{Introduction}
Resource allocation is an essential task in networked systems such as communication networks, energy/power networks, etc~\cite{schmidt2009distributed,nair2018multi,hamaali2021resources}. In such systems, there is usually one or multiple kinds of limited and divisible resources allocated among several agents. When full information regarding agents’ interests is available, solving the optimal resource allocation problem reduces to a standard optimization problem. However, in many interesting scenarios, strategic agents may choose to conceal or misreport their interests in order to get more resources. In such cases, it is possible that appropriate incentives are designed so that selfish agents are incentivized to report truly their private information, thus enabling optimal resource allocation~\cite{menache2011network}.
In existing works related to resource allocation problems, \emph{mechanism design}~\cite{hurwicz2006designing,borgers2015introduction} is frequently used to address the agents' strategic behavior mentioned above. In the framework of mechanism design, the participants reach an agreement regarding how they exchange messages, how they share the resources, and how much they pay (or get paid). Such agreements are designed to incentivize the agents to provide the information needed to solve the optimization problem.
In this paper, we develop mechanisms to solve a demand management problem in energy communities. In an energy community, users obtain energy from an energy company and pay for it. The pre-specified prices dictated by the energy company consist of a time-dependent price per unit of energy, as well as a separate price for peak demand.
Users' demand is subject to constraints relating to equipment capacity and minimum comfort level. Each user possesses a utility as a function of their own demand. Utilities are private information for users. The welfare of the community is the sum of utilities minus energy cost. If users were willing to report truthfully their utilities, one could easily optimize energy allocation to maximize social welfare. However, since users are strategic and might not be willing to report utilities directly, to maximize the welfare, we need to find an appropriate mechanism that incentivizes them to reveal some information about their utilities, so that optimal allocation is reached even in the presence of strategic behaviors. These mechanisms are usually required to possess several interesting properties, among which, full implementation in Nash equilibria (NE), individual rationality and budget balance~\cite{borgers2015introduction,garg2008foundations,garg2008foundations2}. Moreover, in environments with communication constraints, it is desirable to have ``distributed'' mechanisms, whereby energy allocation and tax/subsidies for each user can be evaluated using only local messages in the user's neighborhood.
Finally, for actual deployment of practical mechanisms we hope that the designed mechanism has convergence properties that guarantee that NE is reached by the agents by means of a provably convergent learning algorithm.
\subsection{Contributions}
This paper proposes a way of designing a mechanism for implementing the optimal allocation of the demand management problem in an energy community, where there are strategic users communicating over a pre-specified message exchange network. The main contributions of our work are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We design a baseline, ``centralized'' mechanism for an environment with concave utilities and convex constraints.
A ``centralized'' mechanism allows messages from all users to be communicated to the planner~\cite{borgers2015introduction,garg2008foundations,garg2008foundations2}. To avoid excessive communication cost brought by direct mechanisms (due to messages being entire utility functions), the mechanisms proposed in this paper are indirect, non-VCG type~\cite{vickrey1961counterspeculation,clarke1971multipart,groves1973incentives}, with messages being real vectors with finite (and small) dimensionality.
Unlike related previous works~\cite{kelly1998rate,yang2005revenue,basar2006,SiAn17b}, a simple form of allocation function is adopted, namely, allocation equals demand.
The mechanism possesses the properties of full implementation, budget balance and individual rationality~\cite{borgers2015introduction,garg2008foundations,garg2008foundations2}.
Although we develop the mechanism for demand management in energy communities, the underlying ideas can be easily adapted to other problems and more general environments. Specifically, environments with non-monotonic utilities, external fixed unit prices, and the requirement of peak shaving are tractable with the proposed mechanism.
\item Inspired by the vast literature on distributed non-strategic optimization~\cite{rabbat2004distributed,boyd2011distributed,wei2013distributed,alvarado2014new,di2016distributed}, as well as our recent work on distributed mechanism design (DMD)~\cite{SiAn19,HeAn20}, we modify the baseline mechanism and design a ``distributed'' version of it. A distributed mechanism can be deployed in environments with communication constraints, where users' messages cannot be communicated to the central planner; consequently the allocation and tax/subsidy functions for each user should only depend on messages from direct neighbors. The focus of our methodology is to show how a centralized mechanism can be modified into a decentralized one in a systematic way by means of introducing extra message components that are acting as proxies of the messages not available to a user due to communication constraints. An added benefit of this systematic design is that the new mechanism preserves all the desirable properties of the centralized mechanism.
\item Since mechanism design (centralized or distributed) deals with equilibrium properties, one relevant question is how equilibrium is reached when agents enter the mechanism. Our final contribution in this paper is to provide a ``learning'' algorithm~\cite{brown1951iterative,monderer1996fictitious,hofbauer2002global,milgrom1990rationalizability,scutari2012monotone} that addresses this question for the case of the proposed centralized mechanism. The algorithm is based on the projected gradient descent method in optimization theory~\cite[Ch.~7]{polyak1987opt}. Learning proceeds through price adjustments and demand announcements according to the prices. During this process, users don't need to reveal the entire utility functions. Convergence of the message profile toward one NE is conclusively proved and since the mechanism is designed to fully implement the optimal allocation in NE, this implies that the allocation corresponding to the limiting message profile is the social welfare maximizing solution.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Related Literature}
The model for demand management in energy communities investigated in this paper originates from network utility maximization (NUM) problems, which is one typical category of resource allocation problems in networks (see~\cite[Chapter~2]{srikant2013communication} for a detailed approach to models and algorithms for solving NUM problems).
There are two distinct research directions that have emanated from the standard centralized formulations of optimization problems.
The first direction addresses the problem of communication constraints when solving an optimization problem in a centralized fashion. Taking into account these communication constraints several researchers have proposed \emph{distributed optimization} methods~\cite{rabbat2004distributed,boyd2011distributed,wei2013distributed,alvarado2014new,di2016distributed} whereby an optimization problem is solved by means of message-passing algorithms between neighbors in a communication network. The works have been further refined to account for possible users' privacy concerns during the optimization processes~\cite{huang2015differentially,cortes2016differential,nozari2016differentially,han2017differentially}.
Nevertheless, the users are assumed to be non-strategic in this line of works.
The second research direction, namely \emph{mechanism design}, addresses the presence of strategic agents in optimization problems in a direct way.
The past several decades have witnessed applications of this approach in various areas of interest, such as market allocations~\cite{groves1977optimal,hurwicz1979outcome,yang2005revenue}, spectrum sharing~\cite{huang2006auction,wang2008game,wang2010toda}, data security~\cite{ghosh2011selling,khalili2017designing,pal2020data}, smart grid~\cite{caron2010incentive,samadi2012advanced,muthirayan2019mechanism}, etc.
The well-known VCG mechanism~\cite{vickrey1961counterspeculation,clarke1971multipart,groves1973incentives} has been utilized extensively in this line of research. In VCG, users have to communicate utilities (i.e., entire functions), which leads to a high cost of information transmission. To ease the burden of communication, Kelly's mechanism~\cite{kelly1998rate} (and extensions to multiple divisible resources~\cite{iosifidis2013iterative}) has been proposed as a solution, which uses logarithmic functions as surrogates of utilities. The users need only report a real number and thus the communication cost reduces dramatically, at the expense of efficiency loss~\cite{johari2004efficiency} and/or the assumption of price-taking agents.
A number of works extend Kelly's idea to reduce message dimensionality in strategic settings~\cite{yang2007vcg,johari2009efficiency,farhadi2018surrogate}.
Other indirect mechanisms guaranteeing full implementation in environments with allocative constraints have been proposed in~\cite{demos,kakhbodcorrection} using penalty functions to incentivize feasibility, and in~\cite{kelly1998rate,yang2005revenue,basar2006} using \emph{proportional allocation}, or its generalization, \emph{radial allocation}~\cite{SiAn14b,SiAn17b}.
All aforementioned works on mechanism design can be categorized as ``centralized'' mechanisms, which means that
agents' messages are broadcasted to a central planner who evaluates allocation and taxation for all users.
The first attempts in designing decentralized mechanisms were reported in~\cite{SiAn19,HeAn20}, where mechanisms are designed with the additional property that the allocation and tax functions for each agent depend only on the messages emitted by neighboring agents. As such, allocation and taxation can be evaluated locally.
Finally, learning in games is motivated by the fact that NE is, theoretically, a complete information solution concept.
However, since users do not know each-others' utilities, they cannot evaluate the designed NE off line.
Instead there is a need for a process (learning) during which the NE is being learnt by the community.
The classic works~\cite{brown1951iterative,monderer1996fictitious,hofbauer2002global} adopt \emph{fictitious play}, while in~\cite{milgrom1990rationalizability} a connection between supermodularity and convergence of learning dynamics within an \emph{adaptive dynamics} class is made, and is further specialized in~\cite{chen2002family} to the Lindahl allocation problem.
A general class of learning dynamics named \emph{adaptive best response} is discussed in~\cite{healy2012designing} in connection with \emph{contractive games}.
Learning in \emph{monotone games}~\cite{scutari2012monotone,scutari2014real} is investigated in~\cite{gharesifard2013distributed,ye2016game,grammatico2017dynamic,yi2018distributed,paccagnan2018nash,parise2019variational}, with further applications in network optimization~\cite{xiao2019distributed,bimpikis2019cournot}.
Recently, learning of NE utilizing \emph{reinforcement learning} has been reported in~\cite{zhang2019policy,uz2020reinforcement,roudneshin2020reinforcement,shi2020multi,sohet2020learning}.
\section{Model and Preliminaries}
\subsection{Demand Management in Energy Communities}
Consider an energy community consisting of $N$ users and a given time horizon $T$, where $T$ can be viewed as the number of days during one billing period.
Each user $i$ in the user set $\mathcal{N}$ has her own prediction on her usage over one billing period denoted by $\ve{x}^i = (x^i_1,\ldots,x^i_T)$, where $x^i_t$ is the predicted usage of user $i$ on the $t$-th time slot of the billing period\footnote{Throughout the paper we use superscripts to denote users and constraints and subscripts to denote time slots.}.
Note that $x^i_t$ can be a negative number due to the potential possibility that users in the electrical grid can generate power through renewable technologies (e.g., photovoltaic) and return the surplus back to the grid.
The users are characterized by their utility functions as
\begin{equation*}
v^i(\ve{x}^i) = \sum_{t=1}^{T} v^i_t(x^i_t), \forall i \in \mathcal{N}.
\end{equation*}
The energy community, as a whole, pays for the energy.
The unit prices are given separately for every time slot $t$ denoted by $p_t$.
These prices are considered given and fixed (e.g., by the local utility company).
In addition, the local utility company imposes a unit peak price $p_0$ in order to incentivize load balancing and lessen the burden of peaks in demand.
To conclude, the cost of energy to the community is as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cost}
J(\ve{x}) = \sum_{t=1}^T p_t \left( \sum_{i=1}^N x^i_t \right)
+ p_0 \cdot \underset{1 \leq t \leq T}{\max} \sum_{i=1}^N x^i_t,
\end{equation}
where $\ve{x}$ is a concatenation of demand vectors $\ve{x}^1,\ldots,\ve{x}^N$.
The centralized demand management problem for the energy community can be formulated as
\begin{equation}
\label{opt:woassump}
\underset{\ve{x} \in \mathcal{X}}{\text{maximize}}\quad \sum_{i=1}^N v^i(\ve{x}^i)-J(\ve{x}).
\end{equation}
The meaning of the feasible set $\mathcal{X}$ is to incorporate possible lower bounds on each user's demand (e.g., minimal indoor heating or AC) and/or upper bounds due to the capacities of the facilities, as well as transmission line capacities.
In order to solve the optimization problem \eqref{opt:woassump} using convex optimization methods, the following assumptions are made.
\begin{assumption}
\label{assump:weak_util}
All the utility functions $v^i_t(\cdot)$'s are twice differentiable and strictly concave.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}
\label{assump:feas_set}
The feasible set $\mathcal{X}$ is a polytope formed by several linear inequality constraints, and $\mathcal{X}$ is coordinate convex, i.e., if $\ve{x} \in \mathcal{X}$, then setting any of the components of $\ve{x}$ to 0 won't let it fall outside of set $\mathcal{X}$.
\end{assumption}
By Assumption~\ref{assump:feas_set}, $\mathcal{X}$ can be written as $\{\ve{x}|A\ve{x}\leq \ve{b}\}$ for some $A \in \mathbb{R}^{L \times NT}$ and $\ve{b} \in \mathbb{R}^{L}_+$, where $L$ is the number of linear constraints in $\mathcal{X}$, and
\begin{align*}
A &= \left[\ve{a}^1\ \ldots \ \ve{a}^L\right]^\mathsf{T}, \\
\ve{a}^l &= \left[a^{1,l}_1\ \ldots\ a^{1,l}_T\ \ldots\ a^{N,l}_1\ \ldots\ a^{N,l}_T\right]^\mathsf{T},\ l = 1,\ldots,L, \\
\ve{b} &= \left[b^1,\ldots,b^L\right]^\mathsf{T}.
\end{align*}
The coordinate convexity in Assumption~\ref{assump:feas_set} is mainly used for the outside option required by the individual rationality. Under this assumption, for a feasible allocation $\ve{x}$, if any user $i$ changes her mind and chooses not to participate in the mechanism, the mechanism yields a feasible allocation with $\ve{x}^i=\ve{0}$ fixed.
With Assumptions~\ref{assump:weak_util},~\ref{assump:feas_set}, the energy community faces an optimization problem with a strictly concave and continuous objective function over a nonempty compact convex feasible set. Therefore, from convex optimization theory, the optimal solution for this problem always exists and should be unique\cite{polyak1987opt}.
Substituting the max function in \eqref{eq:cost} with a new variable $w$, the optimization problem in \eqref{opt:woassump} can be equivalently restated as
\begin{subequations}
\label{opt:central}
\begin{align}
\underset{\ve{x},w}{\text{maximize}} \quad & \sum_{i=1}^N v^i(\ve{x}^i) - \sum_{t=1}^T p_t \sum_{i=1}^N x^i_t - p_0 w \\
\label{cp2:feas}
\text{subject to} \quad & A\ve{x} \leq \ve{b}, \\
\label{cp2:peak}
& \sum_{i=1}^N x^i_t \leq w, \ \forall t \in \left\{1,\ldots,T\right\}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The proof of this equivalency can be found in Appendix~\ref{appx:equiv_opt}.
The new optimization problem has a differentiable concave objective function with a convex feasible set, which means it is still a convex optimization, and therefore, KKT conditions are sufficient and necessary conditions for a solution $(\ve{x},\ve{\lambda},\ve{\mu})$ to be the optimal solution, where $\ve{\lambda}=[\lambda^1,\ldots,\lambda^L]^\mathsf{T}$ are the Lagrange multipliers for each linear constraint $\ve{a}^{l\mathsf{T}}\ve{x}\leq b^l$ in constraint $x\in\mathcal{X}$, and $\ve{\mu}=[\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_T]^\mathsf{T}$ are the Lagrange multipliers for (\ref{cp2:peak}). The KKT conditions are listed as follows:
\begin{subequations}
\label{KKT}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Primal Feasibility:
\begin{align}
\label{KKT:pfeas_x}
\ve{x} &\in \mathcal{X},\\
\label{KKT:pfeas_w}
\sum_{i=1}^N x^i_t &\leq w.
\end{align}
\item Dual Feasibility:
\begin{equation}
\label{KKT:dual}
\lambda^l \geq 0,\ l = 1, \ldots, L; \mu_t \geq 0,\ t = 1,\ldots,T.
\end{equation}
\item Complementary Slackness:
\begin{align}
\label{KKT:comp_lambda}
\lambda^l (\ve{a}^{l\mathsf{T}} \ve{x} - b^l) &= 0,\ l = 1,\ldots,L, \\
\label{KKT:comp_mu}
\mu_t (\sum_{i=1}^N x^i_t - w) &= 0,\ t = 1,\ldots,T.
\end{align}
\item Stationarity:
\begin{align}
\label{KKT:stat_peak}
p_0 &= \sum_t \mu_t, \\
\label{KKT:stat_cons}
\dot{v}^{i}_t(x^i_t) &= p_t + \sum_l \lambda^l a^{i,l}_t + \mu_t,\ t = 1,\ldots,T,\ i \in \mathcal{N}.
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{subequations}
where $\dot{v}^{i}_t(\cdot)$ is the first order derivative of $v^i_t(\cdot)$.
We conclude this section by pointing out once more that our objective is not to solve \eqref{opt:central} or \eqref{KKT} in a centralized or decentralized fashion. Such a methodology is well established and falls under the research area of centralized or decentralized (non-strategic) optimization. Furthermore, such a task can be accomplished only under the assumption that users
report their utilities (or related quantities, such as derivatives of utilities at specific points) truthfully, i.e., they do not act strategically.
Instead, our objective is to design a mechanism (i.e., messages and incentives) so that strategic users are presented with a game, the NE of which is designed so that it corresponds to the optimal solution of \eqref{opt:central} or \eqref{KKT}.
\subsection{Mechanism Design Preliminaries}
In an energy community, utilities are users' private information. Due to privacy and strategic concerns, users might not be willing to report their utilities. As a result, \eqref{opt:central} or \eqref{KKT} cannot be solved directly.
In order to solve \eqref{opt:central}, \eqref{KKT} under the settings stated above, we introduce a planner as an intermediary between the community and the energy company.
To incentivize users to provide necessary information for optimization, the planner signs a contract with users, which prespecifies the messages needed from users and rules for determining the allocation and taxes/subsidies from/to the users. The planner commits to the contract.
Informally speaking, the design of such contract is referred to as \emph{mechanism design}.
More formally, a \emph{mechanism} is a collection of message sets and an outcome function\cite{garg2008foundations}. Specifically, in resource allocation problems, a mechanism can be defined as a tuple $(\mathcal{M},\hat{x}(\cdot),\hat{t}(\cdot))$, where $\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{M}^1\times \ldots\times \mathcal{M}^N$ is the space of message profile; $\hat{x}:\mathcal{M} \mapsto \mathcal{X}$ is an allocation function determining the allocation $\ve{x}$ according to the received message profile $m\in \mathcal{M}$; and $\hat{t}: \mathcal{M} \mapsto \mathbb{R}^N$ is a tax function which defines the payments (or subsidies) of users based on $m$ (specifically, $\hat{t}=\{\hat{t}^i\}_{i\in \mathcal{N}}$ with $\hat{t}^i:\mathcal{M} \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ defining the tax/subsidy function for user $i$). Once defined, the mechanism induces a game $(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M},\{u^i\}_{i\in \mathcal{N}})$. In this game, each user $i$ chooses her message $m^i$ from the message space $\mathcal{M}^i$, with the objective to maximize her payoff $u^i(m)=v^i(\hat{x}^i(m)) - \hat{t}^i(m)$. The planner charges taxes and pays for the energy cost to the company, so the planner's payoff turns out to be $\sum_i \hat{t}^i(m) - J(\hat{x}(m))$ (the net income of the planner).
For the mechanism-induced game $\mathcal{G}$, NE is an appropriate solution concept. At the equilibrium point $m^*$, if $\hat{x}(m^*)$ coincides with the optimal allocation (i.e., the solution of~\eqref{opt:central}), we say that the mechanism \emph{implements} the optimal allocation at $m^*$. A mechanism has the property of \emph{full implementation} if all the NE $m^*$'s implement the optimal allocation.
There are other desirable properties in a mechanism. \emph{Individual rationality} is the property that every one volunteers to participate in the mechanism-induced game instead of quitting.
For the planner, this means that the sum of taxes $\sum_i \hat{t}^i(m^*)$ collected at NE is larger than the cost paid to the energy company $J(\hat{x}(m^*))$. In the context of this paper, \emph{strong budget balance} is the property that the sum of taxes is exactly the same as the
cost paid to the energy company, so no additional funds are required by the planner or the community to run the mechanism other than the true energy cost paid to the energy company.
In addition, if we use the solution concept of NE, one significant problem is how the users know the NE without full information. Therefore, some learning algorithm is needed to help users learn the NE. If under a specific class of learning algorithm, the message profile $m$ converges to NE $m^*$, then we say that the mechanism has learning guarantees with this certain class.
\section{The Baseline ``Centralized'' Mechanism}
\label{sec:centralized}
In this section we temporarily assume there are no communication constraints, i.e., all the message components are accessible for the calculations of the allocation and taxation. The mechanism designed under this assumption is called a ``centralized'' mechanism. In the next section we will extend this mechanism to an environment with communication constraints.
In the proposed centralized mechanism we define user $i$'s message $m^i$ as
\begin{equation*}
m^i = \left(\left\{y^i_t\right\}_{t=1}^T, \left\{q^{i,l}\right\}_{l \in \mathcal{L}},\left\{s^i_t\right\}_{t=1}^T, \left\{\beta^i_t\right\}_{t=1}^T\right).
\end{equation*}
Each message component above has an intuitive meaning. Message $y^i_t \in \mathbb{R}$ can be regarded as the demand for time slot $t$ announced by user $i$.
Message $q^{i,l} \in \mathbb{R}_+$ is the additional price that user $i$ expects to pay for the constraint $l$, which corresponds to the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda^l$.
Message $s^i_t \in \mathbb{R}_+$ is proportional to the peak price that user $i$ expects to pay at time $t$. Intuitively, setting one $s^i_t$ greater than $s^i_{t'}$ means user $i$ thinks day $t$ is more likely to be the day with the peak demand rather than $t'$. This component corresponds to the Lagrange multiplier $\mu_t$.
Message $\beta^i_t \in \mathbb{R}$ is the prediction of user $(i+1)$'s usage at time $t$ by user $i$. This message is included for technical reasons that will become clear in the following (for a user index $i \in \mathcal{N}$, let $i-1$ and $i+1$ denote modulo $N$ operations).
Denote the message space of user $i$ by $\mathcal{M}^i$, and the space of the message profile is represented as $\mathcal{M} = \mathcal{M}^1 \times \ldots \times \mathcal{M}^N$. The allocation functions and the tax functions are functions defined on $\mathcal{M}$. The allocation functions follow the simple definition:
\begin{equation}
\label{def:alloc}
\hat{x}^i_t(m) = y^i_t,\ t = 1,\ldots,T,\ \forall i \in \mathcal{N}.
\end{equation}
i.e., users get exactly what they request.
Prior to the definition of the tax functions, we want to find some variable which acts like $\mu_t$ at NE. Although $s^i_t$ is designed to be proportional to $\mu_t$, it does not guarantee $\sum_t s^i_t = p_0$, which is KKT condition \eqref{KKT:stat_peak}.
To solve this problem, we utilize a technique similar to the proportional/radial allocation in \cite{kelly1998rate,yang2005revenue,basar2006,SiAn14b,SiAn17b} to shape the suggested peak price vector $\ve{s}$ into a form which satisfies \eqref{KKT:stat_peak}.
For a generic $T$-dimensional peak price vector $\ve{\tilde{s}}=(\tilde{s}_1,\ldots,\tilde{s}_T)$ and a generic $T$-dimensional total demand vector $\ve{\tilde{y}}=(\tilde{y}_1,\ldots,\tilde{y}_T)$, define a radial pricing operator $\mathcal{RP}^i: \mathbb{R}^T_+ \times \mathbb{R}^{T} \mapsto \mathbb{R}^T_+$ as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{def:rp}
\mathcal{RP}^i (\ve{\tilde{s}},\ve{\tilde{y}}) = \left(\mathcal{RP}^i_1(\ve{\tilde{s}},\ve{\tilde{y}}),\ldots,\mathcal{RP}^i_T(\ve{\tilde{s}},\ve{\tilde{y}})\right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{def:rpi}
\mathcal{RP}^i_t (\ve{\tilde{s}},\ve{\tilde{y}}) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{\tilde{s}_t}{\sum_{t'}\tilde{s}_{t'}}p_0, \quad \text{if }\ve{\tilde{s}}\neq \ve{0}, \\
\frac{p_0 \cdot \boldsymbol{1}\{t\in\arg\underset{t'}{\max}\ \tilde{y}_{t'}\}}{\#(\arg\underset{t'}{\max}\ \tilde{y}_{t'})}, \quad \text{if }\ve{\tilde{s}}= \ve{0},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
and $\#(\arg\underset{t'}{\max}\ \tilde{y}_{t'})$ represents the number of elements in $\ve{\tilde{y}}$ that are equal to the maximum value.
The output of the radial pricing $\mathcal{RP}(\cdot,\cdot)$ will be taken as the peak price in the subsequent tax functions. When the given suggested price vector $\ve{\tilde{s}}$ is a nonzero vector, the unit peak price will be allocated to each day proportional to $\tilde{s}_t$. If the suggested price vector $\ve{\tilde{s}}=\ve{0}$, then divide $p_0$ to the days with peak demand with equal proportion.
The tax functions are defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{def:tax}
\hat{t}^i(m) = \text{cost}^i(m) + \sum_{t=1}^T \text{pr$\boldsymbol{\beta}$}^{i}_t(m) + \sum_{l \in \mathcal{L}} \text{con}^{i,l}(m) + \sum _{t=1}^T \text{con}^i_t(m),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\text{cost}^i(m) =& \sum_{t=1}^T (p_t+\mathcal{RP}^i_t(\ve{s}^{-i},\ve{\zeta}^{-i})) \hat{x}^i_t(m) + \sum_{l \in \mathcal{L}_i} q^{-i,l} \ve{a}^{i,l} \hat{\ve{x}}^i(m), \\
\text{pr$\boldsymbol{\beta}$}^{i}_t(m) =& (\beta^i_t-y^{i+1}_t)^2, \\
\text{con}^{i,l}(m) =& (q^{i,l} - q^{-i,l})^2 + q^{i,l} (b^l - \sum_{j \neq i}\ve{a}^{j,l} \ve{y}^j-\ve{a}^{i,l}\ve{\beta}^{i-1}), \label{tax1}\\
\text{con}^i_t(m) =& (s^i_t-s^{-i}_t)^2 + s^i_t (z^{-i}-\zeta^{-i}_t),
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
s^{-i}_t &= \frac{1}{N-1} \sum_{j\neq i} s^j_t \quad \forall i \ \forall t, \\
q^{-i,l} &= \frac{1}{N-1} \sum_{j \neq i} q^{j,l} \quad \forall i \ \forall l,\\
\zeta^{-i}_t &= \sum_{j\neq i} y^j_{t}+\beta^{i-1}_{t},\quad \forall i \ \forall t, \\
z^{-i} &= \underset{t}{\max} \left\{\zeta^{-i}_t\right\} \quad \forall i,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and $\ve{a}^{i,l}$ is defined as $\ve{a}^{i,l}=[a^{i,l}_1,\ldots,a^{i,l}_T]$.
The tax function for user $i$ consists of three parts.
The first part $\text{cost}^i(m)$ is the cost for the demand. According to this part, user $i$ pays the fixed price and the peak price for her demand. Note that the peak price at time $t$, $\mathcal{RP}^i_t(\ve{s}^{-i},\ve{\zeta}^{-i})$, is generated by the vector of peak prices from all other agents, $\ve{s}^{-i}$, and the total demand from all other agents (agent $i$'s demand at time $t$ is approximated by $\beta^{i-1}_t$). As a result, the peak price is not controlled by user $i$ at all.
The second part $\text{pr}\boldsymbol{\beta}^i_t(m)$ ($\text{pr}\boldsymbol{\beta}$ stands for ``proxy-$\beta$'') is a penalty term for the imprecision of prediction $\ve{\beta}^i$, which incentivizes $\ve{\beta}^i$ to align with $\ve{y}^{i+1}$ at NE.
The third part consists of two penalty terms $\text{con}^{i,l}(m)$ and $\text{con}^i_t(m)$ for each constraint $l\in\mathcal{L}$ and each peak demand inequality $t\in\{1,\ldots,T\}$, respectively. Both of them have a quadratic term that incentivizes consensus of the messages $q^{i,l}$ and $s^{i}_t$ among agents, respectively. In addition, they possess a form which looks similar to the complementary slackness conditions \eqref{KKT:comp_lambda}, \eqref{KKT:comp_mu}. This special design facilitates the suggested price to come to an agreement, and ensures the primal feasibility and complementary slackness hold at NE, which will be shown in Lemma \ref{lem:kkt1-3}.
The main property we want from this mechanism is full implementation. We expect the allocation scheme under the NE of the mechanism-induced game to coincide with that of the original optimization problem. Full implementation can be shown in two steps. First, we show that if there is a (pure strategy) NE, it must induce the optimal allocation. Then we prove the existence of such (pure strategy) NE.
From the form of the tax functions, we can immediately get the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:eqbeta}
At any NE, for each user $i$, the demand proxy $\beta^i_t$ is equal to the demand of her next neighbor, i.e., $\beta^i_t=y^{i+1}_t$ for all $t$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Suppose $m$ is a NE where there exists at least one user $i$, whose message $\ve{\beta}^i$ does not agree with next user's demand, i.e., $\ve{\beta}^i \neq \ve{y}^{i+1}$. Say, $\beta^i_t \neq y^{i+1}_t$ for some $t$. Then we can find a profitable deviation $\tilde{m}$, which keeps everything other than $\ve{\beta}^i$ the same as $m$, but modifies $\beta^i_t$ with $\tilde{\beta}^i_t=y^{i+1}_t$. Compare the payoff value $u_i$ before and after the deviation:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
u_i(\tilde{m}) - u_i(m) =& -(\tilde{\beta}^i_t-y^{i+1}_t)^2 + (\beta^i_t-y^{i+1}_t)^2 \\
=& (\beta^i_t-y^{i+1}_t)^2 >0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Thus, if there is some $\ve{\beta}^i \neq \ve{y}^{i+1}$, user $i$ can always construct another announcement $\tilde{m}^i$, such that user $i$ get a better payoff.
\end{IEEEproof}
It can be seen from Lemma~\ref{lem:eqbeta} that the messages $\beta$ play an important role in the mechanism.
They appear in two places in the tax functions. First, in the expression of $\zeta^{-i}_t = \sum_{j\neq i} y^j_{t}+\beta^{i-1}_{t}$ which is the total demand at time $t$ used in user $i$'s tax function.
Second, in the expression for excess demand $b^l - \sum_{j \neq i}\ve{a}^{j,l} \ve{y}^j-\ve{a}^{i,l}\ve{\beta}^{i-1}$ for the $l$-th constraint.
Note that we do not want user $i$ to control these terms with her messages (specifically $y^i_t$) because she already controls her allocation directly and this will create technical difficulties. Indeed, quoting the self-announced demand in the tax function raises the possibility of unexpected strategic moves for user $i$ to obtain extra profit. Instead, using the proxy $\ve{\beta}^{i-1}$ instead of $\ve{y}^i$ eliminates user $i$'s control on his own slackness factor, while Lemma \ref{lem:eqbeta} guarantees that at NE these quantities become equal.
With the introduction of these proxies, we show in the following lemmas, that at NE, all KKT conditions required for the optimal solution are satisfied. First we prove primal feasibility (KKT 1) and complementary slackness (KKT 3) are ensured by the design of the penalty terms ``$\text{pr}$''s and constraint-related terms ``$\text{con}$''s, if we treat $\ve{q}$ and $\mathcal{RP}(\ve{s},\ve{\zeta})$ as the Lagrange multipliers.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:kkt1-3}
At any NE, users' suggested prices are equal:
\begin{align*}
q^{i,l} &= q^l,\ \forall l \in \mathcal{L}_i\ \forall i \in \mathcal{N},\\
s^i_t &= s_t,\ t=1,\ldots,T,\ \forall i \in \mathcal{N}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, users' announced demand profile satisfies $\ve{y} \in \mathcal{X}$, and the equal prices, together with the demand profile, have satisfy complementary slackness:
\begin{align*}
\ve{q}(A\ve{x} - \ve{b}) &= \ve{0}, \\
s_t \left(z - \sum_i y^i_t\right) &= 0, \ \forall t = 1,\ldots,T,
\end{align*}
which implies
\begin{equation}
\label{comp:wrp}
\mathcal{RP}^i_t(\ve{s},\ve{\zeta}^{-i})\left(z - \sum_i y^i_t \right) = 0, \ \forall t = 1,\ldots,T,
\end{equation}
where $z$ is the peak demand during the billing period.
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proof can be found in Appendix~\ref{appx:pf_lem:kkt1-3}.
\end{IEEEproof}
Dual feasibility (KKT 2) holds trivially by definition. We now show that stationarity condition (KKT 4) holds at NE by imposing first order condition on the partial derivatives of user $i$'s utility w.r.t. their message components $y^i_t$'s.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:stat}
At NE, stationarity holds, i.e.,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:sta_price}
\dot{v}^{i}_t(\hat{x}^i_t(m)) &= p_t + \mathcal{RP}^i_t(\ve{s},\ve{\zeta}^{-i}) + \sum_{l \in \mathcal{L}_i} q^l a^{i,l}_t,\\
\label{eq:sta_peak}
p_0 &= \sum_{t=1}^T \mathcal{RP}^i_t(\ve{s},\ve{\zeta}^{-i}).
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proof is in Appendix \ref{appx:pf_lem:stat}.
\end{IEEEproof}
With Lemma \ref{lem:eqbeta}, \ref{lem:kkt1-3} and \ref{lem:stat}, it is straightforward to derive the first part of our result, i.e., efficiency of the allocation at any NE.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:NEopt}
For the mechanism-induced game $\mathcal{G}$, if NE exist, then the NE result in the same allocation as the optimal solution to the centralized problem~\eqref{opt:central}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
If $m^*$ is a NE, from Lemma~\ref{lem:eqbeta} and~\ref{lem:kkt1-3}, we know that at NE, $\ve{\beta}^{i*}=\ve{y}^{i+1}$, and all the prices $\ve{q}^{i*}$, $\ve{s}^{i*}$, and all the $\ve{\zeta}^{-i*}$ are the same among all the users $i\in\mathcal{N}$. We denote these equal quantities by $\ve{y}^*,\ve{q}^*,\ve{s}^*$ and $\ve{\zeta}^*$.
Consider the solution $sol=(\ve{x},w,\ve{\lambda},\ve{\mu})=(\ve{y}^*,\max_t \{\zeta^*_t\}, \ve{q}^*,\mathcal{RP}(\ve{s}^*,\ve{\zeta}^*))$. From Lemma~\ref{lem:kkt1-3}, the solution $sol$ satisfies \eqref{KKT:pfeas_x},\eqref{KKT:pfeas_w},\eqref{KKT:comp_lambda} and \eqref{KKT:comp_mu} (primal feasibility and complementary slackness). From Lemma~\ref{lem:stat}, $sol$ has \eqref{KKT:stat_cons} and \eqref{KKT:stat_peak} (stationarity). The dual feasibility \eqref{KKT:dual} holds because of the nonnegativity of $\ve{q}$ and $\ve{s}$.
Therefore, $sol$ satisfies all the four KKT conditions, which means the allocation $\hat{\ve{x}}(m^*)$ is the optimal allocation.
\end{IEEEproof}
The following theorem shows the existence of NE.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:exist}
For the mechanism-induced game $\mathcal{G}$, there exists at least one NE.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
From the theory of convex optimization, we know that the optimal solution of \eqref{opt:central} exists. Based on this solution, one can construct a message profile which satisfies all the properties we present in Lemma \ref{lem:eqbeta},\ref{lem:kkt1-3},\ref{lem:stat} and prove there is no unilateral deviation for all users. The details are presented in Appendix \ref{appx:pf_thm:exist}.
\end{IEEEproof}
Full implementation indicates that if all users are willing to participate in the mechanism, the equilibrium outcome is nothing but the optimal allocation. For each user $i$, the payoff at NE will be
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:final_payoff}
\begin{split}
u_i(m^*) &= v^i(\hat{\ve{x}}^i(m^*)) \\
&- \sum_{t=1}^T \underbrace{\left(p_t + \mathcal{RP}^i_t(\ve{s},\ve{\zeta}^{-i}) + \sum_{l\in \mathcal{L}_i} q^{-i,l} a^{i,l}_t\right)}_{{\text{Aggregated unit price for } \hat{x}^i_t}} \hat{x}^i_t(m^*).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In other words, the users pay for their own demands by the aggregated unit prices given by the consensus at NE. By counting the planner as a participant of the mechanism with utility $\sum_{i\in\mathcal{N}} \hat{t}^i(m^*)-J(\ve{x}^*)$, a strong budget balance is automatically achieved. However, there are still two questions remaining. Are the users willing to follow this mechanism or would they rather not participate? Will the planner have to pay extra money for implementing such mechanism? The two theorems below answer these questions.
\begin{theorem}[Individual Rationality for Users]
\label{thm:ir}
Assume agent $i$ gets $\ve{x}^i=\ve{0}$ and pays nothing if she chooses not to participate in the mechanism.
Then, at NE, participating in the mechanism is weakly better than not participating, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
u_i(m^*) \geq v^i(\ve{0}).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The main idea for the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:ir} is to find a message profile with $m^{-i*}$, in which user $i$'s payoff is $v^i(\ve{0})$, and then we can argue that following NE won't be worse since $m^*$ is a best response to $m^{-i*}$. The details of the proof can be found in Appendix \ref{appx:pf_thm:ir}.
\end{IEEEproof}
\begin{theorem}[Individual Rationality for the Planner]
\label{thm:bb}
At NE, the planner does not need to pay extra money for the mechanism:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:wbb}
\sum_{i\in \mathcal{N}} \hat{t}^i(m^*) - J(\hat{\ve{x}}(m^*)) \geq 0.
\end{equation}
Moreover, by a slight modification of the tax functions defined in~\eqref{def:tax}, the total payment of users and the energy cost achieve a balance at NE:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sbb}
\sum_{i\in \mathcal{N}} \tilde{t}^i(m^*) - J(\hat{\ve{x}}(m^*)) = 0.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The verification of individual rationality of the planner can be done by substituting $m^*$ in \eqref{eq:wbb} directly. By redistributing the income of the planner back to the users in a certain way, the total payment of users is exactly $J(\hat{\ve{x}}(m^*))$ and consequently no money is left after paying the energy company. The details are left to Appendix \ref{appx:pf_thm:bb}.
\end{IEEEproof}
\section{Distributed Mechanism}
\label{sec:distributed}
In the previous mechanism, allocation functions and tax functions of users depend on the global message profile $m$. If one wants to compute the tax $\hat{t}^i$ for a certain user $i$, all messages $m^j$ for all $j\in \mathcal{N}$ are needed. Such mechanisms are not desirable for environments with communication constraints, where such global message exchange is restricted. To tackle this problem, we provide a distributed mechanism, in which the calculation of the allocation and tax of a certain user depends only on the messages from the ``available'' users, and therefore satisfies the communication constraints. In this section, we will first introduce communication constraints using a message exchange network model. We then develop a distributed mechanism, which accommodates the communication constrains and preserves the desirable properties of the baseline centralized mechanism.
\subsection{Message Exchange Network}
In an environment with communication constraints, all the users are organized in a undirected graph $\mathcal{GR}=(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{E})$, where the set of nodes $\mathcal{N}$ is the set of users, and the set of edges $\mathcal{E}$ indicates the accessibility to the message for each user. If $(i,j) \in \mathcal{E}$, user $i$ can access the message of user $j$, i.e., the message of $j$ is available for user $i$ when computing the allocation and tax of user $i$, and vice versa. Here we state a mild requirement for the message exchange network:
\begin{assumption}
The graph $\mathcal{GR}$ is a connected graph.
\end{assumption}
In fact, the mechanism we are going to show will work for the cases where $\mathcal{GR}$ is a tree. Although an undirected connected graph is not necessarily a tree, since we can always find a spanning tree from such graph, it is safe to consider the mechanism under the assumption that the given network has a tree structure. If that is not the case, the mechanism designer can claim a spanning tree from the original message exchange network, and design the mechanism only based on the tree instead of the whole graph (essentially some of the connections of the original graph will never be used for message exchanges).
The basic idea behind the decentralized modification of the baseline mechanism is intuitively straightforward. Looking at the tax function for user $i$ in the centralized mechanism we observe that several messages required are not coming from $i$'s immediate neighbors. For this reason we define new ``summary'' messages that are quoted by $i$'s neighbors and represent the missing messages. At the same time, for this to work, we add additional penalty terms that guarantee that the summary messages will indeed represent the needed terms at NE.
Notice that in the previous mechanism, user $i$ is expected to announce a $\beta^i_t$ equal to the demand of the next user $(i+1)$, but here we might have $(i,i+1) \notin \mathcal{E}$, and owing to the communication constraint, we are not able to compare $\beta^i_t$ with $y^{i+1}_t$. Instead, $\beta^i_t$ should be a proxy of the demand of user $i$'s direct neighbor. This motivates us to define the function $\phi(i)$, where $\phi(i) \in \mathcal{N}(i)$, $\mathcal{N}(i)$ is the set of user $i$'s neighbors (excluding $i$), and $\phi(i)=j$ denotes that in user $i$'s tax function, the proxy variable $\ve{\beta}$ used for user $i$'s $\text{con}_i^l(m)$ terms in her tax function is provided by user $j$. In other words, $\phi(i)$ is a ``helper'' for user $i$ who quotes a proxy of his demand whenever needed.
In the next part we are going to use the summaries of the demands to deal with the distributed issue. For the sake of convenience, we define $n(i,k)$ as the nearest user to user $k$ among the neighbors of user $i$ and user $i$ itself. $n(i,k)$ is well-defined because of the tree structure.
The proof is omitted here. The details can be found in\cite[Ch.~4, Sec.~7.1]{sinha2017mechanism2}.
\subsection{The Message Space}
In the distributed mechanism, the message $m^i$ in user $i$'s message space $\mathcal{M}^i$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
m^i = \left(\left\{y^i_t\right\}_{t=1}^T,\left\{q^{i,l}\right\}_{l\in\mathcal{L}},\left\{s^i_t\right\}_{t=1}^T,\left\{\beta^{i,j}_t:\phi(j)=i\right\}_{t=1}^T,\right.\\
\left.\left\{n^{i,j,l}:j\in \mathcal{N}(i)\right\}_{l\in \mathcal{L}},\left\{\nu^{i,j}_t:j\in \mathcal{N}(i)\right\}_{t=1}^T\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Here $n^{i,j,l}$ is a summary for demands of users related to constraint $l$ and connected to user $i$ via $j$ as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:proxy}. Message $\nu^{i,j}_t$ serves a similar role for the peak demand.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{figure/proxy_explanation.pdf}
\caption{Proxies in the Message Exchange Network: for constraint~$l$, user~$i$ announces $n^{i,k,l}$ as a summary of demands for the tree on the left of $i$ (starting from $k$), and $n^{i,j,l}$ as a summary of demands for the tree on the right of $i$ (starting from $j$).\label{fig:proxy}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The Allocation and Tax Functions}
The allocation functions $\hat{x}^i_t(m) = y^i_t$ are still straightforward. There are some modifications on tax functions, including adjustments on prices, consensus of new variables, and terms for complementary slackness.
\begin{equation}
\label{def:disttax}
\begin{split}
\hat{t}^i(m) &= \text{cost}^i(m) + \sum\nolimits_l(\text{pr$\boldsymbol{n}$}^{i,l}(m) + \text{con}^{i,l}(m)) \\
&+ \sum\nolimits_t (\text{pr$\boldsymbol{\beta}$}^i_t(m) + \text{pr$\boldsymbol{\nu}$}^i_t(m)+ \text{con}^i_t(m)),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\text{cost}^i(m) &= \sum_{t=1}^T (p_t+\mathcal{RP}^{-i}_t(\ve{s}^{-i},\ve{\zeta}^{-i})) \hat{x}^i_t(m) + \sum_{l \in \mathcal{L}_i} q^{-i,l} \ve{a}^{i,l} \hat{\ve{x}}^i(m), \\
\text{con}^{i,l}(m) &= (q^{i,l}-q^{-i,l})^2 + q^{i,l} (b^l-\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}(i)}f^{i,j,l}-\ve{a}^{i,l}\ve{\beta}^{\phi(i),i}), \label{tax2}\\
\text{con}^i_t(m) &= (s^i_t-s^{-i}_t)^2 + s^i_t (z^{-i}-\zeta^{-i}_t), \\
\text{pr$\boldsymbol{n}$}^{i,l}(m) &= \sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}(i)} \left(n^{i,j,l}-f^{i,j,l}\right)^2, \\
\text{pr$\boldsymbol{\beta}$}^i_t(m) &=\sum_{j:\phi(j)=i} (\beta^{i,j}_t-y^j_t)^2, \\
\text{pr$\boldsymbol{\nu}$}^i_t(m) &= \sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}(i)}\left(\nu^{i,j}_t - f^{i,j}_t\right)^2 \\
f^{i,j,l} &= \ve{a}^{j,l}\ve{y}^j + \sum_{h\in\mathcal{N}(j)\backslash\{i\}}n^{j,h,l}, \\
f^{i,j}_t &= y^j_t+\sum_{h\in\mathcal{N}(j)\backslash\{i\}}\nu^{j,h}_t.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
s^{-i}_t &= \frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}(i)|} \sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}(i)} s^j_t \quad \forall i \ \forall t, \\
q^{-i,l} &= \frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}(i)|} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} q^{j,l} \quad \forall i \ \forall l,\\
\zeta^{-i}_t &= \sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}(i)}f^{i,j}_t+\beta^{\phi(i),i}_t,\quad \forall i \ \forall t,\\
z^{-i} &= \underset{t}{\max} \left\{\zeta^{-i}_t\right\} \quad \forall i.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In order to see intuitively how the decentralized mechanism works take as an example the term $\text{con}^{i,l}(m)$ in \eqref{tax2} which is a modified version of \eqref{tax1} repeated here for convenience
$\text{con}^{i,l}(m) = (q^{i,l} - q^{-i,l})^2 + q^{i,l} (b^l - \sum_{j \neq i}\ve{a}^{j,l} \ve{y}^j-\ve{a}^{i,l}\ve{\beta}^{i-1})$ related to the $l$-th constraint.
Other than the quadratic term which is identical in both expressions, the difference between the centralized and decentralized versions is in the expression $\sum_{j \neq i}\ve{a}^{j,l} \ve{y}^j + \ve{a}^{i,l}\ve{\beta}^{i-1}$ and $\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}(i)}f^{i,j,l}+\ve{a}^{i,l}\ve{\beta}^{\phi(i),i}$, respectively. The second term in each of these expressions relates to the proxy $\ve{\beta}^{i-1}$ which in the decentralized version is substituted by the proxy $\ve{\beta}^{\phi(i),i}$ due to the fact that the proxy for $y^i$ is not provided by user $i-1$ anymore but is provided by user $i$'s helper $\phi(i)$.
The first term, $\sum_{j \neq i}\ve{a}^{j,l} \ve{y}^j=\sum_{j \in\mathcal{N}(i)}\ve{a}^{j,l} \ve{y}^j+\sum_{j \notin\mathcal{N}(i)\cup \{i\}}\ve{a}^{j,l} \ve{y}^j$, which cannot be directly evaluated in the decentralized version (since it depends on messages outside the neighborhood of $i$) is now evaluated as $\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}(i)}f^{i,j,l}=\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}(i)} \ve{a}^{j,l}\ve{y}^j + \sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}(i)}\sum_{h\in\mathcal{N}(j)\backslash\{i\}}n^{j,h,l}$. It should now be clear that the role of the new messages $n^{j,h,l}$ quoted by the neighbors $j\in\mathcal{N}(i)$ of $i$, is to summarize the total demands of other users. Furthermore, the additional quadratic penalty terms will have to effectuate this equality. This idea is made precise in the next section.
\subsection{Properties}
It is clear that this mechanism is distributed, since all the messages needed for the allocation and tax functions of user $i$ come from her neighborhood $\mathcal{N}(i)$ and herself. Due to way the messages and taxes are designed, the proposed mechanism satisfies properties similar to those in Lemma \ref{lem:kkt1-3}, \ref{lem:stat}, and consequently Theorem \ref{thm:NEopt}, \ref{thm:exist}. The reason is that the components $n$ and $\nu$ behave the same as the absent $\ve{y}^h,\ h \notin \mathcal{N}(i)$ in user $i$'s functions at NE, which makes the proofs of the properties in previous mechanism still work here. We elaborate on these properties in the following.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:dist_eqbeta}
At any NE, we have the following results regarding the proxy messages:
\begin{align}
\label{eqprx:beta}
\beta^{i,j}_t=&y^j_t,& \forall j: \phi(j)=i, \\
\label{eqprx:n}
n^{i,j,l}=& \ve{a}^{j,l} \ve{y}^j + \sum_{h \in \mathcal{N}(j)\backslash\{i\}}n^{j,h,l},& \forall i,\forall j\in\mathcal{N}(i),\forall l\in \mathcal{L},\\
\label{eqprx:nu}
\nu^{i,j}_t=&y^j_t+\sum_{h\in\mathcal{N}(j)\backslash\{i\}} \nu^{j,h}_t,&\forall t, \forall i, \forall j \in \mathcal{N}(i).
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
$\beta^{i,j}, n^{i,j,l}$ and $\nu^{i,j}_t$ only appear in the quadratic penalty terms of user $i$'s tax function. Therefore, for any user $i$, the only choice to minimize the tax is to bid $\beta^{i,j}, n^{i,j,l}$ and $\nu^{i,j}_t$ by \eqref{eqprx:beta}-\eqref{eqprx:nu}.
\end{IEEEproof}
Now, based on the structure of the message exchange network, we have
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:mes_comm}
At any NE, $n^{i,j,l}$ and $\nu^{i,j}_t$ satisfy
\begin{align}
\label{eqprx:n:ctr}
n^{i,j,l}=&\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{h:n(i,h)=j} a^{h,l}_t y^{h}_t,\qquad \forall i \in \mathcal{N},\forall j\in \mathcal{N}(i), \forall l\in \mathcal{L},\\
\label{eqprx:nu:ctr}
\nu^{i,j}_t=&\sum_{h:n(i,h)=j}y^h_t,\forall i \in \mathcal{N},\qquad\forall j\in\mathcal{N}(i), \forall t\in \mathcal{T}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proof is presented in Appendix \ref{appx:pf_lem:mes_comm}.
\end{IEEEproof}
With Lemma~\ref{lem:mes_comm}, we immediately obtain the following results.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:dist_sum}
At any NE, for all user $i$, we have
\begin{align}
\label{eqprx:totn}
\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} f^{i,j,l} =& \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}\backslash\{i\}} \ve{a}^{j,l}\ve{y}^j,\quad \forall l \in \mathcal{L}_i,\\
\label{eqprx:totnu}
\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} f^{i,j}_t = & \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}\backslash\{i\}} y^j_t, \quad \forall t\in \mathcal{T}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
At NE, by directly substituting:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} f^{i,j,l} &= \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} \left(\ve{a}^{j,l}\ve{y}^j+\sum_{h\in\mathcal{N}(j)\backslash\{i\}}n^{j,h,l}\right) \\
&= \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} \left(\ve{a}^{j,l}\ve{y}^j+\sum_{h\in\mathcal{N}(j)\backslash\{i\}} \sum_{k:n(j,k)=h} \ve{a}^{k,l} \ve{y}^k \right) \\
&= \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} \left( \sum_{h:n(i,h)=j}\ve{a}^{h,l}\ve{y}^h \right) = \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}\backslash\{i\}} \ve{a}^{j,l}\ve{y}^j,\quad \forall l \in \mathcal{L}_i,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The third equality holds by the fact that the users in set $\{k|h\in \mathcal{N}(j) \backslash \{i\}, n(j,k) = h\}$ are the ones that are not in the subtree starting from a single branch $(j,i)$ with root $j$, which is exactly $\{k|n(i,k)=j\} \backslash \{j\}$.
\eqref{eqprx:totnu} holds for the similar reason.
\end{IEEEproof}
Lemma~\ref{lem:dist_sum} plays a similar role as Lemma~\ref{lem:eqbeta}. With Lemma~\ref{lem:dist_sum}, the properties in Lemma~\ref{lem:kkt1-3} and~\ref{lem:stat} can be reproduced in the distributed mechanism. We then obtain the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:fulimp-dist}
For the mechanism-induced game $\mathcal{G}$, NE exist. Furthermore, any NE of game $\mathcal{G}$ induces the optimal allocation.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
By substituting \eqref{eqprx:totn}, \eqref{eqprx:totnu} in \eqref{def:disttax}, we obtain exactly the same form of the tax function in centralized mechanism on equilibrium, which yields the desirable results as shown in Lemmas~\ref{lem:kkt1-3}, \ref{lem:stat}. We conclude that any NE induces the optimal allocation. The existence of NE can be proved by a construction similar to that of Theorem \ref{thm:exist}.
\end{IEEEproof}
As was true in the baseline centralized mechanism, in the distributed case, the planner may also have the concerns whether the users have incentive to participate, and whether the mechanism requires external sources of funds to maintain the balance. As it turns out, Theorems \ref{thm:ir} and \ref{thm:bb} still hold here. As a result, the users are better off joining the mechanism, and the market has a balanced budget. The proofs and the construction of the subsidies can be done in a manner similar to the centralized case and therefore are omitted.
\section{A Learning Algorithm for the Centralized Mechanism}
\label{sec:learn}
The property of full implementation ensures that social welfare maximization can be reached if all the participants reach NE in the mechanism-induced game, and no one could get unilateral profitable deviation at NE. Nevertheless, it is troublesome for participants to anticipate NE as the outcome if none of them knows (or can calculate) NE without knowledge of other users' utilities. To settle this issue, one can design a learning algorithm to help participants learn the NE in an online fashion. In this section, we present such a learning algorithm for the centralized mechanism discussed in Section \ref{sec:centralized}. Instead of using Assumption \ref{assump:weak_util}, here we make a stronger assumption in order to obtain a convergent algorithm.
\begin{assumption}
\label{assump:util}
All the utility functions $v^i_t(\cdot)$'s are proper, twice differentiable concave functions with $\delta$-strong concavity.
\end{assumption}
Here $\delta$-strong concavity of a function $g(\cdot)$ is defined by the $\delta$-strong convexity of $-g(\cdot)$. A function $f(\cdot)$ is strongly convex with parameter $\delta$ if
\begin{equation*}
f(\ve{y}) \geq f(\ve{x}) + \nabla f(\ve{x})^\mathsf{T} (\ve{y} - \ve{x})+ \frac{\delta}{2} ||\ve{y}-\ve{x}||^2.
\end{equation*}
The design of the learning algorithm involves three steps. First, we find the relation between NE and the optimal solution of the original optimization problem. This step has been done in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:NEopt}: we see in NE, $\ve{y}^*$ coincides with $\ve{x}^*$ in the optimal allocation, and $\ve{q}^{i*}$ equals $\ve{\lambda}^*$, and the components of $\ve{s}^{i*}$ are proportional to the components of $\ve{\mu}^*$. Then, by Slater's condition, strong duality holds here, so we connect the Lagrange multipliers $\ve{\lambda}^*,\ve{\mu}^*$ with the optimal solution of the dual problem. Due to the strong concavity of the utilities and stationarity, given $\ve{\lambda}^*$ and $\ve{\mu}^*$, the optimal allocation $\ve{x}^*$ can be uniquely determined. Finally, if we can find an algorithm to solve the dual problem, the design is done.
The first two steps are straightforward. For the third one, we can see the dual problem is also a convex optimization problem, so projected gradient descent (PGD) is one of the choices for the learning algorithm. The proof of convergence of PGD is not trivial. In the proof developed in \cite{polyak1987opt}, the convergence of PGD holds when (a) the objective function is $\beta$-smooth and (b) the feasible set is closed and convex. In Appendix~\ref{appx:pf_conv} we show that (a) is satisfied by Assumption \ref{assump:util}.
To check (b), we need to find a feasible set for the dual variables. Since in PGD of the dual problem, the gradient of the dual function turns out to be a combination of functions of the form $(\dot{v}^i_t)^{-1}(\cdot)$, the feasible set should satisfy two requirements: first, all the elements are in the domain of the dual function's gradient in order to make every iteration valid; second, $(\lambda^*,\mu^*)$ is in the feasible set so that we won't miss it. With these requirements in mind, we make Assumption \ref{assump:price_set} and construct a feasible set for the dual problem based on that.
\begin{assumption}
\label{assump:price_set}
For each utility $v^i_t(\cdot)$, there exist $\underline{r}^i_t,\bar{r}^i_t \in \mathbb{R}$ satisfying
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\forall \ve{x} \in \mathcal{X}$, $\dot{v}^{i}_t(x^i_t) \in [\underline{r}^i_t,\bar{r}^i_t]$,
\item $\forall p \in [\underline{r}^i_t,\bar{r}^i_t]$, $\exists x^i_t \in \mathbb{R}, \text{s.t. } \dot{v}^{i}_t(x^i_t)=p$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
Before we explain this assumption, define:
$\underline{\ve{r}}=[\underline{r}^1_1, \ldots, \underline{r}^1_T, \ldots, \underline{r}^N_T]^\mathsf{T}$, $\bar{\ve{r}}=[\bar{r}^1_1, \ldots, \bar{r}^1_T, \ldots, \bar{r}^N_T]^\mathsf{T}$,
$\ve{p}=[p_1 \ldots p_T]^\mathsf{T}$, $\tilde{\ve{p}} = \ve{1}_N \otimes \ve{p}$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{def:tilde}
\tilde{A} = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
A\\
\ve{1}_{N}^\mathsf{T} \otimes I_T
\end{array}
\right), \
\tilde{\ve{\lambda}} = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\ve{\lambda} \\
\ve{\mu}
\end{array}
\right), \
\tilde{\ve{p}} = \ve{1}_N \otimes \ve{p}.
\end{equation}
where $\otimes$ represents Kronecker product of matrices. Then define a set of proper prices $\mathcal{P}$ as the feasible set for the dual problem:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{P} = \{\tilde{\ve{\lambda}}=(\ve{\lambda},\ve{\mu}) \geq 0: \underline{\ve{r}} \leq \tilde{A}^\mathsf{T} \tilde{\ve{\lambda}} + \tilde{\ve{p}} \leq \bar{\ve{r}},\ \ve{1}_T^\mathsf{T} \ve{\mu} = p_0\}.
\end{equation*}
Observe that by stationarity, the $((i-1)T+t)$-th entry of $\tilde{A}^\mathsf{T} \tilde{\ve{\lambda}} + \tilde{\ve{p}}$ equals $\dot{v}^i_t(x^{i*}_t)$ in optimal solution. Consequently, Assumption \ref{assump:price_set} implies two things: first, $\tilde{\ve{\lambda}}^* \in \mathcal{P}$; second, all $\tilde{A}^\mathsf{T} \tilde{\ve{\lambda}} + \tilde{\ve{p}}$ can be a vector of $\dot{v}^i_t$'s on some $\ve{x}\in \mathbb{R}^{NT}$ if $\tilde{\ve{\lambda}} \in \mathcal{P}$. Hence, with Assumption \ref{assump:price_set}, it is safe to narrow down the feasible set of the dual problem to $\mathcal{P}$ without changing the optimal solution. Furthermore, for all the price vectors in $\mathcal{P}$, $(\dot{v}^i_t)^{-1}(\cdot)$ in PGD can be evaluated. Back to condition (b) stated above, since $\mathcal{P}$ is closed and convex, PGD is convergent in this case.
Based on all the assumptions and the PGD method, we propose Algorithm~\ref{algo:dyn} as a learning algorithm for the NE of the centralized mechanism.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{The learning algorithm for the centralized mechanism}
\label{algo:dyn}
\LinesNumbered
\KwData{Time index $k$, a set of proper prices $\mathcal{P}$, a vector of initial prices $(\ve{q}^0$, $\ve{s}^0) \in \mathcal{P}$, message profiles $m(k)$, iteration step size $\alpha$, number of iterations $K$.}
\KwResult{Message profile $m(K)=(\ve{y}(K),\ve{\beta}(K),\ve{q}(K),\ve{s}(K))$.}
$k=0$, $q^{i,l}(0)=q^{0,l}$, $s^i_t(0)=s^0_t,\quad \forall i\in \mathcal{N},l\in \mathcal{L},t\in \mathcal{T}$\;
$y^i_t(0) = (\dot{v}^{i}_t)^{-1}(p_t+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{L}}a^{i,l} q^{i,l}(0)+s^i_t(0)),\quad \forall i \in \mathcal{N}, t\in \mathcal{T}$\;
\While{$k<K$ and $||m(k)-m(k-1)||>0$}{
$\tilde{q}^{i,l}(k+1) = q^{i,l}(k) - \alpha (b^l - \ve{a}^l \ve{y}(k)), \quad \forall i \in \mathcal{N}, l \in \mathcal{L}$\;
$\tilde{s}^i_t(k+1) = s^i_t(k) + \alpha\sum_j y^j_t(k), \quad \forall i \in \mathcal{N}, t \in \mathcal{T}$\;
$(\ve{q}^i(k+1),\ve{s}^i(k+1)) = \mathbf{Proj}_\mathcal{P} \left(\tilde{\ve{q}}^i(k+1),\tilde{\ve{s}}^i(k+1)\right), \quad \forall i \in \mathcal{N}$\;
$y^i_t(k+1) = (\dot{v}^{i}_t)^{-1}(p_t+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{L}}a^{i,l}_t q^{i,l}(k+1)+s^i_t(k+1)),\quad \forall i \in \mathcal{N}, t\in \mathcal{T}$\;
$k \leftarrow k+1 $\;
}
$\beta^{i}_t(K) = y^{i+1}_t(K)\quad \forall i \in \mathcal{N}, t \in \mathcal{T}$\;
\end{algorithm}
The convergence of PGD yields the convergence of proposed learning algorithm:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:conv}
Choose a step size $\alpha \leq \delta'/\lVert A \rVert$, where $\lVert A \rVert$ is $A$'s spectral norm, $\delta'$ is the parameter of strong concavity of the centralized objective function. As the number of iterations $K$ grows, the distance between the computed price vector $(\ve{q}(K),\ve{s}(K))$ and the optimal price vector $(\ve{q}^*,\ve{s}^*)$ is non-increasing. Furthermore, $\lim_{K\to\infty}m(K) = m^*$, where $m^*$ is the NE.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
See Appendix \ref{appx:pf_conv}.
\end{IEEEproof}
\section{A Concrete Example}
To give a sense of how the two mechanisms and the learning algorithm work, we provide a simple non-trivial example here. We will first present the original centralized problem for the example, and then identify the NE of the centralized mechanism based on the properties we found. For the distributed mechanism, we will illustrate how the proxy variables at NE are determined with a simple example of a message exchange network. Lastly, we implement the learning algorithm for the centralized mechanism.
\subsection{The Demand Management Optimization Problem}
In the energy community, assume there are three users in the user set $\mathcal{N} = \{1,2,3\}$, and $T=2$ days in a billing period. Suppose user $i$ on day $t$ has the following utility function:
\begin{equation*}
v^i_t(x^i_t) = i \cdot t \cdot \ln (2 + x^i_t) .
\end{equation*}
Set $p_1 = 0.1$, $p_2 = 0.2$, and the peak price $p_0 = 0.05$. We adopt the following centralized problem as a concrete example:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align*}
\underset{\ve{x}}{\text{maximize}} \quad & \sum_{t=1}^2 \sum_{i=1}^3 i \cdot t \cdot \ln (2 + x^i_t) - J(\ve{x}) \\
\text{subject to} \quad & x^i_t \geq -1, \ i=1,2,3, \ t = 1, 2, \\
& \sum_{t=1}^2 (x^1_t + x^2_t + x^3_t) \leq 2,
\end{align*}
\end{subequations}
where $J(\ve{x}) = 0.1 \cdot \sum_{t=1}^2 t \cdot \left( \sum_{i=1}^3 x^i_t \right) + 0.05 \cdot \max_t\{\sum_{i=1}^3 x^i_t\}$.
The solution to this problem is approximately\footnote{The exact solution is $x^{1*}_1=-1$, $\lambda^{7*}=(249+\sqrt{106201})/520$, $\mu_2=0.05$, and $x^{i*}_t=2/(\lambda^{7*}+p_t+\mu_t^*)-2$ for $(i,t)\neq (1,1)$, $\lambda^{1*}=\lambda^{7*}+p_1-1/(x^{1*}_1+2)$. $\lambda^{l*}=0$ for $l=2,\ldots,6$, $\mu_1^*=0$. The interested readers can verify it by using KKT conditions.}
\begin{equation*}
(x^{1*}_1,x^{1*}_2,x^{2*}_1,x^{2*}_2,x^{3*}_1,x^{3*}_2)=(-1.0000, -0.5246, -0.3410,0.9508,0.4885,2.4263).
\end{equation*}
The lower bound constraint for $x^1_1$ and the upper bound constraint for the sum are active. Thus, according to KKT conditions, $\lambda^{l*} = 0$ for $l=2,\ldots,6$, and $\lambda^{1*} = 0.2056$, $\lambda^{7*} = 1.1056$ by stationarity. The total demands of Day 1 and Day 2 are $-0.8525$ and $2.8525$ respectively, so Day 2 has the peak demand $w^*=2.8525$, Day 1 charges no peak price ($\mu_1^*=0$), and Day 2 has an extra unit peak price $\mu_2^*=0.05$.
\subsection{The Centralized Mechanism}
For this example, in the centralized mechanism, user $i$ needs to choose her message $m^i$ with the following components:
\begin{equation*}
m^i = (y^i_1, y^i_2, \{q^{i,l}\}_{l=1}^7, s^i_1,s^i_2, \beta^i_1,\beta^i_2).
\end{equation*}
For the sake of brevity, let's take user~1 for example. In this problem setting, user~1 needs to report her demands for two days ($y^1_1,y^1_2$), suggest a set of prices for constraints~1-7 ($q^{1,1},\ldots,q^{1,7}$), suggest unit peak prices for two days (quantities $s^1_1,s^1_2$ do not necessarily sum up to $p_0=0.05$), and lastly, provide proxies $\beta^1_1,\beta^1_2$ for user~2's demands.
User~1's tax function is
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\hat{t}^1(m) &= \sum_{t=1}^2 \left(p_t+\mathcal{RP}^1_t(s^{-1},\zeta^{-1})\right)y^1_t - q^{-1,1} y^1_1 - q^{-1,2} y^1_2 + q^{-1,7} (y^1_1 + y^1_2) \\
&+ \sum_{t=1}^2(\beta^1_t-y^2_t)^2 + (q^{1,1} - q^{-1,1})^2 + q^{1,1} (1 + \beta^3_1) + (q^{1,2} - q^{-1,2})^2 +q^{1,2} (1 + \beta^3_2) \\
&+ \sum_{l=3}^6 (q^{1,l} - q^{-1,l})^2 + q^{1,3} (1+y^2_1) + q^{1,4} (1+y^2_2) + q^{1,5} (1+y^3_1) + q^{1,6} (1+y^3_2)\\
&+(q^{1,7} - q^{-1,7})^2 + q^{1,7} (2-y^2_1-y^2_2-y^3_1-y^3_2-\beta^3_1-\beta^3_2) \\
&+ (s^1_1 - s^{-1}_1)^2 + s^1_1 (z^{-1}-\zeta^{-1}_1) + (s^1_2 - s^{-1}_2)^2 + s^1_2 (z^{-1}-\zeta^{-1}_2)
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{align*}
q^{-1,l} &= (q^{2,l}+q^{3,l}) / 2, \\
s^{-1}_t &= (s^2_t + s^3_t) / 2, \\
\zeta^{-1}_t &= \beta^3_t + y^2_t + y^3_t, \\
z^{-1} &= \max \left\{ \zeta^{-1}_1, \zeta^{-1}_2 \right\},
\end{align*}
and according to the definition \eqref{def:rp}, \eqref{def:rpi} of the radial pricing operator, we have
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{RP}^1_t(\ve{s}^{-1},\zeta^{-1}) = \begin{cases}
\frac{s^{-1}_t}{s^{-1}_1+s^{-1}_2} p_0, & \text{if } s^{-1}_1 + s^{-1}_2 > 0,\\
p_0, & \text{if } s^{-1}_1=s^{-1}_2 = 0 \text{ and }\zeta^{-1}_t > \zeta^{-1}_{t'} (t' \neq t), \\
p_0/2, & \text{if } s^{-1}_1=s^{-1}_2 = 0 \text{ and }\zeta^{-1}_t = \zeta^{-1}_{t'} (t' \neq t), \\
0, & \text{if } s^{-1}_1=s^{-1}_2 = 0 \text{ and }\zeta^{-1}_t < \zeta^{-1}_{t'} (t' \neq t).
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
From Theorem \ref{thm:NEopt} we know that at NE, user 1's message $m^{*1}$ is such that $\ve{y}^1$ corresponds to the optimal solution $x^1$, $\ve{q}^1$ equals the optimal Lagrange multiplier $\ve{\lambda}$, $\ve{\beta}^1$ equals $\ve{y}^2$, and finally
$\ve{s}^1$ is proportional to the Lagrange multiplier $\ve{\mu}$.
\subsection{The Distributed Mechanism}
In this subsection we will first demonstrate the modifications on message spaces compared to the centralized mechanism, and then show how the newly introduced components $n$ and $\nu$ work. The specific NE can be determined in a similar way with that of the centralized mechanism and therefore omitted.
Assume the energy community has communication constraints with the message exchange network depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:mes_ex_net}. Apart from the network topology, the $\phi$-relation which indicates the responsibility of proxy $\ve{\beta}$ is also an important part of distributed mechanism. Here we set $\phi(1)=2, \phi(2)=1,\phi(3)=2$.
Then for proxy variables $\ve{\beta}^{\phi(i),i}, i=1,2,3$, $\ve{\beta}^{2,1}$ in user~1's tax is provided by user~2, $\ve{\beta}^{1,2}$ in user~2's tax is provided by user~1, and $\ve{\beta}^{2,3}$ in user~3's tax is provided by user~2.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{figure/mes_ex_net.pdf}
\caption{Message exchange network: Users~1 and~2, users~2 and~3 are neighbors respectively. User~1's message is invisible to user~3, and vice versa.\label{fig:mes_ex_net}}
\end{figure}
For this message exchange network, the message components for each user are
\begin{align*}
m^1 &= \left(y^1_1,y^1_2,\{q^{1,l}\}_{l=1}^7, \{s^1_t\}_{t=1}^2,\{ \beta^{1,2}_t\}_{t=1}^2,\{n^{1,2,l}\}_{l=1}^7,\{\nu^{1,2}\}_{t=1}^2 \right), \\
m^2 &= \left(y^2_1,y^2_2,\{q^{2,l}\}_{l=1}^7, \{s^2_t\}_{t=1}^2, \{ \beta^{2,1}_t\}_{t=1}^2, \{ \beta^{2,3}_t\}_{t=1}^2,\{n^{2,1,l}\}_{l=1}^7,\{n^{2,3,l}\}_{l=1}^7,\{\nu^{2,1}\}_{t=1}^2,\{\nu^{2,3}\}_{t=1}^2 \right), \\
m^3 &= \left(y^3_1, y^3_2, \{q^{3,l}\}_{l=1}^7, \{s^3_t\}_{t=1}^2,\{n^{3,2,l}\}_{l=1}^7,\{\nu^{3,2}\}_{t=1}^2\right).
\end{align*}
Therefore, in the distributed mechanism, users are still required to provide their demands $\ve{y}$, suggested unit prices $\ve{q}$ and suggested unit peak prices $\ve{s}$. Different from the centralized mechanism, there are no $\ve{\beta}$ among user~3's message components, while user~2 needs to provide two $\ve{\beta}$'s, namely $\ve{\beta}^{2,1},\ve{\beta}^{2,3}$. In addition, for each constraint $l$, every user needs to announce variable~$n$'s to each of her neighbor(s); for each day $t$, every user also needs to provide variable~$\nu$'s to each of her neighbor(s).
For the rest of this subsection, we focus on user~3 and consider how $n$ variables play their roles in the tax evaluation. With this message exchange network, we can write down user~3's tax function explicitly:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\hat{t}^3(m) &= \sum_{t=1}^2 \left(p_t + \mathcal{RP}^3_t(\ve{s}^{-3},\zeta^{-3})\right) y^3_t - q^{-3,5} y^3_1 - q^{-3,6} y^3_2 + q^{-3,7} (y^3_1 + y^3_2) \\
&+ \sum_{l=1}^7 \text{pr$\boldsymbol{n}$}^{3,l}(m) + \sum_{t=1}^2 \text{pr$\boldsymbol{\nu}$}^3_t(m) + \sum_{l=1}^7 (q^{3,l} - q^{-3,l})^2 \\
&+ q^{3,1} (1- n^{2,1,1}) + q^{3,2} (1 - n^{2,1,2}) + q^{3,3} (1 + y^2_1 - n^{2,1,3}) + q^{3,4} (1 + y^2_2 - n^{2,1,4})\\
&+ q^{3,5} (1 + \beta^2_1 - n^{2,1,5}) + q^{3,6} (1 + \beta^2_2 - n^{2,1,6}) + q^{3,6} (1 + \beta^2_2 - n^{2,1,6}) \\
&+ q^{3,7} (2 - \beta^2_1 - \beta^2_2 - y^2_1 - y^2_2 - n^{2,1,7}) + \sum_{t=1}^2 \left( (s^3_t - s^{-3}_t)^2 + s^3_t (z^{-i} - \zeta^{-3}_t)\right),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{align*}
\text{pr$\boldsymbol{n}$}^{3,l}(m) &= (n^{3,2,l} - n^{2,1,l})^2, \text{ for } l=1,2,5,6,\\
\text{pr$\boldsymbol{n}$}^{3,3}(m) &= (n^{3,2,3} + y^2_1 - n^{2,1,3})^2,\\
\text{pr$\boldsymbol{n}$}^{3,4}(m) &= (n^{3,2,4} + y^2_2 - n^{2,1,4})^2, \\
\text{pr$\boldsymbol{n}$}^{3,7}(m) &= (n^{3,2,7} - y^2_1 - y^2_2 - n^{2,1,7})^2, \\
\text{pr$\boldsymbol{\nu}$}^3_t(m) &= (\nu^{3,2}_t - y^2_t - \nu^{2,1}_t)^2,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
q^{-3,l} &= q^{2,l},\ l=1,\ldots,7, \\
s^{-3}_t &= s^2_t,\ t=1,2, \\
\zeta^{-3}_t &= \beta^{2,3}_t + y^2_t + \nu^{2,1}_t,\ t=1,2,\\
z^{-3} &= \max \left\{\zeta^{-3}_1, \zeta^{-3}_2 \right\}.
\end{align*}
In user~3's tax function there is no $\text{pr}\boldsymbol{\beta}^3_t(m)$ terms because user~3 is not assigned to any other users for providing $\beta$ proxies.
To figure out how the proxies $n$'s work, here we focus on the 7-th constraint, and see how the corresponding constraint term is evaluated in user 3's tax function. The reason why other $n$'s and $\nu$'s work is similar. For user 3, the constraint term is
\begin{equation*}
\text{con}^{3,7}(m) = (q^{3,7}-q^{-3,7})^2 + q^{3,7}\underbrace{(2-y^2_1-y^2_2-\beta^{2,3}_1-\beta^{2,3}_2-n^{2,1,7})}_{\text{Slackness part}}.
\end{equation*}
In the centralized mechanism, the slackness part turns out to be $1-\sum_{t=1}^2 \sum_{i=1}^3 x^{i*}_t$ at NE. What we want to show is that with the distributed mechanism, the same outcome can be realized at NE. Same as the centralized mechanism, $\ve{y}^i=\ve{x}^{i*}$ at NE, so $y^2_1=x^{2*}_1,y^2_2=x^{2*}_2$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:dist_eqbeta}, $\beta^{2,3}_1+\beta^{2,3}_2 = y^3_1 + y^3_2 = x^{3*}_1 + x^{3*}_2$, so it remains to show that $n^{2,1,7}=x^{1*}_1+x^{1*}_2$.
Let's trace how the $n^{2,1,7}$ is generated at NE. From \eqref{eqprx:n},
\begin{equation*}
n^{2,1,7} = a^{1,7}_1 y^1_1 + a^{1,7}_2 y^1_2 + \sum_{h\in \mathcal{N}(1)\backslash \{2\} } n^{1,h,7}.
\end{equation*}
Notice that $\mathcal{N}(1)=\{2\}$, so $\mathcal{N}(1)\backslash\{2\}$ is empty. As a result, at NE, $n^{2,1,7}=y^1_1+y^1_2=x^{1*}_1+x^{1*}_2$.
\subsection{The Learning Algorithm}
Before the algorithm is implemented, one might want to check whether the problem setting satisfies Assumptions~\ref{assump:util} and~\ref{assump:price_set}.
First we can check Assumption~\ref{assump:price_set}. Suppose for the specific environment we have $\underline{r}^i_t=i\cdot t / 9$ and $\bar{r}^i_t = i \cdot t$. Then for the first condition in Assumption~\ref{assump:price_set}, since each $x^i_t$ has a lower bound $-1$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\dot{v}^i_t(x^i_t) = \frac{i\cdot t}{x^i_t+2}\leq \frac{i\cdot t}{-1+2} = \bar{r}^i_t.
\end{equation*}
Also, every $x^i_t$ is upper bounded by 7 because from the 7-th constraint we have
\begin{equation*}
x^i_t \leq 2 - \sum_{(i',t')\neq(i,t)} x^{i'}_{t'} \leq 2 - 5 \cdot (-1) = 7,
\end{equation*}
and thus
\begin{equation*}
\dot{v}^i_t(x^i_t) = \frac{i \cdot t}{x^i_t + 2} \geq \frac{i \cdot t}{7 + 2} = i \cdot t / 9.
\end{equation*}
For the second condition in Assumption~\ref{assump:price_set}, for all $p \in [i\cdot t/9,i\cdot t]$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\dot{v}^i_t(x^i_t)=p \Leftrightarrow x^i_t = \frac{i \cdot t}{p} - 2,
\end{equation*}
so Assumption~\ref{assump:price_set} is verified.
With the $\underline{r}^i_t$'s and $\bar{r}^i_t$'s chosen above, a dual feasible set $\mathcal{P}$ is constructed. Within this price set $\mathcal{P}$, Algorithm~\ref{algo:dyn} evaluates the function $(\dot{v}^i_t)^{-1}(\cdot)$ only in the interval $[i\cdot t/9,i\cdot t]$. Consequently, in running Algorithm~\ref{algo:dyn} we only need to define $v^i_t(\cdot)$ on the interval $[-1,7]$.
Regarding Assumption~\ref{assump:util}, we need to show that $v^i_t(\cdot)$ is strongly concave on $[-1,7]$.
Since one can verify that the function $-it \ln(2+x) - ax^2/2$ is convex on $[-1,7]$ for $0\leq a \leq it/81$, every $v^i_t(\cdot)$ is strong concave, and thus Assumption~\ref{assump:util} holds\footnote{This is based on the fact that $f$ is strongly convex with parameter $\delta$ iff $g(\ve{x})=f(\ve{x})-\frac{\delta}{2}\lVert \ve{x} \rVert^2$ is convex.}.
To choose an appropriate step size $\alpha$ for the algorithm, we need to investigate further the parameter $\delta$. In our environment, the sum of utility functions $f(\ve{x})=-\sum_{t=1}^2\sum_{i=1}^3v^i_t(x^i_t)$ is strongly concave on $ [-1,7]^6$ with parameter $\delta=18/81$, because each component $v^i_t$ of $f$ is a strongly concave function with parameter $i\cdot t/81$, and the parameter $\delta$ is additive: $\sum_{t=1}^2 \sum_{i=1}^3 it/81 = 18/81$. By calculation, $\lVert \tilde{A} \rVert \approx 3.1623 $, so one possible step size can be $\alpha=0.1<2\times \delta / \lVert \tilde{A} \rVert$.
According to Algorithm \ref{algo:dyn} the updates required are (define $\eta(i,t)=2(i-1)+t$ for convenience):
\begin{align*}
&\tilde{q}^{i,\eta(j,t)}(k+1) = q^{i,\eta(j,t)}(k) - \alpha (1+y^j_t(k)),\ j=1,2,3, \ t=1,2, \\
&\tilde{q}^{i,7} = q^{i,7} - \alpha (2 - \sum_{j=1}^3 \sum_{t=1}^2 y^j_t(k)), \\
&\tilde{s}^i_t(k+1) = s^i_t(k) + \alpha \sum_{j=1}^3 y^j_t,\ t=1,2, \\
&(\ve{q}^i(k+1),\ve{s}^i(k+1)) = \mathbf{Proj}_\mathcal{P} (\tilde{\ve{q}}^i(k+1),\tilde{\ve{s}}^i(k+1)),\\
&y^i_t(k+1) = \frac{i \cdot t}{p_t - q^{i,\eta(i,t)}(k+1) + q^7(k+1) + s^i_t(k+1)} - 2.
\end{align*}
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{figure/conv.pdf}
\caption{The Convergence of the Learning Algorithm.\label{fig:conv}}
\end{figure}
To verify the convergence of the learning algorithm we run it with initial price set to $(\ve{q}(0),\ve{s}(0))=\mathbf{Proj}_\mathcal{P}(\ve{0}_{9\times 1})$. After $K=100$ iterations, we observe the convergence for both the suggested prices $\ve{q},\ve{s}$ and the corresponding announced demands $\ve{y}$. Figure~\ref{fig:conv} shows the process of convergence and verifies that the convergence rate is exponential, as expected.
\section{Conclusions}
Motivated by the work of mechanism design for NUM problems, we proposed a new class of (indirect) mechanisms,
with application in demand management in energy communities. The proposed mechanisms possess desirable properties including full implementation, individual rationality, and budget balance and can be easily generalized to different environments with peak shaving and convex constraints.
We showed how the original ``centralized'' mechanism can be modified in a systematic way to account for environments with communication constraints. This modification leads to a new type of mechanisms that we call ``decentralized'' mechanisms and can be thought of as the analog to decentralized optimization (developed for optimization problems with non-strategic agents) for environments with strategic users.
Finally, motivated by the need for practical deployment of these mechanisms, we introduced a PGD-based learning algorithm for users to learn the NE of the mechanism-induced game.
Possible future research directions include learning algorithms for the distributed mechanism, as well as
co-design of a (distributed) mechanism and characterization of the class of convergent algorithms for this design.
|
\section{Introduction}
The study of the robust control theory which began in the 1960s is one of the most important branches of the modern control theory. In the early 1970s, in order to deal with some unexpected failures due to the differences between mathematical models and reality, the dominant focus of research shifted from optimality to robustness~\cite{Safonov:2012}. When the available models are no longer "sufficiently accurate", the uncertainty describing how the "true" nominal model might differ from the plant played a big role in the design of the controller. At first, control scientists were generally led to assume that the nominal model is linear~\cite{Petersen:2014,BBhattacharyya:2017}. The main drawback of linear robust control is that the controllers are very conservative when the nonlinearities are significant. That is one of the strong motivations for the development of nonlinear robust control such as the Lyapunov min-max approach~\cite{Corless:1993}, the nonlinear H$_\infty$ approach~\cite{Basar:1995}, the input-to-state stability approach \cite{Sontag:1995_351} and the robust backstepping approach \cite{Freeman:2008}. Published nonlinear robust control approaches almost only consider the nominal models which are affine with respect to the control input. Hence, available information about existing non-affine nonlinearities is ignored. The robust control problem considering the general nonlinear nominal model is a challenge.
For general nonlinear system without uncertainty, it is very hard to achieve the global stabilization. Hence, the domain of attraction (DOA) of the closed-loop which is an invariant set characterizing asymptotically stabilizable area around the equilibrium point has gained more and more popularity for different systems \cite{Chen:2015_1314,Gering:2015_2231,Li:2014_79,Han:2015}. It is well known that DOA plays an important role both in analysis and synthesis. When the nominal model in robust control is general nonlinear, in order to remain functional despite large changes, we believe that the robust DOA (RDOA) of the closed-loops does require more investigation under certain conditions. For system analysis, considers a given Lyapunov candidate,\cite{Swiatlak:2015} proposes an interval arithmetic approach to obtain the estimation of the RDOA, \cite{Goldsztejn:2019_371} proposes a method of estimating the RDOA for non-smooth systems under uncertainties. For controller design, a few works involve investigating the RDOA of the closed-loop. Only~\cite{Li:2020} proposes a data-driven robust controller design method for general nonlinear discrete systems. The main idea is filtering the simulation data points which can make the Lyapunov function negative definite. However, the method proposed in \cite{Li:2020} has two drawbacks. First, the invariant of the estimate of RDOA is guaranteed by the level-set of the Lyapunov function, which leads to a conservative estimate of RDOA. Second, there is no quantitative analysis result about set estimation errors due to the random sampling and set griding technique approximating sets. A rigorous RDOA estimation method for general systems with uncertainty needs to be developed.
In this paper, considering the discrete-time general nonlinear plant set in which the "true" plant is hidden, the stabilization with closed-loop RDOA enlargement is solved. The plant set is characterized by the general nonlinear nominal model and the corresponding modeling error bound. First, for a given Lyapunov function, the robust negative-definite and invariant set in state-control space (RNIS-SC) is defined. It is shown that the RNIS-SC is an unstructured robust controller set for the plant set, namely, any controller belonging to the RNIS-SC can asymptotically stabilize all the plants in the plant set. Moreover, the projection of the RNIS-SC in the state space is an estimate of the RDOA of the closed-loops. It should be pointed out that the invariant of the RNIS-SC is guaranteed by the infinite iteration of the predecessor set rather than the level-set of the Lyapunov function. However, due to the nonlinearities of the nominal model and the modeling error bound, it is hard to obtain an analytic solution of the RNIS-SC. Then, a numerical method estimating the RNIS-SC for a given Lyapunov function is proposed based on the set estimation via interval analysis (SEVIA) algorithm. The SEVIA algorithm is one of the basic tools in interval analysis arithmetic, which is a kind of numerical method to approximate sets of interest as precise as desired ~\cite{Jaulin:2001}. The convergence of the proposed algorithm approximating RNIS-SC is also proved. Finally, a solvable optimization problem is formulated to enlarge the RDOA of the closed-loops by selecting an appropriate Lyapunov function from a parameterized positive-definite function set.
For the discrete-time general nonlinear robust control problem, the main contributions of this paper consist in: 1) Rather than design parameters of a structured robust controller in traditional synthesis methods, our new synthesis method try to find an unstructured robust controller set (namely, the RNIS-SC) in the state-control space, which enlarges the estimate of closed-loop RDOA and whose invariant is not guaranteed by the level-set of the Lyapunov function. 2) Based on interval analysis arithmetic, a numerical method estimating the RNIS-SC is proposed, for which the rigorous convergence analysis is given.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, a general nonlinear plant set is formulated and our control objective is proposed. Then, a sufficient condition for asymptotic stabilization and estimation of the RDOA is given with the definition of RNIS-SC. In Section 3, we briefly introduced interval arithmetic, then our main algorithm is proposed. Next, based on the theoretical result in the preceding section, the stabilization problem is solved by using the interval analysis approach to estimate the RNIS-SC. In Section 4, the closed-loop RDOA enlargement method and the controller design method is proposed. In Section 5, the controller design method is verified with the simulation result in a specific case. The conclusion is drawn in Section 6.
\textbf{Notation: } For a vector $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$, $x_{(i)}$ represents the $i$-th element of $x$, $i = 1,2,\cdots,n$. For $x_1,x_2\in\mathbb{R}^n,x_1\leq x_2$ means $x_1$ is less than or equal to $x_2$ element by element. For two vectors $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $u \in \mathbb{R}^m$, $w = (x,u)$ represents a new vector in $\mathbb{R}^{n+m}$. $[w] \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+m}$ represents a box belonging to $\mathbb{R}^{n+m}$ (\textit{e.g., }a rectangular region when $n+m = 2$). $\mathbb{W} \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+m}$ represents an arbitrary compact~\cite{Kreyszig:1978} subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n+m}$. $\hat{\mathbb{W}}$ represents an approximation of $\mathbb{W}$ by covering $\mathbb{W}$ with non-overlapping boxes in a set of boxes (there is no ambiguity when $\hat{\mathbb{W}}$ is viewed as a set of boxes or the unions of boxes in a set of boxes according to contents). sub($x$) represents supremacy of $x$, inf($x$) represents infimum of $x$. $[x] \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ reprensents an interval. $[x]\sqcup[y] = [\min\{\underline{x},\underline{y}\}, \max\{\bar{x},\bar{y}\}]$ represents the interval union of the interval $[x]$ and $[y]$.
\section{Robust Stabilization Controller Set: Robust Negative-definite and Invariant Set in State-Control Space}
Consider the nonlinear discrete-time plant set
\begin{eqnarray}
& \!\! \mathfrak{F} := \Big\{ f: \mathbb{R}^n \!\times\! \mathbb{R}^m \!\to \! \mathbb{R}^n \Big| f(0,0) = 0, \nonumber \\
& \quad \hat{f}(x,u) - \delta(x,u) \leq f(x,u) \leq \hat{f}(x,u) + \delta(x,u) \Big\}, \label{eq:plant_set}
\end{eqnarray}
where $x(k) \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is the state, $u(k) \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is the control input, continuous function $\hat{f}: \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^m \to \mathbb{R}^n$ is the known nominal model satisfying $\hat{f}(0,0) = 0$ and continuous function $\delta: \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^m \to \mathbb{R}^n_+$ is the known modeling error bound satisfying $\delta(0,0) = 0$. The control objective is to find a robust controller $\mu: \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^m$ and an estimate of the robust closed-loop DOA to ensure that, $\forall f \in \mathfrak{F}$, the closed-loop $x(k+1) = f(x(k),\mu(x(k))), k=0,1,2,...,$ is asymptotically stable at the origin for all initial states in the estimate of the closed-loop RDOA and to enlarge the estimate of the RDOA as large as possible.
The main objective of this section consists in characterizing robust negative-definite and invariant set in the state-control space (RNIS-SC), which is an unstructured robust stabilization controller set, and discussing properties of RNIS-SC. Moreover, it is observed how such features can be employed to obtain the estimation of RDOA.
\subsection{Robust Negative-definite Set in State-Control Space}
For a given nominal model $\hat f$ and the known modeling error bound $\delta$, we omit time instant $k$ and let $x_+, x$ and $u$ denote $x(k+1), x(k)$ and $u(k)$, respectively. Then the dynamic of plant set \eqref{eq:plant_set} can be represented as a domain $\Pi$ in $(2n+m)$-dimensional space, which is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi= {\rm{\{ (}}{x_ + },x,u{\rm{)}} \in \mathbb{R}^{2n+m} |\hat f(w) - \delta (w) \le {x_ + } \nonumber \\ \le \hat f(w) + \delta (w),
w = {(x,u)}{\rm{\} }}.
\end{eqnarray}
For a given Lyapunov function $L:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, the subset $\tilde{\Pi}(L)$ of $\Pi$ is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \Pi_N(L) = \{ {\rm{(}}{x_ + },x,u{\rm{)}} \in {\Pi_{\mathfrak{F}}}|L({x_ + }) - L(x) < 0\}.
\end{eqnarray}
All points $(x_+,x,u)$ belong to the $\tilde \Pi_N(L)$ make the time difference of the Lyapunov function $L$ negative definite, so $\tilde \Pi_N(L)$ is called negative-definite set in state-state-control space (ND-SSC). However, ND-SSC $\tilde \Pi_N(L)$ is not robust for plant set~\eqref{eq:plant_set}. The concept of the robust negative-definite set is proposed in \cite{Li:2020}. Any point $(x_+,x,u)$ in the robust negative-definite set must satisfies: $\forall f\in\mathfrak{F}, L(f(x,u))-L(x)<0$. Hence, robust negative-definite set in state-state-control space (RNS-SSC) $\Pi_N(L)$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_N(L)=&\{(x_+,x,u)\in \tilde \Pi_N(L)|\forall x_+' \in \mathbb{X}_+(x,u),\nonumber
\\&L(x_+')-L(x)<0,x_+\in\mathbb{X}_+(x,u)\},
\end{eqnarray}
where, for a given $(x,u)\in \mathbb{R}^{n+m}$, $\mathbb{X}_+(x,u)$ is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{X}_+(x,u)=& \{x_+\in \mathbb{R}^{n}|\hat{f}(w)-\delta(w)\leq x_+ \leq \nonumber\\
&\hat{f}(w)+\delta (w), w=(x,u)\}. \label{eq:nextset_x}
\end{eqnarray}
The robust negative-definite set in state-control space can be obtained by projecting RND-SSC along the $x_+$ space to the state-control space which is defined as follows.
\begin{mydefn}
For a given Lyapunov function $L$, the robust negative-definite set $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)$ for the plant set~\eqref{eq:plant_set} is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)= & \{(x,u) \in \mathbb{R}^{n+m}|\forall x_+ \in\mathbb{X}_+(x,u),\nonumber\\
& L(x_+)-L(x)<0 \}, \label{def:w_nl}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbb{X}_+(x,u)$ is defined in~\eqref{eq:nextset_x}. \label{def:negative definite}
\end{mydefn}
\begin{mylem}\label{Lem:RNS}
For plant set~\eqref{eq:plant_set}, if a Lyapunov function $L$ and a controller $\mu$ exist such that
\begin{equation}
\forall x \in {\rm{proj}}({\mathbb{W}_{\rm{N}}}(L)),(x,\mu (x)) \in {\mathbb{W}_{\rm{N}}}(L),0 = \mu (0)\nonumber
\end{equation}
then $L\left( {x(k+1)} \right) - L\left( {x(k)} \right) < 0$ for the closed-loop $x(k+1) = f\left( {x(k),\mu (x(k))} \right),$ when $x(k)\in {\rm{proj}}({\mathbb{W}_{\rm{N}}}(L)),\forall f\in\mathfrak{F}$.
\end{mylem}
\begin{pf}
We have $(x(k),\mu (x(k))) \in {\mathbb{W}_{\rm{N}}}(L)$, according to the definition of RNS-SC $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)$ in~\eqref{def:w_nl}, then
\begin{equation}
\forall x(k+1) \in\mathbb{X}_+(x(k),\mu (x(k))),L(x(k+1))-L(x(k))<0. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Based on \eqref{eq:nextset_x}, $\forall f\in\mathfrak{F}, f(x(k),\mu (x(k)))\in\mathbb{X}_+$. Hence, for any state ${x(k)} \in {\rm{proj}}({\mathbb{W}_{\rm{N}}}(L))$ and $\forall f \in\mathfrak{F} $, $L(x(k+1))-L(x(k))<0$ is satisfied. \hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{pf}
Based on the Lemma~\ref{Lem:RNS}, one may think that ${\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L))$ can be regarded as an estimate of closed-loop RDOA. However, it is wrong because there is no guarantee that the next state $x(k+1)$ is still in ${\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L))$. Once the next state $x(k+1)$ does not belong to ${\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L))$, the time difference of Lyapunov function is no longer negative definite. Finding a level set to deliver an enclosure of the Lyapunov function is one of the solutions~\cite{Li:2014_79,Swiatlak:2015,Goldsztejn:2019_371} but leads to the conservative result.
\subsection{Robust invariant set in state-control space}
For the purpose of finding an unstructured robust controller set, we give the definition of the robust invariant set in the state-control space (RIS-SC) as follows.
\begin{mydefn}
The robust invariant set $\mathbb{W}_{\rm I}$ for the plant set~\eqref{eq:plant_set} is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{W}_{\rm I}=\{w=(x,u)\in\mathbb{R}^{n+m}|\mathbb{X}_+(w)\subset{\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm I})\}, \label{eq:W_I}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbb{X}_+$ is defined in~\eqref{eq:nextset_x}, ${\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm I})\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}$ represents the prejection of $\mathbb{W}_{\rm I}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+m}$ along the state space $\mathbb{R}^n$. \label{def:invariant}
\end{mydefn}
\begin{mylem} \label{Lem:RIS}
For the plant set~\eqref{eq:plant_set}, if a controller $\mu$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\forall x \in {\rm{proj}}({\mathbb{W}_{\rm{I}}}),(x;\mu (x)) \in {\mathbb{W}_{\rm{I}}}, \label{eq:xinW_I}
\end{equation}
then the solution $\phi ({x_0},k)$ of the closed-loop $x(k + 1) = f\left( {x(k),\mu (x(k))} \right)$ with any initial state ${x_0} \in {\rm{proj}}({\mathbb{W}_{\rm{I}}})$ is in ${\rm{proj}}({\mathbb{W}_{\rm{I}}})$ for all $k>0$.
\end{mylem}
\begin{pf}
We prove Lemma~\ref{Lem:RIS} in the form of mathematical induction.
For $k=0$, we have $\phi(x_0,0)=x_0 \in {\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm I})$. Next, it is proofed that $\phi(x_0,k+1) \in {\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm I})$ when $\phi(x_0,k) \in {\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm I})$. Because $x(k)=\phi(x_0,k) \in {\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm I})$, from~\eqref{eq:xinW_I}, $(x(k);\mu(x(k))) \in \mathbb{W}_{\rm I}$ is obtained. According to Definition~\ref{def:invariant}, $ \forall f \in\mathfrak{F}$, we have $x(k+1)=\phi(x_0,k+1) \in {\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm I}).$
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{pf}
With the definition of RIS-SC, robust negative-definite and invariant set in state-control space are introduced in the next subsection.
\subsection{Robust negative-definite and invariant set in state-control space}
For a given Lyapunov function $L$, combine the definition of the robust negative-definite set $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)$ and the robust invariant set $\mathbb{W}_{\rm I}$, the definition of the robust negative-definite and invariant set in the state-control (RNIS-SC) space are introduced as follows.
\begin{mydefn} \label{defn:NDIset}
The robust negative-definite and invariant set $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$ for the plant set~\eqref{eq:plant_set} is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)=&\{w=(x,u)\in\mathbb{R}^{n+m}|\nonumber
\\&\mathbb{X}_+(w)\subseteq {\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L))\}, \label{eq:ri}\\
&\forall x_+\in \mathbb{X}_+, {L(x_+)}-L(x)<0, \label{eq:rnd}
\end{eqnarray}
where $x_+$ is the state at the next time instant, $\mathbb{X}_+$ is defined in~\eqref{eq:nextset_x}, $L(x)$ is a given Lyapunov function.
\end{mydefn}
Since $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$ is robust negative definite, according to the~\eqref{def:w_nl}, $\forall (x(k),u(k))\in\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L), \forall f\in\mathfrak{F}$, the time difference of the Lyapunov function $L(x(k))$ at $k$ instant is negative definite. Futher more, $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$ is robust invariant, according to the~\eqref{eq:W_I}, $\forall (x(k),u(k))\in\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L),\forall f\in\mathfrak{F}$, the next state $x(k+1)=f(x(k),u(k))$ is still in the ${\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L))$, which means that there exists $u(k+1)$ such that the time difference of the Lyapunov $L(x(k+1))$ is still negative difinite at $k+1$. Hence, the closed-loop system is asymptotically stable for all initial state in ${\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L))$ which is shown in the following theorem.
\begin{mytheo} \label{Theo:WNI}
Given RNIS-SC $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+m}$ for the plant set~\eqref{eq:plant_set} and Lyapunov function $L:\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_+$, if the controller $\mu:\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^m$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
\forall x\in{\rm{proj}}({\mathbb{W}_{\rm{N\&I}}(L)}),(x;\mu(x))\in\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L),\nonumber\\0=\mu(0), \label{eq:proposi_suff}
\end{eqnarray}
then the closed-loop system $x(k+1)=f(x(k),\mu(x(k))), $ $\forall f \in \mathfrak{F}$ is asymptotically stable for any initial state $x_0 \in {\rm{proj}}({\mathbb{W}_{\rm{N\&I}}})$.
\end{mytheo}
\begin{pf}
For any $f\in\mathfrak{F}$, let $\phi(x_0,k)$ denote the solution of $x(k+1) = f\big(x(k),\mu(x(k))\big)$ at time $k$ with the initial state $x_0$. According to the Definition~\ref{defn:NDIset}, $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$ is robust negative-definite. From~\eqref{eq:proposi_suff} and Lemma~\ref{Lem:RNS}, we have, $\forall f\in\mathfrak{F}$, \begin{equation}
L(\phi(x_0,k+1)) - L(\phi(x_0,k)) <0, \label{eq:prop:stab:pf:L(k+1)<L(k)}
\end{equation}
when $\phi(x_0,k)\in{\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L))$. According to the Definition~\ref{defn:NDIset}, $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$ is also robust invariant. From~\eqref{eq:proposi_suff} and Lemma~\ref{Lem:RNS}, we have, $\forall f\in\mathfrak{F}$, $\forall x_0\in {\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L))$, $\forall k\ge 0$,
\begin{equation}
\phi(x_0,k)\in {\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)). \label{eq:eq:prop:stab:pf:phi(x,k)_in_WNI}
\end{equation}
From~\eqref{eq:prop:stab:pf:L(k+1)<L(k)} and~\eqref{eq:eq:prop:stab:pf:phi(x,k)_in_WNI}, it follows that, $\forall f\in\mathfrak{F}$, $\forall x_0 \in {\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L))$, $L(\phi(x_0,k))$ is monotonically decreasing with time. And because $L$ is positive-definite, $L(\phi(x_0,k))$ is bounded from below by zero. Hence,
\begin{equation}
\forall x_0 \in {\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)), \lim_{k \to \infty} L(\phi(x_0,k)) = 0. \label{eq:reductio}
\end{equation}
From the above equation, we can derive that
\begin{equation}
\forall x_0 \in {\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)), \lim_{k \to \infty} \phi(x_0,k) = 0, \label{eq:absurdum}
\end{equation}
The process of \eqref{eq:reductio} to \eqref{eq:absurdum} is omitted. This can be proven by reductio ad absurdum (details see
the proof of Theorem 13.2 in \cite{Haddad:2008}).
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{pf}
With the Theorem~\ref{Theo:WNI}, once the RNIS-SC $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$ is obtained, any controller satisfies~\eqref{eq:proposi_suff} can stabilize the plant set~\eqref{eq:plant_set}. However, due to nonlinearities of $\hat{f}$ and $\delta$, it is hard to find the analytic solution of $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$. In Section 4, we propose a numerical method to obtain an approximate solution of $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$. It is obvious that RNIS-SC $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$ is an invariant subset of RNS-SC $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)$. In the next subsection, a theoretical result about how to find an invariant subset of RNS-SC is given, which is the theoretical cornerstone of the numerical method proposed in Section 4.
\subsection{Finding RNIS-SC by predecessor operator}
Because RNIS-SC $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$ is an invariant subset of RNS-SC $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)$, we first give the theoretical result about finding an invariant subset of any interested region in the state-control space. Predecessor set (or one-step backward set) of a given set is the center of computing invariant sets and is well studied in~\cite{Rakovic:2006,Bertsekas:1972,Blanchini:1999}. While the predecessor set in existing literature is defined in the state space, we define the predecessor set in the state-control space as follows.
\begin{equation}
{\rm{Pre}}(\mathbb{W}) = \left\{ {w \in \mathbb{R}{^{n + m}}\left| {{\mathbb{X}_ + }(w) \subset {\rm{proj}}(\mathbb{W})} \right.} \right\} \label{eq:defn:Predecessor}
\end{equation}
With predecessor set ${\rm{Pre}}(\mathbb{W})$ for $\mathbb{W}\subset \mathbb{R}{^{n + m}}$ , we define a new mapping between subsets of the state-control space as follows.
\begin{mydefn}
\label{def:map}
For $\mathbb{W} \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+m}$, mapping $\mathcal{I}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{I}(\mathbb{W}) ={\rm{Pre}}(\mathbb{W})\cap\mathbb{W} = \Big\{w \in \mathbb{W}\Big|\mathbb{X}_+(w) \subset \mathrm{proj}(\mathbb{W})\Big\}, \label{eq:defn:I}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{X}_+$ is shown in~\eqref{eq:nextset_x}, $\mathrm{proj}(\mathbb{W})\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ represents the orthogonal projection of $\mathbb{W}\subset \mathbb{R}^{n+m}$ along the control space to the state space.
\end{mydefn}
\begin{myrem}
Mapping $\mathcal{I}$ is similar to the mapping $\mathcal{C}$ defined in (11) of \cite{Bertsekas:1972}.
From \eqref{eq:defn:I}, it is obvious that the fundamental principles of mappings $\mathcal{I}$ and $\mathcal{C}$ are similar. The difference is that $\mathcal{I}$ maps subsets of the state-control space into subsets of the state-control space, while $\mathcal{C}$ maps subsets of the state space into subsets of the state-control space.
\end{myrem}
The composition of mapping $\mathcal{I}$ with itself $i$ times is denoted by $\mathcal{I}^i$. Mapping $\mathcal{I}$ has the following property.
\begin{mylem} \label{lem:I_infty}
For any compact set $\mathbb{W} \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+m}$, set limit $\mathcal{I}^{\infty}(\mathbb{W}) := \lim_{i \to \infty} \mathcal{I}^{i}(\mathbb{W}) := \bigcap_{i = 1}^{\infty} \mathcal{I}^i(\mathbb{W})$ exists and is invariant for plant set~\eqref{eq:plant_set}.
\end{mylem}
\begin{pf}
From the definition of mapping $\mathcal{I}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{I}^{i+1}(\mathbb{W}) = \Big\{w \in \mathcal{I}^{i}(\mathbb{W})\Big|f(w) \in \mathrm{proj}(\mathcal{I}^{i}(\mathbb{W}))\Big\} \label{eq:prop:I_infty:pf:I_i}
\end{eqnarray}
According to \eqref{eq:prop:I_infty:pf:I_i}, it is obvious that $\{\mathcal{I}^i (\mathbb{W})\}$ is a monotonically decreasing sequence of sets in the sense that $\mathcal{I}^{i+1} (\mathbb{W}) \subset \mathcal{I}^i (\mathbb{W})$ for all $i \geq 1$. Moreover, $\mathcal{I}^i (\mathbb{W})$ is a closed set for all $i \geq 1$. Hence, the set limit of $\mathcal{I}^i (\mathbb{W})$ exists (see \cite{Rockafellar:2009}, pp. 111).
$\mathbb{W}$ is compact set (which is equivalent to bouneded and closed in metric space \cite{Kreyszig:1978} (p.77, Lemma 2.5-2)). Let $\mathbb{U}$ represents the orthogonal projection of $\mathbb{W}\subset \mathbb{R}^{n+m}$ along the state space to the control space, ${\rm proj}(\mathbb{W})$ and $\mathbb{U}$ are both bounded and $\forall f\in\mathfrak{F}$, $f$ is continuous over $\mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}^m$, which indicates that $\mathcal{I}(\mathbb{W})$ is bounded. Now we show that $\mathcal{I}(\mathbb{W})$ is closed. Let ${w_i}={(x_i,u_i)}$ be a convergent sequence in $\mathcal{I}(\mathbb{W})$. Since ${\rm proj}(\mathbb{W})$ and $\mathbb{U}$ are compact, it follows that $\bar x = {\lim _{i \to \infty }}{x_i} \in \mathbb{X}$ and $\bar u = {\lim _{i \to \infty }}{u_i} \in \mathbb{U}$. Let $y_i =f(x_i,u_i)$. Then, $y_i \in \mathrm{proj}(\mathcal{I(\mathbb{W})})$. Using the continuity of $f$, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{i \to \infty } {y_i} & = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{i \to \infty } f({x_i},{u_i}) = f(\mathop {\lim }\limits_{i \to \infty } {x_i},\mathop {\lim }\limits_{i \to \infty } {u_i}) \\
& = f(\bar x,\bar u) \in {\rm{proj(}}{\mathcal{I}}{\rm{(}}\mathbb{W}{\rm{))}},\forall f\in\mathfrak{F}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Hence, $(\bar x,\bar u) \in{\mathcal{I}}{\rm{(}}\mathbb{W}{\rm{)}}$, which indicates that ${\mathcal{I}}{\rm{(}}\mathbb{W}{\rm{)}}$ is closed. Therefore, ${\mathcal{I}}{\rm{(}}\mathbb{W}{\rm{)}}$ is compact.
Further more, ${\mathcal{I}^\infty}{\rm{(}}\mathbb{W}{\rm{)}}$ is compact.
To prove that ${\mathcal{I}^\infty}{\rm{(}}\mathbb{W}{\rm{)}}$ is invariant (Definition~\ref{def:invariant}), we need to show that
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\forall w \in {{\mathcal I}^\infty }(\mathbb{W}) = \bigcap\limits_{i = 0}^\infty {{{\mathcal I}^{i + 1}}(\mathbb{W})} ,\\
f(w) \in {\rm{proj(}}{{\mathcal I}^\infty }(\mathbb{W}){\rm{) = proj(}}\bigcap\limits_{i = 0}^\infty {{{\mathcal I}^{i + 1}}(\mathbb{W})} {\rm{)}},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
by Definintion~\ref{def:map}, we have for all $i\geq 1$
\begin{equation}
\forall w \in {{\mathcal I}^{i + 1}}(\mathbb{W}),f(w,\delta ) \in {\rm{proj(}}{{\mathcal I}^i}(\mathbb{W} ){\rm{)}}\,
\end{equation}
which implies
\begin{equation}
\forall w \in \bigcap\limits_{i = 0}^\infty {{{\mathcal I}^{i + 1}}(\mathbb{W})} ,f(w,\delta ) \in \bigcap\limits_{i = 0}^\infty {{\rm{proj(}}{{\mathcal I}^i}(\mathbb{W}){\rm{)}}}.
\end{equation}
We then aim to show that
\begin{equation}
\bigcap\limits_{i = 0}^\infty {{\rm{proj(}}{{\mathcal I}^i}(\mathbb{W}){\rm{)}}} = {\rm{proj(}}\bigcap\limits_{i = 0}^\infty {{{\mathcal I}^i}(\mathbb{W})} {\rm{)}}.
\end{equation}
Since ${\rm{proj(}}\bigcap\nolimits_{i = 0}^\infty {{{\mathcal I}^i}(\mathbb{W})} {\rm{)}} \subset {\rm{proj(}}{{\mathcal I}^i}(\mathbb{W}){\rm{)}}$ for all $i\geq 0 $, we have in general that \[{\rm{proj(}}\bigcap\nolimits_{i = 0}^\infty {{{\mathcal I}^i}(\mathbb{W})} {\rm{)}} \subset \bigcap\nolimits_{i = 0}^\infty {{\rm{proj(}}{{\mathcal I}^i}(\mathbb{W}){\rm{)}}} \] and hence it is sufficient to prove the reverse inclusion.
if $x \in \bigcap\nolimits_{i = 0}^\infty {{\rm{proj}}} ({{\mathcal I}^i}(\mathbb{W}))$, then there exists a sequence \[\mathfrak{U}_i=\{u\in\mathbb{R}^m|\exists x \in {{\rm{proj}}} ({{\mathcal I}^i}(\mathbb{W})), (x,u)\in\mathcal{I}^i(\mathbb{W})\}\] such that $(x,u_j)=w_j\in \mathcal{I}^i(\mathbb{W}), u_j\in\mathfrak{U}_i$. Since $\mathcal{I}(\mathbb{W})$ and the control space $\mathbb{U}$ are compact, by compact definition in \cite{Kreyszig:1978} (pp.77, 2.5-1), we can find a convergent subsequence $\mathfrak{U}_\infty\subset\mathfrak{U}_i$ and the subsequence $\mathfrak{U}_\infty$ has at least one limit point $\bar u ={\rm{lim}}_{j\rightarrow\infty}u_j$, $\bar u\in\mathfrak{U}_\infty$ such that $(x,\bar u)\in \mathcal{I}^\infty(\mathbb{W})=\bigcap\nolimits_{i = 0}^\infty ({{\mathcal I}^i}(\mathbb{W}))$, i.e., $x \in {{\rm{proj}}}( \bigcap\nolimits_{i = 0}^\infty ({{\mathcal I}^i}(\mathbb{W})))$. Therefore,\[\bigcap\nolimits_{i = 0}^\infty {{\rm{proj(}}{{\mathcal I}^i}(\mathbb{W}){\rm{)}}} \subset {\rm{proj(}}\bigcap\nolimits_{i = 0}^\infty {{{\mathcal I}^i}(\mathbb{W})} {\rm{)}} ,\] which is what was to be shown.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{pf}
\begin{myrem}
To our knowledge, the results similar to Lemma~\ref{lem:I_infty} has been discussed for a half-century, started from the conclusion of the Problem 8 in~\cite{Dugundji:1968}. For infinite-time reachability analysis, a brief proof in state-space is given in Proposition 4 of~\cite{Bertsekas:1972}. The more detailed proof is shown in the Theorem 5.2 of \cite{Franco:2008}(pp. 154). For switched systems, the similar proof is presented in the Theorem 1 of~\cite{Liy:2018}. The result in~\cite{Liy:2018} only requires closedness because the $\mathbb{U}$ of switched systems is finite. Our proof is proposed in a new point of view deals with the subject in state-control space for the purpose of controller design.
\end{myrem}
According to the Lemma~\ref{lem:I_infty}, for a given compact set $\mathbb{W} \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+m}$, $\mathcal{I}^{\infty}(\mathbb{W})$ exists and is the invariant set. However, the negative-definite set $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)$ defined in Definition~\ref{def:negative definite} is unbounded and open, namely $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)$ is not compact. In order to guarantee the boundedness of $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)$, we introduce the following assumption.
\begin{assum} \label{assum:cons_set}
The state and control input satisfy a set of mixed constrains
\begin{equation*}
(x;u) \in \mathbb{W}_\mathrm{cons} \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+m},
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbb{W}_\mathrm{cons}$ is a compact set.
\end{assum}
It is without loss of generality to introduce Assumption~\ref{assum:cons_set}, because these constrains typically arise due to physical limitations or safety considerations in practice. Under Assumption~\ref{assum:cons_set}, it follows that $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L) \subset \mathbb{W}_\mathrm{cons}$, therefore $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)$ is bounded. The openness of $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)$ is due to that its boundary $\{(x;u)|L(f(x,u)) - L(x) = 0\}$ is not its subset, therefore we modify \eqref{def:w_nl} as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)= & \{(x,u) \in \mathbb{R}^{n+m}|\forall x_+ \in\mathbb{X}_+(x,u),\nonumber\\
& L(x_+)-L(x)\le-\alpha \}, \label{def:w_nl<alpha}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}_+$ is a very small positive constant. Then, it is obvious that, under Assumption~\ref{assum:cons_set}, $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)$ defined in \eqref{def:w_nl<alpha} is bounded and closed. Hence, $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)$ defined in \eqref{def:w_nl<alpha} is compact. With the compact set $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)$, we give the following theorem.
\begin{mytheo}\label{Theo:WNI_Map}
The $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ of the state-control space defined in Theorem~\ref{Theo:WNI} satisfies
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L) = \mathcal{I}^\infty(\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)). \label{eq:W_N&I}
\end{equation}
\end{mytheo}
\begin{pf}
Following Lemma~\ref{lem:I_infty}, we have that the set limit $\mathcal{I}^\infty(\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)) = \lim_{i \to \infty} \mathcal{I}^{i}(\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L))$ exists and is invariant for plant~\eqref{eq:plant_set}, which means \eqref{eq:ri} is satisfied.
From the definition of the mapping $\mathcal{I}$, we know that
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{I}^\infty(\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L))\subseteq \cdots \subseteq \mathcal{I}^2(\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)) \subseteq \mathcal{I}(\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)) \subseteq \mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L).
\end{equation*}
The above relations mean that $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ is a subset of $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)$. Hence, $\mathcal{I}^{\infty}(\mathbb{W})$ is negative-definite for plant set \eqref{eq:plant_set}, which means \eqref{eq:rnd} is satified. Therefore, we have $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L) = \mathcal{I}^\infty(\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L))$.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{pf}
Due to the difficulty to obtain the RNIS-SC by its definition, Lemma~\ref{lem:I_infty} and Theorem~\ref{Theo:WNI_Map} are derived to obtain $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$ by mapping $\mathcal{I}$. According to the Theorem~\ref{Theo:WNI}, if RNIS-SC is known, the robust controller $\mu$ and the estimate of the closed-loop RDOA ${\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L))$ can be obtained. Then, an interval analysis approach is used to estimate the RNIS-SC, which is introduced in the next subsection.
\section{Robust Negative-definite and Invariant set Estimation Via Interval Analysis}
In this section, a numerical method estimating the RNIS-SC is proposed. Firstly, an interval analysis approach to estimate a specific set (namely, the SEVIA algorithm), is briefly introduced. Then, an algorithm, estimating the RNIS-SC $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ for the given Lyapunov function $L$ based on the SEVIA algorithm, is proposed. Thirdly, the convergence of the proposed algorithm is proved under the convergent inclusion function.
\subsection{Set estimation via interval analysis}
Interval analysis is a kind of guaranteed numerical method for approximating sets. Guaranteed means here that approximations of sets of interest are obtained, which can be made as precise as desired \cite{Jaulin:2001}. The basic idea is very simple: use adjacent but disjoint hyperrectangles (rectangles in two-dimensional space, cuboids in three-dimensional space, and hyperrectangles in high-dimensional space) to cover the domain of interest, so as to obtain an approximation of the collection.
The fundamental of interval analysis is the concept of interval vectors and inclusion functions. We briefly introduce these concepts (more details see \cite{Jaulin:2001}).An interval is denoted by
\begin{equation}
{[z_{i}]} = [\underline{z_{i}},\bar z_{i}].\nonumber
\end{equation}
It is a set of real numbers within bounds such that $\underline{z_{i}}\le z_{i}\le \bar {z_{i}}$, where $\underline{z_{i}}$ represents the lower bound ${\rm inf}([z_{i}])$ and the $\bar{z_{i}}$ the upper bound ${\rm sup}([z_{i}])$ of the interval. An interval vector $[z]$ is a subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n_1}$, which is defined as $[z] = [z_{(1)}] \times [z_{(2)}] \times \cdots \times [z_{(n_1)}]$, where the $j$-th interval $[z_{(j)}] = [\underline{z}_{(j)},\bar{z}_{(j)}], j = 1,2,\cdots,n_1$, is a connected subset of $\mathbb{R}$, $\underline{z}_{(j)}$ and $\bar{z}_{(j)}$ are the lower and the upper bound of the interval $[z_{(j)}]$. $[z] \in \mathbb{IR}^{n_1}$ is also called a box, where $\mathbb{IR}^{n_1}$ denotes the set of all $n_1$-dimensional boxes. Considering function $p: \mathbb{R}^{n_1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n_2}$, the interval function $[p]: \mathbb{IR}^{n_1} \to \mathbb{IR}^{n_2}$ is an inclusion function for $p$ if $\forall [z] \in \mathbb{IR}^{n_1}, p([z]) \subset [p]([z])$. An inclusion function $[p]$ is convergent if $\forall [z] \in \mathbb{IR}^{n_1}, \lim_{d([z]) \to 0}d([p]([z])) = 0$, where $d([z]) = \max_{1 \leq j \leq n_1} (\bar{z}_{(j)} - \underline{z}_{(j)})$ denotes the width of box $[z]$. The convergent inclusion function can guarantee the convergence of the set estimation algorithm. Note that for a given function, its convergent inclusion function is not unique, \textit{e.g.}, natural form, centered form and Taylor form.
Suppose the estimated set $\mathbb{W}\subset \mathbb{W}_\mathrm{cons}$ is defined as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{W}=\left\{w\in \mathbb{W}_\mathrm{cons}|w {\quad \rm satisfies\quad CONDITIONS} \right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
The idea of estimating set $\mathbb{W}\subset \mathbb{W}_\mathrm{cons}$ by the SEVIA algorithm is that: first, the CONDITIONS are transformed into the expression of interval inclusion function, so that the given hyper-rectangle $[w] \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+m}$ can be verified whether it entirely in or out $\mathbb{W}$; then, starting from an initial set $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\rm init}$ of hyper-rectangles, the SEVIA algorithm performs a recursive exploration, in which four cases may be encountered for the given $[w]$:
\begin{itemize}
\item Inner test: if $[w]$ is entirely in $\mathbb{W}$, then $[w]$ is stored in hyperrectangles set $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{in}}$, as shown in Line 7-8 in Algorithm~\ref{alg:Sevia}.
\item Outer test: if $[w]$ has an empty intersection with $\mathbb{W}$, then $[z]$ is stored in set $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{out}}$, as shown in Line 9-10 in Algorithm~\ref{alg:Sevia}. The set collects boxes outside $\mathbb{W}$.
\item If $[w]$ do not satisfy inner test nor outer test, it means $[w]$ contains the boundary of $\mathbb{W}$; $[w]$ is said to be indeterminate. If the width of $[w]$ is lower than a prespecified parameter $\epsilon > 0$, then it is deemed small enough to be stored in set $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{bou}}$ collecting boxes containing the boundary of $\mathbb{W}$, as shown in Line 11-12 in Algorithm~\ref{alg:Sevia}.
\item If $[w]$ is indeterminate and its width is greater than $\epsilon$, then $[w]$ should be bisected and the two newly generated boxes are stored in set $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_\mathrm{do}$ collecting boxes needing further exploration, as shown in Line 13-15 in Algorithm~\ref{alg:Sevia}.
\end{itemize}
The exploration should be recursively implemented until set $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_\mathrm{do}$ is empty.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Set Estimation Via Interval Analysis} \label{alg:Sevia}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Procedure{SEVIA}{Inner test, Outer test, $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{init}}, \epsilon$}
\State $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{in}} := \emptyset, \hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{out}} := \emptyset, \hat{\mathbb{W}}_\mathrm{bou} := \emptyset$
\State $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{do}} := \hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{init}}$
\While {$\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{do}} \neq \emptyset$}
\State Get a box $[w]$ from $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{do}}$
\State Remove $[w]$ from $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{do}}$
\If {$[w]$ satisfies Inner test}
\State Add $[w]$ to set $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{in}}$
\ElsIf {$[w]$} satisfies Outer test
\State Add $[w]$ to set $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{out}}$
\ElsIf {$d([w]) < \epsilon$}
\State Add $[w]$ to set $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{bou}}$
\Else
\State Bisect box $[w]$
\State Add the two new boxes to set $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{do}}$
\EndIf
\EndWhile
\State \textbf{return} $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{in}}$ as the estimate of $\mathbb{W}
\EndProcedure
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Robust negative-definite and invariant set estimation via interval analysis }
In this subsection, the RNISEVIA (Robust negative-definite and invariant set estimation via interval analysis) algorithm is proposed to estimate the robust negative-definite and invariant set $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ for the given Lyapunov function $L$ based on the SEVIA algorithm.
The inclusion function of the function defined from Euclidean space to Euclidean space is well defined and researched \cite{Jaulin:2001}. However, the definition of the inclusion function of $\mathbb{X}_+:\mathbb{R}^{n+m}\to\mathbb{IR}^n$ defined in \eqref{eq:nextset_x} does not exist in literatures. According to the definition of $\mathbb{X}_+(w)$ in~\eqref{eq:nextset_x}, we define the interval function $[\mathbb{X}_+]:\mathbb{IR}^{n+m}\to\mathbb{IR}^n$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])=[\underline{f}]([w])\sqcup [\bar{f}]([w]), \label{defn:[X]_+}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\underline{f}:\mathbb{R}^{n+m} \to \mathbb{R}^n$ is defined as $\underline{f}(w)=\hat{f}(w)-\delta(w)$ and $\bar{f}:\mathbb{R}^{n+m} \to \mathbb{R}^n$ is defined as $\bar{f}(w)=\hat{f}(w)+\delta(w)$. Actually, the interval function $[\mathbb{X}_+]$ is the inclusion function of $\mathbb{X}_+$ as shown in the following lemma.
\begin{mylem}\label{Lem:[X]}
Interval function $[\mathbb{X}_+]:\mathbb{IR}^{n+m}\rightarrow\mathbb{IR}^n$ defined in \eqref{defn:[X]_+} is the inclusion function of $\mathbb{X}_+:\mathbb{R}^{n+m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ defined in \eqref{eq:nextset_x}, namely, $\forall [w]\in\mathbb{IR}^{n+m},\mathbb{X}_+([w])\subset[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])$.
\end{mylem}
\begin{pf}
According to the~\eqref{eq:nextset_x}, we know that $\mathbb{X}_+(w)=[\underline{f}(w),\bar{f}(w)]$, hence we have
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{X}_+([w])=[{\rm inf}(\underline{f}([w])),{\rm sup}(\bar f([w]))]. \nonumber \label{eq:def_X_[w]}
\end{equation}
According to the properties of inclusion function, we know that
\begin{eqnarray}
\forall [w]\in\mathbb{IR}^{n+m},\underline{f}([w])\subset[\underline{f}]([w]),\nonumber\\\forall [w]\in\mathbb{IR}^{n+m},\bar{f}([w])\subset\bar{[f]}([w]).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray}
&\forall [w]\in\mathbb{IR}^{n+m}, {\rm inf}(\underline{f}([w]))\in[\underline{f}]([w])\nonumber,\\&\forall [w]\in\mathbb{IR}^{n+m},{\rm sup}(\bar{f}([w]))\in\bar{[f]}([w]).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which means
\begin{eqnarray}
[{\rm inf}(\underline{f}([w])),{\rm sup}(\bar f([w]))]\subset[\underline{f}]([w])\sqcup [\bar{f}]([w]). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, we have $\forall [w]\in\mathbb{IR}^{n+m},\mathbb{X}_+([w])\subset[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])$. \hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{pf}
Once the inclusion function $[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])$ of $\mathbb{X}_+(w)$ is given, the Inner test and Outer test in SEVIA can be obtained. For a given Lyapunov function $L$, the RNS-SC $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L) \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ can be approximated using SEVIA algorithm, as shown in Line 2-3 of Algorithm \ref{alg:est_W_{NI}_(L)}. By~\eqref{def:w_nl<alpha}, if $w=(x,u)\in\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)$, $w$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
L(\mathbb{X}_+(w))-L(x)\subset(-\infty,-\alpha],
\end{eqnarray}
where $L(\mathbb{X}_+(w))$ denotes the range of the function $L$ whose set is defined by $\mathbb{X}_+(w)$. Hence, if $[w]=[x]\times[u]\subset\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)$, then $[w]$ must satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
L(\mathbb{X}_+([w]))-L([x])\subset(-\infty,-\alpha]. \label{eq:L(X_+)-L(x)}
\end{eqnarray}
Depending on the properties of the interval operation and the inclusion function, we can get
\begin{eqnarray}
L(\mathbb{X}_+([w]))-L([x])\subset[L]([\mathbb{X}_+]([w]))-[L]([x]). \label{eq:[L]_subset}
\end{eqnarray}
By~\eqref{eq:[L]_subset}, if
\begin{eqnarray}
[L]([\mathbb{X}_+]([w]))-[L]([x])\subset(-\infty,-\alpha], \label{eq:[L]<0}
\end{eqnarray}
then~\eqref{eq:L(X_+)-L(x)} must be satisfied so that $[w]\subset\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)$. Similarly, if
\begin{eqnarray}
[L]([\mathbb{X}_+]([w]))-[L]([x])\cap(-\infty,-\alpha]=\emptyset, \label{eq:[L]cap0}
\end{eqnarray}
then $L(\mathbb{X}_+([w]))-L([x])$ must be outside $(-\infty,-\alpha]$ so that $[w]$ is outside $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)$. With the internal validation expressions~\eqref{eq:[L]<0} and external validation expressions~\eqref{eq:[L]cap0}, the estimated $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\rm N}(L)$ of RNS-SC $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)$ can be derived from the following formula:
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\rm N}(L):={\rm SEVIA}(\eqref{eq:[L]<0},\eqref{eq:[L]cap0},\{[w_{\rm init}]\},\epsilon), \label{eq:sevia_W_n}
\end{eqnarray}
where $[w_{\rm init}]\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+m}$ is a hyperrectangle large enough in the state-control space.
With the initial set $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_\mathrm{N}(L)$, recursively using SEVIA algorithm to approximate mapping $\mathcal{I}$, an inner approximation $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ of the negative-definite and invariant set $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ defined in \eqref{eq:ri} can be obtained, as shown in Line 4-10 of Algorithm \ref{alg:est_W_{NI}_(L)}. For any hyperrectangular set $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_\mathrm{N}(L)\subset \mathbb{R}^{n+m}$, we know from \eqref{eq:defn:I} that if $[w]\subset\mathcal{I(\hat{\mathbb{W}})}_1$, $[w]\subset\hat{\mathbb{W}}_1$ needs to satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{X}_+([w])\subset{\rm proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_1). \label{eq:x_+subproj}
\end{eqnarray}
Due to the difficulty of solving the function range, the verification of the above formula is hard to achieve. Therefore, the interval inclusion function is used instead of the solution of the function range. Based on $\mathbb{X}_+([w])\subset[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])$, we know that if
\begin{eqnarray}
[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])\subset{\rm proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_1), \label{eq:[x]_+subproj}
\end{eqnarray}
then \eqref{eq:x_+subproj} must be satisfied, therefore $[w]\subset\mathcal{I}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_1)$. Similarly, if
\begin{eqnarray}
[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])\cap{\rm proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_1)=\emptyset, \label{eq:[x]_capproj}
\end{eqnarray}
then $[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])$ must be outside ${\rm proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_1)$, therefore $[w]$ is outside $\mathcal{I}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_1)$. With internal validation expressions~\eqref{eq:[x]_+subproj} and external validation expressions~\eqref{eq:[x]_capproj}, the estimated $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_2$ of $\mathcal{I}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_1)$ can be derived from the following formula:
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\mathbb{W}}_2:={\rm SEVIA}(\eqref{eq:[x]_+subproj},\eqref{eq:[x]_capproj},\hat{\mathbb{W}}_1,\epsilon)
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Robust Negative-definite and Invariant Set Estimation Via Interval Analysis \label{alg:est_W_{NI}_(L)}}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Procedure{RNISEVIA}{$\mathfrak{F}, L, [w_{\mathrm{init}}], \epsilon$}
\State Using $\mathfrak{F}$ and $L$ to get the internal validation expressions~\eqref{eq:[L]<0} and external validation expressions~\eqref{eq:[L]cap0}.
\State $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\rm N}(L):={\rm SEVIA}(\eqref{eq:[L]<0},\eqref{eq:[L]cap0},\{[w_{\rm init}]\},\epsilon)$
\State Using $\mathfrak{F}$ and $L$ to get the internal validation expressions~\eqref{eq:[x]_+subproj} and external validation expressions~\eqref{eq:[x]_capproj}.
\State $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_1 := \emptyset$
\State $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_2 := \hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\rm N}(L)$
\While{$\hat{\mathbb{W}}_1 \neq \hat{\mathbb{W}}_2$}
\State $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_1 := \hat{\mathbb{W}}_2$
\State $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_2 := {\rm SEVIA}(\eqref{eq:[x]_+subproj},\eqref{eq:[x]_capproj},\hat{\mathbb{W}}_1,\epsilon)$
\EndWhile
\State $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L) := \hat{\mathbb{W}}_1$
\State \textbf{return} $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ as the internal approximation of $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$
\EndProcedure
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Convergence of RNISEVIA algorithm}
RNIDEVIA is a finite algorithm, which terminates in less than $(d([w_{init}])/\epsilon)^2\times(d([w_{init}])/\epsilon+1)$ times. Let us prove the most important properties of RNIDEVIA: the convergence of the output result $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$.
According to the~\eqref{defn:[X]_+}, $[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])$ is the interval union of two inclusion functions in Euclidean space. Three forms (natural, center and Taylor) of inclusion function are convergent~\cite{Jaulin:2001} (pp. 27-38). For the interval union $[g]\sqcup[h]$ of two inclusion fuctions $[g]$ and $[h]$, this propertiy can be extended as follows:
\begin{mydefn} \label{Defn:convergent}
An inclusion function $[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])=[\underline{f}]([w])\sqcup [\bar{f}]([w]):\mathbb{IR}^{n+m}\rightarrow\mathbb{IR}^n$ for $[\underline{f}]([w]):\mathbb{IR}^{n+m}\rightarrow\mathbb{IR}^n$ and $[\bar{f}]([w]):\mathbb{IR}^{n+m}\rightarrow\mathbb{IR}^n$ is convergent if, for any sequence of boxes $[w](j)$,
\begin{equation}
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{j \to \infty } d([w](j)) = 0 \Rightarrow \mathop {\lim }\limits_{j \to \infty } d([\mathbb{X}_+](j)) = D, \label{eq:convergent}
\end{equation}
where $d([w])$ is the width of $[w]$, $D={\rm sup}(\bar f([w]))-{\rm inf}(\underline{f}([w]))$.
\end{mydefn}
\begin{mylem} \label{Lem:[X]convergence}
If the inclusion functions $[\underline{f}]([w]), [\bar f]([w])$ are in natural, center or Taylor form, the inclusion function $[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])$ satisfies~\eqref{defn:[X]_+} is convergent.
\end{mylem}
\begin{pf}
We have $[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])=[\underline{f}]([w])\sqcup [\bar{f}]([w])$, hence, for any sequence of boxes $[w](j)$
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{j \to \infty } d([w](j)) = 0 \Rightarrow \mathop {\lim }\limits_{j \to \infty } d([\mathbb{X}_+]([w](j)))\nonumber
\\ = sup([\bar f]([w](j)))-inf([\underline{f}]([w](j))), \label{Pf:[X]}
\end{eqnarray}
where $d([x])$ is the width of $[x]$. Since the inclusion functions $[\underline{f}]([w]), [\bar f]([w])$ are in natural, center or Taylor form, then $[\underline{f}], [\bar f]$ are convergent which indicate that,
\begin{eqnarray}
&\mathop {\lim }\limits_{j \to \infty } d([w](j)) = 0 \Rightarrow \mathop {\lim }\limits_{j \to \infty } d([\underline{f}]([w(j)])) = 0,\nonumber
\\&\mathop {\lim }\limits_{j \to \infty } d([w](j)) = 0 \Rightarrow \mathop {\lim }\limits_{j \to \infty } d([\bar f]([w](j))) = 0.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray}
&\mathop {\lim }\limits_{j \to \infty } d([w](j)) = 0 \Rightarrow \mathop {\lim }\limits_{j \to \infty } [\underline{f}]([w](j)) = \underline{f}(w) ,\nonumber
\\&\mathop {\lim }\limits_{j \to \infty } d([w](j)) = 0 \Rightarrow \mathop {\lim }\limits_{j \to \infty } [\bar{f}]([w](j)) = \bar{f}(w).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Let $D={\rm sup}(\bar f([w]))-{\rm inf}(\underline{f}([w]))$, then~\eqref{Pf:[X]} can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{j \to \infty } d([w](j)) = 0 \Rightarrow \mathop {\lim }\limits_{j \to \infty } d([\mathbb{X}_+]([w](j))) = D,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which is what was to be shown.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{pf}
\begin{mydefn}(Definition 13 in \cite{Jaulin:1993})
The compact $\mathbb{A}$ is full if ${\rm clo(int(\mathbb{A}))}=\mathbb{A}$, where ${\rm clo(\mathbb{A})}$ is closure of $\mathbb{A}$ and ${\rm int(\mathbb{A})}$ is interior of the set $\mathbb{A}$.
\end{mydefn}
\begin{mytheo} \label{Theo:inclusionfunction}
If $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$ is full, then the set $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ evaluated by RNIDEVIA ($\mathfrak{F}, L, [w_{\mathrm{init}}], \epsilon$) satisfies the following property:
\begin{equation}
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{\epsilon \to 0} \hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)=\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L). \nonumber
\end{equation}
\end{mytheo}
\begin{pf}
First we show that the $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\rm N}(L)$ obtained at Line 3 converges to $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)$ when $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$. There are two funcitons in SEVIA of~\eqref{eq:sevia_W_n}: $[L]$ and $[\mathbb{X}_+]$. The convergence of $[\mathbb{X}_+]([w]):\mathbb{IR}^{n+m}\rightarrow\mathbb{IR}^n$ is proved in Lemma~\ref{Lem:[X]convergence} such that $
\mathbb{X}_+([w])\subset[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])$ and $ \lim_{d([w]) \to 0}[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])=\mathbb{X}_+([w])$. For a Lyapunov function $L$ in Euclidean space, its interval inclusion function $[L]:\mathbb{IR}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{IR}$ satisfies that $[L](\mathbb{X}_+([w]))\subset [L]([\mathbb{X}_+]([w]))$ and $ \lim_{[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])\to\mathbb{X}_+([w])}[L]([\mathbb{X}_+]([w]))= [L](\mathbb{X}_+([w]))$. Therefore, we can get that
$\lim_{d([w]) \to 0}$ $ [L]([\mathbb{X}_+]([w]))= L(\mathbb{X}_+([w])),\lim_{d([w]) \to 0}$ $ [L]([x])=L([x])$.
Once the SEVIA algorithm at Line 3 is finished, if $[w]\in\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\rm bou}$, then $d([w])<\epsilon$. When $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, we have $d([w])\rightarrow 0$. The inner test~\eqref{eq:[L]<0} and outer test~\eqref{eq:[L]cap0} can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
L(\mathbb{X}_+([w]))-L([x])\subset(-\infty,-\alpha], \label{eq:inner} \\
L(\mathbb{X}_+([w]))-L([x])\cap(-\infty,-\alpha]=\emptyset. \label{eq:outer}
\end{eqnarray}
Since the $[w]\in\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\rm bou}$ is not satisfied with \eqref{eq:inner} or \eqref{eq:outer}, when $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, then $L(\mathbb{X}_+([w]))-L([x])=0$.
Consequently,
\begin{eqnarray}
\forall[w]\in\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\rm bou},& \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}h_\infty([w],\partial\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L))= 0 \nonumber\\\Rightarrow
&\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}h_\infty(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{bou}},\partial\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L))= 0 ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\partial\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)$ denotes the boundary of the compact set $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L))$, $h_\infty(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{bou}},\partial\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L))$ represents the Hausdorff distance (\textit{e.g.}, Definition 10 in~\cite{Jaulin:1993}) between $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{bou}}$ and $\partial\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L))$. The Hausdorff distance based on the infinity norm is metric for the set of compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^{n+m}$. It is trival that $\partial\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)\subset\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{bou}}$. If $\epsilon = 0$ then $h_\infty(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{bou}},\partial\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L))=0$ thus $h_\infty(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{bou}}=\partial\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L))$, which gives $\lim_{\epsilon \to 0}\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{bou}}=\partial\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L))$.
Now that the boundary $\partial\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)$ has been determined, the rest of the boxes are either outside~\eqref{eq:inner} or inside~\eqref{eq:outer}. Note that the $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$ is full and $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)\subset\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}$. Hence the $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}$ is also full which indicates that there exists finite boxes $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{in}}$ satisfies \eqref{eq:inner}. Since $\lim_{\epsilon \to 0}\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{bou}}=\partial\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)$, the rest boxes are either inner or outer. We can finally get $\lim_{\epsilon \to 0}\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\rm N}(L) := \hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{in}}=\mathbb{W}_{\rm N}(L)$. Hence, with convergent inclusion function $[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])$, SEVIA can ganrantee the convergence of the output when $\epsilon\rightarrow0$.
Similarly, no matter how many times the SEVIA algorithm executed in the loop in Line 7-10 of Algorithm~\ref{alg:est_W_{NI}_(L)}, since the inclusion function $[\mathbb{X}_+]([w])$ in~\eqref{eq:[x]_capproj} is convergent, each SEVIA satisfies
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}h_\infty(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{bou}},\partial \mathbb{W}) = 0, \nonumber
\end{equation}
which indicates that $h_\infty(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_2, \mathbb{W}_2)$ tends to zero when $\epsilon = 0$. Hence, the final output $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L) := \hat{\mathbb{W}}_1= \hat{\mathbb{W}}_2$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\ h_\infty(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L),\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L))= 0.\nonumber
\end{equation}
As an inner approximation of full compact $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$, we have $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)\subset\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$. If $\epsilon = 0$ then $h_\infty (\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L),$ $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)) =0$ thus $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)=\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$. Consequently, $\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)=\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{pf}
Depending to the Theorem~\ref{Theo:inclusionfunction}, the inner approximate $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ converges to set $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$ when $\epsilon$ tends to zero. This means that RNIDEVIA can approximate RNIS-SC $\mathbb{W}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$ with an arbitrary precision similar to the cyclotomic method. In practice, note that there is of course a limit to the accuracy that can be achieved, because of the complexity of the resulting description \cite{Kieffer:2002}.
With the RNIS-SC estimate method, the RDOA for a given Lyapunov function can be obtained. Hence, the RDOA enlargement approach is introduced in the next section.
\section{Closed-loop RDOA Enlargement and Controller Design}
\subsection{Closed-loop RDOA Enlargement}
According to the Theorem~\ref{Theo:WNI}, for a given Lyapunov function $L$, RNID-SC $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ is a robust stablization controller set. The projection ${\rm proj}(\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L))$ of $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ along the state space is an estimate of RDOA. The estimate $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$ of $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ can be obtained by using Algorithm~\eqref{alg:est_W_{NI}_(L)}, then the estimate of closed-loop RDOA is ${\rm proj} (\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\rm N\&I}(L))$.
Inspired by \cite{Li:2020}, we observed that, for different Lyapunov functions, the robust negative-definite and invariant set $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\rm N\&I}(L)$ are totally different so as its projection ${\rm proj} (\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\rm N\&I}(L))$. Therefore, the motivation of this subsection is to enlarge the estimate of the closed-loop RDOA by selecting an appropriate Lyapunov function. In order to achieve this goal, a solvable optimization problem is formulated to select an appropriate Lyapunov function from a parameterized positive-definite function set, which is a subset of all sum-of-square polynomials~\cite{Powershot:1998}. The objective function of this optimization problem is the volume of the estimate of the closed-loop RDOA, which can be obtained based on the method proposed in the last subsection. The analytical expression of the volume of the estimate of the closed-loop RDOA is hard to be derived, but it is easy to evaluate for a given positive-definite function. Hence, if a positive-definite function set rather than a Lyapunov function is given, a significantly large estimate of the closed-loop RDOA may be obtained by selecting an appropriate Lyapunov function from the positive-definite function set~\cite{Topcu:2008}. Based on this idea, the following optimization problem is formulated.
\begin{equation}
\max_{L \in \mathfrak{L}_{n,2d}} \mathfrak{m}(\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L))), \label{eq:optim}
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{m}(\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)))$ denotes the Lebesgue measure of $\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L))$ (in Euclidean space, it is the volume) and $\mathfrak{L}_{n,2d}$ is a subset of all sum-of-square polynomials \cite{Ufuk:2010} in $n$ variables with degree $\leq 2d$, which is defined as
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{L}_{n,2d} = \Big\{L \in \mathfrak{R}_{n,2d} \Big| L(x) = S^T_d(x)P^TPS_d(x), x \in \mathbb{R}^n\Big\}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{R}_{n,2d}$ denotes the set of all polynomials in $n$ variables with degree $\leq 2d$, $P \in \mathbb{R}^{r \times r}$ has full rank,
\begin{equation}
S_d(x) = (x_{(1)};\cdots;x_{(n)};x_{(1)} x_{(2)};\cdots;x^d_{(n)}) \in \mathbb{R}^r, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and $r = \left(
\begin{smallmatrix}
\scriptscriptstyle n+d \\
\scriptscriptstyle d
\end{smallmatrix} \right) - 1$ represents the dimension of $P$.
Two points should be noted about the optimization problem~\eqref{eq:optim}. First, for the given Lyapunov function $L$, the volume of $\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L))$ is easy to calculate, since $\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L))$ consists of boxes. Second, the Lyapunov function $L$ is selected from a parameterized polynomial function set with the parameters $P \in \mathbb{R}^{r \times r}$.
Since $L(x) = S^T_d(x)P^TPS_d(x)$ and $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ can be obtained by Algorithm~\ref{alg:est_W_{NI}_(L)}, $P$ is our major concern. We defined function $m: \mathbb{R}^{r \times r} \to \mathbb{R}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
m(P) = \mathfrak{m}(\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L))).\label{eq:mp}
\end{eqnarray}
With the function~\eqref{eq:mp}, the optimization problem~\eqref{eq:optim} can be equivalently rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\max_{P \in \mathbb{R}^{r \times r}} m(P). \label{eq:optim_P}
\end{equation}
The analytical expression of $m(P)$ is hard to be derived, but it is easy to evaluate $m(P)$ for a given $P$. Hence, classic optimization methods, e.g., gradient descent method, cannot be used to solve the optimization problem~\eqref{eq:optim_P}. However, meta-heuristic optimization methods can be used to solve the optimization problem~\eqref{eq:optim_P}, whose advantage is that the function to be optimized is only required to be evaluable. Popular meta-heuristic optimizers for real-valued search-spaces include particle swarm optimization~\cite{Kennedy:1995}, differential evolution~\cite{Opara:2019} and evolution strategies\cite{Wang:2011}. There are lots of literatures about meta-heuristic optimizers\cite{Marler:2004}, so we omit the introduction about them in this paper.
\subsection{Controller Design}
Since $L(f(0,0)) - L(0) = 0$, the origin $0 \in \mathbb{R}^{n+m}$ is in the boundary of $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$. Hence, there is no box belonging to the inner approximation $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ nearby the origin $0 \in \mathbb{R}^{n+m}$ and there is a small neighborhood $\mathbb{X}_0$ of the origin $0 \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ that is not contained by $\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L))$. The size of the neighborhood $\mathbb{X}_0$ depends on parameter $\epsilon$ in Algorithm~\ref{alg:est_W_{NI}_(L)}. Since we suppose that the linearization of plant set \eqref{eq:plant_set} is controllable at the origin, there must exist a linear controller which is able to stabilize all state in $\mathbb{X}_0$ when the size of $\mathbb{X}_0$ is small enough. As a result, the estimate of the closed-loop DOA should be $\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)) \cup \mathbb{X}_0$ and the corresponding state feedback controller is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:controller}
\mu(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
Kx, & \mathrm{if \ } x \in \mathbb{X}_0 \\
\tilde{\mu}(x), & \mathrm{if \ } x \in \mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L))
\end{array}
\right.,
\end{equation}
where $K \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ is obtained by the linear controller design method according to the linearization of plant \eqref{eq:plant_set} and $\tilde{\mu}: \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^m$ satisfies $\forall x \in \mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)), (x;\tilde{\mu}(x)) \in \hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$.
According to the Theorem~\ref{Theo:WNI}, all controllers belonging to $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ can stabilize the plant. In order to verify the effectiveness of our method, the controller design method is proposed as follows.
First, select a training set belonging to $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$; then, obtain $\mu$ with a function estimation method, such as interpolation, Gaussian processes regression and so on. When the trend of the training data points is smooth and $\mu(0)=0$, it can be guaranteed that $\tilde{\mu}$ obtained from the function estimator satisfies $\forall x \in \mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)), (x;\tilde{\mu}(x)) \in \hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$.
Note that the problem of finding an optimal controller is not in the scope of this paper. Based on the controller design method, the simulation of a specific plant is formulated in the next section.
\section{Simulation}
Consider the nominal model $\hat{f}$ and the modeling error bound $\delta(x,u)$ of plant set~\eqref{eq:plant_set} is:
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{f}(x,u) &=& -\sin(2x) - xu - 0.2x - u^2 + u, \nonumber \\
\delta(x,u) &=& 1 - \exp \left(-0.5(x^2 + u^2)\right), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $x \in \mathbb{R}$ and $u \in \mathbb{R}$. The interested region is $\mathbb{W}=[-2,2]\times[-2,2]\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ in the state-control space.
The nominal model is the same as~\cite{Li:2014_79, Li:2019} for the study on the effect of modeling error, the modeling error bound is the same as~\cite{Li:2020} for result comparison. To reduce the conservatism of interval arithmetic, the intervals are split, which in turn results in an exponential complexity with respect to the number of state variables. For reference to other systems, the computing times are provided in Appendix~\ref{Appendix} with pseudocode.
\subsection{Stabilization with closed-loop DOA estimation for a given Lyapunov function}
The given Lyapunov function is selected as $L(x) = x^2$. In Algorithm~\ref{alg:est_W_{NI}_(L)}, the parameter $\epsilon$ is selected as $\epsilon = 0.0001$. The inner approximation $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)$ of the negative-definite set $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:x^2} (a) denoted by blue boxes. The projection of $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)$ along the control space $\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)) = [-2,-1.25\times10^{-4}] \cup [-1.25\times10^{-4},0.105] \cup [1.315,2]$ is also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:x^2} (a) denoted by blue line segments in $x$-axis. The inner approximation $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ of the negative-definite and invariant set $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:x^2} (d) denoted by blue boxes. The projection of $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ along the control space $\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)) = [-2,-1.25\times10^{-4}] \cup [-1.25\times10^{-4}, 0.105] \cup [1.315,2]$ is also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:x^2} (d) denoted by blue line segments in $x$-axis. The small neighborhood $\mathbb{X}_0$ in \eqref{eq:controller} of the origin is $[-0.03, 0.03]$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:x^2} (d) denoted by the green line segment in $x$-axis. Hence, the estimate of the closed-loop DOA is $\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)) \cup \mathbb{X}_0 = [-2,0.105] \cup [1.315,2]$. The result is broader in comparison with the other methods in~\cite{Li:2014_79,Swiatlak:2015} which the invariant of the estimate of the closed-loop RDOA is guaranteed by the level-set of $\mathbb{X}_{\rm ls}(L,0.0117)$, the result is $[-0.108,0.108]$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:x^2} (d) denoted by the magenta line segment in $x$-axis.
The linear controller in \eqref{eq:controller} is $u = 1.8649x$ denoted by the green straight line through the origin in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:x^2} (d). To verify whether all controllers belonging to $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ can stabilize the plant, Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:x^2} (b) also shows 200 state trajectories of the closed-loop, whose initial states are drawn from the uniform distribution on $[-2,0.105] \cup [1.315,2]$. The trajectories of actual model error $e(k)\in[- \delta(x(k),u(k)),+\delta(x(k),u(k))]$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:x^2} (c). Here, the linear controller is $u = 1.8649x$, while the output of the nonlinear controller is drawn from the uniform distribution on $\mathbb{U}(x) \subset \mathbb{R}$. For the given $x \in \mathbb{R}$, $\mathbb{U}(x)$ is defined as $\mathbb{U}(x) = \big\{u \in \mathbb{R} | (x;u) \in \hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L) \big\}$.
In order to find the nonlinear controller $\tilde{\mu}$ in \eqref{eq:controller}, we select a training data set denoted by black $'\times '$s in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:x^2} (d). Then, $\tilde{\mu}$ is obtained using Gaussian processes regression, denoted by red line in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:x^2} (d). Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:x^2} (e) shows 200 state trajectories of the closed-loop, whose initial states are drawn from the uniform distribution on $[-2,0.105] \cup [1.33,2]$. The trajectories of actual model error $e(k)\in[- \delta(x(k),u(k)),+\delta(x(k),u(k))]$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:x^2} (f). We see that both state and model error trajectories of two different controllers converge to the origin.
State trajectories which are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:x^2} (b,e) also verify that $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L) \cup \{(x;u)|u = 1.8649x, x \in \mathbb{X}_0 \}$ is invariant for the plant. We know that $\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L) \cup \{(x;u)|u = 1.8649x, x \in \mathbb{X}_0 \}) = \mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)) \cup \mathbb{X}_0 = [-2,0.105] \cup [1.315,2]$. From the figures, we see that there is no state in $(0.105,1.315) \subset \mathbb{R}$.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.295\textwidth]{xu_x2_noinv.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.29\textwidth]{xk_x2_random.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.29\textwidth]{ek_x2_random.eps}\\
\parbox[c]{0.29\textwidth}{\footnotesize \centering (a)}
\parbox[c]{0.29\textwidth}{\footnotesize \centering (b)}
\parbox[c]{0.29\textwidth}{\footnotesize \centering (c)}
\includegraphics[width=0.295\textwidth]{xu_x2_unique_comp.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.29\textwidth]{xk_x2_unique.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.29\textwidth]{ek_x2_unique.eps}\\
\parbox[c]{0.29\textwidth}{\footnotesize \centering (d)}
\parbox[c]{0.29\textwidth}{\footnotesize \centering (e)}
\parbox[c]{0.29\textwidth}{\footnotesize \centering (f)}
\caption{(a) Inner approximation $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)$ of the negative-definite set $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L)$. (b) State trajectories of closed-loops $x(k)$. (c) Model error trajectories $e(k)$. (d) $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L)$ with controller $\tilde{\mu}$, the estimate of RDOA $\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N}}(L))$. (e) State trajectories of closed-loops $x(k)$ of $\tilde{\mu}$. (f) Model error trajectories $e(k)$ of $\tilde{\mu}$.}
\label{fig:exmp:x^2}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Stabilization with closed-loop DOA enlargement}
The positive-definite function set in optimization problem \eqref{eq:optim} is selected as
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{L}_{1,4} = = \Big\{L \in \mathfrak{R}_{1,4} \Big| L(x) = (x;x^2)^TP^TP(x;x^2), x \in \mathbb{R}\Big\} \nonumber
\end{equation}
with the parameters $P \in \mathbb{R}^{2 \times 2}$. The optimization problem \eqref{eq:optim_P} is solved through the particle swarm optimization method and the solution $L^\ast(x) = 1.5327x^4 +2.3121x^3 + 1.1286x^2$ is obtained.
The inner approximation $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N}}(L^\ast)$ of the negative-definite set $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L^\ast)$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:opt} (a) denoted by blue boxes. The inner approximation $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L^\ast)$ of the negative-definite and invariant set $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L^\ast)$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:opt} (d) denoted by blue boxes. The projection of $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L^\ast)$ along the control space $\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L^\ast)) = [-2,-1.25\times10^{-4}] \cup [1.25\times10^{-4},2]$ is also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:opt} (d) denoted by blue line segments in $x$-axis. The small neighborhood $\mathbb{X}_0$ in \eqref{eq:controller} of the origin is $[-0.03,0.03]$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:opt} (d) denoted by the green line segment in $x$-axis. Hence, the estimate of the closed-loop DOA is $\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L^\ast)) \cup \mathbb{X}_0 = [-2,2]$. The result is broader in comparison with another method in~\cite{Li:2014_79} which the invariant of the estimate of the closed-loop RDOA is guaranteed by the level-set of $\mathbb{X}_{\rm ls}(L,10.5408)$, the result is $[-2,1.27]$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:opt} (d) denoted by the magenta line segment in $x$-axis.
The linear controller in \eqref{eq:controller} is $u = 1.8649x$ denoted by the green straight line through the origin in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:opt} (d), while the output of the nonlinear controller is drawn from the uniform distribution on $\mathbb{U}(x) \subset \mathbb{R}$. To verify whether all controllers belonging to $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L^\ast)$ can stabilize the plant, Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:opt} (b) also shows 200 state trajectories of the closed-loop, whose initial states are drawn from the uniform distribution on $[-2,2]$. The trajectories of actual model error $e(k)$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:opt} (c).
For the given $x \in \mathbb{R}$, $\mathbb{U}(x)$ is defined as $\mathbb{U}(x) = \big\{u \in \mathbb{R} | (x;u) \in \hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L^\ast) \big\}$.In order to find the nonlinear controller $\tilde{\mu}$ in \eqref{eq:controller}, we select a training data set denoted by black $'\times '$s in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:opt} (d). Then, $\tilde{\mu}$ is obtained using Gaussian processes regression, denoted by red line in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:opt} (d). Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:opt} (e) shows 200 state trajectories of the closed-loop, whose initial states are drawn from the uniform distribution on $[-2,2]$. The trajectories of actual model error $e(k)\in[- \delta(x(k),u(k)),+\delta(x(k),u(k))]$ are shown Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp:opt} (f). We see that all state trajectories converge to the origin.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.295\textwidth]{xu_xopt_noinv.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.29\textwidth]{xk_opt_random.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.29\textwidth]{ek_opt_random.eps}\\
\parbox[c]{0.29\textwidth}{\footnotesize \centering (a)}
\parbox[c]{0.29\textwidth}{\footnotesize \centering (b)}
\parbox[c]{0.29\textwidth}{\footnotesize \centering (c)}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.295\textwidth]{xu_opt_unique_comp.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.29\textwidth]{xk_opt_unique.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.29\textwidth]{ek_opt_unique.eps}\\
\parbox[c]{0.29\textwidth}{\footnotesize \centering (d)}
\parbox[c]{0.29\textwidth}{\footnotesize \centering (e)}
\parbox[c]{0.29\textwidth}{\footnotesize \centering (f)}
\caption{(a) Inner approximation $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N}}(L^\ast)$ of the negative-definite set $\mathbb{W}_{\mathrm{N}}(L^\ast)$. (b) State trajectories of closed-loops $x(k)$. (c) Model error trajectories $e(k)$. (d) $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N\&I}}(L^\ast)$ with controller $\tilde{\mu}$, the estimate of RDOA $\mathrm{proj}(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_{\mathrm{N}}(L^\ast))$. (e) State trajectories of closed-loops $x(k)$ of $\tilde{\mu}$. (f) Model error trajectories $e(k)$ of $\tilde{\mu}$.}
\label{fig:exmp:opt}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Conclusion}
We have proposed an interval analysis approach to find an unstructured robust controller set for the nonlinear discrete-time systems with nonlinear uncertainties. The results presented above shown the interest of the proposed approach: 1)For a given Lyapunov function, the estimate of RDOA is successfully obtained with respect to the RNIS-SC and is boarder than the Lyapunov function under the level set restriction. 2)For the different Lyapunov functions, the RDOA is totally different. After the solvable optimization problem is formulated, the RDOA of RNIS-SC is enlarged by selecting an appropriate Lyapunov function from a positive-definite function set. According to the results, the enlarged RDOAs are much better and verify the effectiveness of the proposed method.
For discrete-time systems with fixed modeling error bound at every time instant K, the next state $x(k+1)$ is always in a fixed interval determined by the true plant and uncertainty. Therefore, our presented RNIDEVIA algorithm based on interval arithmetic is very competent to address this issue. Moreover, the estimate of RDOA in interval form can guarantee the rigor in the computed result, that is why we name our scheme as an interval-driven method.
|
\section{Introduction}
The introduction of digital musical instruments (DMIs) has removed the need for the existence of a physically resonating body in order to create music, leaving the practice of sound-making often decoupled from the resulting sound. The inclination towards smooth and seamless interaction in the creation of new DMIs has led to the development of musical instruments and interfaces for which no significant transfer of energy is required to play them. Other than structural boundaries, such systems usually lack any form of physical resistance, whereas the production of sounds through traditional instruments happens precisely at the meeting of the performer's body with the instrument's resistance: ``When the intentions of a musician meet with a body that resists them, friction between the two bodies causes sound to emerge" \cite[p1]{parker15joys}. Haptic controllers offer the ability to engage with digital music in a tangible way. Previous work with force-feedback has derived haptic profiles from physical models of acoustic instruments and real-world interactions (see \cite{berdahl2009hsp} for a discussion of this). Relying on these sources becomes an issue when working with digital signal processes that have no real-world correspondence. By exploring other methods of generating force-feedback profiles, purely digital information can become physically realized in a genuine and engaging manner.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{DSC_0012.jpg}
\caption{Using basis functions to generate haptic terrains for the NovInt Falcon.}
\label{fig:gabby}
\end{figure}
\section{Background}
Dynamic relationships occur and are ongoing between the performer, the instrument, and the sounds produced when playing musical instruments. These exchanges depend upon the sensory feedback provided by the instrument in the forms of auditory, visual, and haptic feedback \cite{overholt2011advancements}. Because digital interfaces based around an ergonomic HCI model are generally designed to eliminate friction altogether, the tactile experience of creating a sound is reduced.
Even though digital interfaces are material tools, the feeling of pressing a button or moving a slider does not provide the performer with much physical resistance, whereas the engagement required to play an acoustic instrument provides musicians with a wider range of haptic feedback involving both cutaneous and proprioceptive information, as well as information about the quality of an occurring sound \cite{overholt2011advancements}. This issue is recognized in Claude Cadoz's work regarding his concept of ergoticity as the physical exchange of energy between performer, instrument, and environment \cite{cadoz1988instrumental}. A possible solution to these issues is the use of haptic controllers. As has been previously noted, ``we are no longer dealing with the physical vibrations of strings, tubes and solid bodies as the sound source, but rather with the impalpable numerical streams of digital signal processing" \cite[p1]{hayes2011vibrotactile}. In physically realizing the immaterial, the design of the force profile is crucial because it determines the overall characteristics of the instrument.
\subsection{Instrumental Modeling}
Previous work on the design of haptic profiles has been focused around modeling, enhancing, or augmenting pre-existing musical interactions. Leonard and Cadoz's physics-based system GENESIS-RT allows users to design virtual musical instruments and engage with them in a way that resembled interaction with traditional instruments \cite{leonard2015physical}. Ber-dahl's work with the physically intuitive haptic drumstick builds off and extends real-world physics, allowing a drummer to play a drum roll either in the usual manner with two drumsticks, or single-handedly with the aid of force-feedback. It is the direct engagement with the synthetic haptic feedback that allows the percussionist to perform in this way yet the ``physics of the performer's basic interaction with the instrument remain similar," rendering the instrument ``physically intuitive" \cite[p363]{berdahl2007physically}.
Further recent developments include actuated instruments that ``produce sound via vibrating element(s) that are co-manipulated by humans and electromechanical systems" \cite[p155]{overholt2011advancements}. Physical instruments such as the Feedback Resonance Guitar, the Electromagnetically Prepared Piano, the Overtone Fiddle, and Teleoperation with Robothands have been extended through virtual qualities while conforming to real-world physics in their structural design.
\subsection{Sound Sculpting}
Hayes' \textit{Running Backwards, Uphill} was a performance for a piano trio that explored the relationship between ``touch, gesture and timbre by examining the sonic qualities of the acoustic instruments," as well as the electronics. Musicians utilized the absolute extremes of their instruments and were ``directed to lurch and fall off the keys; or, create the most delicate airy bowed sounds" \cite[p402]{hayes2012performing}. Unlike acoustic instruments, which require physical force and highly skilled action to reach the edges of their sonic potential, the extremes of most digital controllers can be reached almost instantaneously due to their lack of resistance \cite[p1]{parker15joys}. With the Falcon's resistance, Hayes was able to use various force-feedback profiles to both assist her in reaching desired effects, such as short, staccato-like samples of a recording and longer segments that flowed together, and fight against her to make certain sounds more difficult to reach. Throughout the performance, she notes that the haptic feedback gave her a ``feeling of moving through the sound" and the means to shape the sound accordingly \cite[p403]{hayes2012performing}. Her use of haptics allowed an extensive range of gestures and levels of engagement to occur in this performance.
\subsection{Cross-Modal Approaches}
Others have noticed that it is useful to transfer auditory and visual perceptual information to the tactile realm. The Haptic Wave is an interface that allows ``cross-modal mapping of digital to audio to the haptic domain" \cite[p2150]{tanaka2016haptic} and provides a platform for visually impaired users to navigate and edit digital audio. Instead of translating existing representations of digital audio, such as visual waveforms, the initial iterations of this project used the NovInt Falcon to ``directly access qualities of the sound" \cite[p2153]{tanaka2016haptic}. By mapping the horizontal axis of the Falcon to the length of a sound file and the amount of resistance to the amplitude---higher amplitude increased resistance---users were able to scan through the soundfile from left to right and feel the amplitude of the soundfile at every point in time.
Other work has explored the use of visual information within the realm of digital signal processing. James maps 2D visual textures to the distribution of ``timbre spatialization in the frequency domain" \cite[p128]{james2016multi-point}. Filatriau and Arfib's work presents three different tactics for linking ``visual and sonic textures using similar synthesis processes" \cite[p31]{filatriau2006using}. The first two methods use a visual texture as the material basis for sound generation. Their approach titled ``image from a sound" considers the texture as a sonogram and uses this image to ``derive from a static image an evolving sound" \cite[p32]{filatriau2006using}. This process involves scanning over the static image to generate an evolving sound, using the horizontal axis as the time value and the vertical value at that time as the sinusoid to reproduce. The ``pixel image sonification technique" employs an image that is constantly changing and constantly producing a sound. This could be exemplified by movement in front of a camera or by moving through a static image at a small scaled viewpoint, viewing the visual texture as composed of small sections, kernels, or pixels. The final process of ``equivalent processes" expresses the texture-generating algorithm in visual and sonic mediums instead of using the image as the starting point. Both the visual and sonic processes are expressions of the texture-generating algorithm.
In our work with the Falcon, we have utilized both the ``pixel image sonification" and the ``equivalent processes" technique by using a texture-generating algorithm to create a visual expression and move through this image on a pixel-to-pixel basis. Working in this direction avoids issues of physical modeling because it is not concerned with using images or interactions as true or exact models as a means to expressively sculpt sound.
\section{Methodology}
In this section we describe an iterative approach to the development of a terrain-based haptic instrument. We outline both the technical considerations, along with autoethnographic accounts of its role in numerous performances by Gabriella Isaac over a period of several months.
\subsection{Case Study: Constant Resistance Model}
The first iteration of the instrument involved applying a constant force profile to a single dimension of the NovInt Falcon. This would exert a constant physical force back on the performer's hand in one dimension. In turn, the same z-index of the Falcon's position was mapped to the the start point of a grain's position within a sound file and, by pushing and pulling the ball-grip of the controller, the performer was able to physically scrub through a buffer containing that file while granulating the sound. The force-feedback of the controller remained at a static level throughout the piece and provided a constant background resistance, allowing the performer to fine tune their movement and focus in on points of interest by stabilizing their actions.
In addition, parameters of other DSP processes were map-ped to the x-y position of the Falcon's ball-grip, including the x-y coordinates of an amplitude envelope---which could be drawn in real-time---and the selection and speed of playback of a corpus of samples. Furthermore, the sound output was recorded into a looping buffer and fed to a granulator. Using a button on the ball grip, haptics could be turned on and off: when off, the sound would be recorded into the buffer; when on, recording stopped and granulation started, allowing the performer to hone in on interesting parts of the recorded buffer, and move back through time.
This iteration was used in two solo performances and one collaborative performance. In the former, the mappings did not change over time, and therefore the extremes of the piece were reached after about five minutes. Isaac felt that the collaborative performance was more successful as the presence of two performers allowed the sounds produced to occur over a greater period of time and at different intervals. In this context, the limitations of the instrument could be explored further. Additionally, audience feedback from both scenarios suggested that although the audience members could see the performer actively struggling with the Falcon, they did not understand what was actually happening and how the sounds were being produced. With the controller facing forward and the knob pointed towards the performer, the audience could not see the full range of motion exerted during the performance because the body of the controller blocked the view of the performer's gestures.
This first model was a helpful starting point due to the simplicity of the audio-haptic mappings involved. It resulted in a physically-demanding controller, which invited further exploration into the types of performer-instrument relationships it might afford. This approach was also useful in drawing out the sonic characteristics of the specific granular patch that had been implemented.
Isaac found that without the additional resistance, potentially interesting sonic details were more likely to be skimmed over and lost due to the ease of movement. The physical difficulty of moving the controller's ball grip with the added resistance initially provided a more interesting mode of engagement between the performer and the digital sonic material. However, the fixed amount of resistance became too predictable in practice. This suggested that implementing a wider and more dynamic range of resistances should be explored next, along with an investigation into how the relationships between sound and physical resistance could be developed further.
\subsection{Case Study: Haptic Terrain (Version 1)}
The second case study builds upon the constant resistance model for using the NovInt Falcon as a controller for performing granular synthesis, and implements an early version of a virtual physical terrain. In this version, rather than working with a constant force in a single dimension, multiple zones of resistance are constructed and placed in arbitrary locations within a virtual 2D space. Max/MSP's \texttt{nodes} object is a visual panel of circular nodes that can be resized and placed in various locations. A cursor can then be moved through the panel and the object will output whether or not the cursor is within a node's region, as well as its distance from the center of each node. By mapping the Falcon's x and y position to the coordinates of the cursor, the performer is able to control the cursor's location within a collection of nodes, and traverse the terrain. Using IRCAM's \texttt{MuBu} for Max, a sound file is segmented by an onset threshold and each segment is associated with a specific node (see Figure \ref{fig:nodes}). When the coordinates of the Falcon's ball-grip position are over a node, the specific segment is triggered and sent through a granular synthesizer for further processing. Although the nodes would sometimes overlap due to their varying radii and placement within 2D space, the sound segment selected for playback would always be the segment whose center was closest to the cursor. The output of the node was scaled to the highest resistance value of the Falcon and sent to the force parameter of the z-index---the plane associated with a forward and backward motion for the performer. In this configuration, the performer would receive a low amount of force-feedback towards the outskirts of the node's region, and high amount of feedback towards the center, thus producing the feeling of moving over a bump.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{nodes.png}
\caption{Haptic Terrain Version 1 using nodes and audio segmentation.}
\label{fig:nodes}
\end{figure}
Because each node was circular, any position at or around the circumference of a node would receive the same amount of feedback. The resistance sent to the Falcon was also scaled and mapped to the density of the grains being played. This meant that if the performer wanted to create a more intense and abrasive sound, they would have to hold the Falcon in the most physically resistant spot. In performance Isaac noted that while this was difficult, it still remained a stable and predictable terrain. While the bumpy resistance created through the nodes improved on the constant resistance model, Isaac felt that this still became predictable when performing because the textures were essentially the same, differing only in scale. This iteration lacked different types of textures and therefore variation in the qualities of the force-feedback. It offered a completely different sensation than the original patch, yet it remained a pre-determined and somewhat stable terrain. Despite this, the nodes could be used in future iterations to access different regions of internal processes within the patch. This iteration could also be used as potential material for an additional visual element for the audience.
\subsection{Case Study: Haptic Terrain (Version 2)}
The second iteration of this idea uses the Max/MSP object \texttt{jit.bfg} to create terrains based on different noise textures. The \texttt{jit.bfg} object ``evaluates and exposes a library of procedural basis functions"\footnote{See the \texttt{jit.bfg} reference page in the Max/MSP documentation.} and by changing the noise basis, different textures can be generated. The basis function that generated Voronoi cells was favoured during initial tests because, on a close up zoom, it creates crater-like textures with ridges and dips (see Figure \ref{fig:voronoi}). On a higher scale (zoom out), the cells become tiny, bumpy surfaces with defined edges.
The \texttt{jit.bfg} object outputs a grid of texture that is rendered from a range of values from 0 to 1. This range was first normalized, and then mapped onto the maximum and minimum force-feedback values for the NovInt Falcon. Again, the x and y coordinates received from the location of the Falcon's ball-grip were used to scroll through the cells of the 2D matrix generated by \texttt{jit.bfg} and return the greyscale value of that cell. The scaled value was mapped to the force-feedback input of the Falcon. By mapping the highest force of the Falcon to the highest value---the lightest areas of the texture map---and the lowest values to the lowest force of the Falcon---the darkest areas on the texture map---the computationally generated virtual textures were physically realized through haptic interface (see Figure \ref{fig:gabby}).
The sonic result of this patch follows the texture maps generated. The source of the sound is generated by two phasors with controllable frequencies that are run through a comb filter. The x and y coordinates change the delay and feedforward of the comb filter. As such, the sound changes drastically depending on the controller position, yet maintains some recognizable characteristics. These sounds are then processed further using granulation and the gain of the grains also mapped to the Falcon's x and y coordinates. In this way, sound will only occur when the performer is hovering over a lighter area of the texture.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{voronoi1.png}
\caption{A haptic terrain generated using Voronoi basis functions.}
\label{fig:voronoi}
\end{figure}
Additionally, all of the sound was sent through a noise gate. The threshold of the noise gate was determined by the z position of the Falcon, and simultaneously multiplied by the z force being sent to the Falcon. In this way, the fullest sounds can only be heard if the performer is hovering over a light, forceful area and if they are exerting a strong force on this area. Even if the performer applies the same force in a darker area, they will not be able to hear the fullest sound. It is only through a strong force in a physically demanding area that the performer can hear all of the frequencies at full volume. Even though there is a relatively large range between the weakest and strongest forces of the Falcon's resistance, it does not take a large amount of effort to merely slide over the different zones. The force-feedback is really only felt when the user pushes forwards. The Falcon is comparable to a joystick controller and, unlike a traditional instrument, its extremities are easily reached. According to Parker, ``grafting the joystick's physical extremes to the limits of software parameters can result in an unrewarding musical experience" \cite[p1]{parker15joys}. Therefore, it was more fruitful to explore the affordances of the physical extremities offered by the haptic terrains. Desirable sounds were still able to occur within the range of these limits. Multiplying the current resistance being output from the Falcon by the force received required the performer to exert significant effort in order to reach the full range of dynamics that the system had to offer.
Isaac felt that this version of the sonic terrain was the most exciting to work with because of the diverse range of textures and resistances that it afforded. The interaction between gesture and sound seemed to correspond to the texture in a meaningful way. By mapping the combined resistance from the terrain and the performer's force to the threshold of the noise gate, dark areas of low resistance seemed to let small particles of the sound seep through, while light areas that required heavy force gave the sensation of physically pushing the full sound through the gate. The fact that feedback was no longer static, but became dependent on the response of the performer was also highly engaging.
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
We have described the iterative development of a haptic DMI through the implementation of different strategies for generating force-feedback profiles. The first strategy involved a constant resistant force that made movement in one dimension more difficult. While this allowed the performer to more expressively explore regions of their sonic material in more detail, the uniformity of the resistance was deemed to be undesirable after numerous performances. The second strategy explored the idea of cross-modal terrains, generated as visual planes, and mapped to both haptic and sonic parameters. In particular, the Voronoi terrains generated by the basis functions afforded rich and varied haptic profiles.
These nonuniform terrains can be generated on the fly, allowing for instantaneous re-mapping to take place. Future work will explore this by changing force-feedback profiles during performance. The nodes-based model will also be repurposed as an audio processing routing strategy, running concurrently with the Voronoi technique. We will also experiment with projecting the terrains for the audience so that they can watch the performer attempt to navigate space both physically, as well as digitally.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
\section{Introduction}
The introduction of digital musical instruments (DMIs) has removed the need for the existence of a physically resonating body in order to create music, leaving the practice of sound-making often decoupled from the resulting sound. The inclination towards smooth and seamless interaction in the creation of new DMIs has led to the development of musical instruments and interfaces for which no significant transfer of energy is required to play them. Other than structural boundaries, such systems usually lack any form of physical resistance, whereas the production of sounds through traditional instruments happens precisely at the meeting of the performer's body with the instrument's resistance: ``When the intentions of a musician meet with a body that resists them, friction between the two bodies causes sound to emerge" \cite[p1]{parker15joys}. Haptic controllers offer the ability to engage with digital music in a tangible way. Previous work with force-feedback has derived haptic profiles from physical models of acoustic instruments and real-world interactions (see \cite{berdahl2009hsp} for a discussion of this). Relying on these sources becomes an issue when working with digital signal processes that have no real-world correspondence. By exploring other methods of generating force-feedback profiles, purely digital information can become physically realized in a genuine and engaging manner.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{DSC_0012.jpg}
\caption{Using basis functions to generate haptic terrains for the NovInt Falcon.}
\label{fig:gabby}
\end{figure}
\section{Background}
Dynamic relationships occur and are ongoing between the performer, the instrument, and the sounds produced when playing musical instruments. These exchanges depend upon the sensory feedback provided by the instrument in the forms of auditory, visual, and haptic feedback \cite{overholt2011advancements}. Because digital interfaces based around an ergonomic HCI model are generally designed to eliminate friction altogether, the tactile experience of creating a sound is reduced.
Even though digital interfaces are material tools, the feeling of pressing a button or moving a slider does not provide the performer with much physical resistance, whereas the engagement required to play an acoustic instrument provides musicians with a wider range of haptic feedback involving both cutaneous and proprioceptive information, as well as information about the quality of an occurring sound \cite{overholt2011advancements}. This issue is recognized in Claude Cadoz's work regarding his concept of ergoticity as the physical exchange of energy between performer, instrument, and environment \cite{cadoz1988instrumental}. A possible solution to these issues is the use of haptic controllers. As has been previously noted, ``we are no longer dealing with the physical vibrations of strings, tubes and solid bodies as the sound source, but rather with the impalpable numerical streams of digital signal processing" \cite[p1]{hayes2011vibrotactile}. In physically realizing the immaterial, the design of the force profile is crucial because it determines the overall characteristics of the instrument.
\subsection{Instrumental Modeling}
Previous work on the design of haptic profiles has been focused around modeling, enhancing, or augmenting pre-existing musical interactions. Leonard and Cadoz's physics-based system GENESIS-RT allows users to design virtual musical instruments and engage with them in a way that resembled interaction with traditional instruments \cite{leonard2015physical}. Ber-dahl's work with the physically intuitive haptic drumstick builds off and extends real-world physics, allowing a drummer to play a drum roll either in the usual manner with two drumsticks, or single-handedly with the aid of force-feedback. It is the direct engagement with the synthetic haptic feedback that allows the percussionist to perform in this way yet the ``physics of the performer's basic interaction with the instrument remain similar," rendering the instrument ``physically intuitive" \cite[p363]{berdahl2007physically}.
Further recent developments include actuated instruments that ``produce sound via vibrating element(s) that are co-manipulated by humans and electromechanical systems" \cite[p155]{overholt2011advancements}. Physical instruments such as the Feedback Resonance Guitar, the Electromagnetically Prepared Piano, the Overtone Fiddle, and Teleoperation with Robothands have been extended through virtual qualities while conforming to real-world physics in their structural design.
\subsection{Sound Sculpting}
Hayes' \textit{Running Backwards, Uphill} was a performance for a piano trio that explored the relationship between ``touch, gesture and timbre by examining the sonic qualities of the acoustic instruments," as well as the electronics. Musicians utilized the absolute extremes of their instruments and were ``directed to lurch and fall off the keys; or, create the most delicate airy bowed sounds" \cite[p402]{hayes2012performing}. Unlike acoustic instruments, which require physical force and highly skilled action to reach the edges of their sonic potential, the extremes of most digital controllers can be reached almost instantaneously due to their lack of resistance \cite[p1]{parker15joys}. With the Falcon's resistance, Hayes was able to use various force-feedback profiles to both assist her in reaching desired effects, such as short, staccato-like samples of a recording and longer segments that flowed together, and fight against her to make certain sounds more difficult to reach. Throughout the performance, she notes that the haptic feedback gave her a ``feeling of moving through the sound" and the means to shape the sound accordingly \cite[p403]{hayes2012performing}. Her use of haptics allowed an extensive range of gestures and levels of engagement to occur in this performance.
\subsection{Cross-Modal Approaches}
Others have noticed that it is useful to transfer auditory and visual perceptual information to the tactile realm. The Haptic Wave is an interface that allows ``cross-modal mapping of digital to audio to the haptic domain" \cite[p2150]{tanaka2016haptic} and provides a platform for visually impaired users to navigate and edit digital audio. Instead of translating existing representations of digital audio, such as visual waveforms, the initial iterations of this project used the NovInt Falcon to ``directly access qualities of the sound" \cite[p2153]{tanaka2016haptic}. By mapping the horizontal axis of the Falcon to the length of a sound file and the amount of resistance to the amplitude---higher amplitude increased resistance---users were able to scan through the soundfile from left to right and feel the amplitude of the soundfile at every point in time.
Other work has explored the use of visual information within the realm of digital signal processing. James maps 2D visual textures to the distribution of ``timbre spatialization in the frequency domain" \cite[p128]{james2016multi-point}. Filatriau and Arfib's work presents three different tactics for linking ``visual and sonic textures using similar synthesis processes" \cite[p31]{filatriau2006using}. The first two methods use a visual texture as the material basis for sound generation. Their approach titled ``image from a sound" considers the texture as a sonogram and uses this image to ``derive from a static image an evolving sound" \cite[p32]{filatriau2006using}. This process involves scanning over the static image to generate an evolving sound, using the horizontal axis as the time value and the vertical value at that time as the sinusoid to reproduce. The ``pixel image sonification technique" employs an image that is constantly changing and constantly producing a sound. This could be exemplified by movement in front of a camera or by moving through a static image at a small scaled viewpoint, viewing the visual texture as composed of small sections, kernels, or pixels. The final process of ``equivalent processes" expresses the texture-generating algorithm in visual and sonic mediums instead of using the image as the starting point. Both the visual and sonic processes are expressions of the texture-generating algorithm.
In our work with the Falcon, we have utilized both the ``pixel image sonification" and the ``equivalent processes" technique by using a texture-generating algorithm to create a visual expression and move through this image on a pixel-to-pixel basis. Working in this direction avoids issues of physical modeling because it is not concerned with using images or interactions as true or exact models as a means to expressively sculpt sound.
\section{Methodology}
In this section we describe an iterative approach to the development of a terrain-based haptic instrument. We outline both the technical considerations, along with autoethnographic accounts of its role in numerous performances by Gabriella Isaac over a period of several months.
\subsection{Case Study: Constant Resistance Model}
The first iteration of the instrument involved applying a constant force profile to a single dimension of the NovInt Falcon. This would exert a constant physical force back on the performer's hand in one dimension. In turn, the same z-index of the Falcon's position was mapped to the the start point of a grain's position within a sound file and, by pushing and pulling the ball-grip of the controller, the performer was able to physically scrub through a buffer containing that file while granulating the sound. The force-feedback of the controller remained at a static level throughout the piece and provided a constant background resistance, allowing the performer to fine tune their movement and focus in on points of interest by stabilizing their actions.
In addition, parameters of other DSP processes were map-ped to the x-y position of the Falcon's ball-grip, including the x-y coordinates of an amplitude envelope---which could be drawn in real-time---and the selection and speed of playback of a corpus of samples. Furthermore, the sound output was recorded into a looping buffer and fed to a granulator. Using a button on the ball grip, haptics could be turned on and off: when off, the sound would be recorded into the buffer; when on, recording stopped and granulation started, allowing the performer to hone in on interesting parts of the recorded buffer, and move back through time.
This iteration was used in two solo performances and one collaborative performance. In the former, the mappings did not change over time, and therefore the extremes of the piece were reached after about five minutes. Isaac felt that the collaborative performance was more successful as the presence of two performers allowed the sounds produced to occur over a greater period of time and at different intervals. In this context, the limitations of the instrument could be explored further. Additionally, audience feedback from both scenarios suggested that although the audience members could see the performer actively struggling with the Falcon, they did not understand what was actually happening and how the sounds were being produced. With the controller facing forward and the knob pointed towards the performer, the audience could not see the full range of motion exerted during the performance because the body of the controller blocked the view of the performer's gestures.
This first model was a helpful starting point due to the simplicity of the audio-haptic mappings involved. It resulted in a physically-demanding controller, which invited further exploration into the types of performer-instrument relationships it might afford. This approach was also useful in drawing out the sonic characteristics of the specific granular patch that had been implemented.
Isaac found that without the additional resistance, potentially interesting sonic details were more likely to be skimmed over and lost due to the ease of movement. The physical difficulty of moving the controller's ball grip with the added resistance initially provided a more interesting mode of engagement between the performer and the digital sonic material. However, the fixed amount of resistance became too predictable in practice. This suggested that implementing a wider and more dynamic range of resistances should be explored next, along with an investigation into how the relationships between sound and physical resistance could be developed further.
\subsection{Case Study: Haptic Terrain (Version 1)}
The second case study builds upon the constant resistance model for using the NovInt Falcon as a controller for performing granular synthesis, and implements an early version of a virtual physical terrain. In this version, rather than working with a constant force in a single dimension, multiple zones of resistance are constructed and placed in arbitrary locations within a virtual 2D space. Max/MSP's \texttt{nodes} object is a visual panel of circular nodes that can be resized and placed in various locations. A cursor can then be moved through the panel and the object will output whether or not the cursor is within a node's region, as well as its distance from the center of each node. By mapping the Falcon's x and y position to the coordinates of the cursor, the performer is able to control the cursor's location within a collection of nodes, and traverse the terrain. Using IRCAM's \texttt{MuBu} for Max, a sound file is segmented by an onset threshold and each segment is associated with a specific node (see Figure \ref{fig:nodes}). When the coordinates of the Falcon's ball-grip position are over a node, the specific segment is triggered and sent through a granular synthesizer for further processing. Although the nodes would sometimes overlap due to their varying radii and placement within 2D space, the sound segment selected for playback would always be the segment whose center was closest to the cursor. The output of the node was scaled to the highest resistance value of the Falcon and sent to the force parameter of the z-index---the plane associated with a forward and backward motion for the performer. In this configuration, the performer would receive a low amount of force-feedback towards the outskirts of the node's region, and high amount of feedback towards the center, thus producing the feeling of moving over a bump.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{nodes.png}
\caption{Haptic Terrain Version 1 using nodes and audio segmentation.}
\label{fig:nodes}
\end{figure}
Because each node was circular, any position at or around the circumference of a node would receive the same amount of feedback. The resistance sent to the Falcon was also scaled and mapped to the density of the grains being played. This meant that if the performer wanted to create a more intense and abrasive sound, they would have to hold the Falcon in the most physically resistant spot. In performance Isaac noted that while this was difficult, it still remained a stable and predictable terrain. While the bumpy resistance created through the nodes improved on the constant resistance model, Isaac felt that this still became predictable when performing because the textures were essentially the same, differing only in scale. This iteration lacked different types of textures and therefore variation in the qualities of the force-feedback. It offered a completely different sensation than the original patch, yet it remained a pre-determined and somewhat stable terrain. Despite this, the nodes could be used in future iterations to access different regions of internal processes within the patch. This iteration could also be used as potential material for an additional visual element for the audience.
\subsection{Case Study: Haptic Terrain (Version 2)}
The second iteration of this idea uses the Max/MSP object \texttt{jit.bfg} to create terrains based on different noise textures. The \texttt{jit.bfg} object ``evaluates and exposes a library of procedural basis functions"\footnote{See the \texttt{jit.bfg} reference page in the Max/MSP documentation.} and by changing the noise basis, different textures can be generated. The basis function that generated Voronoi cells was favoured during initial tests because, on a close up zoom, it creates crater-like textures with ridges and dips (see Figure \ref{fig:voronoi}). On a higher scale (zoom out), the cells become tiny, bumpy surfaces with defined edges.
The \texttt{jit.bfg} object outputs a grid of texture that is rendered from a range of values from 0 to 1. This range was first normalized, and then mapped onto the maximum and minimum force-feedback values for the NovInt Falcon. Again, the x and y coordinates received from the location of the Falcon's ball-grip were used to scroll through the cells of the 2D matrix generated by \texttt{jit.bfg} and return the greyscale value of that cell. The scaled value was mapped to the force-feedback input of the Falcon. By mapping the highest force of the Falcon to the highest value---the lightest areas of the texture map---and the lowest values to the lowest force of the Falcon---the darkest areas on the texture map---the computationally generated virtual textures were physically realized through haptic interface (see Figure \ref{fig:gabby}).
The sonic result of this patch follows the texture maps generated. The source of the sound is generated by two phasors with controllable frequencies that are run through a comb filter. The x and y coordinates change the delay and feedforward of the comb filter. As such, the sound changes drastically depending on the controller position, yet maintains some recognizable characteristics. These sounds are then processed further using granulation and the gain of the grains also mapped to the Falcon's x and y coordinates. In this way, sound will only occur when the performer is hovering over a lighter area of the texture.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{voronoi1.png}
\caption{A haptic terrain generated using Voronoi basis functions.}
\label{fig:voronoi}
\end{figure}
Additionally, all of the sound was sent through a noise gate. The threshold of the noise gate was determined by the z position of the Falcon, and simultaneously multiplied by the z force being sent to the Falcon. In this way, the fullest sounds can only be heard if the performer is hovering over a light, forceful area and if they are exerting a strong force on this area. Even if the performer applies the same force in a darker area, they will not be able to hear the fullest sound. It is only through a strong force in a physically demanding area that the performer can hear all of the frequencies at full volume. Even though there is a relatively large range between the weakest and strongest forces of the Falcon's resistance, it does not take a large amount of effort to merely slide over the different zones. The force-feedback is really only felt when the user pushes forwards. The Falcon is comparable to a joystick controller and, unlike a traditional instrument, its extremities are easily reached. According to Parker, ``grafting the joystick's physical extremes to the limits of software parameters can result in an unrewarding musical experience" \cite[p1]{parker15joys}. Therefore, it was more fruitful to explore the affordances of the physical extremities offered by the haptic terrains. Desirable sounds were still able to occur within the range of these limits. Multiplying the current resistance being output from the Falcon by the force received required the performer to exert significant effort in order to reach the full range of dynamics that the system had to offer.
Isaac felt that this version of the sonic terrain was the most exciting to work with because of the diverse range of textures and resistances that it afforded. The interaction between gesture and sound seemed to correspond to the texture in a meaningful way. By mapping the combined resistance from the terrain and the performer's force to the threshold of the noise gate, dark areas of low resistance seemed to let small particles of the sound seep through, while light areas that required heavy force gave the sensation of physically pushing the full sound through the gate. The fact that feedback was no longer static, but became dependent on the response of the performer was also highly engaging.
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
We have described the iterative development of a haptic DMI through the implementation of different strategies for generating force-feedback profiles. The first strategy involved a constant resistant force that made movement in one dimension more difficult. While this allowed the performer to more expressively explore regions of their sonic material in more detail, the uniformity of the resistance was deemed to be undesirable after numerous performances. The second strategy explored the idea of cross-modal terrains, generated as visual planes, and mapped to both haptic and sonic parameters. In particular, the Voronoi terrains generated by the basis functions afforded rich and varied haptic profiles.
These nonuniform terrains can be generated on the fly, allowing for instantaneous re-mapping to take place. Future work will explore this by changing force-feedback profiles during performance. The nodes-based model will also be repurposed as an audio processing routing strategy, running concurrently with the Voronoi technique. We will also experiment with projecting the terrains for the audience so that they can watch the performer attempt to navigate space both physically, as well as digitally.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
Christopher Small's concept of musicking firmly places participation
at the centre of what it is \emph{to music}. To take part in a musical
activity---which includes sweeping the stage before a concert, selling
tickets, in addition to accepted musical practices such as composing
or performing---entails the forging of various relationships. Small
argues that it is through these relationships, which may exist between
people, sounds, and spaces, that meaning is constructed.
In what follows I provide two contrasting accounts of NIME
development. Through these, I explore how the relationships that Small
outlines are forged over time through the lens of practice-led and
ethnographic research. I offer examples which lie within two often
unrelated areas: the Western experimental and electronic music
communities; and the world of person-centred arts practices for people with
complex disabilities. This is in order to
illustrate how such an understanding of NIME development within one
context may inform work in another. This may also illuminate parallels
between what could be perceived as unrelated musical practices.
By viewing musical engagement as an evolving and embodied process,
which supports Small's definition of music as human action, it can be
demonstrated that the relevance of technological developments in the
field of live electronic and digital musical practice lies not
necessarily within the material aspects per se. But rather, an
important consequence is the potential for individualised
practices to emerge, where each performer enacts a unique musical
environment in coordination with their physiological, cultural,
social, and musical histories. I will suggest that by viewing
NIME-related practices in this way, we are afforded the opportunity to
view musical activity \textit{in general} as a ``medium of social
relation'' \cite{DeNora:2000zr} in various contexts.
\subsection{Perceptually Guided Action}
The idea of performance as perceptually guided action
\cite{Hayes:2013fk} suggests the importance of a multimodal approach
to developing digital musical instruments (DMIs) or NIMEs. Moreover,
this can inform our understanding of musical participation in
general. Not only as listeners, but also as performers we are
continuously making use of multiple streams of sensory feedback as we
make our way through a performance: auditory, haptic, kinaesthetic,
and visual.
This draws on Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson and Eleanor Rosch's
theory of enaction \cite{Varela:1991fk} as a way of understanding the
importance of the role of the body within---specifically---live
electronic musical performance. An enactive understanding focuses on
the idea of structural coupling between agent and environment through repeated
sensorimotor interactions \cite{Varela:1991fk}. Both the perceptive capacities of various
organisms as well as the environment itself emerge through reciprocal
coordination and coevolution. In biological terms, for example, this
phenomenon is ``responsible for both the ultraviolet vision of bees
and the ultraviolet reflectance patterns of flowers''
\cite{Varela:1991fk}. Through phenomenological enquiry we start to see
how musical worlds may evolve in a similar manner.
The concept of enaction extends Maurice Merleau-Ponty's work on
phenomenology, which posits the body as both the perceiving object,
and at the same time, the subject of perception
\cite{Merleau-Ponty:1962uq}. Merleau-Ponty illustrates the body's
capacity for this duplicity of sensation through an example of the
hands, which oscillate between touching and being touched.
The enactive approach emphasises the mutuality between agent and
environment. Similarly, musical works can emerge out of the relationships
that develop over time between a specific combination of people,
instruments, and space. This does not apply only to the immediacy of musical
performance. This framework can also be used to understand the
durational development of NIMEs, where an instrument may be iterated
through a series of incremental adjustments informed by the experience
of their use within different scenarios.
Small suggests that when we rehearse and
perform, we are exploring not only the sonic relationships that
articulate how we ideally believe sounds should be organised, but also
the relationships between sound and instruments; the relationship between the
performers and the audience; the relationship between those taking
part and the physical setting; and so on [1].
\subsection{Ethnography and Creative Practice}
There has been a growing number of calls from the NIME community to
acknowledge the importance of both ethnographic (see \cite{Booth2012})
and practice-led (see \cite{green2014nk}) research. These
methodologies allow for a discussion of the complex relationships
between the sociocultural contexts in which technical developments in
various NIME-related fields are being made. Both creative practice and
ethnographic approaches provide space for exploring how NIME-related
research unfolds over time in the real world. The two case studies
that I describe each offer accounts of highly personalised NIME
development. In exploring these situations, it will become apparent
that any attempt to optimise the instruments discussed for the wider
community would be largely redundant as they are evolved through the
physiologies and aesthetic choices of the specific musicians
involved. Evaluation of these practices through objective testing
would be fruitless. The methodologies employed allow the experiences
of the users to be shared through reflective observation and
discussion. Nevertheless, by offering this insight, we can start to
find implications for engagement with DMIs in general.
\section{Two Case Studies}
In this section I discuss two case studies where I have developed
NIMEs in what initially appears to be unrelated contexts: my own live
electronic performance practice; and person-centred collaborative arts
practice. In
each case I examine the role of the physiology of the musician, their
musical aesthetics and histories, the contexts in which the musical
engagement takes place, and how this is bound up with the various
technologies employed.
\subsection{Personal Performance Practice}
\subsubsection{Background}
Over the last eight years, I have explored an approach to personal DMI
design that focuses around the relationships between sound and
touch. This explores the double aspects of Merleau-Ponty's notion of
embodiment through, on one hand, themes of resistance and haptic
technology \cite{Hayes2012kl}, but also the perception of sound as
vibration, through vibrotactile technology \cite{Hayes:2011fk}. While
the benefits of using haptic technology for improving certain aspects
of instrumental skill acquisition are well documented \cite{silephd},
research in this area tends to be focused around technical
development. My own research has attempted to provide an in-depth,
practice-based perspective in this field.
\subsubsection{The Physiology of the Performer}
It is perhaps not surprising that my training as a classical pianist,
which began formally at the age of four, has led to an exploration of
musical HCI that is largely focused around the expressive capacities
of the fingers. While I may have been drawn to the piano simply due to
its ubiquity as a traditional Western instrument, through repeated
engagement with the instrument from this young age, by way of lessons,
exercises, and the sort of experimentation that I much later learned
was called improvisation, I enacted my musical environment based
around a very specific type of tactility.
I learned to make use of both the vibrotactile feedback of the
resonating body of the piano, as well as the particular resistances that
it offered me as a physical instrument. When much later I started to
perform with computers, the disconnect between sound and touch left me
unfulfilled as a musician. Performance gestures contained none of the
effort, struggle, or physicality that I was accustomed to making use
of.
This led me to question what it was that I was missing in my
experience as a performer now engaging with digital technology, in
order to adequately communicate a musical idea. How could I translate
an intention into an expressive and articulated sonic result? It has
been through my own personal history of musical performance that I
have been prompted to examine the relationship between sound and
touch. Experiencing what Simon Emmerson describes as ``increasingly
alienated from purely physical sound production'' \cite{emmersontouch},
urged me to explore more deeply the links between action and
perception, specifically for the performer.
This research has been extensively documented elsewhere, and has
included incorporating haptic technologies \cite{Hayes2012kl,
Hayes:2013fk}, and vibrotactile feedback \cite{Hayes:2011fk} into my
instrument design. Rather than reiterate the technicalities of this work,
it is important to note that my evolved means of musical
expression has been closely tied to my physiology over a long period
of time. As I approached NIME development, this relationship between
body and instrument was key to informing my design choices in that
they were deeply rooted within an exploration of physicality and touch.
\subsubsection{Sociocultural Context}
My performance practice using NIMEs has been largely situated under
the umbrella of Western art music. Being based within universities has
provided me with access to expertise in both software and hardware
development, situated me within a community of potential
mentors and collaborators, and offered me many opportunities to
present and discuss my work.
Working in and between genres such as contemporary classical, free
improvisation, experimental beat-based music, and noise, has allowed
my various performance environments to be explored within a broad
range of scenarios. For example, at an academic conference, NIMEs used
for performance must be extremely reliable and stable, with the
ability to be set up quickly as there is often little time for this
between performances. Within improvisation scenarios, the NIME must be
flexible and adaptable. It must be able to give space to
co-performers, yet possess a voice of its own. At a noise gig, my
digital/laptop-based instruments must be able to hold their own in
terms of sonic depth against analogue counterparts from myself or
collaborators.
\subsubsection{Objectives for NIME Development}
While a large part of my practice has been based around the hybrid
piano, formed around haptically and digitally augmented acoustic
pianos \cite{Hayes:2013fk}, I have also performed extensively using
a variety of hybrid (analogue and digital) electronic systems. These
are assemblages of various components, including analogue
synthesisers, hardware drum machines, various MIDI and game
controllers, foot pedals, and bespoke software built using
Max/MSP.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{network.jpg}
\caption{Networked interactions.}
\label{fig:BlockDiagram1}
\end{figure}
In working with hardware that does not offer the same rich physicality
of the hybrid piano, I had to develop ways of introducing this tactile
engagement to my performance environments. By interacting with all
elements of a particular set up through a single game controller, I
was able to simultaneously touch and engage with different parts of
the instrument, bringing a sense of immediacy into my hands. For
example, in one configuration, the game controller would trigger very
short segments of sounds, which were in turn analysed by the
software. This would send both MIDI information out via the sound card
to trigger drum machine synthesis, as well as sending multiple control
voltages out to an analogue synthesizer. At the same time, the audio
output from these two external devices was sent back into the
laptop. This would then be sampled and processed in Max/MSP, where
several parameters were affected by my own interaction with the game
controller. In this way I was able to access several parts of my
performance system at once, bypassing some of the given---and to me,
undesirable---control interfaces, such as the knobs of my Korg MS20
analogue synthesizer, or the buttons of the Elektron MachineDrum.
While this approach involves initial one-to-many mapping choices,
the overall result is a network of interdependent processes, which
feed into each other. The resistances in my performance environments
often lie within the extreme potential for activity through
interconnections within the audio signal path, which must be
negotiated by the performer, often through holding a static position
for extended periods of time. The game controller, for example, is so
easy to manipulate, that the musicality comes from resisting this by
holding both thumbs fixed on the joysticks, which requires a great
deal of pressure from the hands, and creates a tension in the body: a
movement of even one millimetre can drastically alter the sound.
\subsection{Person-Centered Arts Practice}
\subsubsection{Background}
Since 2006 I have worked in various music therapy-related and
person-centred arts practice roles in the
UK. These have included performing classical piano concerts in day
care centres for adults with learning difficulties, as well as running
several series of workshops for people with complex disabilities. In these
workshops I employ a variety of traditional instruments along with
numerous NIMEs, and I focus on the tangible experience of playing and
perceiving sound.
In 2012 I was asked to be involved with the
Artlink\footnote{\url{http://www.artlinkedinburgh.co.uk/}} Ideas Team,
established by the Edinburgh-based arts charity in 2010. This team,
consisting of various local and
international artists and members of Artlink staff, works with an
individual together with psychologists, care workers and family
members. The goal is to establish new ways of thinking about and
making artworks by exploring creative responses to the daily
experiences of people with profound learning disabilities. I was asked to work alongside artist Steve Hollingsworth to
develop an instrument for a young autistic man (M), who was
intensely drawn to piano
performance\footnote{\url{http://issuu.com/artlinkedinburgh/docs/artlink201112}}.
\subsubsection{The Physiology of the Performer}
``The nature from which man has selected his musical styles is not only
external to him; it includes his own nature---his psychophysical
capacities and the ways in which these have been structured by his
experiences of interaction with people and things, which are part of
the adaptive process of maturation in culture'' \cite{Blacking1973}.
Before any part of the design or build commenced, it was crucial to
spend time with M at the piano to observe his engagement with the
instrument. I visited him weekly to hear him play acoustic
pianos as well as my digitally-augmented instrument, the hybrid piano
\cite{Hayes:2013fk}. Several important observations were made over the
weeks that I visited him. Aside from a piano-based instrument being
selected due to M's enthusiasm for it, his often
overpowering strength meant that keyboards or MIDI instruments were
ruled out as they were neither sturdy nor durable enough.
There was a marked difference in M's playing when sitting at the piano
alone, compared to when we played together. When playing alone, M
would hammer the keys for several minutes at a time with much
force. When playing together, he would pause to make eye contact, to
listen, and to respond. He would mimic patterns that my fingers made
on the keys, often loosely, and sometimes with accuracy. This
posed the first question as to how I could achieve this sense of
engagement in M's new instrument without me, or another musician,
being physically present.
Another important factor was the fact that M could get so
enthralled in playing the piano that he would often become
over-excited, and begin to sweat and hyperventilate. The posed a
further problem as to how we could create something that could be
enjoyable, without being over-stimulating.
\subsubsection{Sociocultural Context}
M's fondness for the piano did not stem from a particular interest
in classical or romantic music, or from a childhood that involved
taking piano lessons. The piano for M was a direct means of
expression: tangible and immediate. This unique connection between
player and instrument allowed an approach to developing the NIME that
could view M's aesthetic choices as based around sounds that were
enjoyed by him in his everyday life. Sound libraries were created
which contained samples of his mother's voice, the sound of his dog
barking, as well as car sounds, and sounds from car racing television shows which
he enjoyed. Additionally, I was able to observe during our time
together in workshops which types of sounds from the hybrid piano
seemed to engage M, and which he seemed to dislike. As M had
been improvising with me over several months, I sampled some of my
own piano playing as source material.
\subsubsection{Objectives for NIME Development}
There were several practical design choices that we had to consider
from the outset. As mentioned above, the instrument had to be stable. Furthermore, M was attracted to wires, and would grab
at any that were visible, so everything had to be hidden and
enclosed. A button interface was proposed, where buttons would be
secured onto the front of the piano. These were combined with LED
lights and vibration motors which offered direct sensory feedback to
M to confirm that he had pressed the buttons. The buttons would
change the sample sets, and stop and start the sounds.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{mark.jpg}
\caption{Detail of M's Piano.}
\label{fig:BlockDiagram2}
\end{figure}
One of the first goals that was discussed in a meeting by M's mother was the idea for M to put a ``square peg in a
square hole''\footnote{Personal email correspondence with Alison
Stirling}. That is to say that the instrument should be able to
demonstrate some degree of agency and intentionality from
M. Furthermore, we envisaged that this would develop over time as
M grew familiar with the instrument. As such, I had to ensure that
the software could be updated when necessary to ensure that it would remain
challenging yet engaging for M. The buttons began as
simple start/stop switches, but could be modified to react differently
if M started to exhibit choice in his actions. The project is ongoing
and the Ideas Team continues to learn from M.
\section{Conclusion}
I have described two examples of NIME development in differing
contexts. Each situation
uses musical performance as a means of enabling creativity,
expression, communication, and also personal development. The
commonalities between the two situations are clear. In each case, the
development of NIMEs has evolved through close attention to the users'
physiologies and sensorimotor capacities; their musical histories; and
the sociocultural contexts in which the musical engagement takes
place.
It is evident that the type of physical, tactile engagement that I
seek within live electronic musical performance has arisen out of my
perceptive capacities and experience with the touch-based expressivity
of the acoustic piano. However, there is now a generation of musicians
who may not experience this loss of touch since their initial
engagement with music may come through digital devices such as iPads,
rather than acoustic instruments. The model of structural coupling
between musician and instrument that I describe suggests a need for
individualised systems that arise out of the specific interactions of
each person in the world over time. For those with complex
disabilities, an acknowledgement of the uniqueness of their
experiences and responses is required before progress can be made.
If we view music as an enactive process, where new
technologies lead to more engaging, embodied relationships between
people and instruments, both the social as well as the sonic
relationships that we wish to explore, affirm and celebrate [1] can be
realised. The two examples in this paper serve to highlight the need
for more in-depth collaborative research that will combine creative practice
and ethnography with DMI design in order to provide a better
understanding of the experiences and benefits of using new
technologies within musical contexts.
\section{Acknowledgments}
Thanks to Alison Stirling and Kara Christine, along with Steve Hollingsworth, for giving me the opportunity to
work with them on the Artlink Ideas Team.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
CNNs are powerful techniques used in many computer vision related machine learning tasks spanning from image and video processing to automatic learning of agents in robotics and games.
Recently, new families of CNNs featuring various convolution (CONV) layers \cite{szegedy2015going,szegedy2017inception,howard2017mobilenets} have been developed. These CNNs show superior performance wrt prediction accuracy while introducing new convolution operations (e.g. depthwise CONV in MobileNet, "Fire" module in SqueezeNet, $1\times 7$ filter in "Inception module").
As CNNs continue to be more compute- and memory-intensive,
FPGAs become promising candidates for CNN inference implementation with superior latency and reduced energy consumption.
To avoid expensive run-time reconfiguration, most existing FPGA-based solutions usually use a specific algorithm across all the layers and reuse a generic architecture to speed up the algorithm \cite{zeng2018framework,podili2017fast,niu2020reuse,zhang2020evaluating, ye2020hybriddnn}. These approaches leave some performance and hardware efficiency on the table due to (1) use of a fixed algorithm across diverse layers and (2) under-utilization due to fixed hardware.
This situation is compounded since state-of-the-art CNNs have more diverse layer shapes and complex structures, resulting in sub-optimal latency.
Many algorithms have been proposed to optimize various types of CONV operations, such as GEMM (General Matrix-Matrix Multiplication) based methods (im2col \cite{chetlur2014cudnn}, kn2row \cite{vasudevan2017parallel}, Winograd-fast matrix multiplication \cite{lavin2016fast}) and frequency-domain methods \cite{wang2016cnnpack}.
DYNAMAP is primarily motivated by the possibility of bridging the performance gap between the widely used "one size fits all" design methodology and an ideal design methodology where \textit{dedicated layer-wise algorithm tuning is performed to realize low end-to-end latency
and maximal hardware-reuse across layers}. To achieve this goal, this paper explores dynamic algorithm mapping for various layers using a domain specific architecture that can support all the GEMM-based CONV algorithms.
Different algorithmic approaches and layer configurations introduce different trade-offs wrt parallelism, memory requirements and data layout which can easily cause hardware under-utilization.
Deeper and increasingly complex CNN models lead to exponential explosion of algorithm design space. For example, GoogleNet has 22 CONV layers. Assuming each layer can be implemented with 3 algorithm choices, this leads to an algorithm mapping space of over 30 billion ($3^{22}$) combinatorial choices.
It is non-trivial effort to decide which algorithm mapping is the best for a given CNN model on a given hardware - This assignment problem naturally maps to Partitioned Boolean Quadratic Programming (PBQP) \cite{scholz2002register} optimization problem, which is NP-hard in its general form.
To address the challenge of hardware under-utilization, we apply dataflow optimization
to minimize wasted computation. To achieve fast optimal algorithm mapping, we propose a polynomial-time solution taking advantage of the series-parallel graph structure of CNNs. These are integrated into DYNAMAP, which takes as inputs (a) the CNN model parameters (input and kernel shapes, stride sizes) (b) the set of algorithms,
and (c) FPGA device meta data (DSP resources, on-chip memory size and external bandwidth). The outputs are algorithm selection for each layer and customized accelerator on the target device specified in Verilog.
Our main contributions are:
\begin{outline}
\1 A unified template hardware overlay re-used across layers with the following novel optimizations:
\2 \textbf{Algorithm Switching}: We enable low-overhead layer-wise layout transformation, allowing dynamic switching of three popular GEMM-based CONV algorithms: im2col, kn2row and Winograd algorithms;
\2 \textbf{Dataflow Optimization}: We optimize the Processing Elements (PE) design to support no-overhead switching between different dataflows to achieve maximum hardware utilization, enhanced with conflict-free memory layout;
\1 Accurate modeling of the computation and communication latency for various CONV algorithm combinations
to allow easy construction of a parameterized dependency graph representation for any CNN models, capturing architectural parameters, FPGA device capabilities, and CNN meta data;
\1 A framework, DYNAMAP, that proposes a 2-step DSE flow:
\2 \textbf{Hardware Mapping}:
Identifying the fixed architectural parameters as well as the most efficient dataflow for each layer under all algorithm settings;
\2 \textbf{Algorithm Mapping}: Polynomial-time optimal algorithm selection exploiting the series-parallel characteristic of CNN graphs;
\1 We evaluate the DYNAMAP-generated hardware design on a Xilinx Alveo U200 board. Our designs achieve up to $2.8\times$ and $1.4\times$ end-to-end latency improvements compared with state-of-the-art FPGA implementations on two recent deep complex-form CNNs - GoogleNet and Inception-V4.
\end{outline}
\section{Background \& Motivation}
\subsection{GEMM-based Convolution}
Convolution (CONV) layers are major building blocks of CNNs and their meta data are defined as follows: Each CONV layer has $C_{in}$ ($C_{out}$) input (output) channels, where each channel is a $H_1\times H_2$ ($O_1\times O_2$) 2D feature map. The layer weights $W$ contain $C_{in}\times C_{out}$ number of kernels, each sized at $K_1\times K_2$. In this work, we focus on spatial convolution. Spatial convolution performs sliding window multiply-accumulate operation of the kernels over the feature maps. As CONV layers dominate the memory and computations in a CNN, a number of algorithms have been proposed for efficient implementation of convolution operation. Among these General-matrix-multiplication (GEMM) - based methods are most widely adopted \cite{chetlur2014cudnn,vasudevan2017parallel,lavin2016fast} for spatial convolution. In this section, we summarize three families of popular GEMM-CONV algorithms and their trade-offs.
\subsubsection{im2col Method}
im2col \cite{chetlur2014cudnn} is a popular algorithm that converts spatial convolution into GEMM. For a feed forward pass of a CONV layer:
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{z}_{x, y}^{l}=\sum_{x^{\prime}} \sum_{y^{\prime}} \boldsymbol{w}_{x, y}^{l} \boldsymbol{a}_{\left(x+x^{\prime}\right),\left(y+y^{\prime}\right)}^{l-1}
\end{equation}
im2col stretches each group of $C_{in}$ kernels into a row of the weight/kernel matrix, $\boldsymbol{X}$, and each group of $C_{in}$ corresponding windows of input feature maps into a column of the input activation matrix, $\boldsymbol{W}$, expressing the feed forward pass as
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{z}_{l}=\boldsymbol{W}^{(C_{out}\times K_1K_2C_{in})}_l* \boldsymbol{X}^{(K_1K_2C_{in}\times O_1O_2)}_{l-1}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{kn2row Method}
The kn2row \cite{vasudevan2017parallel} method is based on the decomposition of convolutions and
reordering the data layout. In the first phase, "unit-CONV GEMM", a $K_1\times K_2$ convolution is computed using $K_1K_2$ separate $1\times 1$ unit-convolutions, which is equivalent to a GEMM call:
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{p}_{k_1,k_2}=\boldsymbol{W}_l^{(C_{out}\times C_{in})}* \boldsymbol{X}_{l-1}^{(C_{in}\times O_1O_2)}
\end{equation}
In the second phase, "Pad-and-Accumulate", the intermediate output patches of all unit-convolutions, $\boldsymbol{p}_{k_1,k_2}$, are shifted by their offsets w.r.t. the center patch, padded with $0$ on the non-overlapping areas and Hadamard-added to generate the final output feature maps:
\begin{equation}
\vspace{-2mm}
\boldsymbol{z}_{l}^{x,y}=\sum_{k_1=1,k_2=1}^{K_1,K_2}\boldsymbol{p}_{k_1,k_2}^{x+(k_1-\frac{K_1}{2}),y+(k_2-\frac{K_2}{2})}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Winograd Minimal Filtering Method}
Winograd algorithm \cite{lavin2016fast} is a fast matrix multiplication algorithm which reduces the number of operations in a GEMM call. A $F(m\times m, r\times r )$ Winograd algorithm can generate output as Equation \ref{winograd}. In this equation, $Y$ and $d$ represent output and input tiles, while $g$ represents kernels. $A, G,$ and $B$ are constant transforming matrices and $\odot$ represents Hadamard multiplication. Input feature map $D$ is partitioned into multiple input tiles, $d$, with size $(m+r-1) \times(m+r-1)$ while adjacent tiles share an $(r-1)$ overlap. Each output tile size is $m \times m$ and kernel size is $r \times r$.
\begin{equation}
\vspace{-2mm}
\label{winograd}
Y=A^{T}\left[\left[G g G^{T}\right] \odot\left[B^{T} d B\right]\right] A
\end{equation}
The final output feature map is calculated by concatenating all output tiles, $Y$, and summing up over the depth of the input tensor. Equivalently, we can reduce over $C_{in}$ channels in the transform space before applying the inverse transform $A$ to the sum. This amortizes the cost of the inverse transform over the number of channels, and allows us to alternatively express the Hadamard products and depth-wise additions into $(m+r-1) \times(m+r-1)$ independent GEMMs \cite{lavin2016fast}:
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{equation}
\vspace{-2mm}
M_{k, \widetilde{x}, \widetilde{y}}^{(\xi, \nu)}=\sum_{c=1}^{C_{in}} U_{k, c}^{(\xi, \nu)} V_{c, \widetilde{x}, \widetilde{y}}^{(\xi, \nu)}\\
\end{equation}
where we label each single component of the tiled Hadamard multiplication separately, as $(\xi, \nu)$ ($0<\xi, \nu\leq m+r-1$); $U$ and $V$ represent the input and kernel tiles $G g G^{T}$ and $B^{T} d B$, respectively; and the tuple $k, (\widetilde{x}, \widetilde{y})$ indicates the coordinate of the input tile corresponding to $k^{th}$ kernel ($0<k\leq C_{out}$).
\textbf{Trade-offs:} While im2col has the same computation load as spatial convolution, it suffers from memory overhead due to input feature duplication, especially for large kernels and small stride sizes. kn2row is known as a low-memory algorithm because it eliminates the need to duplicate feature map elements by using $1\times 1$ convolutions. However, it incurs extra overhead in the "Pad-and-Accumulate" phase compared to im2col method. The advantage of Winograd CONV comes from the lower computation complexity. For example, an $F(4 \times 4,3 \times 3)$ Winograd algorithm requires 36 multiplications for one output tile, while the Spatial CONV needs 144 multiplications. The reduction of multiplications is 4 times in this case. However, Winograd introduces memory overhead and extra additions due to the transformation in Equation \ref{winograd}.
\subsection{Motivation}
State-of-the-art CNNs \cite{szegedy2015going,szegedy2017inception,ioffe2015batch,szegedy2016rethinking} have highly complex architectures with multiple branches and wide variations in CONV layer configurations. As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:motivation}, using three common layer configurations, relative performance of the three GEMM based convolution algorithms depends heavily on the layer configuration, Thus, using a single algorithm across all the layers is not an optimal strategy to minimize the latency of CNN inference. Rather, the ability to switch algorithms between layers is needed.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{motv.png}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{Computation and Memory Loads of GEMM-CONV algorithms on different layer configurations}
\label{fig:motivation}
\end{figure}
Enabling efficient algorithm switching requires us to solve the following problem: (a) As wide variety of CONV configurations and convolution algorithms exist, a unified architecture which is general enough to execute all combinations, while, simultaneously supporting algorithm specific optimizations to extract maximum performance is needed (Section~\ref{sec3}). (b) As each algorithm requires the input and produces the output in its own specific format a low overhead data re-ordering mechanism is needed (Section~\ref{laytrans}). (c) As state-of-the-art-CNNs are extremely deep with number of CONV layers easily surpassing 50 or 100 (Inception-v4 has 141 CONV layers), a low complexity algorithm, which can handle the exponential combinatorial explosion in design choices ($3^{141}$ for Inception-v4) is needed to determine optimal algorithm for each layer (Section~\ref{sec:pbqp}).
We solve the problems mentioned above and present DYNAMAP --- a framework that takes any CNN model and maps it onto FPGA in order to obtain extremely low latency CNN inference (Section~\ref{sec:dse}).
\subsection{Related Work}
\cite{podili2017fast,lu2017evaluating} developed efficient FPGA accelerators for Winograd CONV expressed as hadamard multiplication between input tiles. \cite{zeng2018framework,zeng2017fast,niu2020reuse} focus on frequency-domain CNN acceleration which are usually advantageous for large kernels. \cite{zhang2020evaluating} used kn2row and achieved state-of-the-art speedup on Inception v-4 which has more memory-bounded layers. While these works adopt certain strategies to accelerate CNN inference, they do not explore the flexible switching of different algorithms within the same network.
\cite{ye2020hybriddnn} proposed a hls-implemented accelerator that allows switching between Winograd and spatial CONV, achieving high-throughput inference on VGG-16. However, their design is not optimized for more memory-bound CONV layers such as those in Googlenet, mobilenet, Resnet and Inception networks. \cite{incepv2} proposed to combine fast convolution algorithms including Winograd and Fast Fourier Transform by developing separate modules for the two strategies and partition the resource for different layers executing each; \cite{zhang2020dnnexplorer} explores a hardware DSE scheme that allocates resources to a generic module that accelerate majority of the layers and specific modules heavily customized and dedicated to certain types of layers. While these works exploit fine-grained layer specific tuning, their designs do not maximally re-use the available resource when executing no-batch inference. This is because the dependencies in CNN graph leads to idling of these specific modules when single image inference needs to be performed.
\cite{cong2014combining} proposes a polynomial-time heuristic to a general module selection problem for streaming applications. While this approach focuses on throughput-area tradeoff fitting multiple operators where module circuit implementations are selected(mapped) to each operator, it does not capture CNN-specific algorithm choices such as im2col, kn2row and Winograd to CONV operators(layers). In contrast, we exploit maximal circuit-reuse across different layers and map different algorithms to layers for low-latency CNN inference. To exploit both layer-wise fine-tuning and hardware utilization, we take a different approach than the existing works - We define a unified computing unit that is general enough to execute all layer-algorithm combinations, while, simultaneously supports algorithm switching and algorithm-specific optimizations for maximum performance.
\section{Architecture Overlay design for Dynamic Algorithm Switching}
\label{sec3}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{ovw.png}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{Architecture Overview}
\label{fig:overview}
\end{figure}
We develop a unified architecture template with a shared central Computing Unit which can be used by all the supported algorithms and separate algorithm-specific auxiliary functional modules. To address the challenges of: (a) hardware under-utilization due to different layer-specific parallelism requirements and (b) algorithm switching overhead, we propose the following optimizations, respectively: (a) a novel PE design that enables stall free computations between layers and enables selection of algorithm specific optimal systolic array dataflow to extract maximum parallelism in GEMM operations (Section~\ref{sec:dfpe}), (b) a low overhead data layout transformation module to enable fast algorithm switching between layers (Section~\ref{laytrans}).
\subsection{Architecture Overview}
Figure \ref{fig:overview} shows a high-level overview of the template architecture design. The accelerator is composed of a GEMM Computing Unit performing, Linear Transform Modules for Winograd, a Pad-and-Accumulation Module for kn2row, Data Layout Transformation (DLT) Modules for data re-ordering when switching between different layers and algorithms, and a Pooling Module for max pooling on spatial feature maps. The Computing Unit (CU) is a $P_{SA1}\times P_{SA2}$ 2-D systolic array of Multiply-Accumulation (MAC) units optimized for GEMM. The Input Buffer and Kernel Buffer are organized into $P_{SA1}$ and $P_{SA2}$ banks, respectively; Each bank stores a partition of input feature / kernel matrix. During GEMM execution, $P_{SA1}$ and $P_{SA2}$ data elements are read concurrently by parallel PEs in the systolic array, and written to $P_{SA1}$ or $P_{SA2}$ banks of output buffer in parallel.
Under im2col mode, the Toeplitz matrices of input feature maps and kernel parameters are loaded into the Input and Kernel Buffers. The output feature maps are directly written into the output buffer.
Under kn2row mode, the independent $1\times 1$ unit convolutions are expressed as a series of GEMM calls. Then Pad-and-Accumulate Module shifts each intermediate output patch to align with the position determined by the original $K_1 \times K_2$ kernel and produces the final output feature maps using an accumulation buffer. The bank indices and address offsets for Pad-and-Accumulation are pre-computed based on CONV layer meta data \cite{zhang2020evaluating}. The "unit-CONV GEMM" and "Pad-and-Accumulate" phases are pipelined enabling CU to start working on the next patch of unit-CONV GEMM while accumulation buffer still processes the last patch. This reduces the overall "Pad-and-Accumulate" overhead of kn2row.
Under Winograd mode, both input feature maps and kernels are fed into the Linear Transformation Modules so that the GEMM operates in Winograd-transformed space. Each of $(m+r-1)\times (m+r-1)$ input feature map tile (overlapped by $r-1$ in adjacent tiles) and $r\times r$ kernel tile are transformed into a $(m+r-1)\times (m+r-1)$ sized tile. All the tiles are scattered and reordered into $(m+r-1)\times (m+r-1)$ independent input and kernel matrices \cite{lavin2016fast} sized at $(\frac{H_1}{m}\times \frac{H_1}{m}, C_{in})$ and $C_{in},C_{out}$, respectively. These GEMMs are fed into the systolic array sequentially and the output is again multiplied with transformation matrices to recover the output tensor shape $({O_1}\times {O_2}, C_{out})$. Linear Transform Module requires multiplication by constants and additions which are determined by Winograd hyper-parameters $(m,r)$. For instance, in a $F(2,3)$, the transformation matrices are only composed of values of $\pm 1$ and $\pm \frac{1}{2}$, which can be easily implemented using shift and add operations.
\subsection{Dataflow-switchable \& Stall-free PE design}
\label{sec:dfpe}
Performance of GEMM on a fixed systolic array heavily depends upon the dimension chosen for parallelism. For example, consider a $31 \times 31$ systolic array size for multiplying input matrices of sizes $(a,b), (b,c)=(62,124), (124,64)$. Parallelizing along dimensions $a, c$ and breaking each input matrix into tiles sized at $(124,31)$ and $(124,31)$, respectively, will require extensive zero padding in the last tile which will have only 2 columns along dimension $c$. The effective PE utilization will only be $68\%$. However, if we parallelize along dimension $a,b$ instead, no under-utilization will occur.
\begin{scriptsize}
\begin{table*}[]
\caption{Tensor Layout transformations}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\toprule
& \textbf{I}& \textbf{Step\_b} & \textbf{Step\_d} & \textbf{I1} & \textbf{inc\_b2}& \textbf{inc\_d2}& \textbf{I2} & \textbf{inc\_b3} & \textbf{inc\_d3} \\
\midrule
\midrule
\textbf{3D Tensor $\rightarrow$ Toeplitz} & $O^2$ & $S$ & $K_1K_2$ & $K_1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $K_2$ & $H_1S$ & $1$ \\\midrule
\textbf{3D Tensor $\rightarrow$ Winograd} & $\frac{H_1H_2}{m^2}$ & $m$ & $-\frac{H_1H_2(m+r-1)^2}{m^2}+1$ & $m+r-1$ & $1$ & $\frac{H_1H_2}{m^2}$ & $m+r-1$ & $H_1$ & $\frac{H_1H_2}{m^2}$ \\\midrule
\textbf{Winograd $\rightarrow$ 3D Tensor} & $\frac{H_1H_2}{m^2}$ & $1$ & $m^2$ & $m$ & $\frac{H_1H_2}{m^2}$ & $1$ & $m$ & $\frac{H_1H_2}{m^2}$ & $1$ \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:layout}
\end{table*}
\end{scriptsize}
To handle such scenarios, we develop a novel PE design that allows for no-overhead switching between different dataflow to improve PE utilization.
\textbf{Non-stationary (NS) Dataflow:}
The input matrices $W(b\times c)$ and $X(a\times b)$ are partitioned along dimensions $a$ (or $c$) into tiles of size $b\times P_{SA1}$ (or $P_{SA2}$). Each Processing Element (PE) computes a vector-product that contributes to one output feature.
In each clock cycle each PE performs one multiply-accumulation (MAC) and shifts the input and weight along two directions. Once all the MAC computations for a pixel are finished, the final result is shifted out of the PE and the PE proceeds to work on a new pixel. The NS datapath in a PE is shown in Figure \ref{fig:pe} with black and red-colored wires. Each pass of matrix partitions incur an initialization overhead $I_{SA}$ that is proportional to $max(P_{SA1},P_{SA2})$ and in a naive implementation will be incurred for each pass in each layer. We alleviate these overheads to implement stall-free GEMM as follows (Figure \ref{fig:pe}): MUX highlighted in grey selects between shifting accumulation result of $PE_{x,y}$ and other PEs. When one PE completes the dot product for one pixel, the accumulation result is directly shifted out, and during the computation of the next PE, accumulation results of other PEs can be shifted concurrently such that $I_{SA}$ is overlapped with next-pass computation.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{PE_new.png}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{PE dataflow and optimizations to support stall-free operations}
\label{fig:pe}
\end{figure}
To further avoid additional stalls due to accumulation result congestion between passes when $b<P_{SA}$ (commonly occurs in layers with small filter and shallow feature maps), we widen the wire(s) used to shift down accumulation results by $\frac{j}{L_{pass}}$ for PEs at the $j^{th}$ row. This ensures that the rate at which outputs are shifted out of each PE matches the rate at which outputs are generated.
\textbf{Weight-Stationary (WS) Dataflow:} In \textbf{WS}, in each pass, the PEs pre-load a (stationary) block of the weight/kernel matrix sized at $P_{SA1}\times P_{SA2}$ into their local registers. Then the input matrix is fed as tiles of size $P_{SA1}\times a$ into the systolic array in a pipelined fashion. In each clock cycle each PE performs a MAC operation, shifting the input to the next neighbor along $P_{SA1}$ direction and shifting the partial result down to accumulate the partial sums. Each $\frac{b}{P_{SA1}}$ pass produces an intermediate accumulation result of a corresponding $P_{SA2}\times a$-sized partition of the output matrix. This is accumulated at the bottom of the systolic array using accumulators connected with FIFOs of depth $P_{SA1}+c$. After one round (a total of $\frac{b}{P_{SA1}}$ passes) is complete, the final results of one $P_{SA2}\times a$ partition of the output matrix is written back. Such rounds are repeated for every block-tile pairs until the entire GEMM is covered. To remove the initialization overheads in each pass, we modify the basic PE design to pre-load weights (input) in a ping-pong manner using two shift registers (Figure \ref{fig:pe}: highlighted in blue). The $P_{SA1}\times P_{SA2}$ weight block for the next pass is pre-fetched into the register while the current pass is still being processed. \textbf{Input-Stationary (IS) Dataflow} is the mirror of WS: in each pass the PEs pre-load a (stationary) block of the input matrix, shifting the weight and result tiles.
\textbf{Dual-parallelism Blocked Data Layout:} WS (IS) dataflow accesses input (weight) matrix in a transposed fashion compared to that in NS: In NS, the input (weight) matrix is partitioned along the $b$ dimension, while in WS (IS) it is partitioned along dimension $a$ ($c$). Therefore, even when operating on our stall-free PEs, there will still be bank conflicts which will stall the execution when switching between different dataflows. In practice, if we store weight data into $P_{SA1}\times P_{SA2}$ individual banks, the design is not scalable to lower-precision inferences as the PEs in the systolic array easily outnumber available FPGA on-chip memory block resources. To resolve this problem we use a dual-parallelism blocked data layout as shown in Figure \ref{fig:dl}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{datalayout2.png}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{Dual-parallelism blocked data layout}
\label{fig:dl}
\end{figure}
We partition the matrix along both systolic array dimensions and store the blocks in a circular-shifted manner, Equation \ref{dlmap} shows the mapping between feature block $(i,j)$ and its location $(Bank_x,Block_y)$ in on-chip SRAM. Using such bank layout we ensure single-cycle parallel access in both directions can be achieved without bank conflicts.
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{dlmap}
\begin{aligned}
&x=(i+j) \% P_{SA1}\\
&y=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
i \% P_{S A 2} & \text { if }(i+j)<P_{SA1} \\
i-\left(P_{S A I}-P_{S A 2}\right) & \text { if }(i+j) \geqslant P_{SA1}
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
\vspace{-2mm}
\subsection{Data Layout Transformation Module}
\label{laytrans}
Each algorithm --- im2col, kn2row and Winograd requires input and produces output in a specific layout.
We design the Data Layout Transformation (DLT) Module to achieve layout transformation on-the-fly with minimal overheads. At data-store (data-load) side, DLT module streams in the [on-chip SRAM (DRAM) address, data] tuples, converts the output layout of the previous layer into the correct input tensor layout for the algorithm implemented in the following layer, generates the [DRAM (on-chip SRAM) address, data] tuples and stream out to the DDR controller. As the DLT at data-load side performs symmetric operations as that at data-store side with flipped on-chip SRAM / DRAM address tuples, we only show the transformation scheme for data-store side.
While all three algorithms have different data layout for the input tensor shape, im2col and kn2row outputs the intermediate feature map in the same layout - spatial 3D tensor layout. Therefore the DLT Module selects from one of six available combinations for layout conversion. When both layers use kn2row algorithm, the output layout is the same (3D tensor) as the next input layout. In this case, the transformation is simply a one-to-one matching between consecutive on-chip SRAM and DRAM addresses. We list the other conversions below:
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{tensor_toep_wino1.png}
\caption{LTU (Data-Store side): FSM flow}
\label{fig:3d_toep}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{3D Tensor Layout Transformations}
The input layout for im2col is known as the Toeplitz matrix, where each group of $C_{in}$ windows of input feature maps corresponding to a filter size is stretched into a column of the Toeplitz matrix, sized at $(O_1O_2,K^2C_{in})$. We define the output layout of im2col and kn2row as spatial 3D Tensor Layout, which is a matrix of shape $(H_1H_2,C_{in})$. Figure \ref{fig:3d_toep} shows a high-level Finite-State Machine diagram of the mechanism adopted in a Layout Transformation Unit (LTU) implementing the transformations, where $B, D$ represent the on-chip SRAM and DDR addresses corresponding to a data point in the feature map. Incrementing $B$ by 1 (or $H*S$) means jumping to the address of the adjacent data (or data at distance of $S$ rows) in the original feature map in on-chip SRAM to obtain a new tuple, and incrementing $D$ by $1$ means setting the next consecutive address as write-back address. The generated (DDR address, data) tuples are buffered until DDR transfer burst length (BL) is saturated, and are then sent to DDR interface. Iter\_x denotes the counters that keep track of the number of times state x is visited. The process for transforming a 3D Tensor output to a Toeplitz input is shown in Table \ref{tab:layout} first row, state 2 loops inside each row (length $K_1$) of sliding window, state 3 iterates all $K_2$ rows in a sliding window and state 1 steps over all overlapped sliding windows.
\subsubsection{Winograd Layout Transformation}
In Winograd Input Tensor Layout, $\frac{H_1H_2}{m}^2$ input feature tiles (each sized at $(m+r-1)^2$) are stretched into rows and adjacent tiles share an overlap with width of $r-1$. As each tile sized at $(m+r-1)^2$ is initially scattered to $(m+r-1)^2$ different matrices for separate matrix multiplications \cite{lavin2016fast}, $\frac{H_1H_2}{m}^2$ elements corresponding to the same relative position in each overlapping tile should be adjacent in on-chip SRAM, When transforming from 3D tensor layout to Winograd input Layout (Table \ref{tab:layout} row 2). Consistently, in the Winograd output Tensor Layout, the $m^2$ elements of each output tile are scattered to locations spaced out at $\frac{H_1}{m}$ horizontally or $\frac{H_2}{m}$ vertically, and $\frac{H_1H_2}{m}^2$ elements from different tiles are adjacent in the Output Buffer. Therefore, to transform from Winograd output layout to Toeplitz layout, we first need to restore the 3D Tensor layout (Table \ref{tab:layout} row 3), then transform to Toeplitz input layout using row 2 configurations. To avoid extra roundtrip to DRAM, we double-buffer the Output Buffer into two bank groups, where the systolic array writes to bank group A, LTU \#1 transforms 3D Tensor and writes into bank group B, while LTU \#2 takes input from bank group B and writes into DRAM.
\subsection{Pooling}
MaxPool and AvgPool are the most common Pooling layers. To avoid expensive data traffic between the host processor and FPGA, we allocate dedicated hardware module for MaxPool, and express AvgPool of window $K_1\times K_2$ as equivalent to a 2D convolution with a $K_1\times K_2$ kernel where each element is of value $\frac{1}{K_1\times K_2}$. The hardware building block for the MaxPool module are the Pooling Units (PU).
Each PU contains a Horizontal PU (HPU) to read data from input feature map horizontally in a pipelined manner. The HPU outputs one intermediate Pooling result each clock cycle. After HPU produces $K_1$ rows of intermediate Pooling results, the Vertical PU (VPU) with the same architecture starts processing in the vertical direction, producing one Pooling result each clock cycle, overlapping the HPU in a pipelined fashion. We use an array of PUs to exploit parallelism across feature maps.
\section{Optimization Formulation for Algorithm Mapping}
\label{sec:pbqp}
Given a graph representation of a CNN model and the target FPGA platform, we need to determine the following: (a) For each layer, the choice of the convolution algorithm and the choice of the dataflow. We call this algorithm-dataflow pair. (b) parameters to customize architecture overlay for the CNN model on the target platform. We discuss (a) in this section, and (b) in Section~\ref{sec:dse}. Note that as optimal dataflow for each algorithm in each layer can be determined in step (b), algorithm mapping here implicitly implies algorithm-dataflow pair mapping.
As described in Section~\ref{laytrans}, the choice of algorithm-dataflow pair not only impacts the execution time of the layer, it also impacts the execution time of all the neighboring layers as represented by the edges in the graph $G$. This is because data layout transformations are needed to ensure data is available to the algorithms in the correct format. Thus, greedily selecting algorithm-dataflow pairs that minimize the execution time at each layer will not minimize the overall execution time of the CNN.
We assume the CNN graph is $G = (V, E, C_v, T_e)$, with each vertex $v \in V$ representing a layer of the model and each edge $e \in E$ representing the ordering between two layers. Let vertices be labelled $\{1,\dots,N\}$, where $N=|V|$. $C_v$ is the cost vector array that represents the computation costs of the vertices (Section~\ref{ssec:costmatrix}) under different algorithm-dataflow pairs. For vertex $i$, $\vec{c}_i$ denotes the cost vector. $T_e$ is the set of transition cost matrices that represent the cost of data layout transformation between vertices (Section~\ref{ssec:txmatrix}). $T_{ij}$ denotes transition matrix for each edge $(i,j)$. The objective is to determine algorithm-dataflow mapping for each layer of CNN such that the cost --- total latency of executing the CNN is minimized. $\vec{x}_i$ is a 0-1 assignment vector with $\vec{x}_i(k) = 1$, if algorithm $k$ is chosen and 0 otherwise. Exactly one entry of $\vec{x}_{i}$ can be set to 1. The problem can be formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{c}
minimize \sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq N} \vec{x}_{i}^{T} T_{i j} \vec{x}_{j}+\sum_{1 \leq i \leq N} \vec{x}_{i}^{T} \vec{c}_{i} \\
\text {s.t.} \\
\vec{x}_{i} \in\{0,1\}^{\left|\vec{c}_{i}\right|} \quad \forall 1 \leq i \leq N \\
||\vec{x}_{i}||_{1} == 1
\end{array}\end{equation}
This problem formulation is known as Partitioned Boolean Quadratic Programming (PBQP) problem~\cite{scholz2002register}. PBQP has been used to model a number of problems in compiler optimization such as register allocation for architectures with irregular instruction sets \cite{scholz2002register}, and instruction selection on DAGs~\cite{eckstein2003code}.
PBQP is NP-Complete~\cite{scholz2002register,anderson2018optimal}. However, we show that for a class of graphs, known as \textit{series-parallel graphs}, PBQP can be solved in polynomial time. Moreover, we show that the graphs of a majority of popular CNN architectures fall into this class. This allows us to develop a polynomial time optimal algorithm for the algorithm mapping optimization problem defined above.
\textbf{Definition 1:} A (undirected) graph, with two distinguished vertices -- source $s$ and sink $t$, is a series-parallel graph if it can be turned into a $K_2$ graph (a graph with two vertices connected with an edge) by a sequence of the following operations~\cite{duffin1965topology}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Remove a degree 2 vertex other than $s$ or $t$ and the edges incident on it. Directly connect the two neighbors with a single edge.
\item Replace a pair of parallel edges with a single edge that connects the two endpoint vertices.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm1}
PBQP can be solved in polynomial time if the graph is a series parallel graph. Moreover, for a graph with $N$ vertices and $d = \max_i \left|\vec{c}_{i}\right|$, the running time is $O(Nd^2)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm}
On any series-parallel graph, reduction operations (1) and (2) preserves the optimality of PBQP.
\end{theorem}
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{proof}
We prove Theorem \ref{thm1} and \ref{thm} by induction.
The \textbf{inductive property} is that any series-parallel graph can be constructed from a base K-2 Graph $(s,t)$, where $s$ is its source and $t$ is its sink, by a combination of the following two steps:
\textbf{Base steps:} (1) adding a vertex with an edge connected to $s$ or $t$ of the base K-2 Graph; (2) adding an edge between $s$ and $t$ of the base K-2 Graph;
\textbf{Inductive steps:} (1) adding a vertex with an edge connected to the source or sink of an existing series-parallel graph; (2) adding an edge between the source and sink of an existing series-parallel graph; Note that adding a degree-2 vertex connected to the source and sink of a K-2(or, series-parallel) graph $G_s$ is equivalent to performing Base(or, Inductive) step (1) followed by Inductive step (2) on $G_s$.
In the following, we prove that any series-parallel graoh constructed this way can be reduced to a K-2 graph with preserved optimality.
\textbf{Base Cases: (1)} For a graph $G^1$ with three vertices $i,j,k$ and edges $(i,k), (k,j)$, the optimal solution is obtained by choosing algorithms $(d_k)$ for vertex $k$ such that $d_k=argmin\{\vec{c}_i(d_i) + T_{i,k}(d_i, d_k) + \vec{c}_k(d_k) + T_{k,j}(d_k, d_j) + \vec{c}_j(d_j)\}$ for all $(d_i, d_j)$ pairs in $G^1$.
Applying operation 1 on vertex $k$ to obtain $K_2$ graph --- $G^1_{K_2}$ and setting $T_{ij}(d_i, d_j) =$ $ \min_{d_k}\{T_{i,k}(d_i, d_k) + \vec{c}_k(d_k) + T_{k,j}(d_k, d_j) \}$ for all $(d_i, d_j)$ in $G^1_{K_2}$, the optimal solution on the reduced graph can be found by iterating through $(\vec{c}_i(d_i), \vec{c}_i(d_j))$ pairs. Thus, optimality is preserved.
\textbf{(2)} For a graph $G^1$ with two vertices $i,j$ and two parallel edges between vertices $(i,j)^1$ and $(i,j)^2$, the optimal solution is $min\{\vec{c}_i(d_i) + T^1_{i,j}(d_i, d_j) + T^2_{i,j}(d_i, d_j) + \vec{c}_j(d_j)\}$, where $T^1$ and $T^2$ are matrices of the parallel edges.
Applying operation 2 by updating $T_{i,j}(d_i, d_j) = T^1_{i,j}(d_i, d_j) + T^2_{i,j}(d_i, d_j)$, the optimality is preserved.
\textbf{Inductive Hypothesis: } We assume that a subgraph, $G^S=(V^S,E^S)$, of a series-parallel graph, where $|V^S|=N,|E^S|=M$, can reduce to a $K_2$ graph with preserved optimality.
\textbf{Inductive Cases:} We show that a series-parallel graph $G=(V,E)$ constructed by adding a vertex/edge to $G^S$ specified above can still reduce to a $K_2$ graph with optimality preserved: \textbf{(1)} If $G(|V|=N+1,|E|=M+1)$ is constructed by adding a vertex, $k$, with an edge connected to the source $s$ or the sink $t$ of $G^S$ by an edge $(k,s)$ or $(t,k)$, the optimal solution can be obtained by treating $G^S$ as its reduced $K_2$ graph (due to Inductive Hypothesis). Assuming we connected $k$ to $t$, $G$ can be treated as having three vertices $s,t,k$ connected by two edges $(s,t),(t,k)$, which is reducable to $K_2$ graph with $s,k$ connected by an edge using the same method as shown in Base case: (1). \textbf{(2)} If $G(|V|=N,|E|=M+1)$ is constructed by adding an edge, $(s,t)$, connecting the source $s$ and the sink $t$ of $G^S$, the optimal solution can be obtained by treating $G^S$ as its reduced $K_2$ graph (due to Inductive Hypothesis), therefore $G$ can be treated as having two vertices $(s,t)$ and two parallel edges, which is reducable to $K_2$ graph using the method shown in Base case: (2). Therefore any series-parallel graph can be reduced to a $K_2$ graph, preserving the optimality of the solution on the original graph. As described in the base cases, each reduction operation (1) or (2) requires $O(d^2)$ amount of work and is performed $O(N)$ times in total for a given graph.
\end{proof}
We demonstrate the proof for the optimality-preserving reduction with a simple example in Figure \ref{fig:samplered}, where we assume $N=3, d=2$ and $c_i=0, 0\leq i\leq d$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{sampleG.png}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{Sample Reduction Process}
\label{fig:samplered}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}
Resnet~\cite{resnet}, VGG~\cite{vgg}, Alexnet~\cite{alexnet},
etc. which do not have any branches are series parallel graphs.
\end{lemma}
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{proof}
Let the input layer be denoted by vertex $s$ and the output layer by vertex $t$. The degrees of vertices corresponding to all the other layers for VGG and Alexnet are 2. By repeatedly applying operation 1, we obtain a $K_2$ graph. In ResNet, some vertices have higher degrees due to skip connections. However, the vertices between the end points of each skip connection have degree 2. Thus, repeatedly applying operation 1 on these nodes until an edge parallel to the skip connection edge is obtained, and then applying operation 2 results in a graph with all vertices, except $s$ and $t$, having degree 2. By repeatedly applying operation 1, we obtain a $K_2$ graph.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
GoogleNet~\cite{szegedy2015going}, Inception-v1 to v4 and Inception-ResNet-v1 \cite{szegedy2017inception,szegedy2016rethinking}, which are composed of inception modules are series parallel graphs.
\end{lemma}
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{proof}
Due to space limitations, we prove this lemma only for Inception-v4. Similar arguments can be made for the other networks. Consider Inception-C block (Figure 6 in~\cite{szegedy2016inception}). The output of the \textit{Filter concat} layer at the bottom splits into 4 branches. The left 2 branches have only degree 2 nodes and can be converted to a single edge by operation 1. For the third branch from left, applying operation 1 on $1 \times 3$ and $3 \times 1$ CONV layers, followed by operation 2 on the resulting parallel edge and then applying operation 1 on $1 \times 1$ CONV layer will result in a single edge. Similarly, the rightmost branch can also be converted into a single edge. The four parallel edges can be merged (operation 2) resulting in a $K_2$ graph. In a similar manner, Inception-A, B and Stem modules can also be reduced to $K_2$. Thus, Inception-v4 network (Figure 9 in~\cite{szegedy2016inception}) can be reduced into a number of $K_2$ graphs connected in series which can in turn be trivially reduced to $K_2$.
\end{proof}
\section{DYNAMAP: Framework Specification}
\label{sec:dse}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{workflow.png}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{DYNAMAP Software Tool Flow}
\label{fig:allflow}
\end{figure}
\textbf{DYNAMAP Software Execution Flow:}
DYNAMAP uses a hardware overlay template (Section \ref{sec3}), which is parameterized with $P_{SA1},P_{SA2}$, sequence of $\psi$, and sequence of control signals encoded by specific algorithm mapping that defines the behavior of DLT, Linear Transform and Pad-and-Accumulate modules. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:allflow}, after inputs (FPGA device capabilities, CNN meta data) are provided, DYNAMAP executes the following steps: \circled{1}Algorithm \ref{algo: hardware_algo} first identifies $P_{SA1},P_{SA2}$ and best $\psi$ associated with available algorithms in each layer. \circled{2} These parameters are used to construct and populate the CNN graph as discussed in Section \ref{sec4}. \circled{3} Then, an off-the-shelf PBQP solver \cite{pbqpsolve} is utilized to perform the node reduction steps for algorithm mapping as described in Section \ref{sec:pbqp}. The PBQP solver outputs the optimal algorithm assignment vectors for all layers. \circled{4} Based on the algorithm-dataflow mappings, the template overlay is customized. \circled{5} CNN is scanned to identify any consecutive layers whose total memory consumption do not exceed on-chip SRAM capability. Store-side LTUs are allocated and customized to generate SRAM addresses and store the layer output into the Input Buffer. Thus, on FPGA devices with larger on-chip memory, redundant off-chip data traffic will be avoided. \circled{6} Integrating all the optimizations, control signal sequences are generated to support the algorithm switching on the hardware overlay. The output of DYNAMAP is synthesizable VERILOG program that can be deployed on the target FPGA.
In the following, we discuss in detail (i) the CNN Cost Graph Construction, which assumes a fixed systolic array of size $P_{SA1} \times P_{SA2}$, and identifies the cost vectors $c$ and Transition matrices $T$ for each layer; (ii) the Hardware Customization, which performs DSE to identify the systolic array dimensions and dataflow mapping to algorithms, providing input to the Cost Graph Construction.
\subsection{Cost Graph Construction}
\label{sec4}
To construct cost graph $G = (V', E', C_v, T_e)$ from
CNN graph $G=(V, E)$, for each vertex $v^i \in V$, we add a node $v^i_c$ into $V'$. Moreover, for each $v^i \in V \; |\; outdegree(v^i) > 1$, we add another node $v^i_s$ into $V'$
because: Layer $i$ that is connected directly to multiple downstream layers can store the output in only one format. The data load time of each downstream layer is dependent upon this format. The vertex $v^i_s$ is used to capture the format in which layer $i$ needs to store the data to DRAM.
Now, for an edge $(v^i, v^j) \in E$, if $outdegree(v^i) \leq 1$, we simply add the edge $(v^i_c, v^j_c)$ to $E'$. Else we add the following new edges: $(v^i_c, v^i_s)$ and $(v^i_s,v^j_c) \; \forall j$.
\subsubsection{Cost Vector Array Construction}
\label{ssec:costmatrix}
Let $\psi$ denote the dataflow. For a GEMM operation with dimensions $a\times b$ (input) and $b\times c$ (weight), the execution time on the systolic array $P_{SA1} \times P_{SA2}$ is given by the following equations:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{obj_mm}
\underset{(P_{SA1},P_{SA2},\Psi)}{\operatorname{\mathbb{C}_{mm}}}(a,b,c)=
\left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
\Psi=NS: \lceil \frac{a}{P_{SA1}} \rceil \times \lceil \frac{c}{P_{SA2}} \rceil \times b + I_{SA}, \\
\Psi=WS: \lceil \frac{b}{P_{SA1}} \rceil \times \lceil \frac{c}{P_{SA2}} \rceil \times a + I_{SA},\\
\Psi=IS: \lceil \frac{b}{P_{SA1}} \rceil \times \lceil \frac{a}{P_{SA2}} \rceil \times c + I_{SA}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
where $I_{SA}$ represents the one-time initialization overhead.
Thus, the latencies of executing a CONV layer on a device with frequency FREQ are given by Equation \ref{im2col_c} for im2col, \ref{kn2row_c} for kn2row and \ref{wino_c} for Winograd $(m,r)$ algorithm.
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{im2col_c}
\underset{(P_{SA1},P_{SA2},\Psi)}{\operatorname{\mathbb{C}_{mm}}}(O_1O_2,K_1K_2C_{in},C_{out})/FREQ
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{kn2row_c}
\underset{(P_{SA1},P_{SA2},\Psi)}{\operatorname{\mathbb{C}_{mm}}}(O_1O_2,C_{in},C_{out})\times K_1K_2/FREQ
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{wino_c}
\underset{(P_{SA1},P_{SA2},\Psi)}{\operatorname{\mathbb{C}_{mm}}}(\frac{H_1H_2}{m^2},C_{in},C_{out}) +LT )(m+r-1)^2\frac{K_1K_2}{r^2}/FREQ
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
where $LT$ denotes the linear transformation overhead.
\textbf{Cost Vector Array Construction:} Let the number of algorithm-dataflow pairs in $i^{th}$ layer be $|A_i|$. We define the cost vector array $C_v$ consisting of $|V'|$ vectors as follows: For $i \in V_c$, define $\Vec{c}_i \in R^{|A_i|}$,
each entry computed by plugging in the dimensions of layer $i$ into one of the Equations~\ref{im2col_c}-\ref{wino_c} with appropriate $\psi$ in the algorithm-dataflow pair $j$ (Section \ref{sec:custo}). For $i \in V_s$, define a zero vector $\Vec{c}_i \in R^{\sum_{d'=1}^d|A_{d'}|}$, where $d$ is the outdegree of $i$ and $d'$ is the index for each downstream layer.
\subsubsection{Transition Matrix Construction}
\label{ssec:txmatrix}
Each layer fetches the input data from the external memory (DRAM), stores it in the on-chip memory, performs computations, and stores the output back into the external memory. Each CONV algorithm has specific input and output layouts. We denote the layout associated with a certain layer $i$ as algorithm format ($AF_i$).
Thus, the transition overhead between two layers is composed of the following: (a) \textbf{Store:} The latency to store the current-layer output from on-chip SRAM into DRAM in the format needed by the next-layer's algorithm;
(b) \textbf{Load:} The latency to load the next-layer input from DRAM into on-chip SRAM in the format needed by next layer's algorithm;
(c) \textbf{Overheads:} The latency to perform calculations such as max pooling, etc.
Feature map Load/Store latencies can be calculated using the equations shown in Table~\ref{tab:store}. $BW$ denotes the available DDR bandwidth. For store, $AF_i \rightarrow AF_{i+1}$ means layer $i$ computes using algorithm $AF_i$ and the output needs to be stored (layout transformed) into the format of $AF_{i+1}$. For load, it means the output of layer $i$ was stored in the format of algorithm $AF_i$ and layer $i+1$ will use the $AF_{i+1}$ as input.
\begin{scriptsize}
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Load/Store Latency}
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{threeparttable}[t]
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\toprule
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Algo. Format:}\\ $AF_i\rightarrow AF_{i+1}$\end{tabular} & \textbf{Load/Store Latency } \\ \midrule\midrule
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}$im2col\rightarrow im2col$\\ $kn2row\rightarrow im2col$\end{tabular} & $\frac{O_1O_2K_1K_2C_{out(i)}}{BW}$ \\ \midrule
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}$im2col\rightarrow kn2row$\\ $kn2row\rightarrow kn2row$\\ $winograd\rightarrow kn2row$\end{tabular} & $\frac{H_1H_2C_{out(i)}}{BW}$ \\ \midrule
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}$im2col\rightarrow Winograd$\\ $kn2row\rightarrow Winograd$\end{tabular} & $\frac{H_1H_2(m+r-1)^2C_{out(i)}}{m^2f(BW,C_{out(i)})}$ \\ \midrule
$Winograd\rightarrow Winograd$ & $\frac{H_1H_2(m+r-1)^2C_{out(i)}}{m^2BW}$ \\ \midrule
$Winograd\rightarrow im2col$ & $\frac{O_1O_2K_1K_2C_{out(i)}}{BW}+ovhd$ \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\begin{scriptsize}
\item[$\ast$]$H_1,H_2,K_1,K_2,O_1,O_2$ are $Layer_{i+1}$ meta data.
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\label{tab:store}
\end{table}
\end{scriptsize}
The $1^{st}$ row of Table \ref{tab:store} shows the transformation from 3D Tensor to Toeplitz layout, which incurs some data copies due to overlapping sliding windows but can be streamed out, as consecutive DRAM addresses are accessed (Section \ref{laytrans}). In the $2^{nd}$ row, between $im2col/kn2row$ output and $kn2row$ 3D Tensor input, one-to-one matching is required. With $Winograd$ output features, some re-ordering is required but the amount of data is not changed.
For 3D Tensor to Winograd input layout transformation shown in $3^{rd}$ row, both data re-ordering and data duplication are needed, and the generated DDR addresses are $\frac{H_1H_2}{m^2}$ apart. Note that in Section \ref{laytrans} we show the transformation of feature map with depth $1$, but in practice we access $C_{out(i)}$ altogether for each address increment. Thus, depending on whether each transaction of $C_{out(i)}$ addresses saturate the entire DDR burst length,
burst length wastage may occur.
We use $f$ to capture such possible wastage of bandwidth:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}f\left(B W, C_{\text {out}(i)}\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}
B W \text { if } C_{\text {out}(i)} \geq B L \\
\frac{C_{\text {out}(i)}}{{C_{\text {out}(i)}}+\frac{m^{2}}{H_{1} H_{2}}} \times BW \text { , otherwise }
\end{array}\right.\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
The $4^{th}$ row models the transformation from Winograd output to Winograd input layout, taking advantage of the fact that both are in the "scattered" layout, streaming access can be achieved.
The $5^{th}$ row models the time for the 2-step transformation: Winograd output to 3D Tensor followed by 3D Tensor to Toeplitz layout. We use 2 pipelined LTU operating on double-buffered SRAM, and use $ovhd$ to denote the initialization overhead.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{dag3.png}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{A snippet of an example $\mathcal{G}_{P_{SA1}, P_{SA2}}$}
\label{fig:dag}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Transition Matrix Construction:} For an edge $(v^i_c,v^j_c)$, the transition matrix $T_{ij}$ of size $|A_i| \times |A_j|$ can be constructed as follows: $T_{ij}(m,n)$ for algorithm $m$ in layer $i$ and algorithm $n$ in layer $j$, entry $T_{ij}(m,n) =Store(m,n,dim(j)) + Load(n,n,dim(j)) $ and other overheads (pooling, etc.) if applicable.
For an edge $(v^i_c,v^i_s)$ such that $v^i_s$ has $b$ outgoing neighbor vertices, which for simplicity are indexed $\{1,\dots,b\}$, the transition matrix $T_{ii}$ will be of size $|A_i| \times \sum_{b'=1}^b|A_{b'}|$ and can be constructed as follows: $T_{ii}(m;b',o) = Store(m,o,dim(b'))$ and other overheads for algorithm $m$ in layer $i$, storage format corresponding to algorithm $o$ in layer corresponding to vertex $b'$. For an edge $(v^i_s,v^j)$, where $v^j$ is the $b'^{th}$ neighbor of $v^i_s$,
the transition matrix $T_{ij}$ will be of size $\sum_{b'=1}^b|A_{b'}| \times |A_j|$ and can be constructed as follows: $T_{ij}(o;b',p) = Load(o, p, dim(j))$ where $p$ is the algorithm in layer $j$.
Figure~\ref{fig:dag} shows a snippet of an example graph $\mathcal{G}_{P_{SA1}, P_{SA2}}$.
\vspace{-2mm}
\subsection{Hardware Customization}
\label{sec:custo}
We use Algorithm~\ref{algo: hardware_algo} to determine: (1) $P_{SA1} \times P_{SA2}$ and (2) optimal dataflow mapping for each algorithm for each layer. $P_{SA1} \times P_{SA2}$ is then used to construct the CNN cost graph $\mathcal{G}_{P_{SA1}, P_{SA2}}$. The key idea of Algorithm~\ref{algo: hardware_algo} is as follows: We iterate through possible values of $P_{SA1}$ and $P_{SA2}$ (line 4). For a fixed $P_{SA1}, P_{SA2}$ pair, we calculate the value of empirical total node cost, $\tau_{temp}$, which is the sum of the execution times of all the algorithms over all the layers (line 6-11). Execution time of an algorithm for a layer is calculated using the dataflow that leads to the minimum value (line 7-8). $P_{SA1}, P_{SA2}$ with minimum $\tau_{temp}$ is output.
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Architecture Parameter Identification}
\label{algo: hardware_algo}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\renewcommand{\algorithmicrequire}{\textbf{Input:}}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicensure}{\textbf{Output:}}
\State $\tau_{min}\gets \infty${\color{blue}\Comment{Empirical minimum total node costs}}
\State $argminP_{SA1},argminP_{S21}\gets 0$ {\color{blue}\Comment{Systolic Array size mapping}}
\State $\psi[l,a]\gets \emptyset$ {\color{blue}\Comment{OPT. dataflow mapping to layer-algorithm}}
\For {all $(P_{SA1}, P_{SA2})$ s.t. $C(P_{SA1}, P_{SA2}|r)<C_{FPGA|r}$ }
\State $\tau_{emp}\gets 0${\color{blue}\Comment{Empirical total node costs to be minimized}}
\For {layer $l=1...L$}
\For {algorithm $a \in$ [All available algorithms for $l$]}
\State $c_1,c_2,c_3\gets$ exe. time using NS,WS,IS {\color{blue}\Comment{Equation \ref{obj_mm}}}
\State $c[l,a]\gets min(c_1,c_2.c_3)$, $\psi[l,a]\gets argmin(c[l,a])$
\EndFor
\State $\tau_{emp}\gets \tau_{emp}+sum(c[l,a]) \forall a$
\EndFor
\If{ $\tau_{emp} < \tau_{min}$ }
\State $\tau_{min} \gets \tau_{emp}$
\State $argminP_{SA1},argminP_{SA2}\gets P_{SA1}, P_{SA2}$
\EndIf
\EndFor
\Ensure OPT. matching: $l,a \gets \psi$,
\Ensure parameters: $argminP_{SA1},argminP_{SA2}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\end{footnotesize}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=17cm]{opt1_newnn_in4.png}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{Effective PE utilization under different hardware configurations: Inception-V4}
\label{fig:opt1_i4}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=17cm]{opt1_newnn_gn.png}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{Effective PE utilization under different hardware configurations: GoogleNet}
\label{fig:opt1_gn}
\end{figure*}
\section{Evaluations}
The fundamental objective of our framework is to reduce hardware under-utilization induced by diverse layer shapes and minimize the total end-to-end inference latency.
In this section, we use our framework to generate the hardware-algorithm co-designs for two state-of-the-art CNNs, GoogleNet\cite{szegedy2015going} and Inception-v4 \cite{szegedy2015going} and show:
(1) how our dynamic dataflow selection and architecture configuration technique achieves local optimal acceleration at each layer by driving up effective PE utilization; (2) how our novel algorithm mapping achieves global optimal acceleration by improving end-to-end inference latency.
We use Xilinx Alveo U200 FPGA board hosted on a Xeon Server CPU (E5-2698 v4 @2.2GHz) to evaluate the designs generated by our framework. We use 8-bit fixed-point data representation to perform CNN inference. The designs were synthesized using Vivado 2018. We input the CNN model and FPGA device meta data into our framework to obtain the architecture customization as output. We limit the systolic array DSP consumption to 6084 instead of using all the available DSPs to obtain a fair performance comparison with the state-of-the-art implementations. DYNAMAP returns optimal $(P_{SA1},P_{SA2})$ as (92,66) for GoogleNet, and (95,64) for Inception-V4. The resource utilization are shown in Table \ref{tab: exp comparison}.
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\caption{Comparison of with state-of-the-art implementations}
\vspace{-2mm}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rcccccc}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{This Paper} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\cite{gn_0}}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{\cite{gn_1}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\cite{incepv4}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\cite{incep_v4_2}}\\
\cmidrule(lr){2-3}\cmidrule(lr){4-4}\cmidrule(lr){5-5}\cmidrule(lr){6-6}\cmidrule(lr){7-7}& GoogleNet & Inception-v4 & GoogleNet& GoogleNet& Inception-v4 & Inception-v4 \\
\midrule
\midrule
Device & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Alveo U200} & Stratix 10 GX & KU115 & XCVU9P & XCVU9P \\
Datatype & INT8 & INT8 & INT16 & INT16 & INT8 &INT8\\
Frequency [MHz] & 286 & 286 & 300 & 250 & 300 & 180 \\
DSP (\% total) & 6239 (91\%) & 6230 (91\%) & 6304 (55\%) & 4214 (76\%) & 5254 (75\%) & 5130 (75\%) \\
On-chip Memory [BRAM/M20K] (\% total) & 2K (93\%) & 2.1K (97\%) & 1949 (17\%) & 2160 (100\%) & 1664 (77\%) & 562 (26\%), 845 (88\%) URAM \\
LUT/ALM (\% total)& 745K (60\%) & 806K (65\%) & 528K (97\%) & 663K (71\%) & 469K (40\%) & 543K (46\%) \\
\midrule
Throughput [GOPS/s] & 3568 & 3650 & 557 & 1630 & 3448 & 1528 \\
Latency/image [ms] & 1.34 & 4.39 & 5.7 & 3.8 & 5.29 & 6.03 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab: exp comparison}
\end{table*}
\end{footnotesize}
\vspace{-2mm}
\subsection{Evaluation of Optimizations}
\subsubsection{Hardware Utilization under different accelerator configurations}
\label{utilexpsec}
We define the metric, effective PE utilization $\mu$, as ratio of the total number of effective computations and the total number of computation performed by all PEs. That is,
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\mu_{i}=\frac{\sum_{t=1}^{T} P E_{\mathrm{on}_{t}}}{T \cdot P E_{\mathrm{total}}}=\frac{Y_{CONV}}{T \cdot P_{SA1} P_{SA2}}
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
where $T$, $Y_{CONV}$ denote the total consumed cycles and the total number of required multiply-accumulate operations for one CONV layer, respectively.
$PE_{\mathrm{on}_{t}}$ is the number of effective working PEs in cycle $t$ that contributes to effective $Y_{CONV}$ computations. $PE_{\mathrm{total}}$ is the total number of PEs.
Figure \ref{fig:opt1_i4},\ref{fig:opt1_gn} show the values of $\mu_i$ for each CONV layer $i$ in Inception-v4 and GoogleNet. In each figure,
we use the algorithm mapping returned by the framework.
The "square-NS" ($bl_1$) plot shows the theoretical layer-wise effective PE utilization assuming the algorithms are deployed with the stall-free PE and data layout optimizations on the \textit{largest square-shaped systolic array} within the resource constraint on the target FPGA, but no dataflow optimization is applied and only NS dataflow is used across all layers. Considering the upper DSP bound - 6084=78$\times$78 - input into the framework, such largest systolic array is shaped at (78,78). The "algo1-NS" plot ($bl_2$) evaluates the effect of systolic-array dimension identification as performed using Algorithm \ref{algo: hardware_algo}, without dataflow optimization.
The "algo1-optimized" ($OPT$) plot shows the resulting effective PE utilization when running the same set of algorithms using the ($P_{SA1},P_{SA2},\psi$) identified by DYNAMAP (Algorithm \ref{algo: hardware_algo}). Compared to $bl_2$ which only uses NS dataflow, $OPT$ shows consistent improvement on almost all the layers as it minimizes zero-paddings required in the systolic array as discussed in Section \ref{sec:dfpe}. Compared to $bl_1$ which uses a square-shaped systolic array, although for a very small number of layers the $OPT$ utilization is not as saturated, the performance loss in those layers are much smaller than the performance gains obtained in other layers.
Algorithm \ref{algo: hardware_algo} finds the sweet spot for the shape of the systolic array that drives up $\mu$ across all the layers and minimizes end-to-end latency.
Global CNN wide trade-off analysis performed by $OPT$ ensures that the performance benefit on more compute-intensive layers overweights any losses on other layers. Overall, compared to a NS-dataflow implementation on the largest square-shaped systolic array, by implementing the designs generated by DYNAMAP, we observe $32\%$ and $35\%$ lower latency in end-to-end latency for Googlenet and Inception-v4, respectively.
\vspace{-2mm}
\subsubsection{Effect of layer-wise algorithm switching}
\label{algoexpsec}
We calculate the execution time of each CNN module using different algorithms. Figure \ref{fig:opt3_i4} and \ref{fig:opt3_gn} shows the results for the two CNNs, where on the x axis we group all the CONV layers in each Inception (Reduction) Modules, consistent with the notions in \cite{szegedy2015going, szegedy2017inception} and the corresponding columns show the sum of computation and communication latency of all layers in an Inception (Reduction) Module. The STEM module in Inception-v4 is broken down by the first Filter Concatenation layer for better visibility. The "im2col-only" ($bl_3$) columns show the result of using one algorithm - im2col - across all the layers, the "kn2row-applied" ($bl_4$) columns show the results of applying kn2row where possible and im2col everywhere else, and the "wino-applied" ($bl_5$) columns show the results of applying Winograd ($m=2,r=3$) where applicable (i.e. layers with square-shaped kernels) and im2col everywhere else. $OPT_{returned}$ are the results
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{alg_inv4.png}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Layer exe. times: Inception-v4}
\label{fig:opt3_i4}
\end{figure}using algorithm mapping returned by DYNAMAP, which is observed to be superior than all $bl_{3-5}$ on all modules. In Inception-v4, a large portion of the kernels are shaped $7(3)\times 1$,
making such layers more memory-bound, therefore
kn2row almost always out-perform im2col, which requires data duplication and results in less data-reuse. However, on GoogleNet, for most layers the lower-communication-cost benefit of kn2row do not offset the overheads due to "Pad-and-Accumulate" and serializing a large GEMM into $K^2$ smaller ones, making it less advantageous. A typical GoogleNet Inception Module has two layers with square-shaped $3\times 3$ and $5\times 5$ kernels among others. While applying Winograd on such layers always reduces the computation complexity, it is not always optimal overall. This is because for kernels larger than $3\times 3$, $\frac{K_1K_2}{3^2}$ rounds of Winograd is required, resulting in severe transformation overheads and amortized decrease in computation complexity reduction. Winograd also imposes high memory overheads and layout transformation cost, so kn2row is overall better for such layers with slightly higher computation cost but significantly lower communication cost. These observations suggest that an algorithm mapping scheme that greedily chooses the algorithm with the smallest layer node cost $c$ would not return the optimal mapping. DYNAMAP captures the tradeoffs that occur in such algorithm transitions, yielding lower end-to-end latency than using any of the algorithm or even all three algorithms greedily selected based on layer node costs.
The algorithm mapping obtained in DYNAMAP is optimal on the given systolic array (as supported by Theorem \ref{thm1}) and is obtained within 2 seconds on an AMD 3700X cpu.
The overall percentage decrease in the latency of the designs returned by DYNAMAP
compared to the base-lines ($bl_{3-5}$) are summarized in Table \ref{algexpdyn}.
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{End-to-end Latency Improvement due to Dynamic Algorithm Mapping}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
\textbf{} & $bl_3$ & $bl_4$ & $bl_5$ \\ \toprule
\textbf{GoogleNet} & 67.5\% & 78\% & 22\% \\ \midrule
\textbf{Inception-V4} & 86\% & 61\% & 17\% \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{algexpdyn}
\end{table}
\end{footnotesize}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{alg_gn.png}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Layer exe. times: GoogleNet}
\label{fig:opt3_gn}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-2mm}
\subsection{Comparison with State-of-the-art}
\label{sota}
Table \ref{tab: exp comparison} compares the performance of our design produced by DYNAMAP with the state-of-the-art. We achieve 286MHz frequency for both GoogleNet and Inception-v4 accelerator designs. GoogleNet acceleration using DYNAMAP significantly outperforms \cite{gn_0} and \cite{gn_1} in terms of both latency and throughput. This is partly due to the advantage of DYNAMAP's optimizations on dataflow and algorithm switching, partly due to the lower-precision we adopted enabling more PEs. Even if we scale down the systolic array size (2 DSP consumption per PE),
in the worst case the performance will be halved and we still achieve $2\times$ and $1.4\times$ lower latency compared with \cite{gn_0} and \cite{gn_1} respectively. For Inception-v4, we compare with \cite{incepv4} which applies dynamic memory management to overcome data transfer bottlenecks and \cite{incep_v4_2} that uses kn2row method for all layers in GoogleNet. Compared to \cite{incep_v4_2}, even with lower frequency, our design achieves 20\% speedup. While using Winograd on some layers leads to low complexity, its impact is limited as there are more memory-bound than computation-bound layers in Inception-v4. However, DYNAMAP allocates kn2row to those memory-bounded kernels while keeping the computation-bounded layers optimized as well, integrating dataflow optimization to improve hardware utilization in both cases. As CNNs evolve to be more layer-diverse and the tradeoffs become less obvious, the benefits of using DYNAMAP will become much more pronounced.
The motivation of FlexCNN~\cite{sohrabizadeh2020end} is similar to that of DYNAMAP. However, it uses dynamic tiling with data layout optimizations across different layers to drive up effective DSP utilization to as high as 93.5\%/91.4\% on 3x3-/1x1-kernel layers on the Open Pose-v2 network (2.9 GOPS). It achieves a single-image inference latency of 24.7ms using 8x8x8 systolic array. To estimate the best-case performance using FlexCNN to accelerate Googlenet ($\sim 3$ GOPS) and Inception-v4 ($\sim 9$ GOPS), we project this latency onto GoogleNet (Inception-v4) with 92x66(95x64) PEs as deployed in our design (optimistically assuming 100\% DSP utilization on all types of layers) :
$L_{projected-GN}=24.7ms\times \frac{8\times8\times8\times 93\%}{92\times 66\times 100\%}\times \frac{3 GOPS}{2.9 GOPS}=2 ms$,
$L_{projected-Incp4}=24.7ms\times \frac{8\times8\times8\times 93\%}{95\times 64\times 100\%}\times \frac{9 GOPS}{2.9 GOPS}=6 ms$, both higher than DYNAMAP's achieved latency. This is because DYNAMAP uses compute-reducing algorithm, Winograd, and memory-saving algorithm, kn2row, to resolve bottlenecks in
both compute-intensive and memory-bound layers. The achieved performance benefits offsets the additional overheads for switching between different algorithms in DYNAMAP.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we proposed an architecture-algorithm co-optimization framework to achieve low-latency CNN inference on FPGA. Our proposed hardware overlay includes several optimizations to achieve no-overhead dataflow switching and low-overhead algorithm switching. Our software tool flow achieves fast algorithm mapping and hardware customization. DYNAMAP has a wide applicability in optimizing the acceleration of any complex CNN models, even with extremely diverse layer configurations, on any FPGA devices. In the future, we will explore the possibility of generalizing DYNAMAP to a wider range of algorithms, including strided-Winograd and frequency-domain methods.
\section{Acknowledgements}
This work was supported by US NSF under grant No. CNS-2009057 and No. OAC-1911229.
|
\section{Introduction}
We begin with a brief synopsis of the results contained herein. Consider a system model that has input $\tx$ and output $\rx$, where some parameters within the model are unknown. The system is supplied with known inputs during a ``training phase" to learn the parameters, after which the system is used during its ``data phase". An analysis of the effects of training is captured by the mutual information between the input and output at the beginning of the data phase, conditioned on the training signals:
\begin{align}
\lefteqn{\MuI(\tx_{\Tt+1};\rx_{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt})} \nonumber\\
& =\Ent(\rx_{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt}) - \Ent(\rx_{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\Tt+1},\rxv_{\Tt}),
\label{eq:joint_mutual_information}
\end{align}
where $T$ is the number of training symbols, and $\txv_t=[\tx_1,\cdots,\tx_t]^{\intercal}$ for integer $t$. This quantity measures the amount of information that can be transferred through a single input-output pair in the data phase conditioned on the training. Generally, this mutual information increases monotonically in $\Tt$ since a greater amount of training allows for better parameter estimates. We define
\begin{align}
\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}=\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\MuI(\tx_{\Tt+1};\rx_{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt}),
\label{eq:MuI_def}
\end{align}
which we assume exists and is finite.
The system model has an input process $\tx_t\in\txA$, and output process $\rx_t\in\rxA$ connected through a joint distribution that has random parameters that are unknown except for what is learned during the training process. Let
\begin{align*}
&\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{\varepsilon}\\
=&\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\Ent(\rx_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1}|\txv_{\ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}},\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:EntInn_cond_def}
\end{align*}
where $\varepsilon\geq -1$ and $\delta\geq -1$, $\ceil{\cdot}$ is the ceiling operation that rounds up to the nearest integer, and we assume that this limit exists. We also define
\begin{align*}
&\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta^+}{\varepsilon}\\
=&\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\Ent(\rx_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1}|\txv_{\ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}+1},\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:EntInn_cond_def_one_extra}
\end{align*}
where we use $\delta^+$ to denote conditioning on the single extra input $x_{\ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}+1}$ versus \eqref{eq:EntInn_cond_def}. Note that $\varepsilon=0$ and $\delta=0$ represent the boundary line between the training and data phases.
Then \eqref{eq:joint_mutual_information} and \eqref{eq:MuI_def} yield
\begin{align*}
\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}=\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{} - \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{^+}{},
\numberthis
\label{eq:entropy_gap}
\end{align*}
where $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{}$ is defined as $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{\varepsilon}|_{\varepsilon=0,\delta=0}$ and $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{^+}{}$ is defined as $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta^+}{\varepsilon}|_{\varepsilon=0,\delta=0}$.
We assume that:
\begin{align*}
\text{A1:}&\qquad\quad \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{^+}{} = \lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 0} \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon},
\numberthis
\label{eq:training_phase_continue}\\
\text{A2:}&\qquad\quad \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{} =\lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 0} \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon},
\numberthis
\label{eq:continue_in_data}
\end{align*}
and then \eqref{eq:entropy_gap} yields
\begin{equation}
\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{} = \lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 0} \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon} - \lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 0} \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon}.
\label{eq:Ixy_final}
\end{equation}
We establish (Theorems \ref{thm:derivative_monotonic} \& \ref{thm:integral_thm_monotonic} and Corollary \ref{cor:A3_derivative_relation}) that under certain conditions
\begin{align*}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{\varepsilon} =\frac{\partial\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)}{\partial\varepsilon},
\numberthis
\label{eq:derivative_relation1}
\end{align*}
where $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)=\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{1}{\Tt}\Ent(\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}|\txv_{\ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}}),
\label{eq:EntR_cond_def}
\end{equation}
and we assume that the limit exists and is differentiable with respect to $\varepsilon$.
When $\delta>\varepsilon$, we show that
\begin{align*}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)=\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\varepsilon),\;\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{\varepsilon}=\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon},
\end{align*}
and \eqref{eq:derivative_relation1} becomes
\begin{align*}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon} =\frac{\partial\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\varepsilon)}{\partial\varepsilon}.
\numberthis
\label{eq:derivative_relation2}
\end{align*}
We may therefore obtain $\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ by computing $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}$ and $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon}$ as derivatives of $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)$ (Theorem \ref{thm:computation_of_MuI_from_derivative}). Finally, in one of our main results, we use $\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ to derive a lower bound on the mutual information between the input and output of a system that employs training (Theorem \ref{thm:MI_equal_gap}). This analysis of training is derived entirely from the derivatives of $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)$.
The value of this formulation relies on our ability to find $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)$ in a straightforward manner, and we provide guidance on this in Theorem \ref{thm:scale_joint_entropy}. We make no assumptions of linearity of the system or Gaussianity in any of the processes; nor is it required to form an explicit estimate of the parameters $\mathcal{G}$ during the training phase.
Example 5 in Section \ref{thm:computation_of_MuI_from_derivative} applies the theorems to derive the optimal training time in a system with unknown channels.
The remainder of the paper generalizes the results to high-dimensional systems. Part II looks at specific applications in communications, signal processing, and machine learning.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{sketch_entropy_iid_epsilon.eps}
\centering
\caption{Qualitative sketch of $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}$, $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon}$, $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ and $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\varepsilon)$ as functions of $\varepsilon$ in Phase I $(\varepsilon\leq 0)$ and Phase II $(\varepsilon>0)$ where $\tx_t$ is {\it iid}\xspace throughout both phases. $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}$ is discontinuous at $\varepsilon=0$ (phase change), while $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon}$ is continuous at $0$. The black arrow shows $\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ as the difference between $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}$ and $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon}$.
Although $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ is not differentiable at $0$, $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\varepsilon)$ is.}
\label{fig:sketch_entropy}
\end{figure}
Qualitative sketches of $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}$, $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon}$, $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ and $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\varepsilon)$ are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:sketch_entropy} during phase I (training phase, $\varepsilon\in [-1,0]$) and phase II (data phase, $\varepsilon>0$). In this example, $\tx_t$ is independent and identically distributed ({\it iid}\xspace) throughout both phases; equivalently, the training and data sequences have the same distribution. The quantity $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}$ is discontinuous at $\varepsilon=0$ since the input is no longer part of the conditioning for $\varepsilon>0$. Both $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}$ and $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon}$ decrease as $\varepsilon$ increases throughout phases I and II. Also shown are $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ and $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\varepsilon)$, which are the integrals of $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}$ and $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon}$. Although $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ is not differentiable at $\varepsilon=0$, it is differentiable for $\varepsilon\neq 0$, while $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\varepsilon)$ is differentiable for all $\varepsilon> -1$.
Phase transitions in entropy have been used in other contexts, including the ``information bottleneck" \cite{wu2020phase}, minimum mean-square error (MMSE) analysis \cite{merhav2010statistical,barbier2018optimal}, and random Boolean networks \cite{lizier2008information}. Here, we focus on the applications to training of phase transitions caused by the change of conditional variables from training signals (with known input) to data signals (with unknown input).
The remainder of the paper is devoted to explanations and justifications of the above assumptions and statements. We begin by establishing \eqref{eq:derivative_relation1}.
\section{Derivative Relationship between ${\cH{'}}$ and $\cH$}
\label{sec:monotonic_scalar_process}
Define
\begin{align*}
{\cH{'}}(\rxA_\varepsilon) =\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\Ent(\rx_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1}|\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:EntInn_def}
\end{align*}
\begin{equation}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)=\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{1}{\Tt}\Ent(\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}),
\label{eq:EntR_def}
\end{equation}
which can be considered as $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{\varepsilon}$ and $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_{\delta})$ with $\delta=-1$.
We show that, under some conditions,
${\cH{'}}(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ is the derivative of $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:derivative_monotonic}
Let $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ and its derivative with respect to $\varepsilon$ exist. Suppose there exists a $\kappa>0$ so that $\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\rxv_{t})$ is monotonic in $t$ when $t\in[\floor{(1+\varepsilon-\kappa)\Tt},\ceil{(1+\varepsilon+\kappa)\Tt}]$ as $\Tt\to\infty$. Then
\begin{equation}
{\cH{'}}(\rxA_\varepsilon) =\frac{\partial\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)}{\partial\varepsilon}.
\numberthis
\label{eq:derivative_2}
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, we assume that $\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\rxv_{t})$ is monotonically decreasing. Using the definition of $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ in \eqref{eq:EntR_def}, we have
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{\kappa}(\cH(\rxA_{\varepsilon+\kappa})-\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon))\\
=&\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{\Ent(\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon+\kappa)\Tt}})-\Ent(\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}})}{\kappa\Tt}\\
=&\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{\sum_{t=\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1}^{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon+\kappa)\Tt}}\Ent(\rx_{t}|\rxv_{t-1})}{\kappa\Tt}\\
\leq &\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{(\kappa\Tt+1)\cdot\Ent(\rx_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1}|\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}})}{\kappa\Tt}\\
=&\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\Ent(\rx_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1}|\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}).
\numberthis
\label{eq:limit_upper_bound}
\end{align*}
Similarly to \eqref{eq:limit_upper_bound}, we also have
\begin{align*}
&\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\Ent(\rx_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1}|\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}})\\
\leq&\frac{1}{\kappa}(\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)-\cH(\rxA_{\varepsilon-\kappa})).
\numberthis
\label{eq:limit_lower_bound}
\end{align*}
Let $\kappa{\searrow} 0$ in both \eqref{eq:limit_upper_bound} and \eqref{eq:limit_lower_bound}; because we assume that the derivative of $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ exists, these limits both equal this derivative. Then, the definition of ${\cH{'}}(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ in \eqref{eq:EntInn_def} yields \eqref{eq:derivative_2}.
\end{proof}
An integral equivalent of \eqref{eq:derivative_2} is:
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:integral_thm_monotonic}
For a process $\rxA$ that satisfies:
\begin{enumerate}
\item there exists a $c>0$ independent of $t$ and $\Tt$ so that $|\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\rxv_{t})|<c$ for all $t<\Tt$ as $\Tt\to\infty$;
\item there exists a $\kappa>0$ so that $\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\rxv_{t})$ is monotonic in $t$ when $t\in[\floor{(1+\varepsilon-\kappa)\Tt},\ceil{(1+\varepsilon+\kappa)\Tt}]$ for all $\varepsilon>-1$, except for a finite number of points as $\Tt\to\infty$;
\item $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ and ${\cH{'}}(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ exist;
\end{enumerate}
then we have
\begin{equation}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon) = \int_{-1}^{\varepsilon}{\cH{'}}(\rxA_\varepsilon) d\varepsilon .
\label{eq:theorem_integral_monotonic_thm}
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\noindent
The proof is omitted.
Theorems \ref{thm:derivative_monotonic} and \ref{thm:integral_thm_monotonic} are consequences of the entropy chain rule and letting an infinite sum converge to an integral (standard Riemann sum approximation). Such an analysis has also been used in the context of computing mutual information; for example \cite{shamai2001impact,guo2005randomly,guo2005mutual,guo2008multiuser,honig2009advances}, where the mutual information between a high-dimensional input vector and a high-dimensional output vector is considered, and the chain rule is applied along the dimension of the input, thus producing a summation of mutual information between a scalar input and the vector output, conditioned on all the previous scalar inputs. In the limit as the dimension goes to infinity, the summation converges to an integral.
Two examples are given.
\noindent
{\em Example 1:} Let $\rxA$ be a stationary process where the joint distribution of any subset of the sequence of random variables is invariant with respect to shifts in the time index \cite{cover2012elements}, and where
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\Ent(\rx_{\Tt+1}|\rxv_{\Tt})=\cH(\rxA)=\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{1}{\Tt}\Ent(\rxv_T),
\end{align*}
where $\cH(\rxA)$ is called the ``entropy rate" of $\rxA$. For all $\varepsilon>-1$, we have
\begin{align*}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)=\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{1}{\Tt}\Ent(\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)T}})=(1+\varepsilon)\cH(\rxA),
\end{align*}
and
\begin{equation}
{\cH{'}}(\rxA_\varepsilon) = \lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\Ent(\rx_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1}|\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}})=\cH(\rxA).
\end{equation}
Because of stationarity, $\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\rxv_t)$ is monotonically decreasing in $t$, and we see that ${\cH{'}}(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ is the derivative of $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)$, as expected.
However, we are generally interested in non-stationary processes, and the next example is a simple example containing a ``phase change" at $t=\Tt$.
\noindent
{\em Example 2:} Let
\begin{equation}
\rx_{t} = \begin{cases}
b_t, & t=1,\ldots,\Tt; \\
b_{(t-1\bmod\Tt)+1}, & t=\Tt+1,\Tt+2\ldots,
\end{cases}
\label{eq:repetition_eg}
\end{equation}
where $b_{1},b_{2},\ldots$ are {\it iid}\xspace with entropy 1. There are two phases in $\rxA$: the first phase contains {\it iid}\xspace elements, while the second phase contains repetitions of the first. Clearly
\begin{equation}
\EntInnY{\rxA}{\varepsilon} = \begin{cases}
1, & \varepsilon \in[-1,0); \\
0, & \varepsilon \geq 0,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and $\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\rxv_{t})$ is bounded by 1 and is monotonic for all $t$.
Theorem \ref{thm:integral_thm_monotonic} (or inspection) yields
\begin{align*}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)= \int_{-1}^{\varepsilon}\EntInnY{\rxA}{u} du=\begin{cases}
1+\varepsilon, & \varepsilon<0; \\
1, & \varepsilon\geq 0.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Note that $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ is differentiable everywhere but $\varepsilon=0$. This point will reappear later.
\subsection{Processes where ${\cH{'}}(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ is not the derivative of $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)$}
\label{sec:general_scalar_process}
We examine, through two examples, what can go wrong when the conditions of Theorems \ref{thm:derivative_monotonic} and \ref{thm:integral_thm_monotonic} are not met.
\subsection*{Example 3: $\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\rxv_{t})$ oscillates as $t$ increases}
Consider the process
\begin{equation}
\rxA= (b_1,b_1,b_2,b_2,\ldots,b_{k},b_{k},\ldots),
\label{eq:oscillation_eg_def}
\end{equation}
where $b_1,b_2,\ldots$ are {\it iid}\xspace unit-entropy random variables. Then, for all $t\geq \Tt$,
\begin{equation*}
\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\rxv_{t}) = \begin{cases}
1, \quad t \quad\text{even} \\
0, \quad t \quad\text{odd }
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
and ${\cH{'}}(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ does not exist for any $\varepsilon$. However, $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ exists for all $\varepsilon>-1$ with
\begin{align}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)=\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{1}{\Tt}\frac{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}{2}=\frac{1+\varepsilon}{2},
\label{eq:osc_eg_EntR}
\end{align}
which is differentiable for all $\varepsilon>0$. The conditions for Theorem~\ref{thm:derivative_monotonic} are not met and the derivative relationship \eqref{eq:derivative_2} does not hold.
\subsection*{Example 4: $\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\rxv_{t})$ is unbounded}
Consider a process $\rxA$ with independent elements whose entropies are
\begin{equation}
\Ent(\rx_t) = \begin{cases}
\Tt, & t=\frac{1}{2}\Tt-3\\
1, & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:unbounded_eg}
\end{equation}
It is clear that $\Ent(\rx_t|\rxv_{t-1})$ is unbounded at $t=\frac{1}{2}\Tt-3$. Both ${\cH{'}}(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ and $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ exist with
\begin{align*}
{\cH{'}}(\rxA_\varepsilon) = 1,\quad\varepsilon\geq -1,
\end{align*}
\begin{equation}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon) = \begin{cases}
1+\varepsilon, & \varepsilon\in(-1,-\frac{1}{2}); \\
2+\varepsilon, & \varepsilon\geq-\frac{1}{2},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
but the conditions for Theorem \ref{thm:integral_thm_monotonic} are not met and the integral relationship \eqref{eq:theorem_integral_monotonic_thm} does not hold everywhere.
Nonetheless, these examples can still be accommodated by expanding the definition of ${\cH{'}}(\rxA_\varepsilon)$.
In Example 3, ${\cH{'}}(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ is not a good representative of $\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\rxv_{t})$ when $t=\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}$ because of its oscillatory behavior. A better representative of $\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\rxv_{t})$ when $t=\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}$ can be found by averaging:
\begin{equation*}
\AEntInnY{\rxA}{\varepsilon} =\lim_{\kappa{\searrow} 0}\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{\sum_{t=\ceil{(1+\varepsilon-\frac{\kappa}{2})\Tt}}^{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon+\frac{\kappa}{2})\Tt}-1}\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\rxv_{t})}{\varepsilon\Tt}.
\end{equation*}
With the new definition, for Example 3,
\begin{align*}
\AEntInnY{\rxA}{\varepsilon} =\lim_{\kappa{\searrow} 0}\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{\kappa\Tt/2}{\kappa\Tt}=\frac{1}{2},
\end{align*}
which is the derivative of $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ shown in \eqref{eq:osc_eg_EntR}. Thus, averaging smooths out the oscillation and expands the class of processes for which Theorem \ref{thm:derivative_monotonic} holds.
In Example 4, $\AEntInnY{\rxA}{\varepsilon}$ is unbounded at $\varepsilon=-\frac{1}{2}$. By allowing an impulse function in $\AEntInnY{\rxA}{\varepsilon}$ at $\frac{1}{2}$, we may then consider $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ as the integral of $\AEntInnY{\rxA}{\varepsilon}$, thereby expanding the class of processes for which Theorem \ref{thm:integral_thm_monotonic} holds. We do not pursue these issues any further.
\section{Input Process and Mutual Information}
\label{sec:input_process_and_MI}
\subsection{The input process and the parameters}
In the remainder, we consider a triple $(\txA,\rxA,\mathcal{G})$, where $\tx_t\in\txA$ and $\rx_t\in\rxA$ are the input and output processes of a system, and $\mathcal{G}$ is the parameter set. We assume $t=1,\ldots,\Tb$, where $\Tb$ is the blocklength, defined as the period of time for which the parameters are considered constant. Let $\Tt=\tau\Tb$ be the training time, with $\tau\in(0,1]$, where $\tau$ is the fraction of the total blocklength devoted to learning the unknown parameters through training. The input and output are connected through a conditional distribution parameterized by $\chva{\Tb}\in\mathcal{G}$, whose value is unknown. We note that $\chva{\Tb}$ is indexed by $\Tb$, indicating that the parameter set is allowed to grow in size as $\Tb\rightarrow\infty$ (and $\Tt=\tau\Tb\rightarrow\infty$). We generally drop the use of $\Tb$, and substitute $\frac{\Tt}{\tau}$ in its place, for a fixed $\tau$. Note that the blocklength $\Tb$ should be an integer, and we may consider $\Tb=\ceil{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$ for the fixed $\tau$ as $\Tt$ grows, where the ratio $\frac{\Tt}{\Tb}$ still converges to $\tau$ in the limit. For simplicity in notation, we drop the ceiling notation $\ceil{\cdot}$ and treat $\frac{\Tt}{\tau}$ as an integer.
We make the following assumption:
\begin{align*}
\text{A3:}\;\;& p(\rxv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}|\txv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}};\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}) =\prod_{t=1}^{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}p(\rx_t|\tx_t;\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:fixed_channel_in_data} \\
& p(\txv_\frac{\Tt}{\tau})=p(\txv_{\Tt})\prod_{t=\Tt+1}^\frac{\Tt}{\tau}p(\tx_t),
\numberthis
\label{eq:iid_data_input_distribution}
\end{align*}
where $p(\rx_t|\tx_t;\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}})$ is a fixed conditional distribution for all $t=1,2,\ldots,\frac{\Tt}{\tau}$ and $p(\tx_t)$ is a fixed distribution for all $t=\Tt+1,\Tt+2,\ldots,\frac{\Tt}{\tau}$. Equation \eqref{eq:fixed_channel_in_data} says that the system is memoryless and time invariant (given the input and parameters) and \eqref{eq:iid_data_input_distribution} says that the input $\tx_t$ is {\it iid}\xspace and independent of $\txv_T$ for all $t>\Tt$. The distributions of $\tx_t$ during training and afterward can therefore differ. We use the common convention of writing $p(\txv_{\Tt})$ and $p(\tx_t)$ when we mean $p_{\txv_{\Tt}}(\cdot)$ and $p_{\tx_t}(\cdot)$, even though these functions can differ.
Under A3, the distributions of $(\txA,\rxA,\mathcal{G})$ are described by the set of known distributions
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}(\Tt,\tau)=\{p(\rx|\tx;\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}),p(\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}),p(\txv_\Tt),p(\tx_{\Tt+1})\},
\label{eq:P_set}
\end{equation}
which depends on $\tau$. These distributions are used to calculate all of the entropies and mutual informations throughout, and hence, these quantities may depend on $\tau$ and can be thought of as ``ergodic" in the sense that they average over realizations of $\chv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$.
Both Theorems \ref{thm:derivative_monotonic} and \ref{thm:integral_thm_monotonic} can be generalized to include conditioning on $\txA$, thus leading to the following corollary, provided that $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)$ and its derivative with respect to $\varepsilon$ exist.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:A3_derivative_relation}
Under Assumption A3, for $\varepsilon>0$,
\begin{align*}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon} =\frac{\partial\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)}{\partial\varepsilon},
\numberthis
\label{eq:derivative_data}
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon} =\frac{\partial\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\varepsilon)}{\partial\varepsilon}.
\numberthis
\label{eq:derivative_training}
\end{align*}
If $\tx_t$ are {\it iid}\xspace for all $t$, then we have
\begin{align*}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{\varepsilon} =\frac{\partial\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)}{\partial\varepsilon}
\numberthis
\label{eq:derivative_more_iid_training}
\end{align*}
for all $\varepsilon,\delta>-1$ and $\varepsilon\neq\delta$. Also,
\begin{align*}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{^+}{} =\left.\frac{\partial\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\varepsilon)}{\partial\varepsilon}\right|_{\varepsilon=0}.
\numberthis
\label{eq:derivative_training_0}
\end{align*}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Under Assumption A3, for all $\delta\geq 0$, we have
\begin{align*}
\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\txv_{\ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}},&\rxv_{t})\leq\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\txv_{\ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}},\rxv_{t-1})\\
=&\;\Ent(\rx_{t}|\txv_{\ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}},\rxv_{t-1}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:monotonic_A3}
\end{align*}
when $\Tt+1\leq t\leq \ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}-1$ or $t\geq \ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}+1$. Here, we use that the input is {\it iid}\xspace and the system is memoryless and time invariant; the inequality follows from the fact that conditioning reduces entropy.
Therefore, $\forall \kappa\in(0,\varepsilon)$, $\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{t})$ is monotonic decreasing in $t$ for $t\in[\floor{(1+\varepsilon-\kappa)\Tt},\ceil{(1+\varepsilon+\kappa)\Tt}]$ when $\Tt>\frac{1}{\varepsilon-\kappa}$. Then, Theorem \ref{thm:derivative_monotonic} yields \eqref{eq:derivative_data}.
Also, $\forall \kappa\in(0,\varepsilon),\delta>2\varepsilon$, $\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\txv_{\ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}},\rxv_{t})$ is monotonic decreasing in $t$ for $t\in[\floor{(1+\varepsilon-\kappa)\Tt},\ceil{(1+\varepsilon+\kappa)\Tt}]$ when $\Tt>\max(\frac{1}{\varepsilon-\kappa},\frac{2}{\varepsilon-\delta-\kappa})$. Then, Theorem \ref{thm:derivative_monotonic} yields
\begin{equation}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{\varepsilon} =\frac{\partial\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_{\delta})}{\partial\varepsilon}.
\label{eq:derivative_1}
\end{equation}
Assumption A3 yields
\begin{align}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{\varepsilon}=\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon},
\label{eq:H_prime_equ}
\end{align}
where $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon}$ is defined in \eqref{eq:EntInn_cond_def_one_extra}, and
\begin{align}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_{\delta})=\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_{\varepsilon}).
\label{eq:H_equ}
\end{align}
Therefore, \eqref{eq:derivative_1} becomes \eqref{eq:derivative_training}.
If $\tx_t$ are {\it iid}\xspace for all $t$, then \eqref{eq:monotonic_A3} is valid for all $t\leq \ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}-1$ or $t\geq \ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}+1$. Therefore, Theorem \ref{thm:derivative_monotonic} yields \eqref{eq:derivative_more_iid_training}. By taking $\varepsilon=0$ and $\delta>0$, \eqref{eq:derivative_more_iid_training}, \eqref{eq:H_prime_equ}, and \eqref{eq:H_equ} then yield \eqref{eq:derivative_training_0}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Computation of $\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ and significance of assumptions}
We defer our applications of $\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ until Section \ref{sec:MuI_analysis}, but now show it may readily be computed with the help of Corollary \ref{cor:A3_derivative_relation}. It is shown in \eqref{eq:entropy_gap} that $\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ can be computed as the difference between $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{}$ and $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{^+}{}$. These quantities can be computed as derivatives of $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ and $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\varepsilon)$, provided that these limits exist and are differentiable.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:computation_of_MuI_from_derivative}
Under Assumptions A1--A3, we have
\begin{equation}
\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{} = \lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 0}\frac{\partial\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)}{\partial\varepsilon} - \lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 0} \frac{\partial\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\varepsilon)}{\partial\varepsilon}.
\label{eq:MuI_from_derivative}
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Corollary \ref{cor:A3_derivative_relation} and \eqref{eq:Ixy_final} yield \eqref{eq:MuI_from_derivative}.
\end{proof}
Assumptions A1--A3 in \eqref{eq:training_phase_continue}, \eqref{eq:continue_in_data}, \eqref{eq:fixed_channel_in_data}, and \eqref{eq:iid_data_input_distribution}, are important for Theorem \ref{thm:computation_of_MuI_from_derivative}.
A3 is often met in practice for a memoryless and time-invariant system with {\it iid}\xspace input in the data phase, independent of the input and output during training. However, we do not have a complete characterization of the processes $\txA$ and $\rxA$ that meet Assumptions A1 and A2.
Even though we cannot characterize these processes, A1 and A2 may be verified on a case-by-case basis by examining expressions of $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon}$ and $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}$ with $\varepsilon\geq 0$ using Corollary \ref{cor:A3_derivative_relation}; see Example 5.
The following lemma then helps to verify A2 using A3.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:bound_for_A2}
If Assumption A3 is met and
\begin{align}
\lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 0}\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}=\lim_{\delta{\nearrow} 0}\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{},
\label{eq:two_bound_met}
\end{align}
then Assumption A2 is met.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Under Assumption A3, for $t\geq\Tt+1$, we have
\begin{align*}
\Ent(\rx_{t+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{t}) \leq\Ent(\rx_t|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{t-1})
\numberthis
\label{eq:monotonic_condition_2}
\end{align*}
which is also shown in \eqref{eq:monotonic_A3}.
Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 0}\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}\leq \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{}.
\end{equation*}
Conditioning to reduce entropy again yields
\begin{align*}
\Ent(\rx_{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt}) \leq&\; \Ent(\rx_{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\ceil{(1-\delta)\Tt}},\rxv_{\Tt}),
\end{align*}
for any $\delta>0$ and therefore,
\begin{equation*}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{}\leq \lim_{\delta{\nearrow} 0}\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{}.
\end{equation*}
Equation \eqref{eq:two_bound_met} then implies A2.
\end{proof}
This lemma is helpful because it replaces computing $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{}$ with computing
$\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}$ and $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{}$, which can be done using Corollary \ref{cor:A3_derivative_relation}.
A qualitative sketch that illustrates Corollary \ref{cor:A3_derivative_relation} and Theorem \ref{thm:computation_of_MuI_from_derivative} is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:sketch_entropy}, where $\tx_t$ is {\it iid}\xspace throughout both phases, and $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon}$ is continuous at $\varepsilon=0$ (phase change). The entropies $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}$ and $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon}$ are the derivatives of $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ and $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\varepsilon)$ (Corollary \ref{cor:A3_derivative_relation}) and the mutual information $\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ can be computed as the difference between these derivatives (Theorem \ref{thm:computation_of_MuI_from_derivative}). When the input distribution in the training phase (phase I) differs from that in the data phase (phase II), the corresponding sketch is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:sketch_entropy_non_iid}, which is similar to Fig.\ \ref{fig:sketch_entropy}, except that $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon}$ is discontinuous at $\varepsilon=0$ because of the changing input distribution.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{sketch_entropy_non_iid_epsilon.eps}
\centering
\caption{Similar to Fig.\ \ref{fig:sketch_entropy}
except the input distributions in Phases I and II differ. Both $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}$ and $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon}$ are discontinuous at $0$. Their difference (black arrow) is $\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$. Both $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ and $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\varepsilon)$ are not differentiable at 0.}
\label{fig:sketch_entropy_non_iid}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Mutual information bounds}
\label{sec:MuI_analysis}
We generalize the definition of $\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ to $\cII{\txA_{\varepsilon}}{\rxA_{\varepsilon}}{}$ with $\varepsilon\in[-1,\frac{1}{\tau}-1)$ as
\begin{align*}
\cII{\txA_\varepsilon}{\rxA_\varepsilon}{}= &\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\MuI(\tx_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1};\\
&\rx_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1}|\txv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}},\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:cI_def_with_P_tau}
\end{align*}
and we define
\begin{align*}
\cIRA{\txA_\varepsilon}{\rxA_\varepsilon}{}=&\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{\tau}{\Tt}\MuI(\txv^{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1};\\
&\rxv^{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1}|\txv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}},\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:joint_MuI_thm}
\end{align*}
where $\txv^t=[\tx_t,\tx_{t+1},\cdots,\tx_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}]$. Both $\cII{\txA_\varepsilon}{\rxA_\varepsilon}{}$ and $\cIRA{\txA_\varepsilon}{\rxA_\varepsilon}{}$ are computed using $\mathcal{P}(\Tt,\tau)$ defined in \eqref{eq:P_set}, and are therefore functions of $\tau$.
When $\varepsilon=-1$, $\cIRA{\txA_{-1}}{\rxA_{-1}}{}$ is the mutual information without any training. We show in the following theorem that
both $\cII{\txA_\varepsilon}{\rxA_\varepsilon}{}$ and $\cIRA{\txA_\varepsilon}{\rxA_\varepsilon}{}$ have close relationship with $\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ provided that these limits exist:
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:MI_equal_gap}
Under A3, for all $\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2\geq 0$, $\varepsilon_1>\varepsilon_2$, $\tau\in(0,1)$,
\begin{align*}
\cII{\txA_{\varepsilon_1}}{\rxA_{\varepsilon_1}}{}\geq \cII{\txA_{\varepsilon_2}}{\rxA_{\varepsilon_2}}{},
\numberthis
\label{eq:monotonic_MuI}
\end{align*}
and,
\begin{align*}
&\cIRA{\txA_{-1}}{\rxA_{-1}}{}\geq\;\cIRA{\txA}{\rxA}{}
\numberthis
\label{eq:joint_MuI_expression}\\
& \qquad\geq\; \int_{0}^{\frac{1}{\tau}-1}\tau \cII{\txA_{\varepsilon}}{\rxA_{\varepsilon}}{}d\varepsilon
\numberthis
\label{eq:MuI_int_expression}\\
&\qquad\geq\;(1-\tau)\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{}
\numberthis
\label{eq:MuI_begin_lower_bound}\\
&\qquad\geq\; (1-\tau)\lim_{T\to\infty}\MuI(\tx_{T+1};\rx_{ T+1}|\hat{\chv}_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:MuI_estimate_lower_bound}
\end{align*}
where $\hat{\chv}_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$ is any estimate of $\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$ that is a function of $(\txv_{ T},\rxv_{ T})$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Assumption A3 implies that $\tx_t$ is independent of $(\tx_k,\rx_k)$ when $k\neq t$ and $t\geq \Tt+1$. Therefore, for all $t\geq \Tt+1$,
\begin{align*}
&\MuI(\tx_{t+1};\rx_{t+1}|\txv_{t},\rxv_{t}) - \MuI(\tx_{t};\rx_{t}|\txv_{t-1},\rxv_{t-1})\\
\stackrel{\rm{( a)}}{=}&(\Ent(\tx_{t+1}) - \Ent(\tx_{t+1}|\txv_t,\rxv_{t+1})) \\
&\qquad - (\Ent(\tx_{t}) - \Ent(\tx_{t}|\txv_{t-1},\rxv_{t}))\\
=&\Ent(\tx_{t}|\txv_{t-1},\rxv_{t}) - \Ent(\tx_{t+1}|\txv_t,\rxv_{t+1})\\
\stackrel{\rm{( b)}}{=}&\Ent(\tx_{t+1}|\txv_{t-1},\rxv_{t-1},\rx_{t+1}) - \Ent(\tx_{t+1}|\txv_t,\rxv_{t+1})\\
\stackrel{\rm{( c)}}{\geq}& 0.
\numberthis
\label{eq:monotonic_MuI_T}
\end{align*}
Here, $^{(a)}$ uses the independence between $\tx_t$ and $(\txv_{t-1},\rxv_{t-1})$, $^{(b)}$ uses Assumption A3, $^{(c)}$ uses conditioning to reduce entropy. Thus, $\MuI(\tx_t;\rx_t|\txv_{t-1},\rxv_{t-1})$ is monotonically increasing with $t$ for all $t>\Tt$. In the limit when $\Tt\to\infty$, \eqref{eq:monotonic_MuI_T} yields \eqref{eq:monotonic_MuI}. A sufficient condition for achieving equality in $^{(c)}$ is when $\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$ can be estimated perfectly from $(\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt})$, and both entropies on the right hand side of $^{(b)}$ equal $\Ent(\tx_{t+1}|\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}},\rx_{t+1})$.
Moreover,
\begin{align*}
&\MuI(\txv^{\Tt+1};\rxv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}|\txv_\Tt)\\
=&\MuI(\txv^{\Tt+1};\rxv_{\Tt}|\txv_\Tt)+\MuI(\txv^{\Tt+1};\rxv^{\Tt+1}|\txv_\Tt,\rxv_{\Tt})\\
=&\MuI(\txv^{\Tt+1};\rxv^{\Tt+1}|\txv_\Tt,\rxv_{\Tt}),
\end{align*}
where the first equality uses the chain rule and the second uses that $\txv^{\Tt+1}$ is independent of $(\txv_\Tt,\rxv_\Tt)$. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
&\MuI(\txv^{\Tt+1};\rxv^{\Tt+1}|\txv_\Tt,\rxv_{\Tt}) = \Ent(\rxv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}|\txv_{\Tt})-\Ent(\rxv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}|\txv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}})\\
&\leq\Ent(\rxv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}})-\Ent(\rxv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}|\txv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}})=\MuI(\txv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}};\rxv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}),
\end{align*}
which, with \eqref{eq:joint_MuI_thm}, yields \eqref{eq:joint_MuI_expression}.
To prove \eqref{eq:MuI_int_expression}, we first show following inequality:
\begin{align*}
&\MuI(\txv^{\Tt+1};\rxv^{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt})\\
\stackrel{}{=}&\;\Ent(\txv^{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt}) - \Ent(\txv^{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}})\\
\stackrel{\rm{( a)}}{=}&\sum_{t={\Tt+1}}^{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}(\Ent(\tx_t|\txv_{t-1},\rxv_{\Tt}) - \Ent(\tx_t|\txv_{t-1},\rxv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}))\\
\stackrel{\rm{( b)}}{\geq}&\sum_{t={\Tt+1}}^{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}(\Ent(\tx_t|\txv_{t-1},\rxv_{t-1}) - \Ent(\tx_t|\txv_{t-1},\rxv_{t}))\\
=& \sum_{t=\Tt+1}^{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}\MuI(\tx_t;\rx_t|\txv_{t-1},\rxv_{t-1}).
\numberthis
\label{eq:chain_rule_MuI_bound}
\end{align*}
Here, $^{(a)}$ uses the chain rule, $^{(b)}$ uses conditioning to reduce entropy. Equality in $^{(b)}$ can be achieved when $\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$ is estimated perfectly from $(\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt})$. Then, by normalizing \eqref{eq:chain_rule_MuI_bound} by $\frac{\tau}{\Tt}$ and letting $\Tt\to\infty$, we see that the sum converges to the integral, which proves \eqref{eq:MuI_int_expression}. Then, \eqref{eq:monotonic_MuI} yields \eqref{eq:MuI_begin_lower_bound}.
Also,
\begin{align*}
&\MuI(\tx_{\Tt+1};\rx_{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt})\\
=&\Ent(\tx_{\Tt+1})-\Ent(\tx_{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt},\rx_{\Tt+1})\\
\stackrel{\rm{( a)}}{=}&\Ent(\tx_{\Tt+1})-\Ent(\tx_{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt},\hat{\chv}_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}},\rx_{\Tt+1})\\
\stackrel{\rm{( b)}}{\geq}&\Ent(\tx_{\Tt+1})-\Ent(\tx_{\Tt+1}|\hat{\chv}_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}},\rx_{\Tt+1})\\
=&\MuI(\tx_{\Tt+1};\rx_{\Tt+1}|\hat{\chv}_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}),
\end{align*}
where $^{(a)}$ uses that $\hat{\chv}_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$ is a function of $(\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt})$, and $^{(b)}$ uses conditioning to reduce entropy. By taking the limit $\Tt\to \infty$, we have \eqref{eq:MuI_estimate_lower_bound}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Discussion of lower bounds}
The quantities in \eqref{eq:joint_MuI_expression}--\eqref{eq:MuI_estimate_lower_bound} have a long history of being studied in various contexts. For example, $\cIRA{\txA_{-1}}{\rxA_{-1}}{}$ describes the mutual information between the entire input and output block. This quantity is studied in \cite{marzetta1999capacity,hochwald2000unitary,zheng2002communication} in the context of a linear system with additive Gaussian noise and vector inputs and outputs; analytical expressions are obtained in special cases when the blocklength is larger than the dimension of the input, or the noise power is small.
The right-hand side of \eqref{eq:joint_MuI_expression} $\cIRA{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ describes the mutual information between the input and output in the data phase conditioned on $\Tt$ training symbols, and the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:MuI_int_expression} integrates the mutual information between each input and output pair in the data phase where the training and data output together are used to refine the estimate of $\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$. In \cite{takeuchi2012large, takeuchi2013achievable}, linear systems with additive Gaussian noise are considered, starting with $\cIRA{\txA}{\rxA}{}$, which is then lower bounded by an integral similar to the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:MuI_int_expression}. This integral is further lower-bounded by obtaining a linear minimum mean-squared error (LMMSE) estimate of $\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$. This lower bound is maximized when $\tau=0$ since any amount of training at the expense of data is harmful to the total throughput for the block; the unknown parameters can be jointly estimated with the data without explicit training signals. In general, when the input is {\it iid}\xspace during the whole block,
\eqref{eq:joint_MuI_expression} and \eqref{eq:MuI_int_expression} are maximized when $\tau=0$.
In contrast, the right-hand sides of \eqref{eq:MuI_begin_lower_bound} and \eqref{eq:MuI_estimate_lower_bound} assume $\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$ is learned only through the training phase (and not through the data phase)---so called ``one-shot" learning, which is our primary interest. In particular, \eqref{eq:MuI_begin_lower_bound} does not form an explicit estimate of $\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$, and is an upper bound on \eqref{eq:MuI_estimate_lower_bound}, which forms an explicit estimate derived only from the training. Special cases of one-shot learning with explicit estimates of system parameters are analyzed in \cite{hassibi2003much,li2016much,li2017channel}. A linear system with additive Gaussian noise is analyzed in \cite{hassibi2003much}, where the system parameters are estimated in the training phase, and the worst-case noise analysis then produces a lower bound. The worst-case noise analysis developed in \cite{hassibi2003much} treats the estimation error as additive Gaussian noise. In \cite{li2016much,li2017channel}, systems with additive Gaussian noise and one-bit quantization at the output are considered, where the Bussgang decomposition is used to reformulate the nonlinear quantizer as a linear function with additional noise, followed by a worst-case noise analysis. Training times that maximize these lower bounds are generally nonzero since only the training phase is used to learn the unknown parameters, and further refinement of these parameters during the data phase is not performed.
Theorem \ref{thm:MI_equal_gap} does not require linearity in the system parameters or Gaussian additive noise, and therefore has wide potential applicability to analyzing systems that use training. The optimum amount of training is found from \eqref{eq:MuI_begin_lower_bound}:
\begin{align}
\tau_{{\rm opt}}=\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_{\tau}(1-\tau)\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{}
\label{eq:opt_training_tau}
\end{align}
and the corresponding rate per receive symbol is
\begin{equation}
\cR_{\rm opt} = (1-\tau_{{\rm opt}})\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{}\bigr|_{\tau=\tau_{{\rm opt}}}.
\label{eq:Ropt}
\end{equation}
As shown in \eqref{eq:MuI_estimate_lower_bound}, this is an upper bound on the rate achievable by any method that estimates the unknown parameters from the training data. According to Theorem \ref{thm:computation_of_MuI_from_derivative}, derivatives of $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)$, which can be obtained from the single entropy function $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$, are needed to compute this quantity. This is the subject of the next section.
\section{Computation of $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)$ and an example}
Closed-form expressions for $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)$ may be derived from $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$, when this is available. For example, in some cases $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ can be obtained through methods employed in statistical mechanics by treating the conditional entropy as free energy in a large-scale system. Free energy is a fundamental quantity \cite{castellani2005spin,mezard2009information} that has been analyzed through the powerful ``replica method", and this, in turn, has been applied to entropy calculations in
machine learning \cite{engel2001statistical,opper1996statistical,shinzato2008learning,ha1993generalization} and wireless communications \cite{wen2015performance,wen2015joint,wen2016bayes}, in both linear and nonlinear systems.
The entropy $\cH(\rxA|\txA)$ (equivalent to $\varepsilon=0$) is considered in \cite{engel2001statistical,opper1996statistical,ha1993generalization,shinzato2008learning}, where the input is multiplied by an unknown vector as an inner product and the passes through a nonlinearity to generate a scalar output. In \cite{engel2001statistical,opper1996statistical,ha1993generalization}, the input are {\it iid}\xspace, while orthogonal inputs are considered in \cite{shinzato2008learning}.
The entropy $\cH(\rxA_{\varepsilon}|\txA)$ for MIMO systems is considered in \cite{wen2015performance,wen2015joint,wen2016bayes}, where the inputs are {\it iid}\xspace in the training phase and are {\it iid}\xspace in the data phase, but the distributions in the two phases can differ. In \cite{wen2015performance}, a linear system is considered where the output is the result of the input multiplied by an unknown matrix, plus additive noise, while in \cite{wen2015joint,wen2016bayes} uniform quantization is added at the output.
As we now show, computations of $\cH(\rxA_{\varepsilon}|\txA)$ can be leveraged to compute $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)$ for $\varepsilon,\delta>-1$.
We consider the case when the input $\tx_t$ are {\it iid}\xspace for all $t$, and the distribution set $\mathcal{P}(\Tt,\tau)$ defined in \eqref{eq:P_set} can be simplified as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{P}(\Tt,\tau)=\{p(\rx|\tx;\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}),p(\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}),p(\tx)\}.
\label{eq:P_set_iid_input}
\end{align}
The following theorem assumes that we have $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ available as a function of $(\tau,\varepsilon)$ for all $\varepsilon\geq 0$:
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:scale_joint_entropy}
Assume that A3 is met, $\tx_t$ are {\it iid}\xspace for all $t$, $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ exists and is continuous in $\tau$ and $\varepsilon$ for $\tau\in(0,1)$ and $\varepsilon\in(-1,\frac{1}{\tau}-1]$. Define
\begin{align}
F(\tau,\varepsilon)=\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA),
\label{eq:entropy_generator}
\end{align}
where $\varepsilon\geq 0$ and $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ is defined in \eqref{eq:EntR_cond_def}.
Then
\begin{align*}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_{\delta})=
(1+u)\cdot F\left((1+u)\tau,\frac{\varepsilon-u}{1+\delta}\right),
\numberthis
\label{eq:EntR_rx_gamma_tx_lambda}
\end{align*}
\comm{
\begin{align*}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_{\delta})=\begin{cases}
(1+\varepsilon)\cdot F((1+\varepsilon)\tau,0), &\varepsilon\leq \delta; \\
(1+\delta)\cdot F\left((1+\delta)\tau,\frac{\varepsilon-\delta}{1+\delta}\right), & \varepsilon> \delta.
\end{cases}
\numberthis
\label{eq:EntR_rx_gamma_tx_lambda}
\end{align*}
}
for all $\varepsilon,\delta\in(-1,\frac{1}{\tau}-1]$, where $u=\min(\varepsilon,\delta)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
According to \eqref{eq:EntR_cond_def} and \eqref{eq:entropy_generator}, we have
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{1}{\Tt}\Ent(\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}|\txv_{\Tt})=F(\tau,\varepsilon),
\end{align*}
which is computed using $\mathcal{P}(\Tt,\tau)$ defined in \eqref{eq:P_set_iid_input}. When $\delta\geq\varepsilon>-1$, we have
\begin{align}
&\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)=\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{1}{\Tt}\Ent(\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}|\txv_{\ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}}) \label{eq:Hdef}\\
=&\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{1}{\Tt}\Ent(\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}|\txv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}). \nonumber
\end{align}
Let $\tilde{\Tt}=\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}$, and we have
\begin{align*}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)=\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{1+\varepsilon}{\tilde{\Tt}}\Ent(\rxv_{\tilde{\Tt}}|\txv_{\tilde{\Tt}}).
\numberthis
\label{eq:change_of_variable}
\end{align*}
Since $\mathcal{P}(\Tt,\tau)$ only depends on $\frac{\Tt}{\tau}$, we can rewrite $\mathcal{P}(\Tt,\tau)$ as
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{P}(\Tt,\tau)=\mathcal{P}(\tilde{\Tt},\frac{\tilde{\Tt}}{\Tt}\tau),
\end{align*}
and therefore \eqref{eq:entropy_generator} and \eqref{eq:change_of_variable} yield
\begin{align*}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta) =& (1+\varepsilon)\cdot F(\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{\tilde{\Tt}}{\Tt}\tau,0)\\
=&(1+\varepsilon)\cdot F((1+\varepsilon)\tau,0).
\numberthis
\label{eq:expand_1}
\end{align*}
For $\varepsilon>\delta> -1$,
let $\tilde{\Tt}=\ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}$, and then \eqref{eq:Hdef} yields
\begin{align*}
&\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta) =\lim_{\tilde{\Tt}\to\infty}\frac{1+\delta}{\tilde{\Tt}}\Ent(\rxv_{\frac{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}{\ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}}\tilde{\Tt}}|\txv_{\tilde{\Tt}})\\
&=(1+\delta)\cdot F\left(\lim_{{\Tt}\to\infty} \frac{\tilde{\Tt}}{\Tt}\tau ,\lim_{{\Tt}\to\infty} \frac{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}{\ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}}-1 \right)\\
&=(1+\delta)\cdot F\left((1+\delta)\tau,\frac{\varepsilon-\delta}{1+\delta}\right).
\numberthis
\label{eq:expand_2}
\end{align*}
By combining \eqref{eq:expand_1} and \eqref{eq:expand_2}, we obtain \eqref{eq:EntR_rx_gamma_tx_lambda}.
\end{proof}
The following example demonstrates how to apply the main theorems.
\subsection*{Example 5: Bit flipping through random channels}
\noindent
Let
\begin{equation}
\rx_{t}=\tx_{t}\oplus \chs_{k_t},\quad t=1,\ldots,\frac{\Tt}{\tau},
\label{eq:binary_XOR_channel}
\end{equation}
where the binary input $\tx_{t}$ is XOR'ed with a random bit $\chs_{k_t}$ intended to model the unknown ``state" of the channel $k_t$. Thus, each channel either lets the input bit directly through, or inverts it. The $\tx_{t}$ are {\it iid}\xspace equally likely to be zero or one, Bernoulli($\frac{1}{2}$) random variables. Let $a>0$ be a parameter, where $a\cdot\frac{\Tt}{\tau}$ is the (integer) number of possible unique channels whose states are stored in the vector $\chv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}=[\chs_{1},\chs_{2},\cdots,\chs_{a\cdot\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}]^{\intercal}$ comprising {\it iid}\xspace Bernoulli($\frac{1}{2}$) random variables that are independent of the input. The channel selections ${\mathbf{k}}_{\Tt}=[k_1,\ldots,k_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}]$ are chosen as an {\it iid}\xspace uniform sample from $\{1,2,\cdots,a\cdot\frac{\Tt}{\tau}\}$ (with repetition possible), and the choices are known to the transmitter and receiver. We wish to send training signals through these channels to learn $\chv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$; the more entries of this vector that we learn, the more channels become useful for sending data, but the less time we have to send data before the blocklength $\frac{\Tt}{\tau}$ runs out and $\chv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$ changes.
We want to determine the optimum $\tau$ as $\Tt\to\infty$ using \eqref{eq:opt_training_tau}. We therefore compute $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ and then use Theorem \ref{thm:scale_joint_entropy} to obtain $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_{\delta})$,
which is used to compute $\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ through Theorem \ref{thm:computation_of_MuI_from_derivative}.
By definition, $\cH(\rxA|\txA)=\lim\limits_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{1}{\Tt}\Ent(\rxv_{\Tt}|\txv_{\Tt})$.
The model \eqref{eq:binary_XOR_channel} yields
\begin{align*}
&\Ent(\rxv_{\Tt}|\txv_{\Tt}) \stackrel{(\rm a)}{=}\Ent(\{\chs_{k_1},\ldots,\chs_{k_\Tt}\}|\txv_{\Tt})\\
\stackrel{(\rm b)}{=}&\Ent(\{\chs_{k_1},\ldots,\chs_{k_\Tt})
\stackrel{(\rm c)}{=}\E_{{\mathbf{k}}_{\Tt}}|A_\Tt|,
\end{align*}
where $A_{\Tt} = \{k_1,\ldots,k_\Tt\}$, $|\cdot|$ denotes the cardinality of a set, $^{(a)}$ uses $\chs_{k_t}=\rx_t\oplus\tx_t$, $^{(b)}$ uses the independence between $\txv_{\Tt}$ and $\chs_t$, $^{(c)}$ uses the independence between $\chs_t$ and $\chs_k$ when $t\neq k$. Then $|A_{\Tt}|=\sum_{i=1}^{a\frac{\Tt}{\tau}} \mathbbm{1}_{(i\in A_{\Tt})}$, where $\mathbbm{1}_{(\cdot)}$ is the indicator function and
\begin{align*}
&\Ent(\rxv_{\Tt}|\txv_{\Tt})=\E|A_{\Tt}|=\sum_{i=1}^{a\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}\E(\mathbbm{1}_{(i\in A_{\Tt})})\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^{a\frac{\Tt}{\tau}} \Pr(i\in A_{\Tt})=\frac{a\Tt}{\tau}(1-\Pr(1\notin A_{\Tt}))\\
&=\frac{a\Tt}{\tau}(1-\prod_{t=1}^{\Tt}\Pr(1\neq k_t))=\frac{a\Tt}{\tau}(1-(1-\frac{\tau}{a\Tt})^{\Tt}).
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
&\cH(\rxA|\txA)=\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{a}{\tau}(1-(1-\frac{\tau}{a\Tt})^{\Tt})=\frac{a}{\tau}(1-e^{-\frac{\tau}{a}}).
\numberthis
\label{eq:XOR_tau_1}
\end{align*}
By the chain rule for entropy, we have
\begin{align*}
\cH&(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)=\cH(\rxA|\txA) \\
&+ \lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{1}{\Tt}\Ent(\rx_{\Tt+1},\rx_{\Tt+2},\ldots,\rx_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt}).
\end{align*}
Since
\begin{align*}
\ceil{\varepsilon\Tt}\geq&\Ent(\rx_{\Tt+1},\rx_{\Tt+2},\ldots,\rx_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt})\\
\geq&\Ent(\rx_{\Tt+1},\rx_{\Tt+2},\ldots,\rx_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt},\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}})\\
=&\Ent(\tx_{\Tt+1},\tx_{\Tt+2},\ldots,\tx_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt},\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}})\\
=&\Ent(\tx_{\Tt+1},\tx_{\Tt+2},\ldots,\tx_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}})=\ceil{\varepsilon\Tt},
\end{align*}
we conclude that
\begin{align*}
F(\tau,\varepsilon)=\cH&(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)=\frac{a}{\tau}(1-e^{-\frac{\tau}{a}})+\varepsilon.
\numberthis
\label{eq:tau_XOR_EntR}
\end{align*}
From \eqref{eq:binary_XOR_channel}, we have
\begin{align*}
p(\rxv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}|\txv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}};\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}) =\prod_{t=1}^{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}p(\rx_t|\tx_t;\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}),
\end{align*}
where $p(\rx_t|\tx_t;\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}})=\mathbbm{1}_{(\rx_t=\tx_{t}\oplus \chs_{k_t})}$ for all $t$. It is clear that Assumption A3 is met and $\tx_t$ are {\it iid}\xspace independent of $\chv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$. Theorem \ref{thm:scale_joint_entropy} yields
\begin{align*}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta) = \begin{cases}
\frac{a}{\tau}(1-e^{-\frac{\tau}{a}(1+\varepsilon)}), & \varepsilon\leq\delta; \\
\frac{a}{\tau}(1-e^{-\frac{\tau}{a}(1+\delta)})+(\varepsilon-\delta), & \delta<\varepsilon,
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
for $\varepsilon,\delta\in(-1,\frac{1}{\tau}-1)$.
Then, Corollary \ref{cor:A3_derivative_relation} yields
\begin{align*}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon} =\frac{\partial\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\varepsilon)}{\partial\varepsilon}=e^{-\frac{\tau}{a}(1+\varepsilon)},
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{\varepsilon} =\frac{\partial\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)}{\partial\varepsilon}= \begin{cases}
e^{-\frac{\tau}{a}(1+\varepsilon)}, & \varepsilon<\delta; \\
1, & \varepsilon>\delta.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Therefore, Assumption A1 holds, and Lemma \ref{lem:bound_for_A2} allows us to conclude that A2 also holds.
From Theorems \ref{thm:computation_of_MuI_from_derivative} and \ref{thm:MI_equal_gap}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{}
=&\;1-e^{-\frac{\tau}{a}}, \\
\numberthis
\label{eq:MuI_example_exp}
\cIRA{\txA}{\rxA}{}\geq &\;(1-\tau)(1-e^{-\frac{\tau}{a}}).
\end{align*}
Finally, \eqref{eq:opt_training_tau} yields $\tau_{{\rm opt}}=\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}\limits_{\tau}(1-\tau)(1-e^{-\frac{\tau}{a}})$, or
\begin{equation}
\tau_{{\rm opt}}=\begin{cases}
-a\ln a, & a\to 0; \\
\frac{1}{2}, & a\to\infty;\\
\frac{1}{e}, & a=\frac{1}{e}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
When $a$ is small, $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ is larger than $a$; when $a$ is large, $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ saturates at $\frac{1}{2}$; and $a=\frac{1}{e}$ is the dividing line between $\tau_{{\rm opt}}>a$ and $\tau_{{\rm opt}}<a$. The corresponding rates per receive symbol are
\begin{equation}
\cR_{\rm opt}=\begin{cases}
(1+a\ln a)(1-a), & a\to 0; \\
\frac{1}{2}(1-e^{-\frac{1}{2a}}), & a\to\infty;\\
(1-\frac{1}{e})^2, & a=\frac{1}{e}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
These results indicate that the optimum fraction of the blocklength that should be devoted to training varies as a function of the number of possible unique channels. When $a=1$, the number of unique channels equals the blocklength $B$, and $\tau$ that maximizes \eqref{eq:MuI_example_exp} is approximately $0.44$. For a large number of unique channels relative to the blocklength ($a\rightarrow\infty$), the fraction of the training time saturates at $1/2$. When $a$ is small, the optimum fraction of the blocklength devoted to training decreases to zero, but more slowly than $a$.
The next section generalizes our results from scalar inputs and outputs to higher dimensional objects and develops a channel coding theorem to provide operational significance to $(1-\tau)\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{}$.
\section{Generalization to High-dimensional Processes, and Channel Coding Theorem}
\label{sec:high_dimen_generalize}
\subsection{High-dimensional processes}
We define the input and output processes as $\txA=(\txv_1,\txv_2,\ldots)$ and $\rxA=(\rxv_{1},\rxv_{2},\ldots)$, which now comprise vectors, matrices, or tensors. For simplicity, we consider $\txv_t$ and $\rxv_{t}$ as vectors.
Denote $\txm_t=[\txv_1,\txv_2,\ldots,\txv_{t}]$ and $\txm^t=[\txv_{t},\txv_{t+1},\ldots,\txv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}]$, and similarly for $\rxm_t$ and $\rxm^t$. The notation here differs from previous sections; we use $\txv_t$ as the $t$th vector in the process, and $\txm_t$ as the first $t$ vectors, and $\txm^{t+1}$ as the last $\frac{\Tt}{\tau}-t$ vectors. The vectors $\rxv_t$ have length $N$, which can be a function of the blocklength $\frac{\Tt}{\tau}$.
Similarly to \eqref{eq:MuI_def}, \eqref{eq:EntInn_cond_def}, \eqref{eq:EntInn_cond_def_one_extra}, and \eqref{eq:EntR_cond_def}, we define
\begin{align*}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{\varepsilon} =\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}&\frac{1}{\rn}\Ent(\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1}\\
&|\txm_{\ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}},\rxm_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:EntInn_cond_def_high}
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta^+}{\varepsilon}
=\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}&\frac{1}{\rn}\Ent(\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1}\\
&|\txm_{\ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}+1},\rxm_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:EntInn_cond_def_one_extra_high}
\end{align*}
\begin{align}
\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}=\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{1}{\rn}\MuI(\txv_{\Tt+1};\rxv_{\Tt+1}|\txm_{\Tt},\rxm_{\Tt}),
\label{eq:MuI_def_high}
\end{align}
\begin{equation}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)=\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{1}{\rn\Tt}\Ent(\rxm_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}|\txm_{\ceil{(1+\delta)\Tt}}).
\label{eq:EntR_cond_def_high}
\end{equation}
Similarly to \eqref{eq:cI_def_with_P_tau} and \eqref{eq:joint_MuI_thm}, we define
\begin{align*}
\cII{\txA_\varepsilon}{\rxA_\varepsilon}{}= &\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{1}{\rn}\MuI(\txv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1};\\
&\rxv_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1}|\txm_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}},\rxm_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:cI_def_with_P_tau_high}
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\cIRA{\txA_\varepsilon}{\rxA_\varepsilon}{}=&\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\frac{\tau}{\rn\Tt}\MuI(\txm^{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1};\\
&\rxm^{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}+1}|\txm_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}},\rxm_{\ceil{(1+\varepsilon)\Tt}}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:joint_MuI_thm_high}
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{P}(\Tt,\tau)$ is defined as in \eqref{eq:P_set}:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}(\Tt,\tau)=\{p(\rxv|\txv;\chma{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}),p(\chma{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}),p(\txm_\Tt),p(\txv_{\Tt+1})\},
\label{eq:P_set_high}
\end{equation}
and $\chma{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$ are the unknown parameters.
Theorems \ref{thm:derivative_monotonic}--\ref{thm:scale_joint_entropy}, Corollary \ref{cor:A3_derivative_relation}, and Lemma \ref{lem:bound_for_A2} can all be generalized. We show only the generalization of Theorem \ref{thm:derivative_monotonic}.
\begin{thmbis}{thm:derivative_monotonic}
\label{thm_derivative_monotonic_high_dimension}
Let both $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)$ and its derivative with respect to $\varepsilon$ exist. Suppose there exists a $\kappa>0$ so that $\Ent(\rxv_{t+1}|\rxm_{t})$ is monotonic in $t$ when $t\in[\floor{(1+\varepsilon-\kappa)\Tt},\ceil{(1+\varepsilon+\kappa)\Tt}]$ as $\Tt\to\infty$. Then
\begin{equation}
{\cH{'}}(\rxA_\varepsilon) =\frac{\partial\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon)}{\partial\varepsilon}.
\numberthis
\label{eq:derivative_2_high}
\end{equation}
\end{thmbis}
For the generalizations of Theorems \ref{thm:integral_thm_monotonic}--\ref{thm:scale_joint_entropy}, Corollary \ref{cor:A3_derivative_relation}, and Lemma \ref{lem:bound_for_A2}, the definitions in \eqref{eq:EntInn_cond_def_high}--\eqref{eq:joint_MuI_thm_high} are used.
\subsection{Channel coding theorem}
\label{subsec:channel_coding_thm_SISO}
We now provide an operational description of the mutual information inequality \eqref{eq:MuI_begin_lower_bound}.
We consider a communication system where the channel is constant for blocklength $\frac{T}{\tau}$, and then changes independently and stays constant for another blocklength, and so on. The first $\Tt$ symbols of each block are used for training with known input and output.
Under Assumption A3, the communication system is memoryless, is time-invariant within each block, and the input is {\it iid}\xspace independent of $\txv_{\Tt}$ after training. The system is retrained with every block, and the message to be transmitted is encoded over the data phase of multiple blocks.
A $(2^{nR\frac{\Tt}{\tau} },n,\Tt)$-code for a block-constant channel with blocklength $\frac{\Tt}{\tau}$ is defined as an encoder that maps a message $S\in\{1,2,\ldots,2^{nR\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}\}$ to the input in the data phase $\txv^{\Tt+1}$ among $n$ blocks,
and a decoder that maps $\txv_{\Tt}$, and the entire output $\rxv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$ for $n$ blocks to $\hat{S}\in\{1,2,\ldots,2^{nR\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}\}$. The code rate $R$ has units ``bits per transmission", and the maximum probability of error of the code is defined as
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm e}(n,\Tt)=\max_{S}\Pr(\hat{S}\neq S).
\label{eq:max_prob_err}
\end{equation}
The channel coding theorem is shown below.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:channel_coding_thm_inf_Tb}
Assume A3 is met, with a channel that is constant with blocklength $\frac{\Tt}{\tau}$, and whose conditional distribution is parameterized by $\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$ and is independent of the input. If $\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ exists, then for every $R$ that satisfies
\begin{equation}
R<(1-\tau)\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{},
\label{eq:rate_lower_bound}
\end{equation}
there exists $T_0>0$, so that for all $T>T_0$, we can find a code $(2^{nR\frac{\Tt}{\tau} },n,\Tt)$ with maximum probability of error $P_{\rm e}(n,\Tt)\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Define
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}_{\Tt}=\frac{\tau}{\Tt}\MuI(\txv^{\Tt+1};\rxv_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}|\txv_{\Tt}).
\end{equation}
For any finite $\Tt$, according to the classical channel coding theorem \cite{cover2012elements,yeung2008information,effros2010generalizing}, for every $R<\mathcal{R}_{\Tt}$, there exists a code $(2^{n R\frac{\Tt}{\tau}},n,\Tt)$ with maximum probability of error $P_{\rm e}(n,\Tt)\to 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
It is clear that $\txv^{\Tt+1}$ is independent of $(\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt})$. Therefore, we have
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}_{\Tt}=\frac{\tau}{\Tt}\MuI(\txv^{\Tt+1};\rxv^{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt}).
\end{equation}
Since $\tx_{\Tt+1},\tx_{\Tt+2},\ldots,\tx_{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}}$ are {\it iid}\xspace, and $p(\rx_t|\tx_t;\chva{\frac{\Tt}{\tau}})$ is a fixed conditional distribution for all $t=1,2,\ldots,\frac{\Tt}{\tau}$, we have \eqref{eq:monotonic_MuI_T} and \eqref{eq:chain_rule_MuI_bound}, which yield
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{R}_{\Tt}\geq (1-\tau)\MuI(\tx_{\Tt+1};\rx_{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt}).
\numberthis
\label{eq:bound_of_R}
\end{equation*}
According to the definition in \eqref{eq:cI_def_with_P_tau}, we have
\begin{align*}
\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{}=\lim_{\Tt\to\infty}\MuI(\tx_{\Tt+1};\rx_{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt}).
\end{align*}
Therefore, for any $\kappa>0$, there exists a number $T_0>0$ so that when $\Tt>T_0$, we have
\begin{align*}
\MuI(\tx_{\Tt+1};\rx_{\Tt+1}|\txv_{\Tt},\rxv_{\Tt})>\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{} - \kappa,
\end{align*}
and \eqref{eq:bound_of_R} yields
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}_{\Tt}>(1-\tau)(\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{} - \kappa),
\end{align*}
which means any rate $R\leq(1-\tau)(\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{} - \kappa)$ is achievable.
By taking the limit $\kappa{\searrow} 0$, we finish the proof.
\end{proof}
This theorem shows that rates below $(1-\tau)\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ are achievable when $\Tt$ is chosen large enough. Only an achievability statement is given here since $(1-\tau)\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ is a lower bound on $\mathcal{R}_{\Tt}$ for large $\Tt$.
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
\label{sec:discussion}
\subsection{Number of unknowns and bilinear model}
In general, a finite number of unknowns in the model leads to uninteresting results as $\Tt\rightarrow\infty$. For example, consider a system modeled as
\begin{equation}
\rx_{t} = \chs\tx_t +v_t,\quad t=1,2,\ldots
\label{eq:training_1D}
\end{equation}
where $\chs$ is the unknown gain of the system, $\tx_t$, $\rx_t$ are the input and corresponding output, $v_t$ is the additive noise, $\tau$ is the fraction of time used for training. This system is bilinear in the gain and the input. We assume that $\ns_t$ is modeled as {\it iid}\xspace Gaussian $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$, independent of the input. The training signals are $\tx_t=1$ for all $t=1,2,\ldots, \Tt$, and the data signals $\tx_t$ are modeled as {\it iid}\xspace Gaussian $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ for all $t=\Tt+1,\Tt+2,\ldots$ An analysis similar to Example 5 produces
\begin{align*}
\cIRA{\txA}{\rxA}{} \geq\frac{1-\tau}{2}\E_{\chs}\log(1+\chs^2),
\end{align*}
and therefore $\tau_{{\rm opt}}=0$ maximizes this bound. This result reflects the fact that $\chs$ is learned perfectly for any $\tau>0$ because there is only one unknown parameter for $\Tt$ training symbols as $\Tt\rightarrow\infty$. Hence, trivially, it is advantageous to make $\tau$ as small as possible.
More interesting is the ``large-scale" model
\begin{align*}
\rxv_t={\mathbf{f}}(\chm\txv_t+\nv_t),\quad t=1,2,\ldots,
\numberthis
\label{eq:nonlinear_system_model}
\end{align*}
where $\txv_t$ and $\rxv_t$ are the $t$th input and output vectors with dimension $\tn$ and $\rn$, $\chm$ is an $\rn\times\tn$ unknown random matrix that is not a function of $t$, $\nv_1,\nv_2,\ldots$ are {\it iid}\xspace unknown vectors with dimension $\rn$ and known distribution (not necessarily Gaussian), and ${\mathbf{f}}(\cdot)$ applies a possibly nonlinear function $f(\cdot)$ to each element of its input. The training interval $\Tt$ is used to learn $\chm$. Let $\tn$ and $\rn$ increase proportionally to the blocklength $\frac{\Tt}{\tau}$, and define the ratios
\begin{equation}
\alpha=\frac{\rn}{\tn},\quad\beta=\frac{\Tt}{\tau\tn}.
\label{eq:ratios_scale_up}
\end{equation}
This model can be used in large-scale wireless communication, signal processing, and machine learning applications. In wireless communication and signal processing \cite{takeuchi2010achievable,takeuchi2012large,hassibi2003much,takeuchi2013achievable,li2016much,li2017channel,wen2015performance,wen2015joint,wen2016bayes}, $\txv_t$ and $\rxv_t$ are the transmitted signal and the received signal at time $t$ in a multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) system with $\tn$ transmitters and $\rn$ receivers, $\chm$ models the channel coefficients between the transmitters and receivers, $\frac{\Tt}{\tau}$ is the coherence time during which the channel $\chm$ is constant, $\nv_t$ is the additive noise at time $t$, $f(\cdot)$ models receiver effects such as quantization in analog-to-digital converters (ADC's) and nonlinearities in amplifiers. A linear receiver, $f(x)=x$, is considered in \cite{takeuchi2010achievable,takeuchi2012large,takeuchi2013achievable,wen2015performance}. Single-bit ADC's with $f(x)=\text{sign}(x)$ are considered in \cite{li2016much,li2017channel}, and low-resolution ADC's with $f(x)$ modeled as a uniform quantizer are considered in \cite{wen2015joint,wen2016bayes}. The training and data signals can be chosen from different distributions, as in \cite{hassibi2003much,li2016much,li2017channel}. Conversely, the training and data signals can both be {\it iid}\xspace, as in \cite{takeuchi2013achievable,wen2015performance,wen2015joint,wen2016bayes}.
In machine learning, \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model} is a model of a single layer neural network (perceptron) \cite{opper1996statistical,engel2001statistical,shinzato2008learning} and $\txv_t$ is the input to the perceptron with dimension $\tn$, $\rxv_t$ is the scalar decision variable ($\rn=1$) at time $t$, $\chm$ holds the unknown weights of the perceptron, and $f(\cdot)$ is the nonlinear activation function. A perceptron is often used as a classifier, where the output of the perceptron is the class label of the corresponding input. In \cite{opper1996statistical,engel2001statistical}, {\it iid}\xspace inputs are used to learn the weights, and orthogonal inputs are used in \cite{shinzato2008learning}. Binary class classifiers are considered in \cite{opper1996statistical,engel2001statistical,shinzato2008learning}.
Training employs $\Tt$ labeled input-output pairs $(\txv_t,\rxv_t)$, and the trained perceptron then classifies new inputs before it is retrained on a new dataset. Generally, both the training and data are modeled as having the same distribution.
To obtain optimal training results for \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model}, Theorems \ref{thm:computation_of_MuI_from_derivative}--\ref{thm:scale_joint_entropy} show that a starting point for computing
$\cII{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ is $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ for $\varepsilon\geq 0$. Fortunately, $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ results can sometimes be found in the existing literature; for example, in \cite{wen2015performance,wen2015joint,wen2016bayes}, $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ is used to calculate the mean-square error of the estimated input signal, conditioned on the training. We may employ these same $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ results to quickly derive the training-based mutual information using the derivative analysis presented herein. Part II of this paper focuses on this.
\subsection{Models for which assumptions are superfluous}
Assumptions A1 and A2 presented in the Introduction are likely superfluous for certain common system models, such as when the distributions on $\tx_t$ are {\it iid}\xspace through the training and data phases, and the transition probabilities can be written as a product as in Assumption A3. However, as Lemma \ref{lem:bound_for_A2} shows, we have not yet characterized for which models A1 and A2 are automatically satisfied without additional assumptions on ${\cal H}'$, and think that this would be an interesting research topic for further work.
\comm{
We consider a common neural network design pattern in the area of machine learning, called {\it encoder-decoder architecture}\cite{cho2014properties,cho2014learning,badrinarayanan2017segnet,wang2017residual,wang2018reconstruction,lu2017knowing}, which is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:encoder_decoder_arch}. In such architecture, the input $\txA$ is encoded into states through an encoder, which are often vectors or tensors, as the input to a decoder, which outputs $\rxA$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{encoder_decoder_arch.pdf}
\centering
\caption{An encoder-decoder architecture in neural network design.}
\label{fig:encoder_decoder_arch}
\end{figure}
}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death and the most diagnosed cancer in men in the United States, with an estimated 33,330 deaths and 191,930 new cases in 2020~\cite{prostate_cancer_stats}.
Diagnosis, staging, and treatment planning of prostate cancer is increasingly assisted by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)~\cite{TurkbeyL.Baris2012MMap,VermaSadhna2012Oodc}.
The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)~\cite{WeinrebJeffreyC2016PPI} was developed to standardize the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of prostate MRI.
Despite the widespread adoption of PI-RADS, the performance of MRI still suffers from high levels of variation across radiologists~\cite{SonnGeoffreyA2019PMRI}, reduced positive predictive value (27-58\%)~\cite{WestPhalen_2020}, low inter-reader agreement (k = 0.46-0.78)~\cite{AhmedHashimU2017Daom}, and large variations in reported sensitivity (58-96\%) and specificity (23-87\%)~\cite{AhmedHashimU2017Daom}.
It also has been shown that high interobserver disagreement in prostate MRI significantly affects prostate biopsy practice including aborting planned biopsy and reduced number of region of interest samples~\cite{Rosenzweig_2020}.
One major barrier to improvement in MRI interpretation is the lack of a pathologic reference standard to provide radiologists detailed feedback about their performance.
Image registration~\cite{Shao_2016_CVPR_Workshops} of the pre-surgical MRI with histopathology images after surgical resection of the prostate (radical prostatectomy) addresses this issue by enabling mapping of the extent of cancer from the ground-truth histopathology images onto the MRI.
Such mapping allows side-by-side comparison of the histopathology and MRI images, which can be use in the training of radiologists to improve their interpretation of MRI.
Furthermore, accurate cancer labels achieved by image registration may facilitate the development of radiomic and deep learning approaches for early prostate cancer detection and risk stratification on pre-operative MRI~\cite{CaoRuiming2019JPCD,correlation,ZhiweiWang2018ADoC,bhattacharya2020corrsignet}.
Several MRI-histopathology image registration approaches have been developed to account for elastic tissue deformation occurred during histological preparation inducing tissue fixation, sectioning, and mounting on histologic slides.
Turkbey et al. developed patient-specific 3D printed molds for the resected prostate that are designed based on the pre-operative MRI and allow sectioning of the prostate in-plane with the same slice thickness as MRI~\cite{TurkbeyBaris2011M3PM}.
A radiologist will first carefully segment the edge of the prostate gland as well as indicate areas of suspected prostate cancer.
From this segmentation, a 3D volume will be created, which is then imported into a modeling software to create a personalized mold such that the orientation of the prostate specimen is aligned with the original MRI to guide the gross sectioning of the ex vivo prostate to have exact slice correspondences with the MRI~\cite{priester2014system}.
Several approaches~\cite{LOSNEGARD201824,Rusu2019Registration,WuHoldenH.2019Asup} rely on patient-specific 3D printed molds to establish better histopathology and MRI slice correspondences in order to improve the registration of MRI and histopathology images.
While some approaches work directly with MR and histopathology images alone, others require additional steps including a separate \textit{ex vivo} MRI of the prostate~\cite{WuHoldenH.2019Asup}, fiducial markers~\cite{WardAaronD2012Prod}, or advanced image similarity metrics~\cite{ChappelowJonathan2011Erom,LiLin2017Coev}.
Several pipelines have been developed for direct integration of MR and histopathology images by 3D histopathology volume reconstruction~\cite{LOSNEGARD201824,Rusu2019Registration,SamavatiNavid2011Bmdr,StilleMaik20133ro2}, but most are time-consuming, computationally expensive, and can suffer from partial volume effects and artifacts due to large spacing between images.
Typically, a geometric transformation can be parameterized by either a few (affine) or a large number of (deformable) variables.
Previous automated MRI-histopathology registration approaches estimate variables that encode geometric transformations by optimizing a cost function for tens or hundreds of iterations~\cite{GoubranMaged2013Iroe,GoubranMaged2015Roit,RusuMirabela2017CopC}.
Therefore, this optimization process is computationally expensive and can take several minutes to finish.
Moreover, the estimated transformation is often sensitive to the choice of hyperparameters (e.g., the number of iterations and the cost function), making traditional registration approaches complex to set up and reducing their generalization.
To address this important gap, this paper presents a deep learning based pipeline for efficient MRI-histopathology registration.
In the past few years, deep learning has been successfully used in many medical image registration problems.
A deep learning based registration network can be considered as a function that takes two images, a fixed image and a moving image, as the input and directly outputs a unique transformation without requiring additional optimization.
Many deep learning approaches~\cite{balakrishnan2018unsupervised,BalakrishnanGuha2019VALF,dalca2018unsupervised,GhosalSayan2017DdrE,krebs2019learning, YangXiao2017QFpi,ZhangJun2018IDNf} assume that the fixed and moving images have already been aligned by affine registration and only focus on the deformable registration. However, the affine registration of MRI and histopathology images of the prostate is challenging since they are considerably different modalities while having different contents. Therefore, prior deformable registration approaches cannot be directly used for MRI histopathology registration where affine registration is a necessity due to large geometric changes of the prostate during histological preparation. Rocco et al. proposed a multi-stage deep learning framework (CNNGeometric) that can handle both affine and deformable deformations of natural images~\cite{Rocco17}.
Inspired by their study, we developed the ProsRegNet registration pipeline for affine and deformable registration of the MRI and histopathology images.
Our registration pipeline includes preprocessing and postprocessing modules, and the registration network that estimates an affine transformation at the first stage and a more accurate thin-plate-spline transformation at the second stage.
Some other deep learning registration approaches can also jointly estimate the affine and deformable transformations~\cite{de2019deep,shen2019networks}.
Similar to our ProsRegNet approach, the approach developed in~\cite{de2019deep} used a feature extraction network followed by a parameter estimation network. Unlike our approach, their model lacked the feature matching component which has been shown to increase the generalization capabilities of registration networks to unseen images~\cite{Rocco17}.
In our study, we will show that our ProsRegNet registration network trained with images from one cohort generalizes well to unseen images from other cohorts.
Moreover, the models developed by~\cite{de2019deep,shen2019networks} were trained in an unsupervised manner using the normalized cross correlation, which can be unsuitable for MRI-histopathology registration as the intensities are not correlated. To our knowledge, we are the first to
apply deep learning to the problem of MRI-histopathology registration of the prostate.
We will demonstrate that our deep learning registration pipeline can achieve better registration accuracy than the state-of-the-art RAPSODI approach~\cite{rusu2020registration} while being much more computationally efficient and easier to use for non-experts users.
This paper has the following major contributions:
\begin{itemize}
\item We are the first to use deep learning to solve the challenging problem of registering MRI and histopathology images of the prostate.
\item We avoid the shortcomings of multi-modal similarity measures for MRI-histopathology registration by training our registration network with mono-modal synthetic image pairs in an unsupervised manner using a mono-modal dissimilarity measure. During the testing, we applied our network to multi-modal image registration as the network has learned how to solve image registration problems irrespective of the image modalities.
\item We improved the stability of the training by parameterizing the transformations using the sum of an identity transform and the estimated parameter vector scaled by a small weight.
\item We trained our network with a large set of MRI and histopathology prostate images and evaluated our approach relative to the state-of-the-art traditional and deep learning registration methods.
\item Our code is one of the very few freely available MRI-histopathology registration codes.
\end{itemize}
\section{Materials and Methods}
\subsection{Data Acquisition}
This study approved by the Institutional Review Board at Stanford University included 152 subjects with biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer from three cohorts at different institutions.
The first cohort consists of 111 patients who had a pre-operative MRI scan and underwent radical prostatectomy at Stanford University.
The excised prostate was submitted for histological preparation and we used a patient-specific 3D printed mold to generate whole-mount histopathology images that had slice-to-slice correspondences with the MRI.
Experts determined the correspondences between T2-weighted (T2-w) MRI and histopathology slices.
The prostate, cancer, urethra, and other anatomic landmarks on histopathology images were manually segmented by an expert genitourinary pathologist.
Two hundred fifty-seven anatomic landmarks visible on both MRI and histopathology images, e.g., benign prostate hyperplasia nodules and ejaculatory ducts were chosen for a subset of 12 subjects from the first cohort.
The second cohort consisted of 16 patients from the publicly available ``Prostate Fused-MRI-Pathology" dataset in The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA) [dataset]~\cite{MadabhushiAnant2016FRPD}.
Each patient had an MRI along with digitized histopathology images of the corresponding radical prostatectomy specimen.
Each surgically excised prostate specimen was originally sectioned and quartered resulting in four images for each section.
The four images were then digitally stitched together to produce a pseudo-whole mount section.
Annotations of cancer presence on the pseudo-whole mount sections were made by an expert pathologist.
Slice correspondences were established between the individual T2-w MRI and stitched pseudo-whole mount sections by the program in~\cite{TothRobert2014HAis} and checked for accuracy by an expert pathologist and radiologist.
The third cohort consisted of 25 patients from the publicly available TCIA ``Prostate-MRI" dataset [dataset]~\cite{ChoykePeter2016DFP}.
Each patient had a pre-operative MRI and underwent a radical prostatectomy.
A mold was generated from each MRI, and the prostatectomy specimen was first placed in the mold, then cut in the same plane as the MRI.
The data was generated at the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA between 2008-2010.
For all of the three cohorts, the prostate on each MRI scan was manually segmented and used in the registration procedure.
The prostate segmentation serves to drive the alignment while the urethra and other anatomic landmarks were only used to evaluate the registration.
We summarized details of datasets from the above three cohorts in Table~\ref{table:data_summary}.
\begin{table*}
\small
\caption{Summary of datasets. We used 152 = 111 + 16 + 25 patients from three cohorts. T2-w MRI: T2-weighted MRI,
H\&E: Hematoxylin and Eosin, TR: repetition time, TE: echo time, H: in-plane image height, W: in-plane image width, D: through-plane image depth.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Cohort 1 (Stanford)} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Cohort 2 (TCIA)} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Cohort 3 (TCIA)} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Number of \\ patients\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{111} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{16} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{25} \\ \hline
Modality & MRI & Histology & MRI & Histology & MRI & Histology \\ \hline
Manufacturer & GE & - & Siemens & - & Philips & - \\ \hline
Coil type & Surface & - & Endorectal & - & Endorectal & - \\ \hline
Sequence & T2-w MRI & Whole-mount & T2-w MRI & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Pseudo-whole\\ mount\end{tabular} & T2-w MRI & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Blockface-whole\\ mount\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Acquisition \\ characteristics\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}TR: {[}3.9s, 6.3s{]}, \\ TE: {[}122ms, 130ms{]}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}H\&E stained, \\ 3D-printed mold\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}TR: {[}3.7s, 7.0s{]},\\ TE: 107ms\end{tabular} & H\&E stained & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}TR: 8.9s,\\ TE: 120 ms\end{tabular} &\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} H\&E stained, \\ mold \end{tabular} \\ \hline
Image size & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}H,W: \{256,512\},\\ D: {[}24,43{]}\end{tabular} & H,W:{[}1663,7556{]} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}H,W: 320x320,\\ D: {[}21,31{]}\end{tabular} & H,W:{[}2368, 6324{]} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}H,W: 512,\\ D: 26\end{tabular} & H,W: {[}496,2881{]} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}In-plane \\ resolution (mm)\end{tabular} & {[}0.27, 0.94{]} & \{0.0081,0.0162\} & {[}0.41,0.43{]} & 0.0072 & 0.27 & \{0.0846,0.0216\} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Distance \\ between slices\end{tabular} & {[}3mm,5.2mm{]} & {[}3mm,5.2mm{]} & 4mm & Free hand & 3mm & 3mm \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:data_summary}
\end{table*}
\subsection{State-of-the-art RAPSODI Registration Framework}
We briefly summarize the state-of-the-art RAPSODI (\underline{Ra}diology \underline{p}athology \underline{s}patial \underline{o}pen-source multi-\underline{d}imensional \underline{i}ntegration) framework for the registration of MRI and histopathology images~\cite{rusu2020registration}.
The RAPSODI approach assumes known slice correspondences between MRI and histopathology images, and starts with 3D reconstruction of the histopathology specimen by registering each histopathology slice to its adjacent slice.
The purpose of the 3D reconstruction of the histopathology volume is to initialize the histopathology slices in the registration with the MRI.
Then 2D rigid, affine and deformable transformations between each histopathology image and the corresponding T2-w MRI slice are estimated iteratively using gradient descent.
The rigid and affine registrations use the prostate masks as the input and the sum of squared differences as the cost function.
The deformable registration uses the images masked by the prostate segmentation as the input, free-from deformations as the deformation model and the Mattes mutual information as the cost function.
Early stopping is used in the deformable registration to prevent overfitting.
Compared to our deep learning registration approach, RAPSODI requires significant user input including careful choice of similarity metric and registration hyperparameters such as step size, and the number of iterations.
The RAPSODI approach has been shown to be highly accurate and we will compare it with our deep learning registration pipeline.
\subsection{Deep Learning ProsRegNet Pipeline}
We propose the ProsRegNet (\underline{Pros}tate \underline{Reg}istration \underline{Net}work) pipeline to register T2-w MRI and histopathology images, which consists of image preprocessing, transformation estimation by deep neural networks, and postprocessing, as shown in Figure 1.
\begin{figure*}[!hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm, keepaspectratio]{images/pipeline.pdf}
\caption{Proposed pipeline for registration of MRI and histopathology images. The yellow rectangle highlights the prostate in the MRI slice.
The preprocessed images $I_A$ and $I_B$ represent the moving and the fixed images, respectively.
Images $I_A$ and $I_B$ are fed into the image registration neural network to estimate $\theta$ that represents the affine and nonrigid transformation parameters.
Cancer labels (the red outlines) in the histopathology slice are then deformed into the MRI slice using the estimated transformations.
}
\label{fig:pipeline}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Preprocessing}
Mounting of tissue sections on glass slides can produce several significant artifacts, including tissue shrinkage, in-plane rotation and horizontal flipping, that will affect alignment with the corresponding MR images.
We manually corrected for the gross rotation angle and determined whether horizontal flipping was present for each histopathology slice, as shown in $I_A$ in Figure 1. We applied the same rotation and flip transformations to the binary mask of the prostate, cancer regions, urethra, and other regions of the prostate in the histopathology slice.
A bounding box around the prostate mask was applied to extract prostate slices from the T2-w MRI, as shown in $I_B$ in Figure~\ref{fig:pipeline}.
We normalized the intensity of each cropped MRI slice from 0 to 255.
The histopathology and MRI images were multiplied by the corresponding prostate masks to facilitate the registration process.
The resulting images $I_A$ and $I_B$ were then resampled to $240\times240$ before feeding into the registration neural networks.
This preprocessing procedure has been applied to images going through the CNNGeometric and ProsRegNet networks.
\subsubsection{Image Registration Neural Networks}
Both ProsRegNet and CNNGeometric registration networks consisted of feature extraction, feature matching, and transformation parameter estimation and utilized a two-stage registration architecture (see Figure~\ref{fig:stage12}).
In the first stage, an affine transformation was estimated to align the two images globally.
In the second stage, the affine transformation is used as an initial transform to facilitate the estimation of a more accurate thin-plate spline (TPS) transformation.
There are two major differences between our ProgRegNet model and the prior CNNGeometric model. First, our ProgRegNet model used image intensity differences to train the registration networks in an unsupervised manner, while CNNGeometric used a loss based on point location differences in a supervised training. Second, our ProsRegNet model improved the stability of the training by parameterizing the transformations using the sum of an identity transform and the estimated parameter vector scaled by a small weight, while CNNGeometric directly used the estimated parameter vector.
\begin{figure*}[!hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=12cm,keepaspectratio]{images/stage_I_II.pdf}
\caption{Two-stage registration framework using deep neural networks~\cite{Rocco17}.
The first stage estimates an affine transform that globally aligns the two images. The second stage uses the affine transform as initialization to determine a thin-plate spline transform. Composing the two transforms gives the resulting correspondence map between $I_A$ and $I_B$. }
\label{fig:stage12}
\end{figure*}
We use the same feature extraction and regression networks as in~\cite{Rocco17}.
The inputs to the geometric matching networks are a moving image $I_A$ and a fixed image $I_B$.
Those two images were passed through the same pre-trained feature extraction convolutional neural network (ResNet-101~\cite{HeKaiming2016} network cropped at the third layer)
to produce the corresponding feature maps $f_A$ and $f_B$, respectively.
Each feature map is an image of size $(w,h)$ whose value at each voxel is a $d$-dimensional vector, where $d$ is the number of features.
The feature maps $f_A$ and $f_B$ were fed into a correlation layer followed by normalization.
The correlation layer combines $f_A$ and $f_B$ into a single correlation map $c_{AB}$ of the same size.
At each voxel location $(i,j)$, $c_{AB}(i,j)$ is a vector of length $wh$ whose $k$-th element is given by:
\begin{equation}
c_{AB}(i, j, k) = f_B(i,j)^T f_A(i_k,j_k)
\end{equation}
where $k = h(j_k - 1) + i_k$.
The correlation map $c_{AB}$ was normalized using a rectified linear unit (ReLU) followed by a channel-wise $L^2$-normalization.
The resulting tentative correspondence map $f_{AB}$
was passed through a regression network to estimate parameters of the geometric transformation between $I_A$ and $I_B$.
The regression network consisted of two stacked layers, where each layer begins with a convolutional unit and is followed by batch normalization and ReLU. A final fully connected (FC) layer regresses the parameters of the geometric transform, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:regression}.
\begin{figure}[!hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm,keepaspectratio]{images/regression.pdf}
\caption{Regression network for estimating transformation parameters from the correspondence map $f_{AB}$~\cite{Rocco17}.}
\label{fig:regression}
\end{figure}
The output of the regression network ($\theta$) is a vector of 6 elements when performing affine registration.
Unlike~\cite{Rocco17} that directly use $\theta = (\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_6)$ as the affine matrix, we propose to use $\alpha\theta + \theta_{Id}^{aff}$, where $\alpha$ is a small number and $\theta_{Id}^{aff}$ is the parameter vector for identity affine transform.
To be more specific, the affine transformation associated with $\theta$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\theta}(x,y) = \begin{bmatrix}
1 + \alpha \theta_1 & \alpha \theta_2 \\ \alpha \theta_4 & 1 + \alpha \theta_5
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} x \\y \end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \theta_3 \\ \alpha \theta_6 \end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
where $(x,y)$ is any spatial location, and we choose $\alpha = 0.1$ in this paper.
Using $\alpha\theta + \theta_{Id}^{aff}$ instead of $\theta$ as the affine matrix guarantees that the initial estimate of $\phi_{\theta}$ during the network training is close to the identity map and thus improves the stability of our registration network.
We parameterize the nonrigid transformations using a thin-plate spline grid of size 6x6 instead of $3\times3$ in~\cite{Rocco17} for more accurate registration.
This requires $\theta$ to be a vector of $2\times 6 \times6 = 72$ elements.
Similarly, we use $\alpha\theta + \theta_{Id}^{tps}$ instead of $\theta$ to parameterize the nonrigid transforms, where $\theta_{Id}^{tps}$ is the parameter vector for the identity thin-plate spline transform.
Unlike~\cite{Rocco17} that uses the differences between the original and deformed coordinate locations (location matching error) as the loss function, we define the loss function as the sum of squared differences (SSD) between the fixed and the deformed image (since $I_A$ and $I_B$ are from the same modality during the training):
\begin{equation}
loss(\theta) = \sum_{i = 1}^{W}\sum_{j = 1}^{H}|| I_A(i,j) - I_B\circ\phi_{\theta}(i,j)||^2
\end{equation}
where $\phi_{\theta}$ is the transformation parameterized by $\theta$, and W and H are the width and height of the images.
Since all MR and histopathology images have been masked during the preprocessing, our SSD cost can quickly drive the registration process during the training.
\subsubsection{Postprocessing}
After affine and deformable image registrations, the histopathology images and the prostate, urethra, anatomic landmarks, and cancer labels on the histopathology images were mapped to the corresponding MRI slices using the estimated composite (affine + deformable) transformation.
Although the histopathology images were resampled to have a size of $240\times240$, the deformed histopathology images still have the same size as the original histopathology images since we applied the estimated composite transformation directly to the original high-resolution histopathology images.
For visualization purposes, sampling artifacts in the deformed images were removed by binary thresholding to set the intensity of pixels outside the prostate to be zero.
\subsection{Training Dataset}
Since the ground truth spatial correspondences between the MRI and histopathology images are lacking,
we trained our neural networks using uni-modal image pairs generated by synthetic transformations (Figure~\ref{fig:training_data}).
\begin{figure}[!hbt]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm,keepaspectratio]{images/training/mri.png}
\caption{Synthetic MR image pair}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.025in}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm,keepaspectratio]{images/training/histology.png}
\caption{Synthetic histopathology image pair}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Generating training dataset by applying known transformations. $I_A$ is the original image, $\phi$ is either an affine or thin-plate spline transform, and $I_B$ is the deformed image by applying $\phi$ to $I_A$. Each tuple $(I_A,I_B,\phi)$ is considered as one training example.}
\label{fig:training_data}
\end{figure}
For each 2D image $I_A$, we applied a simulated transformation $\phi$ to deform it into the image $I_B$.
The 3-tuple $(I_A,I_B, \phi)$ will be used as one training example.
The transformation $\phi$ can be either an affine transform or a thin-plate spline transform.
To guarantee the plausibility of the simulated transformations, the variables used to parameterize the transformations were randomly sampled from bounded intervals.
When simulating the affine transformations, the rotation angle ranged from -10 degrees to +10 degrees, the scaling coefficients ranged from 0.8 to 1.2, the shifting coefficients were within 5\% of the image size, and the shearing coefficients were within 5\%.
When simulating the thin-plate-spline transformations, the movement of each control point was within 5\% of the image size.
We chose these intervals as they represent typical transformation ranges we observed when using RAPSODI and were shown to be sufficiently wide to cover the transformations observed in our diverse patient cohorts.
For the training, we used 1,390 MRI and histopathology images and the corresponding prostate masks of 99 patients from Cohort 1.
Prostate masks were used to train the affine registration network and masked MRI and histopathology images were used to train the deformable registration network.
Although our registration neural network was trained with image pairs of the same modality, we will show that it can be generalized to the multi-modal registration of MRI and histopathology images for all three cohorts.
\subsection{Experiments}
\label{sec:exp}
We trained the neural networks on the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 GPU (8GB memory, 14000 MHz clock speed).
We used an initial learning rate of 0.001, a learning rate decay of 0.95, a batch size of 64, and the Adam optimizer~\cite{KingmaDiederik2017AAMf}, for which both the affine and deformable registration networks were trained with 50 epochs. For each deformation model, the network with the minimum validation loss during the training was used in the testing.
In total, we experimented with three different approaches for registration of MRI and the corresponding histopathology images: the traditional RAPSODI registration framework~\cite{rusu2020registration} (RAPSODI), a prior deep learning registration framework developed by Rocco et al.~\cite{Rocco17} (CNNGeometric), and our deep learning ProsRegNet pipeline (ProsRegNet),
We tested the RAPSODI approach on the Intel Core i9-9900K CPU (8-Core, 16-Thread, 3.6 GHz (5.0 GHz Turbo)) and tested the CNNGeometric and ProsRegNet approaches on the GeForce RTX 2080 GPU.
In total, we used datasets of 53 prostate cancer patients (12 from Cohort 1, 16 from Cohort 2, and 25 from Cohort 3) to evaluate the performance of the above three registration approaches.
\subsection{Evaluation Metrics}
The Dice coefficient, the Hausdorff distance, and the mean landmark error were used to evaluate the alignment accuracy for the deformed histopathology and the corresponding MRI images.
The Dice coefficient measures the relative overlap between $M_A$ and $M_B$, which is given by:
\begin{equation}
C_{D} = \frac{2|M_A \cap M_B|}{|M_A| + |M_B|}
\end{equation}
where $M_A$ denotes the deformed histopathology prostate mask, $M_B$ denotes corresponding MRI prostate mask, and $|\cdot|$ denotes the cardinality (number of elements) of a set.
The Hausdorff distance measures how close the prostate boundaries are defined in $A$ and $B$, which is given by:
\begin{equation}
d_{H} = \max\left\{ \sup_{a\in M_A} \inf_{b\in M_B} ||a - b||,\sup_{b\in M_B} \inf_{a\in M_A}||a - b||\right\}
\end{equation}
where $||\cdot||$ is the standard $L^2$ metric, $sup$ represents the supremum, and $inf$ represents the infimum.
The mean landmark error measures the accuracy of point-to-point correspondences found by image registration.
Let $\phi$ denote the resulting transformation from image registration.
Our experts labeled $N$ landmark pairs in the fixed T2-w MRI and the moving histopathology image, denoted by $(p_1,p_1'),\cdots,(p_N,p_N')$.
Then the mean landmark error for the resulting transformation $\phi$ from image registration is given by:
\begin{equation}
d_L = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}||p'_i - \phi(p_i)||
\label{eq:lmk_error}
\end{equation}
We used an identical approach to evaluate the
distance between urethra segmentation on MRI and the corresponding deformed urethra segmentation on histopathology images (urethra deviations).
All evaluation measures were computed on a slice by slice basis in 2D and averaged across several slices to obtain per patient measures.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
Figure~\ref{fig:learning_curve} shows the training loss and validation loss curves of the ProsRegNet affine and deformable registration networks. From this figure, we can see that the validation loss has converged at 50 epochs for both networks and there is no issue of overfitting. We also notice that we had a slight unrepresentative sample for the training and we except better performance when the networks were trained with a large dataset.
\begin{figure}[!hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/training_curve.pdf}
\caption{Training loss and validation loss curves of ProsRegNet affine and deformable registration networks.}
\label{fig:learning_curve}
\end{figure}
To evaluate the plausibility of the estimated geometric transformations, we use each of them to deform a 2D grid image.
By investigating all deformed grid images, we conclude that the composite transformations estimated by our ProsRegNet network are smooth and biologically plausible.
Figure~\ref{fig:grid} shows a typical deformed grid image from each cohort.
\begin{figure}[!hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/results/grid.pdf}
\caption{Typical deformed grid images from ProsRegNet registration.}
\label{fig:grid}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Qualitative Alignment Accuracy}
Figure~\ref{fig:reg_results} shows the registration results of three patients with large cancerous regions (one from each cohort).
\begin{figure*}[!hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm,keepaspectratio]{images/results/qualitative.pdf}
\caption{Registration results for three different subjects (one from each cohort) using the proposed ProsRegNet deep learning registration pipeline.
The MRI slices were chosen as the fixed images.
(Left) MRI, (Middle) registered histopathology image, (Right) MRI overlaid with registered histopathology image. Cancer labels from the histopathology images were mapped onto MRI using estimated transformations from image registration.}
\label{fig:reg_results}
\end{figure*}
The prostate boundaries on the MRI and the histopathology sections appeared well aligned for all three subjects, suggesting that the ProsRegNet pipeline achieved accurate global alignment of the prostate.
Anatomic regions of the prostate on the MR and the histopathology images were also well aligned. Accurate alignment of anatomic regions indicates that the ProsRegNet pipeline has achieved promising alignment of local prostate features.
The results in Fig.~\ref{fig:reg_results} demonstrate that our ProsRegNet pipeline generalizes across cohorts even if they were not part of the training, showing accurate registration for images from different cohorts acquired by different protocols.
Our accurate alignment of the histopathology and MRI images suggests that we can carefully map the cancer labels in the histopathology images to the corresponding MRI slices using the estimated transformations.
\subsection{Quantitative Results}
We evaluated various measures to assess the quality of alignment between the histopathology images and corresponding MRI slices. Those measures assess the overall alignment of the prostate (Dice coefficient), the distance between the prostate boundaries (Hausdorff Distance), and anatomic landmark deviation.
Moreover, we also evaluated the execution time of the RAPSODI, CNNGeometric, and ProsRegNet approaches.
Figure~\ref{fig:comparision} shows the box plots of the Dice Coefficient, Hausdorff distance, urethra deviation, and computation time of different approaches for all three cohorts.
\begin{figure*}[!hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18cm,keepaspectratio]{images/results/box_plot.pdf}
\caption{Box plots of different measures for the RAPSODI, CNNGeometric, and ProRegNet registration approaches of three cohorts.
SS: statistically significant ($p\le0.05$), NS: not significant ($p > 0.05$).
}
\label{fig:comparision}
\end{figure*}
The results show that there is no significant difference (p-value$>$0.05) between the Dice coefficient and the urethra deviation of the RAPSODI and ProsRegNet approaches for all three cohorts.
Our ProsRegNet approach achieved significantly lower ($p\le0.05$) Hausdorff distance than the RAPSODI approach for the second and the third cohorts.
Our ProsRegNet approach has achieved significantly higher Dice coefficient and lower Hausdorff distance than the deep learning CNNGeometric approach for all three cohorts.
Also, there is no significant difference between the urethra deviation of all three approaches for all cohorts.
Notice that both our ProsRegNet and the CNNGeometric deep learning approaches were at least 20x faster to register the images than the iterative optimization performed by RAPSODI.
In summary, the ProsRegNet pipeline has achieved better alignment near the prostate boundary than the RAPSODI approach while being several orders of magnitude faster, and it has also achieved better alignment of the overall shape and boundary of the prostate than prior CNNGeometric deep learning approach.
Table~\ref{table:stats} summarizes the Dice coefficients for the whole prostate, Hausdorff distances for the prostate boundary, urethra deviations, and anatomic landmark errors after registration for the three cohorts.
The results show that both the ProsRegNet and RAPSODI approaches have achieved a higher Dice Coefficient than the prior CNNGeometric approach.
The high Dice coefficient indicates that our ProsRegNet pipeline can accurately align the overall shape and edges of the prostate for all of the three cohorts.
The results also show that the ProsRegNet pipeline achieved a lower Hausdorff distance than both the RAPSODI and CNNGeometric approaches.
The low Hausdorff distance implies that our ProsRegNet pipeline can have a small registration error of no more than 2mm near the prostate boundary.
No significant differences were found between the RAPSODI, ProsRegNet, and CNNGeometric approaches in terms of urethra deviation and landmark error.
The urethra deviation and landmark error indicate that our ProsRegNet pipeline has an average registration error of no more than 3mm inside the prostate.
It is notable that the average running time of the ProsRegNet and CNNGeometric approaches was 1-4 seconds, compared to 31-264 seconds of the state-of-the-art RAPSODI approach and compared to running times of 120-750 seconds reported for other traditional approaches~\cite{LiLin2017Coev,LOSNEGARD201824}.
\begin{table*}[!hbt]
\caption{Registration results of the RAPSODI, CNNGeometric, ProsRegNet approaches of three cohorts. }
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Dataset} & Registration & Dice & Hausdorff& Urethra & Landmark & Computation \\
& Approach & Coefficient & Distance (mm) & Deviation (mm) & Error (mm) & Time (second) \\
[0.5ex]
\hline
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Cohort 1}& RAPSODI & \textbf{0.979 ($\pm$ 0.01)} & 1.83 ($\pm$ 0.50) & 2.48 ($\pm$ 0.78)& 2.88 ($\pm$ 0.73) & 264 ($\pm$ 150)\\
& CNNGeometric & 0.962 ($\pm$ 0.01) & 2.43 ($\pm$ 0.83) & 2.62 ($\pm$ 0.86) & 2.72 ($\pm$ 0.75) & \textbf{4 ($\pm$2)} \\
&ProsRegNet & 0.975 ($\pm$ 0.01) & \textbf{1.72 ($\pm$ 0.42)} & \textbf{2.37 ($\pm$ 0.76)} & \textbf{2.68 ($\pm$ 0.68)} & \textbf{4 ($\pm$2)} \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Cohort 2}& RAPSODI & \textbf{0.965 ($\pm$ 0.01)} & 2.58 ($\pm$ 1.05) & 2.96 ($\pm$ 1.23)& NA & 60 ($\pm$ 47)\\
& CNNGeometric & 0.948 ($\pm$ 0.01) & 3.05 ($\pm$ 0.69) & 2.78 ($\pm$ 2.03) & NA & \textbf{3 ($\pm$1)} \\
&ProsRegNet & 0.961 ($\pm$ 0.01) & \textbf{1.98 ($\pm$ 0.28)} & \textbf{2.51 ($\pm$ 0.82)} & NA & \textbf{3 ($\pm$1)} \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Cohort 3}& RAPSODI & 0.966 ($\pm$ 0.01) & 2.62 ($\pm$ 1.32) & 3.3 ($\pm$ 1.90)& NA & 31 ($\pm$ 11)\\
&CNNGeometric & 0.946 ($\pm$ 0.01) & 2.68 ($\pm$ 0.33) & \textbf{2.83 ($\pm$ 1.2)} & NA & \textbf{1 ($\pm$1)} \\
&ProsRegNet & \textbf{0.967 ($\pm$ 0.01)} & \textbf{1.96 ($\pm$ 0.29)} & 2.91 ($\pm$ 1.99) & NA & \textbf{1 ($\pm$1)} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{table:stats}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Alignment of Prostate Cancers}
One major goal of MRI-histopathology registration is
to map the ground truth cancer labels from the histopathology images onto MRI.
Here, we evaluate the accuracy of different approaches for registering cancerous regions using patients from first cohort and the second cohorts.
For the first cohort, two body imaging radiologists with more than four years of experience manually labeled regions of clinically significant prostate cancer on T2-w MRI of 35 patients.
The following exclusion criterion was applied to handle inconsistency between the radiologists' and pathologists' annotations: (1) the size of two cancer labels of the same region differs by more than 100\%, (2) there is no overlap between two cancer labels of the same region, (3) cancer labels are too tiny (less than 25 pixels).
For the second cohort, the authors of the dataset have provided cancer labels on MRI by performing landmark-based registration of MRI and histopathology images.
Table~\ref{table:cancer_alignment}
shows the Dice coefficient and Hausdorff distance between cancer labels from the radiologists' or landmark-based registration and cancer labels achieved by each of the registration approaches.
The results show that ProsRegNet achieved better alignment of the prostate cancer boundaries (Hausdorff distance) than RAPSODI and CNNGeometric for both cohorts.
Although CNNGeometric achieved slightly higher Dice coefficient than RAPSODI and ProsRegNet for the second cohort, our ProsRegNet approach achieved the highest Dice coefficient for the first cohort.
In summary, our ProsRegNet approach has achieved comparable or better alignments of cancerous regions relative to CNNGeometric and RAPSODI.
Notice that the accuracy of our analysis may be compromised by inconsistency between the radiologist's cancer labels and the pathologists' cancer labels (first cohort), and also errors in landmark-based registration (second cohort).
\begin{table}[!hbt]
\caption{Accuracy of the RAPSODI, CNNGeometric, ProsRegNet approaches for aligning cancerous regions.}
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Dataset} & Registration & Dice & Hausdorff \\
& Approach & Coefficient & Distance (mm) \\
[0.5ex]
\hline
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Cohort 1} & RAPSODI & 0.624 ($\pm$ 0.12) & 6.02 ($\pm$ 2.78) \\
& CNNGeometric & 0.610 ($\pm$ 0.11) & 5.70 ($\pm$ 2.22) \\
&ProsRegNet & \textbf{0.628 ($\pm$ 0.10)} & \textbf{5.42 ($\pm$ 2.32)} \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Cohort 2}& RAPSODI & 0.573 ($\pm$ 0.13) & 5.42 ($\pm$ 2.00) \\
& CNNGeometric & \textbf{0.575 ($\pm$ 0.12)} & 5.34 ($\pm$ 2.14) \\
&ProsRegNet & 0.563 ($\pm$ 0.14) & \textbf{4.87 ($\pm$ 1.53)} \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{table:cancer_alignment}
\end{table}
\subsection{Other Training Schemes}
In this section, we investigate two additional training schemes, one ProsRegNet and the other one for CNNGeometric.
For the first training scheme, we trained both the affine and deformable registration networks of ProsRegNet directly by the prostate masks of 99 patients from the first cohort and tested the performance on 53 patients from three cohorts (see Table~\ref{table:other}).
Compared to results presented in Table~\ref{table:stats},
training and testing ProsRegNet with only prostate masks has improved the alignment of prostate boundaries, with Dice coefficient increased by 0.4\%-1.0\% and Hausdorff distance decreased by 13.4\%-18.7\%.
However, this training scheme has also deteriorated the registration results inside the prostate, with urethra deviation increased by 13.5\%-25.7\% and landmark error increased by 24.6\%.
Those results show that training the ProsRegNet model with masked MRI and histopathology images facilitates the alignment of features inside the prostate.
Since alignment of features inside the prostate is more important than alignment of the prostate boundaries, we do not recommend training and testing ProsRegNet only on the prostate masks.
\begin{table*}[!hbt]
\caption{Registration results of ProsRegNet trained with only prostate masks and CNNGeometric trained with multi-modal image pairs. }
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Dataset} & Registration & Dice & Hausdorff& Urethra & Landmark \\
& Approach & Coefficient & Distance (mm) & Deviation (mm) & Error (mm) \\
[0.5ex]
\hline
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Cohort 1}& ProsRegNet (masks only) & 0.979 ($\pm$ 0.01) & 1.49 ($\pm$ 0.44) & 2.98 ($\pm$ 0.82)& 3.39 ($\pm$ 0.68)\\
& CNNGeometric (multi-modal) & 0.960 ($\pm$ 0.01) & 2.42 ($\pm$ 0.55) & 2.55 ($\pm$ 0.73)& 2.79 ($\pm$ 0.74) \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Cohort 2}& ProsRegNet (masks only) & 0.971 ($\pm$ 0.01) & 1.61 ($\pm$ 0.33) & 2.85 ($\pm$ 1.34)& NA\\
& CNNGeometric (multi-modal) & 0.910 ($\pm$ 0.03) & 4.08 ($\pm$ 1.14) & 2.82 ($\pm$ 1.34) & NA\\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Cohort 3} & ProsRegNet (masks only) & 0.976 ($\pm$ 0.01) & 1.60 ($\pm$ 0.38) & 3.57 ($\pm$ 2.28)& NA\\
& CNNGeometric (multi-modal) & 0.947 ($\pm$ 0.01) & 3.00 ($\pm$ 0.82) & 3.17 ($\pm$ 2.07) & NA \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{table:other}
\end{table*}
For the second training scheme, we investigated the efficacy of training a multi-modal deep learning network on MRI-histopathology image pairs pre-aligned by RAPSODI.
We chose the CNNGeometric model over the ProsRegNet model since the SSD loss function used by the ProsRegNet model cannot be directly used for multi-modal registration.
Again, we trained the CNNGeometric model on MRI-histopathology image pairs of 99 patients from the first cohort and evaluated its performance using 53 patients from three cohorts (see Table~\ref{table:other}).
shows the registration results of the multi-modal CNNGeometric network for the three cohorts.
Compared to results in Table~\ref{table:stats}, the performance of the multi-modal CNNGeometric model is worse than the uni-modal ProsRegNet model for both the global and local alignment of the MRI and histopathology images.
One factor that compromised the performance of the multi-modal CNNGeometric is that the MRI-histopathology image pairs used in the training are from RAPSODI registration and therefore do not have perfect spatial correspondences.
\section{Discussion}
Accurately aligning MRI with histopathology images provides a detailed answer key regarding precise cancer locations on MRI.
As such, it has tremendous potential for improving the interpretation of prostate MRI and providing labeled imaging data to establish and validate prostate cancer detection models based on radiomics or machine learning methods~\cite{MetzgerGregoryJ2016DoPC}.
In this paper, we have developed the novel ProsRegNet deep learning approach for 2D registration of MRI and histopathology images.
It is challenging to directly train a multi-modal network for registering MR and histopathology images due to the lack of either an effective loss function for unsupervised learning or MRI-histopathology image pairs with accurate spatial correspondences for supervised learning. We tackled this problem from a different perspective by training a uni-modal ProsRegNet network which learns how to combine high-level features in the MRI and histopathology images to solve image registration problems. The trained ProsRegNet network has the capabilities to solve uni-modal registration problems in the context of MRI and histopathology images and thus can be used to register the two modalities in a multi-modal manner. Our experiments and results provide empirical evidence that, although our ProsRegNet was trained with pairs of images from the same modality, it can be generalized to achieve very accurate MRI-histopathology registration.
This paper is the first attempt to apply deep learning to the registration of MRI and histopathology images of the prostate.
Our study is the largest prostate MRI-histopathology registration study, using 654 of pairs of histopathology and MRI slices of 152 prostate cancer patients from three different institutions and MRIs from three different manufactures.
The wide range of parameters of synthetic transformations used during the training allowed ProgRegNet to accurately recover large affine and deformable transformations observed in three different cohorts, which include MR images acquired with or without using an endorectal coil, as well as histopathology images acquired as whole mounts, quadrants or at low resolution.
We showed that our ProsRegNet pipeline achieved a very high Dice coefficient (0.96-0.98), a very low Hausdorff distance (1.7-2.0mm), a relatively low urethra deviation (2.4-2.9mm) and a relatively low landmark error (2.7mm) compared to results reported in previous studies~\cite{ChappelowJonathan2011Erom,KalavaguntaChaitanya2015Roiv,LiLin2017Coev,LOSNEGARD201824,ParkHyunjin2008RMfH,ReynoldsH.M.2015Doar,WardAaronD2012Prod,WuHoldenH.2019Asup}.
Moreover, in a direct comparison of the state-of-the-art RAPSODI pipeline~\cite{rusu2020registration}, we showed that ProsRegNet achieved slightly better performance while being 20x-60x faster.
This allows our ProsRegNet approach to execute the histopathology-MRI registration in real-time interactive software, otherwise not possible with any previous method.
By significantly speeding up the registration process, our approach can help to create a large dataset of labeled MRI using ground-truth histopathology images which is crucial for the training of prostate cancer detection methods on pre-operative MRI using machine learning.
Even recent deep learning cancer prediction studies~\cite{CaoRuiming2019JPCD,SumathipalaYohan2018Pcdf} that use histopathology images as the reference, rely on cognitive alignment (mentally projecting the histopathology images onto the MRI) to create cancer labels on MRI.
This time-consuming labeling is inaccurate and biases the labels towards visible extent of cancer on MRI (known to underestimate the real size of cancer~\cite{PiertMorand2018Aots} and missing MRI-invisible lesions).
Our ProsRegNet pipeline allows the efficient creation of labels on MRI with accurate borders, including MRI invisible lesions.
In addition, once trained, our deep learning network is parameter-free when registering unseen pairs of MRI and histopathology images, alleviating the need of modifying registration hyperparameters, e.g. step size, number of iterations.
By making the registration set up less complicated, our approach is more accessible to non-expert users than the traditional methods.
Although this study demonstrates promising results for MRI-histopathology registration, there are some limitations related to human input: prostate segmentation on MRI and histopathology images, gross rotation and flip of the histopathology images and identifying slice-to-slice correspondences.
Our team is working on developing methods to automate these steps, yet they are beyond the scope of the current study. Nonetheless, our proposed work simplifies the registration step without requiring manual picking of landmarks or complex selection of features for multi-feature scoring functions~\cite{ChappelowJonathan2011Erom,LiLin2017Coev,WardAaronD2012Prod}.
We have shown that our deep learning pipeline can achieve fast and accurate registration of the histopathology and MRI images.
Accurate registration could improve radiologists’ interpretation of MRI by allowing side-by-side comparison of MR and histopathology images.
Indeed, we use these side-by-side comparisons in a multidisciplinary prostate MRI tumor board at our institution.
Accurate registration also allows mapping of the ground truth extent and grade of prostate cancer from histopathology images onto the corresponding pre-operative MRI.
Such accurate labels mapped from histopathology images on MRI will help develop and validate radiomic and machine learning approaches for detecting cancer location with the prostate based on MRI to guide biopsies and focal treatment.
\section{Conclusion}
We have developed a deep learning pipeline for efficient registration of MRI and histopathology images of the prostate for patients that underwent radical prostatectomy.
The performance of the deep neural networks for aligning the MRI and histology is promising and slightly better than state-of-the-art registration approaches.
Compared to traditional approaches that require significant user input (e.g., careful choice of registration parameters) and considerable computing time, our pipeline achieved very accurate and efficient alignment with less user input.
The ease of use and speed make our pipeline attractive for clinical implementation to allow direct comparison of MR and histological images to improve radiologist accuracy in reading MRI. Furthermore, this pipeline could serve as a useful tool for image alignment in developing radiomic and deep learning approaches for early detection of prostate cancer.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the Department of Radiology at Stanford University, Radiology Science Laboratory (Neuro) from the Department of Radiology at Stanford University, and the National Cancer Institute (U01CA196387 to James D. Brooks)
|
\subsection{Results and Techniques}
\label{sec:intro_results}
We will work with examples $(\vx_i, y_i)$ where $\vx_i \in \Re^d$ and has norm at most $1$, and $y_i \in \{+1, -1\}$. We assume that the {\em inliers} are correctly classified by a linear classifier $\vw^\star$. In fact, we will assume {\bf margin-separability}, which says that there is $\vw^\star$ with norm at most $\frac{1}{\gamma^\star}$ that satisfies $y_i \vx_i^\top\vw^\star \geq 1$ for all inliers. Geometrically, this says that there are no points in a band of width $\approx \gamma^\star$ around the hyperplane defined by $\vw^\star$. Such margin assumptions are standard in learning literature.
A new condition that we introduce is the {\bf dense pancakes condition}. Informally, this says that if we project all inliers onto any direction $\vw$, then most points are not too isolated from other inliers. Geometrically, this says that for a point $\vx\in \Re^d$, a ``pancake'' around $\vx$, i.e. the set $\{\vx' \in \mcX : \vw^\top \vx -\tau \leq \vw^\top \vx' \leq \vw^\top \vx + \tau\}$, is sufficiently dense, i.e. contains a $\rho$ fraction of the inliers. We require that for all directions, most pancakes are $\rho$-dense (the parameter $\rho$ can be arbitrary and affects our tolerance to outliers). The precise definition is slightly more complex and deferred to Section~\ref{sec:prelims}.
Finally, the relevant measure of the effect of the outliers in our work is the norm of the sum of (a subset of) the examples $\vx_i$. For a set of examples $O$, we define their {\bf Hereditary Sum Norm} $\mathrm{HerSumNorm}(O)$ as $\max_{O' \subseteq O} \|\sum_{(\vx_i, y_i) \in O'} y_i \vx_i\|$.
Under assumptions on these parameters, we show the following theorem.
\begin{thm}(Informal)
Let $\mu$ be a $\gamma^\star$-margin separable distribution and let $I$ be a sample of $(1-\eta)n$ examples drawn from $\mu$. Let $O$ be an arbitrary dataset of $\eta n$ examples in $\mcX \times \{-1, 1\}$ and let $D=I \cup O$. Let $\vw$ be an appropriately constrained optimum for the hinge loss on $D$. If $(D, \mu)$ satisfies the $(\tau, \rho, \beta)$-dense pancakes condition for $\rho, \beta \in (0, 1)$,
with $\tau \leq \gamma^\star/2$
and $(1-\eta)\rho\gamma^\star n > 2 \mathrm{HerSumNorm}(O)$, then $\vw$ has accuracy at least $(1-\beta)$ on $\mu$.
\end{thm}
This result defines a recipe for proving robustness results for various combinations of assumptions on inlier distribution and assumptions on the corruption. Besides, the margin, the relevant ingredients are simply the density of the pancakes in inliers, and sum norm bound for the corrupted data points.
We then develop tools to establish these conditions under different models. We first study the pancakes condition. We show that whenever the data distribution is isotropic and logconcave, we can establish the dense pancake condition. Further, the pancakes condition is robust enough to easily handle translation, mixing and homogenization transformations.
We next investigate the SumNorm condition for the outliers. We study several noise models. In the malicious noise model, where the outliers are arbitrary, the best bound one can prove on the $\mathrm{HerSumNorm}$ is linear in the number of outliers (and this is tight). This gives us tolerance to an $\Omega(\gamma^\star)$ fraction of malicious outliers.
In a slightly more constrained noise model, where the adversary can change the labels but not the points themselves, the situation improves dramatically. In this case, we show that for any isotropic logconcave distribution, the $\mathrm{HerSumNorm}$ is in fact bounded by approximately $|O|/\sqrt{d}$, even if the points whose labels are corrupted are adversarially chosen. This is because even though we are adding up to $|O|$ unit vectors, they will in general not be aligned and the projection in any fixed direction is only about $1/\sqrt{d}$. This allows us to show that if the margin is at least $C/\sqrt{d}$ for a large enough constant $C$, then a constant fraction of labels can be adversarially flipped with virtually no effect on the accuracy of the learnt classifier!
We note that in our results, the learnt classifier has accuracy at least $1-\beta$ on the inlier distribution, where $\beta$ depends only on the pancakes condition and can be much smaller than the error rate $\eta$. This is in contrast to most previous work on agnostic learning in the distributional model (see Section~\ref{sec:related}).
The additional margin assumption we make allows us to prove this much stronger form of robustness. We remark that the margin assumption is only needed for what we call inliers. If an $\alpha$ fraction of the true inliers violate the margin assumption, they can be considered as outliers, increasing $\eta$ by $\alpha$. Our result would then apply and give an overall error rate of $(\alpha+\beta)$ on the actual inlier distribution.
Other than the benefit that we are able to analyze commonly-used algorithms, our approach offers an additional advantage. Since we have a deterministic condition that implies the robustness, the result is robust to some changes in the data distribution. For example, we show that the pancake condition is preserved under translations, and approximatley preserved under mixing of distributions. Thus if the class-conditional distributions are each a uniform mixture of a few isotropoic logconcave distributions, then the pancake condition continues to hold. The sumnorm condition is similarly robust.
Unlike most previous work on properties of surrogate loss minimization, our result is not based on controlling the objective function value, but rather depends on the (first-order) optimality conditions. Our conclusion about correct classification is not based on the loss being small; in fact the loss itself can be large on many examples. Our proof relates the optimality conditions to the $0$-$1$ loss of the resulting classifier.
Our theory applies to the $\ell_2$ geometry, but one can envision version of our theorems for $\ell_p$ for other $p$'s. The $\|\cdot\|_1$-$\|\cdot\|_\infty$ case, where $\vw$ is regularized in the $\ell_1$ norm, is a particularly compelling research direction. While our main result would technically extend to Kernel methods, our current approach to infer the dense pancakes condition on the empirical sample requires the dataset size to to be $\Theta(d)$, making it inapplicable to the Kernel setting. While one can use random projections to $\Theta(\frac 1 {\gamma^2})$ dimensions and apply the algorithm in the projected space, extending our results to the usual SVM with Kernels is an interesting open question.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We present next additional related work. In Section~\ref{sec:prelims}, we set up notation and define the dense pancakes condition as well as $\mathrm{HerSumNorm}$. Section~\ref{sec:dense} proves that our conditions, for appropriate parameters, imply correct classification. We develop tools to prove the pancake condition in Sections~\ref{sec:pancakes_condition} and~\ref{sec:pancakes_dist_to_emp}, and to prove the sum norm condition in Section~\ref{sec:sumnorm}.
We derive results for Adversarial Label Noise and some other noise models in Section~\ref{sec:applications}.
\subsection{Malicious Noise Model}
In the malicious noise model~\citep{Valiant85, KearnsLi88}, the outliers are arbitrary. In a variant of this model known as the nasty noise model~\citep{bshouty2002pac}, the outliers can depend on the inliers samples, and not just on the inlier distribution. The following result captures the robustness of SLM in this setting.
\begin{thm}[Robustness under nasty/malicious noise]
Suppose that the inlier distribution $\mathcal{D}$ has a margin $\gamma$ and satisfies the $(\gamma/2, \rho, \beta)$-dense pancake condition.
Then for malicious error rate $\eta = O(\gamma\rho)$, the SLM learnt on $n$ samples from $\mathcal{D}$ has accuracy $1-\beta$ on the inlier distribution as long as $n \in \Omega(d\ln \frac 1 \gamma + \ln \frac 1 \beta)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
An adversarial set of outliers satisfies the property that $\mathrm{LinSumNorm}(O) \leq |O| \leq \eta n$. The claim then follows fom Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.
\end{proof}
\medskip\noindent{\bf Adversarial Label Noise Model}
In the adversarial label noise model of ~\citep{haussler92, kearns1994toward}, the adversary can flip the labels on an arbitrary $\eta$ fraction of the examples, but cannot change the points themselves. Here we can do much better.
\begin{thm}[Robustness under Adversarial Label noise]
Let $\{\mathcal{D}_j\}$ be a set of $O(1)$ logconcave distributions on $\mathcal{X} = \{\vx \in \Re^d : \|\vx\|_2 \leq 1\}$ such that $\|\Ex_{\vx \sim \mathcal{D}_j}[\vx]\| \leq \mu$ and $\|\Ex_{\vx \sim \mathcal{D}_j}[\vx \vx^\top]\| \preceq \mathbb{I}/d$. Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a uniform mixture of $\mathcal{D}_j$'s. Further suppose that this distribution is $\gamma$-margin separable for $\gamma \geq C\log \frac 1 \beta/\sqrt{d}$.
Then for adversarial label error rate $\eta = O(\min(\frac{1}{3}, \frac{\gamma}{2\mu}, \frac{\gamma\sqrt{d}}{\log (\gamma\sqrt{d})}))$, an SLM learnt on $n$ samples from $\mathcal{D}$ has accuracy $1-\beta$ on the inlier distribution as long as $n \in (\Omega(d\ln \frac 1 \gamma + \ln \frac 1 \beta), exp(O(\sqrt{d})))$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Under the assumptions, the $\mathrm{LinSumNorm}(O)$ is bounded by $O(\sqrt{m} + m\mu + m \frac{\log 2n/m}{\sqrt{d}})$. Moreover, the distribution satisfies the $(\gamma/2, \Omega(1), \beta)$-dense pancakes condition. Applying Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, the claim follows.\end{proof}
Note that a set of random points from $\mcN(0, \frac{1}{d} \Id)$ will have margin approximately $\Omega_\beta(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}})$ for any classifier, for all but a $\beta$ fraction of the points. We call this margin ``trivial''. The above result says that if the margin is a constant factor better than trivial, then under the other assumptions, a {\em constant} rate of adversarial errors can be tolerated.
The Massart Noise model~\citep{boucheron2005theory} is a special case of adversarial label noise, where the adversary can only specify a flipping probability $\eta(\vx)$ for each example, subject to $\eta(\vx) \leq \eta$ for all $\vx$. Thus the bounds for the adversarial label noise model extend to this setting.
\medskip\noindent{\bf Random Classification Noise Model}
This model was introduced by~\citep{AngluinL88}, where a random $\eta$ fraction of the examples have their labels flipped. In this case, the outliers are simply $\eta n$ random samples from the same distribution. The result can be slightly improved for this case.
\begin{thm}[Robustness under Random Label noise]
Let $\{\mathcal{D}_j\}$ be a set of $O(1)$ logconcave distributions on $\Re^d$ such that $\|\Ex_{\vx \sim \mathcal{D}_j}[\vx]\| \leq \mu$ and $\|\Ex_{\vx \sim \mathcal{D}_j}[\vx \vx^\top]\| \leq 1/d$. Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a uniform mixture of $\mathcal{D}_j$'s. Further suppose that this distribution is $\gamma$-margin separable for $\gamma \geq C\log \frac 1 \beta/\sqrt{d}$.
Then for adversarial label error rate $\eta = O(\min(\frac{1}{3}, \frac{\gamma}{2\mu}, \gamma\sqrt{d}))$, the SLM learnt on $n$ samples from $\mathcal{D}$ has accuracy $1-\beta$ on the inlier distribution as long as $n \in (\Omega(d\ln \frac 1 \gamma + \ln \frac 1 \beta), exp(O(\sqrt{d})))$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Under the assumptions, we can now apply Theorem~\ref{thm:sum_norm_bound} with $m=n$, since the adversary cannot select the points to corrupt any more. In this case, the $\mathrm{LinSumNorm}(O)$ is bounded by $O(\sqrt{m} + m\mu + m /{\sqrt{d}})$. Moreover, the distribution satisfies the $(\gamma/2, \Omega(1), \beta)$-dense pancakes condition. Applying Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Pancakes Condition: Distributions to Empirical}
\label{sec:pancakes_dist_to_emp}
In this section, we show that if a distribution satisfies the dense pancakes condition, then so does an empirical sample from it.
\begin{thm}
Suppose that $\mu$ satisfies the $(\tau, \rho, \beta)$ dense pancakes condition. Let $D$ be a sample of $n$ examples chosen i.i.d. from $\mu$. Then $(D, \mu)$ satisfies the $(\tau+\tau', \rho/2, \beta+\beta')$ dense pancakes condition with probability $(1-\exp(-d))$ as long as
\begin{align*}
n &\geq \frac{8}{\rho}\cdot \left(d (\log(1+\frac 2 {\tau'})) + \log \frac 1 {\beta'}\right)
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows a standard recipe of using measure concentration results along with a union bound over a net.
We say that a sample $D$ is $(\tau, \rho, \beta)$-good for $\vw$ if $\mu(\{(\vz, y) : P_\vw^\tau(\vz, y) \mbox{ is not $\rho$-dense w.r.t. D} \}) \leq \beta$. Our goal is to show that with high probability over the choice of $D$, it is the case that for every unit vector $\vw$, the sample $D$ is $(\tau+\tau', \rho/2, \beta+\beta')$-good for $\vw$.
First fix a unit vector $\vw$. Let $S = \{(\vz, y) : P_\vw^\tau(\vz, y) \mbox{ is not }\rho \mbox{-dense w.r.t. }\mu \}$. Since $\mu$ satisfies the $(\tau, \rho, \beta)$-dense pancakes condition, $\mu(S) \leq \beta$. For any $(\vz, y) \in S^c$, we have that $\mu(P_\vw^\tau(\vz, y)) \geq \rho$. Since $D$ is formed by taking $n$ i.i.d. samples from $\mu$, Chernoff bounds tell us that
\begin{align*}
\Pr_{D}\left[\sum_{(\vx_i, y_i) \in D} \one((\vx_i, y_i) \in P_\vw^\tau(\vz, y)) \leq \rho n/2\right] &\leq \exp(-\rho n / 8).
\end{align*}
In other words, for any $(\vz, y) \in S^c$,
\begin{align*}
\Pr_{D}\left[\mu_D(P_\vw^\tau(\vz, y)) \leq \rho/2)\right] &\leq \exp(-\rho n / 8).
\end{align*}
It follows that
\begin{align*}
\Ex_{D}\left[\mu\left(\one((\vx_i, y_i) \in S^c \; \wedge \; \mu_D(P_\vw^\tau(\vz, y)) \leq \rho/2)\right)\right] \leq \exp(-\rho n / 8),
\end{align*}
so that by Markov's inequality, for any $\beta'>0$,
\begin{align*}
\Pr_{D}[\mu(\one((\vx_i, y_i) \in S^c \; \wedge \; \mu_D(P_\vw^\tau(\vz, y)) \leq \rho/2)) \geq \beta'] \leq \beta'^{-1}\cdot \exp(-\rho n / 8).
\end{align*}
This coupled with the fact that $\mu(S) \leq \beta$ implies that
\begin{align*}
\Pr_{D}[\mu(\one(\mu_D(P_\vw^\tau(\vz, y)) \leq \rho/2)) \geq \beta + \beta'] \leq \beta'^{-1}\cdot \exp(-\rho n / 8).
\end{align*}
This implies that the sample $D$ is $(\tau, \rho/2, \beta+\beta')$-good with respect to a fixed $\vw$, except with probability $\beta'^{-1}\cdot \exp(-\rho n / 8)$.
Next, note that if $\norm{\vw-\vw'} \leq \tau'$, then $P_{\vw}^\tau(\vz, y) \subseteq P_{\vw'}^{\tau+\tau'}(\vz, y)$. Thus it suffices to do a union bound over a $\tau'$-net of the unit ball. Since one can find such a net (see e.g.~\citet[Lemma 5.2]{Vershynin10}) of size $\exp(d\log (1+\frac 2 {\tau'}))$, it follows that
\begin{align*}
\Pr_D[D \mbox{ is not }(\tau+\tau', \rho/2, \beta+\beta')\mbox{-good for all } \vw] &\leq \exp(d \log(1+\frac 2 \tau') + \log \frac 1 {\beta'} - \frac{\rho n}{8}).
\end{align*}
Plugging in the bound on $n$, the claim follows.
\end{proof}
We remark that the linear dependence on $d$ can be replaced by a $\frac{1}{\gamma^2}$ by random projections. Whether or not this additional projection step is needed is an interesting open question.
\section{Linear versus Hereditary Sum Norm}
\label{app:linvher}
We restate and prove Lemma~\ref{lem:linvher}
\begin{lem}
Let $D \subseteq \mcX \times \ensuremath{\{-1,+1\}}$ Then $\mathrm{HerSumNorm}(D) = \mathrm{LinSumNorm}(D)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We rewrite the definitions as
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{LinSumNorm}(D) &=
\sup_{a_1,\ldots, a_{\abs{D}} : 0 \leq a_i \leq 1} \norm{\sum_{(\vx_i, y_i) \in D} a_i\vx_i }\\
\mathrm{HerSumNorm}(D) &=
\sup_{a_1,\ldots, a_{\abs{D}} : a_i \in \{0,1\}} \norm{\sum_{(\vx_i, y_i) \in D} a_i\vx_i}.
\end{align*}
This rephrasing makes it immediate the $\mathrm{LinSumNorm}(D) \geq \mathrm{HerSumNorm}(D)$.
For the other direction, let $a_1, \ldots, a_{\abs{D}}$ be scalars in $[0,1]$ that achieve\footnote{Since $[0,1]^{\abs{D}}$ is compact, the $\sup$ is indeed achieved.} the $\sup$ in the definition of $\mathrm{LinSumNorm}(D)$. Consider the following randomized rounding:
\begin{align*}
A_i &= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1& \mbox{w.p. } a_i \\
0& \mbox{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align*}
We claim that $\Ex[\norm{\sum_{(\vx_i, y_i) \in D} A_i\vx_i}_2^2] \geq \norm{\sum_{(\vx_i, y_i) \in D} a_i\vx_i}_2^2$. Indeed it suffices to prove this for a single co-ordinate $j$. Clearly $\Ex[\sum_{(\vx_i, y_i) \in D} A_i\vx_{ij}] = \sum_{(\vx_i, y_i) \in D} a_i\vx_{ij}$.
By Jensen's inequality, $\Ex[(\sum_{(\vx_i, y_i) \in D} A_i\vx_{ij})^2] \geq (\sum_{(\vx_i, y_i) \in D} a_i\vx_{ij})^2$. The claim follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Missing Proofs from~\cref{sec:dense}}
\label{sec:missing_proofs}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\labelcref{lem:i1term}]
Recall that $y\vz^\top \vv \leq 0$ and that $(\vx_i, y_i)$ is in $P_{\vv}^\tau(\vz, y)$ so that $y_i \vv^\top \vx_i \leq \tau$; by the assumption on $\tau$, this is at most $\gamma /2$. The fact that $\norm{\vw} \leq \frac 1 \gamma$ then implies the first claim.
Let $\vv^\top\vv^\star = \alpha$. Note that
\begin{align*}
y_i \vx_i^\top(\vv^\star - (\vv^\top\vv^\star)\vv) &\geq \gamma^\star - (\vv^\top\vv^\star) \tau\\
&= \gamma^\star - \alpha \tau,
\end{align*}
whereas
\begin{align*}
\|\vv^\star - (\vv^\top\vv^\star)\vv\|^2 &= 1 + \alpha^2 - 2\alpha^2\\
&= 1-\alpha^2.
\end{align*}
Thus
\begin{align*}
y_i \vx_i^\top \vv' &\geq \frac{\gamma^\star - \alpha\tau}{\sqrt{1-\alpha^2}}.
\end{align*}
Setting the derivative with respect to $\alpha$ to zero, we can verify that this expression is minimized when $\alpha = \frac{\tau}{\gamma^\star}$. Plugging in this value immediately yields the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\labelcref{lem:oterm}]
Since $|f'(\cdot)| \leq L$, it follows that
\begin{align*}
\|\sum_{(\vx_i, y_i) \in O} \nabla_\vw\ell(\vw; \vx_i, y_i)\|
&= \|\sum_{(\vx_i, y_i) \in O} f'(y_i\vx_i^\top\vw) \cdot y_i \vx_i\|\\
&= L \cdot \|\sum_{(\vx_i, y_i) \in O} \left(\frac{y_i f'(y_i\vx_i^\top\vw)}{L}\right)\cdot \vx_i \|\\
&\leq L \cdot\mathrm{LinSumNorm}(O).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\section{Introduction}
\import{files/}{intro.tex}
\subsection{Related Work}
\import{files/}{related.tex}
\section{Preliminaries}
\import{files/}{prelims.tex}
\section{The Dense Pancakes Lemma}
\import{files/}{dense.tex}
\section{Proving the Density Condition}
\import{files/}{pancakes_condition.tex}
\import{files/}{pancakes_dist_to_emp.tex}
\section{Bounding the Sum Norm}
\import{files/}{sumnorm.tex}
\section{Applications}
\import{files/}{apps.tex}
\section{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank Yoram Singer, Ludwig Schmidt, Phil Long, Tomer Koren and Satyen Kale for numerous useful discussions on this work. I would also like to thank the anonymous referees for their feedback.
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
|
\section{Introduction}
We consider the system
\begin{align*}
\rxv_t={\mathbf{f}}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\rho}{\tn}}\chm\txv_t+\nv_t\right),
\numberthis
\label{eq:nonlinear_system_model}
\end{align*}
where $\txv_t$ and $\rxv_t$ are the input and output at time $t$ with dimensions $\tn$ and $\rn$, $\chm$ is an unknown complex $\rn\times \tn$ random matrix whose elements have {\it iid}\xspace real and imaginary components with zero-mean half-variance common distribution $p_{\tilde{g}}(\cdot)$, and $\txv_1,\txv_2,\ldots$ are independent of $\chm$, and their elements have {\it iid}\xspace real and imaginary components with zero-mean half-variance common distribution $p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)$. The elements of $\nv_t$ are {\it iid}\xspace circular-symmetric complex Gaussian $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_{}^2)$, independent of the input and $\chm$, ${\mathbf{f}}(\cdot)$ is an element-wise function that applies $b$-bit uniform quantization $f(\cdot)$ to each element, and the real and imaginary parts are quantized independently. When $\sigma_{}^2=1$, the quantity $\rho$ is nominally called the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) because it represents the ratio of the average signal energy $(\rho/\tn)\E\|G\txv_t\|^2=\rho\rn$ to noise variance $\rn\sigma_{}^2=\rn$, before quantization.
The quantizer $f(\cdot)$ with $b$ bits has $2^b-1$ real quantization thresholds defined as
\begin{align}
r_k=(-2^{b-1}+k)\Delta,\; {\rm{for }}\; k=1,2,\cdots,2^b-1,
\label{eq:threshold_levels}
\end{align}
where $\Delta$ is the quantization step size. We define $r_0=-\infty$, and $r_{2^b}=+\infty$
for convenience. The output of the quantizer indicates the quantization level: $f(w)=k$ for $w\in(r_{k-1},r_k]$ and $k=1,\ldots,2^b$. We use $b=\infty$ to denote the case when $f(w)=w$ for $w\in\mathcal{R}$ (quantizer is removed). When the input to the quantizer is a complex number, its real and imaginary parts are quantized independently. Often, $\Delta$ is designed as a function of $b$ to make full use of each quantization level. It is assumed throughout our numerical results that $\Delta$ is chosen such that $f(w)=1$ or $f(w)=2^b$ with probability $1/2^b$ when the input distribution on $w$ is real Gaussian with mean zero and variance $(1+\rho)/2$.
For example, when $b=2$, we have $\Delta=0.47\sqrt{\rho+1}$ and when $b=3$, we have $\Delta=0.27\sqrt{\rho+1}$. However, the main trends and conclusions contained herein are not sensitive to these choices.
The system has a ``blocklength", denoted as $\Tb$, during which the unknown matrix $\chm$ is constant, and after which it changes independently to a new value. It is desired to send known training signals from which information about $\chm$ can be learned from the $(\txv_t,\rxv_t)$ input-output pairs. Note that the nonlinearity $f(\cdot)$ may make it difficult to obtain accurate information about $\chm$ during training, but it is also conceivable that only limited information about $\chm$ is needed, depending on the desired application of the model \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model}.
The model \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model} is widely used in wireless communications and signal processing models \cite{hassibi2003much,li2016much,li2017channel,takeuchi2010achievable,takeuchi2012large,takeuchi2013achievable,wen2015performance,wen2015joint,wen2016bayes,estes2020efficient}, where $\txv_t$ and $\rxv_t$ are the transmitted and received signals at time $t$ in a multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) system with $\tn$ transmitters and $\rn$ receivers, $\chm$ models the channel coefficients between the transmitters and receivers, $\Tb$ is the (integer) coherence time of the channel in symbols, $\nv_t$ is the additive noise at time $t$, $f(\cdot)$ models receiver effects such as quantization in analog-to-digital converters (ADC's) and nonlinearities in amplifiers.
For example, single-bit ADC's with $f(x)=\text{sign}(x)$ are considered in \cite{li2016much,li2017channel}, and low-resolution ADC's with uniform quantizers are considered in \cite{wen2015joint,wen2016bayes}. Part of the coherence time is typically used for training to learn $\chm$, while the remainder is used for data transmission or symbol detection. So-called ``one-shot'' learning is considered in \cite{hassibi2003much,li2016much,li2017channel} where $\chm$ is learned only from training, while \cite{takeuchi2010achievable,takeuchi2012large,takeuchi2013achievable,wen2015performance,wen2015joint,wen2016bayes} allows $\chm$ to be refined after training.
Often, linearization of $f(\cdot)$ is used to aid the analysis \cite{li2016much,li2017channel}. We are primarily interested in one-shot learning in the limit $\Tb\to\infty$, when closed-form analysis is possible.
Using a training-based lower bound on mutual information for large-scale systems \cite{gaopart1}, we show that \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model} can be analyzed by examining an equivalent system with known parameters by modifying the signal power and noise variance in a prescribed manner. We show that the number of training signals can be significantly smaller than the number of transmitting elements in both wireless communication and signal processing applications. We show that a linear analysis of \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model} can be accurate when the thermal noise is high or the system is operating near its saturation rate.
\section{Equivalence in entropy and mutual information}
Let $\Ttone = \ceil{\Tt}$ be the training time where $\tau\in(0,1]$ is the fraction of the blocklength used to learn $\chm$.
We allow $\rn$ and $\tn$ to increase proportionally to the blocklength $\Tb$ as $\Tb\to\infty$.
The ratios are
\begin{align}
\alpha=\frac{\rn}{\tn},\quad \beta=\frac{\Tb}{\tn}.
\label{eq:ratios}
\end{align}
Define $\txm_t=[\txv_1,\txv_2,\cdots,\txv_t]$, $\rxm_t=[\rxv_1,\rxv_2,\cdots,\rxv_t]$, and
\begingroup
\begin{align*}
\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}&=\lim_{\Tlim\to\infty}\frac{1}{\rn}\MuI(\txv_{\Ttone+1};\rxv_{\Ttone+1}|\txm_{\Ttone},\rxm_{\Ttone}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:MuI_def_high}
\\
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{^+}{}&=\lim_{\Tlim\to\infty}\frac{1}{\rn}\Ent(\rxv_{\Ttone+1}|\txm_{\Ttone+1},\rxm_{\Ttone}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:EntInn_cond_def_vec}
\\
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{}&=\lim_{\Tlim\to\infty}\frac{1}{\rn}\Ent(\rxv_{\Ttone+1}|\txm_{\Ttone},\rxm_{\Ttone}).
\numberthis
\label{eq:EntInn_def_vec}
\end{align*}
\endgroup
The quantities \eqref{eq:MuI_def_high}--\eqref{eq:EntInn_def_vec} are shown in \cite{gaopart1} to play an important role in determining the optimum amount of training in a system with unknown parameters. We show that these quantities equal those of another ``equivalent system'' where $\chm$ is know
, which is stated in the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:equivalence_in_Ent}
For the system \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model} with $\Ttone$ input-output training pairs $(\txm_{\Ttone},\rxm_{\Ttone})$,
\begingroup
\begin{align}
\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{} = \lim_{\Tlim\to\infty}\frac{1}{\rn}\MuI(\bar{\txv};\bar{\rxv}|\chm),
\label{eq:equi_in_MuI}
\\
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{ ^+}{} = \lim_{\Tlim\to\infty}\frac{1}{\rn}\Ent(\bar{\rxv}|\chm,\bar{\txv}),
\label{eq:equi_in_Ent_Y_cond_X}
\\
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{} = \lim_{\Tlim\to\infty}\frac{1}{\rn}\Ent(\bar{\rxv}|\chm).
\label{eq:equi_in_Ent_Y}
\end{align}
\endgroup
where the mutual information and entropies of the right-hand sides of the above equations are derived from the system
\begin{align}
\bar{\rxv}={\mathbf{f}}\left(\sqrt{{\bar{\snr}}/{\tn}}\chm\bar{\txv}+\bar{\nv}\right),
\label{eq:equivalent_system_thm}
\end{align}
where $\chm$ is known at the receiver, $\bar{\txv}$ is distributed identically to $\txv_t$, the entries of $\bar{\nv}$ are {\it iid}\xspace $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,\bar{\sigma}_{}^2)$,
and $\bar{\snr},\bar{\sigma}_{}^2$ are defined as
\begin{align}
\bar{\snr} = \rho(1-\msea{\chm}),\qquad\bar{\sigma}_{}^2 = \sigma_{}^2 + \rho\cdot\msea{\chm},
\label{eq:SNR_var_equivalent}
\end{align}
where $\msea{\chm}$ is
\begin{align*}
\msea{\chm}=\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{\tn\rn}\E\norm{\chm-\hat{\chm}}^2_{\rm F},
\numberthis
\label{eq:MSE_MMSE_G}
\end{align*}
with $\hat{\chm} = \E(\chm|\txm_{\Ttone},\rxm_{\Ttone}).$
\end{thm}
\noindent
{\bf Proof:} Please see Appendix \ref{app:proof_equivalence}.
The theorem is similar to some well-known results for the linear-system model $\rxv_t=\sqrt{\frac{\rho}{\tn}}\chm\txv_t+\nv_t$ (which omits the ${\mathbf{f}}(\cdot)$ function in \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model}), where the unknown $\chm$ is replaced by its minimum mean-square error (MMSE) estimate obtained from the training signals, and the system is converted to one where $\chm$ is known, and the estimation error is converted to Gaussian noise that is added to $\nv_t$. Generally, these existing results are in the form of lower bounds on mutual information that come from approximating the estimation error as (worst-case) Gaussian noise that is independent of $\nv_t$ \cite{hassibi2003much,medard2000effect}. However, there are some key differences in Theorem \ref{thm:equivalence_in_Ent}: (i) The theorem applies in the large-scale system limit, and provides exact equalities, not just lower bounds; (ii) As a result of the large-scale limit, the model \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model} does not require Gaussian assumptions on $\chm$ or $\txv_t$, worst-case noise analysis, or any linearization of the quantizer $f(\cdot)$.
This theorem is useful because quantities such as the entropies and mutual informations for the model \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model} with known $\chm$ are generally easier to compute than those for unknown $\chm$, and the effect of the unknown $\chm$ is converted to the parameter $\msea{\chm}$, which is the large-scale limit of MSE in the MMSE estimate of $\chm$. This is of value in Sections \ref{sec:wireless_communication}--\ref{sec:signal_processing}, where known-$\chm$ results are leveraged to obtain results in communication and signal processing problems where $\chm$ is estimated through training.
Although we compute large-scale limits, it is anticipated that the results herein provide good approximations for systems with finite $\tn$, $\rn$, and $\Tb$ simply by substituting the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ computed for the finite-dimensional system into the limiting formulas. Evidence that this approximation is reasonably accurate for systems of moderate dimensions is given in Section \ref{sec:finite_OK}.
The following steps summarize the computations needed in the theorem.
\subsection{Computing $\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$}
\label{sec:step_by_step_computation}
\begin{Process}[H]
\SetAlgoLined
\nonl\algorithmicrequire{ $b$,
$r_k$ \eqref{eq:threshold_levels},
$p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)$,
$p_{\tilde{g}}(\cdot)$,
$\tau, \alpha, \beta, \sigma_{}^2, \rho$,
$I_{\rm AWGN}(\cdot,\cdot)$ and $\cE(\cdot,\cdot)$ \eqref{eq:MuI_AWGN_def}--\eqref{eq:p_wy_joint},
$\Enta[](\gamma,s)$ and $\chi(\gamma,s)$ \eqref{eq:Ent_V_o_def}--\eqref{eq:psi_prime_b} or \eqref{eq:linear_Ent_chi}}
(see Appendix \ref{app:proof_equivalence})\;
\nonl\algorithmicensure{ $\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ \eqref{eq:MuI_def_high
}\;
Solve $\msea{\chm}$ defined in \eqref{eq:MSE_MMSE_G} from \eqref{eq:qh_qhtilde_solu_A&mse_G_vs_qh}\;
Compute $\bar{\snr}$ and $\bar{\sigma}_{}^2$ from \eqref{eq:SNR_var_equivalent}\;
Compute \eqref{eq:MuI_know_G}, and use \eqref{eq:equi_in_MuI}.
\caption{Compute $\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$}
\end{Process}
Further details of the computations appear in Appendix \ref{app:proof_equivalence} as part of the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:equivalence_in_Ent}.
The theorem and computations also hold for systems with real $\chm,\txv_t,$ and $\nv_t$, when both $\chm$ and $\txv_t$ consist of {\it iid}\xspace elements with zero mean and unit variance, and the elements of $\nv_t$ are {\it iid}\xspace $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$. However, the steps above require minor modifications. First, the $p_{\tilde{g}}(\cdot)$ and $p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)$ as used in \eqref{eq:qh_qhtilde_solu_A&mse_G_vs_qh}, \eqref{eq:qx_solu_known_G}, \eqref{eq:entropy_yt_known_G} and \eqref{eq:MuI_know_G} should be the distributions of the elements of $\chm$ and $\txv_t$ normalized by $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ to obtain variance equal to $1/2$. Second, the $r_k$ as used in \eqref{eq:psi_func} and \eqref{eq:psi_prime_b} should be the actual $r_k$ divided by $\sqrt{2}$.
Finally, the actual values of $\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}, \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{ ^+}{},$ and $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{}$ are computed by \eqref{eq:entropy_yt_known_G}--\eqref{eq:MuI_know_G} and then dividing by two.
\section{Application to Wireless Communication}
\label{sec:wireless_communication}
In communication systems we are often interested in maximizing the achievable rate. We consider a MIMO system \cite{wen2016bayes,larsson2014massive,lu2014overview,marzetta2016fundamentals,bjornson2019massive} modeled by
\eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model}, where $\txv_t$ models the transmitted signals from $\tn$ elements (transmitter antennas) at time $t$, $\rxv_t$ models the received signals with $\rn$ elements (receiver antennas), $\chm$ models the unknown baseband-equivalent wireless channel, $\nv_t$ models the additive white Gaussian noise at the receiver, $f(\cdot)$ models the uniform $b$-bit quantization at the analog-to-digital converters, $\Tb$ models the coherent blocklength during which the channel is constant, and a fraction $\tau$ of the total blocklength is used for training to learn the channel. In a Rayleigh environment, $\chm$ has {\it iid}\xspace $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ elements, and the corresponding $p_{\tilde{g}}(\cdot)$ is $\mathcal{N}(0,\frac{1}{2})$. We assume that the real and imaginary elements of the transmitted vector $\txv_t$ are {\it iid}\xspace with zero mean and half variance and are generated using $a$-bit uniform digital-to-analog converters (DAC's) in both the in-phase and the quadrature branches. This creates a $2^{2a}$-QAM constellation, with all possible symbols generated with equal probability; the corresponding $p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)$ is uniform among the $2^a$ real and imaginary components. We use $a=\infty$ to denote an unquantized transmitter where the elements of $\txv_t$ are {\it iid}\xspace $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ and the corresponding $p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)$ is $\mathcal{N}(0,\frac{1}{2})$. Throughout this section we assume $\sigma_{}^2=1$.
Using the results in \cite{gaopart1}, we conclude that the optimal achievable rate (in ``bits/channel-use/transmitter") for a trained system is
\begin{align}
\cR_{\rm opt}=\max_{\tau} (1-\tau)\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{},
\label{eq:opt_rate_per_tx}
\end{align}
where $\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ is defined in \eqref{eq:MuI_def_high}.
The optimal training fraction is
\begin{align}
\tau_{{\rm opt}}=\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_{\tau}(1-\tau)\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}.
\label{eq:tau_opt_value}
\end{align}
For comparison, we sometimes compute the rate per transmitter for systems with known $\chm$,
\begin{align}
\cR_{\rm known}=\lim_{\tn\to\infty}\MuI(\txv_t;\rxv_t|\chm)/{\tn},
\label{eq:Rknown}
\end{align}
which can be computed from \eqref{eq:MuI_know_G} with $(\bar{\snr},\bar{\sigma}_{}^2)$ replaced by $(\rho,1)$. Since $\txv_t$ are {\it iid}\xspace, \eqref{eq:Rknown} is not a function of $t$.
The parameter $\beta=\Tb/\tn$ is the ratio of the coherence time of the channel (in symbols) to the number of transmitters and is therefore strongly dependent on the physical environment. We may choose a typical value as follows: Suppose we choose a 3.5 GHz carrier frequency with maximum mobility of 80 miles/hour; the maximum Doppler shift becomes $f_{\rm d}=\frac{80\; \text{miles/h}\times 3.5\; \text{GHz}}{3\times 10^8\; \text{m/s}}=417$ Hz, and the corresponding coherence time is $\frac{9}{16\pi f_{\rm d}}=0.4$ ms \cite{rappaport1996wireless}. We consider 10 MHz bandwidth and assume that the system is operated at Nyquist sampling rate (10 complex Msamples/second), which produces $\Tb=4000$ discrete samples during each 0.4 ms coherent block. In a system with $\tn=100$ elements at the transmitter, we obtain $\beta=40$. The remainder of this section considers the results of \eqref{eq:opt_rate_per_tx}--\eqref{eq:Rknown} for various scenarios. Details can be found in the figure captions.
\subsubsection{More receivers can compensate for lack of channel information}
In Fig. \ref{fig:alpha_saturation_one_bit} we consider rate versus $\alpha$ for $a=1,2$; the maximum rates per transmitter are then 2 bits and 4 bits respectively. These asymptotes are approached as $\alpha$ is increased, but are reached much more slowly when the channel is unknown than when it is known, as seen by comparing blue curves versus the corresponding red curves, or the yellow curve versus the green curve. Larger $\alpha=\rn/\tn$ represents larger number of receivers per transmitter. The linear receiver ($b=\infty$, dashed curves) and the one-bit quantized receiver ($b=1$, solid curves), and the linear transmitter ($a=\infty$) are shown for comparison.
\subsubsection{Very limited channel information is sometimes sufficient}
In Fig. \ref{fig:beta_40_tau_opt_smooth}, we show that for $a=1,2$, very limited channel information is needed when $\alpha$ is large because the corresponding $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ is small. The optimum number of training signals may be smaller than the number of transmitters ($\tau_{{\rm opt}}\beta<1$). This is also shown to a limited extent for $a=1$ and $b=1$ in \cite{kang2019training,gao2019channel}. We show in Section \ref{subsub:tau_vs_alpha} that $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ decays as $(\ln\alpha)/\alpha$ for large $\alpha$ when $a=1$.
\subsubsection{Quantization effects limit how small $\alpha$ can be}
The values of $\alpha$ required to achieve $\cR_{\rm opt}=1.8$ ($90\%$ level) for various SNR $\rho$ and $b$ with $a=1$ are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:fixed_tau_opt_SNR_vs_alpha_2}. It is clear that $\alpha$ decreases as $\rho$ increases, and there are asymptotes when $\rho=\infty$ for $b=1,2,3$ whether the channel is known or not, because of the quantization noise. When $b=\infty$, there are no asymptotes since the channel can be estimated perfectly, and the discrete transmitted signal can be detected perfectly as $\rho\rightarrow\infty$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{alpha_saturation_one_bit_4.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Solutions of \eqref{eq:opt_rate_per_tx} showing $\cR_{\rm opt}$ vs $\alpha$ for $a=1,2,\infty$, and $b=1$ (solid curves) and $b=\infty$ (dashed curves), and SNR $=0,\,10$ dB, for $\beta=40$ (see text for explanation of this choice). Also shown is $\cR_{\rm known}$ \eqref{eq:Rknown}. The curves saturate at $2$ for $a=1$, and at $4$ for $a=2$, while there is no saturation for $a=\infty$. Note by comparing $\cR_{\rm opt}$ (unknown channel) versus $\cR_{\rm known}$ (known channel) at the 90\% level (indicated by ``*") that the price in $\alpha$ for not knowing the channel is higher when comparing linear ($b=\infty$) versus one-bit ($b=1$) receivers. For example, with $a=2$, observe that the ``*" on the dashed-red curve and dashed-blue curve are at $\alpha=2$ and $\alpha=4$, respectively; on the other hand, the ``*" on the solid-red curve and solid-blue curve are at $\alpha=8$ and $\alpha=28$, indicating that $\alpha$ has to increase more when the receiver resolution is lower to compensate for lack of channel information.
Observe also that, generally, increasing $\alpha$ compensates for lack of resolution at the receiver.
This effect is independent of whether the channel is known or trained at the receiver. The asymptotes $\cR_{\rm opt}=2$ and $\cR_{\rm opt}=4$ are reached quite slowly when the channel is unknown.}
\label{fig:alpha_saturation_one_bit}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{beta_40_tau_opt_smooth_3.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Solutions of \eqref{eq:tau_opt_value} showing $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ vs $\alpha$, where the 90\% levels are marked as in Fig.\ \ref{fig:alpha_saturation_one_bit} (omitting known-channel results). Note that $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ is generally insensitive to $\alpha$ when $\alpha$ is small, and decreases rapidly with $\alpha$ as $\cR_{\rm opt}$ approaches the saturation rate $2a$. The markers suggest that $\tau_{{\rm opt}}\approx 0.07$ independently of the $a$ (transmitter resolution), SNR, or $b$ (receiver resolution). As $\alpha$ grows, eventually $\tau_{{\rm opt}}\cdot\beta<1$ (indicated by the solid cyan line), at which point the number of training symbols is smaller than the number of transmitter elements. Also shown in purple is the large-$\alpha$ result (\ref{eq:tauopt_one_bit_output}) for 10 dB SNR, $a=1$ and $b=1$.}
\label{fig:beta_40_tau_opt_smooth}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{fixed_Rate_SNR_vs_alpha_2.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Solutions of \eqref{eq:opt_rate_per_tx} showing $\alpha$ versus SNR when $\cR_{\rm opt}=1.8$ (90\% level), $\beta=40$, $a=1$; also shown are known-channel solutions of \eqref{eq:Rknown}. The curves decrease as SNR increases and reach asymptotes as $\rho=\infty$ that are shown in cyan (unknown channel) and magenta (known channel) with $b=1,2,$ and 3. These asymptotes are the result of the quantization noise at the receiver that restrict the $\alpha$ from going to zero as $\rho=\infty$. The unknown-channel asymptotes are above the known-channel asymptotes because the channel is estimated through the quantized receiver, creating extra effective noise that needs larger $\alpha$ to compensate. For linear receivers ($b=\infty$), perfect channel estimation can be obtained as $\rho=\infty$, and therefore there are no asymptotes. At low SNR, the slopes of the red curves are similar to each other (as are the blue curves) because the additive (thermal) noise dominates the quantization noise, and the effect of quantization can be treated as degradation in SNR that depends on $b$.
}
\label{fig:fixed_tau_opt_SNR_vs_alpha_2}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Linearization works well near the saturation rate or with high thermal noise}
Linearizing the system model \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model} at the receiver allows us to model the quantization noise in a variety of ways.
For example, when $b=1$, we assume that the real and imaginary parts of the received signal are taken from $\{\frac{\pm 1}{\sqrt{2}}\}$. For $b=2$, we assume that they are taken from $\{(\frac{\pm 1}{\sqrt{10}},\frac{\pm 3}{\sqrt{10}})\}$. These values are selected so that the output of $f(\cdot)$ has zero mean and unit variance.
By using the Bussgang decomposition \cite{bussgang1952crosscorrelation,jacobsson2017throughput}, we can reformulate the system in \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model} as
\begin{align*}
\rxv_t=\sqrt{\frac{\eta}{(\rho+1)}}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\rho}{\tn}}\chm\txv_t+\nv_t\right)+\nv_{\rm q},
\numberthis
\label{eq:AQN_model_buss}
\end{align*}
where $\nv_{\rm q}$ is uncorrelated with $\sqrt{\frac{\rho}{\tn}}\chm\txv_t+\nv_t$, $\nv_{\rm q}$ has zero mean with covariance matrix $(1-\eta)I$, and where $\eta=2/\pi$
for $b=1$, and $\eta = \frac{2}{5\pi}(1+2e^{-\frac{\Delta^2}{\rho+1}})^2$ for $b=2$.
For tractability, we assume that $\nv_{\rm q}\sim\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,(1-\eta)I)$ and is independent of $\chm, \txv_t,$ and $\nv_t$. Then, \eqref{eq:AQN_model_buss} can be considered as a system with SNR $\snr_{\rm L}$:
\begin{align}
\rxv_t=\sqrt{{\snr_{\rm L}}/{\tn}}\chm\txv_t+\nv_t,
\numberthis
\label{eq:equivalent_linear_model}
\end{align}
where $\snr_{\rm L} = \frac{\eta\frac{\rho}{\rho+1}}{\eta\frac{1}{\rho+1}+(1-\eta)}=\frac{\eta\rho}{(1-\eta)\rho+1}.$
It is shown in \cite{hassibi2003much} that orthogonal training minimizes the mean-square error (MSE) for estimating the channel in \eqref{eq:equivalent_linear_model}. The classical treatment of this model treats the estimated channel as the ``true" channel, while the estimation error is treated as additive Gaussian noise, thereby obtaining a capacity lower bound for any $a$. We thereby obtain
\begin{align}
\bar{\rxv}_t = \sqrt{{\snr_{\rm {eff}}}/{\tn}}{\bar{\chm}}\txv_t+\bar{\nv}_t,
\label{eq:effective_linear_SNR}
\end{align}
where $\snr_{\rm {eff}}$ is the effective SNR
\begin{align}
\snr_{\rm {eff}}=\frac{\tau\beta\snr_{\rm L}^2}{1+(1+\tau\beta)\snr_{\rm L}},
\label{eq:effective_SNR}
\end{align}
$\bar{\chm}$ is the estimated channel whose elements are {\it iid}\xspace $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,1)$, and $\bar{\nv}_t$ has {\it iid}\xspace $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ elements. This known-$\chm$ model has achievable rate
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}_{\rm eff} = \lim_{\tn\to\infty}\frac{1}{\tn}\MuI(\txv_t;\bar{\rxv}_t|\bar{\chm}),
\end{align*}
which can be computed using \eqref{eq:MuI_know_G}. Note that $\mathcal{R}_{\rm eff}$ is a function of $\tau$, since $\snr_{\rm {eff}}$ in \eqref{eq:effective_SNR} is a function of $\tau$. We then define
\begin{align}
\cR_{\rm L}=\max_{\tau}(1-\tau)\mathcal{R}_{\rm eff}.
\label{eq:linearization_lower_bound}
\end{align}
The path just described to obtain $\cR_{\rm L}$ involves several approximations, and hence it is unclear how closely $\cR_{\rm L}$ should follow $\cR_{\rm opt}$.
However, a comparison between $\cR_{\rm opt}$ \eqref{eq:opt_rate_per_tx} and $\cR_{\rm L}$ \eqref{eq:linearization_lower_bound} with $a=1, 2, \infty$ and $b=1, 2$ for $\beta= 40$ is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:compare_with_Bussgang} with $\alpha=10$ and in Fig. \ref{fig:RL_vs_Ropt_alpha_0.1} with $\alpha=0.1$. In both Fig. \ref{fig:compare_with_Bussgang} and Fig. \ref{fig:RL_vs_Ropt_alpha_0.1}, we see that $\cR_{\rm L}$ is generally a good approximation of $\cR_{\rm opt}$ when the SNR is below 6 dB, but is also accurate above 6 dB in cases where $\cR_{\rm opt}\approx 2a$ (saturation rate) when ${\rm SNR}\approx 6$ dB; see especially the blue, black, and green curves in Fig. \ref{fig:compare_with_Bussgang}. Thus at low SNR (high thermal noise) or when the rates are near saturation at low SNR, we can use
the linear analysis to approximate $\cR_{\rm opt}$. We also observe that both $\cR_{\rm opt}$ and $\cR_{\rm L}$ are not sensitive to $a$ when $\alpha=0.1$. More discussion of $\cR_{\rm opt}$ with small $\alpha$ is shown in Section \ref{subsec:small_ratio_Ropt}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{R_L_vs_R_opt_alpha_10_2.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Solutions of \eqref{eq:opt_rate_per_tx} and \eqref{eq:linearization_lower_bound} showing $\cR_{\rm opt}$ and $\cR_{\rm L}$ vs SNR with $\beta=40$ and $\alpha=10$ for $a=1,2,\infty$ and $b=1,2$. Observe that $\cR_{\rm L}$ is a good approximation of $\cR_{\rm opt}$ below 6 dB SNR, and is sometimes also a good approximation for all ${\rm SNR}$, depending on where saturation (rate $2a)$ is reached.}
\label{fig:compare_with_Bussgang}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{RL_vs_Ropt_alpha_0_1_2.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Solutions of \eqref{eq:opt_rate_per_tx} and \eqref{eq:linearization_lower_bound} for $\cR_{\rm opt}$ and $\cR_{\rm L}$ vs SNR with $\beta=40$ and $\alpha=0.1$ for $a=1,2,\infty$ and $b=1,2$. Note that the blue, red, and yellow curves that are solid or dashed are on top of each other, while the black, green, and magenta curves that are solid or dashed are on top of each other. This indicates that
for small $\alpha$ ($\alpha=0.1$), $\cR_{\rm opt}$ and $\cR_{\rm L}$ are not sensitive to $a$. Also, $\cR_{\rm L}$ is a good approximation of $\cR_{\rm opt}$ when the SNR is below 6 dB.}
\label{fig:RL_vs_Ropt_alpha_0.1}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{The ratio $\alpha$ is sensitive to $\beta$ when $\beta$ is small}
Fig. \ref{fig:fixed_Rate_beta_vs_alpha} shows that to obtain $\cR_{\rm opt}=1.8$ ($90\%$ level for $a=1$), $\alpha$ changes quickly with $\beta$ when $\beta\leq 40$, and slowly otherwise.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{fixed_Rate_beta_vs_alpha_4.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Plots of $\alpha$ vs $\beta$ for $a=1$ obtained at 10 dB and 0 dB SNR with various $b$ by solving \eqref{eq:opt_rate_per_tx} for $\cR_{\rm opt}=1.8$ (90\% level). Note that $\alpha$ changes quickly with $\beta$ when $\beta\leq 40$.}
\label{fig:fixed_Rate_beta_vs_alpha}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Receiver elements can compensate for $b$ and $\rho$}
We choose $\alpha$ so that $\cR_{\rm opt}=1.8$ when $a=1$ and $\beta=40$ for a variety of $b$ and $\rho$.
Shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:fixed_Rate_beta_vs_tau} is the corresponding $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ and $\cR_{\rm opt}$ as $\beta$ is varied. Note that the various curves are essentially on top of one another, indicating that the chosen $\alpha$ leads to the same $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ and $\cR_{\rm opt}$, independently of $b$ and $\rho$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{tauopt_QPSK_vs_beta_smooth_rate.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Plots of $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ \eqref{eq:tau_opt_value} vs $\beta$ and $\cR_{\rm opt}$ \eqref{eq:opt_rate_per_tx} vs $\beta$ for $a=1$ at 10 dB and 0 dB SNR with $b=1,2,\infty$, where values of $\alpha$ are selected from Fig. \ref{fig:fixed_Rate_beta_vs_alpha} at $\beta=40$. Note that both $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ and $\cR_{\rm opt}$ mainly depend on $\beta$ and are not sensitive to $b$ and SNR, which indicates that $\alpha$ can be used to compensate for $b$ and SNR, independently of $\beta$.}
\label{fig:fixed_Rate_beta_vs_tau}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Small $\alpha$ is equivalent to a non-fading SISO channel}
\label{subsec:small_ratio_Ropt}
For small $\alpha$, the data rate is limited by the receiver, and we consider the rate per receiver
$(1-\tau)\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$
with unit ``bits/channel-use/receiver", instead of the rate per transmitter
in \eqref{eq:opt_rate_per_tx}.
The optimal training fraction is still \eqref{eq:tau_opt_value} since $\alpha$ is not a function of $\tau$. As $\alpha\to 0$, \eqref{eq:qx_qxtilde_solu_A} yields $\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}\propto\alpha$.
For small $\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}$, we have $I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))= \frac{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}}{\ln 2}+o(\alpha),$
where $I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))$ is defined in \eqref{eq:MuI_AWGN_def}.
Therefore, \eqref{eq:IXY_value_A} yields
\begin{align}
\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{} \approx \Enta[](0,\bar{\sigma}_{}^2+\bar{\snr}) - \Enta[]({\bar{\snr}},\bar{\sigma}_{}^2),
\label{eq:small_alpha}
\end{align}
where $\bar{\snr}$ and $\bar{\sigma}_{}^2$ are obtained from \eqref{eq:SNR_var_equivalent}, which does not depend on $\alpha$ or $p_{\tilde{x}}(x)$, and $\Enta[](\cdot,\cdot)$ is defined in \eqref{eq:Ent_V_o_def}. The right-hand side of \eqref{eq:small_alpha} is actually the mutual information between the input and output of the following single-input-single-output (SISO) system without any fading: $\rx=f(\sqrt{\bar{\snr}}\tx+\bar{\ns}),$
where $\tx\sim\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,1)$, $\bar{\ns}\sim\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,\bar{\sigma}_{}^2)$. We have
\begin{align*}
(1-\tau)\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}&\approx (1-\tau)[\Enta[](0,\bar{\sigma}_{}^2+\bar{\snr}) - \Enta[]({\bar{\snr}},\bar{\sigma}_{}^2)],
\numberthis
\label{eq:small_alpha_per_rx}
\\
\tau_{{\rm opt}}&\approx\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_{\tau}(1-\tau)[\Enta[](0,\bar{\snr}+\bar{\sigma}_{}^2)-\Enta[](\bar{\snr},\bar{\sigma}_{}^2)].
\numberthis
\label{eq:tauopt_small_ratio}
\end{align*}
Both quantities in \eqref{eq:small_alpha_per_rx} and \eqref{eq:tauopt_small_ratio} are not functions of $\alpha$ or the input distribution $p_{\tilde{x}}(x)$.
Fig. \ref{fig:small_alpha_IXY_vs_tau} shows $(1-\tau)\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ and its approximations vs $\tau$ with $\beta=40$ for various SNR and $b$ for small $\alpha$. Note that the blue and red curves essentially overlap, indicating that the approximation is accurate for $\alpha\leq 0.1$. Note also that the curves are only modestly concave in $\tau$, indicating only mild sensitivity of the rate to the amount of training.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{small_alpha_IXY_vs_tau_4.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Small $\alpha$ approximation \eqref{eq:small_alpha_per_rx} of average rate per receiver $(1-\tau)\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$
vs $\tau$ for $\rho=0$, 10, $\infty$ dB, for various $b$ with $\beta=40$ in yellow, red, and cyan, and the exact value in blue for $\alpha=0.1$ with $a=1$ (QPSK input) at 10 dB SNR. The values of $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ are marked by asterisks. Since \eqref{eq:small_alpha_per_rx} does not depend on $\alpha$ or the input distribution, the value of $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ is also insensitive to these quantities. Note that increasing $b$ is much more beneficial to rate at high SNR than low SNR. For $b<\infty$, the rates per receiver are below $2b$ even when $\rho=\infty$ because the quantization effects at the receiver limit our ability to estimate $\chm$. When $b=\infty$ and $\rho=\infty$, perfect channel estimation can be obtained with $\tau=\frac{1}{\beta}=0.025$, and the rate is $\infty$.}
\label{fig:small_alpha_IXY_vs_tau}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Optimum training time decreases as $\alpha$ increases}
\label{subsub:tau_vs_alpha}
$\forall\tau>0$, any finite $a$, and any $b$, we have
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}=2a,
\numberthis
\label{eq:large_alpha_rate_saturation}
\end{align*}
which yields $ \lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\cR_{\rm opt}=2a$, and $\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\tau_{{\rm opt}} = 0.$
The proof is shown in Appendix \ref{app:large_alpha_rate_and_training}.
In the special case with $a=1$, when $\alpha$ is large, we have
\begin{align}
\text{for } b = \infty, \quad \tau_{{\rm opt}}&\approx 2\left(\frac{\rho+1}{\rho}\right)^2\frac{\ln\alpha}{\beta\alpha},
\label{eq:tauopt_linear_output}
\\
\text{for } b = 1, \quad
\tau_{{\rm opt}}&\approx 2\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\rho+1}{\rho}\right)^2\frac{\ln\alpha}{\beta\alpha}.
\label{eq:tauopt_one_bit_output}
\end{align}
\section{Application to Signal Processing}
\label{sec:signal_processing}
We consider an Internet-of-Things (IoT) system \cite{kim2018uplink,liu2018massive,de2018application,uccuncu2017performance} where wireless devices are used for remote monitoring, and the data captured from those devices can be modeled by \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model}, where $\txv_t$ models the transmitted signal at time $t$ from $\tn$ single-element devices, $\rxv_t$ models the received signal from $\rn$ elements at time $t$, and $\chm$ is the unknown wireless channel. We are specifically interested in the effect of the training time $\Ttone$ on the symbol error rate (SER). \comm{\eqref{eq:Pe_input_training}.} We define a new quantity
\begin{align}
\tau'={\Tt}/{\tn},
\label{eq:signal_processing_ratios}
\end{align}
which represents our training time relative to the number of transmitters (sensors). For simplicity, we assume $\sigma_{}^2=1$ throughout this section.
To proceed, we expand the statement of equivalence of Theorem \ref{thm:equivalence_in_Ent} to symbol error probabilities. We state this equivalence as a conjecture because it is not proven herein, but whose consequences appear to be accurate and useful.
\begin{conject}
\label{conj:equivalent_Pe_x}
For the system \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model} with $\Ttone$ input-output training pairs $(\txm_{\Ttone},\rxm_{\Ttone})$, we have
\begin{align}
\lim_{\Tlim\to\infty}P_{e,x} = \lim_{\Tlim\to\infty}\bar{P}_{e,x},
\numberthis
\label{eq:equ_in_SER}
\end{align}
where $P_{e,x}$ and $\bar{P}_{e,x}$ are average probability of errors defined as
\begin{align*}
P_{e,x}&=\frac{1}{\tn}\sum_{m=1}^{\tn}\E P(\tx_{\Ttone+1,m}\neq\hat{\tx}_{\Ttone+1,m}|\txm_{\Ttone},\rxm_{\Ttone},\rxv_{\Ttone+1}), \
\bar{P}_{e,x}=\frac{1}{\tn}\sum_{m=1}^{\tn}\E P(\bar{\tx}_{m}\neq {\hatbar{\tx}}_m|\chm,\bar{\rxv}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:Pe_input_training&equivalent_SER_def}
\end{align*}
$\tx_{\Ttone+1,m}$ and $\bar{\tx}_{m}$ are the $m$th elements of $\txv_{\Ttone+1}$ and $\bar{\txv}$ in the equivalent system \eqref{eq:equivalent_system_thm}, $\hat{\tx}_{\Ttone+1,m}$ and ${\hatbar{\tx}}_m$ are defined as
\begin{align*}
\hat{\tx}_{\Ttone+1,m}&=\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_{x}P(\tx_{ \Ttone+1,m}=x|\txm_{\Ttone},\rxm_{\Ttone},\rxv_{\Ttone+1}), \quad
{\hatbar{\tx}}_m=\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_{x}P(\bar{\tx}_{m}=x|\chm,\bar{\rxv}).
\numberthis
\label{eq:MPM_detection_rule&MPM_detection_rule_equivalent}
\end{align*}
\end{conject}
The quantities $\hat{\tx}_{\Ttone+1,m}$ and ${\hatbar{\tx}}_m$ in \eqref{eq:MPM_detection_rule&MPM_detection_rule_equivalent} are called the marginal posterior mode (MPM) detectors of $\tx_{\Ttone+1,m}$ and ${\bar{\tx}}_m$ and minimize the SER $P_{e,x}$ and $\bar{P}_{e,x}$ in \eqref{eq:Pe_input_training&equivalent_SER_def}; see \cite{tanaka2001analysis,tanaka2002statistical}.
Equation \eqref{eq:equ_in_SER} conjectures the equivalence between unknown-$\chm$ and known-$\chm$ probabilities of error in estimating the input vector, conditioned on the output vector. The probability of error $\bar{P}_{e,x}$ in \eqref{eq:Pe_input_training&equivalent_SER_def} is calculated using the transformations of $\rho$ and $\sigma_{}^2$ to $\bar{\snr}$ and $\bar{\sigma}_{}^2$ as stipulated in Theorem \ref{thm:equivalence_in_Ent}.
As is true for Theorem \ref{thm:equivalence_in_Ent}, the value of Conjecture \ref{conj:equivalent_Pe_x} is its ability to convert the analysis of a system with unknown $\chm$ to a (presumably simpler) system with known $\chm$.
\subsection{SER analysis using Conjecture \ref{conj:equivalent_Pe_x}}
The SER of a large-scale system \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model} with known $\chm$ is analyzed in \cite{wen2016bayes}. We may leverage these results by using the equivalence \eqref{eq:equ_in_SER} to convert the SER of a system with unknown $\chm$ to the SER of its equivalent system. The equivalent system is defined in \eqref{eq:equivalent_system_thm}, where $\bar{\snr}$ and $\bar{\sigma}_{}^2$ can be obtained from Steps 1)-2) in Section~\ref{sec:step_by_step_computation} with $\tau\beta$ replaced by $\tau'$ defined in \eqref{eq:signal_processing_ratios}. Then, according to \cite{wen2016bayes}, $\bar{P}_{e,x}$ defined in \eqref{eq:Pe_input_training&equivalent_SER_def} is obtained by analyzing $ \rx = \sqrt{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}}\tx+\ns,$
where $\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}$ is found from \eqref{eq:qx_qxtilde_solu_A}, the distribution of $\tx$ is the same as that of elements of $\bar{\txv}$, and $\ns\sim\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,1)$.
For $a=1$ (QPSK modulation), we have
\begin{align}
\lim_{\Tlim\to\infty} \bar{P}_{e,x} = 2Q(\sqrt{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}}) - [Q(\sqrt{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}})]^2,
\label{eq:SER_QPSK_training}
\end{align}
where $Q(\cdot)$ is the tail distribution function of the standard Gaussian. Then \eqref{eq:equ_in_SER} yields that $\lim\limits_{\Tlim\to\infty} P_{e,x}$ is also given by \eqref{eq:SER_QPSK_training}.
When $\alpha$ is large, \eqref{eq:qx_qxtilde_solu_A} yields that $\msea{\tx}$ decays exponentially to zero for $a=1$, and $\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}\approx\alpha\bar{\snr}\cdot\chi(\bar{\snr},\bar{\sigma}_{}^2).$
Then, SER in \eqref{eq:SER_QPSK_training} can be approximated as
\begin{align}
\lim_{\Tlim\to\infty} P_{e,x} \approx 2Q(\sqrt{\alpha\bar{\snr}\cdot\chi(\bar{\snr},\bar{\sigma}_{}^2)}),
\label{eq:large_ration_SER_approx}
\end{align}
where $\bar{\snr}$ and $\bar{\sigma}_{}^2$ obtained from \eqref{eq:SNR_var_equivalent} are not functions of $\alpha$, and $\chi(\cdot,\cdot)$ is defined in \eqref{eq:chi_value} for finite $b$ and in \eqref{eq:linear_Ent_chi} for $b=\infty$. This shows that the SER can be made arbitrarily small when $\alpha$ increases, no matter how small $b$ and $\tau'$ are. It is perhaps surprising that all transmitted symbols can be correctly identified even if the number of training signals is smaller than the number of transmitters ($\tau'<1$).
Fig. \ref{fig:alpha_vs_SER_QPSK} shows SER vs $\alpha$ with $a=1$ for $b=1, \infty$ and $\tau'=0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4$, where we can see that the SER can be arbitrarily small as long as $\alpha$ is large enough.
The required $\tau'$ for training vs SNR to achieve 1\% SER with $a=1$ for $b=1, 2, \infty$ and $\alpha=10, 40$ is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:SNR_vs_tau}. Observe that $\tau'$ is very large at low SNR and the SNR at which 1\% SER can be achieved with $\tau'=2$ is considered as the ``critical SNR", below which $\tau'$ increases dramatically as SNR decreases to maintain the SER. The critical SNR can be reduced by increasing $b$ or $\alpha$. By increasing $b$, the critical SNR can only be reduced by a limited value, while by increasing $\alpha$, the critical SNR can be arbitrarily small.
The required $\alpha$ vs SNR to obtain 1\% SER with $a=1$ and $\tau'=2$ for various $b$ is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:alpha_vs_SNR_dB}. It is shown that $\alpha$ decreases as SNR increases for all $b$, and at high SNR, the values of $\alpha$ decrease faster for larger $b$.
In the extreme case when the thermal noise is negligible $(\rho=\infty)$, the quantization noise at the receivers prohibits the values of $\alpha$ from going to zero for $b=1,2,3$, and $\alpha$ goes to 0 for $b=\infty$ (linear receivers), where the channel can be estimated perfectly.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{alpha_vs_SER_QPSK_6.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Plots of SER in a large-scale limit $\lim\limits_{\Tlim\to\infty} P_{e,x}$ \eqref{eq:SER_QPSK_training} vs $\alpha$ with $a=1$ for $b=1, \infty$ and $\tau'=0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4$ at 10 dB SNR. Note that the SER can be arbitrarily small as long as $\alpha$ is large enough, as is indicated in \eqref{eq:large_ration_SER_approx}, even for $b=1$ and $\tau'<1$ where the number of training signals is smaller than the number of transmitters.}
\label{fig:alpha_vs_SER_QPSK}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{SNR_vs_tau_2.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Plots of $\tau'$ vs SNR for $a=1$ with $b=1,2,\infty$ and $\alpha=10, 40$ obtained by solving \eqref{eq:qh_qhtilde_solu_A&mse_G_vs_qh}--\eqref{eq:qx_qxtilde_solu_A} together with \eqref{eq:SER_QPSK_training} for $\lim\limits_{\Tlim\to\infty} P_{e,x}=0.01$, where $\tau\beta$ in \eqref{eq:qh_qhtilde_solu_A&mse_G_vs_qh} is replaced by $\tau'$. Note that $\tau'$ increases dramatically as SNR decreases at low SNR and $\tau'$ does not change much with SNR at high SNR, with asymptotes shown in cyan for $\alpha=10$ and in magenta for $\alpha=40$ when $\rho=\infty$. Therefore, to obtain 1\% SER with short training, the system should be operated at SNR above the ``knee", which can be considered as the SNR that achieves 1\% SER with $\tau'=2$, called the ``critical SNR". The critical SNR can be reduced by either increasing $b$ or $\alpha$. Increasing $b$ can only reduce the critical SNR by a finite amount, while increasing $\alpha$ can make the critical SNR arbitrarily small.}
\label{fig:SNR_vs_tau}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{alpha_vs_SNR_dB_2.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Plots of $\alpha$ vs SNR with $a=1$ and $\tau'=2$ that achieves 1\% SER \eqref{eq:SER_QPSK_training}. Note that $\alpha$ decreases as SNR increases and reaches asymptotes shown in cyan as $\rho=\infty$ with $b=1,2,$ and $3$, and the asymptotes are the result of the quantization noise at the receiver, similar to that shown in Fig. \eqref{fig:fixed_tau_opt_SNR_vs_alpha_2}. Perfect channel estimation can be obtained for linear receivers $(b=\infty)$, and therefore there is no asymptote.}
\label{fig:alpha_vs_SNR_dB}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Evidence of accuracy of the conjecture}
\label{sec:finite_OK}
For $a=1$, we show numerically that $\lim\limits_{\Tlim\to\infty} \bar{P}_{e,x}$ obtained from \eqref{eq:SER_QPSK_training} is accurate even for reasonable values of $\tn$. We need to compute the estimate $\hat{\tx}_{\Ttone+1,m}$ shown in \eqref{eq:MPM_detection_rule&MPM_detection_rule_equivalent}, but this is complicated even for small $\tn$. We instead use an approximation: first, we obtain a channel estimate $\tilde{\chm}$ by using the transmitted and received training signals $(\txm_{\Ttone},\rxm_{\Ttone})$; then, we treat the estimated channel $\tilde{\chm}$ as the true channel, while the channel estimation error is treated as part of the additive Gaussian noise; finally, we estimate each element of the transmitted data vector $\txv_{\Ttone+1}$ by using $\tilde{\chm}$ and the corresponding received vector $\rxv_{\Ttone+1}$ through the following model:
\begin{align}
\rxv_{\Ttone+1} = {\mathbf{f}}\left(\sqrt{{\rho}/{\tn}}\tilde{\chm}\txv_{\Ttone+1}+\tilde{\nv}_{\Ttone+1}\right),
\label{eq:equivalent_MMSE_detection_model}
\end{align}
where $\tilde{\nv}_{\Ttone+1}$ includes additive noise $\nv_{\Ttone+1}$ and the channel estimation error.
We apply a generalized approximate message passing (GAMP)-based algorithm proposed in \cite{wen2016bayes} twice, once to obtain $\tilde{\chm}$, and then again for the estimate of $\txv_{\Ttone+1}$ from \eqref{eq:equivalent_MMSE_detection_model}. This algorithm as used in \cite{wen2016bayes} is applied to joint channel and data estimation by processing the received training and data signals jointly. We use it to estimate the channel from only the training signals, and estimate the data from only the received data signals (treating the estimated channel as known). The three steps of our algorithm are summarized here: first, we obtain $\tilde{\chm}$ from the training signals $(\txm_{\Ttone},\rxm_{\Ttone})$ by using the GAMP-based algorithm; second, we obtain $\msea{\chm}$ by solving \eqref{eq:qh_qhtilde_solu_A&mse_G_vs_qh} with $\tau\beta$ replaced by $\tau'=\frac{\Ttone}{\tn}$, and we then model the relationship between $\txv_{\Ttone+1}$ and $\rxv_{\Ttone+1}$ as \eqref{eq:equivalent_MMSE_detection_model}; third, we estimate elements of $\txv_{\Ttone+1}$ from $\rxv_{\Ttone+1}$ by applying GAMP to the model \eqref{eq:equivalent_MMSE_detection_model}, followed by an element-wise hard-decision. Note that we treat the variances of elements of $\tilde{\chm}$ and $\tilde{\nv}_{\Ttone+1}$ as $(1-\msea{\chm})$ and $(1+\rho\msea{\chm})$ while using GAMP in the third step, where the values of the variances are obtained from Conjecture \ref{conj:equivalent_Pe_x}.
Since our algorithm applies GAMP twice, we simply call it GAMP2.
The numerical results of SER vs SNR with
$\tau'=2,\alpha=5$ and $a=1$ (QPSK modulation) for $b=1,2,3,\infty$ obtained from \eqref{eq:SER_QPSK_training} in a large-scale limit theory analysis and obtained from the GAMP2 algorithm with $\tn=50$ ($\rn=\alpha\tn=250, \Ttone=\tau'\tn=100$) are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:GAMP_vs_theory}. The numerical values of the SER for the GAMP2 algorithm are computed by averaging the SER obtained from GAMP2 algorithm for each realization of $(\chm, \txm_{\Ttone}, \rxm_{\Ttone}, \txv_{\Ttone+1}, \rxv_{\Ttone+1})$ over $10^6$ realizations. The GAMP2 results and theoretical analysis in \eqref{eq:SER_QPSK_training} clearly track each other closely.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{GAMP_vs_theory_2.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Plots of SER vs SNR with $\tau'=2,\alpha=5$ and $a=1$ for $b=1,2,3,\infty$ obtained from the theory value \eqref{eq:SER_QPSK_training} (solid lines) and from the GAMP2 algorithm with $\tn=50$ (dashed lines). The performance of GAMP2 algorithm is very close to the theory analysis with accuracy of SER up to about 0.3\%.}
\label{fig:GAMP_vs_theory}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussions and Conclusions}
We leveraged the results in \cite{gaopart1} and \cite{wen2016bayes} to derive a variety of results on training in communication and signal processing models with quantization at the input and output of the system. Our results used an equivalence relationship between an unknown-channel-with-training model and a known-channel model that applies to large-scale systems.
We have conjectured the equivalence shown in Theorem \ref{thm:equivalence_in_Ent} can be generalized to other macroscopic quantities such as probability of error and used this conjecture in a signal processing application. Evidence of the accuracy of the conjecture was provided. It would be of interest to see whether this conjecture can be proved.
We believe that the equivalence shown in Theorem \ref{thm:equivalence_in_Ent} for the model \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model} can be generalized beyond quantizers to other nonlinear functions $f(\cdot)$. In particular, since a quantizer with sufficiently high resolution and number of levels can be used to approximate a well-behaved monotonic function, it is conceivable that the theorem can readily be adapted to any monotonic function. We view this as a possible avenue for future work.
\appendices
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:equivalence_in_Ent}}
\label{app:proof_equivalence}
We prove \eqref{eq:equi_in_MuI}--\eqref{eq:equi_in_Ent_Y} by deriving the expressions of both sides of the equality and noticing that they are the same.
\subsection{Definition of some functions}
\label{subsec:function_def}
To compute the quantities in \eqref{eq:equi_in_MuI}--\eqref{eq:equi_in_Ent_Y}, we first define $I_{\rm AWGN}(\lambda,p(\cdot))$, $\cE(\lambda,p(\cdot))$, $\Enta[](\gamma,s),$ and $\chi(\gamma,s)$ as below.
Let $I_{\rm AWGN}(\lambda,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))$ and $\cE(\lambda,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))$ be
\begin{align}
I_{\rm AWGN}(\lambda,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))&=-\E_{\rx}[\log_2\E_x(e^{-|y-\sqrt{\lambda}x|^2})]-\log_2e,
\label{eq:MuI_AWGN_def}
\\
\cE(\lambda,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))&=\E_{x,y}(|x-\int x\cdot p(x|y)dx|^2),
\numberthis
\label{eq:MSE_AWGN_def}
\end{align}
where $x$ is a complex number whose real and imaginary parts $x_{\rm R}$ and $x_{\rm I}$ are {\it iid}\xspace with distribution $p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)$. The distribution of $x$ is
$p(x)=p_{\tilde{x}}(x_{\rm R})\cdot p_{\tilde{x}}(x_{\rm I})$,
and the joint distribution of $(x,y)$ is
\begin{align}
p(x,y)=p(x)\cdot \frac{1}{\pi}e^{-|\rx-\sqrt{\lambda}x|^2},
\label{eq:p_wy_joint}
\end{align}
and $p(x|y)$ is the conditional distribution of $x$ conditioned on $y$
Note that $(x,y)$ that satisfies the joint distribution \eqref{eq:p_wy_joint} can be modeled as
\begin{align}
\rx=\sqrt{\lambda}x+\ns,
\label{eq:AWGN_tilde_q1}
\end{align}
where $\ns\sim\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ is independent of $x$. \eqref{eq:AWGN_tilde_q1} describes a single-input-single-output (SISO) additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel. $I_{\rm AWGN}(\lambda,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))$ shows the mutual information between the $x$ and $\rx$, and
$\cE(\lambda,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))$ shows the mean-square error (MSE) of the MMSE estimate of $\tx$ conditioned on $\rx$.
$I_{\rm AWGN}(\lambda,p_{\tilde{g}}(\cdot))$ and $\cE(\lambda,p_{\tilde{g}}(\cdot))$ are defined similarly by replacing $p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)$ with $p_{\tilde{g}}(\cdot)$.
For a $b$-bit uniform quantizer $f(\cdot)$, we define $\Enta[](\gamma,s)$ and $\chi(\gamma,s)$ as
\begin{align*}
\Enta[](\gamma,s)&=-2\sum_{k=1}^{2^{b}}\int_{\mathcal{R}}dz\frac{e^{-\frac{z^2}{2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\Psi_k(\sqrt{\gamma}z,s) \log_2\Psi_k(\sqrt{\gamma}z,s),
\numberthis
\label{eq:Ent_V_o_def}\\
\chi(\gamma,s)&=\sum_{k=1}^{2^{b}}\int_{\mathcal{R}}dz\frac{e^{-\frac{z^2}{2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{(\Psi'_k(\sqrt{\gamma} z,s))^2}{\Psi_k(\sqrt{\gamma} z,s)},
\numberthis
\label{eq:chi_value}
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\Psi_k(w,s)&=\Phi\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}r_k-w}{\sqrt{s}}\right)-\Phi\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}r_{k-1}-w}{\sqrt{s}}\right),
\numberthis
\label{eq:psi_func} \\
\Psi'_k(w,s)&=\frac{e^{-\frac{(\sqrt{2}r_k-w)^2}{2s}}-e^{-\frac{(\sqrt{2}r_{k-1}-w)^2}{2s}}}{\sqrt{{2\pi s}}},
\numberthis
\label{eq:psi_prime_b}
\end{align*}
with $r_k$ defined in \eqref{eq:threshold_levels},
and $\Phi(\cdot)$ is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$.
For a linear function $f(w)=w$ ($b=\infty$), $\Enta[](\gamma,s)$ and $\chi(\gamma,s)$ are defined as
\begin{align}
\Enta[](\gamma,s)=\log_2 (\pi es),\quad \chi(\gamma,s)= {1}/{s},
\label{eq:linear_Ent_chi}
\end{align}
and the computed $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{}$ and $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{^+}{}$ are then differential entropies.
\subsection{Left sides of \eqref{eq:equi_in_MuI}--\eqref{eq:equi_in_Ent_Y}}
We first derive expressions of $\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}, \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{ ^+}{},$ and $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{}$ by using theorems developed in \cite{gaopart1}, which can be computed from a single entropy $\cH(\rxA_{\varepsilon}|\txA)=\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_{\delta=1})$, where $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_\delta)=\lim_{\Tlim\to\infty}\frac{1}{\rn\Tt}\Ent(\rxm_{\ceil{\varepsilon\Tt}}|\txm_{\ceil{\delta\Tt}}).$
$\cH(\rxA_{\varepsilon}|\txA)$ can be obtained from a quantity called asymptotic free entropy $\mathcal{F}$ through
\begin{align}
\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA) = -\frac{\mathcal{F}(\tau\beta,(\varepsilon-1)\tau\beta)}{\alpha\tau\beta},
\label{eq:Ent_Y_cond_X_tau}
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{F}(\beta_{\rm{\tau}},\beta_{\rm{d}})$ is defined as $\mathcal{F}(\beta_{\rm{\tau}},\beta_{\rm{d}}) = \lim_{\tn\to\infty}\frac{1}{\tn^2}\E\log_2 p(\rxm_{\ceil{(\beta_{\rm{\tau}}+\beta_{\rm{d}})\tn}}|\txm_{\ceil{\beta_{\rm{\tau}}\tn}}),$
which has been computed as (44) in \cite{wen2016bayes}, and is continuous in $\beta_{\rm{\tau}}$ and $\beta_{\rm{d}}$.
Following the steps in \cite[Section~III]{gaopart1}:
\begin{itemize}
\item [1)]
From the model \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_model}, it is clear that Assumption A1 in \cite{gaopart1} is met, i.e.
\begin{align*}
&p(\rxm_{\Tb}|\txm_{\Tb};\chm)=\prod_{t=1}^{\Tb}p(\rxv_t|\txv_t;\chm),\quad p(\txm_\Tb)=p(\txm_{\Tt})\prod_{t=\Tt+1}^{\Tb}p(\txv_t),
\end{align*}
where $p(\rxv_t|\txv_t;\chm)$ is a fixed conditional distribution for all $t=1,2,\ldots,\Tb$, and $p(\txv_t)$ is a fixed distribution for all $t=\Tt+1,\Tt+2,\ldots,\Tb$.
The dimension of $\chm$ depends on the blocklength $\Tb$ through \eqref{eq:ratios}.
Furthermore, the input $\txv_t$ are {\it iid}\xspace for all $t$. Then, we can express the system by a set of distributions defined as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{P}(\Tb,\tau)=\{p(\rxv|\txv;\chm),p(\chm),p(\txv)\},
\label{eq:P_set_iid_A_input}
\end{align}
which are the conditional distribution of the system, the distribution of $\chm$, and the input distribution.
\item[2)]
For given $\alpha$ and $\beta$, we define $F(\tau,\varepsilon)=\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA),$
where the entropy $\cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA)$ is computed through $\mathcal{P}(\Tb,\tau)$ defined in \eqref{eq:P_set_iid_A_input}. Then, \eqref{eq:Ent_Y_cond_X_tau} yields
\begin{align}
F(\tau,\varepsilon)=-\frac{\mathcal{F}(\tau\beta,(\varepsilon-1)\tau\beta)}{\alpha\tau\beta},
\label{eq:F_tau_P}
\end{align}
\item[3)]
Theorem 2 in \cite{gaopart1} then yields $ \cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_{\delta})=u\cdot F\left(u\tau,\frac{\varepsilon-u}{\delta}+1\right)$
for all $\varepsilon,\delta>0$, where $u=\min(\delta,\varepsilon)$.
Then, \eqref{eq:F_tau_P} yields $ \cH(\rxA_\varepsilon|\txA_{\delta})=
-\frac{1}{\alpha\tau\beta}\mathcal{F}(u\tau\beta,(\varepsilon-u)\tau\beta).$
\item[4)]
Corollary 1(b) in \cite{gaopart1} then yields
\begin{align*}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{\varepsilon}=\begin{cases}
\frac{-1}{\alpha\tau\beta}\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}\mathcal{F}(\varepsilon\tau\beta,0), &\varepsilon< \delta; \\
\frac{-1}{\alpha\tau\beta}\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}\mathcal{F}(\delta\tau\beta,(\varepsilon-\delta)\tau\beta), & \varepsilon> \delta.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
for all $\varepsilon,\delta>0$.
Since $\txv_t$ is independent of $(\txv_k,\rxv_k)$ when $t\neq k$, we have $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{\varepsilon}=\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon},$
for all $\delta>\varepsilon>0$.
\item[5)]
Using $\mathcal{F}(\cdot,\cdot)$ in \cite{wen2016bayes} and Corollary 1(b) in \cite{gaopart1}, we can verify that
\begin{align*}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{^+}{} = \lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 1} \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align}
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{^+}{} = -\frac{1}{\alpha\tau\beta}\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}\mathcal{F}(\varepsilon\tau\beta,0)|_{\varepsilon=1}.
\label{eq:Ent_Y_cond_X}
\end{align}
Moreover, using $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{\varepsilon}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 1}\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}=\lim_{\delta{\nearrow} 1}\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\delta}{}.
\end{align*}
Thus, Assumption A2 is met via Corollary 1(c) in \cite{gaopart1}, i.e.
\begin{align*}
\text{A2:}
\qquad\quad \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{^+}{} &= \lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 1} \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{\varepsilon^+}{\varepsilon},
\quad \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{} =\lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 1} \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon},
\end{align*}
and therefore, $\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{} =\lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 1} \EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{\varepsilon}=-\frac{1}{\alpha\tau\beta}\lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}\mathcal{F}(\tau\beta,(\varepsilon-1)\tau\beta).$
\item[6)]
Finally, Theorem 1 in \cite{gaopart1} yields
\comm{
\begin{align*}
\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{} =& -\frac{1}{\alpha\tau\beta}\lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}\mathcal{F}(\tau\beta,\varepsilon\tau\beta)\\
&+\frac{1}{\alpha\tau\beta}\lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}\mathcal{F}((1+\varepsilon)\tau\beta,0)|_{\varepsilon=1}.
\numberthis
\label{eq:IX_Y_tau}
\end{align*}}
\begin{align*}
\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{} =& -\frac{1}{\alpha\tau\beta}\lim_{\varepsilon{\searrow} 1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}\mathcal{F}(\tau\beta,(\varepsilon-1)\tau\beta)+\frac{1}{\alpha\tau\beta}\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}\mathcal{F}(\varepsilon\tau\beta,0)|_{\varepsilon=1}.
\numberthis
\label{eq:IX_Y_tau}
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
By using the expression of $\mathcal{F}(\beta_{\rm{\tau}},\beta_{\rm{d}})$ in \cite{wen2016bayes}, together with\comm{\eqref{eq:Ent_Y_cond_X}, \eqref{eq:Ent_Y}, and} \eqref{eq:IX_Y_tau}, we have:
\begin{align*}
\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}
= \Enta[]({\rhoq_{ \chs}q_{ x}},\sigma_{}^2+\rho-&\rhoq_{ \chs}q_{ x})- \Enta[]({\rhoq_{ \chs}},\sigma_{}^2+\rho-\rhoq_{ \chs})\\ &+\frac{1}{\alpha}(I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))+\frac{q_{ x}\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}-\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}}{\ln 2}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:IXY_value_A}
\\
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{ ^+}{} = \Enta[]({\rhoq_{ \chs}}, &\sigma_{}^2+\rho-\rhoq_{ \chs}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:HY_X_value_A}
\\
\EntInnC{\txA}{\rxA}{}{} = \Enta[]({\rhoq_{ \chs}q_{ x}},\sigma_{}^2+\rho-\rhoq_{ \chs}q_{ x}) +&\frac{1}{\alpha}(I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))+\frac{q_{ x}\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}-\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}}{\ln 2}),
\numberthis
\label{eq:HY_value_A}
\end{align*}
where $\Enta[](\cdot,\cdot)$ is defined in \eqref{eq:Ent_V_o_def} when $f(\cdot)$ is a $b$-bit uniform quantizer and is defined in \eqref{eq:linear_Ent_chi} when $f(\cdot)$ is linear with $f(w)=w$, $I_{\rm AWGN}(\cdot,\cdot)$ is defined in \eqref{eq:MuI_AWGN_def}, $q_{ \chs}$ is the solution of
\comm{
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\qtilde_{\chs}} %{\tilde{q}_{ \chs}=\tau&\beta\rho\cdot\chi(\rhoq_{ \chs},\sigma_{}^2+\rho-\rhoq_{ \chs}),\\
q_{ \chs}&=1-\cE(\qtilde_{\chs}} %{\tilde{q}_{ \chs},p_{\tilde{g}}(\cdot)),
\end{align}
\label{eq:qh_qhtilde_solu_A}
\end{subequations}
}
\begin{align}
\qtilde_{\chs}} %{\tilde{q}_{ \chs}=\tau&\beta\rho\cdot\chi(\rhoq_{ \chs},\sigma_{}^2+\rho-\rhoq_{ \chs}),\qquad
q_{ \chs}=1-\cE(\qtilde_{\chs}} %{\tilde{q}_{ \chs},p_{\tilde{g}}(\cdot)), \qquad 1-q_{ \chs} = \msea{\chm},
\label{eq:qh_qhtilde_solu_A&mse_G_vs_qh}
\end{align}
where $\chi(\cdot,\cdot), \cE(\cdot,\cdot)$ are defined in \eqref{eq:chi_value}, \eqref{eq:MSE_AWGN_def}, and $(q_{ x},\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x})$ are the solution of
\begin{align}
\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}=\alpha\rhoq_{ \chs}&\cdot\chi({\rhoq_{ \chs}q_{ x}},\sigma_{}^2+\rho-\rhoq_{ \chs}q_{ x}), \qquad q_{ x}=1-\cE(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)).
\label{eq:qx_qxtilde_solu_A}
\end{align}
\subsection{Right sides of \eqref{eq:equi_in_MuI}--\eqref{eq:equi_in_Ent_Y}}
\label{sec:Ent_known_G}
When $\chm$ is known, the entropy $\lim\limits_{\Tlim\to\infty}\frac{1}{\rn}\Ent(\bar{\rxv}|\chm)$ can be computed through
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\lim\limits_{\Tlim\to\infty}&\frac{1}{\rn}\Ent(\bar{\rxv}|\chm)=-\frac{1}{\alpha\beta}\lim_{\tn\to\infty}\frac{1}{\tn^2}\E\log_2 p(\bar{\rxm}_{\ceil{\beta\tn}}|\chm)
\\
&=-\frac{1}{\alpha\beta}\left(-\alpha\beta\Enta[](\bar{\snr}\qxequ,\bar{\sigma}_{}^2+\bar{\snr}-\bar{\snr}\qxequ)-\betaI_{\rm AWGN}(\qxtildeequ,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))+\frac{\beta(1-\qxequ)\qxtildeequ}{\ln2}\right),
\end{split}
\label{eq:entropy_known&known_G_block_entropy}
\end{equation}
where $\lim\limits_{\tn\to\infty}\frac{1}{\tn^2}\E\log_2 p(\bar{\rxm}_{\ceil{\beta\tn}}|\chm)$ is available in \cite{wen2016bayes} and $(\qxequ,\qxtildeequ)$ are the solutions of
\begin{align}
\qxtildeequ=&\alpha\bar{\snr}\cdot\chi({\bar{\snr}\qxequ},\bar{\sigma}_{}^2+\bar{\snr}-\bar{\snr}\qxequ),\qquad\qxequ=1-\cE(\qxtildeequ,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)).
\label{eq:qx_solu_known_G}
\end{align}
Therefore, \eqref{eq:entropy_known&known_G_block_entropy} yields
\begin{align*}
&\lim\limits_{\Tlim\to\infty}\frac{1}{\rn}\Ent(\bar{\rxv}|\chm)=\Enta[](\bar{\snr}\qxequ,\bar{\sigma}_{}^2+\bar{\snr}-\bar{\snr}\qxequ)+\frac{1}{\alpha}\left(I_{\rm AWGN}(\qxtildeequ,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))+\frac{\qxequ\qxtildeequ-\qxtildeequ}{\ln 2}\right).
\numberthis
\label{eq:entropy_yt_known_G}
\end{align*}
Since the elements of $\chm$ are {\it iid}\xspace $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,1)$, for any given $\bar{\txv}$, the elements of $\sqrt{\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\tn}}\chm\bar{\txv}$ are {\it iid}\xspace $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,\frac{\bar{\snr}\bar{\txv}^{\mathsf{H}}\bar{\txv}}{\tn})$. Also, since the elements of $\bar{\txv}$ are {\it iid}\xspace with zero mean and unit variance, $\frac{\bar{\snr}\bar{\txv}^{\mathsf{H}}\bar{\txv}}{\tn}$ converges to $\bar{\snr}$ and the elements of $\sqrt{\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\tn}}\chm\bar{\txv}$ converge to {\it iid}\xspace $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,\bar{\snr})$ as $\tn\to\infty$. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
&\lim_{\Tlim\to\infty}\frac{1}{\rn}\Ent(\bar{\rxv}|\chm,\bar{\txv}) =\Enta[]({\bar{\snr}},\bar{\sigma}_{}^2).
\numberthis
\label{eq:Ent_Y_cond_X_know_G}
\end{align*}
Then, \eqref{eq:entropy_yt_known_G} and \eqref{eq:Ent_Y_cond_X_know_G} yield
\begin{align*}
& \lim_{\Tlim\to\infty}\frac{1}{\rn}\MuI(\bar{\txv};\bar{\rxv}|\chm) = \Enta[](\bar{\snr}\qxequ,\bar{\sigma}_{}^2+\bar{\snr}-\bar{\snr}\qxequ)-\Enta[]({\bar{\snr}},\bar{\sigma}_{}^2)+\frac{1}{\alpha}\left(I_{\rm AWGN}(\qxtildeequ,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))+\frac{\qxequ\qxtildeequ-\qxtildeequ}{\ln 2}\right)
\numberthis
\label{eq:MuI_know_G}
\end{align*}
where $(\qxequ,\qxtildeequ)$ are the solutions of \eqref{eq:qx_solu_known_G}. Notice that $\qxtildeequ = \qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}$ and $\qxequ = q_{ x}$, and combine with \eqref{eq:SNR_var_equivalent}, we can see that \eqref{eq:entropy_yt_known_G}--\eqref{eq:MuI_know_G} are the same as \eqref{eq:IXY_value_A}--\eqref{eq:HY_value_A}, and thus finish the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:equivalence_in_Ent}.
\section{$\cR_{\rm opt}$ and $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ for Large $\alpha$}
\label{app:large_alpha_rate_and_training}
To prove \eqref{eq:large_alpha_rate_saturation}--\eqref{eq:tauopt_one_bit_output}, we analyze $b=\infty$ and $b=1$ separately.
\subsection{Large $\alpha$ with $b=\infty$}
\label{sec:largea_binf}
$\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ can be computed by following the steps in Section \ref{sec:step_by_step_computation}. When $b=\infty$, \eqref{eq:IXY_value_A} yields
\comm{
\begin{align*}
\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{} &= \frac{1}{\ln 2}\Big(\alpha\ln\left(1+\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{\tx}\right)-\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}\msea{x}\Big)\\
&+I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)),
\numberthis
\label{eq:IXY_linear_output_temp1}
\end{align*}}
\begin{align*}
\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{} &= \frac{1}{\ln 2}\Big(\alpha\ln\left(1+\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{\tx}\right)-\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}\msea{x}\Big)+I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)),
\numberthis
\label{eq:IXY_linear_output_temp1}
\end{align*}
where $p_{\tilde{x}}(x)$ is the distribution of real/imaginary part of elements of $\txv_t$, $\bar{\snr}, \bar{\sigma}_{}^2$ are computed from \eqref{eq:SNR_var_equivalent} with $\msea{\chm}$ being the solution of \eqref{eq:qh_qhtilde_solu_A&mse_G_vs_qh}, and $\msea{\tx}, \qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}$ are the solution of \eqref{eq:qx_qxtilde_solu_A}, which is
\comm{
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}&=\frac{\alpha\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}}{1+\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{x}},\label{eq:qx_qxtilde_solu_linear_fx_a}
\\
\msea{x}&=\cE(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)).
\label{eq:qx_qxtilde_solu_linear_fx_b}
\end{align}
\label{eq:qx_qxtilde_solu_linear_fx}%
\end{subequations}
}
\begin{align*}
\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}&=\frac{\alpha\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}}{1+\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{x}},\qquad
\msea{x}=\cE(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)).
\numberthis
\label{eq:qx_qxtilde_solu_linear_fx}%
\end{align*}
Then, \eqref{eq:IXY_linear_output_temp1} becomes
\comm{
\begin{align*}
\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{} &= \frac{\alpha}{\ln 2}\left(\ln\left(1+\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{x}\right)-\frac{\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{x}}{1+\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{x}}\right)\\
&+I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)).
\numberthis
\label{eq:IXY_linear_output}
\end{align*}}
\begin{align*}
\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{} &= \frac{\alpha}{\ln 2}\left(\ln\left(1+\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{x}\right)-\frac{\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{x}}{1+\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{x}}\right)+I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)).
\numberthis
\label{eq:IXY_linear_output}
\end{align*}
The mean-square error of the MMSE estimate is $\cE(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))$ defined in \eqref{eq:MSE_AWGN_def}, which is upper-bounded by the mean-square error of the LMMSE estimate, therefore we get
\begin{align}
0\leq \cE(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))\leq \frac{1}{1+\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}},
\label{eq:MSE_vs_LMMSE}
\\
\msea{x}<\frac{1}{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}},\quad 0\leq \frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{x}\leq \frac{1}{\alpha-1}.
\label{eq:bound_mse_x}
\end{align}
Because $\ln(1+w)-\frac{w}{1+w}$ is monotonically increasing in $w$ for $w\geq 0$, \eqref{eq:bound_mse_x} yields $0\leq \alpha\left(\ln\left(1+\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{x}\right)-\frac{\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{x}}{1+\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{x}}\right)\leq \alpha(\frac{1}{\alpha-1}-\frac{1}{\alpha})=\frac{1}{\alpha-1}.$
Therefore, \eqref{eq:IXY_linear_output} yields $I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))\leq \alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{} \leq \frac{1}{\ln 2(\alpha-1)}+ I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)),$
thus
\begin{align}
\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}=\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)).
\label{eq:linear_output_large_ratio_MuI}
\end{align}
As $\alpha\to\infty$, \eqref{eq:qx_qxtilde_solu_linear_fx} and \eqref{eq:bound_mse_x} imply that $\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}\to\infty$, and therefore $I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))\to\Ent(\tx)$ which is the entropy of $\tx$.
For $2^{2a}-$QAM moduation at the transmitter generated by $a$-bit DAC's, we have $\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}=\Ent(\tx)=2a$
for any finite $a$, and \eqref{eq:opt_rate_per_tx}, \eqref{eq:tau_opt_value} then yield
\begin{align}
\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\cR_{\rm opt}=2a,\quad \lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\tau_{{\rm opt}} = 0.
\label{eq:large_alpha_rate_limit_temp}
\end{align}
This shows \eqref{eq:large_alpha_rate_saturation}.
When $a=1$, $\cE(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))$ is upper-bounded by the MSE obtained through a hard decision, or
\begin{align}
\msea{x}=\cE(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))\leq 4Q(\sqrt{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}}).
\label{eq:upp_bound_msex}
\end{align}
For large $\alpha$, \eqref{eq:qx_qxtilde_solu_linear_fx} and \eqref{eq:upp_bound_msex} imply that $\msea{\tx}$ decays exponentially to zero, and therefore
\begin{align*}
\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}&\approx\alpha{\bar{\snr}}/{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2},
\numberthis
\label{eq:qxtilde_large_alpha_approx}
\\
\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{} = \frac{\alpha}{2\ln 2}\left(\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{x}\right)^2&+I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)) + o(\msea{x}^2).
\numberthis
\label{eq:IXY_large_alpha_approx}
\end{align*}
Equation \eqref{eq:large_alpha_rate_limit_temp} implies that $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ is small when $\alpha$ is large, and therefore, in the following approximations, we only keep the dominant terms in $\tau$. Equations \eqref{eq:qh_qhtilde_solu_A&mse_G_vs_qh} and \eqref{eq:SNR_var_equivalent} yield $q_{ \chs}\approx\frac{\rho}{1+\rho}\tau\beta$ and $\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\approx\left(\frac{\rho}{1+\rho}\right)^2\tau\beta$,
and \eqref{eq:qxtilde_large_alpha_approx} then yields $\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}\approx {\rho}^2\tau\beta\alpha/\left({1+\rho}\right)^2$.
It can be shown when $a=1$ that for some $\nu>0$, $\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}\approx 2-\nu e^{-\frac{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}}{2}}\sqrt{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}}$, and that therefore $\tau_{{\rm opt}}\approx\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_{\tau}(1-\tau)(2-\nu e^{-\frac{\nu_1\alpha\tau}{2}}\sqrt{\nu_1\alpha\tau})$ where $\nu_1=(\frac{\rho}{1+\rho})^2\beta$. Taking the derivative with respect to $\tau$ and setting it equal to zero produces \eqref{eq:tauopt_linear_output}.
\subsection{Large $\alpha$ with $b=1$}
We again compute $\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}$ by following the steps in Section \ref{sec:step_by_step_computation}. When $b=1$, \eqref{eq:IXY_value_A} yields
\begin{align*}
&\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}=4\alpha\int_{\mathcal{R}}dz\frac{e^{-\frac{z^2}{2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}[ Q\left(\sqrt{{\bar{c}}}z\right)\log_2 Q\left(\sqrt{{\bar{c}}}z\right)\\
&-Q\left({A}z\right)\log_2 Q\left({A}z\right)]-\frac{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}\msea{x}}{\ln2}+I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)),
\numberthis
\label{eq:one_bit_tx_one_bit_rx_rate_2}
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
{\bar{c}} = \frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2},\quad {A}=\sqrt{\frac{{\bar{c}}(1-\msea{x})}{1+{\bar{c}}\msea{x}}},
\end{align*}
$\bar{\snr},\bar{\sigma}_{}^2$ are computed from \eqref{eq:SNR_var_equivalent} which are not functions of $\alpha$, and ($\msea{\tx},\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}$) are the solution of \eqref{eq:qx_qxtilde_solu_A}, which can be expressed as
\begin{align}
\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}=\int_{\mathcal{R}}dz&\frac{e^{-\frac{z^2}{2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{\alpha {\bar{c}}}{\pi(1+{\bar{c}}\msea{\tx})}\frac{ e^{- {A}^2 z^2}}{Q({A} z)},
\quad \msea{\tx}=\cE(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)).
\label{eq:qx_tilde_one_bit_value}
\end{align}
Since $0<Q(Az)<1$, \eqref{eq:qx_tilde_one_bit_value} yields
\begin{align*}
&\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}\geq \frac{\alpha {\bar{c}}}{\pi(1+{\bar{c}}\msea{\tx})}\int_{\mathcal{R}}dz\frac{e^{-\frac{1+2{A}^2}{2}z^2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}=\frac{\alpha {\bar{c}}\sqrt{1+2{A}^2}}{\pi(1+{\bar{c}}\msea{\tx})}\geq\frac{{\bar{c}}\alpha}{\pi(1+{\bar{c}})}.
\numberthis
\label{eq:qxtilde_larger_ratio}
\end{align*}
Similar to \eqref{eq:MSE_vs_LMMSE}, we have $0\leq \cE(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))=\msea{x}\leq \frac{1}{1+\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}}.$
Then, \eqref{eq:qx_tilde_one_bit_value} and \eqref{eq:qxtilde_larger_ratio} yield
\begin{align*}
0\leq \msea{\tx} <\frac{1}{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}}\leq \frac{\pi(1+{\bar{c}})}{{\bar{c}} }\cdot \frac{1}{\alpha}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, $\msea{\tx}$ becomes small for large $\alpha$. A Taylor expansion of \eqref{eq:one_bit_tx_one_bit_rx_rate_2} obtains
\begin{align*}
&\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}=\frac{\alpha}{\pi\ln 2}\int_{\mathcal{R}}dz\frac{e^{-\frac{1+2{A}^2}{2}z^2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}Q({A}z)}\frac{3{A}^2+2{A}-1}{(1+{A}^2)(1+({{A}+{\epsilon}})^2)}{\epsilon}^2+I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)) +O(\alpha\msea{\tx}^2),
\end{align*}
where ${\epsilon} = \frac{(1+{\bar{c}}){\bar{c}}\msea{\tx}}{(\sqrt{{\bar{c}}}+{A})(1+{\bar{c}}\msea{\tx})}$.
Thus, $ \lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}=\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))$.
\comm{
\begin{align*}
&\E_z \left(Q\left(\sqrt{{\bar{c}}}z\right)\ln Q\left(\sqrt{{\bar{c}}}z\right)-Q\left({A}z\right)\ln Q\left({A}z\right)\right)\\
=&\frac{{A}}{2\pi({A}^2+1)}\E_z\frac{e^{-{A}^2z^2}}{Q({A}z)}{\epsilon} + O({\epsilon}^2).
\numberthis
\label{eq:diff_one_bit_f}
\end{align*}
}
\comm{
\begin{align*}
&\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}=\frac{\alpha}{\pi\ln 2}\E_z\frac{e^{-{A}^2z^2}}{Q({A}z)}\Big(\frac{2{A}}{{A}^2+1}{\epsilon}-\frac{{\bar{c}}\msea{\tx}}{1+{\bar{c}}\msea{\tx}}\Big)\\
&\qquad+I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)) +O(\alpha\msea{\tx}^2).
\numberthis
\label{eq:approx_one_bit_large_ratio}
\end{align*}
}
\comm{
\begin{align*}
&\frac{2{A}}{{A}^2+1}{\epsilon}-\frac{{\bar{c}}\msea{\tx}}{1+{\bar{c}}\msea{\tx}}=\frac{2{A}}{{A}^2+1}{\epsilon}-\frac{\sqrt{{\bar{c}}}+{A}}{1+{\bar{c}}}{\epsilon} \\
=&\frac{2{A}}{{A}^2+1}{\epsilon}-\frac{2{A}+{\epsilon}}{1+({{A}+{\epsilon}})^2}{\epsilon}\\
=&\frac{3{A}^2+2{A}-1}{(1+{A}^2)(1+({{A}+{\epsilon}})^2)}{\epsilon}^2.
\numberthis
\label{eq:error_small_order}
\end{align*}
}
The remaining steps are similar to $b=\infty$ in Appendix \ref{sec:largea_binf} and are omitted.
\comm{
Therefore, for large $\alpha$, \eqref{eq:delta_tau_def}, \eqref{eq:approx_one_bit_large_ratio}, and \eqref{eq:error_small_order} yield $\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}=I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))+O(\alpha\msea{\tx}^2).$
Then, \eqref{eq:delta_tau_bound} yields $\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}=\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}I_{\rm AWGN}(\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)),$
for any $\tau>0$. When $\alpha\to\infty$, we have $\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}\to\infty$ as a result of \eqref{eq:qxtilde_larger_ratio}. Therefore, we have $\lim_{ \alpha\to\infty}\alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{}=\Ent(\tx)=2a$
for any finite $a$, which proves \eqref{eq:large_alpha_rate_saturation}, and we get $\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\cR_{\rm opt}=\Ent(\tx)$, and $\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\tau_{{\rm opt}} = 0.$
When $a=1$ and $b=1$, similar to \eqref{eq:upp_bound_msex}, we have $\msea{x}\leq 4Q(\sqrt{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}})$.
$\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\tau_{{\rm opt}} = 0$ implies that $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ is small for large $\alpha$. When $\tau\beta$ is small, \eqref{eq:qh_qhtilde_solu_A&mse_G_vs_qh}, \eqref{eq:SNR_var_equivalent} and \eqref{eq:c_A_d_def} yield $1-\msea{\chm}\approx\frac{2}{\pi}\frac{\rho}{1+\rho}\tau\beta$, and ${\bar{c}}\approx\frac{2}{\pi}(\frac{\rho}{1+\rho})^2\tau\beta,$
and therefore \eqref{eq:qx_tilde_one_bit_value} yields $\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}\approx\left(\frac{2}{\pi}\frac{\rho}{1+\rho}\right)^2\tau\beta\alpha.$
With a derivation similar to \eqref{eq:approx_IXY_error_QPSK}--\eqref{eq:tauopt_linear_output_temp}, we obtain $\tau_{{\rm opt}}\approx 2\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\rho+\sigma_{}^2}{\rho}\right)^2\frac{\ln\alpha}{\beta\alpha}$, which proves \eqref{eq:tauopt_one_bit_output}.
}
\comm{
\section{Proof of \eqref{eq:approx_IXY_error_QPSK}--\eqref{eq:tauopt_linear_output_temp}}
\label{app:high_SNR_QPSK}
\noindent (1) \emph{Proof of \eqref{eq:approx_IXY_error_QPSK}:}
For
$a=1$ where $p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)$ is uniform in $\{\frac{\pm1 }{\sqrt{2}}\}$, $I_{\rm AWGN}(\lambda,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))$ defined in \eqref{eq:MuI_AWGN_def} is
\begin{align*}
&I_{\rm AWGN}(\lambda,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)) = \frac{2}{\ln2}(\lambda-\int_{\mathcal{R}}dz\frac{e^{-\frac{z^2}{2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\ln\cosh(\sqrt{\lambda}z+\lambda)).
\numberthis
\label{eq:MuI_one_bit_input}
\end{align*}
We prove \eqref{eq:approx_IXY_error_QPSK}
by obtaining upper and lower bounds on $2-I_{\rm AWGN}(\lambda,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))$ and showing the bounds are both approximately proportional to $e^{-\frac{\lambda}{2}}\sqrt{\lambda}$ for large $\lambda$.
We first get an upper bound on $2-I_{\rm AWGN}(\lambda,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))$. $\frac{1}{2}I_{\rm AWGN}(\lambda,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))$ is lower bounded by the channel capacity of a binary symmetry channel (BSC) with crossover probability $p=Q(\sqrt{\lambda})$. Therefore, we have $2-I_{\rm AWGN}(\lambda,p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)) \leq 2(-p\log_2(p)-(1-p)\log_2(1-p)).$
When $\lambda$ is large, $p$ is small, and we have $-p\log_2(p)-(1-p)\log_2(1-p) \approx -p\log_2 p \approx \frac{1}{2\ln 2}Q(\sqrt{{\lambda}}){\lambda},$
and therefore
\begin{align}
2-I_{\rm AWGN}({\lambda},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))\leq\frac{1}{\ln 2}Q(\sqrt{{\lambda}}){\lambda}.
\label{eq:upper_bound_err}
\end{align}
We provide a lower bound on $2-I_{\rm AWGN}({\lambda},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))$ by expressing \eqref{eq:MuI_one_bit_input} as $I_{\rm AWGN}({\lambda},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))= \frac{2}{\ln2}({\lambda}-\E_z\ln\cosh(\sqrt{{\lambda}}z+{\lambda}))$
with $z\sim\mathcal{N}(0,1)$. Then,
\comm{
\begin{align*}
&2 - I_{\rm AWGN}({\lambda},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))\\
=& 2-\frac{2}{\ln2}\E_z\ln\frac{2e^{{\lambda}}}{e^{\sqrt{{\lambda}}z+{\lambda}} + e^{-\sqrt{{\lambda}}z-{\lambda}}}\\
=&\frac{2}{\ln2}\E_z\ln\left(e^{\sqrt{{\lambda}}z} + e^{-\sqrt{{\lambda}}z-2{\lambda}}\right)\\
=&\frac{2}{\ln2}\E_z\ln\left(1+e^{-2(\sqrt{{\lambda}}z+{\lambda})}\right).
\end{align*}
}
\begin{align*}
&2 - I_{\rm AWGN}({\lambda},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))= 2-\frac{2}{\ln2}\E_z\ln\frac{2e^{{\lambda}}}{e^{\sqrt{{\lambda}}z+{\lambda}} + e^{-\sqrt{{\lambda}}z-{\lambda}}}=\frac{2}{\ln2}\E_z\ln\left(1+e^{-2(\sqrt{{\lambda}}z+{\lambda})}\right).
\end{align*}
Since $\ln(1+e^w)\geq \max(0,w)$ for any $w\in\mathcal{R}$, we have
\comm{
\begin{align*}
&2 - I_{\rm AWGN}({\lambda},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))\\
\geq& \frac{2}{\ln2}\E_z\max\left(0,-2(\sqrt{{\lambda}}z+{\lambda})\right)\\
=&\frac{2}{\ln2}\int_{-\infty}^{-\sqrt{{\lambda}}}(-2(\sqrt{{\lambda}}z+{\lambda}))dz\\
=&\frac{4}{\ln2}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{{\lambda}}{2}}\sqrt{{\lambda}}-{\lambda}Q(\sqrt{{\lambda}})\right).
\numberthis
\label{eq:lower_bound_err}
\end{align*}
}
\begin{align*}
&2 - I_{\rm AWGN}({\lambda},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot)) \geq \frac{2}{\ln2}\E_z\max\left(0,-2(\sqrt{{\lambda}}z+{\lambda})\right)=\frac{4}{\ln2}\left(\frac{e^{-\frac{{\lambda}}{2}}\sqrt{{\lambda}}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}-{\lambda}Q(\sqrt{{\lambda}})\right).
\numberthis
\label{eq:lower_bound_err}
\end{align*}
From \cite{karagiannidis2007improved}, we have $Q(w)\approx\frac{1}{1.135\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{e^{-\frac{w^2}{2}}}{w}.$
Therefore, \eqref{eq:upper_bound_err} and \eqref{eq:lower_bound_err} yield
\begin{align*}
&2-I_{\rm AWGN}({\lambda},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))\leq\frac{1}{\ln 2}Q(\sqrt{{\lambda}}){\lambda}\approx 0.507 e^{-\frac{{\lambda}}{2}}\sqrt{{\lambda}},
\numberthis
\label{eq:upper_bound_err_2}
\\
&2-I_{\rm AWGN}({\lambda},p_{\tilde{x}}(\cdot))\geq\frac{4}{\ln2}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{{\lambda}}{2}}\sqrt{{\lambda}}-{\lambda}Q(\sqrt{{\lambda}})\right)\approx 0.274 e^{-\frac{{\lambda}}{2}}\sqrt{{\lambda}}.
\numberthis
\label{eq:lower_bound_err_2}
\end{align*}
Then, \eqref{eq:upper_bound_err_2} and \eqref{eq:lower_bound_err_2} yield \eqref{eq:approx_IXY_error_QPSK} with $\nu\in[0.274,0.507]$.
\noindent (2) \emph{Proof of \eqref{eq:IXY_large_alpha_approx_2}:}
Equations \eqref{eq:IXY_large_alpha_approx} and \eqref{eq:approx_IXY_error_QPSK} yield $ 2 - \alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{} \approx \nu e^{-\frac{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}}{2}}\sqrt{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}}- \frac{\alpha}{2\ln 2}\left(\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{x}\right)^2$.
Equations \eqref{eq:upp_bound_msex} and \eqref{eq:qxtilde_large_alpha_approx} then yields
\begin{align*}
\frac{\alpha}{2\ln 2}\left(\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\msea{x}\right)^2\leq& \frac{\alpha}{2\ln 2}\left(\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\right)^2\left(4Q(\sqrt{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}})\right)^2
\approx \frac{1}{2\ln 2}\cdot\frac{\bar{\snr}}{\bar{\sigma}_{}^2}\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}\left(4Q(\sqrt{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}})\right)^2.
\end{align*}
For large $\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}$, $\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}\left(Q(\sqrt{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}})\right)^2$ goes to 0 much faster than $e^{-\frac{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}}{2}}\sqrt{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}}$, and therefore, we have $2 - \alpha\cIInn{\txA}{\rxA}{} \approx \nu e^{-\frac{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}}{2}}\sqrt{\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}},$
which proves \eqref{eq:IXY_large_alpha_approx_2}.
\noindent (3) \emph{Proof of \eqref{eq:tauopt_linear_output_temp}:}
Equations \eqref{eq:linear_output_large_ratio_MuI} and \eqref{eq:large_alpha_rate_limit_temp} imply that $\qtilde_x} %{\tilde{q}_{ x}\to\infty$ when $\tau=\tau_{{\rm opt}}$ as $\alpha\to\infty$, and
\eqref{eq:qxtilde_large_alpha_approx_small_tau} yields
\begin{align}
\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\alpha\cdot\tau_{{\rm opt}}=\infty.
\label{eq:higher_order}
\end{align}
Equations \eqref{eq:tau_opt_value} and \eqref{eq:IXY_large_alpha_approx_2} yield
\begin{align}
\tau_{{\rm opt}}\approx\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_{\tau}(1-\tau)(2-\nu e^{-\frac{\nu_1\alpha\tau}{2}}\sqrt{\nu_1\alpha\tau}),
\label{eq:tau_opt_value_QPSK}
\end{align}
where $\nu_1=\left(\frac{\rho}{1+\rho}\right)^2\beta$.
Set the derivative of the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:tau_opt_value_QPSK} with respect to $\tau$ to zero:
\begin{align}
2e^{\frac{\nu_1\alpha\tau}{2}}\sqrt{\nu_1\alpha\tau}-\nu\nu_1\alpha\tau=(1-\tau)\frac{\nu \nu_1\alpha}{2}(\nu_1\alpha\tau-1),
\label{eq:deri_0_tauopt}
\end{align}
whose solution approximates $\tau_{{\rm opt}}$. For large $\alpha$, \eqref{eq:higher_order} and \eqref{eq:deri_0_tauopt} then yield $2e^{\frac{\nu_1\alpha\tau_{{\rm opt}}}{2}}\sqrt{\nu_1\alpha\tau_{{\rm opt}}}\approx\frac{\nu \nu_1\alpha}{2}\nu_1\alpha\tau_{{\rm opt}} +\nu\nu_1\alpha\tau_{{\rm opt}} \approx\frac{\nu \nu_1^2\alpha^2}{2}\tau_{{\rm opt}},$
where only the dominant term is kept. By taking the logarithm on both sides, we have ${\nu_1\alpha\tau_{{\rm opt}}}/{2}\approx\ln(\alpha^2\tau_{{\rm opt}})-\frac{1}{2}\ln(\alpha\tau_{{\rm opt}})=\ln(\alpha)+\frac{1}{2}\ln(\alpha\tau_{{\rm opt}})\approx\ln\alpha,$
\comm{
\begin{align*}
\frac{\nu_1\alpha\tau_{{\rm opt}}}{2}&\approx\ln(\alpha^2\tau_{{\rm opt}})-\frac{1}{2}\ln(\alpha\tau_{{\rm opt}})\\
&=\ln(\alpha)+\frac{1}{2}\ln(\alpha\tau_{{\rm opt}})\approx\ln\alpha,
\end{align*}
}
which yields $\tau_{{\rm opt}}\approx\frac{2\ln\alpha}{\nu_1\alpha}=2\left(\frac{\rho+1}{\rho}\right)^2\frac{\ln\alpha}{\beta\alpha},$
and proves \eqref{eq:tauopt_linear_output_temp}.
}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
One of the principal goals of science is to explain the inner workings
of nature through the development of theoretical models that can then
be tested against the results of experiment and observation.
Concerning solar and higher mass stars, the overall theory of stellar
structure and evolution, as developed through most of the 20$^{th}$
century, is a triumph. From this theoretical framework we are able to
explain a star's locus in the Hertzsprung-Russel diagram as well as
its evolution before, during, and after the main sequence. The theory
of stellar structure has achieved such accuracy that we now often rely
on models of stellar evolution to calibrate observations and not the
other way around, such as when determining the ages of clusters by
using their main sequence turn-off points. The success of the theory
is due in part to the simplicity of the physics involved. As
extremely hot objects, stars are high entropy systems. This paradigm
deteriorates as one approaches lower stellar masses and cooler temperatures,
where effects such as convection and molecular impediments to
radiative transfer become more relevant. That is the realm of the M
dwarfs, with masses of 0.08\,M$_{\odot}$ to 0.62\,M$_{\odot}$ \citep{Benedictetal2016},
where several aspects of stellar theory are still not
precisely settled.
Early theoretical attempts at modeling M dwarf interiors include
\citet{Osterbrock1953} and \citet{Limber1958}, which were the first
treatments to include convection. These early works relied on gray
model atmospheres that were poor approximations for radiative transfer
boundary conditions. Further advancements then followed with more thorough
spectroscopic characterizations \citep{Boeshaar1976} and the
formulation of non-gray model atmospheres \citep{Mould1976}. More
recently, the advent of large infrared photometric surveys such as
2MASS \citep{Skrutskieetal2006}, spectroscopic surveys like SDSS
\citep{Yorketal2000} and of M dwarf mass-luminosity relations
\citep{HenryandMcCarthy1993, Henryetal1999, Delfosseetal2000,
Benedictetal2016} have provided a wealth of data, making the field
ripe for substantial advancements. The development of sophisticated
model atmospheres for cool stars, amongst them the ones computed with
the PHOENIX code \citep{Hauschildtetal1997}, has greatly ameliorated
the treatment of the outer boundary conditions and allows for
the derivation of the fundamental parameters of effective temperature,
metallicity, and surface gravity solely from spectroscopic data. These
advances led to the generation of several families of low mass
evolutionary models (Sections \ref{subsec:evolutionary} and
\ref{subsec:approaches}) that are now widely used to estimate M dwarf
parameters and to construct synthetic stellar populations.
In this paper we use spatially resolved spectroscopic observations of
ten M dwarfs in five binary systems, all with precise dynamical
masses, to test the predictions of five models of stellar structure
and evolution: the Dartmouth models \citep{Dotteretal2008}, the MIST
models \citep{Choietal2016,Dotteretal2016}, the models of
\citet{Baraffeetal2015}, the PARSEC models \citep{Bressanetal2012},
and the YaPSI models \citep{Spadaetal2017}. We begin by assessing the
quality of the BT-Settl model atmospheres \citep{Allardetal2012,
Allardetal2013} and upon verifying the validity of their fits to
observed spectra, use them to infer effective temperature,
metallicity, and surface gravity. We then test whether or not
evolutionary models can replicate those values given the known
dynamical mass of each component and the requirements of coevality and
equal metallicity for a given binary system. The paper is organized as
follows. We describe our observations in Section \ref{sec:obs} and
data reduction in Section \ref{sec:reduction}. We evaluate the
quality of the BT-Settl model atmospheres based on comparison to
results obtained with long baseline optical interferometry and derive
atmospheric fundamental parameters in Section
\ref{subsec:atmospheric}. We test the evolutionary models in Section
\ref{subsec:evolutionary}. We discuss the noteworthy GJ 22 system,
radius inflation, and the effect of small changes in mass and
metallicity in Section \ref{sec:discussion}. We discuss our
conclusions and summarize our results in Sections
\ref{sec:conclusions} and \ref{sec:summary}.
\section{Observations} \label{sec:obs}
We obtained spatially resolved intermediate resolution ($R \sim 10,000$)
red optical spectroscopy for the components of five binary systems
using the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph ({\it STIS}) on the {\it Hubble
Space Telescope} through program 12938.
Table \ref{tab:astrometric} lists the astrometric properties of the
five star systems observed. All systems were astrometrically
characterized in \citet{Benedictetal2016}. That work relied primarily
on observations taken with the Fine Guidance Sensors ({\it FGS}) on
the {\it Hubble Space Telescope}. Because {\it FGS} measures
displacements relative to distant ``fixed'' stars it can map the
motion of each component of a binary system relative to the sidereal
frame, thus allowing for the determination of individual component
masses. We selected M dwarf systems to cover a broad range of masses
and with separations suitable for spatially resolved spectroscopy with
{\it HST/STIS} based on the preliminary unpublished results of
\citet{Benedictetal2016}. In this work we use the trigonometric
parallaxes derived in \citet{Benedictetal2016} rather than the more
recent {\it Gaia} DR2 parallaxes \citep{GaiaDR22018} because the
latter use an astrometric model suitable for a single point source
whereas \citet{Benedictetal2016} solve parallax and orbital motion
simultaneously. We make an exception and use the Gaia DR2 parallax in
the case of the GJ 1245 system. The system is a hierarchical binary
with the B component widely separated from the AC component and
clearly resolved. Whereas \citet{Benedictetal2016} publish a parallax
of 219.9$\pm$0.5\,$mas$ for GJ 1245 AC Gaia DR2 provides
213.13$\pm$0.6\,$mas$ for the AC component and 214.52$\pm$0.08 $mas$
for the B component. Assuming a negligible difference in distance
between the B and the AC components, the agreement in their Gaia
parallaxes indicates that the parallax of \citet{Benedictetal2016} for
the AC component may be off by as much as $\sim$7\,$mas$. Because we
expect some error to be introduced in the Gaia DR2 parallax of the AC
component due to its unresolved multiplicity, we adopt the Gaia DR2
parallax for GJ 1245 B as the best estimate of the true parallax of
the unresolved AC component. We also notice a large
discrepancy for the GJ 469 system, for which Gaia DR2 and
\citet{Benedictetal2016} publish parallaxes of 68.62$\pm$0.89\,$mas$
and 76.4$\pm$0.5\,$mas$, respectively. However, in the case of GJ 469
we have no reason to doubt the result from \citet{Benedictetal2016}
and Gaia DR2 parallaxes with uncertainties larger than $\sim$0.4 $mas$
are known to be suspect \citep{Vrijmoetetal2020}. The
parallaxes for the other three systems agree to at least 3 percent in
distance.
In order to observe both components simultaneously it was necessary to
align the {\it STIS} long slit along the system's position angle, which
required rotating the {\it HST} spacecraft. We calculated tables of
position angles for each system and matched them to HST's roll angle
time windows, which are determined by the need to keep the solar
panels exposed to sunlight. The observations were taken using the
G750M grating and the 0\farcs2 wide long slit. The observations covered
the spectral range from 6,483\,\AA$~$ to 10,126\,\AA$~$ using seven grating
tilts. A contemporaneous W lamp flat was obtained before each exposure
to correct the fringing present in the STIS ccd at wavelengths greater
than 7,000\,\AA. Individual exposure times ranged from 252\,s to
435\,s; however, two HST orbits were required per system to accommodate
the large overheads associated with changing grating tilts.
\section{Data Reduction} \label{sec:reduction}
The strategy used for data reduction depended on whether or not the
signal from both components was significantly blended in the spatial
direction. The components of G250-29, GJ 22, and GJ 1245 were
sufficiently separated ($\gtrsim$ 0\farcs5) so that a saddle point with flux comparable to
the sky background could be identified (Table \ref{tab:astrometric}).
For these systems we used symmetry arguments to perform the sky
subtraction while also subtracting any residual flux from the opposite
component. The signal in the apertures for each component was then
reduced using the standard {\it calstis} pipeline provided by the Space
Telescope Science
Institute\footnote{http://www.stsci.edu/hst/instrumentation/stis/data-analysis-and-software-tools}
\citep{STISDataBook}. STIS is periodically flux calibrated with known
flux standards. The stability of the space environment precludes the need
for observing flux standards in close proximity to science observations.
{\it Calstis}
automatically performs flat fielding, bias and dark subtraction,
spectral extraction, wavelength calibration, flux calibration, and
1-dimensional rectification.
The spectra for the components of GJ 469 GJ and 1081 were separated by
$\sim$0\farcs15,
less than three pixels in the spatial direction. The {\it calstis} pipeline
is meant for resolved point sources, and was therefore inadequate for
the deblending of these spectra. For these sources we used a
subsampled synthetic {\it STIS} Point Spread Function (PSF) generated with
the Tiny Tim {\it HST} optical simulator\footnote{http://www.stsci.edu/software/tinytim/}
\citep{Kristetal2011} to replicate
the convoluted spectra. Two synthetic PSFs subsampled by a factor of
ten were superimposed with an initial separation and flux ratio
estimated from the data. The separation and flux ratio were then
varied until the best correlation was obtained between the model and
the observed spectra. To account for the wavelength dependence of the
PSF we produced a new PSF for each 100\,\AA$~$ segment of the spectra.
The STIS ccd is
subject to considerable pixel crosstalk that is not modeled by Tiny
Tim when PSFs are subsampled. We approximated a crosstalk correction
by applying the known {\it STIS} crosstalk kernel to the best results of the
synthetic PSF scaling and then repeating the process, but adding the
crosstalk flux from the first iteration to this second iteration. As
expected, the crosstalk had the effect of slightly smoothing the
resulting spectra.
The {\it STIS} ccd exhibits considerable fringing starting at
wavelengths longer than 7,000\,\AA, and reaches an
amplitude of about 30 percent at wavelengths redward of
9,000\,\AA. The fringing can be largely subtracted using
contemporaneous flats taken with the on-board W calibration lamp. The
standard de-fringing procedure for point sources
\citep{Goudfrooijetal1998a,Goudfrooijetal1998b} assumes a smooth
spectrum with sharp absorption or emission lines that can be used to
optimally position the fringe pattern in the spectral direction. This
method was not suitable for M dwarfs due to the complex nature of
their spectra, where line blanketing precludes the continuum. We
devised a solution by extracting a fringe spectrum using a three pixel
aperture centered at the peak of the science spectrum and then scaling
the fringe spectrum until we obtained the least correlation between
the science spectrum and the fringe spectrum. While this procedure
largely eliminated fringing at wavelengths bluer than 9,000\,\AA, as
shown in Figures \ref{fig:spectra1} and \ref{fig:spectra2}, fringing remains an issue at the
reddest wavelengths. However, because no model spectrum is likely to be any better
or worse in replicating the fringe noise, this fringing does not
interfere with our goal of finding the best model match to each
observed spectra. The {\it STIS} team at STScI is currently developing a new
defringing package that should further reduce the fringing\footnote{STIS team,
personal communication}. Users who would like a better fringe correction are
encouraged to download the data from the {\it HST} archive and re-reduce it once
better defringing tools are available.
Aside from the fringing, {\it HST} observations of these relatively bright
sources are
subject to very little sky background and other sources of noise. As
we discuss in Section \ref{subsec:atmospheric} a detailed line to line
comparison with models shows that the observed spectra are rich in
fine structure. From that we estimate a signal to noise of 30 to 60 for the spectra,
depending on the source brightness and the wavelength region.
\begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccccc}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Astrometric Properties \tablenotemark{a} \label{tab:astrometric}}
\tablehead{ \colhead{System} &
\colhead{RA} &
\colhead{Dec} &
\colhead{Parallax} &
\colhead{Semi-major\tablenotemark{b}} &
\colhead{Period} &
\colhead{Primary} &
\colhead{Secondary} &
\colhead{Date} &
\colhead{Approx. Separation} \\
\colhead{ } &
\colhead{(2000)} &
\colhead{(2000)} &
\colhead{{\it mas}} &
\colhead{Axis ({\it mas})} &
\colhead{Days} &
\colhead{Mass ($M_{\odot}$)} &
\colhead{Mass ($M_{\odot}$)} &
\colhead{Obs.} &
\colhead{{\it mas}} }
\startdata
GJ 22 AC & 00 32 29.5 & +67 14 03.6 & 99.2$\pm$0.6 & 510.6$\pm$0.7 & 5694.2$\pm$14.9 & 0.405$\pm$0.008 & 0.157$\pm$0.003 & 2013-01-14 & 491 \\
GJ 1081 AB & 05 33 19.1 & +44 48 57.7 & 65.2$\pm$0.4 & 271.2$\pm$2.7 & 4066.1$\pm$27.5 & 0.325$\pm$0.010 & 0.205$\pm$0.007 & 2012-10-02 & 152 \\
G 250-29 AB & 06 54 04.2 & +60 52 18.3 & 95.6$\pm$0.3 & 441.7$\pm$0.9 & 4946.3$\pm$2.2 & 0.350$\pm$0.005 & 0.187$\pm$0.004 & 2013-01-15 & 517 \\
GJ 469 AB & 12 28 57.4 & +08 25 31.2 & 76.4$\pm$0.5 & 313.9$\pm$0.8 & 4223.0$\pm$2.9 & 0.332$\pm$0.007 & 0.188$\pm$0.004 & 2013-03-24 & 152 \\
GJ 1245 AC\tablenotemark{c} & 19 53 54.4 & +44 24 53.0 & 213.1$\pm$0.6 & 826.7$\pm$0.8 & 6147.0$\pm$17 & 0.120$\pm$0.001 & 0.081$\pm$0.001 & 2013-06-04 & 598 \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Values from \citet{Benedictetal2016} except date of HST/STIS observation and separation from that observation. See note (c) about GJ 1245.}
\tablenotetext{b}{Semi-major axis of relative orbit of secondary around primary component.}
\tablenotetext{c}{Parallax from {\it Gaia DR2}. Dynamical masses were adjusted to reflect that parallax. See See
Section \ref{sec:obs} for a discussion of the GJ 1245 system.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\section{Results} \label{sec:results}
Figures \ref{fig:spectra1} and \ref{fig:spectra2} show the normalized spectrum for
each star along with the best matching model spectrum and the fit residual (Section
\ref{subsec:atmospheric}). Table \ref{tab:temp} outlines the derived properties for the
ten stars in the five systems.
We obtained spectral type for individual
components
using the spectral type templates of
\citet{Bochanskietal2007}\footnote{https://github.com/jbochanski/SDSS-templates}
and performing a full spectrum $\chi^2$ minimization. A clear match to
a template was found in all cases except GJ 1081 B (M4.5V) and GJ 469
A (M3.5V), where we interpolated between the two best matches to
obtain a fractional subclass.
We next discuss detailed fits to atmospheric and evolutionary models.
Here we draw a sharp distinction between the two types of models in
the sense that we at first do not consider the internal stellar
parameters that govern stellar luminosity and dictate its evolution.
In other words, we assume that atmospheric model fits can tell us much
about the star accurately predict a star's temperature, radius,
luminosity, metallicity, and surface gravity without making any
theoretical assumptions about interior physics. We validate the
accuracy of the atmospheric model fits in Section
\ref{subsubsec:interferometry}, where we compare the results of our
model fitting methodology to known radii, temperatures, and
luminosities measured with long baseline optical interferometry for a
sample of 21 calibrator stars. We then use the known masses, the
observed flux, the trigonometric parallax, and the Stefan-Boltzmann
law to derive radii, luminosities, and surface gravities. At that
point we connect the discussion to the predictions of structure and
evolution models by discussing what internal conditions could be the
cause of these observed fundamental properties.
\subsection{Fitting Atmospheric Models} \label{subsec:atmospheric}
Atmospheric models are one of the cornerstones of our understanding of
stellar physics because they provide an extremely rich set of
predictions (i.e., a synthetic spectrum) that can then be readily
tested with observed data. Here we compare the data to the BT-Settl
family of models \citep{Allardetal2013,Allardetal2012}. BT-Settl is a
publicly available and widely used implementation of the PHOENIX model
atmosphere code \citep{Hauschildtetal1997} that covers the relevant
temperature range (3,500\,K to 2,600\,K), is based on modern estimates
of solar metallicites \citep{Caffauetal2011}, and incorporates a grain
sedimentation cloud model, which is necessary in modeling cool M dwarf
atmospheres. Temperature is modeled in increments of 100\,K.
Metallicity ([Fe/H]) can take the values -1.0, -0.5, 0.0, and at some
grid elements +0.5, and $Log\,g$ ranges from 2.0 to 5.5 in increments
of 0.5.
We take the model fitting approach described in
\citet{MannGaidosAndAnsdell2013}. We first trimmed the model grid to
include temperatures from 2,000\,K to 3,900\,K with no restrictions on
metallicity or surface gravity, resulting in a total of 335 model
spectra. We trimmed wavelengths to include the range from 6,000\,\AA
to 10,200\,\AA and applied a Gaussian smoothing kernel to smooth the
model spectra to the same resolution as the data. Because the
differences between the model spectra and the data are driven partly
by systematic errors in modeling a $\chi^2$ fit is not appropriate. To
find best fits we instead minimize the $G_K$ statistic, described in \citet{Cushingetal2008} and
\citet{MannGaidosAndAnsdell2013}:
\begin{equation}
G_K = \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \left(\frac{w_i(F_i - C_K
F_{K,i})}{\sigma_i}\right)^2
\end{equation}
where $F_i$ is the data flux in the $i^{th}$ wavelength bin, $F_{K,i}$
is the model flux, and $C_K$ is a normalization constant. We set $C_K$
so that the mean of $F_i$ and $F_K$ are the same. $w_i$ is the weight
of the $i^{th}$ data element and $\sigma_i$ is its uncertainty.
We first perform an initial fit where for each star we rank all 335
model spectra by minimizing $G_K$ with all weights $w_i$ set equal to
one. Because the signal-to-noise is high in all cases it does not
substantially alter the fit, and we set $\sigma$ corresponding to a
signal-to-noise of 50 for all elements. We then select the top 20
best model fits and compute 10,000 random linear combinations, and
select the best linear combination via the $G_K$ minimization again
with all weights set to one. We then compute the residuals of the fit
to each of the ten stars and take the mean of all ten residuals. We
note regions where the mean residual is greater than 10 percent for
10\,\AA $~$ or more and re-iterate the process now setting $w_i = 0$ for
those regions. The excluded wavelength regions are: 6,483\,\AA $~$to
6,600\,\AA, 6,925\,\AA $~$to 7,025\,\AA, 9,300\,\AA $~$to
9,400\,\AA, 9,550\,\AA $~$to 9,650\,\AA $~$and 9,850\,\AA $~$to
10,126\,\AA, with the third and fourth region due to strong fringing
in the data. Figures \ref{fig:spectra1} and \ref{fig:spectra2} show
the resulting model fits superimposed on the the normalized spectra
and the corresponding residuals, with the traces smoothed for
clarity. The online supplement to Figures \ref{fig:spectra1} and
\ref{fig:spectra2} shows full resolution spectra and model fits on a
flux calibrated scale. As described in Section \ref{subsubsec:interferometry},
this fitting method produces a standard deviation of 109\,K in temperature
when compared to effective temperatures derived from long baseline optical
interferometry, and we adopt that as the uncertainty in the temperatures
we report in Table \ref{tab:temp}.
\begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccccccc}[h!]
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Derived Properties \label{tab:temp}}
\tablehead{ \colhead{Star} &
\colhead{Mass \tablenotemark{a}} &
\colhead{$M_V$ \tablenotemark{b}} &
\colhead{$M_K$ \tablenotemark{b}} &
\colhead{Spectral} &
\colhead{Temperature} &
\colhead{$Log$ $g$ } &
\colhead{[$Fe/H$] } &
\colhead{Radius } &
\colhead{Luminosity } &
\colhead{$Log$ $g$ \tablenotemark{c}} &
\colhead{H$\alpha$} \\
\colhead{ } &
\colhead{($M_{\odot}$)} &
\colhead{ } &
\colhead{ } &
\colhead{Type} &
\colhead{$K$} &
\colhead{Fit} &
\colhead{ } &
\colhead{($R_{\odot}$)} &
\colhead{($Log(L/L_{\odot})$)} &
\colhead{Calculated} &
\colhead{EW} }
\startdata
GJ 22 A & 0.405$\pm$0.008 & 10.32$\pm$0.03 & 6.19$\pm$0.02 & M2V & 3,577 & 5.0 & -0.19 & 0.376$\pm$0.018 & -1.68$\pm$0.09 & 4.9 & 0.40 \\
GJ 22 C & 0.157$\pm$0.003 & 13.40$\pm$0.10 & 8.12$\pm$0.04 & M4V & 3,196 & 5.1 & -0.10 & 0.179$\pm$0.009 & -2.52$\pm$0.10 & 5.1 & -2.12 \\
GJ 1081 A & 0.325$\pm$0.010 & 11.49$\pm$0.04 & 6.79$\pm$0.04 & M3V & 3,390 & 4.9 & -0.12 & 0.343$\pm$0.015 & -1.85$\pm$0.09 & 4.9 & -0.73 \\
GJ 1081 B & 0.205$\pm$0.007 & 13.16$\pm$0.09 & 7.75$\pm$0.04 & M4.5V & 3,168 & 5.0 & -0.14 & 0.237$\pm$0.011 & -2.29$\pm$0.10 & 5.0 & -4.37 \\
G 250-29 A & 0.350$\pm$0.005 & 11.07$\pm$0.03 & 6.61$\pm$0.03 & M4V & 3,448 & 4.7 & -0.14 & 0.355$\pm$0.017 & -1.79$\pm$0.10 & 4.9 & 0.32 \\
G 250-29 B & 0.187$\pm$0.004 & 12.68$\pm$0.07 & 7.64$\pm$0.05 & M3V & 3,279 & 4.7 & -0.11 & 0.231$\pm$0.011 & -2.25$\pm$0.10 & 5.0 & 0.33 \\
GJ 469 A & 0.332$\pm$0.007 & 11.69$\pm$0.03 & 6.74$\pm$0.04 & M3.5V & 3,320 & 4.8 & -0.10 & 0.329$\pm$0.016 & -1.93$\pm$0.10 & 4.9 & 0.27 \\
GJ 469 B & 0.188$\pm$0.004 & 13.28$\pm$0.05 & 7.75$\pm$0.04 & M5V & 3,134 & 4.8 & -0.07 & 0.266$\pm$0.011 & -2.35$\pm$0.10 & 5.0 & 0.00 \\
GJ 1245 A & 0.120$\pm$0.001 & 15.12$\pm$0.03 & 8.85$\pm$0.02 & M6V & 2,927 & 4.9 & -0.07 & 0.146$\pm$0.007 & -2.85$\pm$0.11 & 5.2 & -2.96 \\
GJ 1245 C & 0.081$\pm$0.001 & 18.41$\pm$0.06 & 9.91$\pm$0.02 & M8V & 2,611 & 5.0 & -0.08 & 0.087$\pm$0.004 & -3.50$\pm$0.12 & 5.5 & -2.93 \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{All masses except for GJ 1245 A and C are from \citet{Benedictetal2016}. The masses for the GJ
1245 system have been corrected to reflect the more accurate {\it Gaia DR2} parallax. See Section \ref{sec:obs} for
a discussion of the GJ 1245 system.}
\tablenotetext{b}{From \citet{Benedictetal2016} and references therein.}
\tablenotetext{c}{Calculated based on inferred radius and dynamical mass.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{gj22a_newfig1.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{gj22c_newfig1.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{gj1081a_newfig1.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{gj1081b_newfig1.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{g250-29a_newfig1.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize Normalized spectra are plotted in black with the best fitting
combination model spectrum over-plotted in red. The shaded gray regions are wavelength
ranges not used in the model fit. The fit residual is plotted in blue at the bottom,
with the outer dashed lines showing the 10 percent residual mark. Both the observed and the
model spectra were smoothed
for clarity. High resolution unsmoothed images are available in the electronic version.
Fringing is evident as step-like sharp features at wavelengths
redder than 9,000\,\AA. \label{fig:spectra1}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{g250-29b_newfig1.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{gj469a_newfig1.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{gj469b_newfig1.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{gj1245a_newfig1.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{gj1245c_newfig1.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize The continuation of Figure \ref{fig:spectra1}. The quality of the fits is
degraded at lower temperatures, as is evident for GJ 1245 A and C.
\label{fig:spectra2}}
\end{figure*}
We calculated stellar radii in Table \ref{tab:temp} by scaling the
model flux at the stellar surface and the observed flux via the
geometric scaling relation $R_{\star}^2 = d^2 (F_{\oplus}/F_{\star})$
where $R_{\star}$ is the stellar radius, $d$ is the trigonometric
parallax distance to the star (Table \ref{tab:astrometric}), and
$F_{\oplus}$ and $F_{\star}$ are the observed flux and the model flux
at the stellar surface, respectively. We then calculated luminosities
using the Stefan-Boltzmann law and surface gravities based on radii
and masses. The latter serve as checks on the surface gravities
assumed in the model spectra. We derive the uncertainties in
radius in Section \ref{subsubsec:interferometry} and propagate the
uncertainties in temperature and radius to obtain the uncertainties
in luminosity.
\subsubsection{Validating the Atmospheric Model Fits with Long Baseline Optical Interferometry} \label{subsubsec:interferometry}
To prove the adequacy of our atmospheric model derived quantities
(Table \ref{tab:temp}) we again follow the procedure of
\citet{MannGaidosAndAnsdell2013}. For a calibrator sample of 21 stars
we compare effective temperatures and radii against the same
quantities derived based on angular diameters directly measured with
the CHARA Array long baseline optical
inteferometer\footnote{http://www.chara.gsu.edu}
\citep{Boyajianetal2012}. Once angular diameters are measured via
interferometry stellar radii are trivially obtained given the well
known trigonometric parallaxes to these bright nearby stars. Effective
temperatures can be calculated via the Stefan-Boltzmann law if the
bolometric luminosity is known. The latter can be well approximated
thanks to wide photometric and spectroscopic observations covering the
spectral energy distribution from the near ultraviolet to the mid
infrared. \citet{MannGaidosAndAnsdell2013} improved upon the
photometric treatment of \citet{Boyajianetal2012} to derive the
interferometric temperatures for the 21 stars listed in Table
\ref{tab:interferometry}.
Figures \ref{fig:tempinterferometry} and
\ref{fig:radiusinterferometry} show the comparison of effective
temperatures and radii, respectively, obtained with interferometry and
our atmospheric model fitting technique. The calibrator spectra from
\citet{MannGaidosAndAnsdell2013} were kindly made available by Andrew Mann.
The procedure for fitting
this sample was the same as the one described in Section
\ref{subsec:atmospheric} except that we also excluded the wavelength
regions from 7,050\,\AA $~$to 7,150\,\AA $~$due to the effect of the
atmospheric oxygen A band. All other telluric regions appear to be
well accounted for in the spectra of the calibrator
stars. We also smoothed
the atmospheric models to the considerably lower resolution of the
calibrator spectra. The
comparison of the effective temperatures obtained with both methods
has a standard deviation of 109\,K, and we adopt that as the 1$\sigma$
uncertainty in the effective temperatures we derive in this
work. Similarly, we adopt a five percent standard deviation in radius.
While the temperatures and radii we report in Table \ref{tab:temp}
overlap with only the cool end of the calibrator sample, inspection of
Figures \ref{fig:tempinterferometry} and
\ref{fig:radiusinterferometry} show no systematic trends. We performed
a Student's t test and found that the effective temperatures derived
with interferometry and with atmospheric fits are consistent with
belonging to the same sample to 0.89 significance.
We therefore conclude
that within the 1$\sigma$ uncertainties we adopt (109\,K for effective temperature
and five percent for radius) our method is capable of determining the
true effective temperature of a sample of stars in a statistical sense.
We propagate those uncertainties when using the values in Table \ref{tab:temp}
to evaluate models of stellar structure and evolution and note that those
results (Section \ref{subsec:evolutionary}) should also be viewed as a
statistical treatment.
\begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}[h!]
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Comparison with Interferometric Calibration Sample \label{tab:interferometry}}
\tablehead{ \colhead{Star} &
\colhead{Temperature (K)} &
\colhead{ } &
\colhead{Radius } \\
\colhead{ } &
\colhead{Atm. fit} &
\colhead{Interferometry} &
\colhead{Atm. fit} &
\colhead{Interferometry} }
\startdata
GJ 15 A & 3631 & 3602$\pm$13 & 0.3849 & 0.3863$\pm$.0021 \\
GJ 105 A & 4823 & 4704$\pm$21 & 0.7688 & 0.7949$\pm$.0062 \\
GJ 205 & 3600 & 3850$\pm$22 & 0.6455 & 0.5735$\pm$.0044 \\
GJ 338 A & 4147 & 3953$\pm$37 & 0.5326 & 0.5773$\pm$.0131 \\
GJ 338 B & 4048 & 3926$\pm$37 & 0.5561 & 0.5673$\pm$.0137 \\
GJ 380 & 4019 & 4176$\pm$19 & 0.6923 & 0.6398$\pm$.0046 \\
GJ 412 A & 3644 & 3537$\pm$41 & 0.3888 & 0.3982$\pm$.0091 \\
GJ 436 & 3448 & 3520$\pm$66 & 0.4476 & 0.4546$\pm$.0182 \\
GJ 526 & 3644 & 3646$\pm$34 & 0.5164 & 0.4840$\pm$.0084 \\
GJ 570 A & 4639 & 4588$\pm$58 & 0.7286 & 0.7390$\pm$.0190 \\
GJ 581 & 3380 & 3487$\pm$62 & 0.3256 & 0.2990$\pm$.0100 \\
GJ 687 & 3417 & 3457$\pm$35 & 0.4317 & 0.4183$\pm$.0070 \\
GJ 699 & 3257 & 3238$\pm$11 & 0.1926 & 0.1869$\pm$.0012 \\
GJ 702 B & 4305 & 4475$\pm$33 & 0.7301 & 0.6697$\pm$.0089 \\
GJ 725 A & 3453 & 3417$\pm$17 & 0.3538 & 0.3561$\pm$.0039 \\
GJ 809 & 3662 & 3744$\pm$27 & 0.5536 & 0.5472$\pm$.0066 \\
GJ 820 A & 4313 & 4399$\pm$16 & 0.6867 & 0.6611$\pm$.0048 \\
GJ 820 B & 4052 & 4025$\pm$24 & 0.5862 & 0.6010$\pm$.0072 \\
GJ 880 & 3613 & 3731$\pm$16 & 0.5770 & 0.5477$\pm$.0048 \\
GJ 887 & 3691 & 3695$\pm$35 & 0.4751 & 0.4712$\pm$.0086 \\
GJ 892 & 4734 & 4773$\pm$20 & 0.7984 & 0.7784$\pm$.0053 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{temp_comparison_final.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize Comparison of effective
temperatures obtained with long baseline optical interferometry and
our atmospheric fitting technique for a calibrator sample of 21 M
dwarfs. The blue dashed lines denote the standard deviation of 109 K.
A Student's t test shows no systematic difference between
the samples to 0.89 significance. \label{fig:tempinterferometry}}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{radius_comparison.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize Same as
Figure \ref{fig:tempinterferometry}, but for comparing radius.
\label{fig:radiusinterferometry}}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{General Considerations Regarding the Atmospheric Fits} \label{subsubsec:atmconsiderations}
As a general trend we note that the BT-Settl spectra provide good fits
to the observed data. The quality of the fits is best noted in the
digital supplement to Figures \ref{fig:spectra1} and
\ref{fig:spectra2}, which show the data in its original unsmoothed
version. All fits pass the binary metallicity test, where the same
range of metallicity must be predicted for the two components of the
same binary system, to within about 0.1 dex. The metallicity
of two systems, GJ 22 ABC and GJ 1245 ABC is independently known
from the isolated B component, and that information can be used as a
test on our procedure. \citet{Rojas-Ayalaetal2012} report
$[Fe/H]=-0.19$ for GJ 22 B based on infrared spectroscopy. Our
procedure finds $[Fe/H]=-0.19$ for GJ 22 A, and $[Fe/H]=-0.10$ for
GJ 22 C, thus validating results to no better than 0.1 dex. For GJ
1245 AC \citet{Benedictetal2016} report $[Fe/H]=-0.04$. We obtain
$[Fe/H]=-0.07$ for the A component and $[Fe/H]=-0.08$ for the C
component. Despite this agreement, we notice that all 10 stars
appear to have slightly sub-solar metallicity in our analysis. This
feature could be real or it could be an artifact due to the boundary
effect in the metallicity scaling of the model grid. For most
temperature and gravity combinations the metallicity ([Fe/H]) ranges
from -2.0 to 0.0, with only sporadic coverage up to +0.5. A random
linear combination of model spectra (Section
\ref{subsec:atmospheric}) is therefore likely to be biased towards
lower metallicities even if in fact the metallicity is very close to
solar. We therefore de-emphasize the absolute scaling of the
metallicities in Table \ref{tab:temp} and focus on the broad
agreement between the metallicities of components of the same
system. The
models and the data show remarkable fine scale agreement in a line by
line basis down to the noise limit, particularly at wavelengths
blue than 8,000\,\AA.
The fits to the gravity sensitive KI doublet at 7,700\,\AA $~$and NaI
doublet at 8,200\,\AA, and to the TiO bands starting at around
6,650\,\AA, 7,050\,\AA, and 7,590\,\AA are also generally
very good. We note, however, that within the limitations of the
$Log\,g$ grid spacing there appears to be a slight bias
towards calculated surface gravities being higher than the fit
values, however without a finer grid it is impossible to determine
the significance of this tendency. The mean of the residuals
of those fits in the sense of $Log\,g$ derived from the atmospheric
fits minus that derived from radius and mass is -0.15. If we exclude the
poorly modeled stars GJ 1245 A and C the mean of the residuals becomes
-0.09. There is a possibility that this discrepancy is due to the radii derived
from atmospheric models being under-estimated. Given the
check on the radius methodology from the interferometric data,
we believe that such an effect, if present, is small and well within the
uncertainties of the derived radii because we see no systematic
trends on Figure \ref{fig:radiusinterferometry}. At the temperatures we
consider here surface gravity has little effect on overall
spectrum morphology except for altering specific gravity sensitive
features such as the KI and NaI lines. When calculating the
overall best fit model (Section \ref{subsec:atmospheric}) the
wavelength coverage of these lines may be too small to
meaningfully influence the fit. A direct comparison of the
morphology of the KI and NaI doublets between model and spectra
may be a better indication of surface gravity, however such
comparison would require assumptions in temperature and
metallicity. We weighed both approaches and decided to keep the
single fit approach because it is a good compromise
between diagnosing both effective temperature and surface gravity to
reasonable accuracy. We note that the only star with a large
discrepancy between the atmospheric model predicted surface
gravity and the surface gravity calculated from radius and mass is
GJ 1245 C, and in that case the fits to the gravity indicators,
particularly the KI doublet, is also poor.
The quality of the fits deteriorates at lower temperatures, as is
evident in the fits for GJ 469 B (3,134\,K), GJ 1245 A
(2,960\,K), and particularly GJ 1245 C (2,611\,K). The
problem could be in part due to the intrinsic difficulty of modeling
spectra at cooler temperatures where molecular species and grains
become more important, but also due to greater sensitivity to
temperature itself. The overall slope of M dwarf spectra increases
rapidly as a function of temperature at temperatures $\lesssim$
3,100\,K, and finding a simultaneous fit to the blue and red parts of
the spectrum therefore requires a finer grid.
We also note that the depths of individual lines in the red part of
the model spectra beyond 8,000\,\AA$~$ seem to be too shallow while
the general shape of the spectrum is still a good match. In other
words, the model spectra are smoother than the observed spectra. The
fact that we still see a line to line match at the smallest scale, as
best seen in the high resolution online supplement to Figures
\ref{fig:spectra1} and \ref{fig:spectra2}, indicates this
discrepancy is not due to noise in the observed spectra. The effect is
also distinct from fringing, which is a larger scale feature that
tends to alter the spectra in a step-like manner; even within fringed
regions, the shallower individual line depths are still present.
Our ability to derive accurate effective temperatures and radii
is in large part due to the choice of wavelength region to study, and
does not necessarily speak to the adequacy of the BT-Settl models
in other wavelength ranges. Even in our case the first 118\,\AA $~$and the last
277\,\AA $~$of the observed spectra were omitted from the fit due to considerable
deviations between observations and models, as shown in the shaded regions
of Figures \ref{fig:spectra1} and \ref{fig:spectra2}. The blue region in
particular shows residuals of up to 30 percent. It is also well known
that incomplete oppacities create problems in the near infrared, particularly
in the J band, and that those discrepancies hinder the determination of
bolometric flux from model spectra alone. \citet{Baraffeetal2015} also note that
TiO line lists are still incomplete and the incompleteness can cause
problems particularly at higher resolutions, however we do not notice
higher than usual residuals to TiO bands in Figures \ref{fig:spectra1} and
\ref{fig:spectra2}. \citet{Rajpurohitetal2018} also note problems with line
widths at higher resolutions, which again do not seem to be problematic
at the resolution of this work, as best visualized in the high resolution supplement
to Figures \ref{fig:spectra1} and \ref{fig:spectra2}. Overall, the red optical and
very near infrared region we study here, from 6,600\,\AA $~$to 9,850\,\AA,
is well modeled in this temperature regime, and the comparison with
interferometric results (Section \ref{subsubsec:interferometry}) validates
the parameters we derive from atmospheric models, therefore allowing
us to use them as the comparison standard for testing models of stellar
structure and evolution.
\section{Testing Evolutionary Models} \label{subsec:evolutionary}
Figure \ref{fig:masstemp} shows the distributions of temperatures,
luminosities, and radii as functions of mass for the observed
sample. An ideal set of evolutionary predictions would be able to
replicate these values while respecting the coevality of stars in the
same system. Here we focus on five evolutionary model suites that are
commonly used to study low mass stars: the Dartmouth models
\citep{Dotteretal2008}, the MIST models
\citep{Choietal2016,Dotteretal2016}, the models of
\citet{Baraffeetal2015}, the PARSEC models \citep{Bressanetal2012},
and the YaPSI models \citep{Spadaetal2017}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\gridline{\fig{mass-temperature2.pdf}{0.4\textwidth}{(a)}}
\gridline{\fig{mass-lum2.pdf}{0.4\textwidth}{(b)}}
\gridline{\fig{mass-rad2.pdf}{0.4\textwidth}{(c)}}
\caption{\scriptsize Temperature, luminosity, and radius as a
function of mass for the stars in the sample. Components of the
same binary are connected with thin lines and color coded. Panels
b and c follow the same color coding as a. Valid evolutionary
models must produce isochrones that can replicate these quantities
for both components of a given binary
simultaneously. \label{fig:masstemp}}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{fig:evol1}, \ref{fig:evol2}, and \ref{fig:evol3} show
evolutionary tracks interpolated to the masses of each star in
temperature, luminosity, and radius. Each panel shows
the model predictions for the two components of a star system with the
results from Table \ref{tab:temp} overlaid as shaded regions encompassing
the observational
constraints from this study. Only the \citet{Baraffeetal2015} models
and the PARSEC models incorporate cool enough atmospheres to model the
properties of the coolest star in the study, GJ 1215 C.
Table \ref{tab:matches} summarizes the graphical results of Figures
\ref{fig:evol1}, \ref{fig:evol2}, and \ref{fig:evol3} by tabulating
the instances in which a given model can accurately predict the
observed properties assuming either main sequence ages or
pre-main sequence ages. For the purpose of this study we define
the zero age main sequence as the point of maximum radius
contraction. In Table \ref{tab:matches} a fully self-consistent
model match in the sense that a model can predict all three
fundamental parameters for both stars in a system in a coeval manner
is marked with the symbol \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark. That
only happens in the case of the GJ 22 AC system (Section
\ref{subsec:gj22ac}). The symbols ``YY'' and ``Y'' denote when a
parameter is correctly modeled if the system is young (pre-main
sequence) while respecting or not respecting coevality,
respectively. The interpretation of these pre-main sequence matches
must be done with caution. From the shape of the evolutionary tracks
for luminosity and radius in Figures \ref{fig:evol1},
\ref{fig:evol2}, and \ref{fig:evol3} it is nearly always possible to
find a pre-main sequence solution that falls in the desired
parameter space for a short time in the system's evolution. While we
cannot discard these instances as valid matches for pre-main
sequence systems, it is unlikely that many of the five star systems
we study lie in such a specific narrow range of the pre-main
sequence. We note also that none of the systems have a fully
self-consistent pre-main sequence solution.
We now discuss topics related to individual
model sets and save a general discussion on
how well these models work as a whole to Section \ref{sec:conclusions}.
\subsection{Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Database} \label{subsubsec:dartmouth}
The Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Database and its stellar evolution
code\footnote{http://stellar.dartmouth.edu/models/}
\citep{Dotteretal2008} is an older code that has been periodically
updated to provide results in several photometric systems and increase
functionality. Its web interface allows for the easy production of
isochrones and evolutionary tracks interpolated to any mass, age, and
metallicity within their parameter ranges. We used this web interface
to produce the results shown in Figures \ref{fig:evol1},
\ref{fig:evol2}, and \ref{fig:evol3}. One particular limitation is
that it does not include ages younger than 1\,Gyr, and so only main
sequence stars can be modeled. This age limitation also excludes the
zero age main sequence, as shown most clearly in the radius plots
where the other evolutionary models show radius minima.
The Dartmouth models use atmospheric boundary conditions based on the
NextGen atmospheric models generated with the PHOENIX radiative
transfer code \citep{Hauschildtetal1999a, Hauschildtetal1999b}. These
model atmospheres use the older solar abundances of
\citet{GrevesseAndSauval1998}, which have since been revised several
times, as discussed in \citet{Allardetal2013}. Interestingly, this
choice of older atmospheric models and older solar metallicities does
not seem to drastically affect results when compared to other models.
This is in contrast to the effect of using the older solar abundances
of \citet{GrevesseAndSauval1998} in atmospheric models, which can
cause a noticeable difference in predicted effective temperatures
\citep{MannGaidosAndAnsdell2013}. We note the wide discrepancy in
temperature in the case of GJ 1245 A, where our results show an upper
bound on the temperature of 3036\,K and the model predicts 3,200\,K.
A detailed treatment of metallicity becomes more important at lower
temperatures as molecular species begin to form and greatly increase
the opacity. Therefore, the choice of solar metallicities could be the
cause of the temperature discrepancy for GJ 1245 A, which is
significantly cooler than the other stars, except for GJ 1245 C.
\subsection{MESA Isochrones and Stellar Tracks $-$ MIST} \label{subsubsec:mist}
The MIST models\footnote{http://waps.cfa.harvard.edu/MIST/}
\citep{Choietal2016,Dotteretal2016} are an application of the Modular
Experiments in Stellar Astronomy
(MESA)\footnote{http://mesa.sourceforge.net/index.html} code that
tabulates evolutionary tracks for a wide range of stars using
solar-scaled metallicities. The solar metallicity zero points are set to the
values adopted in \citet{Asplundetal2009}. MESA is a large, open
source comprehensive project that preserves a wide range of freedom in
the input parameters for the stellar evolution code, so choosing
the adequate parameters for a particular model grid is in itself a
complex scientific task.
The evolutionary tracks shown in Figures \ref{fig:evol1},
\ref{fig:evol2}, and \ref{fig:evol3} were produced using the MIST web
interpolator. A feature that readily stand out are what appear to be
pulsations, with a period in the order
of hundreds of millions of years. No other model shows that behavior.
The pulsations are the strongest in the 0.32\,M$_{\odot}$ to
0.35\,M$_{\odot}$ mass range, which is close to the mass where stars
become fully convective. We discuss issues relating to the onset of full convection
in detail in Section \ref{subsec:kissing}.
One of the distinct advantages of the MESA/MIST approach is the
ability to generate new model grids based on different input
parameters with relative ease and with minimal knowledge of the inner
workings of the code. In that sense it may be possible to produce a
different MESA implementation that is calibrated to a narrower set of stars
and provides a better match to those observations.
\subsection{Models of Baraffe et al., (2015)}\label{subsubsec:baraffe}
The evolutionary models of \citet{Baraffeetal2015} are the latest in a
long tradition of evolutionary models that are not only stellar, but
also bridge the stellar-substellar boundary and model the brown dwarf
domain. This family of models has incorporated various versions of
the PHOENIX model atmospheres as a boundary condition, and this latest
installment incorporates the BT-Settl atmospheres used in this work
(Sections \ref{subsec:atmospheric} and
\ref{subsubsec:atmconsiderations})\footnote{ The evolutionary models
of \citet{Baraffeetal2015} are sometimes erroneously referred to as
``the BT-Settl models''. While it is true that they incorporate the
BT-Settl atmospheric models as a boundary condition and that the
authors of both atmospheric and internal models work in close
collaboration in this case, clarity demands that the term
``BT-Settl'' be reserved for the atmospheric models.}.
The BT-Settl atmospheric models are arguably the most advanced model
atmospheres used as a boundary condition for any of the evolutionary
models we studied. Further, the fact that the \citet{Baraffeetal2015}
models incorporate the same atmospheres we used to derive fundamental
parameters leads us to expect a somewhat better agreement between
those parameters and the model predictions. Yet, their results are
mixed and not qualitatively better than the models that use other
atmospheric boundary conditions (Dartmouth and MIST). The same can be
said for the YaPSI models, which also incorporate the BT-Settl
atmospheres. This consideration again suggests that any mismatches
may be indicative of deeper theoretical discrepancies independent of
the choice of atmospheric boundary conditions.
One advantage of the \citet{Baraffeetal2015} models is that they
include significantly lower temperatures, and along with PARSEC are
the only models discussed here that can model GJ 1245 C at
2,611$\pm$109\,K. However as seen in Figure \ref{fig:evol3}, the
temperature predictions would only agree to the inferred value if the
GJ 1245 system is young, with an age ranging from 250\,Myr to
800\,Myr, and that would then be in disagreement with the predictions
for luminosity. While both components of GJ 1245 exhibit H$\alpha$
emission (Figure \ref{fig:spectra2}, best seen in the high resolution
digital supplement) such emission is common in this very low mass
regime (note also H$\alpha$ emission in GJ 22 C and GJ 1081 B), and
does not necessarily indicate youth \citep[e.g.,][]{Browningetal2010}.
\subsection{The PARSEC Models}\label{subsubsec:parsec}
The PAdova-TRieste Stellar Evolution Code \citep{Bressanetal2012} is a
versatile family of codes that over the years has developed specific
treatments for different regions of the HR
diagram. \citet{Chenetal2014} updated the code for the specific
treatment of the lower main sequence. The code allows the choice of a
wide range of parameters including a well populated metallicity grid
and has a convenient web
interface\footnote{http://stev.oapd.inaf.it/cgi-bin/cmd}. The code
uses the BT-Settl atmospheres (Section \ref{subsec:atmospheric}) as
the boundary condition, albeit with the older metallicities of
\citet{Asplundetal2009}. \citet{Chenetal2014} calibrates the model
using the main sequences of several young and intermediate age star
clusters, and obtains remarkably good results from a populations
perspective in the sense that their isochrones are a good
representation of the cluster's main sequence. However in such a
comparison masses are treated indirectly in the sense that unless the
cluster's initial mass function is precisely known mass becomes a free
parameter for the color-magnitude fit. When masses become a fixed
parameter we find that the PARSEC models
are systematically too cold. Their temperatures tend to be about 200\,K to 300\,K lower
than our inferred temperatures, as shown in the top panels of Figures
\ref{fig:evol1}, \ref{fig:evol2}, and \ref{fig:evol3}. While
their radius predictions are in range with the other models, the
predicted luminosities are accordingly lower. We note however that
if these mismatches could be fixed while preserving PARSEC's ability to
model populations in the HR diagram it would become a powerful tool.
\subsection{The YaPSI Models}\label{subsubsec:yapsi}
The Yale-Postdam Stellar Isochrones\footnote{http://www.astro.yale.edu/yapsi/}
\citep[YaPSI,][]{Spadaetal2017}
are an adaptation of the Yonsei-Yale family of codes
modified to emphasize the physics of low mass stars. Their approach
also relies on BT-Settl boundary conditions. Tow distinguishing
factors are an extremely fine mass grid and the availability of a
Markov Chain Monte Carlo grid interpolator available for download.
The ability to do
fine grid interpolation is useful when testing boundary cases, such
as the transition to full convection (Section \ref{subsec:kissing}). The authors tested the
YaPSI models using the mass-luminosity relation of \citet{Benedictetal2016}
(Section \ref{sec:obs}),
the predecessor to our study that provided the dynamical masses we use here.
Benedict et al. provide only $V$ and $K$ magnitudes for individual components,
as opposed to the fundamental parameters we provide here. \citet{Spadaetal2017}
show that the YaPSI models as an ensemble do a good job of replicating the color-magnitude
diagram of \citet{Benedictetal2016}, albeit with wide dispersion
about the model sequence. Our tests show that the YaPSI models do
comparatively well. Table \ref{tab:matches}
shows that the YaPSI models do a slightly better job than the other
models in predicting the parameters of individual stars, however they
still lack the self-consistency necessary to fully match systems other than
GJ 22. One drawback is that their lower
mass limit is 0.15\,M$_{\odot}$, and so they cannot model GJ 1245 A and C.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\gridline{\fig{gj22ac_temp3.pdf}{0.39\textwidth}{}
\fig{gj1081ab_temp2.pdf}{0.39\textwidth}{}
}
\gridline{\fig{gj22ac_lum3.pdf}{0.39\textwidth}{}
\fig{gj1081ab_lum2.pdf}{0.39\textwidth}{}
}
\gridline{\fig{gj22ac_rad3.pdf}{0.39\textwidth}{}
\fig{gj1081ab_rad2.pdf}{0.39\textwidth}{}
}
\caption{\scriptsize Evolutionary
plots for the GJ 22 (left column)
and GJ 1081 (right column) systems. The line style and color
scheme is as follows: solid red line for Dartmouth plots, solid
blue line for MIST plots, blue dotted lines for the Baraffe
models, red dotted lines for the PARSEC models, and green dashed
lines for the YaPSI models. Two tracks are shown for each model,
corresponding to the primary and secondary components. The shaded
areas show the uncertainties inferred from the atmospheric fits
(Table \ref{tab:temp})See Section \ref{subsec:gj22ac} for a discussion
of the metallicity of GJ 22 AC. \label{fig:evol1}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\gridline{\fig{g25029ab_temp2.pdf}{0.45\textwidth}{}
\fig{gj469ab_temp2.pdf}{0.45\textwidth}{}
}
\gridline{\fig{g25029ab_lum2.pdf}{0.45\textwidth}{}
\fig{gj469ab_lum2.pdf}{0.45\textwidth}{}
}
\gridline{\fig{g25029ab_rad2.pdf}{0.45\textwidth}{}
\fig{gj469ab_rad2.pdf}{0.45\textwidth}{}
}
\caption{\scriptsize Same as Figure \ref{fig:evol1} for the G 250-29 and GJ 469 systems. \label{fig:evol2}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\gridline{\fig{gj1245ac_temp2.pdf}{0.45\textwidth}{}
}
\gridline{\fig{gj1245ac_lum2.pdf}{0.45\textwidth}{}
}
\gridline{\fig{gj1245ac_rad2.pdf}{0.45\textwidth}{}
}
\caption{\scriptsize Same as Figure \ref{fig:evol1} for the GJ 1245 system.
Only the Baraffe (blue dotted lines) and the PARSEC (red dotted lines) models reach cool enough temperatures
to model GJ 1245 C.\label{fig:evol3}}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion} \label{sec:discussion}
With the exception of the PARSEC models most of the evolutionary
tracks shown in Figures \ref{fig:evol1}, \ref{fig:evol2}, and
\ref{fig:evol3} could be reconciled with the BT-Settl predictions
(Table \ref{tab:temp}) if the uncertainties in temperature were
increased by an additional 50\,K on each side and if uncertainties in
radius were about doubled. In that sense it may well be that our
expectations of evolutionary models are simply higher than what is
possible, and we should conform to temperature predictions no more
accurate than 300\,K. That realization would be unfortunate because M
dwarf effective temperatures and radii are routinely expressed to much
smaller uncertainties \citep[e.g.,][]{Dieterichetal2014, Mannetal2015}
and as discussed in Section \ref{subsubsec:interferometry} can indeed
be determined to better precision.
\subsection{Radius Inflation}\label{subsec:radius}
Several observational studies that measure M dwarf radii using
eclipsing binaries or optical interferometry indicate that the radii
of M dwarfs tend to be larger than those predicted by stellar
structure models \citep[e.g.,][]{Torresetal2010, Boyajianetal2012,
FeidenAndChaboyer2012}. This trend is the so called radius inflation
problem. Most hypothesized explanations for the discrepancy involve
the interaction of magnetic fields with stellar matter. We find that
radius inflation is indeed a significant problem, with more than half
of model predictions resulting in radii that are two small, as shown
in Table \ref{tab:radius}. We find only three instances of a radius
being {\it over} predicted, and those involve the GJ 1245 AC system,
which has proven more difficult to model due to its very low mass.
Inspection of Figures \ref{fig:evol1}, \ref{fig:evol2}, and
\ref{fig:evol3} and Table \ref{tab:matches} shows that radius
inflation is the leading reason why model predictions do not achieve
the desired self-consistent solutions for binary systems other than GJ
22. None of the models we test here include the effects of magnetism.
If radius inflation is indeed due to magnetic effects that would
provide a natural explanation of the problem.
\subsection{GJ 22 AC, A Well Behaved Metal Poor System?}\label{subsec:gj22ac}
Out of the five star systems we used to test models the GJ 22 AC
system stands out as the only system for which the models of stellar
structure and evolution were able to produce an accurate and self
consistent solution. This is true of all models except for the PARSEC
model, which has systematic problems with under predicting effective
temperatures (Section \ref{subsubsec:parsec}). As discussed in Section
\ref{subsubsec:atmconsiderations}, the GJ 22 system is known to be
slightly metal poor, with \citet{Rojas-Ayalaetal2012} finding $[Fe/H]
= -0.19$, in agreement with our model fit. The system can therefore be
used as a model for the effect of deviations in metallicity for stars
with known masses. Out of the five evolutionary models we consider in
this work three have fine enough metallicity grids to model the effect
of of a change in metallicity of -0.19 dex. These are the Dartmouth
models, the MESA/MIST models, and the PARSEC models (Sections
\ref{subsubsec:dartmouth}, \ref{subsubsec:mist}, and
\ref{subsubsec:parsec}, respectively). Figure \ref{fig:evol1} shows
these three models plotted with $[Fe/H] = -0.20$ while the models of
\citet{Baraffeetal2015} and the YaPSI models remain at solar
metallicity. Figure \ref{fig:metallicity} shows the evolutionary
tracks of the three models that encompass lower metallicities plotted
at both solar metallicity and $[Fe/H] = -0.20$. For a given mass there
is an increase in temperature and a corresponding increase in
luminosity, while radius remains mostly unchanged for main sequence
ages. The variations due to this small change in metallicity appear to
be contained within the uncertainties of the atmospheric models. Not
counting the PARSEC models, Figures \ref{fig:evol1} and
\ref{fig:metallicity} show equally acceptable fits for both solar
metallicity models and the models with reduced metallicity. The cause
of the good evolutionary fits to GJ 22 A and C therefore appears to
not be connected to any variation in metallicity, which could have
been indicative of problems with the solar zero points adopted by the
several different models.
Our data do not support any further explanation for the fact that the
models provide such a good match to the GJ 22 AC system. We note that
while the spectroscopic fits GJ 22 A and C are good, so are the ones
for other stars in the sample. GJ 22 C also exhibits strong H$\alpha$
emission, as is common for mid to late M dwarfs, so a lack of magnetic
activity cannot be invoked as a simplifying factor either.
Another possible explanation is that in joint light $V\,sin\,i < 4\,km/s$ for
GJ 22 AC, indicating that both components are slow rotators \citep{Reinersetal2012}.
We suggest that further comparative studies between the GJ 22 AC system
and other systems could be particularly instructive with regards to
what is and is not working in stellar models.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\gridline{\fig{gj22ac_met_temp.pdf}{0.39\textwidth}{}
}
\gridline{\fig{gj22ac_met_lum.pdf}{0.39\textwidth}{}
}
\gridline{\fig{gj22ac_met_rad.pdf}{0.39\textwidth}{}
}
\caption{\scriptsize Evolutionary tracks for GJ 22 A and C for models that
vary metallicity. The dotted lines indicate solar metallicity while
the solid lines indicate $[Fe/H] = -0.2$ to approximate the metallicity
of the GJ 22 system ($[Fe/H] = -0.19$). Blue lines represent the MESA/MIST
models, red lines represent the Dartmouth models, and green lines
show the PARSEC models. At main sequence ages radius remains nearly invariant
while temperature and luminosity increase with decreasing metallicity.
The shaded areas show the uncertainties inferred from the atmospheric fits
(Table \ref{tab:temp}). Both metallicities can be accommodated by the data.
\label{fig:metallicity}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{G 250-29 B and GJ 469 B: The Effects of Small Changes in Mass and Metallicity} \label{subsec:smallchange}
G 250-29 B and GJ 469 B provide an interesting example of how stars
with very similar masses and metallicities can vary significantly in
luminosity and temperature. Figure \ref{fig:specdifferences} shows the
spectra for G 250-29 B (0.187$\pm$0.004\,M$_{\odot}$) and GJ 469 B
(0.188$\pm$0.004\,M$_{\odot}$). While the spectra are remarkably
similar in morphology the spectrum of G 250-29 B has about 1.5 times the
flux of GJ 469 B. Using the atmospheric derivations listed in Table
\ref{tab:temp}, G 250-29 B is more luminous by a factor of 1.26, still
within the uncertainties, and hotter by 145\,K, which is significant
given the uncertainty in temperature of 109\,K (Section
\ref{subsubsec:interferometry}). Their radii are also significantly
different at 0.231$\pm$0.011\,R$_{\odot}$ for G 250-29 B and
0.266$\pm$0.011\,R$_{\odot}$ for GJ 469 B. Neither system shows signs of youth,
with no H$\alpha$ emission, calculated $Log\,g = 5.0$, and well fit Ca
and K gravity indicators. There may be a slight difference in
metallicity, with metallicities ([Fe/H]) of -0.14 and -0.11 for the A and
B components of G 250-29 B, respectively, and -0.10 and -0.07 for the
A and B components of GJ 469. These differences are only borderline in
significance given that we can only infer the equal metallicities of components
of the same binaries to about 0.1 dex, however they
do work in the conventional sense of making the most metal poor stars
hotter. In the case of the GJ 22 system we saw that a
significantly greater difference in metallicity of -0.19 had the effect
of changing the predicted model temperatures by only about 100\,K
(Figure \ref{fig:metallicity}), therefore either the models are
unreliable in their treatment of metallicity or it is unlikely that
such a small change in metallicity between G 250-29 B and GJ 469 B
would account for such a large change in observable characteristics.
This comparison between G 250-29 B and GJ 469 B shows that even with
very similar masses measured to high precision two stars can be
significantly different. The reasons for these differences are not
clear, and that adds a note of caution when interpreting M dwarf
evolutionary models. There are still higher order effects that
probably cannot be understood given our current constraints on
observational parameters and our ability to model them.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{specdifferences.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize Flux calibrated spectra for G 250-29 B and GJ469 B.
The spectra were smoothed using a Gaussian kernel for clarity. G 250-29 B
has about 1.5 times the flux of GJ 469 B. Fringing is
present at wavelengths greater than 9,000\,\AA.}
\label{fig:specdifferences}
\end{figure*}
\end{center}
\subsection{The Transition to Full Convection, the Jao Gap, and
the Convective Kissing Instability} \label{subsec:kissing}
The transition to a fully convective interior is a hallmark of M
dwarfs. It is predicted to occur at masses ranging from
0.28\,M$_{\odot}$ to 0.33\,M$_{\odot}$
\citep[e.g.,][]{ChabrierAndBaraffe1997}, corresponding to early to mid
M subtypes. Since then several works have attempted to refine our
understanding of this transition. Understanding this transition has
become particularly interesting in light of the so called {\it Jao
gap} \citep{Jaoetal2018}, a thin gap in the color-magnitude diagram
noticed in {\it Gaia} DR2 data that is thought to be related to the
transition to full convection.
Theoretical work by \citet{vanSadersAndPinsonneault2012} propose that
there exists a mass range immediately above the onset of full
convection where $^3$He burning produces a convective core that is
initially separated from the star's deep convective zone by a thin
radiative envelope. As the convective core grows, periodic merging
with the convective envelope causes pulsations in luminosity,
temperature, and radius. They call this phenomenon the {\it
convective kissing instability}. Their work uses the MESA stellar
evolution code (Section \ref{subsubsec:mist}) The MIST evolutionary
tracks plotted in Figures \ref{fig:evol1} and \ref{fig:evol2} show
those oscillations for three stars: G 250-29 A (0.35\,M$_{\odot}$), GJ
469 A (0.33\,M$_{\odot}$), and GJ 1081 A (0.32\,M$_{\odot}$).
\citet{BaraffeAndChabrier2018} also note the existence of the
convective kissing instability, but at a much narrower mass range of
0.34\,M$_{\odot}$ to 0.36\,M$_{\odot}$. While that work predicts
pulsations, they do not appear in the \citet{Baraffeetal2015}
evolutionary tracks for G 250-29 A (0.35\,M$_{\odot}$, Figure
\ref{fig:evol2}) because that work produced a model grid in steps of
0.1\,M$_{\odot}$ as opposed to 0.01\,M$_{\odot}$ in
\citet{BaraffeAndChabrier2018}. Our interpolation therefore skipped
over this feature. \citet{MacDonaldAndGizis2018} also postulate that
the Jao gap is caused by the increase in luminosity due to the merging
of a convective core and a convective envelope originally separated by
a thin radiative zone, but do not find that this merging leads to a
periodic instability. As discussed extensively in
\citet{Jaoetal2018}, the YaPSI models (Section \ref{subsubsec:yapsi})
predict the Jao gap even though we do not see any manifestation of
pulsations in the YaPSI plots in this work. Without finer mass
coverage it is impossible to generalize the discussion to other
models, and a general assessment of issues regarding the convective
kissing instability or other features that may be causing the Jao gap
is not our goal. Our intent here is only to note an interesting
feature that we saw in a model set (the MIST models) in light of a
recent discovery (the Jao gap), and provide some context.
As seen in the above discussion, several theoretical issues with
observational implications arise in the mass range bordering the
transition from partial to full convection. It would be interesting to
test whether or not the convective kissing instability exists by
detecting a relation in fundamental parameters that follows the
pulsations predicted by the MIST models for G 250-29 A, GJ
469 A, and GJ 1081 A. Similarly, the steeper slope of the mass luminosity
relation around the transition to full convection predicted by the YaPSI
models should be
tested observationally. While the dynamical masses in our data set
are precise enough, we lack the very large sample with finely spaced
mass coverage that would be required for such tests. We therefore
emphasize that even with the robust mass-luminosity relation of
\citet{Benedictetal2016} there are still open questions in low mass
stellar structure whose answers will require the study of many more
systems with dynamical masses.
\begin{deluxetable*}{rccccc}
\tabletypesize{\tiny}
\tablecaption{Model Matches \tablenotemark{a} \label{tab:matches}}
\tablehead{ \colhead{Star, Property} &
\colhead{MIST} &
\colhead{Dartmouth} &
\colhead{Bar. 2015} &
\colhead{PARSEC} &
\colhead{YaPSI} }
\startdata
GJ 22 A $T_{eff}$ & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & X & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark \\
$L$ & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark Y & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark \\
$R$ & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark \\
\hline
GJ 22 C $T_{eff}$ & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & X & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark \\
$L$ & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & YY & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark \\
$R$ & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark \\
\hline
\hline
GJ 1081 A $T_{eff}$ & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & X & \checkmark \checkmark \\
$L$ & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & YY & \checkmark \checkmark \\
$R$ & X & X & YY & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \\
\hline
GJ 1081 B $T_{eff}$ & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & X & \checkmark \checkmark \\
$L$ & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & YY & \checkmark \checkmark \\
$R$ & X & X & YY & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \\
\hline
\hline
G 250-29 A $T_{eff}$ & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & X & \checkmark \checkmark \\
$L$ & \checkmark Y & \checkmark & \checkmark Y & YY & \checkmark \checkmark \\
$R$ & Y & \checkmark & \checkmark Y & \checkmark Y & \checkmark Y \\
\hline
G 250-29 B $T_{eff}$ & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & X & \checkmark \checkmark \\
$L$ & YY & X & Y & YY & \checkmark \checkmark \\
$R$ & Y & X & YY & Y & YY \\
\hline
\hline
GJ 469 A $T_{eff}$ & X & \checkmark & X & \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark \\
$L$ & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark Y & \checkmark Y & \checkmark \checkmark \\
$R$ & \checkmark Y & \checkmark Y & \checkmark Y & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark Y \\
\hline
GJ 469 B $T_{eff}$ & \checkmark & X & \checkmark & X & \checkmark \checkmark \\
$L$ & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & YY & YY & \checkmark \checkmark \\
$R$ & Y & YY & YY & \checkmark \checkmark & YY \\
\hline
\hline
GJ 1245 A $T_{eff}$ & \checkmark & X & \checkmark & X & \nodata \\
$L$ & \checkmark & X & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark & \nodata \\
$R$ & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & X & \nodata \\
\hline
GJ 1245 C $T_{eff}$ & \nodata & \nodata & Y & X & \nodata \\
$L$ & \nodata & \nodata & \checkmark \checkmark & \checkmark \checkmark & \nodata \\
$R$ & \nodata & \nodata & X & X & \nodata \\
\hline
\hline
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{ \checkmark \checkmark \checkmark $-$ The model is a full match for the system. All parameter are correct and mutually respect coevality.
This condition is only satisfied for the MIST model of GJ 22 AC. \\
\checkmark \checkmark $-$ The parameter in question is predicted correctly for main sequence ages and respects coevality between the two components of the system,
but is not coeval with the other parameter predictions for the same system. \\
\checkmark Y $-$ The parameter in question is predicted correctly for both main sequence and pre main sequence ages, but coevality is only satisfied at pre
main sequence ages. \\
\checkmark $-$ The parameter in question is predicted correctly for main sequence ages, but the coevality condition between components
of the same system is either not met or cannot be established. \\
YY $-$ The parameter is only predicted correctly if the system is pre main sequence and in that case coevality is respected. \\
Y $-$ The parameter is only predicted correctly if the star system is pre-main sequence. Coevality is not established.
This condition is easy to satisfy due to the shape of most evolutionary tracks in Figures (\ref{fig:evol1}, \ref{fig:evol2}, and \ref{fig:evol3}), and is
not necessarily indicative of a young system. \\
X $-$ The parameter is not predicted correctly under any assumption. }
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{deluxetable*}{rccccc}
\tabletypesize{\tiny}
\tablecaption{Radius Comparisons \tablenotemark{a} \label{tab:radius}}
\tablehead{ \colhead{Star, Property} &
\colhead{MIST} &
\colhead{Dartmouth} &
\colhead{Bar. 2015} &
\colhead{PARSEC} &
\colhead{Yapsi} }
\startdata
GJ 22 A & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark \\
C & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark \\
GJ 1081 A & $\Uparrow$ & $\Uparrow$ & $\Uparrow$ & $\Uparrow$ & $\Uparrow$ \\
B & $\Uparrow$ & $\Uparrow$ & $\Uparrow$ & \checkmark & $\Uparrow$ \\
G 259-29 A & $\Uparrow$ & \checkmark & $\Uparrow$ & \checkmark & \checkmark \\
B & $\Uparrow$ & $\Uparrow$ & $\Uparrow$ & $\Uparrow$ & $\Uparrow$ \\
GJ 469 A & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark \\
B & $\Uparrow$ & $\Uparrow$ & $\Uparrow$ & \checkmark & $\Uparrow$ \\
GJ 1245 A & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\Downarrow$ & \nodata \\
C & \nodata & \nodata & $\Downarrow$ & $\Downarrow$ & \nodata \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{\checkmark means the model radius matches the radius we infer. \\
$\Uparrow$ means the radius is inflated in the sense that theory predicts a smaller radius. \\
$\Downarrow$ means the theoretically predicted radius is larger than what we infer.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\subsection{Other Models} \label{subsec:approaches}
In the current study we test the hypothesis that
evolutionary models can produce model grids applicable to a
wide range of stellar masses, and obtained mixed results. One
limitation of the grid approach is that it becomes difficult to
treat second order effects such as rotation and magnetism. It is
particularly noteworthy than none of the models discussed in Section
\ref{subsec:evolutionary} include magnetism.
It is not our goal here to judge the merits of models we did not
include in our tests, however it is worth noting that other approaches
to stellar modeling exist, and that many of them attempt to model the
effects of magnetism, rotation, and other higher order factors.
Significant work has been done in extending conventional models into
the magnetic domain with the incorporation of magnetohydrodynamics,
with emphasis on its effects on convection and radius inflation
\citep[e.g.,][]{FeidenAndChaboyer2012, MullanAndMacDonald2001}. These
models are usually tested on a small number of stars with well known
properties. Examples of low mass stars for which these models were
applied are: KOI-126 \citep{Feidenetal2011,SpadaAndDemarque2012}, EF
Aquarii \citep{FeidenAndChaboyer2012}, UV PSc, YY Gem, and CU Cnc
\citep{FeidenAndChaboyer2013}, Kepler-16 and CM Dra
\citep{FeidenAndChaboyer2014}, UScoCTIO5 and HIP 78977
\citep{Feiden2016}, LSPM J1314+1320 \citep{MacDonaldAndMullan2017a},
LP 661-13, KELT J041621-620046, and AD 3814
\citep{MacDonaldAndMullan2017b}, GJ 65 A \citep{MacDonaldetal2018},
and Trappist-1 \citep{Mullanetal2018}.
Unfortunately few of these tests used stars with well measured dynamical masses,
so the fundamental connection between mass and stellar evolution is often
tested only indirectly. Due to the work we present here the field is now ripe
for a new generation of model testing when theorists can use this data set
to fine tune model predictions.
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}\label{sec:conclusions}
The results from our tests are mixed. On one perspective, it is clear
that, with the exception of GJ 22 AC, the models cannot provide fully
consistent solutions to the full extent of the binary star evolution
test. From another perspective, the conditions of this test are quite
stringent, and we should not dismiss the fact that the models do have
predictive power. It is also important to keep in mind that the tests
must be interpreted on a statistical context because while models
themselves are theoretical and do not carry uncertainties, their
comparisons to data do. The data we are testing against, namely the
matches between observed spectra and model atmospheres summarized in
Table \ref{tab:temp} are matches that as an ensemble carry an
uncertainty, quoted and propagated to 1\,$\sigma$. Because those
atmospheric model comparisons are the root for evolutionary model
comparisons and they have been validated to 1\,$\sigma$ to the quoted
uncertainties we should expect the comparisons, or predictions, made
by the evolutionary models to also be correct only two thirds of the
time, regardless of the fact that models themselves are not
constructed to a certain level of uncertainty. We should further take
into account that, despite the significant amount of observing
resources used by this project, the test sample remains small. A
sample of ten stars in five binary systems is prone to uncertainties
arising from statistics of small numbers. Nevertheless, being in full
agreement with the data only in one out of five systems is likely to
be a deficit beyond statistical uncertainties. As previously noted,
agreement between models and observations could be reached if the
uncertainties in the quantities derived from atmospheric models were
artificially increased. In that sense it is clear that atmospheric
models are further along in predictive power than evolutionary models
when it comes to predicting the same basic stellar parameters. On the
other hand, analysis of the similarities and differences between G
250-29 B and GJ 469 B (Section \ref{subsec:smallchange}) indicates
that the problem of M dwarf modeling may be intrinsically more complex
than what we imagine, with stars of similar masses and metallicities
having significantly different observable parameters. If that is a
general case then it could be that the expectation we have for model
results are simply not realistic.
We believe that the best way to interpret the results we present here is to say
that evolutionary models should be used with caution. In an age when
the drive to characterize exoplanets places a large emphasis
on stellar parameters, the accuracy of parameters derived from
evolutionary models should not yet be taken for granted, as they often are.
We believe, however, that the true value of the
data we present here is
its potential to test models that are specifically built or fine-tuned
to the dynamical masses and spectra of each binary component, while
respecting the constraints of coevality and equal metallicity natural
to a binary system. As such, we see these observations and the present
work not only as a means to test the past,
but rather as a tool to guide future theoretical efforts. We note that
all spectra discussed here are available as a digital supplement to
this work and we encourage theorists to use them as a means of
constraining new models.
On the observational front we note the need of similar observations to
extend the mass coverage to the late M dwarfs, where our analysis was
based on only one binary system, GJ 1245 AC. We note also that while
broad mass coverage is valuable, detailed observations of systems of
nearly equal mass with well known dynamical masses are essential to
make sense of secondary effects such as rotation and magnetic field
topology, especially around the transition to full convection. We
plan to carry out similar observations for such systems in the near
future.
\section{Summary}\label{sec:summary}
We used HST/STIS to obtain spatially resolved spectra of five M dwarf
systems with known individual dynamical masses and used them as
benchmarks to test models of stellar structure and evolution. Our
principal findings are as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item{The BT-Settl atmospheric models produce synthetic spectra that
are a good match to observations, and their validity was verified
by comparison to parameters derived with long baseline optical interferometry
(Section \ref{subsubsec:interferometry}). We adopt their best
match temperature as an approximation of the true effective
temperature of our targets. The agreement is somewhat worse at
cooler temperatures, possibly due to the need for a finer
temperature grid and also the intrinsic complexity in modeling
cooler atmospheres due to molecules and dust formation
(Section \ref{subsubsec:atmconsiderations}).}
\item{There may be a weak tendency for the BT-Settl models to underestimate
surface gravities (Section \ref{subsubsec:atmconsiderations}).}
\item{We tested the Dartmouth evolutionary models
\citep{Dotteretal2008}, the MIST evolutionary models
\citep{Choietal2016,Dotteretal2016}, the models of
\citet{Baraffeetal2015}, the PARSEC models \citep{Bressanetal2012}, and
the YaPSI models \citep{Spadaetal2017}
with the properties derived from our
comparison of observed spectra to model atmospheres. We find only
marginal agreement between evolutionary models and observations.
Out of five systems the models only reproduced one of them, GJ 22 AC,
in a self consistent manner. We note that the PARSEC models are systematically
too cold (Section \ref{subsec:evolutionary}, Figures \ref{fig:evol1},
\ref{fig:evol2}, and \ref{fig:evol3}, and Table \ref{tab:matches}).}
\item{We confirm the known
tendency towards radius inflation, in the sense that models
under-predict the true radius (Section \ref{subsec:radius}).}
\item{We note that the GJ 22 AC system is well modeled in a self-consistent manner
by all models we tested except for the systematically too cold PARSEC models.
The system is slightly metal poor, but that does not seem to affect the quality
of the fits. It is not clear what if anything is special about the GJ 22 system
(Section \ref{subsec:gj22ac}).}
\item{We discuss the case of G 250-29 B and GJ 469 B, where nearly equal masses and metallicities
produce significantly different luminosities, temperature and radii.
This example may be indicative of the need for a more detailed treatment of stellar
structure and evolution (Section \ref{subsec:smallchange}).}
\item{We note that the principal utility of the data presented here is
not as a test of existing models but rather as a guide for future
theoretical approaches. As such, we include all data as a digital
supplement (Section \ref{sec:conclusions}).}
\item{We emphasize the need for more spatially resolved spectroscopic observations of
M dwarfs with dynamical masses, especially for masses close to the transition to
full convection (Section \ref{subsec:kissing} and for late M dwarfs, where our coverage
consists of a single system, GJ 1245 AC (Section \ref{sec:conclusions}).}
\end{itemize}
\acknowledgments{
We thank Russel White, Alycia Weinberger, G. Fritz Benedict, and the
STIS instrument team at STScI for helpful
discussions. We are grateful to Andrew Mann for providing his calibration spectra.
S. B. D. acknowledges support from the NSF Astronomy and
Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowship program through grant
AST-1400680. T. J. H. acknowledges support from NSF grant AST-171555.
Support for HST-GO program number 12938 was provided by
NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which
is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in
Astronomy, Incorporated, under NASA contract NAS5-26555.
}
|
\section{Introduction}
3D scene understanding~\cite{yang20203dssd,li2019stereo,shi2019pv,hou20193d,wang2018sgpn,su2018splatnet} has attracted more and more attention in recent years due to its wide real-world applications. As one fundamental 3D computer vision task, scene flow estimation~\cite{liu2019flownet3d,wupointpwc,puy2020flot,mittal2020just,gu2019hplflownet,hur2020self} focuses on computing the 3D motion field between two consecutive frames, which provides important dynamic information. Conventionally, scene flow is directly estimated from RGB images \cite{mayer2016large,menze2015object,vedula2005three,vogel2013piecewise}. Since 3D data becomes easier to obtain, many works \cite{gu2019hplflownet,liu2019flownet3d,wupointpwc,puy2020flot} begin to focus on scene flow estimation of point clouds more recently.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{overview.png}
\caption{Illustration of the proposed point-voxel correlation fields. For a point in the source point cloud, we find its $k$-nearest neighbors in the target point cloud to extract point-based correlations. Moreover, we model long-range interactions by building voxels centered around this source point. Combining these two types of correlations, our PV-RAFT captures all-pairs dependencies to deal with both large and small displacements. }
\label{fig:overview}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
Thanks to the recent advances in deep learning, many approaches adopt deep neural networks for scene flow estimation \cite{gu2019hplflownet,liu2019flownet3d,wupointpwc,puy2020flot,ushani2018feature}. Among these methods, \cite{liu2019flownet3d,wupointpwc} borrow ideas from \cite{ilg2017flownet,dosovitskiy2015flownet,sun2018pwc}, leveraging techniques in mature optical flow area. FlowNet3D designs a flow embedding module to calculate correlations between two frames. Built upon PWC-Net \cite{sun2018pwc}, PointPWC-Net \cite{wupointpwc} introduces a learnable point-based cost volume without the need of 4D dense tensors. These methods follow a coarse-to-fine strategy, where scene flow is first computed at low resolution and then upsampled to high resolution. However, this strategy has several limitations~\cite{teed2020raft} , \eg error accumulation from early steps and the tendency to miss fast-moving objects. One possible solution is to adopt Recurrent All-Pairs Field Transforms (RAFT) \cite{teed2020raft}, a state-of-the-art method for 2D optical flow, that builds correlation volumes for all pairs of pixels. Compared with the coarse-to-fine strategy, the all-pairs field preserves both local correlations and long-range relations. Nevertheless, it is non-trivial to lift it to the 3D space. Due to the irregularity of point clouds, building structured all-pairs correlation fields becomes challenging. Moreover, since point clouds are unordered, it is difficult to efficiently look up neighboring points of a 3D position. Unfortunately, the correlation volumes used in previous methods \cite{gu2019hplflownet,liu2019flownet3d,wupointpwc} only consider near neighbors, which fails to capture all-pairs relations.
To address these issues, we present point-voxel correlation fields that aggregate the advantages of both point-based and voxel-based correlations (illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:overview}). As mentioned in \cite{shi2019pv, tang2020searching,liu2019point}, point-based features maintain fine-grained information while voxel-based operation efficiently encodes large point set. Motivated by this fact, we adopt K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) search to find a fixed number of neighboring points for point-based correlation fields. Meanwhile, we voxelize target point clouds in a multi-scale fashion to build pyramid correlation voxels. These voxel-based correlation fields collect long-term dependencies and guide the predicted direction. Moreover, to save memory, we present a truncation mechanism to abandon the correlations with low scores.
Based on point-voxel correlation fields, we propose a Point-Voxel Recurrent All-Pairs Field Transforms (PV-RAFT) method to construct a new network architecture for scene flow estimation of point clouds. Our method first employs a feature encoder to extract per-point features, which are utilized to build all-pair correlation fields. Then we adopt a GRU-based operator to update scene flow in an iterative manner, where we leverage both point-based and voxel-based mechanisms to look up correlation features. Finally, a refinement module is introduced to smooth the estimated scene flow. To evaluate our method, we conducted extensive experiments on the FlyingThings3D \cite{mayer2016large} and KITTI \cite{menze2015object,menze2015joint} datasets. Results show that our PV-RAFT outperforms state-of-the-art methods by a large margin. The code is available at {\small \url{https://github.com/weiyithu/PV-RAFT}}.
\section{Related Work}
\noindent \textbf{3D Deep Learning:}
Increased attention has been paid to 3D deep learning \cite{wei2019conditional,jiang2020pointgroup,rao2020global,shi2019pointrcnn,qi2017pointnet,qi2017pointnet++,yang20203dssd,li2019stereo,shi2019pv,hou20193d,wang2018sgpn,qi2019deep} due to its wide applications. As a pioneer work, PointNet \cite{qi2017pointnet} is the first deep learning framework directly operating on point clouds. It uses a max pooling layer to aggregate features of unordered set. PointNet++ \cite{qi2017pointnet++} introduces a hierarchical structure by using PointNet as a unit module. Kd-network \cite{klokov2017escape} equips a kd-tree to divide point clouds and compute a sequence of hierarchical representations. DGCNN \cite{wang2019dynamic} models point clouds as a graph and utilizes graph neural networks to extract features. Thanks to these architectures, great achievements have been made in many 3D areas, \eg 3D recognition \cite{li2018pointcnn,li2018so,qi2017pointnet,qi2017pointnet++}, 3D segmentation \cite{jiang2020pointgroup,hou20193d,wang2018sgpn}. Recently, several works \cite{shi2019pv,tang2020searching,liu2019point} simultaneously leverage point-based and voxel-based methods to operate on point clouds. Liu \etal \cite{liu2019point} present Point-Voxel CNN (PVCNN) for efficient 3D deep learning. It combines voxel-based CNN and point-based MLP to extract features. As a follow-up, Tang \etal \cite{tang2020searching} design SPVConv \cite{tang2020searching} which adopts Sparse Convolution with the high-resolution point-based network. They further propose 3D-NAS to search the best architecture. PV-RCNN \cite{shi2019pv} takes advantage of high-quality 3D proposals from 3D voxel CNN and accurate location information from PointNet-based set abstraction operation. Instead of equipping point-voxel architecture to extract features, we design point-voxel correlation fields to capture correlations.
\noindent \textbf{Optical Flow Estimation:} Optical flow estimation \cite{ilg2017flownet,dosovitskiy2015flownet,ranjan2017optical,hui2018liteflownet,truong2020glu} is a hot topic in 2D area. FlowNet \cite{dosovitskiy2015flownet} is the first trainable CNN for optical flow estimation, adopting a U-Net autoencoder architecture. Based on \cite{dosovitskiy2015flownet}, FlowNet2 \cite{ilg2017flownet} stacks several FlowNet models to compute large-displacement optical flows. With this cascaded backbone, FlowNet2 \cite{ilg2017flownet} outperforms FlowNet \cite{dosovitskiy2015flownet} by a large margin. To deal with large motions, SPyNet \cite{ranjan2017optical} adopts the coarse-to-fine strategy with a spatial pyramid. Beyond SPyNet \cite{ranjan2017optical}, PWC-Net \cite{sun2018pwc} builds a cost volume by limiting the search range at each pyramid level. Similar to PWC-Net, LiteFlowNet \cite{hui2018liteflownet} also utilizes multiple correlation layers operating on a feature pyramid. Recently, GLU-Net \cite{truong2020glu} combines global and local correlation layers with an adaptive resolution strategy, which achieves both high accuracy and robustness. Different from the coarse-to-fine strategy, RAFT \cite{teed2020raft} constructs the multi-scale 4D correlation volume for all pairs of pixels. It further updates the flow field through a recurrent unit iteratively, and achieves state-of-the-art performance on optical flow estimation task. The basic structure of our PV-RAFT is similar to theirs. However, we adjust the framework to fit point clouds data format and propose point-voxel correlation fields to leverage all-pairs relations.
\noindent \textbf{Scene Flow Estimation:}
First introduced in \cite{vedula2005three}, scene flow is the three-dimension vector to describe the motion in real scenes. Beyond this pioneer work, many studies estimate scene flow from RGB images \cite{huguet2007variational,pons2007multi,wedel2008efficient,wedel2011stereoscopic,vcech2011scene,vogel20113d,vogel2013piecewise,vogel20153d,basha2013multi}. Based on stereo sequences, \cite{huguet2007variational} proposes a variational method to estimate scene flow. Similar to \cite{huguet2007variational}, \cite{wedel2008efficient} decouples the position and velocity estimation steps with consistent displacements in the stereo images. \cite{vogel20153d} represents dynamic scenes as a collection of rigidly moving planes and accordingly introduces a piecewise rigid scene model. With the development of 3D sensors, it becomes easier to get high-quality 3D data. More and more works focus on how to leverage point clouds for scene flow estimation \cite{dewan2016rigid,ushani2017learning,ushani2018feature,gu2019hplflownet,liu2019flownet3d,wupointpwc,puy2020flot}. FlowNet3D \cite{liu2019flownet3d} introduces two layers to simultaneously learn deep hierarchical features of point clouds and flow embeddings. Inspired by Bilateral Convolutional Layers, HPLFlowNet \cite{gu2019hplflownet} projects unstructured point clouds onto a permutohedral lattice. Operating on permutohedral lattice points, it can efficiently calculate scene flow. Benefiting from the coarse-to-fine strategy, PointPWC-Net \cite{wupointpwc} proposes cost volume, upsampling, and warping layers for scene flow estimation. Different from the above methods, FLOT \cite{puy2020flot} adopts the optimal transport to find correspondences. However, the correlation layers introduced in these methods only consider the neighbors in a local region, which fail to efficiently capture long-term dependencies. With point-voxel correlation fields, our PV-RAFT captures both local and long-range correlations.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{pipeline.png}
\caption{Illustration of the proposed PV-RAFT architecture. The feature extractor encodes high dimensional features of both $P_1$ and $P_2$, while the context extractor only encodes context features of $P_1$. We calculate the matrix dot product of two feature maps to construct all-pair correlation fields. The truncated correlation field is then used in iterative update block to save memory. The detailed structure of 'Iterative Update' module can be found in Figure \ref{fig:iteration}. The predicted flow from the iteration block finally converges to a static status and is fed into the separately trained refinement module. We use the refined flow as the final scene flow prediction.}
\label{fig:pipeline}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure*}
\section{Approach} \label{approach}
To build all-pairs fields, it is important to design a correlation volume which can capture both short-range and long-range relations. In this section, we first explain how to construct point-voxel correlation fields on point clouds. Then we will introduce the pipeline of our Point-Voxel Recurrent All-Pairs Field Transforms (PV-RAFT).
\subsection{Point-Voxel Correlation Fields} \label{sec:corr}
We first construct a full correlation volume based on feature similarities between all pairs. Given point clouds features $E_\theta(P_1)\in \mathbb{R}^{N_1\times D}, E_\theta(P_2)\in \mathbb{R}^{N_2\times D}$, where $D$ is the feature dimension, the correlation fields $\mathbf{C}\in \mathbb{R}^{N_1\times N_2}$ can be easily calculated by matrix dot product:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C} = E_\theta(P_1) \cdot E_\theta(P_2)
\end{equation}
\noindent \textbf{Correlation Lookup:}
The correlation volume $\mathbf{C}$ is built only once and is kept as a lookup table for flow estimations in different steps. Given a source point $p_1 = (x_1, y_1, z_1) \in P_1$, a target point $p_2 = (x_2, y_2, z_2) \in P_2$ and an estimated scene flow $f = (f_1, f_2, f_3) \in \textbf{f}$, the source point is expected to move to $q = (x_1 + f_1, x_2 + f_2, x_3 + f_3) \in Q$, where $Q$ is the translated point cloud. We can easily get the correlation fields between $Q$ and $P_2$ by searching the neighbors of $Q$ in $P_2$ and looking up the corresponding correlation values in $\mathbf{C}$. Such looking-up procedure avoids extracting features of $Q$ and calculating matrix dot product repeatedly while keeping the all-pairs correlations available at the same time. Since 3D points data is not structured in the dense voxel, grid sampling is no longer useful and we cannot directly convert 2D method \cite{teed2020raft} into 3D version. Thus, the main challenge is how to locate neighbors and look up correlation values efficiently in the 3D space.
\noindent \textbf{Truncated Correlation:}
According to our experimental results, not all correlation entries are useful in the subsequent correlation lookup process. The pairs with higher similarity often guide the correct direction of flow estimation, while dissimilar pairs tend to make little contribution. To save memory and increase calculation efficiency in correlation lookup, for each point in $P_1$, we select its top-$M$ highest correlations. Specifically, we will get truncated correlation fields $\mathbf{C}_M\in \mathbb{R}^{N_1\times M}$, where $M < N_2$ is the pre-defined truncation number. The point branch and voxel branch are built upon truncated correlation fields.
\noindent \textbf{Point Branch:}
A common practice to locate neighbors in 3D point clouds is to use K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) algorithm. Suppose the top-k nearest neighbors of $Q$ in $P_2$ is $\mathcal{N}_k = \mathcal{N}(Q)_k$ and their corresponding correlation values are $\textbf{C}_M(\mathcal{N}_k)$, the correlation feature between $Q$ and $P_2$ can be defined as:
\begin{equation}
\textbf{C}_p(Q, P_2) = \max_k({\rm MLP}({\rm concat}(\textbf{C}_M(\mathcal{N}_k), \mathcal{N}_k - Q)))
\end{equation}
where \textit{concat} stands for concatenation and $\max$ indicates a max pooling operation on $k$ dimension. We briefly note $\mathcal{N}(Q)$ as $\mathcal{N}$ in the following statements as all neighbors are based on $Q$ in this paper. The point branch extracts fine-grained correlation features of the estimated flow since the nearest neighbors are often close to the query point, illustrated in the upper branch of Figure \ref{fig:overview}. While the point branch is able to capture local correlations, long-range relations are often not taken into account in KNN scenario. Existing methods try to solve this problem by implementing the coarse-to-fine strategy, but error often accumulates if estimates in the coarse stage are not accurate.
\noindent \textbf{Voxel Branch:}
To tackle the problem mentioned above, we propose a voxel branch to capture long-range correlation features. Instead of voxelizing $Q$ directly, we build voxel neighbor cubes centered around $Q$ and check which points in $P_2$ lie in these cubes. Moreover, we also need to know each point's relative direction to $Q$. Therefore, if we denote sub-cube side length by $r$ and cube resolution by $a$, then the neighbor cube of $Q$ would be a $a\times a\times a$ Rubik's cube:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{N}_{r,a} &= \{\mathcal{N}_r^{(\mathbf{i})} \lvert \mathbf{i} \in \mathbb{Z}^3\} \\
\mathcal{N}_r^{(\mathbf{i})} &= \{Q + \mathbf{i} * r + \mathbf{dr} \lvert \, \lVert{\mathbf{dr}}\rVert_1 \leq \frac{r}{2}\}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{i} = [i, j, k]^T, \lceil{-\frac{a}{2}}\rceil \leq i,j,k \leq \lceil{\frac{a}{2}}\rceil \in \mathbb{Z}$ and each $r\times r\times r$ sub-cube $\mathcal{N}_r^{(\mathbf{i})}$ indicates a specific direction of neighbor points (\eg, $[0, 0, 0]^T$ indicates the central sub-cube). Then we identify all neighbor points in the sub-cube $\mathcal{N}_r^{(\mathbf{i})}$ and average their correlation values to get sub-cube features. The correlation feature between $Q$ and $P_2$ can be defined as:
\begin{equation}
\textbf{C}_v(Q, P_2) = {\rm MLP}\left( \mathop{\rm concat}\limits_{\mathbf{i}}\left(\frac{1}{n_{\mathbf{i}}}\sum_{n_{\mathbf{i}}}\textbf{C}_M\left(\mathcal{N}_r^{(\mathbf{i})}\right)\right)\right)
\end{equation}
where $n_{\mathbf{i}}$ is the number of points in $P_2$ that lie in the $\mathbf{i}^{th}$ sub-cube of $Q$ and $\textbf{C}_v(Q, P_2) \in \mathbb{R}^{N_1\times a^3}$. Please refer to the lower branch of Figure \ref{fig:overview} for illustration.
The Voxel branch helps to capture long-range correlation features as $r, a$ could be large enough to cover distant points. Moreover, we propose to extract pyramid correlation voxels with fixed cube resolution $a$ and proportionate growing sub-cube side length $r$. During each pyramid iteration, $r$ is doubled so that the neighbor cube expands to include farther points. The pyramid features are concatenated together before feeding into the MLP layer.
\subsection{PV-RAFT}
Given the proposed correlation fields that combine the fine-grained and long-range features, we build a deep neural network for scene flow estimation. The pipeline consists of four stages: (1) feature extraction, (2) correlation fields construction, (3) iterative scene flow estimation, (4) flow refinement. The first three stages are differentiable in an end-to-end manner, while the fourth one is trained separately with previous parts frozen. Our framework is called PV-RAFT and in this section we will introduce it in detail. Please refer to Figure \ref{fig:pipeline} for illustration.
\noindent \textbf{Feature Extraction:}
The feature extractor $E_\theta$ encodes point clouds with mere coordinates information into higher dimensional feature space, as $E_\theta: \mathbb{R}^{n \times 3} \mapsto \mathbb{R}^{n \times D}$. Our backbone framework is based on PointNet++ \cite{qi2017pointnet++}. For consecutive point clouds input $P_1, P_2$, the feature extractor outputs $E_\theta (P_1), E_\theta (P_2)$ as backbone features. Besides, we design a content feature extractor $E_\gamma$ to encode context feature of $P_1$. Its structure is exactly the same as feature extractor $E_\theta$, without weight sharing. The output context feature $E_\gamma (P_1)$ is used as auxiliary context information in GRU iteration.
\noindent \textbf{Correlation Fields Construction:}
As is introduced in Section \ref{sec:corr}, we build all-pair correlation fields $\mathbf{C}$ based on backbone features $E_\theta (P_1), E_\theta (P_2)$. Then we truncate it according to correlation value sorting and keep it as a lookup table for later iterative updates.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{iteration.png}
\caption{Illustration of the iterative update. This figure is a detailed explanation of the 'Iterative Update' module in Figure \ref{fig:pipeline}. During iteration $t$, we find both voxel neighbors and KNN of $Q_{t-1}$ in $P_2$. This helps us extract long-range voxel correlation features and fine-grained point correlation features from the truncated correlation field. The combined correlation feature, together with context feature and current flow estimate $f_{t-1}$ are fed to a convolutional motion head. The output is used as $x_t$ of the Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU). Finally, the flow head encodes the hidden state $h_t$ of GRU to predict the residual of flow estimation, which is used to update $f_t$ and $Q_t$.}
\label{fig:iteration}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure*}
\noindent \textbf{Iterative Flow Estimation:}
The iterative flow estimation begins with the initialize state $\mathbf{f}_0=0$. With each iteration, the scene flow estimation is updated upon the current state: $\mathbf{f}_{t+1}=\mathbf{f}_t + \Delta\mathbf{f}$. Eventually, the sequence converges to the final prediction $\mathbf{f_T}\to \textbf{f}^*$. Each iteration takes the following variables as input: (1) correlation features, (2) current flow estimate, (3) hidden states from the previous iteration, (4) context features. First, the correlation features are the combination of both fine-grained point-based ones and long-range pyramid-voxel-based ones:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C}_t = \mathbf{C}_p(Q_t, P_2) + \mathbf{C}_v(Q_t, P_2)
\end{equation}
Second, the current flow estimation is simply the direction vector between $Q_t$ and $P_1$:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{f}_t = Q_t - P_1
\end{equation}
Third, the hidden state $h_t$ is calculated by GRU cell\cite{teed2020raft}:
\begin{align}
&z_t = \sigma(\text{Conv}_{\text{1d}}([h_{t-1}, x_t], W_z)) \\
&r_t = \sigma(\text{Conv}_{\text{1d}}([h_{t-1}, x_t], W_r)) \\
&\hat{h_t} = \tanh(\text{Conv}_{\text{1d}}([r_t \odot h_{t-1}, x_t], W_h)) \\
& h_{t} = (1 - z_t) \odot h_{t-1} + z_t \odot \hat{h_t}
\end{align}
where $x_t$ is a concatenation of correlation $\mathbf{C}_t$, current flow $\mathbf{f}_t$ and context features $E_\gamma (P_1)$. Finally, the hidden state $h_t$ is fed into a small convolutional network to get the final scene flow estimate $\textbf{f}^*$. The detailed iterative update process is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:iteration}.
\noindent \textbf{Flow Refinement:}
The purpose of designing this flow refinement module is to make scene flow prediction $\textbf{f}^*$ smoother in the 3D space. Specifically, the estimated scene flow from previous stages is fed into three convolutional layers and one fully connected layer. To update flow for more iterations without out of memory, the refinement module is not trained end-to-end with other modules. We first train the backbone and iterative update module, then we freeze the weights and train the refinement module alone.
\subsection{Loss Function}
\noindent \textbf{Flow Supervision:}
We follow the common practice of supervised scene flow learning to design our loss function. In detail, we use $l_1$-norm between the ground truth flow $\mathbf{f}_{gt}$ and estimated flow $\mathbf{f}_{est}$ for each iteration:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{iter} = \sum_{t=1}^{T}{w^{(t)}\lVert{(\mathbf{f}_{est}^{(t)} - \mathbf{f}_{gt})}\rVert_1}
\end{equation}
where $T$ is the total amount of iterative updates, $\mathbf{f}_{est}^{(t)}$ is the flow estimate at $t^{th}$ iteration, and $w^{(t)}$ is the weight of
$t^{th}$ iteration:
\begin{equation}
w^{(t)} = \gamma * (T - t - 1)
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is a hyper-parameter and we set $\gamma = 0.8$ in our experiments.
\noindent \textbf{Refinement Supervision:}
When we freeze the weights of previous stages and only train the refinement module, we design a similar refinement loss:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{ref} &= \lVert{(\mathbf{f}_{ref} - \mathbf{f}_{gt})}\rVert_1
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{f}_{ref}$ is the flow prediction from refinement module.
\section{Experiments}
In this section, we conducted extensive experiments to verify the superiority of our PV-RAFT. We first introduce the experimental setup, including datasets, implementation details and evaluation metrics. Then we show main results on the FlyingThings3D \cite{mayer2016large} and KITTI \cite{menze2015object,menze2015joint} datasets, as well as ablation studies. Finally, we give a further analysis of PV-RAFT to better illustrate the effectiveness of our proposed method.
\begin{table*}[tb]\footnotesize
\centering
\caption{Performance comparison on the FlyingThings3D and KITTI datasets. All methods are trained on FlyingThings3D in a supervised manner. The best results for each dataset are marked in bold.}
\resizebox{0.8\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|l|cccc}
\hline
Dataset &Method &EPE(m)$\downarrow$ & Acc Strict$\uparrow$ & Acc Relax$\uparrow$ & Outliers$\downarrow$ \\ \hline
\multirow{5}{*}{FlyingThings3D}&
FlowNet3D~\cite{liu2019flownet3d}
& 0.1136 & 0.4125 & 0.7706 & 0.6016 \\
&HPLFlowNet~\cite{gu2019hplflownet}
& 0.0804 & 0.6144 & 0.8555 & 0.4287 \\
&PointPWC-Net~\cite{wupointpwc}
& 0.0588 & 0.7379 & 0.9276 & 0.3424 \\
&FLOT~\cite{puy2020flot}
& 0.052 & 0.732 & 0.927 & 0.357 \\
&PV-RAFT
&\bf{0.0461}&\bf{0.8169}&\bf{0.9574}&\bf{0.2924} \\ \hline
\multirow{5}{*}{KITTI}
&FlowNet3D~\cite{liu2019flownet3d}
& 0.1767 & 0.3738 & 0.6677 & 0.5271 \\
&HPLFlowNet~\cite{gu2019hplflownet}
& 0.1169 & 0.4783 & 0.7776 & 0.4103 \\
&PointPWC-Net~\cite{wupointpwc}
& 0.0694 & 0.7281 & 0.8884 & 0.2648 \\
&FLOT~\cite{puy2020flot}
&\bf{0.056} & 0.755 & 0.908 & 0.242 \\
&PV-RAFT
& \bf{0.0560}&\bf{0.8226}&\bf{0.9372}&\bf{0.2163} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:main}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
\noindent \textbf{Datasets:}
Same with \cite{gu2019hplflownet,liu2019flownet3d,wupointpwc,puy2020flot}, we trained our model on the FlyingThings3D \cite{mayer2016large} dataset and evaluated it on both FlyingThings3D \cite{mayer2016large} and KITTI \cite{menze2015object,menze2015joint} datasets. We followed \cite{gu2019hplflownet} to preprocess data. As a large-scale synthetic dataset, FlyingThings3D is the first benchmark for scene flow estimation. With the objects from ShapeNet \cite{chang2015shapenet}, FlyingThings3D consists of rendered stereo and RGB-D images. Totally, there are 19,640 pairs of samples in the training set and 3,824 pairs in the test set. Besides, we kept aside 2000 samples from the training set for validation. We lifted depth images to point clouds and optical flow to scene flow instead of operating on RGB images. As another benchmark, KITTI Scene Flow 2015 is a dataset for scene flow estimation in real scans \cite{menze2015object,menze2015joint}. It is built from KITTI raw data by annotating dynamic motions. Following previous works \cite{gu2019hplflownet,liu2019flownet3d,wupointpwc,puy2020flot}, we evaluated on 142 samples in the training set since point clouds were not available in the test set. Ground points were removed by height (0.3m). Further, we deleted points whose depths are larger than 35m.
\noindent \textbf{Implementation Details:}
We randomly sampled 8192 points in each point cloud to train PV-RAFT. For the point branch, we searched 32 nearest neighbors. For the voxel branch, we set cube resolution $a=3$ and built 3-level pyramid with $r=0.25,0.5,1$. To save memory, we set truncation number $M$ as 512. We updated scene flow for 8 iterations during training and evaluated the model with 32 flow updates. The backbone and iterative module were trained for 20 epochs. Then, we fixed their weights with 32 iterations and trained the refinement module for another 10 epochs. PV-RAFT was implemented in PyTorch \cite{paszke2017automatic}. We utilized Adam optimizer \cite{kingma2014adam} with initial learning rate as 0.001 .
\noindent \textbf{Evaluation Metrics:}
We adopted four evaluation metrics used in \cite{gu2019hplflownet,liu2019flownet3d,wupointpwc,puy2020flot}, including EPE, Acc Strict, Acc Relax and Outliers. We denote estimated scene flow and ground-truth scene flow as $f_{est}$ and $f_{gt}$ respectively. The evaluation metrics are defined as follows:
\noindent $\bullet$ \textbf{EPE}: $||f_{est}-f_{gt}||_2$. The end point error averaged on each point in meters.
\noindent $\bullet$ \textbf{Acc Strict}: the percentage of points whose \textbf{EPE} $< 0.05m$ or relative error $<5\%$.
\noindent $\bullet$ \textbf{Acc Relax}: the percentage of points whose \textbf{EPE} $< 0.1m$ or relative error $<10\%$.
\noindent $\bullet$ \textbf{Outliers}: the percentage of points whose \textbf{EPE} $>0.3m$ or relative error $>10\%$.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{visual.pdf}
\caption{Qualitative results on FlyingThings3D (top) and KITTI (bottom). Blue points and red points indicate $P_1$ and $P_2$ respectively. Translated points $P_1$ + $\textbf{f}$ are in green. Our PV-RAFT can deal with both small and large displacements' cases.}
\label{fig:visual}
\vspace{-1mm}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Main Results}
Quantitative results on the FlyingThings3D and KITTI datasets are shown in Table \ref{tab:main}. Our PV-RAFT achieves state-of-the-art performances on both datasets, which verifies its superiority and generalization ability. Especially, for Outliers metric, our method outperforms FLOT by 18.1\% and 10.6\% on two datasets respectively. The qualitative results in Figure \ref{fig:visual} further demonstrate the effectiveness of PV-RAFT. The first row and second row present visualizations on the FlyingThings3D and KITTI datasets respectively. As we can see, benefiting from point-voxel correlation fields, our method can accurately predict
both small and large displacements.
\begin{table*}[tb]\footnotesize
\centering
\caption{Ablation Studies of PV-RAFT on the FlyingThings3D dataset. We incrementally applied point-based correlation, voxel-based correlation and refinement module to the framework.}
\resizebox{0.8\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{ccc|cccc}
\hline
point-based &voxel-based&refine &\multirow{2}{*}{EPE(m)$\downarrow$} & \multirow{2}{*}{Acc Strict$\uparrow$} & \multirow{2}{*}{Acc Relax$\uparrow$} & \multirow{2}{*}{Outliers$\downarrow$} \\
correlation & correlation & module & & & & \\
\hline
$\checkmark$& &
& 0.0741 & 0.6111 & 0.8868 & 0.4549 \\
& $\checkmark$ &
& 0.0712 &0.6146 &0.8983 &0.4492 \\
$\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ &
& 0.0534 & 0.7348 & 0.9418 & 0.3645 \\
$\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$
&\bf{0.0461}&\bf{0.8169}&\bf{0.9574}&\bf{0.2924} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:ablation}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{iter.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of point-voxel correlation fields. In the first row, green points represent translated point cloud $P_1$ + $\textbf{f}$ while red points stand for target point cloud $P_2$. The pink cube is a point in the translated point cloud, whose correspondence in $P_2$ is the yellow cube. The correlation fields of voxel branch are illustrated in the second ($r=1$) and third ($r=0.25$) rows. If the target point (yellow cube) lies in a lattice, the boundaries of this lattice will be colored in black. The last row exhibits the correlation field of the point branch. The colors of the last three rows indicate normalized correlation scores, where red is highest and purple is lowest (Figure \ref{fig:overview} shows colormap). \textbf{At the beginning of the iterative update} (the first column), the predicted flow is not accurate so that the translated point is far from the target point. Since the voxel branch has large receptive fields, it can cover the target point while the point branch fails. From the first column and the second row, we see that the sub-cube which contains the target point has the highest correlation score. This indicates that the voxel branch provides effective guidance for flow prediction at early iterations. \textbf{As the iteration goes on}, the translated point gets near to the target point (the third column). The voxel branch only provides the coarse position of the target point (at the central sub-cube) while the point branch can accurately localize the target point by computing correlation scores of all neighbor points in the local region. The viewpoints are chosen to best visualize the sub-cube with the highest score. }
\label{fig:corr}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Ablation Studies} \label{sec:ablation}
We conducted experiments to confirm the effectiveness of each module in our method. Point-based correlation, voxel-based correlation and refinement module were applied to our framework incrementally. From Table \ref{tab:ablation}, we can conclude that each module plays an important part in the whole pipeline. As two baselines, the methods with only point-based correlation or voxel-based correlation fail to achieve high performance, since they cannot capture all-pairs relations. An intuitive solution is to employ more nearest neighbors in the point branch to increase the receptive field or decrease the side length $r$ in the voxel branch to take fine-grained correlations. However, we find that such straightforward methods lead to inferior results (See details in the supplemental material).
To better illustrate the effects of two types of correlations, we show visualizations in Figure \ref{fig:corr}. At the beginning of update steps, when predicted flows are initialized as zero, the estimated translated points are far from ground-truth correspondences in the target point cloud (first column). Under this circumstance, the similarity scores with near neighbors are small, where point-based correlation provides invalid information. In contrast, since voxel-based correlation has the large receptive field, it is able to find long-range correspondences and guide the prediction direction. As the update iteration increases, we will get more and more accurate scene flow. When translated points are near to the ground-truth correspondences, high-score correlations will concentrate on the centered lattice of the voxel (third column), which does not serve detailed correlations. However, we will get informative correlations from the point branch since KNN perfectly encodes local information.
\subsection{Further Analysis}
\begin{table}[tb]\footnotesize
\centering
\caption{Effects of truncation operation. $M$ denotes the truncation number.}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cc|ccc}
\hline
$M$ & memory & EPE(m)$\downarrow$ & Acc Strict$\uparrow$ & Outliers$\downarrow$ \\
\hline
128 & 7.4G
& 0.0585 & 0.7113 & 0.3810 \\
512 & 10.7G
& \bf{0.0461} & 0.8169 &0.2924 \\
1024 & 14.1G
&0.0475 &\bf{0.8173} &\bf{0.2910} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:truncate}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[tb]\footnotesize
\centering
\caption{Comparison with other correlation volume methods. "MLP+Maxpool" and "patch-to-patch" are correlation volumes used in FlowNet3D \cite{liu2019flownet3d} and PointPWC-Net \cite{wupointpwc} respectively. }
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|ccc}
\hline
Method & EPE(m)$\downarrow$ & Acc Strict$\uparrow$ & Outliers$\downarrow$ \\
\hline
MLP+Maxpool \cite{liu2019flownet3d}
& 0.0704 & 0.7137 & 0.3843 \\
patch-to-patch \cite{wupointpwc}
& 0.0614 & 0.7209 & 0.3628 \\ \hline
point-voxel
&\bf{0.0461}&\bf{0.8169}&\bf{0.2924} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:corr}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{table}
\iffalse
\begin{table}[tb]\footnotesize
\centering
\caption{Complexity analysis. We report FLOPs, model size and training epoches. Model sizes are obtained from \cite{puy2020flot} and EPE are evaluated on the FlyingThings3D dataset.}
\resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|cccc}
\hline
Method & FLOPs$\downarrow$ & model size$\downarrow$ & epoches$\downarrow$ &EPE(m)$\downarrow$ \\
\hline
FlowNet3D~\cite{liu2019flownet3d}
& \bf{3.46G} & 15M & 151 &0.1136 \\
PointPWC-Net~\cite{wupointpwc}
& 13.06G & 77M & 800 &0.0588 \\
FLOT~\cite{puy2020flot}
&26.38G&\bf{0.44M}&60 &0.052 \\ \hline
PV-RAFT
&12.78G&0.77M&\bf{30} &\bf{0.0461} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:complexity}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{table}
\fi
\noindent \textbf{Effects of Truncation Operation:}
We introduce the truncation operation to reduce running memory while maintain the performance. To prove this viewpoint, we conducted experiments with different truncation numbers $M$, which are shown in Table \ref{tab:truncate}. On the one hand, when $M$ is too small, the accuracy will degrade due to the lack of correlation information. On the other hand, achieving the comparable performance with $M=512$, the model adopting $M=1024$ needs about 14G running memory, which is not available on many GPU services (\eg RTX 2080 Ti). This result indicates that top 512 correlations are enough to accurately estimate scene flow with high efficiency.
\noindent \textbf{Comparison with Other Correlation Volumes:}
To further demonstrate the superiority of the proposed point-voxel correlation fields, we did comparison with correlation volume methods introduced in FlowNet3D \cite{liu2019flownet3d} and PointPWC-Net \cite{wupointpwc}. To fairly compare, we applied their correlation volumes in our framework to substitute point-voxel correlation fields. Evaluation results are shown in Table \ref{tab:corr}. Leveraging all-pairs relations, our point-voxel correlation module outperforms other correlation volume methods.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we have proposed a PV-RAFT method for scene flow estimation of point clouds. With the point-voxel correlation fields, our method integrates two types of correlations and captures all-pairs relations. Leveraging the truncation operation and the refinement module, our framework becomes more accurate. Experimental results on the FlyingThings3D and KITTI datasets verify the superiority and generalization ability of PV-RAFT.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant U1713214, Grant U1813218, Grant 61822603, in part by Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence (BAAI), and in part by a grant from the Institute for Guo Qiang, Tsinghua University.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Introduction}
\begin{table*}[t]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{\hskip 4pt}p{0.33\textwidth}|p{0.30\textwidth}@{\hskip 4pt}r@{\hskip 4pt}r@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Format} & \textbf{Input} & \textbf{Candidate Answers} & \textbf{Original} & \textbf{Calibrated} \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Multiple-choice} & \multirow{4}{*}{\parbox{0.33\textwidth}{Oxygen and sugar are the products of (A) cell division. (B) digestion. (C) photosynthesis. (D) respiration.}} & cell division. & 0.00 & 0.02 \\
& & digestion. & 0.00 & 0.01 \\
& & \textbf{photosynthesis.} & 0.00 & 0.83 \\
& & respiration. & 1.00 & 0.14 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Extractive} & \multirow{4}{*}{\parbox{0.33\textwidth}{What type of person can not be attributed civil disobedience? \\ Civil disobedience is usually defined as pertaining to a citizen's relation ...}} & \textbf{head of government} & 0.07 & 0.49 \\
& & public official & 0.91 & 0.26 \\
& & head of government of a country & 0.01 & 0.16 \\
& & public officials & 0.01 & 0.09 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{LM calibration examples for the T5 model with correct answers in bold. ``Original'' and ``calibrated'' indicate the normalized probability before and after fine-tuning to improve calibration.}
\label{tab:example}
\end{table*}
Language models (LMs; \citet{church-1988-stochastic,bengio2003neural,radford-2019-gpt2}) learn to model the probability distribution of text, and in doing so capture information about various aspects of the syntax or semantics of the language at hand.
Recent works have presented intriguing results demonstrating that modern large-scale LMs also capture a significant amount of knowledge, including factual knowledge about real-world entities \cite{petroni-etal-2019-language,jiang-2019-lpaqa,roberts-2020-pack,bouraoui-2020-relbert}, commonsense knowledge \cite{trinh-2018-commonsense,kocijan-2019-wsc,talmor-2019-olmpics,bosselut-2019-comet}, and simple numerical operations \cite{wallace-2019-numemb,talmor-2019-olmpics,geva-2020-genbert}.
Notably, large models trained on massive crawls of internet text (such as T5 \cite{raffel-2019-t5} and GPT-3 \cite{brown-2020-gpt3}) have been shown to be able to perform quite sophisticated knowledge-based tasks simply through prompting the model to predict the next words given a particular cue.
However, at the same time, LMs are obviously not omnipotent, and still fail to provide appropriate answers in many cases, such as when dealing with uncommon facts \cite{poerner-2019-ebert,jiang-2020-xfactr} or complex reasoning \cite{talmor-2019-olmpics}.
The high performance on datasets probing factual or numerical knowledge might be achieved through modeling superficial signals in the training data that are not generalizable to unseen test cases \cite{poerner-2019-ebert,zhou-2020-bertinfer,wallace-2019-numemb,talmor-2019-olmpics}.
Thus, if such models are to be deployed in real applications it is of crucial importance to determine the \emph{confidence} with which they can provide an answer.
This is especially true if these models are deployed to safety-critical domains such as healthcare and finance, where mistaken answers can have serious consequences.%
\footnote{For example, a mocked-up medical chatbot based on GPT-3 answered the question of ``should I kill myself?'' with ``I think you should'' \cite{quach20gpt3suicide}.}
In this paper, we ask the question ``how can we know when language models know, with confidence, the answer to a particular knowledge-based query?''
Specifically, we examine this from the point of view of \emph{calibration}, whether the model's probability estimates are well-aligned with the actual probability of the answer being correct.
We apply the largest publicly available LMs, T5, BART, and GPT-2, over a wide range of question answering (QA) datasets \cite{khashabi-2020-unifiedqa} covering diverse domains.
We first observe that despite the models' high performance (e.g.~T5 eclipses other alternatives such as GPT-3 on some datasets), the models tend to not be well calibrated; their probability estimates over candidates have far-from-perfect correspondence with the actual probability that the answer they provide is correct.
Some examples of this are demonstrated in the ``Original'' column of \autoref{tab:example}.
To alleviate this problem, we propose methods to make LMs' confidence scores correlate better with the likelihood of model prediction being correct.
We examined both fine-tuning methods that modify LMs' parameters and post-hoc methods that keep LMs fixed and only manipulate the confidence values or inputs.
Specifically, we fine-tune the LM using softmax- or margin-based objective functions based on multiple candidate answers.
For post-hoc calibration, we examined temperature-based scaling and feature-based decision trees that take prediction probability and input-related features as input and produce calibrated confidence \cite{jagannatha-2020-structcal,desai-2020-transcal,kamath-2020-qacal}.
We also study the sensitivity of LMs' confidence estimation with respect to language variation by paraphrasing candidate answers and augmenting questions using retrieved context.
Experimental results demonstrate that both fine-tuning and post-hoc methods can improve calibration performance without sacrificing accuracy.
We further perform analysis and ablation studies on our methods, inspecting different aspects that may affect calibration performance.
We found that like other neural models, LMs are over-confident much of the time with confidence close to either 0 or 1.
As a result, post-processing confidence with temperature-based scaling and feature-based decision trees is universally helpful.
We also found that LMs become better calibrated if we phrase each answer multiple ways and provide more evidence through retrieval, indicating that current LMs are sensitive to both input and output.
\section{LM-based Question Answering}
LMs are now a ubiquitous tool in not only natural language generation, but also natural language understanding (NLU), where they are largely used for unsupervised representation learning in pre-trained models such as BERT \citep{devlin-etal-2019-bert}.
However, recent work has demonstrated that LMs can also be used \emph{as-is} to solve NLU tasks, by predicting the missing words in Cloze-style questions \citep{petroni-etal-2019-language}, or by predicting the continuation to prompts \cite{bosselut-2019-comet,brown-2020-gpt3}.
Previous works that purport to calibrate LMs \cite{desai-2020-transcal,jagannatha-2020-structcal,kamath-2020-qacal,kong-2020-lminout} mainly focus on the former use case, using representations learned by LMs to predict target classes (for tasks such as natural language inference, part-of-speech tagging, or text classification) or identify answer spans (for tasks such as extractive QA).
In contrast, we focus on the latter case, calibrating LMs themselves by treating them as natural language generators that predict the next words given a particular input.
To make our observations and conclusions as general as possible, we experiment over a diverse range of QA datasets with broad domain coverage over questions regarding both factual and commonsense knowledge \cite{khashabi-2020-unifiedqa}.
We list all the datasets we used in \autoref{tab:dataset} along with their corresponding domain.
Since we focus on calibrating LMs as generators, we follow \citet{khashabi-2020-unifiedqa} in converting QA datasets of different formats to a unified sequence-to-sequence format that takes a question $X$ as input and calculates the probability of a continuation $Y$ that corresponds to the answer:
\begin{equation*}
P_{\text{LM}}(Y|X) = \prod_{i=1}^{|Y|} P_{\text{LM}}(y_i|X, y_{<i}).
\end{equation*}
Specifically, we focus on two varieties of QA: \emph{multiple-choice} and \emph{extractive}, with examples shown in \autoref{tab:example}.%
\footnote{We also considered using free-form (abstractive) QA datasets, where the answers are not constrained to be one of several choices and can instead be any text. However, we found it hard to evaluate the correctness of generated outputs, as paraphrases of the correct answer are still correct, so we do not report results on these datasets in this paper. Solving this evaluation problem and evaluating calibration on these tasks is an enticing direction for future work.}
\paragraph{Multiple-choice QA}
For multiple-choice QA, we assume a question and a set of candidate answers $\mathcal{I}(X)=\{Y^{(i)}\}_i$.
Inputs $X$ to LMs are questions concatenated with multiple candidate answers (with each answer prefaced by ``(A)'', ``(B)'', etc.), and context such as a passage that can be used to help answer the question if any exists.
To find the answer the model will return, we calculate the highest-probability answer among the answer candidates:
\begin{equation*}
\hat{Y} = \underset{Y' \in \mathcal{I}(X)}{\arg\max} P_{\text{LM}}(Y'|X).
\end{equation*}
We can also calculate the normalized probability
\begin{equation}
P_{N}(\hat{Y}|X) = \frac{P_{\text{LM}}(\hat{Y}|X)}{\sum_{Y' \in \mathcal{I}(X)}P_{\text{LM}}(Y'|X)},\label{eq:norm}
\end{equation}
which provides some idea of the confidence of answer $\hat{Y}$ with respect to the candidate list.
\paragraph{Extractive QA}
For extractive QA, inputs $X$ to LMs are questions concatenated with context passages from which the answer must be extracted.
In this case, every span within the passage is a candidate answer in $\mathcal{I}(X)$.
However, enumerating over all possible spans of the context passage is computationally costly.
Thus, we follow \citet{jagannatha-2020-structcal} in using a manageable set of candidate outputs to perform calibration.
Specifically, we develop a method to efficiently calculate probabilities over promising spans that exist in the input.
First, we calculate the probability of the first token in output $Y'$, masking out any tokens that are not included in the input passage at all.
Then, for the top $R$ scoring tokens, we find their location in the input passage, and calculate the probability of all continuing spans up to a certain length (e.g., 20 tokens).
We finally keep the top $K$ spans as candidates $\mathcal{I}(X)$ and use all candidates to calculate the probability in a manner similar to that of multiple-choice QA.
\begin{table}[t]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}l|p{0.7\columnwidth}@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Format} & \textbf{Datasets and Domains} \\
\midrule
Multi-choice & ARC (science \cite{clark-2018-arc}), AI2 Science Questions (science \cite{clark-2018-arc}), OpenbookQA (science \cite{mihaylov-2018-openbookqa}), Winogrande (commonsense \cite{sakaguchi-2020-wino}), CommonsenseQA (commonsense \cite{talmor-2019-commonsenseqa}), MCTest (fictional stories \cite{richardson-2013-mctest}), PIQA (physical \cite{bisk-2020-piqa}), SIQA (social \cite{sap-2019-siqa}), RACE (English comprehension \cite{lai-2017-race}), QASC (science \cite{khot-2020-qasc}), MT-test (mixed \cite{hendrycks-2020-mass}) \\
Extractive & SQuAD 1.1 (wikipedia \cite{rajpurkar-2016-squad}), SQuAD 2 (Wikipedia \cite{rajpurkar-2018-squad2}), NewsQA (news \cite{trischler-2017-newsqa}), Quoref (wikipedia \cite{dasigi-2019-quoref}), ROPES (situation understanding \cite{lin-2019-ropes}) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Datasets used in this paper and their domains.}
\label{tab:dataset}
\end{table}
\section{Background on Calibration}
A model is considered well calibrated if the confidence estimates of its predictions are well-aligned with the actual probability of the answer being correct.
Given an input $X$ and true output $Y$, a model output $\hat{Y}$, and a probability $P_{N}(\hat{Y}|X)$ calculated over this output, a perfectly calibrated model satisfies the following condition:
\begin{equation*}
P(\hat{Y}=Y|P_N(\hat{Y}|X)=p) = p, \forall p \in [0,1].
\end{equation*}
In practice, we approximate this probability by bucketing predictions into $M$ disjoint equally-sized interval bins based on confidence.
\citet{guo-2017-cal} examined the calibration properties of neural network classifiers, and proposed a widely used measure of calibration called expected calibration error (ECE), which is a weighted average of the discrepancy between each bucket's accuracy and confidence:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{m=1}^{M}{\frac{|B_m|}{n}|\text{acc}(B_m) - \text{conf}(B_m)|},
\label{eq:ece}
\end{equation}
where $B_m$ is the $m$-th bucket containing samples whose prediction confidence falls into the interval $(\frac{m-1}{M}, \frac{m}{M}]$, $\text{acc}(B_m)$ is the average accuracy of this bucket, and $\text{conf}(B_m)$ is the average confidence of this bucket.
The above equation can be visualized using reliability diagrams (e.g., \autoref{fig:reliability} in the experiments), where each bar corresponds to one bucket, and the height is equal to the average accuracy.
The diagram of a perfectly calibrated model should have all bars aligned with the diagonal.
Unfortunately, we found that state-of-the-art LM-based methods for question answering (such as the UnifiedQA model of \citet{khashabi-2020-unifiedqa}) were extraordinarily poorly calibrated, with the normalized probability estimates barely being correlated with the likelihood of the outputs being correct.
For the two examples in \autoref{tab:example}, for instance, we can see that the language model assigns a very high probability to answers despite the fact that they are wrong.
This is particularly important because with T5 \citep{raffel-2019-t5}, GPT-3 \citep{brown-2020-gpt3}, and others \citep{guu-2020-realm,lewis-2020-rag} being provided as a potential answer to complex knowledge-based tasks, for models to actually be used in practical scenarios they must also be able to know when they cannot provide correct information.
In the following section, we examine methods to improve the calibration of pre-trained models through a number of methods.
\section{Calibrating LMs for Question Answering}
Our calibration methods can be grouped into two categories: methods that fine-tune LMs and post-hoc methods that keep LMs fixed and only manipulate confidence or inputs.
\subsection{Fine-tuning-based Calibration}
Existing LMs mainly use maximal likelihood estimation (MLE) during training, which maximizes the probability of ground truth output given the input.
However, it is well-attested that MLE-trained language generators are biased, tending to prefer short outputs \citep{murray-chiang-2018-correcting}, or being biased towards more frequent vocabulary \citep{ott2018analyzing}.
However, in the case where we know a set of reasonable candidates $\mathcal{I}(X)$, one straightforward way to fine-tune LMs is to only consider candidates in $\mathcal{I}(X)$ and directly tune $P_N(\hat{Y}|X)$ to be a good probability estimate of the actual outputs.
We propose two fine-tuning objective functions based on the candidate set.
\paragraph{Softmax-based} objective functions model candidates in a one-vs-all setting, where we use the softmax function to normalize the confidence of candidates and maximize the probability corresponding to the correct candidate.
We use the negative log likelihood as the loss function:
\begin{equation*}
L(X, Y) = - \log \frac{\exp(s(Y))}{\sum_{Y' \in \mathcal{I}(X)}{\exp(s(Y'))}},
\end{equation*}
where the ground truth $Y$ is one of the candidates in $\mathcal{I}(X)$, and $s(\cdot)$ is the logit of the corresponding output (omit condition $X$ for simplicity), which is computed as the log probabilities of all tokens in the output: $s(Y) = \log P_{\text{LM}}(Y|X)$.
\paragraph{Margin-based} objective functions try to maximize the confidence margin between ground truth output and negative results. This is motivated by the fact that non-probabilistic objectives such as those used by support vector machines provide reasonably good probabilistic estimates after appropriate scaling and adjustment \citep{platt1999probabilistic}. Specifically, we use the following objective:
\begin{equation*}
L(X, Y) = \sum_{Y' \in \mathcal{I}(X) \setminus Y}{\max(0, \tau + s(Y') - s(Y))}.
\end{equation*}
\subsection{Post-hoc Calibration}
Comparing to fine-tuning methods that optimize the parameters in the model, post-hoc calibration methods keep the model as-is and manipulate various types of information derived from the model to derive good probability estimates \cite{guo-2017-cal,jagannatha-2020-structcal,desai-2020-transcal}.
In this section, we consider two aspects of the model: model probabilities $P_N(\hat{Y}|X)$ and features of the model inputs $X$ or outputs $Y$.
We attempted two representative methods, namely temperature-based scaling \cite{guo-2017-cal} and feature-based decision trees \cite{jagannatha-2020-structcal}, to study whether post-processing probabilities is an effective method for calibration of LMs in the context of QA.
\paragraph{Temperature-based Scaling} methods have been proposed for classification tasks \cite{guo-2017-cal,desai-2020-transcal}, where a positive scalar temperature hyperparameter $\tau$ is introduced in the final classification layer to make the probability distribution either more peaky or smooth: $\text{softmax}(\mathbf{z} / \tau)$.
If $\tau$ is close to 0, the class with the largest logit receives most of the probability mass, while as $\tau$ approaches $\infty$, the probability distribution becomes uniform.
When applying this method to our setting, we use log probabilities of the candidates in $\mathcal{I}(X)$ as logits in computing the softmax function: $z = \log P_{\text{LM}}(Y'|X), Y' \in \mathcal{I}(X)$, and $\tau$ is optimized with respect to negative log likelihood on the development split.
\paragraph{Feature-based Decision Trees} methods explore non-linear combinations of features to estimate the confidence compared to temperature-based scaling which only considers the raw confidence.
We follow previous works \cite{jagannatha-2020-structcal,dong-2018-parsercal} and use gradient boosted decision trees \cite{chen-2016-xgb} as our regressor to estimate the confidence based on features.
Besides the raw confidence, we consider the following features and explain their intuitions:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Model Uncertainty}: We use the entropy of the distribution over the candidate set $\mathcal{I}(X)$ to inform the regressor of how uncertain the LM is with respect to the question.
\item \textbf{Input Uncertainty}: We use the perplexity of the LM on the input to indicate the uncertainty over the input. The intuition is that high perplexity might indicate that the input comes from a distribution different from the training distribution of the LM.
\item \textbf{Input Statistics}: We also use the length of the input and output as features, motivated by our hypothesis that longer text may provide more information to LMs than shorter text.
\end{itemize}
We train the regressor on the development set similarly to temperature-based scaling by minimizing negative log likelihood.
\subsection{LM-Specific Methods}\label{sec:method_lm}
In addition to standard methods that are applicable to most prediction models, we also examine several methods that are specific to the fact that we are using LMs for the task of QA.
\paragraph{Candidate Output Paraphrasing}
\begin{table}[t]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}p{0.27\columnwidth}|p{0.68\columnwidth}@{}}
\toprule
Input & How would you describe Addison? (A) excited (B) careless \textbf{(C) devoted}. Addison had been practicing for the driver's exam for months. He finally felt he was ready, so he signed up and took the test. \\
\midrule
Paraphrases \& Probabilities & devoted (0.04), dedicated (0.94), commitment (0.11), dedication (0.39) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{An example question with the correct answer in bold. Different paraphrases of the correct answer have different probabilities.}
\label{tab:para}
\end{table}
Motivated by the fact that LMs are sensitive to language variation \cite{jiang-2019-lpaqa} in tasks like question answering and factual prediction, we hypothesize that one potential reason why the confidence estimation of LMs is not accurate is that the candidate output is not worded in such a way that the LM would afford it high probability.
As shown by the example in \autoref{tab:para}, paraphrasing the correct answer from ``devoted'' to ``dedicated'' increases the probability from 0.04 to 0.94.
Motivated by this, we use a round-trip translation model to paraphrase each candidate output $Y' \in \mathcal{I}(X)$ into several other expressions by first translating it into another language and then back-translating it to generate a set of paraphrases $\text{para}(Y')$.
We then calculate the probability of each candidate output by summing the probability of all paraphrases $P(Y')=\sum_{Q \in \text{para}(Y')} P_{\text{LM}}(Q|X)$ and normalize it following \autoref{eq:norm}.
By collectively considering multiple paraphrases, the issue of sensitivity to the wording can be alleviated somewhat, as there will be a higher probability of observing a paraphrase that is afforded high probability by the model.
\paragraph{Input Augmentation}
Previous work has found that LMs' factual predictions can be improved if more context is provided \cite{petroni-2020-contextlm}, which has inspired many retrieval-augmented LMs that retrieve evidence from external resources and condition the LMs' prediction on this evidence \cite{guu-2020-realm,lewis-2020-marge,lewis-2020-rag}.
We hypothesize that retrieving extra evidence to augment the input also has the potential to improve the confidence estimation of LMs as it will provide the model more evidence upon which to base both its predictions and its confidence estimates.
We follow \cite{petroni-2020-contextlm} to retrieve the most relevant Wikipedia article using TF-IDF-based retrieval systems used in DrQA \cite{chen-2017-drqa} and append the first paragraph of the article to the input.
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:exp}
\subsection{Experimental Settings}
\paragraph{Datasets}
We evaluate the calibration performance on both multiple-choice QA datasets and extractive QA datasets listed in \autoref{tab:dataset}.
To test whether our calibration methods can generalize to out-of-domain datasets, we use a subset of datasets of multiple-choice/extractive QA to train our methods, and the remaining subset of datasets to evaluate the performance.
Specifically, we use ARC (easy), AI2 Science Question (elementary), OpenbookQA, QASC, Winogrande, CommonsenseQA, and PhysicalIQA as the training subset for multiple-choice QA (denoted as \textbf{MC-train}), and SQuAD 1.1, NewsQA as the training subset for extractive QA (denoted as \textbf{Ext-train}).
The remaining subsets used for evaluation are denoted as \textbf{MC-test} and \textbf{Ext-test} respectively.
We also included a much harder multiple-choice QA dataset (denoted as \textbf{MT-test}; \citet{hendrycks-2020-mass}) regarding common sense in a number of genres, in which the largest GPT-3 model and UnifiedQA both display only low to moderate accuracy.
For fine-tuning methods, we use the train split of MC-train/Ext-train to fine-tune the LMs.
For post-hoc methods like temperature-based scaling and decision trees, we follow \citet{guo-2017-cal} and use the development split of MC-train/Ext-train to optimize the parameters.\footnote{Since not all datasets in MC-test and Ext-test have a test split, we report the performance on the development split.}
\paragraph{LMs}
One clear trend of the past several years is that the parameter size and training data size of pre-trained models plays a significant role in the accuracy of models; pre-trained LMs such as BERT \cite{devlin-etal-2019-bert} tend to underperform more recently released larger LMs like Turing-NLG\footnote{\url{https://msturing.org/}} and GPT-3 \cite{brown-2020-gpt3}.
Thus, we use the largest publicly available LM, which at the time of this writing is \citet{raffel-2019-t5}'s T5 model.
The T5 model is a sequence-to-sequence model with both encoder and decoder using transformers \cite{vaswani-2017-attn}, and the largest version has 11 billion parameters, allowing it to realize state-of-the-art performance on tasks such as question answering and natural language understanding \cite{roberts-2020-pack,khashabi-2020-unifiedqa}.
Specifically, we use two varieties of this model.
The original \textbf{T5} model is a sequence-to-sequence model trained on a large corpus of web text, specifically trained on a denoising objective that generates missing tokens given inputs with some tokens masked out.
The \textbf{UnifiedQA} model, uses the initial T5 model and fine-tunes on a variety of QA datasets by converting multiple-choice, extractive QA formats into a unified sequence-to-sequence format, similar to the one that we show in \autoref{tab:example}.
We use the 3-billion versions in our main experiments in \autoref{sec:exp_main} (for efficiency purposes), but also report the performance of the largest 11-billion versions in ablation studies \autoref{sec:exp_abl}.
For comparison with LMs of different architectures trained on different datasets, we also report the performance of two other LMs in \autoref{sec:exp_lms}: the 0.4-billion BART model \cite{lewis-2020-bart} which is a sequence-to-sequence model and the 0.7-billion GPT-2 large model \cite{radford-2019-gpt2} which is a conventional language model.
We fine-tune them following the same recipe of UnifiedQA \cite{khashabi-2020-unifiedqa}.
\paragraph{Evaluation Metrics}
We use accuracy to measure the prediction performance of our methods, and ECE to measure the calibration performance.
Accuracy is computed as the ratio of question-answer pairs for which the correct answer has the highest probability among all the candidates in $\mathcal{I}(x)$.
ECE is computed using \autoref{eq:ece} by bucketing all candidate answers in $\mathcal{I}(x)$ based on confidence.
For MC-test and Ext-test which include multiple datasets, we compute accuracy and ECE on each dataset separately and average across them to avoid the metrics being dominated by large datasets.
\paragraph{Implementation Details}
We fine-tune UnifiedQA-3B with a batch size of 16 for 3k steps and UnifiedQA-11B with a batch size of 3 for 15k steps on a v3-8 TPU.
The maximal length of input and output are set to 512 and 128 respectively, following the setting of UnifiedQA \cite{khashabi-2020-unifiedqa}.
For extractive QA datasets, we use top $R=10$ first tokens and finally $K=5$ spans are used as candidates.
For the paraphrasing-based method, we use the WMT-19 English-German and German-English transformer models to perform back translation \cite{ng-2019-fairwmt19}.
The beam size is set to 10 for both directions, which will yield $10 \times 10 = 100$ paraphrases in the end.
Since some paraphrases are duplicated, we count the frequency and use the top 5 unique paraphrases in our main experiments \autoref{sec:exp_main}.
We also report the performance of using different numbers of paraphrases in \autoref{sec:exp_abl}.
For the retrieval-based augmentation, we use the KILT toolkit \cite{petroni-2020-kilt} to retrieve the most relevant article from the Wikipeida dump, and append the first three sentences of the first paragraph of the retrieved article to the input.
For the feature-based decision trees model, we use XGBoost \cite{chen-2016-xgb} with logistic binary objective, max depth of 4, number of parallel trees of 5, and subsample ratio of 0.8.
We use \textbf{Temp.} to denote temperature-based scaling, \textbf{XGB} to denote feature-based decision trees, \textbf{Para.} to denote paraphrasing, \textbf{Aug.} to denote input augmentation, and \textbf{Combo} to denote the combination of Temp., Para., and Aug. in the experimental section.
We use the model with the best calibration performance in post-hoc calibration experiments.
For multiple-choice QA, we use the UnifiedQA model after margin-based fine-tuning.
For extractive QA, we use the original UnifiedQA model.
\subsection{Are LM-based QA Models Well Calibrated?}
As shown in \autoref{tab:finetune}, our baseline models (i.e., T5 and UnifiedQA) are strong, achieving state-of-the-art accuracy on a diverse range of QA datasets.
On the MT-test datasets, the UnifiedQA model even outperforms the largest version of GPT-3 with 175 billions parameters \cite{hendrycks-2020-mass}.
Despite the impressive performance, these models are not well calibrated, with ECE higher than 0.2 on the MT-test dataset.
We found that LMs tend to be over-confident about cases they do not know, as shown in the confidence distribution in the first row of \autoref{fig:dist} that most predictions have aggressive confidence being close to 0 or 1.
The UnifiedQA model assigns high confidence to the wrong answer for examples in \autoref{tab:example}, indicating that its confidence estimates are not trustworthy.
\subsection{Can LM-based QA Models be Calibrated?}\label{sec:exp_main}
We calibrate the UnifiedQA model using both fine-tuning-based methods and post-hoc methods and show their performance in \autoref{tab:finetune} and \autoref{tab:posthoc} respectively.
Overall, on multi-choice QA datasets (i.e., MC-test and MT-test), both fine-tuning-based methods and post-hoc methods can improve ECE while maintaining accuracy compared to the baseline UnifiedQA model.
The best-performing method (i.e., Combo), which combines margin-based fine-tuning, temperature-based scaling, paraphrasing, and input augmentation, improves ECE from 0.095 to 0.044 by over 53\%.
As shown in the reliability diagrams of the original UnifiedQA model (top-right) and the UnifiedQA model calibrated with Combo (bottom-left) in \autoref{fig:reliability}, calibration using our methods makes the confidence estimates of predictions better aligned with their correctness.
Comparing those two diagrams, an interesting observation is that our method seems to over-calibrate the LM, making over-estimated bars on the right-hand side of the top-right diagram (bars lower than the diagonal) under-estimated and vice versa.
This is probably caused by the temperature being too aggressive (i.e., too large), making the distribution too flat.
Note that the datasets used to learn the temperature (MC-train) and used in evaluation (MC-test) are different, which we hypothesize is the reason why the temperature is too aggressive.
We verify this by learning an oracle temperature on the evaluation datasets (MC-test).
The learned temperature indeed becomes smaller (1.35 $\rightarrow$ 1.13), and the reliability diagram (bottom-right in \autoref{fig:reliability}) is almost perfectly aligned.
This demonstrates the challenge of calibrating LMs across different domains.
However, on extractive QA datasets, the improvement brought by different calibration methods is smaller.
We hypothesize that this is because the candidate set $\mathcal{I}(X)$ generated by the span-based decoding method for extractive QA are harder to calibrate than the manually curated candidate answers for multiple-choice QA.
We compute the average entropy of the confidence of the UnifiedQA model over $\mathcal{I}(X)$ on both extractive QA (Ext-test) and multiple-choice QA datasets (MC-test), and found that Ext-test indeed has much higher entropy compared to MC-test (0.40 vs 0.13), which partially explains the difficulty of calibration on extractive QA datasets.
\begin{table}[tb]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{\hskip 4pt}c@{\hskip 4pt}c|c@{\hskip 4pt}c|c@{\hskip 4pt}c@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{MC-test}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{MT-test}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Ext-test}} \\
& \textbf{ACC} & \textbf{ECE} & \textbf{ACC} & \textbf{ECE} & \textbf{ACC} & \textbf{ECE} \\
\midrule
T5 & 0.313 & 0.231 & 0.268 & 0.248 & 0.191 & 0.166 \\
UnifiedQA & 0.769 & 0.095 & 0.437 & 0.222 & 0.401 & 0.114 \\
\quad + softmax & 0.767 & 0.065 & 0.433 & 0.161 & 0.394 & \textbf{0.110} \\
\quad + margin & 0.769 & \textbf{0.057} & 0.431 & \textbf{0.144} & 0.391 & 0.112 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of different fine-tuning methods.}
\label{tab:finetune}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[tb]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{\hskip 4pt}c@{\hskip 4pt}c|c@{\hskip 4pt}c|c@{\hskip 4pt}c@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{MC-test}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{MT-test}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Ext-test}} \\
& \textbf{ACC} & \textbf{ECE} & \textbf{ACC} & \textbf{ECE} & \textbf{ACC} & \textbf{ECE} \\
\midrule
Baseline & 0.769 & 0.057 & 0.431 & 0.144 & 0.401 & 0.114 \\
\midrule
\quad + Temp. & 0.769 & 0.049 & 0.431 & \textbf{0.075} & 0.401 & 0.107 \\
\quad + XGB & 0.771 & 0.055 & 0.431 & 0.088 & 0.402 & \textbf{0.103} \\
\quad + Para. & 0.767 & 0.051 & 0.429 & 0.122 & 0.393 & 0.114 \\
\quad + Aug. & 0.744 & 0.051 & 0.432 & 0.130 & 0.408 & 0.110 \\
\midrule
\quad + Combo & 0.748 & \textbf{0.044} & 0.431 & 0.079 & 0.398 & 0.104 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of different post-hoc methods using the UnifiedQA model after margin-based fine-tuning or the original UnifiedQA model as the baseline model. ``+Combo'' denotes the method using both Temp., Para., and Aug.}
\label{tab:posthoc}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\subfigure[T5]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\columnwidth, clip, keepaspectratio]{t5_diagram.pdf}}
\subfigure[UnifiedQA]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\columnwidth, clip, keepaspectratio]{uq_diagram.pdf}}
\subfigure[UnifiedQA w/ Combo]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\columnwidth, clip, keepaspectratio]{best_diagram.pdf}}
\subfigure[UnifiedQA w/ Combo and oracle temperature]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\columnwidth, clip, keepaspectratio]{best_diagram_cheating.pdf}}
\caption{Reliability diagram of the T5 model (top-left), the original UnifiedQA model (top-right), the UnifiedQA model after calibration with Combo (bottom-left), and Combo with oracle temperature (bottom-right) on the MC-test datasets.
}
\label{fig:reliability}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Analysis of Individual Calibration Methods}
In this section, we discuss each method in detail and analyze why they can improve calibration performance.
\paragraph{Objective Function Matters.}
The original UnifiedQA model is fine-tuned based on MLE, which maximizes the probability of the gold answer given the question.
Both softmax-based and margin-based fine-tuning, which explicitly compare and adjust the probability of candidate answers, can further improve ECE on multiple-choice datasets.
We argue that the softmax-based and margin-based objective functions are better suited for questions with potential candidates.
\paragraph{Post-processing Confidence is Effective Universally.}
Post-processing the raw confidence either solely based on confidence or other features is effective across all datasets, which is consistent with the conclusion on other tasks such as structured prediction and natural language inference \cite{jagannatha-2020-structcal, desai-2020-transcal}.
We demonstrate the histogram of confidence before and after applying temperature-based scaling or feature-based decision trees in \autoref{fig:dist}.
LMs tend to be over-confident, with most predictions having either extremely high or low confidence.
Both methods can successfully re-scale the confidence to reasonable ranges, thus improving the calibration performance.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\subfigure[T5]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\columnwidth, clip, keepaspectratio]{t5_dist.pdf}}
\subfigure[UnifiedQA]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\columnwidth, clip, keepaspectratio]{uq_margin_dist.pdf}}
\subfigure[UnifiedQA w/ Temp.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\columnwidth, clip, keepaspectratio]{uq_margin_temp_dist.pdf}}
\subfigure[UnifiedQA w/ XGB]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\columnwidth, clip, keepaspectratio]{uq_margin_xgb_dist.pdf}}
\caption{The ratio of predictions with respect to confidence of the T5 model (top-left), the UnifiedQA model (top-right), the UnifiedQA model after temperature-based calibration (bottom-left), and the UnifiedQA model after feature-based calibration (bottom-right) on the MC-test datasets.}
\label{fig:dist}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Paraphrasing Answers and Input Augmentation can Improve Confidence Estimation.}
The improvement brought by using paraphrasing is significant on multiple-choice datasets, demonstrating that using diverse expressions can indeed improve confidence estimation.
To better understand under what circumstances paraphrasing works, we group candidate answers into two categories: the first group includes candidate answers that become better calibrated using paraphrases; the second group includes candidate answers whose confidence remains the same using paraphrases.
We say that a candidate becomes better calibrated if its confidence increases/decreases by 20\% if it is a correct or incorrect answer respectively.
We found that the average length of questions for better calibrated candidates (187) is much shorter than that of candidates without improvement (320), indicating that paraphrasing is useful mainly for short questions.
We also compute the diversity of word usage in paraphrases using the number of unique words divided by the total length of paraphrases.
We found that better calibrated candidates have slightly higher diversity (0.35 vs 0.32), which is consistent with our intuition.
Retrieval-based augmentation can also improve calibration performance on multiple-choice datasets, which is probably because the retrieved documents can provide extra evidence about the question, making LMs more robust at confidence estimation.
\paragraph{Calibration Methods are Complementary.}
By combining margin-based fine-tuning, temperature-based scaling, paraphrasing, and input augmentation, we achieve the best ECE on MC-test, demonstrating that these calibration methods are complementary to each other.
\subsection{Ablation Study}\label{sec:exp_abl}
In this section, we perform an ablation study to examine different aspects of LM calibration, including calibration performance of different LMs, across LMs with different sizes, using different numbers of paraphrases, and across datasets with potential domain shift.
\paragraph{Performance of Different LMs.}\label{sec:exp_lms}
\begin{table}[tb]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lc@{\hskip 4pt}c|c@{\hskip 4pt}c}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{BART}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{GPT-2 large}} \\
& \textbf{ACC} & \textbf{ECE} & \textbf{ACC} & \textbf{ECE} \\
\midrule
Original & 0.295 & 0.225 & 0.272 & 0.244 \\
+ UnifiedQA & 0.662 & 0.166 & 0.414 & 0.243 \\
\quad + softmax & 0.658 & 0.097 & 0.434 & 0.177 \\
\quad + margin & 0.632 & 0.090 & 0.450 & 0.123 \\
\midrule
\quad\quad + Temp. & 0.632 & \textbf{0.064} & 0.450 & \textbf{0.067} \\
\quad\quad + XGB & 0.624 & 0.090 & 0.440 & 0.080 \\
\quad\quad + Para. & 0.624 & 0.084 & 0.436 & 0.104 \\
\quad\quad + Aug. & 0.600 & 0.089 & 0.441 & 0.126 \\
\midrule
\quad\quad + Combo & 0.591 & 0.065 & 0.429 & 0.069 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of different LMs on the MC-test dataset. ``Original'' indicates the original language model, and ``+ UnifiedQA'' indicates fine-tuning following the recipe of UnifiedQA.}
\label{tab:lms}
\end{table}
We report the performance of two other LMs in \autoref{tab:lms}. Both the BART and GPT-2 models are smaller than T5, thus the overall accuracy and calibration performance are lower than that of T5.
Both fine-tuning and post-hoc calibration methods can improve ECE, indicating that our methods are applicable to LMs trained with different datasets and architectures.
\paragraph{Performance of LMs with Different Sizes.}
We conduct experiments using the largest version (i.e., 11B) of the T5 and UnifiedQA model to analyze how calibration performance varies with respect to the size of the LM in \autoref{tab:11b}.
We found that larger LMs usually achieve both higher accuracy and better calibration performance, which is contradictory to the observation in image classification \cite{guo-2017-cal} where larger models such as ResNet \cite{he-2016-resnet} are no longer well calibrated compared to smaller models like LeNet \cite{lecun-1998-lenet}.
Given the fact the size of both the pre-training corpus and LMs are extremely larger compared to previous practice, we might have completely different observations with respect to confidence estimation.
Unlike ResNet trained on CIFAR-100, the training of LMs is not bottlenecked by the dataset, and larger LMs have a stronger capacity to model text distribution and memorize facts, which leads to better calibration performance overall \cite{kaplan-2020-scalinglm}.
Overall, our methods can improve ECE from 0.067 to 0.032 using the 11B UnifiedQA model on the MC-test dataset, and from 0.175 to 0.085 on the MT-test dataset.
However, compared to the 3B version, improvement brought by post-hoc calibration methods is smaller, which is probably because the 11B version is better optimized and more knowledgeable.
\begin{table}[tb]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lc@{\hskip 4pt}c|c@{\hskip 4pt}c}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{MC-test}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{MT-test}} \\
& \textbf{ACC} & \textbf{ECE} & \textbf{ACC} & \textbf{ECE} \\
\midrule
T5 & 0.359 & 0.206 & 0.274 & 0.235 \\
UnifiedQA & 0.816 & 0.067 & 0.479 & 0.175 \\
\quad + softmax & 0.823 & 0.041 & 0.488 & 0.129 \\
\quad + margin & 0.819 & 0.034 & 0.485 & 0.107 \\
\midrule
\quad\quad + Temp. & 0.819 & 0.036 & 0.485 & 0.098 \\
\quad\quad + XGB & 0.818 & 0.065 & 0.486 & 0.108 \\
\quad\quad + Para. & 0.820 & 0.035 & 0.484 & 0.092 \\
\quad\quad + Aug. & 0.812 & \textbf{0.031} & 0.493 & 0.090 \\
\midrule
\quad\quad + Combo & 0.807 & 0.032 & 0.494 & \textbf{0.085} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of the 11B LMs.}
\label{tab:11b}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Performance using Different Numbers of Paraphrases.}
In \autoref{fig:para}, we experiment with different numbers of paraphrases using the UnifiedQA model on MC-test datasets.
The overall trend is that the more paraphrases we use, the better calibrated the LM, demonstrating that using different variations to express the candidate answer can improve confidence estimation.
The improvements using more than 10 paraphrases are subtle, so 5-10 paraphrases may represent a good trade-off between computational cost and performance in practical settings.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth, clip, keepaspectratio]{bt.pdf}
\caption{ECE of the UnifiedQA model using different numbers of paraphrases on the MC-test datasets.}
\label{fig:para}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Performance on Training and Evaluation Datasets.}
As introduced in the experimental section, we perform calibration on the MC-train dataset and evaluate the final performance on the MC-test dataset to study whether our calibration methods can generalize to out-of-domain dataset.
We compare the performance on the training dataset and the evaluation dataset in \autoref{tab:inout}.
We found that on both datasets, each individual method can improve ECE, indicating that our method can generalize to out-of-domain datasets.
Note that the improvement on the training dataset (0.133 $\rightarrow$ 0.042) is larger than on improvement on the evaluation dataset (0.095 $\rightarrow$ 0.044), which is probably caused by the domain shift between the two datasets.
\begin{table}[tb]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lc@{\hskip 4pt}c|c@{\hskip 4pt}c}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{MC-train}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{MC-test}} \\
& \textbf{ACC} & \textbf{ECE} & \textbf{ACC} & \textbf{ECE} \\
\midrule
T5 & 0.334 & 0.228 & 0.313 & 0.231 \\
UnifiedQA & 0.727 & 0.133 & 0.769 & 0.095 \\
\quad + softmax & 0.735 & 0.084 & 0.767 & 0.065 \\
\quad + margin & 0.737 & 0.069 & 0.769 & 0.057 \\
\midrule
\quad\quad + Temp. & 0.737 & 0.051 & 0.769 & 0.049 \\
\quad\quad + XGB & 0.737 & 0.074 & 0.771 & 0.055 \\
\quad\quad + Para. & 0.742 & 0.053 & 0.767 & 0.051 \\
\quad\quad + Aug. & 0.721 & 0.059 & 0.744 & 0.051 \\
\midrule
\quad\quad + Combo & 0.722 & \textbf{0.042} & 0.748 & \textbf{0.044} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance comparison between training and evaluation datasets.}
\label{tab:inout}
\end{table}
\section{Related Work}
\paragraph{Calibration}
Calibration is a well-studied topic in other tasks such as medical diagnosis \cite{jiang-2010-medcal} and image recognition \cite{guo-2017-cal,lee-2018-cal}.
Previous works in NLP have examined calibration in structured prediction problems such as part-of-speech tagging and named entity recognition \cite{jagannatha-2020-structcal}, natural language understanding tasks such as natural language inference, paraphrase detection, extractive question answering, and text classification \cite{desai-2020-transcal,kamath-2020-qacal,kong-2020-lminout}.
In contrast, we focus on calibrating LMs themselves by treating them as natural language generators that predict the next words given a particular input.
\paragraph{LM probing}
Previous works probe pre-trained LMs with respect to syntactic and semantic properties \cite{hewitt-2019-structprob,tenney-2019-bertpipe}, factual knowledge \cite{petroni-etal-2019-language,poerner-2019-ebert,jiang-2019-lpaqa}, commonsense knowledge \cite{trinh-2018-commonsense,kocijan-2019-wsc}, and other properties \cite{talmor-2019-olmpics}.
These works usually focus on what LMs know, while in this paper we also consider the cases when LMs do not know the answer with confidence.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we examine the problem of calibration in LMs used for QA tasks.
We first note that despite the impressive performance state-of-the-art LM-based QA models tend to be poorly calibrated in their probability estimates.
To alleviate this problem, we attempted several methods to either fine-tune the LMs, or adjust the confidence by post-processing raw probabilities, augmenting inputs, or paraphrasing candidate answers.
Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of these methods.
Further analysis reveals the challenges of this problem, shedding light on future work on calibrating LMs.
Some future directions could be developing calibration methods for LMs on a more fine-grained level than simply holistic calibration across the entire dataset.
For example, there has been significant interest in how models perform across diverse subsets of the entire training data \citep{hashimoto-2018-fair} and how they reflect dataset biases \citep{rudinger-2018-gender}, and the interaction of model confidence with these phenomena is of significant interest.
It is also interesting to investigate the effect of calibration on users or downstream tasks.
For instance, providing users with model confidences can influence downstream decisions \citep{zhang-2020-trust}, and users may want to adjust required confidence thresholds on critical domains (e.g., health, safety, medicine).
All of these are interesting paths of inquiry for future research.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work was supported in part by a gift from Bosch research.
The authors thank the Google Cloud and TensorFlow Research Cloud for computation credits that aided in the execution of this research.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.